Contents

Talk:Edward Gibbon/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

What does this mean?

In an age when a man's stature was measured not merely by the "cut of his breeches," but by his riding, Gibbon was a lonely figure.

I do not consider myself to be a stupid person, but the above makes little sense to me. I can only imagine it is a euphemistic way of saying that in Gibbon's day (as now?) a man's genitals were liable to being scrutinised even while he was fully dressed and that his were presented an unusual sight. It is a wonderful sentence, almost worthy of the man himself, but perhaps a trifle too elliptical for its present setting. --Oxonian2006 19:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Do we have an entry for 'deprogramming'? Because that's exactly how Gibbon's family acted about Catholicism - taking him away from one school, sending him to professionals in a different company, etc. And 'began to espouse' - was he received into the Catholic Church, or did he just talk about it? --MichaelTinkler

All I know is what is in the introduction to my edition of the Decline and Fall, in which the following is quoted from his memoirs: "at the age of sixteen, I bewildered myself in the errors of the Church of Rome." It nowhere states that he was an actual member of the Church, and it seems that fact would be included, if true. --Dmerrill

Actually, there were lots of reasons to understate. His own family's reaction shows that the prejudice was more than mild. His own later intellectual prejudice enters in, as well. I'm not sure one way or the other, but I've read that he did. Nothing springs to hand online that looks helpful (there's one article by Paul Turnbull, whose name I recognize from History-L 'Buffeted for Ancestral Sins: Gibbon’s writings on his childhood and Catholic conversion', Eighteenth Century Life: Studies in the Eighteenth Century (1987) no. 6, pp. 18-35, but I haven't read it so I don't know how far the conversion process went). I'm away from a library. --MichaelTinkler

I think that the article is very minimalistic, and can use a lot more data. For example:

1. That he met some lady he loved in Lausanne
2. That his father did not approve, and therefore he never married
3. That he felt more at home in Switzerland than in England
4. That he returned to Lausanne to write the remainder of his magnum opus
5. That he left Switzerland after the French Revolution seemed to be spreading there
6. That he was in a British militia for some time
7. That he died after his hydrocele (water in the scrotum) was treated (probably infection), a condition he neglected for years
8. That he consciously wrote for posterity (being a historian)

There is a lot of material to be added. The 1911 Encyclopedia entry (link in the article) is a good start. -- KB 02:06, 2004 Apr 30 (UTC)

His catchphrase must imply that at least boys from Westminster School and Kingston Grammar School know since he attended both in a short school career.JPF 00:32, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi Allie, very nice work! I did a minor copyedit, just standardizing a few wikilinks—unlinking grammar school, piping Mme de Staël link, changing South Sea ventures to South Sea Bubble. Oh, and regretfully took out the personal hygiene of Swedenborg, because asides are not so encyclopedic, they're more essaistic or lecture-appropriate, (I have some doubts about Mme de Staël, too). (Just kidding, it was really because I want all Swedes mentioned on Wikipedia to be described as exceptionally clean and fragrant.) Or actually I invisibled it, check out the edit field, you'll see it's still there. Oh, and made Eddie rather than his dad 14 years old. ;-)
You might want to clarify the "considered "primary" sources" and "considered "secondary" sources" (which you discussed on Decline and Fall Talk, I think it was). Are considered, were considered, are to be considered? Why? What do primary and secondary mean (the assumed reader is not an academic)?--Bishonen | Talk 22:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Bishonen.

Is it just me, or does the discussion of Gibbon's medical problems threaten to overwhelm the discussion of his life? Couldn't this be presented more summarily? Also, it would be interesting to present the source of this information; I don't see it in Bonnard's edition of the Memoirs of My Life. Presumably it's from a recent biography? Mark K. Jensen 00:58, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

The last extensive edit by an anon seems to have whacked some stuff in addition to rephrasing. The subtle but large-scale twisting of the assessment is starting to irritate me, so I'm going to give the anon a chance to explain himself/herself a chance to explain before reverting. Stan 14:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I concur - it now reads like one of the Olympian judgments of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica or some such work. john k 15:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The thesis of Gibbon's renowned book, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, should be given in capsule form. Especially since there is no external link to an article about the book in the Wikipedia.

