Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ikip (talk | contribs) at 07:46, 21 April 2006 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Mendelssohn

Hi Smerus, I hope you don't mind my change of the introduction. I just think, that at this prominent place first of all it should be said what the man actually did; to whom he might be compared and what other people thought of him can be said in the article. Best regards, mst 23:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I am always grateful for constructive comments/edits! - Smerus

Jewish lists and categories

Hi David. I created Category:Jewish classical musicians (actually it was originally "Jews in music" which is why some composers/songwriters are included). A Misplaced Pages user who I believe is probably motivated by Orthodox beliefs is attempting to force the deletion of all Jewish lists and categories at Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion/Lists_by_religion-ethnicity_and_profession. Four UCL graduates who attempted to maintain and defend some of the lists in votes for deletion (List of British Jews being one) have been unjustly blocked by User:SlimVirgin who also happens to be against the lists (on the grounds that they are akin to Nazi propaganda and may pose a personal risk to people included). Personally I am not interested in listing living persons so the argument they may endanger people would not apply if living persons were not included. However I think it is a nonsense to say that we cannot list the main figures involved in Jewish history which is what would result if this user's proposal is to be accepted. I would appreciate your comments at the link above. Thanks Arniep 17:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi David. Thanks for your input on the above. I've had a go at adding names to the categories you created and also created a photographer cat Category:Jewish photographers. If you have a minute there are people hanging around in Category:Jews who need to go in more defined cats. Cheers Arniep 02:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

List by religion/ethnicity and profession

Hi, David, thanks for participating in the project. If you wish to change your opinion regarding my proposal as shown in boldface, following our recent discussion, feel free to do so.--Pecher 19:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I have stated what I think is the crux of the problem here Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion/Lists_by_religion-ethnicity_and_profession#Summary_of_the_problem. Arniep 14:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I've been having some discussion with User talk:Yodamace1 and it appears that I wrongly thought that the Orthodox tradition would not consider Mendelssohn Jewish but it appears in fact they would. It is this example that really concerned me about only relying on Halakha and it has made me wonder whether there any (or many) people in history who are thought of as Jewish who did not qualify under Halakha (aside from the old testament examples you cited)? Arniep 21:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it depends on who was doing the thinking!! - you could cite a vast number of people considered as such under the Nuremberg Laws.......I will put on my thinking cap (not easy over the weekend) and see what examples I can come up with which meet the circumstances you intended in your comment - Smerus 10:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I've enjoyed your thoughtful contribution to the discussion. Do you have a response to the original proposal? I'm attempting to work toward consensus and would appreciate your input. Regards, Durova 05:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

See response immediately above, I am slightly thinking-impaired at the moment (actually can't now remember without reference exactly what the original proposal was) but I will try to apply myself. - Smerus 10:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Adolphe Adam

Discussion on Adam's possible Jewish origins now moved to Talk:Adolphe Adam (thanks Arnie!) - Smerus

Norman Douglas

Hullo, I noticed your edit of this page and was perplexed. Are you contesting his numerous pederastic flings? Or are you contesting the existence of a group of individuals with similar entanglements? Haiduc 21:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Haiduc -

Neither of your suggestions apply to my thinking. I acted principally because 'pederastic writers' is really a null category, telling us no more about either 'Douglas' or 'writers' than if he were included in 'writers who committed suicide' (another useless category which someone has started), or 'Scottish writers born in Austria'. These may be technically fact, but they don't add to the sum of knowledge, and thus fail a basic Misplaced Pages standard. Of course I don't deny that there were others who shared Douglas's tastes and exercised that taste to a greater or lesser extent - but what's Douglas to them, or they to Douglas? Whilst he occasionally refers indirectly or even directly to his personal predilections in his works, he is really one of the great travel writers in English, and that (if at all) is how his writing should be classified. Thus I wouldn't object (strongly) if someone sought to categorise him under 'travel writers' for instance - although even that makes him sound narrower than he is.

