Jump to content

User talk:Johnbod

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IF YOU MENTION AN ARTICLE HERE - PLEASE LINK IT!!!

Dirty angel from the Monumental Cemetery of Staglieno in Genoa, c.1910

memo to self - arty student project pages to check through

[edit]

Johnbod (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Clark

[edit]

I have put KC's article up for peer review with a view to GAN or even FAC, and your particular expertise would be more than welcome there if you have time and inclination. No rush whatever, if you are minded to look in. Tim riley talk 13:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be looking over the next week, Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Thank you. You'll put me through my paces, I don't doubt, but the article will benefit. Happy New Year. Tim riley talk 18:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Trembleuse

[edit]

On 31 December 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Trembleuse, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that trembleuse cups and saucers (examples pictured) enabled people with unsteady hands to drink hot beverages? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Trembleuse. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Trembleuse), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Roman Pottery

[edit]

Roman-era pottery has been found found across Wales. For example: Holt [1]; south-east Wales [2]; Usk [3]; Cardiff [4]; and Segontium [5]. It has also been found in Scotland, eg [6] and [7]. The source for the section you keep changing is Tyers, Paul (1996). Roman Pottery in Britain. London, it is not titled Roman Pottery in England. Please revert yourself. Opolito (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the kilns at Holt are indeed 100 yards into modern Wales, though I note the source said the product all seems to have been "exported" to Chester. These are all I think pottery made at military sites, probably not reflecting what the local population used. The statement you changed does not say no pottery was made during the Roman period in other parts of Britain (which would indeed be odd). Archaeological RS very often use terms from modern political geography. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are not all made at military sites. Have you read the Webster article? Your edit summary was "I don't think any pottery production is known from Wales or Sctland in the period" yet now you admit that would "indeed be odd". The sentence in question has said "Britain" since at least 2020. An IP user changed it to "England" a couple of days ago without any reasoning and contrary the source it comes from. Why are you edit warring to retain an edit that introduces an incorrect modern term to replace a correct one from the source? Again, please revert your edit. Opolito (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't accept it is "incorrect" - the article is full of Italys, Spains, etc. I like the alliteration too. Johnbod (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It disagrees with the source, so WP:V. "I like the alliteration" is a terrible argument as I'm sure you know. You're supporting a change against the long-standing consensus on the page and against the source. Since you are unwilling to revert your change, I will revert your edit. Please do not change it back. Opolito (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen the source? I doubt it says anything so specific. The "long-standing consensus on the page" is essentially me and another (very expert) editor who's no longer active. Look at the stats. Johnbod (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the source is "Roman Pottery in Britain". How much more specific could it be? If you look at the significant parts of Tyer's work that are available online, they repeatedly use the term "Britain" and never "England". They also reference pots found outside England in the rest of Britain, eg [8] and [9]. The stats show you account for just over 10% of the last 250 edits made to the page over the last 14 years. Opolito (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article has changed very little since 2010 - I am the top editor by edits (more than the next 3 together), and am attributed with 23% of the text adds. This webpage by Tyers uses the full range of geographic terms. Johnbod (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Insular Church

[edit]

To continue our discussion I think that the assertion of one's own orthodoxy are not necessarily sysnonymous with being Orthodox. All of the churches seemed to have claimed to be following orthodox theology. The "Insular Churches" sort of developed independently from the rest of Christendom, but to avoid charges of heresy, they did try and demonstrate that they were in sympathy with the teachings of Rome. Despite them being on the edge of Europe, the Insular Churches did not escape the main dogmatic disputes that were occurring elsewhere in Christendom. Some examples are:

  1. Arianism in Britain;
  2. Pelagianism in Britain and Ireland;
  3. The Three-Chapter Controversy which involved the Irish on the continent in the early-seventh century;
  4. The Monothelite heresy that spanned most of the seventh century and involved the See of Canterbury;
  5. The Quattuordeciman charge brought against the British and Irish churches.

I don't think I need to develop these subjects other than quoting a letter from Columbanus, written in about 614, to Pope Boniface IV on the controversy of the Three Chapters it said:

For all we Irish, inhabitants of the worlds edge, are disciples of Saints Peter and Paul and of all the disciples who wrote the sacred canon by the Holy Ghost, and we accept nothing outside the evangelical and apostolic teaching; none has been a heretic, none a Judaiser, none a schismatic; but the Catholic Faith, as it was delivered by you first, who are the successor of the holy apostles, is maintained unbroken.

