User talk:Clio the Muse/Archive 2

Utilitarianism
Hi. Thank you for your answer to my question at the reference desk. Your answer to my question was very useful, and from it I have been able to have a good think about how to approach the essay. I am not used to writing this type of essay, and indeed we are given very little guidance full stop on writing essays, so I am a little unsure on how to structure my essay and what material to include. I wonder if you feel that my next paragraph constitutes an appropriate structure/approach for this essay?

I presume that the first part, as you stated in your response to my reference desk question, is to decide on and discuss whether the statement is actually an accurate criticism or not (whether I agree with it or not). Do I look at whether this is actually a problem for utilitarianism, and if so what the consequences are (for example, lack of human rights, etc.) - how severe these consequences are, whether they undermine utilitarianism as a philosophy, and what the possible responses that utilitarianism may have to this criticism are, perhaps how utilitarianism may be adjusted to counter this problem?

Does this seem like the right direction to go in to answer this question? Like I say, I have no real essay writing experience in this field, so I don't want to set off in the totally wrong direction. Once again, many thanks for your help. --TP86 16:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am so glad to be of some help to you, TP86. Yes, indeed, I think you are beginning to penetrate the real heart of the issue.  Is a system of mechanical ideas, like utilitarianism, really appropriate in dealing with the problems of the modern world?   How would it be possible, given the complexity of contemporary society, to weigh and measure what a collective good is in the fashion described by the utilitarians?  Just imagine, moreover, how notions of such  a 'good' would operate in nations which are not liberal democracies but are still not outright dictatorships like, for example, Iran. You might also consider the utilitarian way of looking at issues of social policy, and personal ethics, as a form of intellectual arrogance, that simply takes too many things for granted.  Finally, and perhaps most important, ask yourself how your answer to be pitched.  If it is for a history or a social policy class you will need to focus on practical implications and examples.  If for philosophy then you will obviously want to place your greatest emphasis on the intellectual and moral implications of utilitarian though.  Can human rights, and personal responsibilities, in other words, be weighed and calculated?


 * It's a pity that you have not been given guidance on how to write essays; but there is no great secret here. My advice to you is to keep it simple, and do not lose sight of your fundamental point.  Think of who you are writing for, and what you mean to say.  Speak directly and with authority.  I've seen too many people fall in their attempts at artificial sophistication.  I do not know how much time you have left, but I will, if I can, give you further guidance if this should be necessary.  In the meantime I wish you the very best of luck.  Clio the Muse 18:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello. Thank you once again for your response to my question. Editors like you are a great credit to Wikipedia. I am actually writing the essay as part of a jurisprudence course, in turn part of a law qualification. You made a good point about the need to relate it to the subject being studied; perhaps I need to give my essay more of a legal slant than I was intending. Also, in answer to your comment about how long I have left, the deadline is the 1st May, but I am attempting to get it as far as possible in my Easter break, which runs until Friday 13th April. In addition, I have another essay (on another subject) due when I return from my Easter break, so as you can imagine I really need to make some significant progress with this current essay in the next few days.


 * You raised some very interesting ideas in your response to my last post; in fact although I was originally wondering whether I would have enough content to fulfil the 2,500 word limit, I am now wondering if I have too much! However, while I can recognise that the ideas you raised are clearly trenchant criticisms of utilitarianism, I am not sure quite how to link them into the statement that I am responding to/discussing: "Utilitarianism can only ever lead to the treatment of individuals as means rather than ends in themselves."


 * My interpretation of what the statement is suggesting is that the "end" which utilitarianism is working towards is an abstract notion which fails to recognise the autonomy of individuals and the intrinsic value of human life. The theory aims for increases in "general happiness", even though the means to these increases may be imposing significant suffering on particular individuals. The theory does not have individuals in mind when it contemplates the end of an action, merely some abstract notion of "the greatest happiness", yet the consequences of the actions which are undertaken to lead to this end can have severe implications for particular individuals.


 * Is this a correct interpretation of what the statement is getting at? If so, my next step (if I am to agree with the statement) is to consider what the implications of such a lack of recognition of individual autonomy: for example, there may be no recognition of the existence of "human rights" and principles of "justice", for example that the punishment should fit the crime or that only the innocent should be punished, are undermined. The response to this is that liberty generally maximises utility anyway (a theory put forward by Mill), so any risk of gross infringement of liberty is actually only theoretical. Does this seem to be on the right track? I am unclear on how the criticisms that you have made relate to this. Is it because I have misinterpreted what the statement is suggesting, or am I simply missing the link?


 * Once again, many thanks. I really appreciate your advice. TP86 14:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, TP. Thank you so much for your positive comments.  It is a delight to read what you have written above, because you have clearly reached deep into the inner core of the subject, so to speak.  Thank you also for telling me that this assignment is for a jurisprudence class, because I now know exactly where your professor is coming from.  The reference to Kant should really have alerted me to this before now, but the relevant text, the point of departure if you like, is A Theory of Justice by John Rawls.  Do you have this?  If not you should try and get hold of a copy.  A word of warning, though: at almost six hundred pages it's a bit of a tome.  I suggest you do as I did as an undergraduate, dissect the relevant sections by means of the index, and discard the rest!  I'll try my best to summarise his argument contra utilitarianism.  The most important point to hold in mind is that he takes a stand on what he calls 'Justice as Fairness', a quite different way of looking at issues of law, right and morality from that of the utilitarians.


 * 1. The distribution of benefits and burdens.


 * The concept of maximum utility, and the distribution of benefits and burdens in society, is a violation of the basic principles of justice. Here Rawls gives the example of slavery, which could quite easily be held to maximise utility, and provide a common 'good' that defies justice, and to which the utilitarian can provide no effective response, a response that would harmonise with the basic principles of their theory.  Individuals can choose to distribute their own personal benefits and burdens, but this cannot acquire a collective significance.  To do so would mean treating a whole society as if it were an individual.


 * 2. Distictions between people


 * Utilitarianism transforms multiple desire systems into a single collective 'ideal.' Maximum utility therefore demands the viewpoint, as Rawls puts it, of the 'perfect legislator.'  A single system of desires, and a single concept of good, therfore operate to decide on the allocation of benefits and burdens.  This is in clear conflict with common notions of justice, because a Utilitarian society will inevitably choose one desire system over another.  Making no distinction between individuals means that people are inevitably treated as means, not ends.


 * 3. Satisfaction of desires 


 * How is satisfaction measured? In other words, is there a common threshold, or are there differing degrees of intensity in satisfaction?  Common notions of justice would also militate against the satisfaction of all desires, desires commonly understood as perverse or harmful.  But under utlilitarianism sadistic impulses would have to be taken into consideration in the overall calculus of utility.  A system in which the satisfaction of all desires is maximised has to be in clear contradiction to what we understand to be basic human rights.  To reconcile utility with justice would mean sifting through individual desires to isolate and exclude the bad, which would, in practice, make a clear nonsense out of the whole theory.


 * Rawls' whole critique is ultimately based on Immanuel Kant's observations on the philosopy of hedonism, from which the utilitarians take their point of departure. Kant argues that notions of collective happiness actually devalues the individual it is supposed to benefit.  In other words, if individual actions are motivated solely by notions of some abstract collective good, then each person is reduced simply to, what might be called, 'a utility value', and only a utility value.  They are only good only insofar as they can be used.  It would be possible to sacrifice individual after individual, conceivably without limit, in the pursuit of some greater good.  And this is no abstract danger.  When Eric Hobsbawm, an English Communist historian, was asked if the Soviet experiment had lived up to the promise of creating an ideal world would the loss of millions of lives been justified, he replied 'Yes', without hesitation or reflection.  In a world driven by utility justice, and universal moral law, ceases to have meaning and application.


 * Anyway, that's it; that's enough! I hope you are not overwhelmed by all of this.  I was going to suggest that you might care to make a comparison between the system of total observation that forms a part of Jeremy Bentham's concept of the Panopticon and the society Zamyatin creates in his novel, We, but I think you probably have quite enough to go on with.  All the very best, and have a Happy Easter.  Clio the Muse 23:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks so much for your help. I really don't know how I managed to miss Rawls: as soon as you mentioned him I started noticing that he had been referred to in many of the articles and books that I had read as part of my research. I suppose that I had just done so much reading that I was overwhelmed and could not see the wood for the trees. Your response really helped me to pick out what was important and to plan a structure for my essay and decide what to include.


 * When I asked for help at the reference desk I hadn't written a single word of my essay and I hadn't a clue how to get started. I thought that I would have nowhere near enough material. Now I have almost finished my essay and rather than having too little as I thought I would, I actually could easily have written an essay of double the required length! Your help really was invaluable, thank you so much. TP86 11:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, shucks! I thank you for your kindness and courtesy, TP, and I'm truly glad to have been a help to you.  All the best.  Clio the Muse 15:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Schopenhauer
"It is only a man's own fundamental thoughts that have truth and life in them. For it is these that he really and completely understands. To read the thoughts of others is like taking the remains of someone else's meal, like putting on the discarded clothes of a stranger." (Arthur Schopenhauer)

In the book where Schopenhauer wrote that, he also wrote that it was good to read books only to find in the books the same ideas that you yourself already had before and confirm those ideas. I was glad to read that, since I had had this same idea myself.

