User talk:Parrot of Doom/Archives/2009/July

The Lane
Thanks for your message, I've been offline for a few days. Gropecunt Lane on the front page! Very brave IMHO. I'll have a look at the OED/Ekwall issue when I get a few minutes. If the weather holds it'll be tomorrow, if it rains today it'll be tonight. I sat at the computer last night for just long enough to read your message—and the server crashed. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester July Newsletter, Issue XVII
Nev1 (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Gropecunt as TFA
See this. David Levy says there's talk about saving Gropecunt for April Fools. Do you want to save it? I don't promise to use it for April Fools (I don't decide that until a couple weeks beforehand), but if it goes on the main page now, it definitely can't go on for April Fools later. Raul654 (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The discussion was occurring at Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page. It's been inactive for about a month, as it was felt to be slightly premature.
 * It's a preliminary idea (and there certainly are other possibilities for April Fools' Day), but there would be no harm in postponing the article's main page appearance for the time being (as it could always go up on another future date). —David Levy 02:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Grub Street and Grubb Street
I apologize if I am too superficial in this reply. If I am (I'm short on time, near bedtime, but I will take a look at your article in the morning), please guide me to a specific area of enquiry. Pat Rogers's Grub Street: A Study of a Literary Subculture is an interesting book on Grub Street as an economic/political/social phenomenon, with obligatory historical discussions of the origins of the real street. He told me once that he wished he could write it over, as it seems a bit naive now, but that's a sign of the book's age.

Grub Street first enters our vocabulary as a place of low end book selling and writer's garrets before 1695, and the usage of the word to refer to hackney compositions doesn't diminish until the invention of the publishing house effectively moves the location of bad writing from a geographical to a commercial residence, which takes to the turn of the nineteenth century. Thus, one finds the use of "Grub Street" as a pejorative term for "impoverished writers" or "writings of low literary value" or "things written by men and women solely for the commission" as late as the 1820's, but the real hey day of the terminology is in the Augustan era.

The anxiety over Grub Street is complicated, culturally. Yes, Samuel Johnson would say, in the 1760's, "No man but a blockhead ever wrote but for money," but, at the same time, to write solely for money meant writing without any regard for the effects or value of the thing written. I.e. there is a difference between expecting payment and being indifferent to what you're writing, so long as you get paid. It's the difference between a novelist insisting on getting paid and a Harlequin Romance author who gets sent a plot in the mail and has to deliver it for a set fee. Therefore, the professional author, once he existed, regarded the hack writer (the hireling writer) as a scab, as a servant. The professional author, though, doesn't exist until just around Alexander Pope's own day, and Pope is, we think, the first professional poet in English history. He seems to be the first English poet to not have to take a government annuity or a pension or a fake job or be Laureate.

Pope's attacks on Grub Street, though, come primarily from the anxieties of the pre-professional age. From the later Restoration to the later Augustan eras, presses were churning out all sorts of things, but "printers" (e.g. Elinor James) had given way to printer-booksellers, and you'll find your mother of monsters in that class. These presses/sellers were the forerunners of publishers, but not quite. They were bookshops and printers, but they usually had to contract individually with others to get books out beyond their own shops, and these trade agreements were labyrinthine. Thus, some authors were "only at the sign of the Boar's Head" or other places. Grub Street (and Grubb Street... it gets both spellings) represented a population of writers who would take orders from the presses to supply them with transitory material, because these booksellers trafficked in the most transitory sorts of fare.

We know about the great poems that came out, but we have forgotten the hundreds and hundreds of pamphlets and broadsheets that came out. I recommend reading the article I did on Edmund Curll. He is satirized more than anyone else in Dunciad, more even than the "hero" of the poem, and he stands for half of what Grub Street means to Pope and Pope's allies. Grub Street meant bookshops that would sell imitations of great poets, scandal poems, bawdy pieces, pornography, romances, and political fortune-telling pieces, as well as horoscopes.

The other thing that Grub Street authors meant to Pope was a ready supply of writers to supply newspapers. We think of that as a good thing, but newspapers were political. Specifically, the "journals" were frequently party attack rags. Hence, a really loud one like Mist's Weekly Journal would pay contributors for pieces attacking the non-Stuart rulers, while the loud Fogg's Weekly Journal would pay contributors for attacking the Stuart loyalists. Grub Street hacks would pen things for small pay, and real politics got more and more bitter, and people's reputations were damaged. (Pope was attacked by these anonymous writers several times.)

