User talk:Amandajm/Archives/2013/March

Organs

I really doubt that this kind of stuff [1] is a good idea. But doubtless people who know more will be around to beat you up soon enough William M. Connolley (talk) 10:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I often think that William M. Connolley is right about things but funnily enough I just had dropped in to support these changes! So, oops but (1) do you have support for it from some project that thinks about these things overall? This would certainly strengthen your arm and help legitimize changes on such a scale. Furthermore, you could quote it in all the relevant edit summaries and that might help concentrate debate, bring people's attention to consensus, an ting. (2) Anything that helps remove massive long crufty lists from articles and put them somewhere accessible but less-in-my-face while I am trying to read about a cathedral is usually good in my book! (3) The list title is perhaps a bit limiting and it's unfortunate that - for example - you had to leave a note at St Paul's saying "yup it's got famous choristers in it too" or words to that effect. It strikes me that you might perhaps do better to expand the list title OR, to avoid it getting unwieldy and perhaps needing yet more amendment in future, prune it back to something more general yet still fairly precise, such as "List of English cathedral musicians" ... what do you think? Cheers DBaK (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

How can I complain when you're so kind? OK, what I thought odd was replacing in-wiki text with an ext link. And having a whole section with nothing but an ext link is awkward. But, I'm not in a position to know what value the stuff you removed had William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Ha! If we all continue being so nice, then how will we be able to get on with the serious encyclopaedia business of being vile to each other?? As to your point, I do see what you mean but I honestly think that these long and crufty lists are often a real obstacle to the reading and - dare I say this? - enjoyment of a Wikipedia article. And I speak from a position of great prejudice - I know and have worked with (and even like) a few of the people named and I still don't want to see them in these highly listoidal lists! But it's probably time for me to shut up now ... cheers DBaK (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• The replacing of in-wiki text with ex-wiki text is not my doing. Many of the church organs merely have a direction to an ex-wiki site. I think that the particular editor's plan may be to write up each organ, but in the meantime, leave a direction to the info at another site. It takes time.
• My plan is to go back to each page and include one or two sentences about the organists. "Notable organists at Barchester Cathedral include Septimus Harding" etc etc This will take a little time.
• In some cases I notice that nothing has been said about the choir, and this needs fixing as well.

Amandajm (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I have just fixed Canterbury Cathedral#Music which had no specs for organ and no mention of the choir, just a list of organists. All the cathedral articles should have similar sections, and most of them do.

I anticipate, having created the sections with some info, that more information may be added by others.

Amandajm (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixed Bristol Cathedral#Music in a similar manner. Please check out history to see whether or not the process is an improvement to the article.

Amandajm (talk) 03:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I've just had a quick look at Bristol and yes, I do most certainly think it is an improvement. It's a great combination of losing the listcruft while keeping it accessible, and making the article more readable. A few choicely notable bits picked out to keep in the main article is perfect so there IS coverage - just not of every person ever. It's a good move. Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

List of organists etc

Sorry I didn't spot your in use banner on List of musicians at English cathedrals.— Rod ^talk 11:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

No I did Wells - I generally stick to Somerset (& Bristol) articles, but saw you had added a link to the list of organists etc so added the Wells one - without looking at the top of the article.— Rod ^talk 11:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Enjoy you coffee. I'm done on that one for now, but did wonder if Abbeys should be included as we have List of organists and assistant organists of Bath Abbey?— Rod ^talk 11:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't jhave any thoughts - and am going to try not to get distracted into that area. You are doing great things on it yourself.— Rod ^talk 11:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Burton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

A question about a building

I notice that the editor with the most edits to Old South Church hasn't edited recently, so I don't know that I will get a response from that editor. You have the second most, so if you have some insights to the question I left at Talk:Old South Church, I'd appreciate them.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, very helpful.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Pope Francis

On Talk:Pope Francis in the "On homosexuality" section, could you remove your personal opinion please, per WP:NOTAFORUM? It's fine to use the talk page to discuss the improvement of the article and to try to clarify what the Pope is saying, but let's try and avoid using it to discuss whether his views on homosexuality and same-sex adoption are meritorious or not. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Problem fixed! Amandajm (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Arnold of Nijmegen

Hello! Your submission of Arnold of Nijmegen at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Just a couple of points to clarify, please. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Ingrid Chua-Go

...has been edited according to your requirements for DYK approval. Thanks! I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Arnold of Nijmegen

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Your request

Hello. You have a new message at Remotely's talk page.

and here is a follow-up message:

Hello. You have a new message at Remotely's talk page. Best regards.

and yet another one!
Hello. You have a new message at Remotely's talk page.
--Remotelysensed (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Mona Lisa replicas & reinterpretations DYK nom, from author

Thanks for your input Ajm! There are a lot of options/angles from the article which may be of interest to DYK readers. Here are some which I'm considering; your thoughts as a senior contributor with knowledge of the subject are appreciated before I proceed any further...