If you want to draw attention to Douglas's sexuality, why not write about it in the text of the article? - I would suggest under a sub-heading - rather than coyly adding a footnote of this sort which is really irrelevant. That would be encyclopaedic, whereas inventing this category is I think trivial, and (worse) it trivialises Douglas. Toodle-pip - Smerus 23:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

User:Arniep has accused me of rubbishing your research. I am troubled by this, since such was not my intention, I merely sought to point out your research had no bearing on what should and should not be included in Misplaced Pages. I wish to clarify whether I actually rubbished your research, and so I would appreciate it if you could review my comments and let me know if I did indeed rubbish your research. Steve block talk 19:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, please, I didn't take it that way at all and I have no doubt that you did not intend anything offensive in any way. Thanks for dropping by. - Smerus 19:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, and you're welcome. Steve block talk 19:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Bulgakov tomb

I don't know or care much about Bulgakov, but I do about Gogol. I heard the story twice on TV, first when an eminent literary critic (I think Zolotusky was his name) recounted the circusmstances of Gogol's reburial standing near his grave. Then I heard it from Bulgakov's heir (his wife's son, I think) who said that his mother had found the gravestone wasted from Gogol's tomb after his reburial and decided to reuse it for her husband's grave, recalling his lines addressed to Gogol: "Let me cover myself with your overcoat"... You may check this for a more recent allusion. IIRC there's also an entry in Bulgakov's diary discussing rumours about Gogol being exhumed headless, an urban legend which undoubtedly contributed to Berlioz's line in the novel. Happy edits to you, Ghirla | talk 22:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Michael Portillo

Hi - sorry about changing Harrow to Harrow School - I'm a newbie, and I will take more care about 'rewording' in future! Cheers --Neil Woodward 15:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No problems, Neil - I won't list the bloopers I have made! Thanks for dropping by.--Smerus 15:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Wagnerite category

I hope you don't mind that I removed Category:Wikipedian Wagnerites from Category:Wagnerites per the guideline to avoid self-references. I have put it into the specific Category:Wikipedians by musician, but I am not sure if that is the best place to put it, feel free to edit. And thank you for categorizing people into Category:Wagnerites, that seems like a nice and useful category if you don't overpopulate it. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 16:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This is fine by me - Category:Wikipedian Wagnerites was anyway just a Sunday morning idea, but I am sure I am not the only Wikipedian Wagnerite around. Let's see. Category:Wagnerites was I think needed and should not get overpopulated if people stick to the description I have placed there. The examples I have started with will I hope set the tone. I am also thinking of starting a category 'Anti-Wagnerites', in which case Nietzsche could figure in both. --Smerus 16:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

OK it's arrived - see Category:Anti-Wagnerites--Smerus 21:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Smerus! Paul B 21:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, I must say that I'm rather dismayed by the responses so far on the VfD. Most the people who are commenting clearly know nothing about the subject. They seem to be responding to what seems to them to be an arbitrary or whacky list of names - lumping together Hitler, GBS, various composers etc. Given the strange touchiness of one commentator, it's difficult to know how to point out that they really haven't a clue how important this phenomenon was! I do think that "anti-Wagnerites" is a category too far though. It's also difficult to know who to add. Most of the people listed so far are just people who had doubts or criticisms. Rossini even dened that he'd made the "terrible quarter hours" comment. I added Adorno, but that's debatable. I've just seen the very weak article on Wagnerism. That really needs to be expanded and improved. Paul B 12:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This is becoming a habit

I could not help but notice that you have discarded the information of Tchaikovsky's lovers. Quite apart from the discussion of whether or not they belong there is the ingenious rationale you present for deleting such information from any article in the encyclopaedia where you might come across it, "These names irrelevant in WP unless signficant in their own right or had a particular impact on the subject's career: and distort balance of article."

In the present case we're dealing with an aspect of Tchaikovsky's life that is of paramount significance in his music and his personal life, and that has been systematically suppressed during his life and since his death, thus your contention of irrelevance is simply incorrect.

What I find troubling is that this is the second time you have deleted information about an artist's homosexual love life from an article. Norman Douglas was the other, and in his case too his homosexuality was a major force in his life (it got him exiled) and his work. So while the deletion of irrelevant information is certainly a worthy goal, your consistent application of your novel doctrine to purge critical information about artists' homosexuality from their articles is not. Haiduc 12:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Haiduc,

I am sorry that you find this troubling. I did not delete, or dispute, references to Tchaikovsky's love life, only to the list of lovers. These are irrelevant to an encyclopaedic article on Tchaikovsky. The names of these lovers, to be absolutely specific, have absolutely no "paramount significance in his music", although of course his sexaulity as a whole does have some such significance. Indeed the article as a whole at present has precious little on what makes Tchaikovsky an encyclopaedic subject, viz, his music and his own musical development, which I hope to remedy in due course. That of course is not your fault.

