User talk:Johnbod/34

Of course not, though I haven't given up hope of User:Theramin returning, as he was always a bit intermittent. I'm sure he won't mind. Try to keep the bit refed to User:Paul Barlow, who sadly is past caring. Scary tastes, or anti-tastes, you have! You don't fancy some Victorian narrative favourites? Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll certainly keep the first of the two references—After Egypt was defeated by Israel during the Six-Day War the Egyptian government issued copies of it to its troops may need to be rewritten as it was much more a symbol of Jordan than of Egypt (she even used to be on their postage stamps) so it seems a bit odd to single out Egypt. Didn't realise Paul Barlow was no longer with us—sad times. ‑ 

Iridescent 19:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

(adding) I can't stand this painting—some Watts works are wonderful but Hope decidedly is not—but I still have a stack of bios from when I was doing

Iridescent 19:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I enjoyed my visit to the Watts Gallery, also the amazing Celtic Art Nouveau Watts Cemetery Chapel a few 100 yds away. But no doubt you've been. Johnbod (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have read through, and is of the usual quality. Some edits I made you may disagree with, and revert, no worries. I didnt see any logical inconsistencies, vagueness, or gaps in coverage. As the process can be slow, I recommend a sooner rather than later nom, but from time spent reading, not anticipating any issues, above matters of style. I can do a source review when needed; from a few spot checks the authors are all of the first rank of the existing literature. Ceoil (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nice delegates have given me a pass to have two open at once, so now open at

Iridescent 18:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Right. I started looking at it, but have been distracted by various things. I'll be along. Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, not left completely, just resting, with a few offline projects half finished.

Of course I don't mind - indeed, congratulations on the very impressive and much more comprehensive rewrite, and good luck at FAC. Like almost all of my articles, it was indeed cobbled together from a variety of sources, and I freely admit I may have been led up the garden path about Mandela (the "reportedly" was there for a reason) and the Six Day War (but I would still wholeheartedly believe a piece written by the much-missed Paul Barlow and published by the Tate).

My only comment of substance would be to suggest that it might be possible to add back some of the material omitted in the rewrite - for example, a reference to Watts's idea of a "House of Life" (mentioned in several sources); the apposite quotation "Hope need not mean expectancy. It suggests here rather the music which can come from the remaining chord" (which seems to come from Windsor Magazine, v.14, p.4, in 1901, and was quoted as early as 1904); and a bit more from Chesterton - imagining the unprepared gallery visitor finding the painting, "His first thought, of course, would be that the picture was called Despair; his second (when he discovered his error in the catalogue), that it has been entered under the wrong number; his third, that the painter was mad."[6] Theramin (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent 12:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]
*If the ordinary spectator at the art galleries finds himself, let us say, opposite a picture of a dancing flower-crowned figure in a rose-coloured robe, he feels a definite curiosity to know the title, looks it up in the catalogue, and finds that it is called, let us say, "Hope." He is immediately satisfied, as he would have been if the title had run "Portrait of Lady Warwick," a "View of Kilchurn Castle." It represents a certain definite thing, the word "hope." But what does the word "hope" represent? It represents only a broken instantaneous glimpse of something that is immeasurably older and wilder than language, that is immeasurably older and wilder than man; a mystery to saints and a reality to wolves. To suppose that such a thing is dealt with by the word "hope," any more than America is represented by a distant view of Cape Horn, would indeed be ridiculous. It is not merely true that the word itself is, like any other word, arbitrary; that it might as well be "pig" or "parasol"; but it is true that the philosophical meaning of the word, in the conscious mind of man, is merely a part of something immensely larger in the unconscious mind, that the gusty light of language only falls for a moment on a fragment, and that obviously a semi-detached, unfinished fragment of a certain definite pattern on the dark tapestries of reality. It is vain and worse than vain to declaim against the allegoric, for the very word "hope" is an allegory, and the very word "allegory" is an allegory. Now let us suppose that instead of coming before that hypothetical picture of Hope in conventional flowers and conventional pink robes, the spectator came before another picture. Suppose that he found himself in the presence of a dim canvas with a bowed and stricken and secretive figure cowering over a broken lyre in the twilight. What would he think? His first thought, of course, would be that the picture was called Despair; his second (when he discovered his error in the catalogue), that it has been entered under the wrong number; his third, that the painter was mad. But if we imagine that he overcame these preliminary feelings and that as he stared at that queer twilight picture a dim and powerful sense of meaning began to grow upon him—what would he see? He would see something for which there is neither speech nor language, which has been too vast for any eye to see and too secret for any religion to utter, even as an esoteric doctrine. Standing before that picture, he finds himself in the presence of a great truth. He perceives that there is something in man which is always apparently on the eve of disappearing, but never disappears, an assurance which is always apparently saying farewell and yet illimitably lingers, a string which is always stretched to snapping and yet never snaps. He perceives that the queerest and most delicate thing in us, the most fragile, the most fantastic, is in truth the backbone and indestructible. He knows a great moral fact: that there never was an age of assurance, that there never was an age of faith.

