User talk:Llywrch/Archive1

Hello and welcome! --Dan

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. BTW, nice work on Historia Britonum. Cheers! --maveric149

Thanks for the introductions, people. Sorry to take so long in responding, but my poor social skills tend to carry over from my non-online life. :-(

Right now, I'm just trying to fix the errors that I find, add new articles that appear to be needed, & make sure links find the articles that they are pointing to. And I actually appreciate the small crew who follow behind me and fix my inadvertant spelling mistakes! -- llywrch 22:52 Nov 20, 2002 (UTC)

Spotted your notice of intent on King Arthur. This is a real dog's dinner of a page and try as I might I can't get any shape on it. My problem is I am way too close to the subject, and I have a number of (probably very contentious) views on the subject so I have had to be very hands-off in this respect. Best of luck with it when you get round to it. user:sjc

Actually, sjc, we have talked about this before, & you've already seen my first take on the King Arthur page. But to do Arthur right means that I have to also do a number of related topics right:

Roman History (which I've been trying to work on, & have made some improvements on in specific areas -- but much more needs to be done than I have time or interest to do)
Anglo-Saxon History (this needs much fleshing out, but I think I have some useful knowledge to contribute)
Early Welsh History (which badly needs at least a skeleton to be created -- there are some big holes in the pre-Norman period
Frankish History (mostly trying to fill in some of the gaps & put more of a skeleton there for other people to hang their work on)
Early Irish History

Unfortunately, I may be walking into some brewing fights over religious topics. (e.g., the actual date that St Patrick lived is still under dispute, as much for lack of evidence as over the dogma that Patrick was the first Christian missionary to Ireland.) And I hope that I do not get so involved in explaining the political side that I forget the cultural side. -- llywrch 04:03 Nov 29, 2002 (UTC)

Sorry if I was repeating myself Llywrch, I am spread pretty thin at the moment on a number of topics, not the least of which being trying to get Old English language into some sort of shape. Your framework approach seems an intelligent approach to the problem.

I am beginning to believe that we should treat them as a "number" of different King Arthurs, these depending on who you are and which version you subscribe to; e.g. there are the different historical versions, the mediaeval romantic takes and the different modern interpretations. Maybe this is the way ahead: to subpage from the King Arthur page, see what we end up with and then synthesise from there. user:sjc

(We seem to be reaching the point where maybe I should cut-n-paste this discussion over to talk:King Arthur.)

Sjc, I'll agree with you that the ultimate goal would be to split up the King Arthur page. The question of Arthur's true existence could easily take up a whole article in itself. Add to that the Welsh version of Arthur (which developed independently from the better-known Romance or the much-needed article on the Matter of Britain), modern treatments of the personages from this mythos, as well as treatments of the individual people, places and things ... Well, simply put, we could create a wikipedia on Arthur alone.

However I believe that at this moment, there is just not enough interest to sustain this topic were it disassembled like this into subpages. Heck, my interest on Arthur is more on the historical and Welsh aspects. I am thinking of rewriting the Romance scetion if I get around to doing some further research, & prove to myself that it can be argued that Arthur's reputation reached the rest of Europe without the help of Geoffrey of Monmouth. But were I to do that, then I would need to add articles on Chretien de Troyes & others who appear to have helped in the transmission of this legend. And I'd rather focus on the five areas I've mentioned above. (Not to mention at least a couple dozen articles I've been tempted to write: I've been quiet on topics like Oregon history, Chinese philosophy, early 20th century popular culture because I want to finish the parts I've started first.) -- llywrch 23:45 Nov 29, 2002 (UTC)

First, I am not a Stalinist. Second, if I have to convince you of what happened in Central Africa or Southwest Africa, then you’re ignorant. Third, if you are at all familiar with mainstream scholarship on Chinese history, then I wouldn’t have to convince you that those Free Tibet charges are extremely questionable. Forth, I’m not here to advocate anything.

172

I'm used to these ridiculous charges from the likes of people like you.