— https://4marksofthechurch.com/columbanus-of-ireland/

At some point early in the seventh century, Laurence of Canterbury wrote a letter to the bishops and abbots of Ireland; some of it is quoted by Bede:

The apostolic see, according to customs in all parts of the world, directed us to preach to the heathen in these western regions, and it was our lot to come to this island of Britain; before we knew them we held the holiness of both ofthe Britons and of the Irish in great esteem, thinking that they walked according to the customs of the universal church: but on becoming better acquainted with the Britons, we still thought that the Irish would be better, But now We have learned from Bishop Dagan when he came to this island and from Abbot Columban when he came to Gaul that the Irish did not differ from the Britons in their way of life. For when Bishop Dagan came to us he refused to take food, not only with us but even in the very house where we took our meals.

— Bede HE II.4

Bede goes on to explain that Laurence wrote the letter because the Insular Church did not celebrate Easter on the correct date. Some time later Abbot Aldhelm of Malmesbury Abbey wrote a letter at the behest of the Council of Hertford (672), to persuade the bishops of Devon and Cornwall in the matters of a common Easter and common tonsure. Christians in the Eastern church observed Passover on the 14th of the first month (Nisan), regardless of the day of the week on which it occurred, while the Latin church celebrated Easter on the Sunday after the first Full Moon following the vernal equinox. If the Insular Church followed the Eastern church then they would be practising Quartodecimanism, and heretics according to the Roman church. By the time of the Synod of Whitby Wilfrid was able to report, according to Bede, that the Insular Church celibrated Easter on a Sunday, so were not guilty of Quartodecimanism.(HE III.25)

Sussex was the last area of England to be evangilised according to Bede and Stephen of Ripon; however a group out of UCL have proposed an interesting hypothesis. They posit that the people of Sussex were Insular Christians rather than pagan when they were "converted". The story goes that Selsey was similar to Holy Island or Lindisfarne, so there was already a monastic community of Insular Christians when Wilfrid arrived. He used a "preexisting" monastery for his base. The Bede/Stephen foundation story of the South Saxon kingdom, that we are familiar with, was just an invention.(SAC 2023 pp.117-135)I

I've gone on a bit, but my conclusion is that the although the Insular church developed seperately to the rest of the church, it was very keen to keep up with some theological decisions made by the Roman church. Also it seems that some of the writers of the time were anti the Insular church so didn't do it any favours in their reporting. Wilfridselsey (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January music

[edit]
story · music · places

Happy new year 2025! Today, pictured on the Main page, Tosca, in memory of her first appearance on stage OTD in 1900, and of principal author Brian Boulton. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today I have a composer (trumpeter, conductor) on the main page who worked closely with another who became GA yesterday, - small world! To celebrate: mostly flowers pics from vacation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Schubert's birthday today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Ken again

[edit]

A whispered reminder that you were hoping to look in at Kenneth Clark's peer review. I hope you still can: I'd particularly value your input. Tim riley talk 14:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley@ Ok, haven't (entirely) forgotten. These days I like to wait & let the heavy vehicles churn up the mud first. I did look, & thought the lead slightly underweighted his books, which I think are still going strong, especially The Nude, even if as held up for target practice by contemporary academics. It might be interesting to check which are still in print. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can find about books in print. Thank you. Tim riley talk 16:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brixton meetup Mon 27th Jan

[edit]

Hello @Johnbod! Happy new year. Just to let you know there's another Brixton meetup at Brixton Library next Monday 27th Jan at 6pm if you're free. We're currently deciding on a 'theme' so if you have any ideas let us know! Colette Lambeth (talk) 09:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gardenofedenn block evasion

[edit]

