User talk:Cynehawke
Hello, Cynehawke, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have. Or you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are some useful links for newcomers:
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! You can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Moonraker (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Battle of Brunanburh (poem)[edit]
Sorry, but I've reverted your edits to the article for neutrality reasons. My edit summary was cut short--in item b, I said that the evaluation you gave of the book was positive, not simply factual, and as such requires a secondary, independent source--a review in one of the journals would do. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate that you've left me some explanation, though I utterly fail to understand it: I did not make comment about the superiority of the book or some such thing. It is a fact that the Livingston casebook: is published, takes post-Campbell work into account, incorporates new editions and translations, and does so within a broader context of studying the battle itself through it's literary remains. Your reversion, by comparison, is non-factual by stating that the casebook is not yet published. It is, as I have a copy! 163.1.151.174 (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. Well, "a broader investigation" is not neutral, that is the problem. An Amazon link is not OK anyway. Editors are welcome to include more up-to-date information, but that information ought to stay miles away from appearing to promote the book esp. in light of this sandbox and edits like this one. No one wants to see a COI tag on the article. Before the publication is called "major" or things like that in Wikipedia's articles, independent scholarly reviews should verify such qualifications. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- I see the problem now: you misunderstand what I mean by "broader" - which was intended as a comment not on quality but on quantity: Campbell's work took as it's primary subject the Anglo-Saxon poem, while Livingston's new book takes as its subject the battle on which that poem is based. It therefore contains essentially the same materials as Campbell (updated for the decades of research post-Campbell) plus much more material that was outside Campbell's scope (or unknown at the time). It is literally broader (actually, it is: Campbell's is a slender volume in comparison to it). Ironically, then, my use of the word "broader" was if anything actually meant to point out a deficiency of that book relative to the article's subject (as opposed to its centrality to the article on the historical battle itself) than to privilege it. Oh well. Since the article is in error by stating that this work is forthcoming (unless you have fixed it), I will go back to change things as soon as I can think of phrasing that marks the different intent without such a chance for misunderstanding (and while keeping the word count short so as not to privilege it with too much space until secondary reviews suggest such). I'm sure there's something for it on Exeter's website (or whoever is distributing it in the States; I won't use Amazon again). You also note my sandbox page on the author of the book in question. In composing the many necessary changes to the Brunanburh page -- the battle is something of a passion to me -- I did indeed try to work something up about him since I'm new to the Wiki world and wanted to make an article. Couldn't think of anything new! Alas, I found the author to not be terribly important yet, and that someone had already erased another page about him, no doubt for that very reason. I'd summarily delete the whole page, but I frankly don't know how! Cynehawke (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- In regards to that sandbox: you can place {{db-author}} on it and someone (like me) will come along and delete it. I haven't tested the waters to see if your guy is notable--see WP:PROF, for instance. There may be notability there. I understand now what you mean with "broader"; a tweak can take care of that. I have not yet fixed the past tense, so to speak, and you are welcome to do so--but indeed, Amazon is not the way to go. I haven't seen that book yet, but I'll order it for our library. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have taken a look at Michael Livingston and don't find him notable as an academic. However, I have seen the Brunanburh 'casebook', and it is clearly a substantial peer-reviewed work which is beyond challenge as a reliable source. I don't see a problem with "incorporating its editions and translations of the poem into a broader investigation of the historical battle", which to me is fair comment on the scope of the work and can be verified by reference to it, so I have reinstated that. If Cynehawke has a neater turn of phrase, then so much the better. Moonraker (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hey Cynehawke, I don't have the book at hand yet. Consider adding a note or two, if you can, from one or more of the essays, to the "poem" article. That's good exposure, and perfectly legitimate. More specifically, what does the book have to say about the poem? Is there a link to a table of contents anywhere? If you want to add anything, please be as complete as possible, that is, include author of the essay, page numbers, page number for quote, etc--you can do it MLA style as text, and I'll turn it into the proper templated references. I got the article promoted to GA status so I'd like to keep it clean and consistent, and if it's going to be an FA it will need to be complete. As you know, the casebook is the first book-length study to come along in a while, and so its inclusion is highly relevant. BTW, give my regards to the people at Exeter, and tell them they need to consider publishing a Boniface book. I'll gladly write them one. ;) Drmies (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Cynehawke, if you had time you might like to write us a short article on the 'casebook', perhaps with a table of contents, in your userspace? You could create a new page at User:Cynehawke/Casebook or some such title. Moonraker (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Good idea. I just asked our library to order a copy, but that may take a while. