User talk:Merlinme

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome 2 Ally Sheedy 3 Ottoman Empire 4 being bold 5 RE: Battle Of Agincourt 6 RE: Agincourt 7 Commons:user:merlinme 8 Removal of "polemical" on TGGWS 9 Reverts by UBeR 10 TharkunColl 11 Editing down 12 Thanks for the note 13 Thanks 14 ? 15 Agincourt article 16 Agincourt Campaign 17 Juliet Barker 18 The Great Global Warming Swindle 19 Stop your bad faith accusations against me 20 THANKYOU! 21 Late Roman army 22 Battle Of Agincourt 23 Battle of Agincourt 24 Editor Review 25 Battle of Agincourt Compared

[edit] Welcome

Welcome to the project. Anyone who makes a comment about the Battle of Crécy is all right by me. Copyediting work is very valuable, and medieval articles are particularly poor, many having been copied optically from old encyclopedias, I think. It's a daunting task, but everything's in its infancy. If you need to know anything, do ask, though I can't guarantee I'll know the answer. Cheers.qp10qp 19:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ally Sheedy

I ran to the first person I saw on the 'recent changes' list for articles tagged for spam. There's a serious edit war brewing up at Ally Sheedy, and I don't beleive I'm capable of solving the debate by myself. I might have already broken the 3RR rule! Help me out if you can. - ¡Kribbeh!^Speak!\_Contribs 17:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Bah, sorry for bothering you. Somebody has stepped in. - ¡Kribbeh!^Speak!\_Contribs 17:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ottoman Empire

There is nothing to discuss as the problematic point of the sentence (west-east comparison) is fixed. The culturalist (who thinks ottomns are medivial barbarian empire) approach that blames "Oriental dogmatism" and "Islamic mentality" for the neglect of the scientific and technological achievements in the ottoman empire has been questioned as the collections on this subject are getting richer. For more content on this topic the person(s) or you have to do a library search. This answer cover your interest. Hope I was helpful. Thanks--OttomanReference 16:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] being bold

Often a good thing, although in that particular case I wanted to make sure the order didn't have some internal logic of it's own. I was raised Catholic, but I'm not anymore, and wasn't sure if there was an order the sins were usually listed in. But thanks for changing it - I kind of forgot about it. Natalie 17:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Battle Of Agincourt

I find your version of Agincourt disturbing since it bases it's self on one book by Anne Curry, a book I have read. Near every other book differs to her version, same as most historians, Television programmes on this matter use the numbers (roughly) that I give.

I refer mainly to the numbers of the French, for a start if the French Vanguard is as small as you say, then there would be no tightly packed ranks going into the defile. So the idea that the French were tightly packed going into the English is made up.

I would like to continue this discussion, however I do not have the time right now, until we come to an agreement I shall now alter the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.43.170.96 (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] RE: Agincourt

Thank you for entering into a discussion about Agincourt. However, quite apart from the fact that the numbers used in the article now suggest a range, reflecting the fact that there aren't any definitive primary sources for the numbers, by reverting to a very old version you destroy all the work that has been done on the article since. Also, there are many spelling and grammatical errors in the version you revert to, and many examples of highly dubious claims (e.g. putting up two fingers to the French).

If you particularly object to the figures used, please start a new section on the Agincourt discussion page and we can talk about it, and hopefully reach some community consensus.

Thanks,

If you wish I shall make a list of propsals to change to the current version of The Battle Of Agincourt?

However to the claim of the two finger insult, it is thought by most modern historians that it was used there. But it was not invented there or at any point in the conflict, instead only taken from an old archer insult from centuries earlier and then re-used in the conflict and battle to lure the French to attack the lines with insults and one or two flights of arrows.

Cheers

P.S. Sorry about the spelling mistakes here, in a rush. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.43.170.96 (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Commons:user:merlinme

I assert that I am the same user as Commons:user:merlinme.