You read too much, Clio the Muse. I can say that because I read your userpage and some of your contributions to Wikipedia. You know far too much information for someone your age and you probably don't know well your own fundamental thoughts. People who read too much don't have the time to think. A.Z. 03:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a joke, right? This has to be a joke!  Is, perhaps, Mao Zedong reminding me that 'To read too many books is harmful!  I have no idea who you are, nor do I wish to know.  Please do not presume to patronise me, whoever you are, and I need no advice from you on reading or thinking.  While I have no wish to be unkind, I would suggest that you learn to understand English just a little better before you try to hand out advice of any kind, to anyone on any subject.  Any future 'wisdom' from you will be automatically removed.  Clio the Muse 05:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really know if the following reply is "wisdom from me".


 * I would really like to understand English better, Clio the Muse, and people quite often offer me help with that instead of telling me to go away somewhere else to study English and to only come back when I "understand it a little better". You do understand English quite well and you would be capable of helping me on learning it, but you will not do that for some reason, will you?


 * What I wrote is not a joke. It is supposed to be constructive criticism. I believe Mao Zedong used to burn books and did not let people choose what to read. I am far from agreeing with him on that. I do not burn books, but I do not start reading all of them and spending all my time with this. I like to think for myself as well.


 * I only quoted Schopenhauer because I thought if you saw that he agrees with me you would give my advice some credit, but I see that even when it is a "man you admire" who says that you are wrong, you just ignore it. A.Z. 06:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And you can delete everything I wrote if you wish. I won't complain about that. It is your talk page and you have that right. Just so you know, I felt really bad when I read the things you wrote. You were really rude. No one has ever been that rude to me on Wikipedia. I did not mean to ever be rude to you and I am sorry if I have been. I hope you continue helping people on the reference desk, as you have helped me some times. Thank you, good bye and good luck. A.Z. 06:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, OK, I've now restored the entire thread with this additional comment. First and foremost, I am sorry if I hurt your feelings, but you simply have to be a little more robust. Read again what I wrote on the RD talk page: it was not an attack on you personally; I was merely making fun of your attempted comparison between some of the boring silliness which appears from time to time on the Humanities Desk with, of all things, Socratic dialectics. That simply demanded a humorous retort. Second, you really have to be careful in your choice of words. I read avidly, I have since I was a little girl, but I do not, nor have I ever, based my thinking on that of others, even much admired writers like Schopenhauer. I have always thought for myself, first, second and last, and I have a quick and original mind. What you wrote above was presumptious in the extreme, and you should have thought much more carefully about what you really wanted to say before coming here. Nobody likes to be patronised and I, in particular, react badly to this masculine conceit. Anyway, it's over. I will help you in any way I can, as I did with your question about Agnes of France. But do not come here looking for lengthy debate on nothing in particular, or for personal advice, because you will not get it from me. Clio the Muse 00:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The same way your remark on the RD talk page was not supposed to be a personal attack, my post here was not supposed to be patronising. I just do not clearly understand what is it that I would like to say to you, which makes my post, as you say, an attempt to start a debate on nothing in particular. A.Z. 01:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Come back at any point if you need some specific information. In the meantime, please look up 'patronising' in the dictionary, and then read again at what you wrote at the outset. I'm sorry; that sounds, well, patronising; but there is no other way to express this. Clio the Muse 01:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense fun
"Let's I um, echo!" or "Touche!, smile ;-)" or "She oil me cut :-))" or "Me? Ethic soul." selected from here. :-) ~ hydnjo talk    06:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * He, He, He! So many!  I like Such omelet I, Come sleuth I, and Coil the Emus; but my favourite has to be Come he I lust!  Thanks for raising a smile, hdynjo, and a Happy Easter to you and Heidi, from Anastasia, who is also known as Clio the Muse 07:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Email Address
Hey intelligent Clio. Are you a member of Mensa? I spaced out "Alfred"'s email address, further up the page. Don't think he wants too much spam if a web crawler picks his address up.martianlostinspace 12:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

(If you aren't a mensa member, you should be.)martianlostinspace 12:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, charming martian. No, I am not a member of Mensa; I just soak up information like a sponge and, like Napoleon, my mind has many mansions! Clio the Muse 14:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, it's often been said that the only really intelligent person in Mensa was the one who figured out you could charge fifty bucks a year for a card that says how smart they are.... Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is so very true, Ten! Moreover, their puzzles, a la Hans Eysenck, are terribly boring.  Clio the Muse 15:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

muir's the man
hi clio, hope i've came to the right bit to thank you, i usually just reply on the oringinal question, but have found this and hope its the correct place. Just wanted to say thanks v much, think edwin is the right one after looking at his entry, and i will try and chase up some of his work, not surprised that it's the muse of poetry wot found de answer, thanks again

p.s. agree about FK's 'castle' read 'the trial', 'america' and the castle one after the other (yes, very surreal) and defo enjoyed 'the castle' the most —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.188.254.82 (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC). oops -abe-195.188.254.82 14:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You have indeed come to the right place, Abe, and I thank you for your very kind response. I have, in fact, read all of Kafka; but The Castle is a particular favourite.  Clio the Muse 15:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Jah-blahbulon?
Clio, dear! Loath as I am to ever criticize you, out of respect for your knowledge base so much broader than my own, I had to take exception to the content and tone of your remark on the Freemasons, in this Humanities Ref Desk query ("Jahbulon", April 13, 3.10). I realize I may suffer from a "champion-the-underdog" complex typical of [some of] us Yanks, but have come to be so "spoiled" by the prodigious generosity of your responses (of which April 11, 1.7 "How Long was the Holocaust?" is an outstanding example, and a "keeper" :-), this one caught me off guard. IMO, it ill becomes you, and this place. -- Yours truly, Deborahjay 15:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Deborah, just a little bit of fun, and a counterpoint to the absurd suggestion by the questioner. Clio the Muse 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh! Errr.... hmmmm...."Fun"... "Fun? what-is-'fun'?" (Line from a vintage TV advertisement for Yamaha motorcycles.) Well, then, I did try my bit, with The Cask of Amontillado—showing what we once-upon-a-time Lit. majors can come up with in a pinch. Fair? -- Deborahjay 19:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair! Clio the Muse 19:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal questions on Humanities RefDesk
Greetings Clio, I am glad you had an opportunity to review the question and decide whether and the extent to which it was appropriate. I did not feel comfortable entirely deleting it, but I also did not feel it was appropriate to leave entirely out in the open either. Please accept my sincere apologies if my actions appeared officious or overreaching in any way. Best regards. dr.ef.tymac 19:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * So it was you, naughty boy! There is no problem, and the general principle you clearly applied, Dreftymac, was quite correct.  I did feel, though, that some response was warranted, for reasons of simple fun, if nothing besides.  Love Clio the Muse 19:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Odd remark
Hello, Clio the Muse.

When a felon's not engaged in her employment and goes off to edit Wikipedia, strange things sometimes happen. This enigmatic response mystified me somewhat. Some possibilities that occurred to me are:
 * It was some sort of slur against policemen.
 * It was some sort of slur against me.
 * Both of the above.
 * It was something else entirely.

I’d be grateful if you could shed some light on this.

For the record, I have never been associated with the constabulary, except for receiving a handful of speeding and parking fines.

Cheers -- JackofOz 02:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You've got me bang to rights, guv! I will say in mitigation that I was simply flagging up my previous link between masons and policemen.  I should stress that I have nothing against either: it's merely my impish sense of humour at work.  It would, however, make me feel bad if in any way you really though it a slur against you, because, well, I like you; really I do!  Will any of this have any bearing on my likely sentence?  Clio the Muse 05:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I wasn't sure, which is why I thought it best to check. I somehow failed to notice the previous link (I can't blame my glasses because my new ones are only 3 weeks old).  Anyhow, thanks for the quick response.  Cheers.  You are free to go now.   JackofOz 05:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)   (Mickey, follow that woman and see where she goes.  If she calls into Louie's place, call me immediately.  And you, Phil, have her place bugged)


 * What a relief! From Machine Gun Molly, who in some quarters is also known by the alias Clio the Muse 07:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

