User talk:Paul Barlow/Archive 5

Macaulay
So sorry! I wasn't aware that quote was unproved/unsourced. Tomjenkins52 (talk) 07:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Suffrage
Thanks. Go to bed when you are knackered is 'a good idea'. Fix complex vandalism when you are knackered is 'a bad idea'. Thanks again. Autodidactyl (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yo!
Yo! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.24.252.180 (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Margaret Wilson (Scottish martyr)
Yes Paul, with that Tate ref, that sounds convincing. But two conundrums: in the "The Martyr of The Solway" the body of the figure (even in the x-ray (see )) is turned towards the left, as is the face. Furthermore, the Tate article now cited talks of "Recent x-ray photographs of the picture..." but which picture? Surely not of The Knight Errant, the original figure from which had been cut out and added to the Martyr of The Solway? Surely Millais must have reworked The Knight from scratch after the offending figure had been salvaged? Not sure also why The Martyr x-ray appears to show no marks of "sewing on... " Martinevans123 (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought your latest change was certainly an improvement. But looking again at the two sources I have attempted a re-write which does justice to both. Please improve further if you can. Looking carefully at the Martyr x-ray it is clear that the woman would have been looking directly at the knight through the corners of her eyes. (The Knight's remaining eye-line, which seems not to have been repainted, now looks somewhat unresolved, even vacant, as a result). I am still unsure about any stitching - the x-ray suggests more that the patch was simply stuck on - but that seems an unnecessary detail here. What do you think? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Paul, well that's a fascinating detail about the "Once a Week" magazine illustration. I'd certainly love to see it. But what an incredible story behind the Martyr picture. I must admit I am bemused by both websites - the Walker for not even mentioning The Knight, but also the Tate for stating the painting was recently x-rayed - but revealling what? For me the style of The Martyr seems a world away from the "early Victorian revival" Millais had sought in The Knight. But I know of no other work of fine art hacked about so much after a presentation at the RA! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you really, how amazing. What was your take on the eye contact? A bit too graphic for late Victorian sensibilities? Was Etty really the nearest to thing to Titian that England ever produced? I think he was certainly a fan. To me his nudes seem far more earthy and vulnerable - sometimes as if Titian's voluptuous angels have been brought down to earth with a bump in muddy Yorkshire. Haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What a superb drawing, arguably more dramatic than the painting. In fact, I'd certinly support any ideas you may have for adding it to the article. I must say I had never really associated Millais with flesh of any kind, unless perhaps liberally covered in petals. Am also surprised that Ruskin would admit to any interest in the same! Many thanks for your continued tutelage here. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Marvelous work, Paul. The article now looks so much better and I feel that, at this stage, nothing needs to be added. Well done and thank you. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in...
Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, since you've expressed an opinion on this before. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

RS Notice board:Commentaries on a Peer reviewed Article.....Again
Hello,

You are being informed of this topic on the reliable sources notice board because you, commented on the question the last time, or are editor of the article The Man Who Would Be Queen, or you edited a related article. This was originally raised in October 2008. This is a complex topic and hopefully you will remember what this was all about and be able to comment insightfully and help us reach a consensus. I have asked that the comments found in the archive of the original discussion be taken into account this time since I am sure those other editors will return at some point. It is my hope that these can be comprehensively settled this time. To see why This is being asked again check out Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_Articles.2C_Commentaries.2C_etc._that_appear_in_a_Scientific_Journal. This link is to the new request for comment on the reliable sources notice board. (You may have to scroll down to see it)]

Please please don't confuse up this discussion with things about other tangentially related discussions. Please please focus on just the question of sources. (Don't take anything in this message personally as it is being sent to everyone involved.)

Thankyou for your help. --Hfarmer (talk) 13:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs
Concerning my suggestion to describe Adolf Hitler as "nominally Catholic," which you said, "sounds reasonable" By now, I have made a note of the controversy at Wikiquette alerts, because I perceive that Str1977, who accused me of POV-Pushing in the edit summary, is assuming bad faith. Any help or advise would be appreciated. Zara1709 (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
thanks pfor the articles, they r good!.. keep up the good work!

greetings from Arequipa!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arequipa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.42.16.227 (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, whoever you are! Paul B (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * also for Jean-Marc Ferry and Pierre Vidal-Naquet Holocaust denial. But extermination is not very Derrida, I think... It is a very simple word... And also very Girard. But perhaps I don't understand because of my bad English. . In my view the Holocaust denial is a part of the genocide itself, since the beginning... Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Renaud.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Renaud.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