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay. Had a late evening out. I've added the ToC as requested. Do what you will. I'll likely wait a bit before I mess with anything more on all this. I don't care for the implied COI charge. At any rate, you'll see from the ToC that it is the sort of book that will probably be getting references across the wiki. The bits pertinent to the ASC poem are the two competing new editions and translations of the poem (Livingston's A-text and Creed's B-text [most scholars heavily favor the A-text, but it is interesting to see how differently they are handled here), and the two essays by Bredehoft (which is comprehensive of the criticism) and Creed (which suggests a new meter for the poem). Cynehawke (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Good idea. I just asked our library to order a copy, but that may take a while. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Cynehawke, if you had time you might like to write us a short article on the 'casebook', perhaps with a table of contents, in your userspace? You could create a new page at User:Cynehawke/Casebook or some such title. Moonraker (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hey Cynehawke, I don't have the book at hand yet. Consider adding a note or two, if you can, from one or more of the essays, to the "poem" article. That's good exposure, and perfectly legitimate. More specifically, what does the book have to say about the poem? Is there a link to a table of contents anywhere? If you want to add anything, please be as complete as possible, that is, include author of the essay, page numbers, page number for quote, etc--you can do it MLA style as text, and I'll turn it into the proper templated references. I got the article promoted to GA status so I'd like to keep it clean and consistent, and if it's going to be an FA it will need to be complete. As you know, the casebook is the first book-length study to come along in a while, and so its inclusion is highly relevant. BTW, give my regards to the people at Exeter, and tell them they need to consider publishing a Boniface book. I'll gladly write them one. ;) Drmies (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have taken a look at Michael Livingston and don't find him notable as an academic. However, I have seen the Brunanburh 'casebook', and it is clearly a substantial peer-reviewed work which is beyond challenge as a reliable source. I don't see a problem with "incorporating its editions and translations of the poem into a broader investigation of the historical battle", which to me is fair comment on the scope of the work and can be verified by reference to it, so I have reinstated that. If Cynehawke has a neater turn of phrase, then so much the better. Moonraker (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- In regards to that sandbox: you can place {{db-author}} on it and someone (like me) will come along and delete it. I haven't tested the waters to see if your guy is notable--see WP:PROF, for instance. There may be notability there. I understand now what you mean with "broader"; a tweak can take care of that. I have not yet fixed the past tense, so to speak, and you are welcome to do so--but indeed, Amazon is not the way to go. I haven't seen that book yet, but I'll order it for our library. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- I see the problem now: you misunderstand what I mean by "broader" - which was intended as a comment not on quality but on quantity: Campbell's work took as it's primary subject the Anglo-Saxon poem, while Livingston's new book takes as its subject the battle on which that poem is based. It therefore contains essentially the same materials as Campbell (updated for the decades of research post-Campbell) plus much more material that was outside Campbell's scope (or unknown at the time). It is literally broader (actually, it is: Campbell's is a slender volume in comparison to it). Ironically, then, my use of the word "broader" was if anything actually meant to point out a deficiency of that book relative to the article's subject (as opposed to its centrality to the article on the historical battle itself) than to privilege it. Oh well. Since the article is in error by stating that this work is forthcoming (unless you have fixed it), I will go back to change things as soon as I can think of phrasing that marks the different intent without such a chance for misunderstanding (and while keeping the word count short so as not to privilege it with too much space until secondary reviews suggest such). I'm sure there's something for it on Exeter's website (or whoever is distributing it in the States; I won't use Amazon again). You also note my sandbox page on the author of the book in question. In composing the many necessary changes to the Brunanburh page -- the battle is something of a passion to me -- I did indeed try to work something up about him since I'm new to the Wiki world and wanted to make an article. Couldn't think of anything new! Alas, I found the author to not be terribly important yet, and that someone had already erased another page about him, no doubt for that very reason. I'd summarily delete the whole page, but I frankly don't know how! Cynehawke (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)