Also, seems to me this Gibbon article might address whether the ideas Gibbon put forward in his book are today deemed to have had any relevance to an anlysis of the fall of, say, the Spanish or British Empires. -Joel Russ

I agree with this first part about the thesis. How about at least including Gibbon's famous sentence (also featured on the back cover of the Penguin edition of the book), "Instead of inquiring why the Roman empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it had subsisted so long." Maybe something else about barbarians and early Christianity? Mball

I asked below for someone to provide comprehensive reasons why a precis of the decline & fall is not included. no one has responded, and I therefore assume there are no comprehensive reasons. Accordingly I am submitting it for consideration again. Andrew massyn 15:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is roughly divided into three parts. The first may be traced from the age of Trajan and the Antonines to the subdivision of the Western Empire. The second begins with the reign of Justinian, and traces the invasion of Italy by the Lombards, the conquest by the Arabs of the Asian and African provinces and Spain, and deals with the establishment of the second or Germanic Empire by Charlemagne. The third looks at the long dark time from Charlemagne to the sack by Mahomed IIofConstantinople in 1453. The History spans approximately one thousand three hundred years and covers vast areas, from the good emperors, Trajan and the Antonines, to the bad emperors, Caligula, Nero, Commodus, Caracalla and Maximum. It deals with the spread of Christianity, the Rise of Islam, the invasion of the Huns, the Frankish kingdom, the Saxon Empire, the Crusades and their influence on the decline of the Western Empire, as well as mundane aspects of daily life, for example, the introduction of fruit and vegetables into Europe, the importance of the camel to Arabian commerce, or schooling in Greece. - The style of his writing is pithy lucid and readable. The themes, developed throughout the work, pull the reader back to the title at all times. Gibbon traces the corruption of centralised power, the inherent instability of Empire as a form of government, the rise of nationalism and religion, all of which contribute in his view, to the fall of any government not in tune with its people.

• Rather than including a summary of the book in the article on Gibbon, I think it would be more appropriate to refer the reader to the article on the book 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' itself. This way, the two articles on Gibbon (the man) and D+F (the book) can be kept more focussed, and with as little unnecessary overlap as possible. Robindch 14:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I wonder wether it would be appropriate to note in the article that Gibbon influenced not only Winston Churchill, but also Isaac Asimov, who has said that reading the The Decline and the Fall of the Roman Empire has suggested him the idea of the Foundation series. Actually I think this is worth mentionning - but I don't know in what part of the article it should go. Any suggestions? Thanks. Mithrandir1986 20:44, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Many articles have a "XXX in culture" section at the end that note this sort of influence, or just call it "Influences on other writers" or some such. The Asimov connection is completely appropriate and desirable - connects past to present in an interesting way. Stan 02:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Please vote which picture you like more. That on the top, or the one at the bottom.Cruise 19:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: The Bottom Image was removed, and can be found here: Image:Gibbon 2.jpg (with tree) and Image:Gibbon 4.jpg (without tree).

• Top image. Seriously, why on earth would you want the bottom one. It is all pixelated, and what is that behind him, a tree? --JW1805 21:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Bottom image. I like Edward Gibbon and when I looked at the top picture, his shining chin conveyed the impression that he just finished a pork chops dinner. I liberated his image from it's macabre background, cleaned the blemishes on his face, desaturated it to remove the patina, and pixelated it by using the Floyd-Steiberg conversion to remove the over-all heaviness, to give it more etheral quality, in harmony with Gibbon's delicate spirit. David Cruise 17:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC) P.S. Hi JW, you're right. After reading your comments, I removed the tree in the background. David Cruise 18:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, clearly what you did was use the image at this website (which may be copyrighted). It is a slightly different image than the one on this site (which is public domain). I'm not sure running a pixelating filter over somebody else's image allows you to copyright it as your own and then release it under GNU. --JW1805 15:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• We should be using an image as close to contemporaneous as possible (which has the advantage of guaranteeing PDness), and not be fooling around with it much, certainly not pixelation. This is an encyclopedia, not an art project. Stan 18:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Some people have a propensity to turn things that were meant to be lighthearted into an ugly controversy which I don't intend to be a part of. Good bye Edward Gibbon, we your devotees know that your beauty was not of the flesh, but of the spirit. David Cruise 18:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Not being English speaking myself, I have not much expectations as to my understanding of the language. But it seems to me that the article implies that Mlle. Curchod was the daughther of M. Pavilliard, which -up to my knowledge- was not. If there is a mistake (undoubtedly a typo)perhaps someone could just paraphrase by replacing the definite article. Or perhaps it's just me and I should start studying this language. Gracias. Hernán --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.168.187.161 (talk • contribs) 18:08, October 30, 2005.