No need to apologise! I see the Chesterton quote is problematic, but part of the reason to suggest including it, in some manner, would be to address the widely-reported idea that he thought a better name for the painting would be Despair (which I admit, I originally included, following the sources I had to hand then; I didn't look up the original, and now appreciate the nuances). I still think the quote from Watts would be good to include, and the "House of Life" could be mentioned... but look, it is more your article now than mine so please just do whatever you think fit. Personally, I find it best to bash something out when inspiration strikes, and then let nature take its course. Congratulations on the newly minted FA. Theramin (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The writer's and reviewer's barnstar
	For your suggestions and typically astute observations at the Vincent van Gogh FAC. Once again (this is becoming a habit), thank you. A small 15th c black book of hours in appreciation. Ceoil (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks - a great article! Johnbod (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Burghley House, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Veronese. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HI, remember this exchange from exactly 8 years ago? You

Thanks! Mind you, Julie Umerle, the original cause, looks rather like a keep now. It seems to have been recreated 2 years later. Johnbod (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 October 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ding ware, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Chinese Ding ware of the 11th century has been described both as porcelain and as stoneware? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ding ware. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ding ware), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may have done yourself in responding to me on Pericles's talk page. Thanks for shedding light on Laocoön. Impressive work on e. g. the Dutch Golden Age. If there is anything below you in need of some help on the Ancient Greek art front, let me know. Will try to help with the Hellenistic page. Not a period of history I would bet my knowledge on, but then this will better beat it into my skull. Cake (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason there is, say,

Attic vase painting? Found that queer. Cake (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Perhaps not, except that no one has written it. But scholarship also tends to treat Attic VP as the default, and only cover the regional variations seperately. So Red-figure pottery and Black-figure pottery are very largely about Attic stuff, especially the former, and a special article would largely repeat these, I'd think. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I understood it. In a sense there really should be an article for it. Starting to think it is where I could help the most. Then again, even the South Italian stuff was supposedly mimicking Attic forms. It seems like a good compromise for now is to tease out vase painting from pottery, and then to redirect Attic vase painting to that page. Cake (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is

Probably not - he doesn't appear in any source after 1900 that I can see. Not in the Getty/Union database, or Wittkower. Maybe he now trades under another name. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've not heard of him (but I wouldn't necessarily have); the fact that he doesn't have an article on Italian Wikipedia is an enormous red flag to me. He's mentioned in this 1840 book but other than that doesn't seem to be mentioned in anything other than Wikipedia mirrors, and the Italians aren't generally shy about publicising local artists; he's also not mentioned on

Iridescent 16:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Someone else wanna do the honors or shall I? I've already prodded a small-town mayor today... if I do two articles in one day people might start to worry that aliens snatched me or something (my last prod was in 2012...) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's certainly in with a brief mention in Luigi Lanzi's big book for the region, pretty standard in its day I think, and translated into English by Thomas Roscoe. Personally I don't think absence on Italian WP means much, but someone should have done a thesis on him by now, & he should pop up in other books. The name seems to rest on one signature, which makes me wonder if he has a different name. The last time I supported the deletion of a local 18th-century Italian painter of decorative schemes on walls, probably charging by the yard, he was kept. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm doing a "random article" spree and it's certainly illuminating (if not in a manuscript sort of way)... I just don't have the sources to see about Prata... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just uploaded all of these to Wikimedia! And have used them in several articles thus far.