• … that Mona Lisa replicas (and reinterpretations) date back to the 16th century? (w/image: Sapeck? "Early"?)
• … that at least six nudes are among the numerous Mona Lisa replicas (and reinterpretations)? (w/image: Nude)
• … that among the numerous Mona Lisa replicas (and reinterpretations) is one by Marcel Duchamp's great-granddaughter?(no image yet, thoug I've personally solicited one from the artist)
• … that Mona Lisa replicas (and reinterpretations) are possible because Leonardo da Vinci's original was created before copyright laws were enacted? (no image)
• … that seaweed, coffee, and toast are among the many mediums used to create Mona Lisa replicas (and reinterpretations)? (no image)

Maybe I should just go ahead and make the nom and let the details be sussed out by the community? The lengthiness of the article title becomes an awkward barrier because of the &. All wording above is open to reinterpretation as with Mona Lisa herself, so to speak. Penwatchdog (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci

Many thanks for your edit and explanation. It seems unfortunate, almost incredible, even ludicrous, that some people want to reduce Leonardo to just "another painter". Numerous polls and "tests" have been conducted that have unanimously concluded Leonardo as being not one of, but THE greatest genius who ever lived. Apparently, as you say, these sources are not authoritative enough to warrant justification for inclusion in an encyclopedia such as WP. I had assumed (in my ignorance) that experts such as Tony Buzan and Raymond Keane who paintsakingly researched 100's of geniuses throughout history, would be considered authoritative. Is it worth pursuing the "psychologists/educators" you mention for their assessment and include them as reliable sources? I didn't use Martin Kemp who is an English Professor and a Leonardo scholar because there wasn't a direct quote from him making that claim. If he made such a claim, would it be challenged? Can you tell me if these people's opinions have already been sought on this matter? I would consider this a rather important dispute to settle. Should everyone on the planet not know who was the greatest genius who ever lived (whether or not it was Leonardo)?

When you rolled back you also removed the internal wikipedia links I created for the fields/subjects immediately following "polymath". May I put these back? Thanks again for your message. Jodon1971 (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! I think that a whole section on this subject ought to be developed and added to the article Leonardo da Vinci's personal life.

Basically, what we have here is opinions and theories. If someone is of the opinion that he had the highest IQ of all time, regardless of how much research they did or high highly rated their opinion might be, it remains a theory.

The main article Leonardo da Vinci is already long and could contain a great deal more biographical fact and information about his painting than it does. For this reason, theories and speculations are given very little space in the article. However, Leonardo da Vinci's personal life has room for a lot more speculation and already contains a section discussing opinions relating to his sexuality.

If you were to right a section about his apparent IQ, then you could discuss it at some length, adding quotations and more detailed sources e.g. "In 2002 Joe Bloggs of Yea University made an analysis of blah and concluded blah blah blah. This is supported by further analysis by Smith and Brown". etc

Amandajm (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I also realise you have put a great deal of work into the article and, as such, consider it your "baby" so to speak. I am wary of making any further contributions for the following reason: in my limited experience of Wikipedia I have often felt that I have to climb Mount Everest in order to have (what I consider) a simple edit "approved". You have corroborated this yourself when you mentioned you have "fought a lengthy battle" just to get him recognized as a genius. I find that editors' penchant to cite Wikipedia policy often interfers with their ability to address a point I'm making, and therefore restricts the potential for a better article, to say nothing about providing valuable information. They end up making a mountain (Everest) out of a molehill (simple edit). Some people thrive on that, and they become successful wikipedia editors. I find it intolerable, and so perhaps wikipedia editing is not for me.