The article comes across like it was written on the verge of a Gibbon-induced orgasm. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.70.42.199 (talk • contribs) 17:32, November 19, 2005.

Sure. Maybe you can improve this orgahhhhh? -DePiep 22:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, it's a bit over the top, but I don't see what's factually wrong, so I've toned it down a bit and wiped most of the mess off the monitor. There does need to be a precis of the book, and some more discussion about why it was so controversial. Anyone on for this? -robindch 28/11/05 15:54:41

As nobody's objected to the above edits, I think it's time to remove the questionable-neutrality tag; I'm also working, in small fits and starts on some kind of a brief summary of the book (don't hold your breath though) - robindch 2005-12-06 13:56:32

The article cites a number of books that are said to have copied the phrase "Rise and Fall" from Gibbon.

The title of Gibbon's book is of course "The Decline and Fall..." Gaiseric 21:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

That's true, but that doesn't say they took their title from Gibbon, innit? They altered it, to be fitting to their subject. -DePiep 20:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• "Decline and Fall has had its detractors too, almost invariably in the form of religious commentators and religious historians who detested his querying not only of official church history, but also of the saints and scholars of the church, their motives and their accuracy." Oh really, is Norwich a 'religious commentator'? Or Runciman? This is absolute rubbish. There are many, many, many valid criticisms of Gibbon's verdict on the middle-ages and inparticular his contempt for Byzantium. For example, he ignores the comparison between East and West at the time, turns a blind eye to the immense problems that Byzantium was faced with, not just for any specific time period, but for the whole of it's damn 1000 year History (for example, Persian threat to be removed spectacularly by Heraclius, only to be replaced almost instantaenously with a bigger Arab threat) and generally tends to treat Byzantine History with a scorn that doesn't even merit sensible Historical debate. Atheist POV sneaks in everywhere these days. It's bordering on ridiculous that they can hold the rest of the community at knifepoint and call them 'religionists' or whatever absurd title they call Theists by now and get their own way by accusing almost all their detractors of being 'staunch catholics/protestants with an agenda' while adopting an air of moral and intellectual superiority over everyone else. Someone has to deal with this pathetic Gibbon love-in, by somebody who probably hasn't even read Decline and Fall, and simply saw Gibbon's rather extreme enlightenment views as a way to further their own ideas. - Nick.

• Yes, there are commentators who objected to Gibbon who were not religiously-inspired, and the poster did imply that, if not very clearly. However, I think it's quite fair to say that the majority of the most vociferous critics of Gibbon have been inspired by religious zeal, as much as Gibbon was inspired by the Enlightenment. The writer also mentioned the fact that the Irish State, at the behest of the Irish Catholic church, banned Decline and Fall until around 30 years ago -- what more evidence do you need of religious detractors? This isn't an "blatant atheist POV", but a simple statement of fact --Robindch 12:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point, but no real criticism is given to Gibbon's style of criticism of Byzantium post-late antiquity comparitively to the golden age of Rome in the 1st Century AD, most modern Historical Scholars have pointed this out, and stated that Byzantium must be judged within the context of it's time, facing far greater threats to it's territorial integrity than it's predecessor ever faced, as stated, removing one threat which was only replaced by another, considering the time, what Byzantium achieved in comparison to other European states (as Norwich states about the Western Europeans '[peoples] who considered themselves noblemen, but could not even write their own names'. More recently, the influence of Byzantine Historians upon contemporary Historical Scholarship (a lot of works were basically hagiographic biographies, ill give you that - but many also achieved a degree of neutrality, objectivity and accuracy not seen anywhere else in Europe or during Classical Antiquity for that matter) has recieved the justified praise it deserves. But this is just one element, there are many more, both artistically (in the fields of Ivory, Mosaics and illustrated texts) and architecturally (it's influence in that field around the Orthodox Balkans and Russia, as well as upon Ottoman Architecture as well).