The Dahuting Tomb (Chinese: 打虎亭汉墓, Pinyin: Dahuting Han mu) of the late

In regards to one of the woman in the first row, is that a glass cup she's holding? That's interesting, considering how prized Roman glass was in Han China at the time, considered a foreign luxury item. Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't really tell, can you. Silver, or possibly jade, I suspect. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't considered silver! That's very possible, considering how ambiguous it looks (certainly not very detailed, although it seems to have shiny streaks running vertically down the surface). In either case it seems like the artist is making a point about this object, with the woman almost seeming to show it off (her smug facial expression seems to match, lol). Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These images are absolutely stunning! Great to see you again Pericles, I know you were very busy in RL for a long time.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly, sir. I'm glad to be home again, Dr. Blofeld. Are you still Number 1 and heading that international crime syndicate of yours? I was always a fan of your work! Even if James wasn't. Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Still living in a volcano yup ;-) ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld: I knew it! I'm assuming you no longer have the same Persian cat (even with nine lives, they don't last very long, sadly). And I should have known that your Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge was merely a facade for a new insidious program hosted by SPECTRE. It's brilliant! Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mwoahahaha! Well I'm currently running Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, 330 articles in jsut 5-6 days. Same can be done for Asia and China at some point, and make reaching the 10,000 goal within reach. Long term we should make it a global 1 million challenge of course, as everything for His Evilness is in Millions ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 October 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jizhou ware, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that decoration of Jizhou ware included using leaves that were burnt away, leaving their shapes in the glaze? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jizhou ware. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Jizhou ware), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge could certainly do with quality articles like that one!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment on improving the text. Do you mean a better translation, or better quality writing? Apparently the article started out as a translation from the French in 2006. But at present it looks like the English article is better than the French. Can you see specific items that need improvement? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's all pretty poor, as "a translation from the French in 2006" is very likely to be. The (my) section on Hellenistic sculpture in Ancient Greek art, and other bits could probably be copied with little adaptation. It does not explain the overlap/boundary with Greco-Roman art well. And very random referencing. Many statements seem very dubious to me. It reads like what it is, and needs a complete rewrite using a couple of comprehensive sources. But then so do most of our art articles on big topics. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article had a list of sources, so I tried to mostly keep the text as it was and just source the statements. The hope is that it is now deserving of the "C" rating. The biggest problem I found was the Havelock source isn't open access, but search engines suggest it may have been used as a source. Cake (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Iridescent did recommend me to ask you about whether Matthew Paris is a reliable source for events in the 1250s. The question I have is specifically about the quotes on User:Jo-Jo Eumerus/1257 Samalas eruption and some of the sources on weather mishaps at that time, since they partially depend on his records. Dou you have an idea on this? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say he's a primary source and you'd need secondary sources that link the famines to the eruption. We leave the interpreting of primary sources to historians, who write the secondary sources we rely on. When historians or other researchers rely on Paris, they are able to judge things. If you're concerned about the secondary sources perhaps going off on a wild hair - you can always look up review articles on the secondary sources you're using, which should give you a good idea of whether fellow historians/researchers find their arguments convincing. And quoting him in the article is probably undue weight - since he didn't have any clue about an eruption on the other side of the globe, he wouldn't have connected the famine to the eruption. I can't put my hands on a list of famines in England ... but famine was not particularly uncommon. You could probably find similar descriptions of famines in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle - it was a favorite trope of chroniclers to describe famines in apocalyptic terms. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technically speaking I am just wondering about the reliability of his statements about the events then (although the undue weight point you make is well taken). The reason why he's cited in the article is because some sources are linking the events he describes and his narrative to the volcanic events, and it's on these secondary sources that the article relies on. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He tends to play things up, but i think is regarded as reasonably reliable for things he experienced himself. You can see his text here. Book pages: 265-6, 280, 283, 291. Note that at p.280 he is talking about a "pestilence" presumably disease, though no doubt linked to famine. That is where the 15K dead in London come from. I hope your sources make this clear. You are not really relying on him but on your modern sources. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Socratic Barnstar
		I, PericlesofAthens, award you, Johnbod, with this prestigious and honorary barnstar, in recognition of your refined rhetorical skills in debating others. Although you and I do not always agree, it is important to humbly observe those who possess greater skills of rhetoric and demonstrate logical, cohesive arguments in the perpetual mission to improve this, our Wikipedia. Three cheers to you! Pericles of AthensTalk 17:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On

Ascanius Shooting the Stag of Sylvia (pictured) by Claude Lorrain, the figures are "impossibly elongated‍—‌Ascanius, in particular, is absurdly top-heavy"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ascanius Shooting the Stag of Sylvia. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ascanius Shooting the Stag of Sylvia), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page

.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"It's inaccurate, that's what." What is?