However, if this issue is not closed, and someone else wants to pursue it, my suggestion is that this question of his genius has nothing to do his "personal" life. What I was trying to get across was that there is a "public perception" of his genius which has nothing to do with his personal or private life. These experts I mentioned established certain criteria and examined a multitude of perceived geniuses throughout history, and after having evaluated each and every person's achievements and influence, Leonardo achieved a higher score in their ranking system than anybody else. My suggestion is to include mention of this in the main article either under the existing section of "Fame and Reputation", or create a new section called "Public Perception of Leonardo's Genius". Jodon1971 (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC

Yes, having read your description of the analysis etc, I think it would fit into the last section, as a penultimate paragraph, beginning with the 20th or 21st century date, and a statement to the effect that this study was done.

The very fact of the study fits into the whole notion of "Leonardo worship". A new section on the public perception of his genius would be too much altogether. His IQ is just one of the matters about which people are curious.

The final paragraph can stay intact as a summary to the rest of the section.

Would you write it?

Amandajm (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't going to write it, Amandajm, but since you asked so nicely I'll consider it, and get back to you at a later date. Thanks again for an open discussion. Regards. Jodon1971 (talk) 12:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC))

I've written a first effort re: our discussion in my Sandbox. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to look it over and give me your opinion on it. Please bear in mind that it is unfinished e.g. I need to add a quote from a book, and also cite more than one source, which I am currently investigating. But at least you can let me know if I am on the right track, Wiki-wise or otherwise. Thanks. Jodon1971 (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your rewrite/edits. As per your suggestion, I've put together a draft page on the Book Of Genius. As you can see, my Wiki mark-up link doesn't work. You can find the draft here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jodon1971/%27%27Buzan%E2%80%99s_Book_Of_Genius%27%27. Its not quite finished as I have to get information on how the book was received. In the meantime maybe you could throw your eye over it. Thanks. Jodon1971 (talk) 11:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I've expanded the "methodology" section in the special:Buzan's Book of Genius page to reflect your comments, and also italicised the name. I'm still trying to source info on the "reception" section, but will delete it if I can't find any. Otherwise you can let me know if what is there is sufficient and ready to submit as an article page, and also about inserting the 2 paragraphs from my sandbox (the re-write) into the "fame and reputation section" of the Leonardo article. Thanks. Jodon1971 (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added criticism to the Buzan study, and also added Catherine Cox entry to the Leonardo rewrite. I think both are reasonably ready to be submitted. I await your thoughts. Jodon1971 (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a topic I may have peripheral sources to support and expand. I'd also be personally interested to assist with composition. More than the average Wiki-editor I've got too-much-for-one-man-to-juggle in other-worldly obligations, and therefore not in a position to assist immediately, but... is the article-in-question a longer-term work-in-progress, or is there a rush? If anything, I'll just watch and contribute later, time permitting. Penwatchdog (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Amandajm and Penwatchdog, I've been working on this on and off for a few weeks, holding off submission until I could find verifiable sources to match the content I wanted to add, as well as working on other Wikipedia projects. I think its about as complete as I can get it at the moment. Please have a look at it HERE and give me your thoughts or approval before I submit it to the article. In addition Amandajm, I was waiting for the related article Buzan's Book of Genius to be approved by an independent Wikipedia editor, as it was my first article created from scratch, and wanted to make sure all guidelines were met, which I understand it now has. I hope you don't mind. Your feedback would be appreciated on both. Jodon | Talk 19:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

As ever, thanks for your suggestions. I take your point about "tried to" rather than "helped" as I would need to then back up the claim that it actually has helped, which would take too long. I've also changed "popularity as a genius" to "fame continued to spread", which also is a bit more neutral, and his genius is mentioned sufficiently in the subsequent paragraph. Also Clark and Kemp were changed to "writers". I presume that makes everything ok now. If so I will submit this to the article shortly, unless you have any objections. Hopefully there won't be too much contention from the Wiki-community about my contribution! Thanks again. Jodon | Talk 00:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Amandajm! That's disappointing! After such a build up too! I was looking forward to submitting my humble contribution as I think it has value, particularly in how Leonardo has been perceived in the modern era.

I'm not sure why you mention his "sexuality, his racial background, his religion", as having to be included in a section on "fame and reputation", especially as I think we already covered that it wasn't relevant to his general or historical status, in a previous discussion.