Just to let you know that I've rolled back English art to its version from 21 December, and reapplied a couple of your seealso removals; Gardenofedenn (talk · contribs · logs) was Lam312321321 evading their block again. I don't know how much this user is on your radar, but I've noticed you in the edit history a few times when reverting their edits. If a newish user starts moving images around on a big English history/culture overview article, or adding large amounts of text which are either (a) copied without proper attribution from other Wikipedia articles or (b) comparing England favourably to other countries, it may well be Lam312321321 evading a block, in which case the edits can simply be reverted rather than patiently checked and reworked by other editors. Feel free to ping me if you ever want me to take a look at anything. Belbury (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks - I wasn't really aware of them. It's hard to compare the texts because it seems to be moved around in big blocks. Johnbod (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New kid on the block? Johnbod (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, undoubtedly. I'll revert and open an SPI.
The "Visual" option button can sometimes help when viewing a diff, if the Wikitext version is hard to read at a glance. The image stuff seems the main giveaway, though. If you encounter someone changing and moving images on a major "of England" type article, and their edit history show few or no other edits, it may be this blocked user trying to avoid WP:SCRUTINY. Belbury (talk) 09:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hart correction

[edit]

Thank you for correcting my erroneous edit in The Hunters in the Snow, and clarifying the meaning to prevent misunderstandings. I thought the initial comment was a little harsh, but you were right.Gciriani (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I was rather harsh, sorry. Johnbod (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Callanish V

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Johnbod. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Callanish V, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NO, stupid bot! I set up a redirect, WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN RESTORED when the draft someone else began was draftified. Same with Draft:Callanish VI below. Johnbod (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Callanish VI

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Johnbod. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Callanish VI, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February music

[edit]
story · music · places

On the main page Edith Mathis, who portrayed young women by Mozart, the video of a 1993 interview has videos of her performances, - yesterday's story. - "places" come with food and flowers, - sharing with you! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I point at a composer today, as the main page does. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

regarding "dead or alive": I take my inspiration from this essay, quoted in the discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your dirty mouth off my talk page

[edit]

That's a simple enough request. Chris the speller yack 05:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rishi Sunak

[edit]

@Johnbod You are invited to join this discussion, in which you might be involved, at Talk: Rishi Sunak. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 07:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March music

[edit]
story · music · places

Today: Carmen turns 150, as the main page and my story tell you. I chose a 1962 concert of the Habanera, - enjoy! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that Carmen was a topic when infobox opera was discussed before its introduction in 2013, consulting its principal author? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On Ravel's birthday, we also think of a conductor and five more composers ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today I could have written five stories off the main page, and chose Sofia Gubaidulina. I find the TFA also interesting, and two DYK, and a birthday OTD. How about you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me a personal question in the Yeats RfC. Two replies: 1) His writing is too difficult for this foreigner. 2) I believe that we should not base on personal attachment of editors if an article comes with standard information in a predictable form, which may help foreigners, people who will have to rely on the English Wikipedia for subjects not covered in their language. You told Nemov something in the same RfC which is wrong. Many facts are intentionally not in the first paragraph of the lead, to keep that paragraph more concise. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ps: today an opera, 100 years old OTD, on Bach's birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today, 300 years of Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1! We sang works for (mostly) double choir by Pachelbel, Johann Christoph Bach, Kuhnau/Bach, Gounod and Rheinberger! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Monolingual bibliographies?

[edit]