Changing "Celtic" to "Irish" in every context. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite 'every' context - no, just pick a few examples, and I can explain why. Fergananim (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with it now, after another editor has edited it. Please note what Great Britain means. Johnbod (talk) 03:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'm back taking them out again. Great Britain was a state between 1707 and 1801. Britain is a geographic entity. Fergananim (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As is Great Bruitain. Numerous editors have now asked you to stop making these edits, but you persist. Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Great Bruitain'? Nevertheless; the political term Great Britain cannot be applied before 1707 or after 1800 - it was replaced by the UK (first version) and like that infamous ex-parrot, it ceased to be. Geography and politics don't alway align. And you still have not given good reason why Celtic should so often be used instead of Irish, et al. So I see no reason to stop. Fergananim (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because you keep introducing mistakes (and careless grammatical errors). Your replacements of Celtic with Insular in Insular art just show you didn't understand what was being said, to give one example. Johnbod (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then do as I ask, and explain yourself. Fergananim (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, Fergananim, the problem is that a lot of what you change doesn't need to be changed. In some cases, you actually introduce errors - for instance at Celtic cross, the terms is not interchangeable with high cross, which is a specific type of monument. As I've said to you before, the term "Celtic" is problematic, but even if it's not strictly accurate, in this case "Celtic cross" is the conventional term for this form of cross. You really need to be more careful in what you change. Others can't be expected to explain the problem with every one of your very many changes.

There's also no issue using the term "Great Britain" for the island. The term predates the formation of the Kingdom of Great Britain by hundreds of years. If you're going to change it to Britain, make sure you pipe the link as [[Great Britain|Britain]], as Britain is a dab page and not an acceptable link.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. Britain/Great Britain will be so linked - even though it is wrong even in that context. Allowing parity because its 'conventional' is baffling. The term Celtic is only problematic when used incorrectly, so the revisions replaced incorrect popular uses with correct ones - Irish, Gaelic, ringed, high cross, etc, depending on context. Too many use Celtic too freely and think necessary revisions unnecessary. So incorrect conventional uses - generally Anglocentric - are held to be correct! It seems no amount of discussion or revision changes this. Fergananim (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We follow the sources. If the sources use "Celtic" then we must too. We aren't here to

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or other such problems. If the sources for an article use "Celtic" then the usage in our article isn't problematic. You need to take up your campaign with the sources using the term. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh, and per

WP:ERA - AD can go before or after the year. There isn't a rule that it must go before. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Fergananim, again, nothing "wrong" in using "Great Britain" for the island. I usually use "Britain" in these contexts as it's what the sources typically use, but of course proper linking is necessary. Otherwise, not a big deal.

Please do heed what Ealdgyth says re the conventions on the term "Celtic". Where sources use "Celtic" in such terms as Celtic cross, we do too. Full stop. In this case there's not even another term to substitute; as we've already said, Celtic cross and high cross are related but not interchangeable. High crosses are specific monuments that usually, but not always, take the shape of the Celtic cross. Additionally, there are many uses of the Celtic cross shape outside the context of high crosses. You can't just swap the terms.

And yeah, per

WP:ERA, we usually don't even need to include "AD" at all, but when we do it doesn't matter if it's before or after the year.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

The implications of all this make me wonder if there is any point to Wikipedia, or continuing on it. Even if good scholarly sources are used, are they going to be trumped by conventional ones? One external link for the Celtic cross article is a craftsman and jewelry designer [7] - is his article to be given parity with a scholar? Sources or links are either American or English so their knowledge of anything Irish is at best Anglocentric (hence free use of the term Celtic in the first place). Even when Irish, American, or English scholars are used, they are decades or more out of date. Why should bad sources/links have primacy and good ones so little? 20:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fergananim (talk • contribs)