Gibbon is not infallible, he is without a doubt one of the greatest historians who ever lived, but this does not mean his views on Byzantium and the concluding reasons for the fall of the empire (which imo are very vague) should be accepted with no questions asked, which seems to be the attitude of many Atheists when talking about Decline and Fall, many of whom (especially on wiki) know sweet fuck all about Greco-Roman History and simply use it as a political tool.

• If you wish to make a comment on the main page noting your concerns about how accurate Gibbon may or may not have been when he writing about Byzantium, then please do so. Your edit will then be modified, or let stand, as any other edit would be. I would respectfully suggest, though, that your edits may last longer if you choose to refrain from using four-letter vulgarities in your descriptions of people who do not believe that god(s) exist -- Robindch 15:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Midas - your edits violate all three of Wikipedia's principal edit policies: Original Research (WP:OR), Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) and Verifiability (WP:V). In short, if you want to claim that Gibbon's view of Byzantium is "out-dated", you will have to show why by citing and summarizing references to third parties which say so. If they are reputable and based upon solid research, then your edits will probably be let stand. As it is, your edits violate policy, so I'll revert them within the next few days, unless you edit them to conform. Thanks. Robindch 22:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely Gibbon's views on Byzantium are pretty obviously outdated. It shouldn't be hard to find just about any recent historian writing about Gibbon's view on Byzantium saying that. but, given that, well, it shouldn't be hard to find citations. john k 12:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• On 2006-08-07, 24.66.94.140 reintroduced Midas' policy violating edits from 2006-08-07. If there is a problem with Gibbon's view of Byzantium, then please document it properly.Robindch 00:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Again, can somebody find some citations to mainstream historians which clearly indicate where Gibbon is incorrect in his assessments concerning Byzantium? As I wrote above, it's a violation of the OR, NPOV and V policies to include citation-free, personal opinions, regardless of how accurate (or otherwise) they are. Thanks. Robindch 01:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• A lot of citations have appeared recently which cite printed texts. While this is in accordance with Wikipedia policy (see Wikipedia:Citing sources), I think it would be best if these could be balanced by an equal number of references to supporting articles on the web. Not all internet readers will have easy access to libraries likely to contain some of the works cited which severly cutails the usefulness of the citations. Robindch 23:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed that the majority of facts taken from the above have been kept. Thus:

• The names of his father and grandfather.
• His first publication. (the Memoirs)
• His second publication. (Critical observations on Virgil)
• His entering of the House of Commons in 1774 is now incorrectly stated as his re-entry (he was elected for the second time in 1781)
• The singular reason for his death.
• The only area of dispute is the state of finances on his father's death. which has been reverted, and in this area, I stand by the assertion that his finances had to be supplemented. In 1779, he attempted to sell the family estate at Lenborough, but couldn't because of the fall in property prices as a result of the dispute with the American colony. His election to the Board of Trade gave him a salary of £790. When the board was closed, he lost this salary, and by 1783 was forced (inter-alia) for financial reasons to give up London life and move to Switzerland.

• If therefore the citiations were not as you liked, don't critisise the facts, but critisise the style. Many of us have degrees, (some of us have several and post-graduate qualifications) If the facts come from a source you object to, say why. Andrew massyn 06:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Er, I wasn't criticizing the facts. I was requesting (fairly clearly I thought) that people provide a few substantial internet links as well as links to printed texts -- Wikipedia is supposed to be a useful internet reference. Also, Wikipedia is not concerned whether you, or any other contributor, has one or more degrees, post-graduate or otherwise. Edits are let stand based upon the merit of the edits themseves, and not the educational qualifications claimed by the contributor. Robindch 11:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

WRT the article as a whole, the areas of weakness are as follows:

• We need to give fuller discussion to the overall theme of the Decline, namely:
  • Complacency and stagnation.
  • Trenchant critisism of Centralised power.
  • Critisism of Empire as a means of government.
  • A fuller discussion on Byzantium. (If anyone has access to his unpublished Sur la monarchie des Médes it may give insight).
  • A fuller discussion on his antipethy to religion. Andrew massyn 06:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• These topics are more relevant to The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, the book, rather than Edward Gibbon, the man. Robindch 11:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems odd to me that a biography of the man includes only passing reference to the reason he is famous. Surely a comprehensive biography would include (allbeit a one paragraph precis of) his most important work? Its rather like saying Bach had lots of children and wrote some music or Picasso had a mistress and painted a bit. Honestly which is more important to the world? People are not necessarily interested in Gibbon's somewhat mediocre military career, but are interested in the sweep of his canvass and his insights into the latter days of the Empire. I put in such a precis, but it was removed. Anybody provide comprehensive reasons why?Andrew massyn 17:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The article states that: Gibbon's work has also been criticized for his biased view of Christianity^[1] laid down in chapters XV and XVI, which document the reasons for the rapid spread of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire. Those chapters were strongly criticised and resulted in the banning of the book in various countries.

I think that the critisism is overrated. If you look at chapter 15, what he actually writes is as follows: "Our curiosity is naturally prompted to inquire by what means the Christian faith obtained so remarkable a victory over the established religions of the earth. To this enquiry an obvious and satisfactory answer may be returned; that it was owing to the convincing evidence of the doctrine itself and to the ruling providence of its great Author". He goes on to critically examine other causes of the spread and finds that they are fivefold, namely: "the inflexible and if we may use the expression, the intolerant zeal of the Christians.... The doctrine of a future life....The miraculous powers ascribed to the primitive church....The pure and asture morals of the Christians (and) The union and discipline of the Christian republic which gradually formed an independent and increasing state in the heart of the Roman Empire." To me, this hardly seems damning critisism of Christianity. As I am new to Wikipedia (and have noted Stevewk's comments above), the question is do we comment on such in the article, or leave it as a bare-bones entry? Andrew massyn 22:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think it is true that he regards Christianity as having hijacked pagan religions and that it played on credulity to gain sway with the masses, but even so, I think the critisisms leveled at him were knee-jerk reaction of his day rather than a reasoned look at his critique. Andrew massyn 07:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• The best approach, I believe, is to add a new section labelled "Gibbon and Religion" and move all of the contentious text in there. It should help to reduce the frequency and severity of edit wars. Robindch 17:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• I agree, Gibbon is not universally criticized for his assessment of the negative role of Christianity in the decline of Rome. The article presents one (probably pro-christian) POV here. Modern philosophers, like Eric Hoffer would probably agree with Gibbon, that Rome was the victim of a violent political mass movement (i.e., Christianity). Gibbon is not simply expressing a romantic view of paganism, he is talking about the execution of intellectuals by christian mobs and the burning of libraries. This section needs to be fixed and given a more balanced POV. DonPMitchell 15:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• would someone tell Barbara that its =not= "cool" to produce more clutter in this article. there are way too many entries under "Further Reading", and i will continue to revert if she thinks she's actually contributing to the substance of this article. would you people actually try =writing= something original, instead of being "cool" with your "Further Reading" entries or changing a word here or there? and leave the Womersley entries alone. FCOL.

• leave the Womersley and Pocock material alone, and it'll be ok. its not "cool" to load up the "Further Reading" section with outdated (1949? c'mon) and no longer relevant articles (which are really just artifacts), but i see now that you cant see that. either that or you think you're actually contributing something. Pocock, Womersley, Craddock, and Ghosh are the only ones that are truly needed. and i repeat, if you (and the others) truly want to =contribute=, try actually writing something original.

• this has now turned out to be a full-fledged reversion war, so somebody better tell Barbara to let it go, because i can sit here all day and all night. i work and live out of the same place, get it? i'm simply going to read further into Pocock and fill in at least 2 gaps: the Paris visit and the Rome visit where Gibbon got "the idea." if she then reverts those, then well, i guess we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. but i'll offer this: she can have his filler artifact further reading items, if she leaves the Pocock and Womersley material alone. if she doesnt touch that stuff at all, then i'll back off his superfluous fillers.