On the Humanties Reference Desk
On the Humanities Reference Desk, your answer means Archimedes did not have a surname. Surnames did not exist in ancient times. "Although the Romans started to differentiate people from about 300BC by a combination of given name, family name and clan name, the practice vanished with the fall of the western Empire. It was not until the early Middle Ages that surnames started to come into widespread use." When you said "the practice vanished with the fall of the western Empire", do you mean the use of the surnames vanished and reappeared in the early Middle Ages for widespread use. Do you mean in the Dark Ages, people did not use surnames?69.218.220.86 12:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello and welcome to my talk page. Yes, that is exactly what I meant.  However, you will get more detailed information on this whole subject in the Wikipedia page on Family names.  In addition to this here is a copy of an answer I gave earlier this month which has some bearing on the subject.  My best wishes.  Clio the Muse 18:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a fascinating and fairly complex issue, Krikkert. By and large I think Utgard Loki has provided a fairly comprehensive answer to your question-and flagged up some of the difficulties involved, but I have one or two supplementary comments. My remarks, moreover, focus solely on the practice in the Anglo-Norman world, which, I think, is that in which you are specifically interested. In the examples you have given the 'de' does indeed denote noble origin, and is the Norman-French equivalent of the German 'von.' Every nobleman or knight in Medieval England and France would carry this as part of their name, and it most often refers to a castle or the demesne that they either owned, or where they were born. Take the single example of John de Balliol, the founder of Balliol College, Oxford, and the father of the Scottish king John Balliol, whose family originated from Baillel-en-Vimeu in Flanders. Over time these place name origins simply became family names. Peasant names, on the other hand, were determined on a quite different basis. To begin with they would simply be known by their Christian names alone. To distinguish a particular 'John' or 'Jane', especially in legal documents, variations would be introduced, like John son of Robert, which in time would become Robertson or Robinson. Or they may have been called after a specific geographical feature close to where they lived, like John Hill or Jane Forest. They might also simply be known by their occupation, like John the Weaver or Jane the Spinner, or even simply by nicknames based on their appearance, like John Small or Jane Long. In the Gaelic world John, or Iain, to be more exact, would simply be known by the name of his father, becoming Iain McDonald or MacDonald, meaning Iain son of Donald. So, in conclusion, the naming of ordinary people breaks down into four basic elements: patronyms, place names, occupational names or descriptive names. Clio the Muse 17:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

George Seldes
Reviewing your list of favorite books- and thanks for the tip on the bio of Stalin (I'm currently reading 'Let History Judge' by Roy Medvedev)- I noticed your love of the 'Oxford Book of Quotations' so I thought I might mention another book in case you haven't seen it. It was assembled by a man that lived close to where I grew up named George Seldes and is titled 'The Great Thoughts.' He corresponded with Einstein, Shaw, and extensively with Freud, shared a hotel with Hemingway during the Spanish Civil War, met Hitler before WWII, countless others. He read thousands of books and countless other documents and took 30 years to complete the book. What's amazing to me is that he started late in life. He spent 30 years working on it- finishing it at aged 94. He lived 10 more years- into my own time. I called his house, hoping to meet him, wanting to make a bridge to the past with my own life, and talked to his nurse. He died a week later and I never got the chance. This belongs to another age- the age of individual genius. It should give you a better idea of what you yourself are capable of. DeepSkyFrontier 19:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your very kind words, DeepSkyFrontier, both here and on the Humanities Desk. No, I have never come across Seldes; but I will now make a point of looking for The Great Thoughts in our library here.  What a pity you just missed a personal encounter with him.  I can imagine how fascinating that would have been.  My sincere thanks for this information.  Clio the Muse 19:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a question - only thanks to User:Clio the Muse
Thanks User:Clio the Muse for your help to write my article about de:Algernon Sidney. I've named you here. You be right, it was a large theme and at the end of the writing competition I wasn't ready. But now it's up to the others to make article still better ... Cordially Johannes -- jlorenz1 12:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My sincerest thanks, Johannes. Clio the Muse 15:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Lenin
You are absolutely incredible! I am absolutely speechless. Thank you very much for your effort. Oh, and by the way - maybe you already know - we're hosting the European Football Championship in 2012 :) All the best to You! --Ouro (blah blah) 11:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You are really nice! Who knows? Maybe I'll see you in 2012. I do not particularly like soccer; but my boyfriend does!  Clio the Muse 14:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Drop me a line around this time in 2012, and we'll make arrangements. It'd be nice. Just don't forget about it :) --Ouro (blah blah) 15:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I promise I won't! Clio the Muse 15:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

and i you
ditto clio, you where very helpful with my poet question, even thou i was v vague (muir's the man) i posted questions as abe before (can u beleive that there is already a user called abe normal!) Hope my comments on the ref desk are taken the way i meant, as i truely mean wot i said about enjoying the desk entries, they can sometimes lead to an unexpected corner of knowledge and for the desk to become too rigid and formal would take that away i feel. have to run, tis louseing time at t'factory n i have an excited 3 year old to see about her first day at nursery Stay Golden Perry-mankster 16:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, Abe, sorry, Perry-mankster! I will always endevour to help you where I can, and I do appreciate your positive comments.  I agree that the best format for the Reference Desk is loose and informal, knowledgeable and witty, when that ideal combination can be achieved.  I have bright blonde hair, so staying golden is not too much trouble for me!  Clio the Muse 22:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Amazing! I always pictured you with jet black hair, Clio.  My illusions have been shattered.  :)  JackofOz 10:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup. Me as well. Brunette. Must be the Greek image your pseudonym conjures. I'm making no jokes about Greek women now, despite the temptation to comment about moust stop it Dweller . --Dweller 10:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, guys; Anglo-Saxon in attitude and appearance: merely a pale(ish) shadow of the Greek ideal! Clio the Muse 16:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dang, inspite (or because?) of the conservative persona I always detected a confrontational note and had something like this in my visual mind. ---Sluzzelin talk  13:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Having now composed myself, recovering from fits of laughter, I can tell you, Sluzzelin, that my mother would die of shock and my father would disown me if I came home looking like that! This is much more me  Clio the Muse 13:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of "Drunken" in the middle age
Hi Clio the Muse, there is an user in the german wikipedia, who believes nothing. For example: sodomie in the article Titus Oates has the meaning of homosexuality - see explanation in en:Sodomy citation: "In the Middle Ages, the terms "sodomite" and "buggery" were defined as homosexual practices, and the arguably gay Richard I of England was ordered by a priest to keep in mind "the sin of Sodom".I've had too many sources for my article, but I'm sure that drunken in the middle ages has had the meaning of godless or blasphemy, but I can't find a source for this. Do you know one? Thanks -- jlorenz1 23:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC) s


 * Sorry, Johannes, I am not familiar with this usage. The word had very much the same meaning in the Middle Ages as it does today, and comes from the Middle English 'dronken'.  The poet Chaucer has a reference to a man being as 'dronke' as a lord, an expression that has passed into everyday usage.  Perhaps you may be thinking of the relative closeness between 'sot', from besotted, and 'sod', from sodomite?  All I can really suggest is that you look out a copy of A Dictionary of Medieval Terms and Phrases by Christopher Coredon and Ann Williams and see if that takes you any further forward.  And finally please beware of that badly worded statement about Richard I.  If you read the article on the king, particularly the section dealing with his marriage, you will see that the matter is not quite so straightforward.  Clio the Muse 00:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * sorry, it was not my intentention to say something wrong. The quote above is only a part of an English Wikipedia article, that wasn't wrote by me. I think, for example drunken of love must exists in English too... -- jlorenz1 22:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You have absolutely no need to say sorry. The error-or misinterpretation, to be more exact-lies in the Wikipedia page itself.  The English expression you are looking for would be 'Drunk on love.'   Clio the Muse 08:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Clio
Your skills (and, erm, library) are needed! Reference_desk/Humanities --Dweller 09:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Alas, dear Dweller, Clio has spent most of the day at the King's Head Tavern with the Green Ribbon Club, in the company of Shaftesbury and Titus Oates! I did see the question, and a limited response has now been lodged.  But, to be perfectly honest with you, this is one of those impossibly open-ended requests, worthy of a PhD in itself; and that, even for me, is simply a bridge too far!  Clio the Muse 16:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

muir might not be the man after all
hi clio have so far failed to find that poem, granted i have only tried on-line and within my own modest library, have not had time to check out the public library so i might prevail yet! did come across a few JS poems, one i think called 'judgement' (or some such) regarding good and evil and the penalitys associated with them, a poem quite apt in today's climate esp after the horrendous events at VT. managed to get myself blocked, hope it wasn't for my input on the ref desk discussion, vranak did not seem to take to me, have decided to stop being so frivolous with my answers as prosribed by wiki standards, perry you naughty naughty boy!! i am in chastisment.

as if more evidence was needed to dispell the myth that blondes are 'airheads' surely you provide it on a daily basis.

