User talk:Doug Coldwell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Please click here to leave me a new message.


If I left a message on your 'Talk Page', then please reply there. I am temporarly watching it. I will get back to you there.
If you asked me a question here, I will answer here. This way then both parts of the conversation are in the same place.



Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Hello

I'm baffled as to why you have created an article called Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 2 which just seems to consist of a translation. Perhaps you could explain what it's all about on the article's discussion page. Deb 22:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Individual chapter articles linked from De Viris Illustribus (Jerome)

I'm concerned that these individual articles are a waste of your time. As soon as they get noticed they will be deleted (and rightly so). Wikipedia articles are supposed to give information about topics and their significance. Cutting and pasting an online translation serves no purpose that is not adequately served by putting a link to the online translation in the main article. As in any reference work, the primary texts are quoted only to the extent necessary, and such quotations are always part of the presentation & discussion of the topic. Look through the millions of other Wikipedia articles, and you will not find any others that consist of cut-and-pasted primary texts. Anything there is to be said about this book by Jerome can go at the main page. Let me know whether you understand and consent to the need to get rid of these superfluous articles. Wareh 02:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not a "cut and paste", nor just "dumping" of text, but an individual translation from the Latin that Jerome wrote of these biographies. These individual biographies are about the way Jerome wrote them; which has special meanings and significance. Many other articles make reference back to these individual biographies. A similiar article I did (that has been around for months with no objections) is Petrarch's De Viris Illustribus. Here is what I have found on a short search to these individual biographies that reference to that particular chapter and notable person of Jerome's biography: Justin Martyr; Lucian of Antioch; Apollonius of Ephesus; Hippolytus of Rome; Amphilochius of Iconium; Ambrose of Alexandria; Pontius of Carthage; Rhodo: Symmachus the Ebionite; Origen; Firmilian; Tertullian;Saint Optatus;Pope Damasus I;Simon the Zealot;Prosper of Aquitaine;John the Presbyter;Methodius of Olympus; Juvencus;Gospel of the Hebrews (Matthew);Second Epistle of Peter;Symmachus the Ebionite;Pamphilus of Caesarea;Gregory Thaumaturgus;Hilary of Poitiers. I'm sure that when I have finished all 134 of these biographies (only half way now) then there will be dozens of additional references and links to these Jerome biographies and the main article I wrote of Jerome's De Viris Illustribus. I am following the Wikipedia policy for biographies: "worked to fix them appropriately—adding links (in both directions), formatting, and editing for a neutral point of view and encyclopedic style" = which I did. I also have another similar one on Boccaccio, with no objections. Doug

On the same topic, regarding Chapter 61 - Usually, articles should be written in a style that would enable it to be read aloud. In this case, I would provide the appropriate transcription of the Greek words, and follow with the actual word in parenthesis, so as not to disrupt the flow of reading the article. For example, ". . .which the Greeks called Ekkaidekaetirida (Ancient Greek: ἐκκαιδεκαετηρίδα)." (with correct transliteration and language) ALTON .ıl 07:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have used your suggestion and worded it the way you suggested. If you see further improvements, feel free to add. This particular chapter is a prime example where it is not a "cut and paste", nor just "dumping" of text. This individual Latin translation is basically the way Jerome wrote it; however not an exact copy of the public domain text. Compare and you (or others) will see. Below are the two, to show the difference for Chapter 61. The first is the public domain text; the second is my version of Jerome's Latin put into English (holding the original meanings and significance Jerome intended to be converyed to the reader. It is not an ordinary biography, but has very special meanings if you look close.) Doug
Hippolytus, bishop of some church (the name of the city I have not been able to learn) wrote A reckoning of the Paschal feast and chronological tables which he worked out up to the first year of the Emperor Alexander. He also discussed the cycle of sixteen years, which the Greeks called ἐ κκαιδεκαετηρίδα and gave the cue to Eusebius, who composed on the same Paschal feast a cycle of nineteen years, that is ἐ ννεακαιδεκαετηρίδα . He wrote some commentaries on the Scriptures, among which are the following: On the six days of creation, On Exodus, On the Song of Songs, On Genesis, On Zechariah, On the Psalms, On Isaiah, On Daniel, On the Apocalypse, On the Proverbs, On Ecclesiastes, On Saul, On the Pythonissa, On the Antichrist, On the resurrection, Against Marcion, On the Passover, Against all heresies, and an exhortation On the praise of our Lord and Saviour, in which he indicates that he is speaking in the church in the presence of Origen. Ambrosius, who we have said was converted by Origen from the heresy of Marcion, to the true faith, urged Origen to write, in emulation of Hyppolytus, commentaries on the Scriptures, offering him seven, and even more secretaries, and their expenses, and an equal number of copyists, and what is still more, with incredible zeal, daily exacting work from him, on which account Origen, in one of his epistles, calls him his "Taskmaster."