I have only looked very briefly at your proposed article (on the speculation etc). From what I've seen, it looks quite interesting as a subject unto itself, however to include my contribution in that I think would be to distance it further to how Leonardo is perceived historically, rather than speculatively. The section on his fame and reputation, as it stands, in addition to my contribution, has the distinction of referring to facts that are already established regarding his "fame" and "reputation", rather than speculation about his personal life, personal beliefs, etc. etc. For example:

• The stats regarding how many publications are on Amazon about Leonardo, is fact, not speculation.
• The mention of the discovery of the codex madrid is fact, not speculation
• The mention that his genius is debated is a fact, and the whole paragraph with its references supports this. There is no speculation about the fact that it is debated. It is clear, that it is debated.

Do you see the point I'm making? In my 2 paragraphs everything is supported by reference, and more importantly I make no reference to any speculation about his personal life, and this is deliberate, as I think it is not relevant to the information regarding his "general" or "historical" status, which is established, with plenty of citations, mind, so I cannot understand why there would be serious objections from the Wiki-community.

Regarding your second choice (personal life), the above-mentioned should make it clear that his fame and reputation has nothing to do with his personal life. To include it here would be to miss the point of that section.

Your third option (cultural) might work if it was re-titled to include his fame and reputation.

A simpler choice could be to simply re-name the section "Fame and reputation" as "Leonardo's Legacy". That section of the article could then be a summarised version which links to another greatly expanded article which includes all 3 of your aforementioned options!

I think we're treading on a fine line here between fact and speculation. Perhaps a definition or a distinction needs to be clarified, or at the very least, discussed. It could be argued that any information about anything is speculation, unless it is obtained through empiricism. Any information about deceased historical figures relies entirely on documents/works, and not first hand-experience. As I'm sure you know, in his Treatise on Painting Leonardo is quoted as saying:

"my works are born of simple pure experience...[which] gives the rules by which you are able to distinguish the true from the false...Those sciences are vain and full of error that have not been born of experience, mother of every certainty and which do not likewise end in experience; that is to say, those that have neither at their beginning, middle or end passed through any of the five senses"

Leonardo clearly shows where facts end and speculation begins, which could imply that the entire Wikipedia project, which relies entirely on the published sources which supports its content, is entirely speculative! But we won't go there!

Its obviously your judgement call on whether you regard my contribution as creating an imbalance to the rest of the article, so I will leave the decision to you. Please keep me advised of your progress. Also if you need any assistance please let me know, even if it is to help you "silence the tongues of disputants" who would rather suppress Leonardo's obvious unique iconic status from Wikipedia, for reasons of their own.

I think Leonardo himself would object to all the speculation going on about him (one of my pet hates is speculation about his sexuality, as if that was the only thing that mattered), since he stressed the importance of empiricism, both in his life and in his work, so that "all guesswork is destroyed by an eternal silence".

Alternatively, we could just be bold and stick with the original suggestion, the worst they would do is delete it, which would be no different to what you're proposing now.

Kind Regards,

Jodon | Talk 03:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok. So be it.

I wish you addressed this when you asked me to make the addition to the section in the beginning. It was your suggestion. It would have saved me the trouble of gathering the information needed to make it. It would also have saved me the trouble of having to create the separate article on Buzan's Book of Genius.

Regardless of how you feel about his IQ being irrelevant, the first paragraph I wrote (with Clark and Kemp) is not about his genius at all. What about including that?

I do find it almost incredible that Leonardo's intellect, central to his philosophy of life, the driving force of his talent as an artist, and the basis for his scientific investigations and his vast programme of discovery, is casually dismissed. If the study of his intellect is considered unimportant, then a full understanding of the man or his works will never occur.

So instead, people probe into dark corners, like his sexuality, or his religion, thinking they might find answers there. Speculating that he was a Jew, or that his mother was an Arab, I find laughable. Its an amusing foray, but its like people are missing the big picture. Its like looking at a single blade of grass and not seeing the whole field. There will always be room for speculation about everything, if people insist on viewing things in that regard. I would be less critical if such people were making their speculations about lesser individuals than Leonardo, because then there would less obvious factors (like his intellect) to speculate on.

I didn't fully understand what you said about the downloading of articles and dropping out. Could you please explain that a bit more?

Jodon | Talk 05:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation about the length of the article being an issue. That's a considerate approach.

As to the rest of your post, yes I agree its all very interesting stuff, and I'm sure we could have many long discussions on it, but with all due respect its peripheral the point I was making, or in fact can account for it. Leonardo was described by Clark as being "the most relentlessly curious man in history". He had an unquenchable desire to know everything. This caused him to venture far and wide, expanding his knowledge and his mind as he continually dovetailed one pursuit with another, seeing the harmonious links with all branches of knowledge as his intellect grew. I say again that any interpretation of his work must be done from that standpoint, as this was of paramount interest to him, so therefore it should interest us. Trying to understand his life or work from any other basis leads to idle speculation, and will always do so.