Please explain why the up-to-date handbooks by Schollmeyer and Lahusen (that are frequently cited in international research) should be kept out of the article Roman sculpture. DerMaxdorfer (talk) 12:31, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are in German, as I explained in the edit summary. There are loads of good books on the subject, and only indispensible works in foreign languages should be included. The whole list is also much too long anyway; many editors are much less tolerant on this than I am, and object to more than say 4 or 5 listings in all circumstances. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and I see you are adding books (in German of course) that have NOT been used in the article to "References" sections. It is important not to do this, as it confuses readers, especially where the inline citations are not good. If you REALLY feel the article needs the work, create a "further reading" section. But usually it will not be necessary. Unlike, I think, the German WP, en:wp does not attempt or aspire to carry full or even "select" bibliographies. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanations. I sometimes include missing "indispensable" (difficult category!) literature in different languages and am getting more "thank you"s than reverts, so I feel like I am doing something right. It is true though that I know the German scholarship best, so I may have a certain bias - as everyone has some bias in one direction or another.
Regarding the "references" sections you should know better than I that they are used very differently in different articles. Sometimes they only include the literature used in the footnotes, sometimes they include literature not cited in the footnotes but used to write the article, sometimes they include literature not used for the article at all, as de-facto "Further reading" sections. I always try to figure out which of these versions applies in every article I edit, and try to sort my literature additions accordingly (and also always depending on whether I used the literature to check or improve the text of the Wikipedia article). Please let me know when I am making mistakes in that regard - it is not always easy to understand which sorting principle for literature is used in which article. And many times I am pretty sure that there is no sorting principle at all.
Regarding the article Roman sculpture, I am wondering whether titles like Ryberg (from 1955), Koortbojian (on a sub-topic of sarcophagus studies) or Mattusch (on a single find spot) should be kept in the "Further reading" section just because they are in English while up-to-date handbooks and introductions on the precise topic of the article can be reverted as hastily and without individual explanation as you did.
By the way, the German Wikipedia does not "attempt or aspire to carry full bibliographies". The "Literatur" section there is meant to include "the scientifically authoritative works as well as trustworthy, preferably up-to-date introductions" ("die wissenschaftlich maßgeblichen Werke sowie seriöse, möglichst aktuelle Einführungen"). The rules further clarify: "An arbitrary or as long as possible list of books is not wanted." ("Eine beliebige oder möglichst lange Auflistung von Büchern ist nicht erwünscht." - both quotes come from de:Wikipedia:Literatur). Probably comparable to what is desirable for a "Further reading" section in the English Wikipedia.
Okay, that was a lot of text. Sorry and best regards, DerMaxdorfer (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is true ""references" sections ... are used very differently in different articles" - many articles do it incorrectly. Please don't add to this problem. Unfortunately our MOS has been out of control for years, but WP:FAC is clear that works used and not used should NOT be mixed together, and many reviews include purges of works not used. Probably the MOS says this somewhere. If you look at the page history you will very often find the problem is caused by drive-by source-adders like yourself. Sometimes the book was used, but that bit has been removed, or a different source used, without updating the references section. FAC will also trim FR to probably a maximum of 6 works. On my rare visits to the German Wikipedia it is clear that their treatment of bibliographies is completely different to ours, and not at all "comparable to what is desirable for a "Further reading" section in the English Wikipedia". Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't have the time to follow all discussions on WP:FAC and analyse what is common there before doing simple edits: I have stopped writing larger texts here very soon after experiencing myself the anti-scientific tendencies often attributed to enwiki. But for the smaller corrections and additions I'm still contributing I try to follow any relevant rules I can find documented. In fact, I normally try not just to add literature I have on my desk but, if possible, to check the rest of the bibliography, remove spam by "drive-by source-adders", complete incomplete references and sort the quoted literature in the right category. For that, I obviously need to know which literature additions count as spam and which ones count as valuable additions, so I have tried to find and follow all rules and manuals here in enwiki. But the diversity of quotation styles of course sometimes leads to misinterpretations and makes it difficult to update the literature sections to general standards. For example, the bibliography in Book of Durrow at first sight didn't make the impression that all titles listed there were used for the text of the article. Before adding Roth's PhD on the Durrow manuscript there, I hadn't noticed that you worked on the article that recently and probably checked the bibliography in January - my fault.
PS: I would be very interested in which German Wikipedia articles you mean with your observation. There are indeed fundamental differences in referencing between the two language versions, but the specific comparison I made above feels correct and valid to me as long as you can't explain your contradiction. DerMaxdorfer (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"South Italian" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect South Italian has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 7 § South Italian until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DRN Notice

[edit]

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer

[edit]

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pillars of the Church missing in the article "History of Christianity" - appeal for help

[edit]

Hello Johnbod, I would like to ask You for help. On 15 March 2025 the user "Lucullus19" tried twice to give information on three Pillars of Church, namely James the Just, Peter and John, who are missing in the article History of Christianity but user "Remsense" deleted his both edits without any reasonable explanation. Since both Lucullus19 and I are not very good in English, I would like to ask You for help by this way. Thank You very much in advance. Tat Tvam Asi 00 (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Bride kidnapping in Kazakhstan

[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Bride kidnapping in Kazakhstan—has been proposed for merging with Ala kachuu. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛•💬•📋 22:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pala d'Oro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Entry of Christ into Jerusalem.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Johnbod&oldid=1282271256"