‎René Quillivic
Hi, I noticed that you created ‎René Quillivic, but listed no sources for the information contained in the article. According to Wikipedia's content policies, all information must be verifiable from reliable sources. Therefore, it's necessary to cite your sources so other editors can check that the information included in the article is correct and matches the sources used. Information not previously published in such sources is prohibited as original research, since other editors can't verify it. Unsourced information may be challenged and removed at any time, and articles that can't be verified are likely to be deleted. Guidance on how to cite your sources is available, and if you need any further help, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Gilo1969 (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for above - on autopilot. Gilo1969 (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I hope to expedite, and not interfere. Do you mean, when you say "It was used as the model for the work.[2]", that the bronze bust, that had been modelled on his mother, was then used as the model for the statue?", or is his mother the model for both? The Tourism board says his mother was the model for the statue, but if you have better information, we should use it. Anarchangel (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Hernot.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Hernot.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Pontcallec Conspiracy
This article doesn't list any references. Please add some so other editors can check the accuracy of your article. If it continues to be unverifiable it won't meet a very basic policy which may result in deletion. Just add them at the bottom. If you need any help with the formatting, you can click on the talk link in my signature to contact me -- I'll format them if you don't know how it's done. - Mgm|(talk) 12:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Gee thanks, I really need to know that. Paul B (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

NOR Noticeboard
I've offered some comments to the section Hamitic. Unfortunately there aren't enough interested editors there to answer all the feedback requests quickly. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Laocoonphoto.jpg
Hi, This file that you have uploaded has been moved to Commons recently, and we miss some source info about it. Could you please tell us where you have found the photo (book?), if you know who the photographer was, and when it was taken? I thank you in advance. If you have an account on Commons (or a SUL account), you can contact me there. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Any info on this one? --Eusebius (talk) 08:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Cunnilingus in Song of Songs
Hi Paul, What's the actual claim in the Exum article you cited? There are two claims implied in the article:
 * 1) The word traditionally translated 'navel' actually refers (or may refer) to the beloved's vulva
 * 2) The whole passage is (or may be) a reference to cunnilingus.

Which of these claims does she make, and how strongly does she make them? If she doesn't explicitly endorse claim #2, I'm inclined to slap an Original Research tag on the section until someone comes up with better support. In any case, I'm pretty sure the article's language should be more tentative than it is currently. Cheers, 66.183.187.193 (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in
Thanks for weighing in on Gareth Penn. I finally had to drop out of the discussion -- whoever has the most time for fighting reverts wins the game here. I'm sorry to say that the Alan Cabal story to which your post refers is among dozens of valid sources that Bali ultimate removed, many of them coming from Penn's own book. It's unfortunate, but if editing the Gareth Penn story is that important to her, more power to her. Scijournalist (talk) 08:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Homo floresiensis
nominated Homo floresiensis for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Thank you. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That article on Egyptian "race" or something or other
I don't remember what the exact title is, but you've been involved on at least the discussion page, and I'd like your input, comments, suggestions, vote on the suggested lead here. So far, it's got three thumbs up, but I want to hear what others think. Thanks. :) deeceevoice (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Count Renaud
You make reference to a "Count Renaud" in your recent additions to the Erispoe article. Can you clarify who this is? Is it the count of Rennes? Thanks. Srnec (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Good (fast) work. Srnec (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop removing my editing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121314151617g (talk • contribs) 17:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello again Paul. I'm new here, so could you please tell me how to talk to you without posting on your discussion page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121314151617g (talk • contribs) 18:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Nordic race
Hi there, Paul. The thing I wrote about the "straight/celestial nose"(concave when viewed from profile (the oposite shape of the "hawk nose") in the article; "Nordic race", is not nonsense, as you called it. It is common in Nordic countries/in the Nordic race. And about the haircolour; it varies from light blonde to dark brown(/black, as someone might call it), as it also may darken with age). As an example to this, I could mention that lots of Scandinavians in the viking age and earlier got the nickname "svarti" (the black), as well as "raude" (the red) and other nicknames that described their looks. The fact that these Norsemen came from all Norse/Nordic ancestry as mentioned in old Norse sagas, proves that dark hair also is common in the Nordic race. Although, the "Aryan race" is often represented blond. This is actually more a kind of a manufacture made by Nazi-Germany under WWII to use in their propaganda, as people from the Nordic race may have blond/light hair. Of course no one can prove anything about it, but I think that Germanic/Nordic people always have had both light and dark hair, and that the facial features, skin and eyecolour etc. is what defines the Nordic race.

Best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121314151617g (talk • contribs) 20:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see. "but there is no such concept as "celestial nose" in English". If it's not called "celestial nose", it might be called "turn up nose" or something. It is the oposite of the "hawk nose" when watched in profile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121314151617g (talk • contribs) 15:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Iberian-Guanche silliness
A heartfelt cheers and ya d'ar brezhoneg ;-)
 * PS: I had just put that section there as a form of "incitement" for the A-V-crazed pseudo-linguistic lot. I'll be more than happy without a trace of it. Trigaranus (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

A big amen to that (and no problem about the revert). I've actually read his paper on Jews and Palestinians (they hadn't ripped it out of the journals at my library, thank God). No wonder the editors recanted it: I can't judge the genetic research, but the history section is just as loose as his linguistic writing (and he evidently didn't have it proof-read by someone able to speak English). It's always surprising to see which characters trace the most obstinate following. Trigaranus (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Iberian-Guanche Inscriptions
Dear Paul, Why do you try to relate Arnaiz-Villena with these scripts? I think you could read or re-read the page as it is now. These inscriptions have nothing to do with Lybic inscriptions. This is now well documented. In any case ,I have close to me a library I coud scan from with many documents about these inscriptios.