Fergananim: Not to keep using Jon's talk page for this, but I think I see where the misunderstanding lies. When we say that the word "Celtic" is the convention used in the sources, we're not talking about pop history sources, we're talking about the high caliber sources most relevant to the topic. These are not "Anglocentric" or out of date. "Celtic" in the sense of Celtic Christianity, Celtic Easter dating, etc., is still used by the best available sources for the topic. That was part of the trouble with your edits to Celtic Christianity, Wilfrid, and some others - the best, most up-to-date sources for those articles do use the word "Celtic". It's simply a case where no better alternative has emerged for these elements of Christianity in Britain and Ireland. Similarly, I've now added better sourcing to Celtic cross, and those use "Celtic" as well. Again, it's not something that can easily be replaced, least of all by the term high cross, which is a related but distinct subject. The edits you've made that have been reverted rarely if ever include sources, and in some cases contradict what the existing sources say. Moving forward, it will probably be more productive to explain what you'd like to change up front.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise apologies to Jon I'll try and keep this as short as possible: Up to the 1960s, romantic and political uses of the terms Celts and Celtic infected even scholarly work - people said Celt when they really meant Gael, or Briton; Celtic when they really meant Manx, Gàidhlig, or Cymraeg. All this implied that they were all 'one people' directly descended from the actual Celts of Gaul, Italia, and Iberia; that the various languages only in modern times classified as Celtic were really one (baffling to anyone who has tried to make themselves understood to each other in them). This unhistoric belief - not shared by any of the medieval or early modern peoples concerned - was an English concept directly related to their political rule of Britain and Ireland, and the creation of Great Britain and its subsequent successor states, the two United Kingdoms. All such uses were based in a racial stereotype of the 'Celt' as a subordinate human; passionate, uncivil, fit only to be ruled (by the English of course). You only have to look at 19th century cartoons and caricatures of the Irish, Scots, Welsh (and in France, the Bretons) to see this. The opposite of the 'Celt' was the 'Teuton', or 'Anglo-Saxon', a rational Protestant creature bred by God to rule. Well, two world wars put paid to that idea among the English but by that stage the Anglo-Irish (Davis, Hyde, Pearse, et al) had all adopted the stereotypes so it became embedded into popular English-language Irish ideas which, after independence, became embedded into the Irish educational system where the 'Celt' became the Catholic counter-point to the Protestant 'Anglo-Saxon'. Thankfully, from the 1960s all these daft ideas have been understood on their own terms, and dismissed, so much so that most Irish and British scholars use the terms rarely (TV presenters of popular history are another story). But they linger in common use - and as neither the Irish nor the British majorities use Goidelic or Brittonic languages, all that is left to describe these heritages are inaccurate English concepts and terms.

In short, the only correct application of the term Celtic today is as a linguistic classification, which has no modern application to ethnicity, nationality, art, genes, religion, medieval high crosses, et al - quite a limited one even for Iron Age groups and none at all for medieval ones. Any use other than linguistic is just pop-nonsence, a commerical fad ('Celtic music', 'Celtic brooches'), and Anglocentric as it does not use the terms or senses of the cultures concerned. The terms never appear in any of their languages or literatures (except during the 19th and 20th centuries as English imports); their own terms should be applied. Thank you for your patience, Fergananim (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very simplistic summary - in some ways the situation is worse than you think, because your easy assumption that there were "actual Celts of Gaul, Italia, and Iberia" is wrong - if anything the application of the term to continental "Celts" is more problemmatic than to the "Insular Celts". Every academic work on ancient Celts begins with a hand-wringing introduction pointing out the unsatisfactory nature of the term, but academics continue to use it, properly qualified, for lack of any adequate alternative, and because it has a high degree of public recognition. The British Museum & National Museum of Scotland had a major exhibition in 2015/16 called "Celts, art and identity" starting with the Hallstatt culture and ending with Glasgow Celtic and Belfast painted walls. The large catalogue, by specialists, is full of qualifications over the use of the term, but they still use it. You obviously don't like this, but your personal opinion will not prevail over the sources. The relevant WP articles address the difficulties with the term adequately, but still use it, just like academia. Your summary of the beginning of the modern use of Celts is complete rubbish - the term was first used by the Welsh Celticist Edward Lhuyd, and for example promoted in France by Jacques Le Brigant (1720-1804) and Théophile Corret de la Tour d'Auvergne, passionate advocates of their native Brittany. Contrary to your nonsense, it was Lhuyd who first set out the P and Q language groups as still recognised by linguists, though the ethnic conclusions he drew from that were certainly over the top. Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm copying this all to Talk:High cross. Please continue there, if we must. Johnbod (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being much kinder than you could be about it. If Pericles had not added some sources himself, I would undo what I've done and start over, for the intention was not to gum up your work, but make it I suppose navigable from all angles, as - if I am allowed another tortured analogy, if one were to come at the terracotta figurines as both pottery and sculpture. Perhaps I missed it, but no mention of the spots on the clothes to detect a work by the Brygos Painter? Cake (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you or John could rewrite that one? Might be interesting and offbeat!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks better than most African art articles already, & I've no idea where to get sources. Johnbod (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly looks a lot better now!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, please follow