Therefore, Grub Street, which, by 1710, meant a model of production and literary exploitation rather than a physical address, stood as the nadir of all that was literary for established writers. The only, and I mean only, author to try to defend Grub Street at all that I know of is the very interesting James Ralph, in The Case of the Authors.

Let me know if this is helpful. Geogre (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Need for the OED
Just a note, here. I do hope you go to the OED (Ox. Engl. Dict., for those who don't know) to get the exact dating of "grub street" as an adjective as opposed to a nominal. Do not trust it. The OED is "not reliable" in first usages, but it's a good rough guide (it's not reliable because nothing is, and their method is guaranteed to be post-facto). I should say the same thing about "cunt." Your current "gropecunt" requires tracking that word's transformation. In Chaucer's Miller's Tale, we have prively he caught her by the quoint (secretly, he grabbed her by the cunt), and that has scandalized people for centuries. However, in context, it seems like it simply can't carry the offensive force for Chaucer that it did for Samuel Cobb, for example. Something happens to that word. Similarly, "bubb" for "mammary gland" seems to have undergone a double switch from medium to low and back to medium register (today's "booby," which appears to be acceptable). I.e. to know if "gropecunt" was really Medieval folks being potty-mouthed, you have to know if "cunt" was the taboo term then that it would be by 1600. The down side is the the OED is weak on this one. This word's etymological and social fluctuations are, last I checked, still undocumented. It's a current puzzle, in other words, but there is at least evidence that "cunt," whatever its precise profane value, was not anything like the unspeakable word for the medieval writer that it would be for the seventeenth century writer (or the contemporary American, where it is the most taboo word -- much more so than in British English). Geogre (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Updating Gropecunt Lane
Hello Parrot of Doom - I noticed that you were the major contributor to the Gropcunt Lane article - which is todays Featured Article. And congrats on getting it to FA status. However, much of the stuff about the etymology really isn't entirely correct, so I'd like to have a go at editing it. I am (or rather was for 15 years) a professional lexicographer, and I have access to all the relevant resources including OED Online. But, I didn't want to do anything while it was FA day. Also, I don't want to go barging in and step on any toes. Anyhow, I hope that we can get together on this in a productive way.WikiLambo (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You've gotta laugh
Have you seen this? Eight official complaints made so far and counting. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Even more groping
The article got 207,300 views. Wow. Nev1 (talk) 00:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether you've seen this, but Stephen Fry appreciated your efforts. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The Cornish...
Thanks for keeping your eye on User:Jza84/Sandbox5. It's maturing to the point where certain details are becoming difficult to phrase or reference, but I'm getting there. I'm very happy with it as it stands, but still need to get alot of the revivalist stuff in there (Cornwall has its very own "national tartan"), and pad out some of the subsections about surfing and what not though....