What happened is that Pichler was not familiarized with Iberian scripts. Iberian experts have seemed being too far from the Canary Islands.

The question is whether these inscriptions are a new form of Canary (or Guanche) inscriptions and whether they are Iberian scripts.If you cannot help to this,then this is not your discussion. I am not familiarized with Wikipedia,but I am sure you can contact me if you wish.

Regards --Virginal6 (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)--Virginal6 (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Iberian-Guanche Inscriptions
Dear Paul, Why do you try to relate Arnaiz-Villena with these scripts? I think you could read or re-read the page as it is now. These inscriptions have nothing to do with Lybic inscriptions. This is now well documented. In any case ,I have close to me a library I coud scan from with many documents about these inscriptios.

What happened is that Pichler was not familiarized with Iberian scripts. Iberian experts have seemed being too far from the Canary Islands.

The question is whether these inscriptions are a new form of Canary (or Guanche) inscriptions and whether they are Iberian scripts.If you cannot help to this,then this is not your discussion. I am not familiarized with Wikipedia,but I am sure you can contact me if you wish.

Regards --Virginal6 (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)--Virginal6 (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Cana
You were an early contributor to the subject. There is now a revived discussion of the article, and your participation would be welcome. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:GSergi.jpg}
Thank you for uploading File:GSergi.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:GSergi.jpg}
Thank you for uploading File:GSergi.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sage Writing
Paul, you may wish to view my comments on Eleuther's talk page. While I am only partially convinced by Landow's argument for sage writing as a genre, I fully agree with you that its use is NOT spam. Regards, Mark Dietz Mddietz (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Paul, Thanks for your response. You are probably right on Ruskin,-- I have not read as much of Ruskin as I should like,-- but what I have read, would lead me to agree with you.  Frankly, Landow's argument struck me as stronger for Ruskin than for Arnold (although the title of his book refers directly to Arnold).  (Incidentally, I have Holloway's book but have not read it yet, perhaps this summer...)  With Carlyle and Arnold, their own tendency to irony makes the irony in the term itself somewhat more problemsome.  As I read it, the term seems to imply that sage writers lack the very sagacity that one would expect from a superficial reading.  I find that problemsome, and I think, more than anything else, the necessity to read the term ironically plays against its use in a general text.
 * At the same time, I would say that Landow gives a bit more nuanced reading of the term (or maybe simply inconsistent reading, depending upon the credit one would give to Landow). He certainly has language that suggests that the sagacity of the sage writer is something of a grand pretension, but his appreciation of the various writers he deals with from Carlyle to Mailer suggests that their attempts at sagacity had varying levels of success,-- with the twentieth century writers seeming to come off much better than their nineteenth century predecessors.
 * Nonetheless, I had suggested that the term needs to be defined by more than a hyperlink when used in wikipedia, but if you check out the definition that we placed on the Arnold page, I'm not overly happy with that either. The term itself seems to me to be too much a critical response, and not a neutral genre.  But then again have any genres every been truly neutral?  In the long run, I'm inclined to say with you that it is part of the current dialog and should be included in some fashion.  Regards, Mark Mddietz (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the citation you just added from Holloway certainly puts paid to what I have said here. Clearly I need to read Holloway.  If you get a chance to glance at the Arnold page, I would sure appreciate your thoughts on how sage writing is incorporated in that article.  Thanks, Mark Mddietz (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What's was the reasoning behind undoing my last edit for Saviours' Day?
What's was the reasoning behind undoing my last edit for Saviours' Day? Public confusion over the spelling should be addressed, since it's a pretty large grammatical error in punctuation that's occurring between their title "Saviours' Day" and their theology. Your entry on "Spelling" may lead readers to be become confused and conclude that the British spelling of Saviour some how influences or lends itself to putting the apostrophe at the end of the word "Saviours".

My entry clarifies this by addressing the fact that only the plural form for the word Saviour ends in "s" in the English language, and therefore should have been written "Saviour's Day". British guides on punctuation allow an apostrophe after an "s" for biblical names ending with an "s": e.g., "Jeusus' words" or "Jesus's words". However, Saviour does not end with an "s", only the plural form does. Therefore, Saviours is the plural form of Saviour and cannot have an apostrophe at the end without creating creating the meaning of "many saviours".