--Merlinme 17:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of "polemical" on TGGWS

You asked why Ed removed "polemical". See here. Raymond Arritt 15:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess that explains it. I did find it rather strange how we could have all that discussion (and Uncle_Ed agreed there was a reasonable source), and then goes and reverts it after the page is unprotected. --Merlinme 15:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts by UBeR

Hi. I've had a number of edits reverted by User:UBeR. Most recently, I changed a POV "observed" to "claimed", and the description of Patrick Moore from "environmentalist" (very much disputed) to "environmental consultant". These were reverted. Rather than get into a revert war, I thought I'd point it out to you and see if you thought one version or the other was better.JQ 07:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm afraid I'm going to actually agree with UBeR on this one. Moore's own Wikipedia article describes him an "environmentalist", so that seems fair enough. We've already noted that he now criticises Greenpeace, and if people follow the link they will find out what his current views are (which I guess he would characterise as about 'sustainable development'). As for "claimed" or "observed" that attacks were character attacks and ad hominems, a lot of them were like that, especially at the time the quote is taken from (4 March), which was before the programme had been broadcast and before people had assembled arguments against it. I think if people read the reaction in total, they can draw their own conclusions as to the reliablity of the programme and its maker. --Merlinme 08:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm having more revert problems with User:UBeR. Following up Monbiot's characterisation of TGGWS as a "the same old conspiracy theory", I found out that C4 had broadcast a program with the title "The Global Warming Conspiracy" back in 1990, with many of the same claims (though they've backed down on some points) and speakers. I included this point in the intro, and UBeR deleted it, saying it didn't belong there. I reverted and suggested he move it elsewhere, which he did, with the section heading "Unrelated Trivia". I changed that to "Related Programme", and left it at the bottom of the article where UBeR had put it. He then deleted the section. I'm afraid I find it hard to Assume good faith hereJQ 01:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree with you on this one. The information should go in somewhere. I'm not completely happy with the way it's currently presented, but I don't think UBeR's delete was helpful. If I have time I may try to fit it into the article better.--Merlinme 10:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TharkunColl

Have to go now, but you should check edits by TharkunColl to The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle OldDigger 08:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've been working my way through, it looks like most have already gone, but I'll double-check. --Merlinme 08:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing down

Thanks for taking the trouble to edit the Mark Henderson stuff. I thought it was notable, and couldn't immediately see anything better than dumping it all in. It reads better now, though I'm concerned that readers have to know which claims are being referred to. JQ 10:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No probs- I think my views on TGGWS are fairly clear, however we do have to be careful to be as fair as we can be to both sides. I personally think that anyone who actually takes the trouble to read the article properly can only really reach one conclusion, unless they prefer conspiracy theories to science. --Merlinme 10:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the note

Just a heads up that my substantive response is on my Talk page. RonCram 00:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

		The Original Barnstar
		For painstaking and unfailing attempts to forge consensus in even the most hopeless-looking situations William M. Connolley 21:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just going to drop by and leave a noting thanking you for your efforts on TGGWS when I realised you deserved a bit more than that. I'm also going to back off there a bit for a while and give it a chance to settle down, since I'm better at the science than the politics anyway William M. Connolley 21:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks! I'd like to believe we can write a good article on the programme. As someone who initially found it quite convincing, I think it's important that we write as accurate an article as possible- respecting Durkin's right to start a debate, but also pointing out to the reader that he's talking utter tosh a lot of the time. Hopefully we'll get there in the end... --Merlinme 23:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit]  ?

Why do I have COI editing TGGWS? [1] William M. Connolley 09:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The perceived conflict of interest is in adding (or defending) the reference in the TGGWS article to a blog you had co-written. It's the same as if you were defending a particular quote for use on your biographical Wiki article. Now we both know that everything you helped write in the blog is true, and I'm not sure you do really have a conflict of interest- RealClimate is a good source. But why give anyone ammunition to attack the TGGWS article as biased, or using unreliable sources? Now that even Friis-Christensen has disowned the programme and said "it's obvious it's not accurate", all that's left in the programme is same vague claims about the influence of environmentalists on research funding and African development. I can't think of a single scientific claim TGGWS makes which has not been shown to be wrong, or even falsified. If people trust the Wikipedia article's neutrality, they can read it and reach that conclusion themselves. I want to remove any suggestion of bias or conflicts of interest. --Merlinme 09:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh right - yes I accept the perceived in that case. I read your comment as applying to the entire article William M. Connolley 10:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I've replied to your question on my user page. IMO William has an extreme COI: It's not "perceived" at all. The article about TGGWS on realclimate.org did not actually challenge the facts which the programme presented - just the interpretation of these facts. Any interpretation has bias but most of the realclimate interpretations even lack basic logic - most particularly their ludicrous explanation of the ice-core records (that CO2 feedback was more important than the initial driver) - you talk about tosh; there's tosh for you! - and the unproven, completely guessed aerosol argument to explain the 1945/1975 cooling. Furthermore the minor graphical errors did not change the arguments of the program at all, and Friis-Christensen should surely have seen that the interpretation of his graph was an easy error to make. Please read it again with a more objective eye and then perhaps use that same eye to scan the over-simplifications and downright falsehoods of "Inconvenient truth". This is what debate is about - don't help anyone shut it down. Where does anyone get the idea that only one factor controls climate anyway? Why can't there be several factors, the sun being one of them? Answer - no reason at all! (JG17 17:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Agincourt article