User Tannin described them well:

"172, let's not get into a misunderstanding here. I would be the last person to call you a communist. Prior to your arrival, a good many of the history pages were rather shallow things, and showed little understanding of the interrelationship between history (in the traditional "kings and queens of England" sense) and the broad flow of economic change that underpins and (in general) controls the actions of statesmen, generals and inventors. You certainly do not fall into that trap! Your contributions have made significant inroads into the task of describing history as an interacting whole. Several others here have objected to what they see as a "communist bias" in your writing. In large part, these objections stem from two things:

Many people here have spent a lifetime steeped in a rather one-sided view of history - I'm talking about the sort of history that describes the Battle of the Bulge or Second Alamain in loving detail, but relegates Stalingrad to a footnote and doesn't even bother to mention Kursk; the sort of history that thinks Jethro Tull invented the seed drill and therefore we had an Industrial Revolution - and on reading the sort of thing that you write, they (very naturally) tend to say oh, this isn't what I'm used to seeing, therefore it must be wrong. You tend to write large slabs of text which is perfectly comprehensible if one concentrates but far from easy reading, particularly as it is liberally laced with the jargon of political economy. Many people see key words or phrases like "bourgeoise", "hegemony", or "accumulation of surplus" and (a) don't really understand them, and (b) assume that because the two or three Marxist or Leninist tracts they happen to have glanced at are filled with these same words, that the present work is more of the same. "

See my response at Talk:genocide. -- llywrch

I think what you've done History of the Democratic Republic of the Congo made you climb a step to Wikipedia sainthood, but you will be reverted. Ericd

Thanks, but google for llywrch under alt.religion.scientology, & you'll see that while sometimes I do the right thing, I'm no saint. -- llywrch

I will have a look. By the way is the concept of "Terrorisme Intellectuel" common in English ? I feel like writing an article about.

(This is a serious question.) Ericd

I haven't heard of the term before you used it to describe 172. But then again, sometimes I think I managed to single-handedly introduce the British idioms "poseur" & "much thanks" into US usage. I'd advise you to write both an English & French version of the article & link the two together. Go ahead & enrich the English vocabulary! -- llywrch

That's what supposed it's better to use the term in French. In short this is explained on my user page. It's debating whit "you are (ignorant - manipulated - marxist - maoist - trotskist - fascist - ultra-conservative - you can add the one you prefer....)" instead of "You said that and I think you're wrong because....". Of course we all know the earth is flat because Stalin Hitler and Mao thinked it was round :)

Ericd

Eric, I took a look at your user page, & I didn't see anything concerning "Terrorisme Intellectuel". Was I too quick in looking? -- llywrch

It's in User talk:Ericd in my debate with 172.

Ericd

Pretend that you don't know what Texas is. You are sure Lubbock is a town and you don't really care about it, but you want to know where Texas is located; using Lubbock, Texas forces them to go to Lubbock and then to Texas, whereas, using Lubbock, Texas requires only one step. I started using this after noting that not all towns have articles, and thus Sometown, Wherever is completely useless for finding out about the region. Vera Cruz

If you are concerned for making it easier for a user to find information, why didn't you post this response on Zoe's page? I spent more time finding my original question -- in order to be sure i understood your response -- than your hypothetical user did finding an article about Texas. -- llywrch 18:19 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

RE:Roman Consuls

Theres a page with them all on but i dont really understand it not veyr clear, i dont have the link at the moment but i do at my home computer i will give it to you then.

OK, heres teh link: [1]

-fonzy

Also note that some of the current data seems wroing as the list starts in 505 BC when it should start in 509BC.

-fonzy

Fonzy, look at the notes on the first few pairs of officials under the article consul. At the least, there appears to be some uncertainty in the possible date of the first consuls. -- llywrch 05:12 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Llywrch, haven't seen you since the old peat bog days.

Here's what I changed on Krazy Kat:

First mention, in first sentence, went from Krazy Kat to Krazy Kat.
Changed the parent strip from "Dingbat Family" to Dingbat Family.
Changed all subsequent mentions of the strip title from Krazy Kat to Krazy Kat.
Mentions of the character herself left as Krazy Kat.