I appreciate and in fact share your concern that subjects' sexuality should not be suppressed, especially where their sexuality and its consequences are a major feature of their biography. But that is not an excuse for overstating the case. Norman Douglas's long exile was his personal choice - although, indeed, for the offence for which he might have been prosecuted, a brief spell abroad was a typical action to undertake, he had no problems when he came back to London where he lived from 1944-1950. (Dates appproximate, I am in plaster and can't get to my reference books to look them up). Similarly it is just not the case that Tchaikovsky's homosexuality has been 'systematically suppressed' - it has certainly been common knowledge since I began as a teenager taking an interest in musical history 40 years ago.

I can assure you that I do not only pick on homosexuals for my deletions on grounds of irrelevance, and it just happens to be a complete (but delightful, given that these two are generally unappreciated or underrated) coincidence that Tchaikovsky and Douglas are interests shared by you and me. I am not seeking to cross your path or attack your interests, only to place those whom I value in a full and balanced context that will enlighten other readers. I do hope that this may serve to set your mind at rest.

with best regards, and thanks for your comments, --Smerus 13:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

First off, my apologies for jumping to conclusions. There is so much sabotage of this information in the Misplaced Pages that I have probably become hypersensitized to these things and over-react. That being said, assuming that our readers will want to have their reading dis-encumbered of information about the love lives of the personages featured here, specifically that they will not give a damn who T's lovers were and only come here to find out about his music, is a far leap into thin air. I think the discussion here reduces to your sense of propriety vs. mine, and absent some absolute arbiter I think that we should opt in favor of greater inclusivity. If what you seek is really to "place those whom I value in a full and balanced context that will enlighten other readers" then how do you arrive at "full" by deleting?! If you think it is not "balanced" then please by all means balance, but not by a process of procrustean editing, please. Haiduc 14:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Haiduc, I am not going to make a big thing of this. As I suggest, the article needs to be extended to say more about Tchaikovsky's musical development, and within this improved article I expect the sort of comments about which we are debating will fall into a more appropriate context. There is a real issue however in naming Tch's lovers. Many people in WP had lovers of either or both sexes - discussing the subjects' sexuality may be (but not always!) relevant to their careers, achievements and problems - listing the names of their lovers is not relevant in the same way unless they had a particular impact in the story. Oscar Wilde/ Alfred Douglas? Of course! Wilde/others? Yes that they existed, but mention by name is usually likely to be superfluous. Similarly in Tchaikovsky's story, there is nothing to my knowledge that indicates his passions for any of his male lovers by name can be identified in any particular pieces of his music, or any aspects of his musical development. His breakdown over his marriage seems to me however to be clearly relevant to his music, especially his last pieces. Keep thinking. --Smerus 15:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Neither do I wish to belabor this. I think we are close to going in circles here. Wilde had Ross. Tchaikovsky is of interest to history for more than his music, and he is of interest to different people for different reasons. At least we know now what the essence of our divergence is. Would you be so kind as to post this exchange atthe Tchaikovsky discussion page so that others may contribute? Haiduc 15:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Done - discussion closed on this page then, but others can take it up if they wish at Talk:Pyotr_Ilyich_Tchaikovsky Of course I concede Ross, undoubtedly relevant to wilde (and N. Douglas) --Smerus 17:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Images

Hello, Smerus. I don't understand why you are upset with my transfer of your image from Yaroslav the Wise to Saint Sophia Cathedral in Kiev. The former article is overloaded with images, the latter lacks them. I believe your image better illustrates the data on Yaroslav's sarcophagus contained in Saint Sophia Cathedral in Kiev. By the way, if you feel there are too many images illustrating the page, you may want to download it to Wikimedia Commons, where they may be used by editors from other wikipedias. Otherwise, you may be sure that your fine image will later be uploaded into Russian, German, French, etc wikipedias separately, which is not good, for it takes too much space to store all those identical images in the national wikipedias. --Ghirla | talk 13:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Invasion - Peer review

Invasion has been submitted for peer review, and your help thus far has been valuable so I wanted to invite you take a look and make any suggestions you have on improving the article further. Thanks! Kafziel 13:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you worked on the article Invasion, I thought you might like to know that it has now been submitted as a featured article candidate. If you're interested, I wanted to invite you to come vote at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Invasion. Thanks - Kafziel 05:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Russia

Hi, again. I've noticed your great work on Russia-related article and decided to recommend to add to your watchlist these two notice-boards: Portal:Russia/New article announcements and Portal:Russia/Russia-related Misplaced Pages notice board. Please check them out now and then. Thanks for your time, Ghirla | talk 23:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Schmidt