• Firstly, folks, edit wars ruin the article history, wastes your time, wastes mine and wastes wikipedia diskspace (which has to be paid for by donation). If this edit war erupts again today, I will report you both for violation of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Robindch 13:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Secondly, since (outside this edit war) verizon-user@70.110.195.74 is providing good-quality edits to this page, could I request that you create an account for yourself and use that, so that your edits are no longer anonymous? It will make your edits much easier to follow. Thanks for your work. Robindch 13:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Thirdy, small number of larger-scale edits are easier to follow than lots of small-scale edits. It would be more useful therefore if 70.110.195.74 could roll up the current flurries of small edits into larger ones. Thanks again Robindch 13:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Robindch. As you can see, I do not revert any edits, and, frankly, I do not see any reasons for this conflict, except, perhaps, someone's oversized ego.—Barbatus 13:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

... And yes, I regret to say, it has erupted again.—Barbatus 14:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Robindch, by virtue of you intervening, you've become an arbiter here, whether it was your intention, or not. My only crime was, I dared to change format of a couple of entries to conform them with the rest of bibliography. New entries are always welcome, as well as quality edits. I think that offering conditions which should be met to allow me to edit the article is inappropriate. (As for the rest, the ability to read is probably not anonymous's forte, for it can't tell the difference between Barbatus (m.) and Barbara.)—Barbatus 17:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

refusing to discuss a legitimate offer is tantamount to an admission of guilt. we =all= have the right to make changes; we do not have a valid right to ignore a legitimate offer. and by the way it doesnt matter that it was anonymous at the time. Anonymity is legal here. Stevewk 17:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• The article is now locked and will be unlocked in due course. Until that time, it may benefit both sides to muse upon Gibbon on the destruction of Augustodunum Haeduorum: Such, indeed, is the policy of civil war: severely to remember injuries, and to forget the most important services. Robindch 23:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• robin: first, you added this to a footnote of mine. its incorrect. "While the larger part of Gibbon's caustic view of Christianity is declared within the text of chapters XV and XVI, Gibbon rarely neglects to note its baleful influence throughout The History's first volume." Pocock, in the last chapter of vol. 2, says Gibbon has nothing whatsoever to say about Christianity in chaps. 1-14. its all in 15 and 16.

• Yes, that was unforgivable sloppiness upon my part. For no very good reason, I tend to refer volumes 1, 2 and 3 together as one ubervolume. When the main article is unlocked, I'll correct this error. Robindch 23:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

now, i have made Barbara the offer twice already. leave the entries and footnotes re Womersley and Pocock =alone=, and i mean do not touch them =at all=, and she can have the rest of "Further Reading."

you're welcome re my contributions. prevail upon Barbara to accept the compromise, and as far as i'm concerned, this can be over. as the author now of 2/3 - 3/4 of this article, i.e., the chief creator of =true= and original contributions, as opposed to "cool" entries in a purely superfluous section (FR), i'm not gonna like it, but that would be irrelevant, wouldnt it? the other stuff, i dont have and am not going to have the energy to address. and if Barbara estimates that i have an oversize ego, that would be a gross underestimation. i have the largest ego on the planet. GROAN.

• Folks, you're more than welcome to take this offline -- that's one way you can use your user pages -- and come to some arrangement amongst yourselves concerning who's going to edit what. Alternatively, leave the section alone and leave somebody else edit it. What is not allowed on Wikipedia is to make 75 trivial edits to a page over a 48 hour period, screwing up the page for everybody else. Please check out the page on the Lame edit wars. Robindch 23:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

First, I apologize for locking the article, but I didn't see any other way to stop this insanity. Hopefully, it allowed everyone to step back and cool off a bit.

• apology ignored...in the very same sense in which you continue to ignore the offer i put on the table 2 full days ago.

Second, about contributions. As I've already said, quality edits are only commendable and always welcome. But this is not a term paper, and no one owns the article, regardless of the time and efforts spent on it. Even more, if it is indeed an encyclopaedia article, it shouldn't be a college paper, right? An encyclopaedia article must, first and foremost, provide information and be a possible starting point for users who'd like to study the matter further, and recommended reading (or bibliography, or whatever you call it) is no less important part than the rest.

• i never said i "owned" the article, and you know that. and if you truly believe that Further Reading is as important as the main body of the article, then you must be on drugs.

Third, I see no harm in formatting all bibliographical entries in more or less standard way, which conforms to dozens of other articles.

• i also never said there was any harm there. i simply do not see the value in doing things =your= way, and i'm not going to. by the way, who made you Lord of Further Reading, as if =you're= exempt from editing, eh?