Hi I have deleted the sentence, I wrote it because in an informal talk with French colleagues they all agreed on the research method of Anne Curry, but I have not found any French academic review of her work. As you probably know, there is a striking opposition between mainstream publications, relying basically on narrative and secondary sources, and academic works, with extensive research on documentary sources. That is my point of interest in the Battle of Agincourt article, as you can check I have already written on the problem of the sources for army figures in my article on the Military Revolution As soon as I have time, I would like to write a new chapter about an analysis of the sources for the battle, both narrative and documentary, and I will post there examples of other figures given in documentary records for both English and French armies in the period that show a remarkable consistency and are widely discrepant with the exaggerations of many of the narrative sources.Aryaman13 —Preceding comment was added at 16:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure your intentions were good, and it may well be the case that Curry is proved correct in ten years time. However, we are only allowed to report Verifiable information, and at the moment I am not aware of significant published support for Curry (although I am happy to be proved wrong). The only significant reaction I am aware of (from Barker) is negative, as she questions whether the French documents are complete enough to support Curry's approach.

Could you expand on your point please that "The French figures are consistent with all other documentary evidence for the period about French armies, before and after the battle of Agincourt"? I'm not completely sure what it means; does it mean, (for example,) that Curry's figures are consistent with the size of French armies raised on other occasions? Or does it mean something else (and if so, what?) Again, to be Verifiable, you need to point us in the direction of examples of the documentary evidence you are talking about. Thanks once again, merlin --Merlinme 17:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that "Curry's figures are consistent with the size of French armies raised on other occasions" I will provide examples as soon as I have time to collect them, but I am pretty sure of that since I am familiar with documentary evidence, not only for France, but also for Italy and Spain, and they are all consistant in that, contrary to narrative sources, numbers are very low, very rarely over 10.000.Aryaman13

I have not read the book by Barker, what is the Heraldic source used? I am only aware of Berry Herald, already used long time ago by Contamine, precisely to show that the French army was not so large.Aryaman13 —Preceding comment was added at 08:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the book to hand, but I'll doublecheck tonight. I didn't actually write that part of the article, but from what I remember it is a correct representation of what she says. --Merlinme 08:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have modified the campaign account, hopefully making the movements of both sides more understandable.Aryaman13 —Preceding comment was added at 08:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added a new chapter on the sources, maybe the article should be modified in order to accord the data.--Ignacio Arrizabalaga (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agincourt Campaign

The French actually staked the narrow causeway at Blanchetake, while the fortifications at Amiens ruled out any chance to the English to cross there, so they had to move further south to fing an unguarded ford. As for the numbers for the semonce, they would be under 3.000, even counting the Burgundian noblemen that joined the French just the day of the battle. Mind that these volunteers were commanded basically personal retinues, hastily assembled, the Duke of Brabant, for instance, joined with just 50 men at arms according to the research by Serge Boffa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryaman13 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Losses are very different depending on the source, however it is not surprising a high proportion of noblemen, imagine the event of an English defeat, according to the Gesta there were only about 900 men at arms, but that included almost all the high nobility of the knigdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryaman13 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, possibly. I'd have to do more research on the size of the retinue each nobleman would have had. Curry seems to be virtually alone in putting the English army at much more than about 6,000. So if there were 6,000 English and 12,000 French, then we have odds of 2-1, which is perfectly scary enough when you are tired and hungry. Allowing for a bit of poetic exaggeration, maybe we can get to the estimates of 4-1 or 6-1. Also, maybe the eyewitnesses were comparing the number of men-at-arms? If 6,000 French men-at-arms advanced to fight 900-1,000 English men-at-arms, then that would have given the sense of a very large disparity in numbers. But at this distance in time it's almost impossible to tell. It would take more research. I'd be interested to see that research- but of course, until it's published by a respected historian, we couldn't use it on Wikipedia. ---- Merlinme (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Juliet Barker

I have taken a look at who is she, since I hadn´t read anything from her, this biographical note is from and aditorial she works for http://www.harpercollins.com/authors/29208/Juliet_Barker/index.aspx?authorID=29208