Notability of American Society of Muslims
A tag has been placed on American Society of Muslims requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Eeekster (talk) 12:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Paul. I left comments on the australoid page under the name BCR. Can I remove my comments please. Even if it's an archive, I don't want my comments there anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobenobo (talk • contribs) 23:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:MF Hussain
Happy to know that you are well-versed with talk page guidelines! But the new section that you posted doesn't seem to look like a reply :S... Where is the comment of the OP? Was it deleted? -- KnowledgeHegemony talk 08:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey. do you know how I can delete my page?

The Black Brunswicker (Millais)
I have nominated this content fork for deletion. See here. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 10:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've come to the conclusion that your method would be better, having looked for sources on Google Books. It's clear the content would be too long for a mere section. I therefore hope you'll pardon me of the expenditure of time and effort. My initial decision was rash, but I think we really should work on distributing this material, because, as of now, the article and sections are close mirrors. I'll go now to funnel the content properly from one to the other, and make the section in Black Brunswickers more concise. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 11:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks; as will I. Once again, my apologies. Best, &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 12:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Information on The Black Brunswicker
Hello Paul! I’m from the German Wikipedia (cf. de:Benutzer:Brunswyk) and the author of de:Der Schwarze Braunschweiger which is the German title of the above picture. I saw that you added some information referring to what might have inspired Millais – in particular regarding the Duchess of Richmond's ball on the eve of the Battle of Quatre Bras. As a reference you mentioned “Mary Bennett, Artists of the Pre-Raphaelite Circle: The First Generation, Catalogue of Works at the Walker Art Gallery, Lady Lever Gallery and Sudley Art Gallery, National Museums and Galleries, Merseyside, Lund Humphries, pp.144-149.” Unfortunately I do not have access to that catalogue, so I wonder, if either you could give me the exact page on which to find the information or if you could scan pp 144-49 and send them via e-mail to me. Thanks in advance and regards from Braunschweig. Cheers, Brunswyk (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Janssen portrait
Hi, I noticed you uploaded a good low-resolution version of the Janssen portrait, and I wasn't able to locate the source. Could you tell me where it was copied from? It's PD-Art so it doesn't matter, it won't be removed. Thanks! Dcoetzee 04:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hamersley
Hi Paul. In regards to the De Vere information, I'd advise seeking out the citation provided, which includes five pages of detailed information plus three pages of notes and references. You could also Google the matter for further information. Softlavender (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would then, again suggest reading the cited pages from the cited reference. It is a neutrally written and heavily researched and cited secondary source, which gives the history of the painting and the various sides/studies of the identification question up through the time of publication. Softlavender (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Macaulay
Your writings are based on your narrow minded, "believe only in footnotes" type of research. Whatever be your opinions the people in India are now becoming more than aware of how this country was systematically looted through the policies that Macaulay and his likes have helped formulate.

Run Paul Run. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.237.195.182 (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Amy brown
Hey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Um im 10 years old and im studying shakes pere!

Any []]one wanna chat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.178.252 (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:William Holman Hunt, Self-Portrait.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:William Holman Hunt, Self-Portrait.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Chandos or monument?
I posted a message at Arden concerning the Soest. Any opinion? http://groups.google.com/group/ardenmanagers/browse_frm/thread/694eb7739437e50a?hl=en Tom Reedy (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Circassian beauties
What "evidence" are you talking about? The showman? Have you seen pictures of peoples from the Caucasus? Have you looked at descendants of Circassian people in the wikipedia today? Have you got a theory how "distinctive Afro" features could be found at that time in the Caucasus? It's really hard to believe that you are serious. 217.236.246.54 (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC) PS. It's also bad style (which I see you usually do not use) to quote ("moss haired") without giving a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.236.246.54 (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Answer to your comment:
 * I can't believe you base your theory on advertising products. The painting I mentioned on the discussion page shows light hair by the way. And the painting in the article shows a woman who does not have "distinctive Afro-like hair style". You confer that it is academically unimpressive because it's an annotation to a poem by Poe. Again, you can't be serious. There is no academic quotation whatsoever in the article which justifies your claim. I'm really astonished.

217.236.246.54 (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Answer to your second comment:
 * Again - you base your theory on advertising and talk about a quotation by a known scholar as "academically unimpressive". It is bad style - the beginning is about the actual people - and not about selling products.
 * By the way - why don't you use your talk page? 217.236.246.54 (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Answer to your next comment
 * It has nothing to do with Poe per se. It's an explanation of the word Circassy. Of course you know that. You're talking about a cultural concept - ok, so far so good - but the article is misleading. The only basis for your depiction of this concept as "distinctive Afro ..." is the advertising. The quoted poetry does not say the same thing.
 * And the painting does not. And you know that there are other paintings - I mentioned one showing a Circassian woman with light hair. I'm really totally astonished that you simply remove the quotation by the scholar and base the article on an advertising campaign. Unbelievable. 217.236.246.54 (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way - you did not yet comment my critique in the first post. 217.236.246.54 (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

When was this painted?
Hello Paul,

Do you happen to know, when Perugini painted this portrait of his wife?