Reasons:

The style is for the first mention only to be in bold, but it is also style that titles are in italics. When the two coincide, it is bold italics.
Subsequent mentions of article title are in normal type, or, if titles, just in italics without the bolding.
If there had been some other form of the article title mentioned, if the Kat were ever called something else, then that name would have been in bold, the Coconino County Kid. I haven't looked at it, but the article about the strip starring the spinach-eating sailor could have started out thus: Popeye, a popular comic strip also known as the Thimble Theater, starring Popeye, the spinach-eating sailor . . .

Ortolan88 00:32 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

Just out of idle curiosity, why the welsh screenname?jimfbleak 17:42 Mar 23, 2003 (UTC)

Even though I've received not more than 4 emails about it, this is perhaps the most FAQ about me. (Ignoring spam that ask other, more personal questions.)

The story is boring. Back in 1994, when I created my first Interent account, I felt that usernames were akin to nom de plumes, so I tried to select one that I felt I could keep permanently. Unfortunately, my first choice Hebdomeros (from the title character of the painter's Giorgio Chirico's only novel) was too long for my ISP to accept, so I had to quickly think of another username. Across the room I saw the book The Poetry of Llywarch Hen, & quickly butchered Llywarch to fit my ISP's length requirements. I've since kept llywrch as my own Internet identity, using it on my numerous accounts (e.g., at Wikipedia, Slashdot, eBay, etc.) so that people know they are dealing with the same person on the other side of the computer screen.

I could also mention that I do have some Welsh in my background (my father's middle name is Dee), but I have far more German, English & mongrel American ancestors. And no, I do not indulge in what I am told are the three favorite hobbies of Welshmen -- rugby, fighting & procreation -- although my wife might have another opinion about the last. -- llywrch 18:01 Mar 23, 2003 (UTC)

I noticed the following comment that you posted on Wikipedia talk:Timeline standards, then deleted with the remark I'm taking my concern to a higher forum:

I agree with Stan. Egil, you made a decision that reflects poorly on you. I hope Lir/Susan Mason, 172 & Michael all come to afflict your work on Wikipedia. -- llywrch 01:16 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to interpret this? Are these outright treats? Of what sort? It is difficult not to notice the wars going on between some of the people you list in Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, and I'm wondering what sort of culture and what sort of attitudes that seem to have developed within this community. May I be so bold as to suggest that you all sit down for a while and reconsider your ways, before this all ends up in chaos?

All the best from Egil 07:08 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)

Hi there!

Thanks for the exhaustive work. It's what I was planning to do, but have actual responsibilities to my students that need to be taken care of first! BTW, the Wotan thing (almost exactly) is on Prof. Lynn Nelson's web lecture page -- I'm on a mailing list with Prof Nelson, and asked about a source.

If you want to do the insertions, that would be great -- as I've said repeatedly, it's not that the information was bad, I just wasn't sure how someone who keeps claiming language misunderstandings and cultural difference could suddenly come up with chunks of text that were well-written, but not necessarily in the right place. I was uncomfortable with leaving them without checking a couple of texts and it's easier to revert entirely than to pick things apart. Oh -- and if Greg says he was made a consul, I'd just say that. It doesn't have to be true that he was, but if Greg said it, it shows a concept of Romanitas in early Frankish Gaul ... anyway, thanks again for your help! JHK

left you a message. If you still live in your hometown, I'm about 150 miles north! how funny ;-)JHK

Mr. User:Llywrch - Many thanks again for your valued input on Clovis I. There has been a stalemate at List of French monarchs that, as it stands, makes no account for the Merovingians as part of the History of France. I posted all kinds of sources that I felt were most approriate and correct including Britannica, but if you would be willing to lend your same reasoned approch here, I am certain everyone at Wikipedia would be appreciative. I am prepared to accept the numerous teachings/ writings I have already listed plus I would never question a Wikipedia List of French Monarchs in accordance with the way the United States University of Washington is teaching history to its students. If you are willing to assist, please check out the University’s course document titled "France's Kings and Rulers." Thank you, sir. Please have a joyous visit at Wikipedia.