anyhoo must dash, the games afoot, what. and t'factory foreman will be around to see if i've made my quota of t'bobbins for t'market, must stop this t'nonsensePerry-mankster 10:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that feedback, Perry. Keep looking: who knows what you might yet discover.  If I myself ever come across a specific text I will be sure to let you know.  I'm sorry you were blocked, but please hang around, and continue to pose challenging questions.  It can, indeed, be a fun place.  At all times stay cool, Perry; stay cool!  Love.  Clio the Muse 16:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

aye is the fonzPerry-mankster 08:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Then you know that 'cool is an art'. So says KC or Clio the Muse 08:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

p.s. still not sold on the idea that you are blonde, methinks the lady doth jest x

i'm no kin to the monkey/the monkey is no kin to me...shoot me now, so that i may suffer no longerPerry-mankster 08:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ha! Ha! No monkey, you!  Anyway, really and truly blonde (far, far lighter than KC!).  Who knows?  I may post a picture one day! Clio the Muse 08:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Posting a picture..., now that poses a very good question, as i have built a mental picture of the fair lady in my head do i want to see what she truly looks like? and reality being what it is (or not) i am not all that sure that you would post a true picture of yourself, you are a scamp clio and i am sure that one of your blonde friends would act as subsitute...but on the other hand most of the male population of the ref desk are awaiting the post and far be it for me to dare question a lady..., here is hopeing one day...Perry-mankster 09:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it might be best, Perry, if I left you with your ideal of me, imp that I am! Clio the Muse 09:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

i now have all the XY of the ref desk currently hating me, if only i had kept quiet... i have no access this weekend and must now go and earn a crust, i have started editing my user page so if you are bored, have a looksy see you mondayPerry-mankster 10:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you improve the common articles?
Hy. first of all let me tell you that i am truly impressed by the knowledge you seem to have about history. BUT I noticed that you content yourself in merely answering the questions in the refereneces desk. While I myself probably am not the best example (in improving articles in Wikipedia) I can only urge to select a few favourite topics and slowly improve the correspondig articles. Only to answer the questions seems to be a waste of your capacities. (most of them are evident cases of simple lazy ignorance - most answers can be easily found through Google). Flamarande 00:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Flamarande. Have a look at my user page; you will find a headed explanation there.  It has been suggested by others that I edit mainpages, but, to be quite frank, I have no wish to be submerged, or have my writing subject to the ever-present dangers of bowdlerization.  On the Humanities RD I can contribute, direct and instruct in the most useful and meaningful fashion, free of the dangers of edit creep.  All the best.  Clio the Muse 00:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

my name escapes me
thanks dave, i mean clio, the above applies to my memory, love the picture Perry-mankster 08:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Perry. Which picture?  Clio the Muse 09:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 'the birth of venus' - Sandro Botticelli c. 1485 - 1486


 * or 'the naked dave, ablutions' - Clio the Muse c. yesterday —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Perry-mankster (talk • contribs) 11:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Of course; thanks! Clio the Muse 13:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Too slow...
I already saw the gross personal attack on my watchlist. I have reverted User talk:Loomis51 back to his request to depart, and protected it, and I was in the process of writing the notification on WP:AN/I for it when I received your message. Loomis can contribute civilly or not at all; he will not be allowed to lob abuse from the gallery. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You really are quick on the draw! Clio the Muse 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Pommy > Limey
Hello to you too Clio. Thanks for recognising my antipodeality (!) in your limey > pommy change. This is especially significant on what some Australians think is our real national day. Cheers. PS. Is Acne the Muse really your cousin, or did I just hear that rumour somewhere? :) --  JackofOz 01:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Merely a rumour, Jack. However, I will introduce you to one of my eight sisters, if you like!  I think Euterpe might suit you best.  Anyway, let me take this opportunity to wish you and yours a very happy Anzac Day.  Clio the Muse 01:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Australia salutes you.  JackofOz 09:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just noticed that Euterpe's son is a monkey. Not quite sure where that places you in the evolutionary tree, Clio. :)  JackofOz 06:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The spirit of fun and mischief, as well as the muse of history; and I just love being aunt to the Monkey King One of my sons-yes, I have two of them, at least according to some-is Hymenaios, the god of marriage and song.  Now you know why so many marriages end in disaster!  Clio the Muse 07:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Smartest man
Hi, Clio; I think your first response is a bit in bad taste, would you consider removing it? In particular, I think remarks like that make it tough for us female editors to justify our protests of the casual sexism against women that occasionally crops up on the RD boards. Anchoress 06:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I was aiming at a little light irony, and I think the term 'bad taste' is far too strong. I react badly, I admit, to latent sexism of any kind, and I always try to confront males with their misconceptions and misuse of language.  However, I take your point, and will remove the words in question.  Clio the Muse 07:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I totally get what you're saying, but unfortunately anyone can claim 'irony', even when making a joke about a girl's first period. I'm not saying you're being disingenuous, but I'm sure you get my drift. :-)) Anchoress 08:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

o' to be that earring, upon that ear.
hi clio, thanks for the image, i needed something to replace the image of katie with bleached blonde hair, i had currently in my head, wasn't really working... have tried to link an image of myself, might not work but here goes... just out of the shower, and here's one of me in a thoughtful mood, i have nothing else to declare..., stay gold ponyboy x Perry-mankster 11:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

bugger! that didn't work, ho hum, back to the drawing board... Perry-mankster 11:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I think you are lovely, and the sweet badger image I have serves best! Clio the Muse 12:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Perry, but you can't have that image of Oscar. He's been my hero since I was a little kid, and if I can't have him for my image, nobody's going to have him.  :)  JackofOz 05:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Now, now, boys: there is enough Oscar for everybody! Clio the Muse 05:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A favor
I hope it's not terribly rude to ask for your assistance directly, but I hope you can help me locate some information I am having difficulty with. I'm currently working on an article on the Battle of Arras, and I cannot find information on the relative troop strengths at the start of the offensive. I don't know if you might have access to something that would give that kind of information, but most of the sources I have happily report casualties, but completely fail to give information on the size of forces committed in a particular action. Again, I hope you don't mind my asking you directly (and if you can't find anything, don't worry; it's far from critical). Many thanks in advance for any information you might find. Carom 04:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course it's not rude to ask for direct assistance, Carom, and I would be delighted to help you in any way I can. I assume you have found nothing pertinent in a google search?  Anyway, I'm off to my university library in a few hours, and I'll happily report back what I have been able to discover, one way or the other.  Keep watching this space!  Clio the Muse 05:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The google search was most disappointing (isn't everything supposed to be on the internet these days?), although I don't rule out the possibility that my googling abilities are not as powerful as I thought... And I appreciate your help! Carom 05:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Carom, having retreated from the groves of academe for lunch, I am now in a position to supply you with some information of troop dispositions on the Arras front in April, 1917. However, I have to say I am, quite frankly, amazed how vague and imprecise some historians in this field really are. I've always considered it to be essential in writing about a particular battle, or offensive, to begin with an account of the relative strength and dispositions of the opposing forces; but historians of the First World War, even those with some standing in the field, seem obsessed with casualty rates, above all other considerations! Anyway, here is what I have gleaned, though I have to say that I am no wiser as to the absolute numbers deployed in the opening stages of the Battle of Arras. The main thrust of the offensive, as you know, was entrusted to the Third Army under General Edmund Allenby, with support from the First Army, on the left flank, and the Fifth army on the right. The Third Army was comprised of three corps: VII, VI, and XVII. The VI Corps was made up of the 3rd, the 12th, the 15th and the 37th divisons. The VII Corps the 21st, the 30th, the 56th and the 14th. The XVII Corp had three divisions-the 9th, the 34th and the 51st, and the 4th division in reserve. So, travelling down the line in a south easterly direction, beginning with the Canadian Corps of the First Army, there is the 4th, 3rd, 2nd and 1st Canadian divisions. Then comes the Third Army's XVII Corps-the 51st, the 34th and the 9th, with the 4th slightly to the rear. Then VI Corps-15th, 12th and 3rd, with the 37th standing by to the west of Arras itself. Then VII Corps' 14th, 56th, 30th and 21st. We now move into the zone of the Fifth Army with the 7th divsion and the 62nd division, as well as the 1st, 2nd and 4th Australian divisions. In all, Allenby began the offensive with, according to my reckoning, twenty-one divisions in all. Do you know the strength of Commonwealth army divisions in 1917, because that is something I have been unable to pin down? I'm assuming a full division strength of something in the order of 15,000 men, though it may have been much less?

Now for the Germans! If anything that has been even more difficult to determine. Allenby faced the Sixth Army of General Falkenhausen. He kept most of his divisions to the rear in the counter-attack position, though I simply do not know how many there were. There were only seven in line at the opening of the British attack-the 16th Bavarian, the 79th Reserve, the 1st Bavarian, the 14th Bavarian, and the 11th, 17th and 18th Reserve.

Well, that's it! I'm not really sure if it takes you much further forward. This afternoon I return to the relative sanity of seventeenth century English politics! Clio the Muse 12:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is helpful - knowing the number of divisions employed allows me to make rough calculations about the number of troops, which is really all that is required. Most of my sources are very sketchy on the divisions involved (and nowhere else have I been able to produce a listing that I am reasonably certain is complete), so this is definitely useful information. And yes, it's become very popular to start from the premise that the First World War was a bloody mess, and demonstrate this by presenting casualty lists at every opportunity. Actual analysis of battles is very rare in recent literature, and most of the older stuff doesn't use precise numbers (mainly because they weren't available). But so it goes.


 * Thanks again! Carom 13:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hats
I can't get the image out of my own headgear. A fedora, really? That is simply too stylish for my limited imagination. I tried a google image search but got nothing, I really want to see this (though I'll regret it). ---Sluzzelin talk  17:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you know, Sluzzelin that, deep down, poor old Adolf was the very archetype of a particular kind of middle-class mediocrity, the parody in all respects of a gentleman! Anyway, here he is, suitably hatted, with 'Eva the Hausfrau' at the Bergof.  Clio the Muse 18:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That ugly brown thing (the one on his head) is a fedora? Well, I suppose so, suitable indeed, thank you (I also found some memorabilia site selling pictures of him wearing a Zylinder). I guess my mental iconography is limited to stale clichés. Sorry for making you post an Eva link on your page, and thanks again. ---Sluzzelin talk  04:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And there are others, Sluzzelin! He had a Zylinder when he went to see Hindenburg shortly after he had been appointed Chancellor, though I do not believe I have ever seen him wearing it.  Have you ever seen him in evening dress?  Never did a man wear proper clothes so ill!  Eva?  I've always felt a bit sorry for her, stupid as she was.  What a way for a woman to live, and what a way to die. Clio the Muse 05:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should move or withdraw your comment
Clio--I'm not sure what your comment at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk actually has to do with the operation of the Ref Desk.