His pursuits would inevitably be "challenged" once he reached a stage where he was pushing past the bounds of existing knowledge, which is always risky when dealing with a prevailing but limiting convention. It is not just in his art that he challenged things. There was also the danger he faced when dissecting many corpses in the name of science, which eventually led to the Pope suspending that activity and evicting him once he became aware of what Leonardo was doing. The Pope did it because it was seen as heretical and anti-religious, whereas Leonardo was simply taking his studies to a logical conclusion. He was being methodical, scientific, there was no "agenda" to challenge for the sake of challenging! These things were a natural outgrowth of pushing past the knowledge he was limited to at the time.

Speaking of speculation, it has been estimated that roughly only a third of the total volume of his writings remain. Biographers of Leonardo have theorised, probably correctly, that much of his writings were in fact destroyed once they were discovered, or seen as being anti-religious. What is seen as heretical by a religious sect, is seen simply as a fear of science by scientists. Its all in how you perceive it.

This leads to the obvious implication that despite Wikipedia's attempts to be neutral, it will always be slanted toward certain viewpoints, or dare I say it, certain editors, regardless of what knowledge there is on the subject.

Before I go any further, I'd like to ask you something, and please don't be offended, I have a reason for asking. It might help to put this discussion in better context. Actually its 2 questions:

• 1) Have you studied any or all of Leonardo's notebooks, and if so, how often?
• 2) Its clear that you are an accomplished art historian, which is to be commended, but are you also an artist, i.e. have you spent many hours/weeks/years creating artwork?

Thanks for a healthy and provoking discussion.

Jodon | Talk 14:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. Sorry to be interrupting you. Best of luck with the Leonardo article in the future. Jodon | Talk 21:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Architecture in early modern Scotland

Hi. Is there any chance you could comment on the changes made following your suggestions and the GA review, which were done ten days ago now? I will probably be pretty busy for a while, so it might not be easy for me to devote much time to this after today until next weekend if there are any missed issues. Many thanks.--SabreBD (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. If you cannot complete the review could you please let me know. I would very much like to get this one completed so that I can move on to others. Many thanks.--SabreBD (talk) 09:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Motes and logs

Please don't label the addition or removal of a sentence of factual information as a minor edit as you did here and here. A minor edit is an edit that doesn't add or reduce content, change meanings, etc. Minor edits are spelling and individual punctuation corrections, fixing broken links, formatting references, deleting spaces and reverting vandalism. Adding a sentence isn't minor. Even adding a single word isn't minor. Think of the effect of adding the the word "not" so that the meaning changes from "Noun does verb" to "Noun does not verb". Ericoides (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

touché! Could you really be bothered searching through my edits to find them? Yes the twelve lay clerks are definitely not minors, are they?

How could I possibly be so rude to someone as meticulous as yourself. I would withdraw my comment, but I believe you have done so already! I agree, that it would be a terrible thing to leave one your talk page.... so I will paste this on my own......Amandajm (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, quite. I wondered whether the person who noticed – and notified someone else of – such a petty error would be scrupulous in that regard herself (?). If she wasn't ... then, I'm thinking, what is the point of raising the matter? To err is human. And, of course, and after a few seconds' searching (it really didn't take long), it was clear that she isn't. But to forgive is divine. Kind regards, Ericoides (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I'm just about getting the hang of this (m) thing; many thanks for alerting me to the protocols. Ericoides (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Back to "To Autumn"

Hi Amanda, once again it's been a while. I see you've touched up some of the wording in "To Autumn". Good edits, all of them, except that one puzzled me, and I have reverted it. "influences on" was anything but a "typo". To have an influence on someone or something is standard English. Also, while "influences in" is not bad English in itself, it does make the sentence a little more ambiguous. Almost like the poem itself has had influences on other works, and those influences may be seen here. It may well be the case, but that is not what I meant. "influences on" leaves no doubt about the direction of the influences pointed to in this sentence. I'll add that your edits reminded me that there is one sentence in the first paragraph that has bothered me for a long time, so I took this opportunity to make what I think is an improvement, tightening it up. Regards, Alan W (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)