University of Washington:
http://courses.washington.edu/hist112/French%20Monarchs.htm

Thank you Mr. User:Llywrch -- In response to my sugestion we use the list form I gave you from the University of Washington that lists the French monarchs I then suggested a wording of explanation for the article. Ms. JHK then stated: "Perhaps another alternate solution would be to reverse the chronology, with annotations at each segment, explaining the relationship of each dynasty to the one before? By reversing, we could then include Roman rulers, and then step backwards to Gallic chieftains." Thank you, sir. Triton Triton 00:32 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Mr. User:Llywrch, sir, you said: I'm sorry I couldn't respond to you before you were called away from Wikipedia, Triton. If you'd like to continue our conversation when you return, drop me a note on my User Talk: page, & I'll try to promptly pick up the thread of our discussion. Good luck to you! -- llywrch 01:26 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

REPLY: Mr. User:Llywrch, sir, thank you for the above communication which does not refer to either of the specific conversations we have had over Clovis I or List of French monarchs. With respect to Clovis I, in my research I came across several credible items with respect to his crowning and a declaration that states on more than one occasion that the fleur-de-lis was given by Clovis, who is referred to on 10 occasions precisely as the "the first Christian king of France" and also an illustration of the Fleur-de-lis on him as king and what it signifies. As I have promised to deal with the placing the proper facts into the List of French monarchs, all I can do for you now is to take a minute and quickly place a few images into Wikipedia for your benefit until I am able to return to my research on Clovis. With respect to the List of French monarchs, my responses to all questions are on the talk page. Please note that, other than some vague reference in a dictionary in a foreign language that I cannot read, not one party to the discussion has chosen to answer my request for credible and verifiable references to support the statements they have made. Thank you, sir, may the Prophet bless you and your Wikipedia work. Triton 17:59 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

In terms of putting Egyptian monarch succession dates in the decade pages, I'm not sure... there are pretty wide variations in dating between different scholars. Picking one scheme in the article about pharaohs is probably necessary, but actually putting dates in the year pages seems problematic. I don't know. john 06:18 31 May 2003 (UTC)

(further discussion on john's Talk page)

Repost from my talk page:

Just to note, the problem with ancient chronology is not simply "trying to figure out how the source came up with the date." The problem is that they didn't even use a calendar the same way we do, and there's no continuous list of Egyptian monarchs with their lengths of reigns (as there is for Mesopotamia), so a list has to be reconstructed based on some astronomical markers and convergences with Mesopotamian history. Which can be difficult. That's why the 25th dynasty is the first one that can be dated with relative certainty - it was in the period of the Assyrian invasions of Egypt, so the kings can be dated based on the much more solid Assyrian chronology. Shoshenq I's dates do seem fairly solid - I always see him as reigning 945-924 BC. But I don't know that anybody agrees on his successors. I would agree that citing the source and specifically saying that it is the chronology according to that source is a good idea. And again, I think this is a more serious issue for the year pages than it is for the Pharaoh page. On the list of pharaohs, I think it's fine to give conjectural dates (although I think that, even there, a source or sources ought to be cited). I'm not convinced that this is the case for the year pages. I'd also note that Mesopotamian monarchs' dates are much more solid, so that might be a better place to begin with this stuff. john 23:34 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Wait a minute! You didn't see Harvey??? -- Someone else 04:49 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Just joshing<G>. Jealous on the "Don't Worry" thing, though! -- Someone else 05:07 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Mr. User:Llywrch sir, please see that I am paying extra attention to my presentations to have proper English. This means much work but I hope what I write is clear for you. In preparing my work on the List of French monarchs, I have come across more on Clovis I that I knew would be of interest to you.