On another note I think Gropecunt Lane has really upped your profile and reputation on Wikipedia. I must congratulate you on your achievements; I really sympathise with you for having to deal with some of the irksome comments and users that popped up on it's talk page yesterday, it will die down in a day or so. With pages like Nick Griffin and Gropecunt lane under your belt, you're showing you can deal with some of the most toughest types of resistance and behaviour from users on some of Wikipedia's most controvertial topics.... infact, you only need to get something about The Troubles to GA, and I think you will be something of a legend! That admin nomination still stands PofD :) --Jza84 | Talk  20:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * ??? Why are you accusing me of vandalism? It's a well-sourced reference from a leading international newspaper?  You might disagree that it should be there, and we should perhaps discuss on the talk page, but accusing me of vandalism is a violation of WP:NPA.   And why are you posting information on my talk page that other editors have already posted? Nfitz (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Calling Nick Griffin a "Mein Kampf admiring bigot" is clearly not a neutral point of view. Please familiarise yourself with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Nev1 (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What does inserting the opinion of a columnist do to improve this article, especially as it appears to have little basis in fact? And why is it in the lead only, and not the article body?  And what if Nick Griffin doesn't admire Mein Kampf?  And why insert a comment about his sinking of boats, when it reported on only by a tabloid, and the BBC (who conducted the interview)?
 * These are the reasons why I reverted your edits. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair questions. But how does that justify calling me a vandal??? Surely noting in someone's article that they are a bigot, is NPOV if they are indeed a bigot, and there are independent sources that support this. As for the immigrant comment - that has been well documented. See, , , , , , , , etc. Nfitz (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Calling someone a bigot is a judgement of their values, which is a breach of WP:BLP AND WP:NPOV. Explaining their values, is not and is how the article deals with the subject. Nev1 (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I consider your insertion of material that violates WP:BLP to be vandalism, that's why. Your links, well, the immigrant issued received very little coverage over here.  I was waiting for the story to mature a little, but it didn't, so I decided not to put it in.  He will become an MEP on Tuesday, so I'm expecting the broadsheets to mention it then, and at that point it may warrant a mention.  Presently though, it seems like a lot of fuss over nothing, and plenty of people, including Searchlight, are trying to turn the affair into a 'Griffin wants to murder immigrants' story, which I think is probably not the case.  Back to your links though, the BBC conducted the interview so you'd expect them to report on it, but lets not forget that it was the presenter who implied he wanted to murder immigrants - and she was very quickly corrected by Griffin.  I wouldn't trust the Mirror to wipe my backside with.  The PA link contradicts your earlier edit that he admired Mein Kampf, so I don't see why you'd mention that, as well as just reinforcing his comments on boats.  The PAJ link offers nothing new, and indeed mentions the boat thing only as a single line.  The Scotsman link is a letter written to the newspaper, so isn't usable. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am quite familiar with both, and noting that someone is a bigot, when this has been documented, is not a judgement on their values; it is simply on observance of reality. This observation has been made by indepenent media - not sure the big deal here.  Have you read about this man?  Clearly he is a complete and absolute piece of shit of the worse kind - now that's NPOV.  By noting he is a bigot, we are not talking "values" here - just recognizing what has been universally accepted.  The second issue is his immigrant comments.  This has been well documented, and I don't see any reason that is also been removed.  I will restore that clearly NPOV statement, and add more references. Nfitz (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming that most people would consider the word 'bigot' to be a pejorative term. Such words have no place in an article like this.  I make no apology for wanting to present as neutral an article as possible - that is why you'll find comments which appear to contradict criticism made of Griffin, wherever I could add them. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is for the reader of the article to decide whether or not (s)he considers Nick Griffin to be a bigot, not you. The article should simply present the facts. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not deciding whether he is a bigot or not. Where did you get that?  It's a well sourced statement from a reliable media reference, that meets WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Nfitz (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're not, but the journalists who write such pieces are. If a well noted historian acclaimed Alexander the Great as the greatest general ever to live in a reliable source, it wouldn't make it fact; what would be fact is that the historian stated it. Adding a journalist's opinion out of context, no matter where it's published, is still a breach of policy. State the facts about Griffin's beliefs and let the reader decide. Nev1 (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - though shouldn't there be a line? Clearly Griffin is completely past the line, and is a bigot, as recognized by the media.  While we must maintain NPOV and BLP, can we also not recogise what is quite clear, and well sourced in the media. Anyone one reading the article will quickly realise that the man, and any of his supporters are the most vile pieces of humanity ever created ... and while the article shouldn't say that; merely presenting the facts, as sourced elsewhere, seems appropriate to me.  Are there any general policy discussions on this elsewhere?  Nothing is jumping out on my and both BLP and NPOV are amazingly vague on the issue. Nfitz (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, there is no line and wikipiedia must adhere to WP:NPOV, and just as importantly, WP:BLP. No matter how clear it may be to you, the tabloids, or anyone else for that matter we cannot insert such judgements on his character. In what way to you find policy to be vague or insufficient in this situation? Nev1 (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Then why remove a well-sourced statement by a respectable broadsheet, that he is a bigot? Nfitz (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Because it is an opinion of an unimportant journalist, not a fact. It has no place here. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) Because it's still an opinion. The way you added it to the article &ndash ie: very prominently in the lead and without context – was inappropriate. When context is added that so-and-so says he's a bigot it becomes trivial unless the person is notable. Nev1 (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally I find Griffin to be a rather pathetic individual, consumed by fear. I have no love for the man or his politics, but I recognise the importance of a neutral article on this encyclopaedia - after all, in a couple of days time I will expect a significant rise in page visits, due to his election as an MEP.  