Hippolytus, bishop of a church (the name of the city I have not been able to obtain) wrote A reckoning of the Paschal feast and chronological tables which be worked out up to the first year of the Emperor Alexander. He also discussed the cycle of sixteen years, which the Greeks called Ekkaidekaetirida (Ancient Greek: ἐκκαιδεκαετηρίδα.) That gave the hint to Eusebius, whom wrote up works on the same Paschal feast, a cycle of nineteen years, which the Greeks called Eννεακαιδεκαετηρίδα (Ancient Greek: ἐννεακαιδεκαετηρίδα.) Hippolytus also wrote Some commentaries on the Scriptures, which are the following:


Ambrosius (whom we have said was converted by Origen from the heresy of Marcion) saw the true faith and urged Origen to write in effort and desire to equal or excel Hyppolytus's commentaries on the Scriptures; offering him seven and even more secretaries and their expenses. Ambrosius even offered an equal number of copyists. What's even more astonishing is that with incredible zeal, Ambrosius daily demanded exact work from him, on which account Origen (in one of his formal correspondence letters) calls Ambrosius his "Taskmaster." Doug

The Petrarch article you made is not comparable because it does not include extensive quotations from the work itself. You say, "individual translation from the Latin" — yes, we agree that that is what the articles contain, and each "individual translation from the Latin" has been cut and pasted and dumped into the article from newadvent.org. Wareh 17:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

In reference to: That article is not similar because it does not consist of huge amounts of text.
The article I wrote of Petrarch's De Viris Illustribus has over 100 names counting the references. Jerome's De Viris Illustribus has 134 biographies, plus some other works. The difference in actual "text" is minimal (a few words at best) that the computer memory can easily handle. I am only listing names with links -verses- having the complete text of each biography on one page; which would make it huge. Then the article would be over 200 KB, while now it is under 20 KB (a very reasonable amount of text that even those with dial-up can handle). These Jerome biographies are ABOUT how Jerome wrote up each biography, which happens to have a very special meanings to them (if you study each very close). It is most significant to use as close to Jerome's meanings as possible to get what he wanted to convey (which each biography has of a special significant meaning, not otherwise in the modern biographies of the same people). Most of the links above reference New Advent articles and some even quote Jerome's biographies verbatim; John the Presbyter, which happens to quote verbatim others also; Gospel of the Hebrews quoted verbatim of Jerome's Chapter 3 (for the past 3 years). Some of these article also have large lists of names, very similiar to Jerome's De Viris Illustribus and Petrarch's De Viris Illustribus (without even linking them to anything). Many of these article "stubs" are just a few lines (even just one or two sometimes) for the total article with few or no references (other than perhaps back to Jerome De Viris Illustribus and one of its specific biographies). Presently there are dozens of articles that link to my article of Jerome's De Viris Illustribus and specifically to a particular biography as a reference for their article or a Section of their article.
Per Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources it says: Copying public domain encyclopedias (such as 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica) and using those articles as a basis for a Wikipedia article on the subject is perfectly OK. You should not just dump the text unedited, but rather should work to fix them appropriately—adding links (in both directions), formatting, and editing for a neutral point of view and encyclopedic style. The example above of Chapter 61 is just this. It is not verbatim (like other articles do), while it may be be close to hold the original meaning that Jerome meant (which has special significance). Note Jerome's article now is almost identical to Petrarch's De Viris Illustribus. --Doug talk 20:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Lists of names (as in the Petrarch article or the main Jerome article) are fine: that is a summary guide to the contents of the book. But I'm talking about an article like Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 16, and I'm trying to get you to see that the part you have copied from http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2708.htm (virtually the whole article) is not the kind of material normally included in Wikipedia articles. Can you come up with a single parallel example, among the millions of English Wikipedia articles, that is like what you're doing here? Wareh 20:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate what you are saying. I looked over the two and they are not verbatim; while perhaps close. I can work it a little more if you like where it is not this close - perhaps like this example above of Chapter 61. I do want to keep the original meaning of what Jerome intended for the reader however. Keep in mind, each biography has a very special meaning (if you study it very close). Now here is an interesting item (which may or may not be significant here), however I would like to throw this out. I am not what one would call a religious person. I have no bias one way or the other (each to their own). I am not Christian or Budda or Jewish or any other religion. I have never attended church (as an adult and I am now retired). So this may seem strange that I am writing articles about Jerome (whom I never heard of until about a year ago). However I do like Petrarch. I have studied him much and read a lot of his material. Notice that the Petrarch's De Viris Illustribus and the Jerome's De Viris Illustribus are similar (probably because it was the same author that wrote both of these). Did you read over my Petrarch article. It is not all that long and would only take a few minutes. Now here is something I just discovered recently: Did you know that Simon Peter is considered the first person of the Church of Rome? I didn't know that, since I have not studied Christianity or church history. Do you know that Giovanni Boccaccio has a LARGE list of 106 biographies On Famous Women. Many of those are related in one way or another to Petrarch's "Illustrious Men". Jerome's is a list of 134 biographies. Did I point out, each of Jerome's biographies has a very special meaning. That's why I am writing these articles, because they are ABOUT how Jerome wrote them. It is actually quite fun to find out what these special meanings are because they are most significant. Tell me what you think after you read over my article of Petrarch's De Viris Illustribus. --Doug talk 21:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bible code unfounded