"A. D. 508. A short time after these events, Clovis received the titles and dignity of Roman patricius and consul from the Greek emperor Anastasius." Walter C. Perry, The Franks, p. 85.
"In 508 Clovis received at Tours the insignia of the consulship from the eastern emperor Anastasius." Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., art. "Clovis," Vol. VI, p. 563.

Mr. User:Llywrch, on the talk pages Archive 3 for List of French monarchs, john said, QUOTE:

"French Monarchs - Getting to more substantive points, I agree with you, Clovis is traditionally regarded as the founder of the French monarchy. Britannica says that, you say that, I say that, JHK says that. The question is: Was he the founder of the French monarchy? That's a harder question to get at, but Britannica certainly doesn't say he was."

I think Mr. john has a valid point that some others did not see the same way I did although some of his later statements appear to contradict himself. There are many credible references, including the Encyclopedia Britannica, that unequivocally states Clovis to be the first king of France but Britannica does leave open the idea that someone before him could be the founder when it says Clovis I was "traditionally regarded" as the founder. This of course fits with the University of Washington’s teaching list that begins with Clodian. You can access the entire Encyclopedia Britannica free for 72 hours but here are exact words from the Encyclopedia Britannica at Britannica.com (2003 edition):

He (Clovis) defeated the Burgundians, 500, fixed his court at Paris, 507, defeated the Visigoths at Voulon near Poiters, 507. At the time of his death he was the sole king of France.
The first of the many French kings to bear the name Louis was actually Clovis (see Clovis). He ruled from 481 to 511 and founded the kingdom of the Franks. Later the “C” was dropped and the “v” was written as “u,” thus making the name Louis. It is the same as the English Lewis and the German Ludwig.

I will have more for you on Clovis I as I find it then maybe a good article can be created. Thank you sir, please have a joyous visit to Wikipedia. Triton 13:44 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hey Llywrch!

Please add your votes to List of French ... JHK

BTW, Perry's book on the Franks was written in 1857 -- a time when fewer sources were available to historians and when historians were less critical in their analysis of their documents. JHK

Yes, I have been editing the battles page, and I have a cable modem. Sorry if I've screwed you up in any way. As far as it goes, early today I'd been going through my Harper Encyclopedia of Military History and just putting down battles. More recently, I noticed you'd shifted the pages around, but not the names (at least for the earlier one), so I changed it. Sorry if I screwed things up in any way. Anyway, I'll wait to do any further editing, if you'd like. john 05:38 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not sure what needs to be done at this point in terms of moving pages around. I thought I got everything. I'm happy to do it if there's more that needs doing. john 05:47 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the Battle of Abrittus/Forum Terebronii. I was following the Harper Encylopedia of Military History. There seem to be more hits on google for "Battle of Abrittus" than "Forum Terebronii" (There were no hits for "Battle of Forum Terebronii", but all the references to just the place name seem to refer to the battle). In any event, this is what the Harper Encyclopedia has to say about the battle:

250-252. First Gothic War. Taking advantage of Roman internal troubles, Cuiva, King of the Goths, crossed the Danube in great force and defeated a Roman army at the Battle of Philippopolis (250). He continued on, penetrating as far as northern Greece. Decius, now emperor, marched against the invaders, and in two campaigns drove them back to the marshes south of the Danube mouth.

251. Battle of Forum Terebronii. Backed into a corner, the barbarians fought desperately. Early in the battle a son of Decius was killed, when one of the emperor's generals - C. V. Tribonianus Gallus - failed to push home an attack that could have assured Roman victory. The Goths counterattacked. Most of the Roman army - save for Gallus's legions - was shattered; Decius was killed while trying to rally his troops. Gallus became emperor, then concluded a shameful peace, permitting the Goths to keep their booty and to withdraw peacefully across the Danube, while at the same time promising an annual tribute in return for Gothic agreement not to repeat the invasion (252). john 00:49 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi, since you've touched List of Republican Roman Consuls the most, I'm have a question about the sources of the names. In particular, fooling around with Flaccus, it seems that a number of sources including 1911EB say there was a Marcus Fulvius Flaccus that was supposed to be the founder of the Flacci(?) and consul in 264 BC, but the closest plausible in our list is a Manius in 265, perhaps a misinterp of an M.? I'm half-inclined to make links out of all the consul names, can use to ensure that everything links consistently. (All this was inspired by finding a long-unnoticed typo in the Roman name list...) Stan 00:32 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanks! Looking at the list you mention, I do see a Marcus in 264, so clearly our list needs a little work! Stan 12:36 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