Regards, Brunswyk (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

HHH
So you're a Wikipedia addict - well that sure is something to be proud of! But when it comes to Shakespeare obviously you don't have a clue. By the way, do you speak German? See, the most recent of HHH's books are not yet published in English, so... but of course, besides NOT speaking German the old men of the RSC and the NPG have two more things they can hold against her: '''She's German AND a woman! A female hun!''' OMG! Sure, THAT really disqualifies her! Well, so far, so ... not so good. CU! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serfgzuj (talk • contribs) 10:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The page wasn't created by her. BTW, nice stuff you're specializing in! The Aryan race and religion... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serfgzuj (talk • contribs) 10:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I know Tarnya Cooper. Right, she's female. My mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serfgzuj (talk • contribs) 10:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Not the "opions"? Anyway, in case you didn't notice, my contributions ARE about the portrait. Besides, in this context, who gives you the authority to judge what's undue weight? Serfgzuj (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Paul Barlow's comments on Prof. Dr. Hildegard Hammerschmidt-Hummel
Dear Paul Barlow,

Because of the defamatory and insulting character of your entry (to be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cobbe_portrait), which clearly violates the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, I will contact the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee – unless your entry is removed and the text concerning Hammerschmidt-Hummel’s published comment on the Cobbe portrait gets reinserted and stays there.

Hammerschmidt-Hummel is definitely not - as you call her disparagingly and defamatorily - “an extremely maverick individual with a long track record for obsessively defending distinctly fringe views”. Your careless and incorrect judgment reveals that you cannot have read any of her books - in contrast to the many Shakespeare experts and top journalists who have examined her results closely. They came to the conclusion that she is an outstanding Shakespeare scholar who has discovered new historical and visual sources and has always collaborated with experts from other disciplines which enabled her to resolve existing problems in regard to Shakespeare’s life, times and religion, outer appearance and mistress (the dark lady).

The experts you refer to in connection with the Darmstadt Shakespeare death mask, who think that this mask is “not real”, all rely on an early 20th century art historian who has not even seen the object, as Professor Hammerschmidt-Hummel proves in her book The True Face of William Shakespeare (2006). Today’s experts on death masks, the pathologist Professor Hans Helmut Jansen and Professor Michael Hertl, who have widely published on the subject, reject this art historian’s view as “unsound” and not tenable. In his report, the medical expert Prof. Hertl wrote: “The Darmstadt mask is indisputably the original mask.” In addition, Hertl gives a detailed account of Hammerschmidt-Hummel’s findings in his book, titled Totenmasken (Death Masks), published in 2002. Four medical professors examined the visible – progressive - signs of disease on the Darmstadt Shakespeare death mask, on the Davenant bust, in the Chandos portrait and the (original) Flower portrait (not its copy which is presently kept in the RSC depository), which are all in the same location. They expressly confirmed Hammerschmidt-Hummel’s results, i.e. that these images must be authentic and must have been created during Shakespeare’s lifetime or immediately after his death. BKA (= CID or FBI) identification expert Reinhardt Altmann, who employed the latest BKA technology, settled the hitherto open question of identity – by comparing the Darmstadt Shakespeare death mask with the Stratford funerary bust of Shakespeare, the Droeshout engraving and all the other above-named images of the bard.

What you are obviously not aware of is the fact that many Elizabethan pictures are emblematical and full of hidden meanings, as the research results in the field of Renaissance painting are able to show. Hammerschmidt-Hummel has closely cooperated with several specialists in this field and has revealed many encoded allusions in Elizabethan and Jacobean paintings.

The German Shakespeare scholar also carried out the long-term research project “Shakespearean illustrations from 1594 to 2000”, funded by the German Research Council, the Mainz Academy of Sciences and Literature and the University of Mainz. She collected and compiled more than 7,000 works of artists on Shakespeare’s plays. More than 3000 of them were published by Hammerschmidt-Hummel in her three-volume work Die Shakespeare-Illustration in 2003, containing a comprehensive historical introduction and a lexicon of artists she authored and also a classified bibliography and indexes. In November 2008, the new online archive “Shakespeare-Bildarchiv Oppel-Hammerschmidt” at the University of Mainz, together with an intelligent web interface version, containing the hitherto unpublished collection of 3500 Shakespearean illustrations, was presented to the public.

Below readers of Wikipedia will find numerous quotes from book reviews, articles and comments eminent Shakespeare and literary scholars as well as respected science journalists from all over the world have written on Professor Hammerschmidt-Hummel’s published findings in the form of books, essays, press releases etc.