It would be a shame if people got the impression that you were kicking A.Z. while he was down. I agree wholeheartedly that his suggestions on StuRat's talk page are absurd and that his actions during and following his RfA have been POINTy in the extreme. Nevertheless, there's no need to be cruel, and the Ref Desk talk page isn't the place to discuss the adminship process. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Ten; I wasn't trying to be cruel; but these things all link in, and I have real concerns, as you must know, about the whole RFA process, and the extent to which these can proceed without the community as a whole being aware of what is going on, more specifically, without me being aware of what is going on. Besides, I simply could not resist the reference to Dr. Marvin!  It is a general comment, not directed at a person but at a proposal. However, if you would like me to remove it I will. Clio the Muse 01:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. If you want to discuss proposals to modify WP:RFA, you'd be best to start on that talk page.  (I note that since A.Z. hasn't participated there, I doubt his proposals would ever gain much traction.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Clio, I guess you can consider this a learning experience. Wikipedia is not and has never claimed to be a democracy.  It's up to individual users to become as aware (or unaware) as they like about how the place is run, and to involve themselves (or not) in such processes as they see fit.  This might take some reading, but there's a lot to be read (I've been around for 4 years now, but I'm constantly coming across new aspects of Wikipedia - and my interests go way beyond the Ref Desk). Given the huge number of users we have, I can't quite see how alerting them all to every new RFA would work.  The majority probably couldn't give a damn one way or another.  Cheers  :)  JackofOz 03:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, Jack, as usual I think you are probably right, and I am now checking RFAs just about every day. It disturbs me, in particular, that a certain nameless user (not, I think, the one you may have in mind) put himself forward not so long ago, a user who joined in when the 'wolf pack' was yapping at my heels, for no discernable reason.  I keep learning, Jack, and I keep rising!  All the best.  Clio the Muse 05:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

RFAs and the big zap
(Moved from RD talk page by request)

I have just become aware of conceivably ranks as the most ludicrous proposal I have ever come across in Wikipedia, that each user should have the power to block and unblock every other user! I was immediately reminded of the Simpson's episode There's No Disgrace Like Home, where the family indulge in a bout of mutual zapping, when Dr. Marvin Monroe's aversion therapy goes madly wrong. Just imagine the anarchy that would ensue here! For the love of God, people, keep an eye on those RFAs! Clio the Muse 01:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to a proposal to relax the RfA requirements, to allow 'most anyone to have the admin tools who shows decent evidence of not being a nut who would abuse them? This is actually an interesting and non-ludicrous proposal, and is not the same as letting "each user block and unblock every other user".  The proposal is in opposition to the current RfA process, which is an insane, capricious gauntlet that no sane person can withstand, meaning that we end up with too few admins, or only insane ones, or only the ones we least want (because, of course, the last people you should want having control over you are the ones who most desire it).


 * (Or if not, what are you referring to?) —Steve Summit (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Have a look at Sturat, item 3.70.
 * Yeah. Just been.  My.  (What a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing!  I don't have time to read a tenth of it...) —Steve Summit (talk) 03:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no problems at all with administration as it stands at present: I have real problems, though, with some people who put their names forward for this position of power, people I consider unsuited in every degree. I think it important for all regular users to know exactly what is going on here. There was one RFA recently that I only became aware of after the event, hence my concern.  Clio the Muse 02:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Clio. I just wanted to note that, while A.Z.'s suggestions are certainly on the extreme end of the spectrum, I don't think there is anything wrong with him discussing ways to improve the running of the project. Policies like WP:PROD started out just like that - the thoughts of a single user mulled on a talkpage (in that case User:Radiant!). I don't for a second think A.Z.'s idea could come to fruition, but, assuming good faith, he should not be chastised for trying to be constructive.
 * I have been engaging with A.Z.on the subject for a few reasons. Firstly, a debate like that on a talkpage is a debate like that not on the Ref Desk (where it would otherwise have been posted). Secondly, A.Z.'s opinion of administrators is very poor, this is because he sees them as people telling him what to do, rather than people convincing him that what they say is right. I'm hoping that by taking some time to engage with both him and StuRat (and Loomis, privately), I can convince them that admins are individuals and not some cabal out to oppress them. Finally, I was trying to explain how our policies evolved and why we use them, in an effort they will have a greater respect for them.
 * You have probably worked out by now that you are not their favorite editor! Of course, that is fine, because we don't all have to like each other to work together in a constructive manner. However, I would appreciate it if you could help promote a congenial atmosphere by avoiding criticism of, or comment on, A.Z. et al. Threads like this will simply inflame their feelings toward you. Its been made very clear that the sort of abuse aimed at your on various talkpages will not be tolerated at all anymore, so I'm hoping that we can draw a line under the whole sorry mess. So, if you feel that one of them has attacked you, please feel free to draw my attention to it rather than respond in like. Thanks, Rockpock  e  t  04:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Rockpocket,and welcome to my world! I have to tiptoe carefully with this-and I do always try to assume that people act for the best motives-but I am not sure how 'constructive' this person's suggestions really are: I find him disruptive and argumentative.  His 'contributions' seem confined to interminable 'discussions about discussions', which go round and round in circles, getting absolutely nowhere.  His latest tactic consists largely in attacking admins. for no better reason than that they are admins.  But, as I say, I can only go so far here, especially as he is in the habit of hinting at suicide, even over the mildest forms of criticism.  I think you should continue on your singular and noble path, though, in the end, I feel your journey may be wasted.  Oh, Rockpocket, you are intelligent enough to have worked out exactly what this little cabal is saying about me, and where it is being said.  Perhaps you do not realize just how much fun I derive from this.  I am thinking of mailing a copy of Malleus Mallificarum to Wikiversity to help in exorcising the Great Witch!  I suppose I should be flattered, in a way, by all the attention devoted to me!  As I say, it's fun.  You have to forgive me: when I saw the 'mass mutual destruction' argument, followed hard on by an RFA, I simply could not resist bringing up dear old Dr. Marvin!  I would, of course, alert you to any abuse; but there times when my impish sense of humour simply gets quite away from me, naughty girl that I am!  She is now back in her little den.  Clio the Muse 05:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Butting in, uninvited. Rockpocket, kudos for reaching out everywhere you can, the patience we're seeing is impressive indeed. Remember, Clio, some of us celebrate this, while others may take it to unhealthy extremes. For drama, however, Wikipedia is rather boring compared to the real world and stage, don't you all agree? ---Sluzzelin talk  06:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sometimes I wonder! Clio the Muse 06:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand, and I guess I was wishing it were completely uninteresting to the dramatically minded. ---Sluzzelin talk  06:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Sluzzelin. I was ashamed at myself when I lost my temper with StuRat a few weeks back and want to make sure that I give everyone a fair crack of the whip. It may be all be in vain, but I'll try to AGF until the end. Clio, I am aware that you are prime among us personae non gratae at that other place. I'm also aware that you are - if you'll excuse the ungentlemanly turn of phrase - big and ugly enough to regard it with no more than detached humour. I, like you, am from an environment rife with intellectual "banter" of the rough-and-tumble variety, where thick skin is a must and personal offense is rare. I understand your motivation is nothing other than mischeviousness. The problem is that not everyone appreciates that form of debate (something it took me a while to appreciate myself on my move to our former colony across the pond). A.Z., particularly, appears to be a sensitive soul who takes things to heart and Loomis, I know, has strong personal feelings about Nazism. I know Wikipedia is not therapy, but I think it would be civil of us to not go out of our way to purposely antagonise when the results are so disruptive.
 * A.Z. is skating on very thin ice and he will either learn the wiki process soon enough or take an enforced absence. Loomis will get one last chance to behave and StuRat, well he is not going anywhere, but maybe thats a good thing since admins shouldn't get too comfortable around here! My point is, they are like moths to your flame at the best of times - you really don't need to add petrol to the fire (hows about that for mixing metaphors?)
 * So, since I don't believe in spanking, I suggest an hour on the naughty step while you think about what you did, young lady! I thank you for your consideration ;) Rockpock  e  t  06:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, Sir! Sometimes, just sometimes, I do like assertive males, and you remind me, Rockpocket, of a very dear teacher at my old school.  You can be assured that I heard, and understood, every word.  Love. Clio the Muse 07:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Clio at school, one can only imagine! Thanks again, I do appreciate it. Rockpock  e  t  07:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ha!, Ha!, Ha! St.  Trinian's was nothing compared to dear old Wycombe Abbey!  Clio the Muse 07:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Rockpocket, you won this illustrated montage contest, but we will meet again! See, I freely confess to being a wiki-watcher and voyeur. I follow pages on topics that interest me, I follow edits by users who write sensationally, add obscure and interesting articles, have intriguing ideas on policy etc. Of course, this helps me learn and understand, unlike the vulgar fascination with wiki-drama which lurks within as well, I confess. There's not much to learn, and, borrowing from the treasure chest of your language's magnificent literature, imagine Bartleby drawn to Proustian lengths. That kind of drama is boring, in addition to being useless. ---Sluzzelin talk  08:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep watching, dear Sluzzelin, while you sip your tea and nibble your madeline, thinking always on things yet to come. Clio the Muse 09:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * after reading the above, and the suggestion that you be placed on the naughty step, i have to say that i feel it would have the same effect as it does on our three year old... no effect whatsoever :p x Perry-mankster 15:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Titters! Well, if she/he is anything like me, Perry, the very best of luck.  From the ultimate imp. Clio the Muse 17:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your support. :)  bibliomaniac 1  5  05:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I never forget kindness and courtesy! Clio the Muse 05:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

perry unveiled?