FOr everybody's info -- The best source (and most authoritative still) for who Romans are and what offices they held is the Prosopographia Imperii Romani (ed. Mommsen et al. IIRC). This should really be the final arbiter, unless there is a more recent and well-argued scholarly source. JHK 17:27 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Re Gaius Caesar, I noticed that too, will get to it. The "common name" approach to Roman names starts to break down when you have more than just the ultra-famous. I'm still thinking about the right way to handle, but am leaning towards using full names for everybody that's not a household name (the average reader will always expect Claudius to be the emperor), and using redirs for all the shorter forms.

PS If you want to fill your talk page, get Harry Potter to "philosophize" on it a bit... :-) Stan 03:45 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up after me on the Republican consuls, I was going to do it myself, but was tired after an hour of Emacs trickery shifting people and dates! Stan 04:29 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hey, I think "Galus" as praenomen is a typo for "Gaius". The only person I can find with the name is C. Sulpicius Galus, consul from 243 BC, but websites often mention him as "Galus Sulpicius", which strongly suggests confusion. Do you have anything in print that you could look at to be sure? Stan 19:02 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hey....I thought you might be interested to know I found another date for the beginning of the Byzantine Empire. In Colin McEvedy's Atlas of Medieval History, he dates it from Heraclius in the 7th century. I guess I'll add that to the Byzantine emperors page too :) Adam Bishop 23:11 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the props on the Measure 5 article! I hope to add more stuff about Oregon. I noticed that Lon Mabon and Bill Sizemore were linked from your user page. I might try to write articles about those two sometime.

Clipdude 21:45 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I've replied on my talk page. -- Oliver P. 05:38 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I pretty much reverted the formatting you did at 1945. Please use the current formatting for other day and year articles. Reason: Not having the day by an entry does lead to those entries getting misplaced under the wrong day - I should know since I'm the number one maintainer of the day and year pages and tried exactly the same formatting idea before. --mav 05:16 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

What you added about Brittany:

In the early Middle Ages, Brittany was divided into three kingdoms -- Domnonia, Cornouaille, and Bro Waroch -- which eventually were incorporated into the Duchy of Brittany

Is this right? Domnonia & Cornouaille sound very like Dumnonia and Cornwall - part of the Brythonic culture but not part of Brittany. Andy G 22:13, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the thumbs up you gave me on my Talk page for the Persian stuff I've been working on. I'm hoping to spend some more time untangling some of the confusion there, and then start working on adding to the material. You should know, though, that it's those templates templates on the Roman Emperors, in particular, which drew me to Wikipedia in the first place. The ease of flipping through the Roman Emperors one after gave me a couple days of compelling reading, and I've been messing around ever since. Thanks again. Justin Bacon 04:28, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on Prince Valiant, gives me a reason to go looking for those I guess! (also answered on my talk page, nothing important) OlofE 07:40, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi Llywrch, it doesn't seem that Nestorianism and Monophysitism came after Pulcheria...Nestorius, at least, was a contemporary, and the Nestorianism and Monophysitism articles say both were condemned at the Council of Chalcedon, which she helped organize (though that article is pretty stubby and doesn't mention either). That is also the understanding I got from the Byzantine history textbook I tend to use for Byzantine articles. Have I misunderstood something somewhere? Adam Bishop 04:00, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, you definitely have a better understanding of this than I do, so I'll defer to your expertise :) I guess it's kind of the same as Christianity in general not really developing until years after Jesus was killed. Adam Bishop 19:01, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)