Talk:Scriptorium

blarg man,It needs to say what it is!

Good point. How's that now?--Wetman 05:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The point in paragraph 2 that early christian texts were modified to suit the copyist's theological perspective should be clarified slightly as not referring to copying of the Bible, which ,as far as I'm aware, was copied more accurately...though we really need an authority on biblical copying to confirm that! Raxm 16:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article's text was deleted by User:PeterKidd here. Perhaps other editors will find material worth returning to the article, as Peter Kidd seems to have lost interest after his one exploit. --Wetman 03:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the only one interested, so I've restored the text and its references, carefully retaining edits made since then. Deleting text at Wikipedia is sometimes a psychological issue rather than an editorial one.--Wetman (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't have time to correct everything that is wrong with WP articles in the areas where I have specialist knowledge, but I think that in order to improve the quality of WP articles it is preferable to remove text that is downright wrong, or misleading, even if I do not have time to replace it with something better. It seems that many people create and edit WP articles based on secondary literature, read uncritically or uncomprehendingly, rather than on first-hand knowledge. I can illustrate this by discussing the two first images in this WP article.

In the first Mielot "is shown compiling his Miracles de Nostre Dame". Leaving aside the question of whether he is a "compiler" or an "author" (two different roles that the caption seems to confuse), the image clearly shows someone NOT writing this copy of the Miracles de Nostre Dame: the Miracles is a bound volume (so all sheets are folded in half at least once) and written in two columns (therefore each separate sheet will have four columns of text on each side), whereas the image shows a scribe writing on a sheet in a single column of text that therefore cannot be folded and put into a bound volume; he is probably writing a document, not a book. So, either the caption is wrong, or the image cannot be taken at face value. Either way, it is likely to mislead the unwary WP reader.

The second image shows the Evangelist St Mark, and representations of saints cannot usually be relied on for their historical accuracy. From what one can see of the furnishings of the room, it is a domestic interior, not a "mediaeval scriptorium", and therefore not a very appropriate image for this article. The fact that St Mark has been identified as "Paul Pierce" shows that whoever added this image/caption does not have even the most basic knowledge of medieval manuscripts, and has presumably misunderstood the source from which the caption was taken. Incidentally, the manuscript reference for the image is also incorrect, "Slo" is an obsolete abbreviation of "Sloane", and the MSS formerly at the British *Museum* have belonged to the British *Library* for almost 40 years. 216.31.151.2 (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]