Well I must say I'd never seen that page before. No wonder we have so many 10-year old templates. But note (my bold): "Removal: Okay? You have carefully read the help pages and have thoroughly fixed the problem? Alternatively, you have made a considered determination that the template is not, or is no longer, applicable? Good. Thank you! Now, to remove the maintenance template:..." Johnbod (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you've never seen that page before is that it's not a policy of any kind, it's something that was unilaterally written a few months ago following

Iridescent 15:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikipedia Asian Month

Thanks for partipating Wikipedia Asian Month last year, and I hope you enjoy it. Last year, more than 7,000 articles contribute to Wikipedia in 43 languages in Wikipedia Asian Month, making us one of the largest event on Wikipedia. We will organize this event again in upcoming November, and would like to invite you join us again.

This year, we are lowering down the standards that you only need to create 4 (Four) articles to receive a postcard (new design), and articles only need to be more than 3,000 bytes and 300 words. We are also improving our postcard sending process, e.g. making the postcards right now, and collecting the address after the event ends without waiting other languges.

Wikipedians who create the most articles on each Wikipedia will be honored as "Wikipedia Asian Ambassadors". We will send you both digital copy, and a paper copy of the Ambassador certificate.

Sign up now

Thank you for considering! --AddisWang (talk)
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was born in Europe and have been there a fair amount. In any case I am not messing with what the Australian residential architectural styles has to say about Europe but rather, as so often seems to be the case, trying to correct your misguided attempts to describe what the United States is about. What does "more common in the UK than in the US" have to do with Australian architecture anyway? What is your reference for such an absurd statement? Carptrash (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well you were happy to leave the statement that garden fences, were "unique" to Australia! You didn't seem to feel the need for a reference for your amending statement that they were not common in "Europe". In fact, as I'm sure you know, the frequent and often byelaw or contract-mandated absence of front garden fences is a distinctive feature of US suburbia. Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the history you should discover that I was not the editor who made the comment about Europe. Or Austraila for that matter. I don't consider myself particularly knowledgable about picket fences in either place. All I did was change what I took to be your edit about the US. The wikipedia article on picket fences - an article I have never visited before - states "Picket fences are particularly popular in the United States," - that is all I am concerned about. Carptrash (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the history you should discover that I was not the editor who made the comment about Europe, or Australia. All I was doing was modifying the nonsense about Australian uniqueness. A picket fence I take to to be the type with spaced slats - the UK fences are normally continuous with overlapping slats. Of course, we don't have garden fence. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