Juliet Barker is internationally recognized for her ability to combine groundbreaking scholarly research with a highly readable and accessible style. Best known for her prizewinning and best-selling book The Brontës (1994), which was widely acclaimed as setting a new standard in literary biography, she is also an authority on medieval tournaments. Born in Yorkshire, she was educated at Bradford Girls’ Grammar School and St Anne’s College, Oxford, where she obtained a doctorate in medieval history. From 1983 to 1989 she was the curator and librarian of the Brontë Parsonage Museum. She has, for many years, been a frequent contributor to national and international television and radio as a historian and literary biographer, and has lectured in the United States and New Zealand. In 1999 she was one of the youngest-ever recipients of an Honorary Doctorate of Letters, awarded by the University of Bradford in recognition of her outstanding contribution to literary biography. She is married, with two children, and lives in the South Pennines.

So, she is rather an amateur in mediaeval history, not really an academic authority the likes of Anne Curry, for instance, that could account for her reliance on narrative sources instead of documentary evidence.--Ignacio Arrizabalaga (talk) 11:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree- while she is a good historian, she is not a medieval historian. However I am not in a position to say that she is wrong. I also think her response to Curry is sensible: a) how do you explain the eyewitness accounts? and b) the French documentary evidence is incomplete. Until a good medieval historian (perhaps Curry herself) answers these questions, I think Curry's work will remain controversial- and we are not in a position to choose who is correct. We should reflect the range of opinions given by historians; i.e. we should reflect that Curry is currently almost alone among historians (certainly British historians) in thinking the French army was 12,000. --Merlinme (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Great Global Warming Swindle

I did state my explanation of the neutrality dispute heading on the talk page. Please re-insert the dispute heading so that I do not have to report this violation to an admin. The Noosphere (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, not really. You said you disagreed with the article as it stands. When disagreeing with long standing, endlessly argued over consensus, you are expected to advance arguments why the consensus is wrong, and win the arguments, before making significant changes to the article. Alternatively, there is a school of thought which says you should make the changes, but then when they are reverted you should discuss before changing again. (Change, revert, discuss, or something like that.) I have no intention of undoing my revert; if you truly think I am violating some Wikipedia policy or other, then of course you can bring it to the attention of an admin, and we can talk about what exactly I have or have not done wrong. Lack of talking seems to me to be the problem with your current style of editing; you make quite radical changes with barely a nod to discussing with other editors. --Merlinme (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stop your bad faith accusations against me

Your allegations that I have had a previous account are hurtful and poison the cooperative spirt of a community-built encyclopedia. It is not suspicious that I would have known about an arbitration against a user dating back before my first edits. Many stories about Wikipedia arbitration have been picked up in the mainstream media. This [2] is one of many from the past week. Please stop reverting my work and please start treating me with the civility expected of all of us as Wikipedia contributors. The Noosphere (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In what sense are they bad faith? You display intimate knowledge of a two year old Arb Comm ruling after five days on Wikipedia? You'll forgive me if I'm suspicious. I'm not exactly the first person to suspect you've edited on Wikipedia before, am I? And the number seems to be growing daily. --Merlinme (talk) 08:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, The Noosphere has been banned indefinitely as a suspected sock. --Merlinme (talk) 08:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] THANKYOU!

Thanks so much for your message in reply to my longbows vs crossbows question. I never read a more informative passage on the subject. You really know your stuff! I can fully understand the power vs rate of fire vs penetration capability (if that sounded a bit wierd, it's because I'm only twelve). It's a bit like comparing an M4 carbine with a bazooka; power vs rate of fire. As a matter of interest, which would you rather be armed with in a battle situation: an English longbow, or a Genoese crossbow? Thanks again, bye.Nelsondog (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Nelsondog

Well, I guess I'd want a longbow, but I'm biased because I'm English. It has a very strong, almost mythical appeal to English people, its thought to be how we won Crecy and Agincourt against the odds (although there's actually some dispute about its effectiveness at Agincourt). The other big difference between a longbow and a crossbow though is that it takes years of training and enormous strength to shoot a heavy longbow. Skeletons of medieval longbowmen are noticeably deformed; basically they had enlarged left arms (which takes the strain if you're drawing with the right arm), and bone spurs on their arms and fingers, caused by the physical stresses involved of practising with such heavy bows all the time. They would have been built something like blacksmiths. The crossbow, on the other hand, uses some sort of winding mechanism, and requires far less physical strength to draw. Also, it basically shoots in a straight line, whereas a longbow takes far more practise to be able to shoot accurately (see archer's paradox. Basically you need to shoot slightly to the left of the target.) So if we were talking about which one I would rather have, as I'm not built like a blacksmith and I haven't practised for years, it would have to be the crossbow! Anyway, I hope you enjoy exploring the various links on the medieval period in Wikipedia, there are some pretty good articles here. --Merlinme (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Late Roman army