Who knows, it may even appear 'in the news' on the front page.  The last thing I want is people reading a biased article on such a notable figure.  If the Prime Minister, or another notable public figure, called him a bigot, I think that would be fine to include as a quotation - but the opinion of a newspaper journalist is irrelevant.  Frankly your comment "are the most vile pieces of humanity ever created" I find disappointing - as an editor you should allow people to arrive at their own decisions - after all, he soon will be a democratically elected politician, so some people are persuaded by his arguments. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's my opinion; which I am free to express in a Talk Page; and I think it's fair to make my opinion clear, so that any questions of my bias are on the table. Besides ... who would ever disagree with me? Nfitz (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Plenty of people would disagree with you - presumably a significant percentage of the 943,598 people who voted him and his colleague into power. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Which is less than the number of people that voted for Adolf Hitler; but I don't see the point; I can't imagine any of those ignorant people are here - it's unlikely they can read, let alone type. Nfitz (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Cloudland Canyon State Park
After much wiki-slothing I'm finally making progress on addressing the items raised in the GA review. I expect to have them all addressed by late this evening, which for me is 4 am GST. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reviewing the article, Parrot. I appreciate your insights. Happy editing, Majoreditor (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Mary Tofts
That's an interesting article. I was adding lists of works to year-in-poetry pages when I came across that and eventually decided to look into it. The poem itself doesn't seem very good, although reading the article makes it more understandable. Still, it's pretty gross, I think, the reader needs to be extremely conversant with 18th-century diction and usage in order to get some of the humor quickly enough for it to be punchy. But I'm not too impressed with it. I thought the lines I quoted were great to end the article with -- a kind of "kicker" that we normally don't have in an encyclopedia article. But I didn't notice that until after I added them. They sound like Alexander Pope, don't they? They have that cool, distant, abstracted nature to them, but they give me the feelign Pope tacked it on to what may have been written mostly by his collaborator. The paragraph before the one with the quote ties in really well with what the poem was doing, and the poem might be used as an example to illustrate some of the points made in that paragraph -- but I don't think it's necessary and I don't have an interest in it. That quote seemed to be the only one in the poem that didn't require either an explanation of what particular words meant or a strong stomach. Sorry, I don't have the time to add more to the article, but if you're in a jam with something to do with the poetry or literature parts of it, give a holler and I'll try to squeeze out some time. -- Reconsideration (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A man on a mission
You're doing a great job with Salford. If you keep this up we'll have to consider going straight into the lion's den of FAC. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Grub Street
I'm still thinking about this article. Just to let you know. Awadewit (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to provide further input on desysop proposal
As someone who commented either for or against proposals here, I would like to invite you to comment further on the desysop process proposal and suggest amendments before I move the proposal into projectspace for wider scrutiny and a discussion on adoption. The other ideas proposed on the page were rejected, and if you are uninterested in commenting on the desysop proposal I understand of course. Thanks! → ROUX   ₪  04:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Page number provided
I just added it. Reconsideration (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Vantage points for photos
Hi, I've left a message for you at Talk:Salford, Greater Manchester which might save you a bit of leg work. Richerman (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind ...
... but I've altered a couple of the alt text that you added to Salford. It's kinda obvious that it's an image. :-) The best advice I've seen for writing alt text is to try and imagine that you're describing the picture to someone over the phone. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, I just wondered because some articles contain video and audio files, if they have alt fields it may be appropriate to make the distinction. Seems like a change for people on mobile devices, well I say they should just put their hand in their wallet tbh! Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * PS. Congratulations on Salford's GA. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm only a small player in that one. :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We were all small players in that one, which I think makes it all the more special. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Credulity, Superstition and Fanaticism
Hi, just wanted to let you know I liked the Hogarth image so much I nominated it for FPC. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Toft
See the FAC for some links. Since I cannot find a page by Pope on the poem, and I found you a wonderful quote praising Pope in regards to the poem, would you care to help me create a page? I can do all of the poetical parts of the work if you condense and summarize the Toft page for the background along with some other stuff that you already have plenty of references for. How does that sound? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So, are you up for contributing to an article? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it would be devoted to the poem, of course. So, it would be Pope's take on Toft. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thought this might a good project ...
I thought wife selling might make a good article, but sadly someone's beaten me to it. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Grub Street
I did say I'd search around for information on the parishes involved and I managed to turn up this: (and, confusingly overlapping the first one this: ) which shows Moorfields in the St Giles-without-Cripplegate parish when Strype's Survey was published in 1720. There are various hints that the parish of St Lukes was divided from St Giles-without-Cripplegate at some point, taking part of Moorfields with it and was later reabsorbed, but I haven't been able to find a date for the redrawing of the boundaries. Long and short: it seems that saying Grub Street was close to Moorfields is safe ,but saying it is in Moorfields (as a district, parish, ward or whatever) is not. (If Strype's drawings interest you, other wards and parishes are here: and the whole book is available here:  though it is heavy, heavy going.)  Long Shrift (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)