With regard to her book The True Face of William Shakespeare. The Poet’s Death Mask and Likenesses from Three Periods of His Life (London: Chaucer Press, 2006), in which four authentic and true-to-life images of Shakespeare are presented for the first time, I should like to draw the readers’ attention to the following examples:


 * 'A brilliant academic study which can also be thoroughly enjoyed by any layperson. … an outstanding achievement’   Dr Paul C Doherty


 * ‘Her theory makes obvious sense of a long mystery’ A. N. Wilson, Evening Standard


 * ‘Superimposing the models revealed perfect matches’ Rob Edwards, New Scientist


 * HHH 'succeeded in proving that the Davenant Bust depicts William Shakespeare’s authentic lifelike features'  GEO


 * 'I was not only impressed but also convinced by the author’s arguments, in view of which not a few leading scholars were made to look mere amateurs'   Professor Peter Milward, The Renaissance Bulletin


 * HHH's 'elegantly produced volume will surely stand as the definitive work which solves many of the mysteries surrounding the few images of Shakespeare that we possess.    ... the author shows that the so-called Chandos and Flower portraits are ... painted during the playwright's lifetime. This establishes that the 1623 Droeshout engraving ... was copied from the Flower portrait, not vice versa ... [She  demonstrates] that [theDarmstadt death mask's] features exactly reproduce those of the other images of Shakespeare. Professor Michael Patterson, Theatre Research International (Cambridge University)


 * ‘Over the past decade Hildegard Hammerschmidt-Hummel … has been a scholarly leader in discovering more about Shakespeare’ Douglas Galbi, U.S., FCC, Purple Motes

As to Hammerschmidt-Hummel’s Shakespeare biography, The Life and Times of William Shakespeare, 1564-1616 (London: Chaucer Press, 2007), a few examples may suffice:

(Theological Journal)
 * ‘Fascinating ... a sheer unbelievably dense network of individual facts, encyclopedic knowledge, scholarly curiosity and intuitive link-ups lead to a genuine advance of knowledge.’H.-Viktor von Sury, Theologisches

An International Journal of Critical Aesthetics
 * '... the latest in a series of original discoveries the Mainz University professor has made ... [It] reads like a mystery story. ... the author proceeds from one fundamental hypothesis - that Shakespeare maintained the old faith - and moves from one nested hypothesis to the next, to explain biographical events as well as features of the works, which had been hitherto incomprehensible. The hard evidence she presents in the form of historical documentation supports each of the hypotheses most convincingly.’ Muriel Mirak-Weissbach, Symbolism.

author of Shakespeare on the German Stage, Cambridge University Press
 * ‘A great book ..., a terrific political thriller ..., an enormously vivid picture of the age, and completely new insights into Shakespeare.’ Professor W. Hortmann,


 * '[HHH's] findings in the field of Shakespeare biography reach far beyond what has previously been known. She has achieved a unique success.’ Professor K. Otten, Anglistik (Bulletin of the German University Teachers of English)


 * 'Hummel's case reveals a remarkable cornucopia of circumstantial evidence. I can not attempt to weigh the pieces for their merits.'  Dr Tom Merriam, Religion and the Arts


 * ‘... following on the many recent studies of this subject [Shakespeare’s biography] ... there has appeared this outstanding survey of The Life and Times of William Shakespeare by the German scholar, Hildegard Hammerschmidt-Hummel, lavishly presented with no fewer than 154 illustrations by the Chaucer Press, after having been translated from the original German which was published in 2003. One’s first impression of the book is that it should make an ideal volume for the coffee-table, it is such a delight to turn the pages and to pause over the illustrations, each provided with a detailed caption and each closely connected with the adjacent text. As for the text, we find a full and critical discussion of all that is known of the life and times of the dramatist with special attention to his Catholic background, his boyhood formation and dramatic inspiration – ....

I have only been able to give a brief outline of all the fascinating wealth of evidence to be found in this volume, to which one may do well to return again and again for fresh enlightenment on the enigma of WS.’ Professor Peter Milward, Renaissance Bulletin

As far as Professor Hammerschmidt-Hummel’s book, Das Geheimnis um Shakespeares ‘Dark Lady’. Dokumentation einer Enthüllung (The Secret Surrounding Shakespeare’s ‘Dark Lady’. Uncovering a Mystery) is concerned, there was a spectacular – unauthorized - publication of her results in the Sunday Times (22 August 1999) – because of an indiscretion of an English colleague. This happened three weeks prior to her publisher’s press conference and caused great damage. There was, however, an extremely positive reaction when Hammerschmidt-Hummel herself presented her findings to the public as well as the new sources he had discovered. In September 2000, a summary of the reaction to this book in the worldwide media appeared in the journal Anglistik.

Since it is impossible to give you examples from the countless reviews and comments on Professor Hammerschmidt-Hummel’s Dark Lady book, an extract of the very first expert opinion may suffice here:

Professor Dieter Wuttke, Renaissance Studies; University of Bamberg, Germany, Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts, National Gallery of Art, Washington, D. C., former Member of the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton.
 * ‘It is a long time since I have read, no devoured a scholarly manuscript with such curiosity, suspense, enthusiasm, approval and undivided admiration as in this present case. It is very skilfully constructed and written in a brilliantly adequate style. The matter-of-factness and precision correspond exactly with the author’s intention of convincing by means of the circumstantial evidence. It is good that she has withstood every temptation to accompany and substantiate her findings and conclusions by stylistic theatrical thunder. The work convinces me in every detail, in all its conclusions. It represents a triumph of cultural-historically guided philology which would also have found the enthusiastic support of Aby M. Warburg or Erwin Panofsky.’