RE: your recent edits to Late Roman army. Whilst I welcome all positive contributions, I fail to see how "tirelessly" or "extraordinary eagerness" constitute unencyclopedic language, especially as they are straight translations of wording used in the source, Ammianus Marcellinus. Also, what's wrong with "classic"? Might I suggest (politely) that you limit edits to adding value to the existing text rather than just imposing your own personal preferences as reagrds wording? Fair point about the barbarisation fallacy: but that's because I haven't finished writing that section yet. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What am I supposed to react to, apart from what I'm reading? I'm not psychic; I don't know what the barbarisation fallacy section is going to say, and neither will anyone else. Regarding the Battle of Strasbourg, your section about this is in Late Roman army is two to three times the size of the main article, which strikes me as putting the cart before the horse. Your account is extremely interesting; however, "tirelessly" is nonsensical. No mortal being is "tireless". For that matter, what does "extraordinary eagerness" mean? Was Marcellinus there? Is he talking for the whole of both armies? Or was he using rhetoric, and not expecting it to be taken as a literal account? Above all, please make it clear if it's a direct quote; that way the translation can be verified, and understood as a quote. Regarding "classic"; what does the word mean, exactly, in this context? Is it: "Belonging to the highest rank or class"? Or: "Adhering or conforming to established standards and principles"? Or: "Of or characteristic of the literature, art, and culture of ancient Greece and Rome"? Or: "Formal, refined, and restrained in style"? Or: "Having historical or literary associations"? It's ambiguous. I altered it to mean what I thought was the most likely meaning, i.e. a "classic" Roman army deployment, which is to say, one of their standard forms; a traditional setup. If you think that's wrong, please change it; but don't leave it ambiguous.

If you have a look at my contributions generally you will realise that I do contribute to articles. However I am also a strong believer in copy editing, which is to say making the existing material clearer and more coherent. If you disagree with me- make it clearer and more coherent in your own way. --Merlinme (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battle Of Agincourt

Hello and apologies for the delay re Battle Of Agincourt

Sorry about the lack of updates re the discussion field and will address them asap, is there a wiki function that could tag Currys work as opinion but that refers to the bill of pay receipts as potential evidence and that they could be considered as a reasonable guessitmate for the time? Best wishes Twobells (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have added to your work [hope this is acceptable] 'However, it has to be said that her theory on Agincourt is disputed by the vast majority of her international peers both contemporary and historic.' In Italics.

That leaves the piece in but offers insight as to how her peers view her work. Twobells (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding 'coupe de grace' I am visiting the Royal Armoury soon and will note down as many literary citations as I can once there. Twobells (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I thought italics/ bold was a bit over the top! I think it's reasonable that we make it clear that she's in direct contradiction of other historians, (and contemporary accounts, for that matter), but we can let the reader make up their own mind after reading the arguments. Juliet Barker is the only historian I'm aware of who wrote a book about Agincourt after Curry's book, and I've already quoted her disagreement with Curry at length; the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica is also quoted in this section and contradicts Curry, so we have a reasonable selection of "contemporary and historic" historians' views. --Merlinme (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Agincourt

Hi, I just did not understand that why the edit you reverted is controversial? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Because if you ask six different historians you get six different answers? The numbers in the battle box used to change on a weekly basis until we found the current compromise. --Merlinme (talk) 07:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editor Review

Thank you for reviewing me, and I'd like to address some of the concerns you voiced:

"In particular, you never really even acknowledged that what I was trying to do (limit cultural references to notable entries with verified links to the SDS) made sense."

I believe I really did. My dispute with you was, in my view, not over this point, but over your method for determining it, by requiring something to be on wiki. I in fact voiced, in my first reply on the subject, that I agreed with most of your limits for inclusion - just not the one about needing to be on wikipedia.

"I can agree, to an extent, with your declaration that no episodes or songs be included - after all, most of the time this kind of thing is just thrown around as a "spooky, esoteric term". But if a work is deeply based on the concept, and is not so completely trivial as to basically just be some kid in his garage, it is fair to include it as a reference in popular culture. After all, being the English wikipedia just means we cover things in the English language - it does not mean that we don't care about the non-English-speaking world."