so check out the final version. Or at least current version. Carptrash (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you've come across this site, in which someone develops a conspiracy theory around the auction houses' refusal to take his collection of "Ju ware" seriously! The "Qianlong marked and period Mirror Black Glazed Bowl (WORLD CLASS)" here is pretty bad. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had, through this somewhat comic video - he's the owner. Johnbod (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Just realised I've put "Ju" instead of "Ru"- corrected it. Congrats on the DYK! If I find a piece of Ru ware at the local charity shop, I'll bung you a commission Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I found this quote from the man- "I'm the foremost expert in Northern Song Dynasty Ru Ware right now in the world". Hmm… uses internet, has massively-inflated opinion of himself, his favourite subject has just appeared on the WP front page... Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Does he ever sell anything, that's what I wonder? The website listed prices are pretty serious. Johnbod (talk) 09:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 27 October 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ru ware, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 2012, a small Ru ware bowl from the Song dynasty was sold for US$26.7 million? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ru ware. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ru ware), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 01:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an interesting topic – well done. Following some discussion about the details at
  WP:ERROR, I was thinking of visiting the BM at lunchtime to admire the twin of the brush washing bowl but, according to their website, it's not on display. It's odd that they don't show off such a treasure but maybe they prefer to lend it out. Anyway, perhaps we should alert them when such items are going to be featured so that they can consider dusting them off and putting them out? I may still go as I have worked on several similar topics like brush pot, chinaman (porcelain) and The Great Pottery Throw Down and so it will be good to see what else they have. I'll also make a start on Alfred Clark who used to own both these bowls. He was quite notable in several ways and so should make another good DYK... Andrew D. (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The whole main Chinese gallery is closed for about a year for refurbishment/redisplay. But most of the BM's collection is from the Percival David Foundation loan, & most of that is on display in Room 95 upstairs (as in several of the photos here). Good to see Clark with an article. Very few of the top scholars of Chinese ceramics have bios either. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hi Johnbod, I know your always busy but since you have so much experience with GA/FA (you have so many)...I recently nominated the above article for GA and would appreciate if you took a look at it(review[8]) I appreciate any help, thanks --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ozzie10aaaa. By the time I got to this it had been deservedly promoted GA. Congratulations! If you are thinking about FAC, I think the length (now 267,900 bytes on the crude count) is likely to be a problem, and the considerable chunks relating to the disease in general (I suspect mainly repeating other articles) should probably be rewritten more briefly. That was my main thought; I admit I haven't given it a full scrutiny under the circumstances. Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Johnbod--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sending through the Grove source. Gives me a lot to mull and work with. Ceoil (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

1. Please submit your articles via this tool. Click 'log in' at the top-right and OAuth will take care the rest. You can also change the interface language at the top-right.
2. Once you submit an article, the tool will add a template to the article and mark it as needing review by an organizer. You can check your progress using the tool, which includes how many accepted articles you have.
3. Participants who achieve 4 accepted articles will receive a Wikipedia Asian Month postcard. You will receive another special postcard if you achieve 15 accepted articles. The Wikipedian with the highest number of accepted articles on the English Wikipedia will be honored as a "Wikipedia Asian Ambassador", and will receive a signed certificate and additional postcard.
4. If you have any problems accessing or using the tool, you can submit your articles at this page next to your username.
5. If you have any question, you can take a look at our Q&A or post on the WAM talk page.

Best Wishes, Addis Wang
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, here is a link to the completed discussion after Fram acted on the report, as requested. EdChem (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hadn't seen all that till just now! Thank heavens for

Talk:Jingdezhen ware, is still causing repercussions at Template:Did you know nominations/Jingdezhen ware, where TRM also stuck his oar in. I don't know what it is about Chinese pottery that makes everybody an expert. The point is that these extensive discussions should not take place without either of the 2 editors actually writing the article, mainly from offline sources, being at all aware. It is not as if I'm not around most of the time. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Johnbod, I still don't see what was inaccurate in my suggestion. This particular type of Ru ware is rare - as Andrew D. noted it is the guan yao type and maybe that would be a useful addition - but I seriously doubt anyone would think US$25M+ for a single piece is common. "Six-petalled flower-shaped" is the exact description from the section titled "Mr. and Mrs. Alfred Clark's Ru Guanyao Brush Washer" by Regina Krahl (British Museum biography). "Song dynasty" was in the original hook, and the "around 1100 AD" date is consistent with the descriptions I read. My suggested additions / changes may have been bad ideas, and I stress I would not have added them unilateraly without a discussion, but I don't see how they are incorrect. The only thing I would have done unilaterally was change from "US$26.7 million" to "HK$207.86 million (US$26.7 million)" because the sale was in HKD.

I am unaware of the pottery issue you mention, and I admit that everyone is wrong at times - including me! - but I thought the change in currency which TRM proposed at WT:DYK was appropriate, and it went unactioned.