 * For you dear lady, a picture of me stay gold mountain girl Perry-mankster 15:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Very handsome! But where's the badger streak?  Clio the Muse 17:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * But i am in disguise of course, one gets 'hassled' by the great unwashed if one is not careful Perry-mankster 19:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

a kind favor

 * hey up, dear kind lady (yup he is after something) i have finally managed to get my shuffle working and have downloaded all the songs that i can think of just now. i was wondering if you would mind suggesting a few songs that i might consider? any genre/muscian (except that godawful KC) and i promise not to laugh if you suggest anything by Coldplay, your servant .Perry-mankster 11:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)(king of the badgers{dispossed}, defender of the faith(less) ruler of his desk. x


 * Sorry, Badgerkins, there is really nothing I can think of. Besides, my taste in music, like may taste in most other things, is highly eccentric, ranging from Gregorian chant and the music of Abbess Hildegard of Bingen; the songs of the Troubadors to Medieval secular music in general;  Tudor and Stuart courtly music; the symphonies of Bruckner and Mahler; the operas of Puccini; French cafe music, including the songs of Edith Piaf; Kurt Weil and German theatre music; Glen Miller to the Doors; Pink Floyd to Kurt Cobain and Nirvana; Oasis and, yes, even Coldplay.  I'm sure you get the picture!  Clio the Muse 23:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Badgerkins..., really clio, (chuckle :*))thanks anyway dear lady, i will, i think, have a look at French cafe music sounds (sic) promising, I see form the next edit that the confederacy is upon you, take heart from the many edits of thanks on your page dear kind lady, as ever your servant Perry-mankster 09:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Perry; you are a gentleman, like most of the Scots I know. Your support is much valued.  There is always a drama of some kind around here.  I suppose it keeps things interesting, and I, for one, relish a challenge!  Clio the Muse 10:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Gentleman maybe, but i am English by birth, and half Welsh, half Scots/Irish by parentage, a true child of the union (although, apparently, we are all 'Jock Tampson's bairns'). Drama, drama, drama - childish, childish, childish... but i bow to your ability to rise above and you are right, for it also keeps me interested. challenge all relishes, jumped up katshup i say... Perry-mankster 12:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, thank you for that correction; I was not completely sure, assuming Scottishness simply on the basis of your present location. Anyway, a wonderful mixture, and a nice person.  You may find this amusing, but I had to google 'Jock Tampson' to understand your meaning here!  You've obviously been in Caledonia a long time, or you may just be quick to pick up cultural references?  Clio the Muse 14:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * my apologies dear lady, i should have said that i have lived in scotland since i was 2, and in darkest fife since i was 3, and as for jock, it took me quite a while to realize whit thi ell folk whire talkin aboot, ken? Perry-mankster 15:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Whose Ken? It's Ok; this time I really am joking-I've seen Trainspotting! I love your dialect, but I do not believe you really talk like that!  Clio the Muse 19:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yesh Mish Moneypenny, ure quite correct, i do not really talk like that, i have, shahall we shay, a shomewhat more dishtinctive accshent, as ever ure shervant  Perry-mankster 11:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, James! Good choice: he is the handsomest of them all.  Clio the Muse 22:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines talkpage
I appreciate you didn't start any of this, but there really is nothing to be gained by engaging in this debate any further. StuRat's pet proposal has been trashed by consensus, as it always going to be. A.Z. seems to have gone off-message on this one for some reason, and their subsequent muddle over various logical fallacies, in a desperate effort to get back on the same wavelength, are beyond farce.

My advice to you next time he makes some ridiculous inexpert analysis on the Desk is to simply ask if he has any reliable sources, because his answer sounds very much like the non-notable opinion of a non-expert. He'll come back with some blustering non sequitur, but at least everyone else will know that it is total unverifiable nonsense.

Regarding Lewis' unprovoked comments. Well, this is exactly the type of confrontational effort that I advised him against making. There is no need whatsoever for that to be brought up there, and I have strongly advised him to drop it pronto. I appreciate you did, as I asked, come to me for assistance first, but by the time I took in the conversation in it has already gotten nasty. Anyway, everyone has now had their say so lets all cool off and try and get back to the real business, ok? Rockpock e  t  01:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely right, and I am aware of the strategy you are pursuing here, Rockpocket; but I have come under sustained and seemingly co-ordinated attack tonight. It's clearly backfired, and turned into a real hoot!  I will always seek to make clear, for the benefit of other editors, exactly what is going on here, though will never, under any circumstances, enter into debate with this crew on any matter. Clio the Muse 01:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Reading all the signs, and the counter-signs, Rockpocket, testing the wind and the current, it is now obvious to me that I was the target of a co-ordinated, two-pronged attack. Even if these people get up early it will not be early enough to catch me. If I can paraphrase a little couplet from Scottish history-Came I early, Came I late, I met Black Clio at the gate. I remember also another little rhyme from my studies of the reign of Richard III, which I have always quite liked: The catte, the ratte and Lovell our dogge/Rulyth all England under a hogge. Ha, Ha ,Ha. Clio the Muse 10:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't honestly know if that was a co-ordinated effort, Clio. I hope not. If it was, then it was a rather poor effort and did backfire. Glad to hear it hasn't damaged your sense of humour though. Regarding the editor review, I'm sorry, I did completely miss that comment. A.Z. did ask for a review, so he can hardly complain of someone offers one - but then again he is rather sensitive and has admitted to being upset by your comments before. Basically, its up to you if you. Do remember though that the point is to help the editor, so it might be worth considering what constructive aspects A.Z. could take from your comments. Also, we are supposed to comment on their edits, so do be careful keep the tone neutral and non-personal. Rockpock  e  t  05:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You are right; I can think of not a single thing constructive about him as an editor, so I will say nothing. Clio the Muse 06:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Salve O Musa
Accept my thanks for your compliments. While I dwell on your talk page, allow me to express my regret that you have decided not to contribute to articles in main space, if even only to correct simple errors, or to provide references where needed. As Plato already said, whereas perfection has only one form, imperfection has innumerable shapes. (Actually he said something in Greek; I am paraphrasing here in one of innumerable imperfect translations of a version indubitably also malformed by relying on equally imperfect memory.) So any edit to a perfect article will, alas!, make it less-than-perfect, and the fruit of our collective effort is doomed to remain at, at best, an elevated level of mediocrity. But that is not to say that the present level cannot be raised. Far from it, I believe that a moderate effort of a modest number of knowledgeable editors can have a real and noticeable effect, which is worth the effort. --Lambiam Talk 11:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, Lambiam, perhaps we should marry after all! (Wait-I'm jumping to conclusions here:you may not even be male!). Anyway, thanks for your observations.  This has been suggested to me on more than one occasion.  Quite frankly, I think there is a huge problem with Wikipedia, and I'm am not at all surprised that teachers do not consider it a reputable source.  There are a lot of good people here who seem to spend much of their time on what I would call 'dyke maintenance', shoring up the defences against the ever advancing flood of the stupid and the simple-minded.  It's not the obvious corruption that bothers me-for that is easily rectified-it's the more subtle forms of misinformation that seem to creep in, which leaves me unsure if the intention is one of deliberate sabotage or simply lack of proper understanding.  Let me give you one small example.  The page on Victor Hugo's novel The Hunchback of Notre Dame says it is set 'in about 1485.'  It is not: it is set precisely in 1482, during the reign of Louis XI; so I can only assume that the person who wrote this has never even read the novel.  There are so many other examples of the kind, not just in dating, but in quite major issues of interpretation.  Moreover, some of the 'guerilla warfare' that goes on over certain pages is really quite absurd.  The whole problem with Wikipedia is the uneven nature of the contributions, caused by the open door policy.  Some people do speak with authority and write with precision, whereas others seem pleased to wallow in ignorance and write abominably.  It comes down, in essence, to the old problem of horses and committees.  Here, on the reference desk, I do my best to be informative and to correct misconceptions, a small thing, admittedly, but it gives me some degree of pleasure.  Anyway, sorry to drone on at such length, but I felt you deserved some detailed insight into my thought process, complex and convoluted as it is!  Again my very best wishes.  Clio the Muse 22:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your welcome, I look forward to learning much more from your reference desk replies ( better than any article). From your user page it seems we share both a birth year and a 'job' (if you can call it that) although in very different fields. And I would describe myself as English, conservative (small c) and patriotic. So I am sure we'll get on ok. Cyta 10:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You are very kind, Cyta. Yes, I feel certain that we will.  Clio the Muse 10:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust
I think all wikipedians knew that the memory capacity of Clio's brain was something resembling that, at least of a supercomputer, if not more. Though seeing the recent answer to the Holocaust question (which I did not see the original) makes one wa/onder: is it time we began measuring Clio's brain in terms of terabytes rather than gigabytes? I think this may be well overdue. CtM, thanks for all your answers on the RD! Perhaps we should divise an entirely separate RD, solely for Clio questions, lol. I am sure, if such existed, it would have no shortage of questions, but even more answers. martianlostinspace 16:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am always moved by kindness, martian, and your good opinion of me is much valued. My sincere thanks.  Clio the Muse 23:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Help?
Do you think you can help me with my questions:


 * Reference_desk/Humanities


 * Reference_desk/Humanities


 * Reference_desk/Humanities

--Goingempty 01:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Goingempty, this is well outside my area of expertise. Clio the Muse 04:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No one was replying my questions since may 4th. :( --Goingempty 19:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm so sorry; we obviously need more lawyers, rather than mere historians, like me! However, I will say that if this is a serious issue for you you should consider taking independent legal and financial advice.  I'm not sure I would fully trust a casual response on Wikipedia when it comes to matters that touch on my financial well-being.  Clio the Muse 19:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What else to say?
Don't let him get to you! I'm happy to be back. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * He does not, Hipocrite. I treat him as a joke, but I will not have my contributions perverted and undermined.  He seems incapable of helping himself-sad, really.  Clio the Muse 18:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Time to heed hipocrites advice. David D. (Talk) 19:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I do indeed, David, but you must see what is going on. I am confronted by a 'cabal of mediocrity', jealous and determinedly second-rate.  It's even beginning to poison the guidelines discussion.  As I say, for me it brings amusement, rather than anger; but it should not be allowed to corrupt Wikipedia in the fashion it has.  Clio the Muse 19:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My recent responses to StuRat and A.Z. on the guideline talk page are because i see what is going on. A hypocracy of hypocrites, hypocritically hyping their hyperbole from absurdity? Excuse my hyperventillating and misuse of the english language for hypereffect. David D. (Talk) 19:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hyperbolically correct! Clio the Muse 19:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your comment on Loomis' talkpage
Hi Clio. I thought I would reply here, rather the split Loomis' thread. I have no issue with your answer to that question. There appears to be a source for your quotes (which is more than can be said for 99% of the other info on the Humanities page) and I completely agree that it is a scholarly in tone and purpose in responding to the precise question. The response Loomis' has drafted is, I think, without factual merit. It is no more than his non-expert opinion of Hitler's motivation and this of no interest to anyone but himself. However, the current scope of the guidelines makes it difficult to stop people from providing answers based on personal opinions (as long as they make it clear thats what it is), even more so in the area of humanities where there is a inherent level of interpretation.

I think we can both appreciate the value of a cautious and balanced interpretation of a scholar. Indeed, based on the remarkable level of OP feedback to your answers, I think the majority of readers can too. By the same token, I think readers are capable of seeing a unsupported speculation for what it is. That is why I feel the best option is to let Loomis have his say - when phrased politely and without directly critiqueing yours - and then leave it like that. I don't think there is much need to point out the flaws in his response, since all he is doing is demonstrating his personal take on a situation. If he wishes to demonstrate his unique analysis based on a personal psychoanalysis of Hitler, thats his perogative.

That said, its not my job to stop you responding if you so choose. However, it appears to me the best way to deal with this is the following: if he offers imprecise factual information just ask for a source for it. If he can't provide it then its pretty clear to everyone its meritless. If he does preface his responses with an opinion disclaimer, then do as I do - read it, shake your head and move on to something worthwhile. I guarantee you the vast majority of the readers will do the same. Rockpock e  t  18:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Rockpocket, I have taken part of my statement from his talk page and, together with some brief additional remarks by me, have posted this under the relevant discussion on the Humanities RD. I will make no further comment and will not, under any circumstances, enter into direct debate with him.  Clio the Muse 19:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Clio. My latest tactic is to encourage Loomis to depersonalise the issue by focusing his criticisms on the source rather than the person that uses the source. A don't shoot the messenger approach, if you will. I don't know if he has warmed to this, but I think it would be a small step towards (relatively) peaceful co-existance. Thanks again for your continuing co-operation. Rockpock  e  t  00:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, well, Rockpocket, did you look at the 'sources' he produced for the Holocaust issue? Rather than read Rees' book, the most logical step, he googled through the dustbin for counter-arguments, which not only look silly, but do not even address the book in question, merely Rees' TV production work. Incidentally, did you see his post about 'secondary sources' on the Guidelines talk page.  If he had even paused for a moment to think before reacting he would have seen that all of my references were to primary documents, mediated through Rees' monograph.  All I ask, Rockpocket, is for him to keep away from me; but he is now back in the old unhealthy groove.  Still, you are quite right: better the dodgy 'sources' than the foaming rant! In my mind it all works to the same end!  Clio the Muse 01:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did read them and they are barely credible and certainly not notable. However, his wider point is valid: that when it comes to historical interpretations, there are often difference in expert opinion. There is not problem in having conflicting opinion if it is suitable sourced, there is a problem on stating your own opinion when it differs from an expert. If he wishes to recount an alternative expert opinion then that is both helpful to the OP and a much better response than a unjustified objection, or snide personal attack. Indeed, it is not unhelpful to an OP to provide Irving's revisionist take on the issue, as long as the source is not misrepresented. If I can get him to accept this, then of course the next step is to define what a credible source is (and is not). But one step at a time.
 * The primary argument is an interesting one, because there are few Ref Desk responders who regularly use primary sources - and they most certainly are not StuRat, Lewis et al. Indeed, I would be happy with a primary source restriction in principle - as I have no problem accessing the primary sources for most of the questions I choose to answer (as, I suspection, would you). Indeed, the effect of this would be felt most of the blanket "googlers" (those who like to opine on every subject based on a summary search of google). However, the real loser would be the OPs, since many, many questions can be answered perfectly adequetly by reliable secondary sources. Rockpock  e  t  01:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Marco polo on early civilizations
Clio, thanks for the compliment. I wasn't sure whether you wanted me to respond on my page or yours. As you know, my postgraduate degree (Ph.D.) is in geography (historical geography really). My undergraduate degree (A.B.) was in anthropology, part of which did indeed include archaeology courses. However, most of what I know about prehistory and protohistory comes from independent study since my undergrad days. I am frustrated by the limits of history per se—with its dependence on written sources—and seek out evidence from archaeology, genetics, and historical linguistics concerning past societies. I try, not always successfully, to follow the latest scholarship on the more important early civilizations. Cheers, Marco. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marco polo (talk • contribs) 17:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Thanks for that, Marco. I take it you have been to Tikal?  I went in February when I was in Mexico, visiting Guatemala for a few days.  It's quite breathtaking.  Clio the Muse 02:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh I love to repeat myself myself
Hi Clio. The Rambling Man are having fun taking Harlech Castle to WP:FA (it's in the queue behind Bill O'Reilly (cricketer)). Now I know your stance on article contributions, but how's this for a proposal (no, not that kind)... you can help us using your gorgeous library and even more gorgeous brain to find appropriate quotes from hefty historical work on Harlech. I'm thinking of books by Michael Prestwich (k?) and AJ Taylor. Also if any recent scholarship has appeared in the journals... If you don't want to article edit, you can always bung stuff on my talk page, or the article's? What sayest thou? --Dweller 23:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I will try to call in to the library tomorrow, Dweller, and see what I can dig up for the 'Men of Harlech'. Clio the Muse 23:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Helpful. Don't fancy sticking your head over the machicolations and... editing, lol? btw your user page needs an update. --Dweller 13:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In what way? Clio the Muse 13:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you going to be away until February 2008 then?!?! lol --Dweller 13:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, yes, I forgot about that! Now about to be removed.  Clio the Muse 13:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Reference Desk
Hi Clio, I wanted to respond to the thread about Muslim persecution in the middle ages on the Reference Desk, but things are archived so quickly there these days that I didn't get a chance to do so...

Of course you are right that the immediate cause of the First Crusade was the Seljuk advance into Anatolia, and there was no real danger to Christians in Muslim territory in the late 11th century. There had been a very large German pilgrimage to Jerusalem earlier in the century that arrived and returned without incident. But within a few years of the crusade, the nefarious crimes of the Muslims against native Christians were already part of the legend. Of the four accounts of Urban's speech, Robert the Monk gives my favourite image: "they perforate their navels, and dragging forth the extremity of the intestines, bind it to a stake; then with flogging they lead the victim around until the viscera having gushed forth the victim falls prostrate upon the ground." Baldric of Dol and Guibert of Nogent also noted that the Muslims occupied formerly Christian lands. The connection between Muslim occupation and the crusade was clear by the mid-12th century, since William of Tyre begins his history with the advent of Islam, including a chapter about Hakim and the Holy Sepulchre, followed by more chapters about the suffering of the native Christians. William does not even mention the Byzantime Empire in the speech he attributes to Urban! They had already forgotten the original intention of the crusade.