I would like to close with a remark made by the American theologian Andreas Kramarz. In his review on Hammerschmidt-Hummel’s Shakespeare biography, published in NCR (June 22-28, 2008), Kramarz praises the author’s “meticulous studies of historical documents, pieces of art and Shakespeare’s own works” as well as the “conclusive answers to many of the unresolved problems of the Bard’s life”. He rejects Alan Jacobs who, by ridiculing naïve “code-breaking” attempts in Harry Potter and the Bible, seems to insinuate that Hammerschmidt-Hummel might be among them. Kramarz therefore makes it quite clear:


 * “A careful review of her study will certainly come across hypotheses and theories, but the weight of the arguments as a whole, ‘applying interdisciplinary research methods from fields including medicine, physics, botany, criminology, architecture, history of art, archaeology, paleography, jurisprudence, theology, historiography, linguistics, and cultural and literary studies,’ lead to conclusions that can’t be dismissed. Its many small pieces make up a mosaic.”

Kramarz’s simple answer to the final comment of Jacobs (“The Da Vinci Code, the Gospel of Judas, and the new Shakespeare-was-a-closet-Catholic books all demonstrate just how eager readers are to believe in secret meanings. … Give me a break.”) reads:“Break granted. During the break, Hildegard Hammerschmidt-Hummel’s new Shakespeare biography might make for very profitable reading.”

My recommendation is: Readers of the worldwide community of Wikipedia should engage with Hammerschmidt-Hummel’s books (also with her website www.hammerschmidt-hummel.de) and make up their own minds.

CU! Serfgzuj (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

About Marcia Pointon

 * "So do I. And Marcia Pointon, who has a few things to say about H-H. Paul B (talk) 10:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)"

Marcia Pointon’s objections against Hildegard Hammerschmidt-Hummel’s proofs of authenticity for the Darmstadt Shakespeare death mask as well as the Chandos and Flower portraits have not proved tenable. Pointon raised these objections in a paper she gave in 2006. At that time she could not have been aquainted with the details of Hammerschmidt-Hummel’s findings which were published in German in Shakespeare-Jahrbuch (Shakespeare Yearbook) (1996). Pointon’s paper was published in Shakespeare-Jahrbuch (1997). Her arguments were then thoroughly tested and refuted by Hammerschmidt-Hummel in her reply in Anglistik. Mitteilungen des Verbandes Deutscher Anglisten (Bulletin of the German University Teachers of English (March 1998), pp. 117-130. All this can be followed up on Hammerschmidt-Hummel’s website: www.hammerschmidt-hummel.de. Surprisingly, Pointon’s ten-year-old paper, which was slightly revised, but still contains her long refuted objections, was published again in Tarnya Cooper’s 2006 catalogue Searching for Shakespeare. With essays by Marcia Pointon, James Shapiro and Stanley Wells.

CU! Serfgzuj (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

done

 * I haven't followed this, and user keeps blanking their talkpage, but this now leaves the talkpages in question in a confusing state, sort of myself talking to an invisible man. If stuff is going to be blanked, let it be entire threads or nothing at all. --dab (𒁳) 15:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

re User:Bigsaidlover
I would advise you that I have indef blocked the alternate accounts of the above editor, and have in the meanwhile unblocked the main account as they have given an undertaking not to edit other peoples posts. I am sure you will let me know if they do not keep to their word. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Please Preview, Group, Summarize
Please Preview, Group, Summarize