On the notification issue, if I started a discussion at WT:DYK, I would ping the relevant editors, and I believe that a discussion is needed for a significant change to be made. The rules allow changes in the prep areas and queues and tweaks are needed and appropriate at times, but wholesale changes should not be unilateral, IMO - and yes, Fram has done that at times, as has TRM when he was an admin, and that is not an approach I favour. Some of the issues they have raised are trivial, but some were important and those need to be addressed. I do regret that there were no pings given to the WT:DYK discussions, though I didn't start it. I certainly could have added them at the ERRORS discussion I started, and I do apologise for not doing that and undertake I will ping at future ERRORS discussions. EdChem (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I'll just say, that although correct as a description for a relatively expert audience, when accompanied by many photos, "Six-petalled flower-shaped" is misleading for a general audience with no photo to look at, as only experts looking at the actual piece would ever describe it so. Johnbod (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Johnbod. I am emphatically not any sort of expert on Ru ware, so I accept that the descriptor might be a poor choice for a hook - which is an excellent reason for including pings, I admit. I'm glad we've had this chat.  :) EdChem (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Why do all the editing you undo me? This Template is being edited and is not over yet.Your photo is irrelevant. Hold on. Tanks Derakhshan/^◄ 13:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is against you. I wouldn't persist. Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I placed two large Image. See Template:Antique Kings of Italy. Derakhshan/^◄ 13:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it is better like that at all. These are not a good or featured article that I have edited so I don't see why I should be warned to not make undiscussed changes to them when they are so minor. It makes much more sense to call something above the "reflist" References since there is also a "notelist" which makes sense to use for a Notes section.

That's your opinion, but it's not especially widely shared. If they are "minor", why bother wasting your time on them & getting reverted? Your argument makes little sense since the reader can't see the template names. Don't start edit-warring over this. Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know what. Screw it, sorry I did this. Let's just leave it be. I'm not in the mood for discussion wikipedia guidelines right now.

talk) 15:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, Johnbod.

talk!) 12:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Given your awareness of the recent consensus about the use of "Catholic Church" as opposed to "RCC", I'm curious as to why you're adding that category to articles. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There should only be one category, but while there are two, with apparently different content, they should connect. I didn't see the recent not-very-well-attended debate, but I think I would have opposed; the matter has been much more comprehensively discussed before. Johnbod (talk) 11:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 November 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jun ware, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that flowerpots for the Ming emperors were made in official Jun ware? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jun ware. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Jun ware), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for writing the article!--R5b43 (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi John. This is just a friendly note to let you know that the Migration of the Serbs article has been scheduled as today's featured article for December 2, 2016. Dank will be along shortly to massage the lead into a main page blurb, but if you're interested in doing this, or in subsequently editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 2, 2016. Thanks!  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I just left effusive messages for Brianboulton and Tim riley, I should thank you for all the reviewing you've done. You've showed up on my every FAC so far, so in the back of my head when thinking about articles I want to send through FAC, it's mainly you I envision doing the reviewing. (You may not remember, but I was probably a bit annoying during the Egyptian temple FAC. Sorry about that, but because I'd never gone through FAC before, I was in a bit of a slow-motion panic. And I've added lots of links to that article over the years!)

I'm not able to devote much time or energy to Wikipedia these days, and I don't know whether that will change. So a heartfelt thanks to you and all the highly active editors out there who keep the encyclopedia going. A. Parrot (talk) 03:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great article, and the video is indeed fun. Thanks to you and Andrew Davidson. Edwardx (talk) 13:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Johnbod and Edwardx may be interested in this item too. Pottery pays! Andrew D. (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow. So does Nazi memorabilia, even if it's mostly fake. Edwardx (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 November 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alfred Clark (director), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Alfred Clark pioneered continuity, plot, and special effects in The Execution of Mary Stuart? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alfred Clark (director). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Alfred Clark (director)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 November 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Resist, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that resists can be used in dyeing textiles, pottery, painting, metalwork, and semiconductor fabrication? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Resist. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Resist), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johnbod. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 November 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ge ware, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "gold thread and iron wire" Ge ware has two sets of cracks in the glaze, accentuated by staining in different colours? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ge ware. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ge ware), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 27 November 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Yaozhou ware, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that around 1100, Yaozhou ware was accepted by the Chinese Imperial court, but several decades later it was described by a poet as "extremely coarse and used only by restaurants"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Yaozhou ware. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Yaozhou ware), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	You are invited to participate in WikiProject Berbers, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about Berbers.
	You may sign up at the project members page.

--Aṭlas (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're not interested in Berber-related things ? I apologise for the inconvenience. Regards--Aṭlas (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]