It is a recent trend in crusade scholarship to focus on this aspect; I suppose it would be safe to say that Thomas Madden leads the school of thought that the crusades were a defensive war, responding to the original Arab conquests centuries earlier. I do not yet know if I agree with this position, but my first instinct is that it is a knee-jerk reaction to which no one would have paid any attention pre-2001. But in either case, the idea that Muslim aggression was the cause of the First Crusade goes all the way back to the crusade itself, or at least very shortly thereafter. Adam Bishop 06:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Adam, this is really interesting. Yes, I know Madden's New Concise History of the Crusades.  Did you read what I wrote on the Cromwell Statue issue on the Humanities Desk?  In the course of my history studies I have become acutely aware how difficult, perhaps even impossible, it is to write history from a neutral perspective; and in the words of Louis Althusser, the French Marxist, we may all be guilty of some 'reading' or other.  History is always being reshaped by contemporary vision.  I have little doubt that there was lots of recasting and 'justification after the event' once Urban's adventure had been launched, though the fact remains that for centuries western Christendom paid little attention to the politics-or possession-of the Holy Land.  I personally try to remain in my rather old fashioned Rankian and, dare I say it, English way, in a kind of middle ground, always trying to perceive and understand the past in its own terms.  I believe 'detachment', as I understand it, is particularly important when it comes to the history of relations between Muslims and Christians.  Madden's argument is far too 'politically informed' for my taste, and I prefer to take my cues on the whole question from the 'pre-9/11' work of Steven Runciman.  I should also say that my attempts at neutrality have, in the not so distant past, led to a crossing of swords with Professor Carole Hillenbrand, in the pages of a history journal, because I felt she was pushing matters too far in the opposite direction, if you take my meaning.  Anyway, nice to hear from you.  Clio the Muse 07:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I prefer Runciman too, although the further along I am in my studies, the easier it is to pick out where Runciman has let his imagination take over. Hmm, so if you have crossed swords with Hillenbrand, perhaps I have encountered you in the real world, at least in written form...although I guess you won't give any clues about which journal it was! Adam Bishop 17:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't; sorry. I need to preserve the anonymity I enjoy here for all sorts of complex reasons, academic and personal.  I am sure you understand.  However, Adam, I should make it clear that my particular area of expertise, the focus of my researches, lies in late seventeenth century English history, rather than the Crusades.  I come here, if you like, to indulge in a form of intellectual aerobics, just to make sure I am still able to tackle issues over a broad range of topics.  Clio the Muse 22:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are, for what it's worth. Though I should probably be criticizing your edits, since this seems to lead to increased output, referenced and all! By all means, keep sweatin to the Oldies. ---Sluzzelin talk  12:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I will keep on 'sweatin', Sluzzelin; thanks! Clio the Muse 22:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Behold the woman
Why are you so clever? Why are you so wise? Martinben 09:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Whenever I climb I am followed by a dog called 'Ego'. Clio the Muse 22:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

pick your brain...
Hi clio(kins), thought you would be the best person to ask, but will post at the ref desk if you are busy, - anyhoo - does the name Ergates mean anything to you? wiki/google comes up with a species of beetle (it's the name of a character in a book, whom happens to be a ant) but sounds to me as thou it may be a greek/roman god/detiy/hero i know this is not your area of expertise, but well you seem to just about know everything, apart from 'jock tampson' ha,ha love, servant etc Perry-mankster 12:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, hello, James-sorry, I mean Perry! The only Ergates I know of is the ant in Iain Bank's novel, Feersum Endjinn.  In classical mythology the only name close to this is Erginus (not very close, I admit!), who, I believe, was one of the Argonauts, and a son of Poseidon.  That's the best I can do.  Clio the Muse 22:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup the ant in question, thanks for having a think, Shhall i shay, pick you up at sheven, a light dinner, shome cocktailsh, shome danching, and then back to my plache?... love Perry-mankster 13:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * James, I can't wait, so you can forget about the dinner! Clio the Muse 13:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Bobby Robson
Hello. I'm struggling to complete the managerial stats at the bottom of Sir Bobby's article.

I wondered if Bobby Robson: Farewell but not Goodbye, Bobby Robson & Paul Hayward, (Hodder & Stoughton 2006), ISBN 034082347X might have the missing data.

I would guess your library won't have the book... am I right? --Dweller 09:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We have just about everything, I think. This is certainly in the catalogue.  I'll look it out tomorrow, and then you can tell me what it is that you would like to know.  Clio the Muse 22:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow. Thanks. It's the data for the chart at the bottom of the article - how many games he managed each team for, dates, wins etc. --Dweller 09:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * May I dare interrupt to thank you, Clio, for posting the requested information at Dweller's talk page. I've incorporated it into the article, all I have to do now is cite it correctly.  Thank you for your diligence and great work.  This may not be the last time I pop by...!  The Rambling Man 19:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to have been able to help. Ramble by any time, Rambling Man!  Clio the Muse 22:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, well little did I know, the moment I meet another awesome Wikipedian, she goes and resigns. Well don't, unless you really have to.  Forget the Humanities desk, work somewhere else.  If the Humanities desk is your only aim then let us know exactly what needs to be done.  Your contributions will be more than missed, it'd be a crime to lose you.  Best wishes... The Rambling Man 19:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please Create Articles
Your answers on the refdesk are well worded and very complete. They would make rather nice articles by themselves. However, they get lost in the archives on the reference desk. Please consider putting your answers in articles as well as the reference desk so they have permanence. --Kainaw (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I (and I'm sure I speak for others as well) echo Kainaw's sentiment, Clio.  But may I use this opportunity to go one step further?  On your user page, and elsewhere, you are somewhat scathing in your criticism of the quality of Wikipedia articles.  That seems to be at least one of the reasons why you don't want to be associated with them.  But surely isn't that also the very reason they need to be improved?  Wikipedia is permanently a work-in-progress.  No single article will ever be perfect.  But that is also true of any article in any other encyclopedia.  Check out an article in, say, Encyclopedia Britannica from 20 years ago, and have a look at it in today's version - they will be vastly different.


 * Nobody can make you edit Wikipedia articles if you don't want to. Of course that is your choice, and everybody respects that.  But I, for one, would prefer it if you didn't sit on the sidelines with the capacity and knowledge to improve them, choose not to do so, and then criticise their quality.  For those of us who spend at least as much time in creating and improving articles as we spend on the Ref Desks, this is particularly hard and unnecessary criticism, coming as it does from one of our respected colleagues.  Best wishes, Clio.  --  JackofOz 22:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You are both very kind, and I welcome and appreciate your comments. Kainaw, what I write is not entirely 'lost' since it is all stored in the archive, and thus available now, and in time to come, for all who choose to journey there.  To both of you, I have thought about writing articles-and it has now been suggested several times that I do so-but I continue to have problems with aspects of the whole Wikipedia project, particulary with open-access and collective writing.  It is a good thing when knowledgable people can work together to create something worthwhile.  I have absolutely no problem with that.  But my ego-and I confess that this is a factor-could not cope with dilution by the half-baked and the ill-informed, by those who think they know everything and really know nothing.  My criticism, such as it is, is never directed at individual contributers, many of whom do an excellent job.  But some of the pages-and I am referring, in the main, to pages dealing with historical matters-are deplorable, not just in simple matters, like errors of fact, which are easily corrected, but in important matters of interpretation.  I find it difficult to believe, to take one example, that people are compelled to defend, time and again, the contention that Stalin was a dictator.  My contributions on the Humanites desk are, I hope, not simply taken to be 'carping from the sidelines', but in themselves possess some intrinsic value, conveying important information that can be used by others as they wish. I would, moreover, always provide supplementary details when requested to do so, as I have on several occasions, either on the Desk itself or on this page.  But even on the Reference Desk, I am sorry to say, I have had to defend myself, on more than one occasion, against the petty-minded, the jealous and the malicious, which, in itself, does not encourage me to swoop over broader pastures.  Clio the Muse 23:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your thought about article "dilution" reminds me of wiki cream. ~ hydnjo talk    14:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The perfect analogy! Clio the Muse 01:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Drrrrrrrrr
Regarding my "confidence that a 'far more detailed response' will follow...", sometimes a wikilink is just an excuse to perform a drum roll. Other users will deliver the rim shots. Have yourself a splendid Sunday! ---Sluzzelin talk  11:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And you! I'm glad you mentioned Arthur Moeller van den Bruck in the Third Reich discussion, because if you had not I would have!!  Have you read Das Dritte Reich? There is also a book about him, The Man Who Invented the Third Reich by Stan Lauryssens, well worth reading.  Clio the Muse 11:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No to both, though the book by Lauryssens (as well as his Dalí and I) would most likely interest me. I have to admit that my firsthand knowledge of Deutschnationale Literatur is very limited. I did once read Mein Kampf years ago - a couple of hours of my life I will never get back! Clio, Clio, not everyone eats books for breakfast, it sometimes takes me weeks to complete even one book! ---Sluzzelin talk  12:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You read Mein Kampf in a 'couple of hours'? Now I am the one truly impressed!  Clio the Muse 13:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, my memory isn't that reliable. :-) ---Sluzzelin  talk  13:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)