Colleague, I am well aware of my non-native English, but unfortunately your changes, whatever was your intention, changed the meaning. If you have any particular objections, spell them, and we talk. mikka (t) 17:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC) I may comment on my three reversals:

• revolutionaries vs. men of revolution. Kropotkin and Marx were not participansts of revolutions; they were proponents of revolutionary ideas. I felt that "revolutionary" iss too much for them, but if you tell me that Marx is known as "revolutionary" in English speech, OK with me.
• man of enterprise vs man of impromptu/improvisation: the intention was to point out at Bender's spontaneous generation of ideas, rather than simply "innovation".
• Chernobyl survivors vs liquidators. The people with privileges were the ones who took part in elimination of the consequences of Chernobyl disaster. These people are known as "chernobyl liquidators". P.S. BTW, the ordinary "survivors", i.e., people who lived within the area of the catastrophe and resettled from there often received a rather discouraging treatment (you may want to copyedit my yet another opus, Radiophobia), for various reasons, not to be discussed here.

My apologies for rather harsh-looking edit summary. The problem is that the computer dehumanizes personal relations, especially when someone like me types too much. mikka (t) 17:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Josef Gusikov, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 17:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

portillo CF Golijov

Sorry you view my observations on Portillo/Abbott as POV. But liked your SAU review of the Golijov. Did you also go to the earlier Golijov Upshaw concert in Jan?--Farsee50 14:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Moscheles

Hello, I hope you haven't been kept waiting too long for a reply because I haven't visited Misplaced Pages for several days. There definitely is much to be clarified in the Wiki guidelines (if they indeed exist) about the classification of persons into ethnic/national categories. The tendency among editors seems to be to multiply categories and slot people into as many as possible to cover the spectrum of overlapping identities ascribed to an individual, whether these identities are acquired through birth, citizenship, residence, culture, etc. I admit to following this approach as well, and have largely refrained from debating the subject because of the acrimony that editors traded with each other during the attempts to "purge" Misplaced Pages biographies of virtually all references to Jewishness. The article's identification of Moscheles as a Czech composer falls within one or more of these vaguely defined grounds or processes of ethnic/national inclusion. He could potentially be listed as an Austrian or German composer as well, although the terms "Austrian composer" or "German composer" could imply, inter alia, a composer who lived in Austria (for a very extended period), who was formally an Austrian/German citizen, who aligned himself with Austrian/German culture, etc. Only some of these interpretations could be applied to Moscheles. Categories cannot accommodate the full complexity of a figure's life, especially in the case of Moscheles' cosmopolitan history. Defrosted 01:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

George Pinto

Hi, just wanted to let you know that I translated your article into de:George Frederick Pinto (that entry had already been existing for a while, but only as a one sentence stub). It is featured as an anniversary article on the German wikipedia's main page today. I see you are writing for MGG, so maybe you are able to tell me if I have made too much of a tabloid headline (aufgrund seines exzessiven Lebensstils) out of the poetic expression a martyr to dissipation? regards, High on a tree 05:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

so maybe you are able - After reading the rest of your delightful user page, I feel a bit stupid for having missed the very first opportunity to actually get useful information out of a Misplaced Pages user box ;) Wenigsten habe ich den "English joke" verstanden, aber nur, weil ich selbst mal dort abschloss, eine Tür weiter (flussabwärts). Übrigens: Vielleicht findest du das hier interessant (der Löschantrag wurde abgelehnt). grüße, High on a tree 06:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The lowest common denomenator

Re:

Delete - a nonsense category - as many of the existing entries show. How does 'samizdat' qualify (not a person, or an organization, and whilst expressing resistance to, in no way necessarily predicting the fall of, the USSR? The Mensheviks didn't predict the end of the USSR, they opposed the Bolsheviks. Where and when did Bernard Levin predict the end of the USSR? - it's not in the Misplaced Pages article. Etc. etc. It serves no purpose - into the bin, please.--Smerus 14:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I am the author of the category you stated should go "into the bin".

I find it ironic the Sovietologist had to admit they were wrong, and now, if you are intellecutal honest so do you. Which based on my past expereince with wikipedians, I am not going to hold my breath for a mea culpa, this being the internet, there is an unwritten rule that no matter what the evidence, a person, never ever, ever admits they are wrong.

Your statment has so many harebrained statments I don't even know where to start.

Let me lay out each one:

You wrote: How does 'samizdat' qualify (not a person, or an organization, and whilst expressing resistance to, in no way necessarily predicting the fall of, the USSR?