The New Testament was not written in code. There are more reliable extant source manuscripts of NT writings predating the time of Petrarch than there are source documents for any other historical event of ancient times. There are also stylistic and cultural features of every NT book that can only be accounted for by it being an eyewitness account of the time in which it is claimed that it was originally written in the first century. Do take the time to investigate the record of Scripture. It is not a mystery waiting to be de-coded, nor is it a fabrication of a later date. It does claim Divine inspiration unlike any other book, but it was written by human hands. It seems to me to be the height of vanity and willful blindness to take the view that there is a secret code to it - and to ignore the plain things that are written there. Mark Twain said that, "It's not the things that I can't understand about the Bible that trouble me - it's the things that I can understand."Brian0324 17:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate you putting forward your religious viewpoints, however I am not a religious person so it means nothing to me. I won't get into religion for a few reasons; mainly since I know little (practially nothing) about it. Its way over my head and understanding. If you want to believe certain things, far be it that I would want to change your thinking. You believe what you want, I'll believe what I want and we will BOTH be happy puppies. There is no need for you to present you religious viewpoints any further. Thanks.--Doug talk 19:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] With regards to the person vandalizing Ludington, Michigan

If you ever have a suspicion that someone may be vandalizing an article here on Wikipedia, it would be best if you left a template warning from the vandalism policy page on their talk page. If they continue to vandalize a page, add higher level warnings. If they vandalize after the final warning, list them on administrator intervention against vandalism so an admin can sort it out. I have left the user in question a level 2 warning on their talk page because they continued to add their edits in after they were reverted, therefore, disregarding your reversions entirely. --pIrish 17:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for advice. Didn't know how to do that, but now I do with your help. Thanks again -> we will get the vandals!!!--Doug talk 17:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proper use of categories and interwiki

Doug, the interwiki links (to foreign-language versions) are only meant to be used if there is an article on the same topic in the foreign language Wikipedia. Thus one is only called for at Letter to Posterity if there is an article in a foreign Wikip. on this letter. The place for links to other-language versions of Petrarch, Boccaccio, etc. is at the articles on those persons.

Categories work the same way. If there is a category covering "writers" or "poets," it would not apply to a book, because a book is neither a writer nor a poet. Again, in this case, the presence of the category at the article on the author is alone appropriate.

Also, did you know that some categories subsume others? In this case, Wikipedia guidelines call for using only the most specific category. For example Category:Greek mythology is a subcategory of Category:Indo-European mythology. Therefore, when you use the former, you automatically include the latter, and it is wrong to put the more general category.

Finally, there is no reason whatsoever for a redirect to have either a category or an interwiki. I hope you can do some of the cleanup for those cases. Wareh 15:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

In response to your question -- I think the article now has the ones I would have suggested -- except that you can also add Category:1372 books (have I remembered the date correctly? Whatever date it was, anyway.) It may come up as a red category, but you can leave someone else to sort that out. Andrew Dalby 11:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chapter Titles

