Talk:Gleeman

2007-02-1 Automated pywikipediabot message
--CopyToWiktionaryBot 13:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that's a dreadfully misguided thing, to create pywikipediabot and set it loose. I've never heard of it before, but look what it did! Unfree (talk) 15:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And "be found at either here or here" is bad grammar. Unfree (talk) 15:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Troubadours juggle?
Wikipedia's article on troubadours doesn't say anything about juggling. I"ll try and find some references one way or another. 124.148.82.28 16:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The original line was


 * Similar to troubadors, gleemen were distinguished from other kinds of performers by their ability to juggle


 * I far as I can find, juggling was a less prestigious/lower class thing – troubadours would sometimes be accompanied by jugglers, but they didn't actually juggle themselves. Troubadours appears to be distinguished by their musical and poetic abilities, as per Troubadours. Removed.
 * 124.148.82.28 03:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Because you have a notion about "troubadors", Wikipedia's carefully documented research (assuming it's doing its job) about "gleemen" (likened to them somewhere in print), must go!? Because you've decided one skill was a "lower class thing"? How admirable, you clear-reasoning person! You deserve an opinion column of your own in some worthless tabloid. Tell us how juggling suddenly emerged from the doldrums, and when, and how, at least, and how authoritative your sources, and cite them, and how "gleemen" became something different from "gleemen", by tossing a bowling pin! And if you remove my comment, give a reason, at least. Unfree (talk) 15:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't "Gleeman" deserve a stub?
The way ordinary people I know use the word, "bard", it means what the OED refers to as "Old English gleemen" (the third sense of Bard(1)), but not just Old English ones. This tendency to shove any kind of defining off to Wiktionary, deleting subjects from WP, is misguided, IMHO. "Gleeman" deserves at least a stub, whether WP decides the only thing to be said on the subject rightly belongs in dictionaries or not. Just because dictionaries exist doesn't mean WP should sleep on the job. I've known plenty of great bards, perhaps properly referred to as "gleemen", but to have an article at "Bard" tightly restricted to one rather narrow and uncommon usage, and then to ignore the OED, which says "gleemen" is one sense of "bard", and then redirect "gleeman" off into the wild black yonder, is disgusting. It violates the principle of Wikipedia, that maybe giving anybody an opportunity to edit it is a good idea. That's not the same thing as thinking the same principle applies to everything else, such as dictionaries. It'll be a long time, in my opinion, before there are any decent online dictionaries, especially free ones, unless Merriam-Webster or Random House, or Oxford University Press, or some great lexicographical enterprise decides to shoot itself in the foot, giving away millions of precious man-hours of excellent research and scholarship away for a song, and releasing their marvelous edifice of learning into the skies, so to speak, like a runaway, worthless blimp. Unfree (talk) 15:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)