Various essays published in samizdat in the early 1970s were on similar lines, some quite specifically predicting the end of the Soviet empire. Laqueur, Walter (1996). The Dream that Failed : Reflections on the Soviet Union. USA: Oxford University Press. ISBN: 0195102827. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) p. 188 Footnote: S. Zorin and N. Alekseev, Vremya ne zhdzt (Frankfurt, 1970); Alexander Petrov-Agatov (manuscript), excerpts in Cornelia Gerstenmaier, Die Stimme der Stummen (Stuttgart, 1971), 156-67.

You wrote: The Mensheviks didn't predict the end of the USSR, they opposed the Bolsheviks.

Kautsky and the Mensheviks predicted even more emphatically that the whole experiment would end in disaster.

Laqueur, Walter (1996). The Dream that Failed : Reflections on the Soviet Union. USA: Oxford University Press. ISBN: 0195102827. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) p. 188

You wrote: Where and when did Bernard Levin predict the end of the USSR? - it's not in the Misplaced Pages article.

It is on the category talk page, but since you obviously only took a cursory glance at this category, before throwing it into the "bin", you missed this didn't you?:

Bernard Levin drew attention in 1992 to his prophetic article originally published in the Times of London in September 1977, in which an uncannily accurate prediction of the appearance of new faces in the Politburo was made, resulting in radical but peaceful political change.15

15. Bernard Levin, in National Interest, Spring 1993, 64-65.

Laqueur, Walter (1996). The Dream that Failed : Reflections on the Soviet Union. USA: Oxford University Press. ISBN: 0195102827. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) p. 187

And there is more:

Anticipations of the Failure of Communism, Theory and Society, Vol. 23, No.2, Special Issue on the Theoretical Implications of the Demise of State Socialism. (Apr., 1994), pp. 169-210, Seymour Martin Lipset; Gyorgy Bence

Theoretical insight, political judgment

...Finally, we must note that some politicians and journalists on both the Right and the Left seem to have known what was happening in the Soviet Union and based their policies and writings on this knowledge. Perhaps the most accurate description and prevision came from a conservative journalist, Bernard Levin, writing in the (London) Times in September 1977. Levin thought the same nationalist, social, and political forces that had produced dissidence within the elites in Czechoslovakia and other parts of Eastern Europe would inevitably produce the same outcome in the Soviet Union itself by 1989. He wrote with uncanny prescience that in the Soviet Union, the eventual leaders of revolt

...are there, all right, at this very moment, obeying orders, doing their duty, taking the official line against dissidents, not only in public but in private. They do not conspire, they are not in touch with Western intelligence agencies, they commit no sabotage. They are in every respect model Soviet functionaries. Or rather, in every respect but one: they have admitted the truth about their country to themselves, and have vowed, also to themselves, to do something about it.

That is how it will be done. There will be no gunfire in the streets, no barricades, no general strikes, no hanging of oppressors from lamp-posts, no sacking and burning of government offices, no seizure of radio-stations or mass defections among the military. But one day soon, some new faces will appear in the Politburo, - I am sure they have already appeared in municipal and even regional administrative authorities - and gradually, very gradually, other, similarly new, faces will join them. Until one day they will look at each other and realize that there is no longer any need for concealment of the truth in their hearts. And the match will be lit.

There is nothing romantic or fantastic about this prognosis; it is the most sober extrapolation from known facts and tested evidence. That, or something like it, will happen. When it will happen it is neither possible nor useful to guess; but I am sure it will be within the lifetime of people much older than I... let us suppose, for neatness' sake, on July 14, 1989 82

Etc. etc. It serves no purpose - into the bin, please.

Everyone of those people listed are referenced on the talk page, and since I wrote that talk page, I have found even more people that have written on the collapse of the USSR, and several books and articles on the subject.

Your ignorant accusations just shows that often the lowest common denominator rules at Misplaced Pages. Someone on the deletion page, who obviously knows more about Mensheviks then you do fittingly called your group the "baying pack".

It would be one thing if you made naive statments on a wikipage, those naive statments could be easily reverted. It is quite another thing when you vote on a page for deletion based on fallacies and complete ignorance.

If you decide to respond to me, before you launch into another naive speech, which will only embarass you, please read the Top Ten Dodge List Tactics to employ if you're in a logical debate and logic has not sided with you (for any number of reasons), and you are nevertheless unwilling to change your argument or opinion. (bottom of page) That will save me a lot of time. Travb 07:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)