Doug, pardon me for replying here to your comment at WikiSource (I am as unfamiliar with WS as you are). I used the chapter titles for De Viris from the PD Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. As to what they "should" be - got me. I just copied them identically from a work that I new to be PD. -- Pastordavid 19:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'll answer here to keep all the parts together. First off let me say that I realize that was a lot of work and I really appreciate that. Just going for accuracy and verifing the parts. If I am mistaken, then just keep in your version and ignore what I said. Take a look at Chapter 80 and verify for me on this point. Maybe we are looking at two different sources and I could be mistaken. I believe it says: Chapter 80. Firmianus (Lactantius). Give me word for word exactly what you see, then we can compare versions. Thanks. --Doug talk 20:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I am looking at this website. What does your site say: word for word? --Doug talk 20:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The translation/formatting you are using was lifted from newadvent.org (the same site that hosts the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia). I did not use that version, because the site states that portions are copyrighted by newadvent -- without making clear what those portions are. I used the version from the classic reference series Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (NPNF), hosted by the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (www.ccel.org) of Calvin College (De Viris is in Series 2, volume 3. Unless I am mistaken (and I may well be), the chapter headings come from the translator - not the Latin original - which is why I consistantly used their headings (which go with the PD translation) even when the person is better known by another title (thus, "John the presbyter" and not "John Chrysostom"). Chapter 80 is headed: "Firmianus the rhetorician, surnamed Lactantius" in this version. -- Pastordavid 20:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, indeed it does. Thanks for your reply. Do you know Latin? What does the original Latin say? My feelings(strictly a guess) are that this particular heading is an interpretation from of modern times (i.e. Nineteenth or Twentieth Century). The English translation as it goes into it says: Firmianus, known also as Lactantius... From this wording I can see how a "modern" person could assume that to be a surname since our society today has that as a common usage (I.e. Given Name then the Last Name (family name) = John Smyth). However the exact wording (even in the English translation is "known also as" which does not mean First Name + Last Name {surname}). To me this would be "Robert, also know as Bob". In this case it is still the same given first name; one being a "nickname" or shortened version of the other. In some cases, the given name is the same number of letters as the "other" name = "John" is sometimes also known as "Jack". So yes, you did copy that very accurate; so I am not saying it was you that put this in, however obviously that "heading" came from whereever Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (NPNF) got the public domain text. Do you see my point? I believe the two names to be the same, not two different names. --Doug talk 21:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Doug, I know just enough latin to get myself into trouble. The text reads "Firmianus qui et Lactantius" -- literally " ...who (or which) is also...". That said, I would be careful drawing any conclusions from that. Some examples (From Greek, which I know better) - "Thomas who is called Didymus" seems to refer to a nickname (which is what you are saying); but "John who is called Zebedee" refers to what we would call a surname. Add to that the fact that our use of "surname" can often apply to what could also be considered nicknames - thus the name "Chrysostom" (added to John) is both a nickname and a surname. Hope that helps. -- Pastordavid 22:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. We will leave it the way it is. --Doug talk 22:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Petrarch

Doug, I happened to come across your article on Petrarch's letter to posterity. As it is right now, it is not an article about the text -- it is the text itself. As we talked about on the De Viris page, WikiSource is the more appropriate place for that sort of entry. -- Pastordavid 22:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I am a little confused here, you are speaking of Letter to Posterity? Can you give me a few words for example that is of the "text" you are speaking of? I will then correct. --Doug talk 23:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, sometimes my browser (for reasons unknown to me) loads up a previous version of an article. Not sure how that happened, but I see the current article now. Please disregard. -- Pastordavid 23:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

In February, you created a large number of redirects with categorizations and crosswiki links properly belonging to authors (Boccaccio and Petrarch). Redirects should not be categorized or crosswikied, as this causes them to show up redundantly (and, in these cases, wrongly) in category lists. I have removed the categories from these redirects; I also note that your sandbox pages are showing up in the same category lists, and I will take the liberty of removing those categories as well, as I presume you do not want your draft work showing up in category lists where it doesn't belong.RandomCritic 14:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Couple of Biblical quesions

  • Have I every e-mailed you in the past. Don't have to mention what it was about; just a "yes" or "no" will do.
  • How many Chapters in Acts of the Apostles?
  • What is the name of the main person in Chapter 10?
  • What is his occupation or "line of work" or what he is known for?
  • What country is he associated with?
  • How many books all total for the New Testament and Old Testament as in the normal Christian bible you have on your desk now?

If you care not to answer these questions, that is alright. I will understand. I'll check later back here. --Doug talk 23:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Replies

No, I have never received an email from you. In fact, I don't have the email function of my wikipedia account enabled (its not hard to find my email address, I just prefer to keep my conversations about wikipedia on wikipedia). As to your other Questions:

  • Acts has 28 Chapters.
  • Depends who you ask. I would answer Peter the fisherman come apostle. Others might say Cornelius the centurion, but he disappears after v.33, and 10:34-10:48 is entirely about Peter.
  • Oh, Cornelius is (at least according to the NRSV - I don't have the Greek in front of me) Italian - Peter is Jewish (Galillean to be exact).
  • My go-to reference Bible (the one on my desk at this moment) has 27 books in the NT, and 54 in the OT (39 canonical and 15 duetro-canonical).

Hope that helps. -- Pastordavid 14:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure does. It probably was another Pastor I wrote to. I have been in communication with so many (hundreds) I get confused. Thanks for your answers. --Doug talk 19:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/o/u/User_talk%7EDoug_Coldwell_03f2.html"