"In the end I had to go and find policies to back me up, at which point you said "We should limit the list to entries that are notable or uniquely interesting, and back these up with sources - I in fact have agreed with this from the start." Well, firstly, you never actually said that from the start, you instead chose to "discuss" the things you disagreed with me on; and secondly, to say that you said this from the start is disingenuous. In your immediately preceding post, you said "WP:Notability does not apply to the CONTENT of an article - only the topic itself"."

"For a good example of where to draw the line, I would say that anything that goes into the details of the concept, and can find professional sources with a quick web search, should be acceptable, song, episode, or not."

"I could only interpret this as disagreeing with me that entries in the cultural references list, i.e. the CONTENT of the SDS article, should be notable. In fact that whole post is a perfect example of how, rather than attempt to understand what I'm trying to do, you listed the ways in which you disagreed with me."

By the definitions of notability given by Wikipedia guidelines, I did not and do not believe we should require that for the section. We can find sources from the creator that something is based on the SDS, but we are simply not going to find widespread reception and coverage on this reference - in fact, in most cases we'd be lucky to find such an amount of coverage on the work itself. If you mean something else by "notable", please clarify it.

"I think generally on talk pages people would appreciate it if you remembered that Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative exercise; we're supposed to be working together to make the encyclopedia better. I would certainly appreciate it if you made more positive suggestions about how we are going to reach a sensible set of guidelines, rather than focusing on how and why you think I'm wrong."

From my viewpoint, I was. I was trying to illustrate the apparent dangers of relying upon wikipedia as one of those guidelines. I agree with your main goal, and once I get some personal tasks done I'll get to work cleaning the section up. I just don't believe in creating a "walled garden" out of wikipedia.

I hope this reply doesn't sound to aggressive, and I look forward to cleaning up the SDS article with you this summer. Cheers!Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 06:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No that doesn't come across as aggressive, I'm sure we can work together. I disagree with you however on notability; I don't see why something which wouldn't be covered in Wikipedia in normal circumstances should get a one line mention in the SDS article. Following the discussion with you I have however slightly modified my view, and I'm prepared to accept that we can include things which, for whatever reason, would meet notability criteria but don't currently have a Wikipedia entry.

Also, I'm a bit reluctant to rely on the author for a reference; yes, the author is the person in the best position to say what's in a piece of his or her work, but apart from anything else, they've been known to lie; I can think of half a dozen examples where authors made a quote up for the press because they thought it was amusing, or they wanted to deny that a song was about X (for example). They don't necessarily qualify as a Reliable Source. The other reason I want to see a third party reference is simply that this is also a better guide to notability; anyone can write a blog about their work, but it may have sold two copies. Something which was reviewed in the national press has a much better claim to be worth recording in Wikipedia. --Merlinme (talk) 07:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Agincourt Compared

Why not include the comparisons to the battles of Taginae and Hizayon? As written, it does not say that all cavalry charges failed against missle-armed infantry? Is it not instructive to note that throughout history, such charges have failed, on occasion, disastrously. Norm mit (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Mainly because, in the absence of a source, I assume you've made the comparison yourself, and remember, No Original Research. However, even if you had a source, I'd be pretty dubious about putting it in. Why exactly are we comparing these particular battles, separated by hundreds of years and with vastly different technology? The logical descendant of the knight is the tank (nearly impregnable to infantry without specialist weapons), and the logical descendant of the archer is the rifleman (ordinary soldiers with a reasonably high rate of fire, very effective from range against lightly armoured targets). So why haven't we listed all the battles in the Second World War where infantrymen were overwhelmed by a tank "charge"? There must be hundreds. Or, for that matter, Alexander the Great and the Romans heavily used cavalry, and used them very effectively as part of combined arms warfare. I'd be very surprised if there weren't a few successful cavalry charges against archers there, but they were routine, so not particularly well remembered. The reason we remember battles like Agincourt is because they were exceptional; at that particular point in history, it turned out that military technology was such that a frontal assault against a prepared position (protected by mud) was futile. In some ways a better comparison would be the tank assaults of World War One; the heavily armoured men-at-arms made their way through a storm of arrows taking very few casualties, but after wading through the mud, buffeted by arrows, a lot of them "broke down" on reaching the other side, and were picked off by the English troops. Selecting these three battles gives the impression to the reader that they were largely identical, and representative of many other examples, and I'm really not sure that is correct. To draw a comparison between Agincourt and the use of anti-tank missiles in the Yom Kippur war just seems bizarre to me, to be honest. --Merlinme (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)