Thank you for your edits. Please consider 1) Using the Show Preview button (beside the Save Page button), 2) Grouping edits together to avoid clogging the page's edit History which makes it hard for fellow editors to monitor the edits, 3) Describing each edit with the Edit Summary box (above the Save Page button). Hu (talk) 06:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Max Muller and .."random rambles written on blogs are worth nothing
I agree I haven’t provided a concrete reference to Max Muller mistranslated work, but you should not delete the “Hindus” quarterly magazine critics.Nervermind, firstly, jingoistic individuals (like you) must be banned from Wikipedia from editing articles related to history, racial and religious issues are concerned. Your narrow point of view and the “western” education you received doesn’t allow you nor to understand or comprehend others culture e.g. like the Hindu religion – Secondly, your "Victorian" obsession, is a threat in itself to mankind history, as you totally lack of what the Victorian did to gain power and wealth – simply such facts are not available for the public because jingoistic individuals are needed to sustain and support the on going looting and exploitation. "...random rambles written on blogs are worth nothing..." Now a days, the blogs are becoming mind opening discussion areas – liberating the individual from the lies and from the false identity imposed upon him/her (we are not our race, color, flag, nation...)– especially, the blogs are becoming a big threat to mainstream massmedia by revealing the real nefarious intention of governments, corporate and brain washing religion, etc... Maybe this web site could enlighten you about the real history behind India and the Brits. http://www.salagram.net/MaxURdog.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davedawit (talk • contribs) 10:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Needing an opinion
Hi, Paul. Having seen your name on the editing list for the Orientalism article, I thought you might someone to ask for an opinion. Could you take a look at East West dichotomy? I ran across it on new page patrol. Despite the long reading list, it appeared to me to be entirely based on this guy Thorsten J. Pattberg (a bio which also was created at the same time) and was only an attempt to provide notability for Pattberg. However, I am not familiar with the subject matter. Would you consider there to be anything of actual substance in this article? Cheers. — Cactus Writer |   needles  11:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your response. I had also requested an opinion from another editor knowledgeable of the subject and he felt the article had merit -- just needed some shaping. He hoped to do some editing on it when he had a free moment. Just wanted to let you know. — Cactus Writer |   needles  13:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust
Please take the time to review this article regards--Woogie10w (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, You may know it all, but I have been around a lot longer. I remember the world where the word Holocaust was hardly ever used.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe we are pretty much in agreement. My aim is to make sure that the page is in agreement with current scholary research and is backed up with reliable sources.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, please take the time to view the recent post I made to the Holocaust talk page, thanks--Woogie10w (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary at Milo of Croton
I found this hilarious! Thanks for the laugh, Shreevatsa (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Mohammed and other religious traditions
Hi Paul,

Under "Other Religious Traditions", there is a line which says "Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism, viewed Muhammad as an agent of the Hindu supreme being Brahman". Is this correct? Or could that be removed? Please confirm. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed#Other_religious_traditions

freewit (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Symbology
Paul, I have real doubts about this article. In anthropology, Turner is thought of as a "symbolic anthropologist," his use of symbology was an author's neologism that never caught on and the term means nothing in the discipline. As far as Turner goes, there is no content in this article that is not better handled in eithe the article on Turner or on Cultural Anthropology. This leads me to think that the rest of the article belongs in the article on Dan Brown. Leaving nothing left for a real article. your thoughts? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Celts
I think this quote from a British Museum publication has a place in the article, but it was deleted. If you have any ideas they are welcome but I do not want to push anything on you, of course. Trompeta (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Rome
No, i've stopped the rewamping process on the Rome page for now. Will start expanding the article again later in time. So yeah, you can remove the undercon. template if you want. --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Round hats
If you like Britanny you might know this song, 'they have round hat, long live Britanny, they have round hats long live the Bretons, etc...', it used to be the song that identified them in a jovial way :-) Trompeta (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for defeinding the PN Oak against vandals
I put in this comment on user:Mukerjee, under "People":


 * 1) P.N. Oak - Indian pseudo-historian who is very popular in Hindutva sites. In 2007, my first edits, citing lots of sources that called him "Professor" PN Oak, were heavily attacked by users like User:Kkm5848 and user:Bakasuprman and several anonymous ids, possibly because they believed in him, or maybe they were hindutva believers. For some time, User:Paul Barlow valiantly defended my 4K-ish edits (with lots of citations) from being reverted. But eventually others un-edited it bit by bit. However, over time, it became clearer that Oak was indeed a fraud, and the edit battles quietened down, and I was able to re-edit it to get in the substance of of my original changes. It is still being defended by Barlow, but attacks appear to be less frequent.

Thought I would say Thanks!! mukerjee (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration
Hi. Please be aware of this request for arbitration: Unfortunately, I had to take it to the arbitration, as any attempts at dispute resolution were unsuccessful. Grand master  06:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ofcourse !
Of course narrow-minded Brits (should I say bricks!) cannot accept the glory and beauty of India coming out of Macaulay's mouth for you never want to hear the TRUTH. If you have it your way, you will also say that "Kohinoor" diamond in London Museum does not belong to India!! Don't worry brother, whether you like it or not, India has rose AGAIN and will seek revenge for every moment of torment and horror during British Raj. Njoy your remaining time while UK's power diminishes in world at a time when Asian influences rise. Its now only matter of time before India and China takes center-stage as true world powers (not to mention kick-out West/USA !) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parikhjigish (talk • contribs) 18:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you know that this quote is part of official history books in renowned Indian Universities ? Now you will tell me that History departments of Indian Universities are run by fools practicing dishonest nationalism right ?? Come on Paul, what is you age again ? We, the people of commonwealth countries know Brits better than no other. Sick west is hell bent on forcing people to believe what they write/believe is history/present, whether it is their own or someone Else's ! Racist violent attacks on Indians in Europe,Australia and UK in which Indian students have been killed are just plain unfortunate and British woman's chain/purse snatching in India/Pakistan/Asia is terrorism!! Wow you guys really know how to present case in your favour :) Question is how long ! Start counting.(J J Parikh 17:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parikhjigish (talk • contribs)