Forth, en-dashes. If one looks closely at books one's reading, one will notice what kind of dashes are used in ranges (from ... to ...): it's en-dashes, not hyphens. Hyphens in ranges are used sometimes in low-quality publications, but I hope we'll all agree that our goal here is higher quality (if not, there's nothing to discuss).

• unbelievably trivial and unworthy of further comment.

Fifth, anonymity and registration. It is, of course, not "illegal" either not to be registered or not do disclose one's real name (many, if not most, of Wiki editors use aliases, after all). Whatever one's reasons for being not registered might be, it's one's own problem. But consider this: it places editors in un-equal positions. It's easy to impose sanctions agains a registered user, for he's right here in the open, but not so easy against someone who uses different IPs.

• i was registered all along, and simply didnt want to disclose my user name. and as for why i didnt, that's none of your $#@%#-ing business.

And the last (but not least). I'm all for conversation and consensus and against confrontation and conflict. But I will not reply to to ultimatums ("you don't touch this, and I'll let you have that"). I repeat: the only cause of this little feud is overinflated sense of self-importance of most likely some college student. There's nothing wrong of being young and full of oneself—this particular decease passes rather quicly. But one must learn to respect others, that skill will come useful later in life.

• you got to be kidding me. that's an offer: you do this, i do that. what the hell is wrong with you? the rest here is no better than vomit.

Thank you.—Barbatus 14:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

... And I will not even read anything placed on my personal page without authorization.—Barbatus 15:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• well, arent you the hero?

Still, I hope the whole issue will soon be resolved to mutual satisfaction, so we can (virtually) shake hands and move on ... and if the other party lives in Chicago, I'll buy a round of beer (provided the said party is of legal age).—Barbatus 16:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• i wouldnt have a beer with you if you were the last human being standing after Al Qaeda nukes the planet. you make me sick, and the only thing i can say about you is that we will have to agree to disagree and subsequently stay out of each other's way...if this page is going to be restored satisfactorily. my offer is a step in that direction.

• and oh yeah, this egomaniac is M.A. History, 1999, field: Atlantic World, 1500-1800; close student of John Pocock. so KMA, you bush-league rank amateur.

• Stevewk 19:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No comments. Except, probably, that John Pocock must be ashamed of students like this one.—Barbatus 20:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Folks, we don't seem to be moving forward very fast here, which is a pity because both of you have put in excellent work and it's a pity that this can't continue, for the time-being at least. As agreement seems some way off still, I suggest that you both agree to nominate a third-party to edit the contentious 'Further Reading' section, and leave all decisions on form and content up to the nominated party. If you both agree, I'll be happy to do it myself when the page is unlocked. Alternatively, if either of you are unhappy with this, and there's somebody else both willing and able, then that's fine with me too. BTW, user discussion is usually best done either here, or in the user's talk page (click in the 'Discussion' tab at the top of the user's page), in preference to the user page itself, which is usually reserved for information about the user alone. Thanks. Robindch 23:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• I've left a suggestion on my userpage for resolving the FR edit war. Can you both take a look at it and let me know if it's acceptable? Thanks Robindch 13:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arctofeatured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• i just noted this now from http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~zimm/gibho1.html :

"Gibbon was born at Putney, Surrey, on 27th April, 1737, according to the Julian calendar, which England was still using then. When the Gregorian calendar was finally adopted in 1752, he celebrated his birthday on 8th May."

this seems to be born out by this from http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/GregorianCalendar.html :

"England (and the American colonies) finally followed suit [adopting the Gregorian] in 1752, and Wednesday, September 2, 1752 was immediately followed by Thursday, September 14, 1752."

if true that means we have it backwards. Apr 27 1737 should be Julian, May 8 should be Gregorian. i'm changing it right now, because this seems more likely to me to be correct [confirmed by this from the Library of Congress site: "Tobias Lear wrote that the President's "birth day" was on the 11th of February Old Style, referring to the Julian Calendar. Washington was born 20 years prior to the 1752 introduction of the Gregorian Calendar (intended to more accurately reflect a solar year). When the Julian Calendar was "corrected" to the Gregorian Calendar, February 11th became February 22nd.], but would someone else look at all this again and confirm? Stevewk 02:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• never mind. its correct. Stevewk 17:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)