User talk:Adam Carr

Messages to visitors: Debates I have withdrawn from

Being unable to argue rationally with religious fanatics, I have withdrawn from the debates on Jesus and Mother Teresa, and taken these pages off my watchlist. So no messages on those subjects please.

I have also removed Problem Users from my watchlist and will be taking no further part in discussions there. If you are looking for the material relating to me which used to be at Problem Users, it is not here.

Hey, do you mind if I put your picture of Marathon inside of a table? I was going to fix up the Battle of Marathon article to match the other WikiProject Battles (with the template and such). If I did that though, it would need to be smaller, but with a link to the larger picture of course. I just thought I should ask first since it's your picture :) Adam Bishop 01:00, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If we called it the Roman Empire all the way through to 1453, that might be a little confusing...it's not centred on Rome, they don't speak Latin, they aren't pagan, and by 1453 at least they don't have much in common at all with the old empire. I know they considered themselves Romans, as did the rest of Europe unless it interfered with some political consideration, but I think in this case the 19th century historians are right to use a different name.

Anyway, if you have more pictures to add, that would be great! Would you happen to have a picture of Mistra? I found some good ones but none of them were public domain... Adam Bishop 03:33, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks! I've never been to Mystras, or Europe at all...I will make it someday, I'm sure. As for Epidauras, don't worry, there are plenty of Greek cities that still need articles and pictures. Eretria is the one I see most often, I have just never gotten around to writing anything about it! Adam Bishop 04:00, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi Adam, good work on various articles. (It is nice having another PhD about the place.) Can I please urge you to desist from making critical personal comments about Lir. You appear to aware of the past history there. (I was one of his major critics.) However since coming back he has been IMHO genuinely trying to put his past behind him and simply work on articles. In doing so he has impressed a number of his former critics, including User:172, who was a very outspoken critic of his in the past but is a strong supporter of his work since his return. Given that there are some on wikipedia who have what they feel are scores to settle with Lir, I think it wise to avoid becoming the vehicle that triggers off another Lir war. Some people think he has not changed and is simply biding his time. I disagree and do believe, to use that old catholic phrase, that he has a 'firm purpose of amendment'. But I think the guy needs space to be allowed to prove himself. After the roasting he got in the past he is highly defensive at the moment. Perhaps his critics are right, but I don't think so, and do believe he is trying to do the right thing. But it would be a great pity is someone of his ability ended up driven from wikipedia by criticism of what happened many months ago, even though he has not repeated that behaviour and is trying to put it behind him. Basically, give the guy space at the moment. By all means be critical of specific edits you disagree with, but don't make generalised judgmental statements about him, for in the current climate, they risk bringing those with old scores they wish to settle back onto the talk pages to ignite Lir War III and driving the guy away. lol FearÉIREANN 04:24, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Re: changing Nazi Germany to Germany; its a pet peeve of mine and I hope my endorsement of your action does not enduce you to change it back. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Oh the joys of historiography. I am a history nut and can be driven mad by attempts at biased history on wikipedia, as you saw with Mother Teresa. I am expecting the cowpat to hit the fan next on Pope Pius XII, given that Erik, as well as his thing about MT, also has a thing about PP. Neither MT nor PP are exactly favourites of mine, but trying to use neutral language and balanced content is and Erik's 'case for the prosecution' style, though well meaning, can be infuriating to professional historians. Turning Catholicism from a hotch-potch of nutty theories and agendas into a proper encyclopædic article was a nightmare, with even left wing athiests like User:172 horrified at the POVs being pushed. (And neutrality, of course, interpreted as 'censoring truth', ie, the agenda-pushing analysis of one side or the other.)

Maybe, if you get the chance, you might look up Pope Pius XII and give it an academic analysis. It needs more properly researched evidence from the critics, as opposed to the current mention of one discredited play. And its defenders section makes statements that may be fact or well written spin by a Pius defender; which, I'm not sure until I can do more research. I've simply added in stuff from good quality sources that I have been able to lay my hands on. lol FearÉIREANN 05:28, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Great article on Ronald Munro-Ferguson, I've highlighted it on the main page. - user:zanimum

If it is the intention to link to the country article, then try [[United Kingdom|Britain]] so we don't lead readers to a history of the term Britain, which is quite irrelevant in this context. --Jiang 06:24, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi Adam,

It was only after I had had a go at Socialism that I noticed your intention to edit it. Had I known, I probably wouldn't have gotten involved. However, having done so, I found I had to revert a number of large deletions by Alun, who made the text exceedingly Anglocentric (an improvement?!?!), adding bits that were badly written and/or wrong. He then undid many of my changes, and I tried once again to merge everything. As it now stands, virtually all of the previous text plus his contributions are joined together, not always smoothly. As you will seen in the Talk page, I have implored him not to make any more deletions without discussing things first.

I have a favor to ask of you: now I know you are a superb writer and editor, and I know that many articles here have had too many authors and need a strong hand, and I don't want to cramp your style, but could you please tread judiciously in this case? As you will see if you review the recent Talk messages, I am trying to make Alun understand that he can't be quite so single-minded, that has to edit more circumspectly, and that he has to discuss major deletions. He is a young -- 16 -- and doesn't have a very highly developed sense of his own limitations. Hence, could I ask you, if you plan to delete any paragraphs or sections, to list them on Talk with your reasons? I know it is cumbersome but we need to set a good example.

I hope the article doesn't undergo any further bizarre mutations from the time I post this to the time you start working on it. I look forward to seeing what you do with it!

-- Viajero 20:42, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Alun is certainly keen but doesn't have a fully developed understanding of NPOV. His article on the history of British Socialism is appalling, for example and reads like an authorised history of the Labour Party. Secretlondon 11:22, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)

Adam, could you have a look at Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the Russian billionaire behind bars. I've done my best, but it needs work. Karl Marx

You're welcome. Since reverting occasional vandalism is so easy, I don't think it makes much of a difference whether user pages are protected or not; the end effect is the same. Some people suffer from targeted vandalism, e.g. Hephaestos is targeted by Michael; in such cases, protecting the page is energy-saving measure. And sometimes friendly people do make useful alterations to one's user page. -- Cyan 04:55, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't understand what GH is saying to be honest. If it was part of the history of Poland, I can't see why he objects to it being in the article about the history of Poland. Anyway, I'm not getting involved in a history fight. You historians are too scary. Maybe you should ask Jtdirl or 172 as they'll likely understand the issue more than I do. Angela 16:54, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

I think you are very brave to get involved in the dispute of competing nationalisms which has enveloped every debate on Poland and Prussia. I wish you luck Secretlondon 11:22, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)

I have absolutely no recollection of editing any of your conversations with Szopen, nor does my "user contributions" page indicate that I have done so. What are you referring to? john 09:37, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Dear Adam

I am afraid, your knowledge about Holocaust in Poland is highly POV. I oppose putting nonsenses about eternal Polish anti-Semitism as NPOV. To build the true picture one must take into account very complicated mixture of Nazi crimes, Soviet crimes, Polish resistance and Polish-Jewish tensions, including anti-Semitism. Have you ever read "Sofie's Choice"? It is excellent book, and gives balanced kicks everyone. However, it doesn't take into account problem of responsibility for communism, that is so complicated problem, that nobody yet wrote nothing resambling balanced view.

After all, you can blame Poles from Jewish POV, and dead Jews can be blamed from Polish POV, but the NPOV is that both nations suffered terribly from the hands of Nazis. I am not sure if you are able to write something NPOV, so maybe both sides should blame each other, so we have more then one POV. Better then nothing.

What you don't understand for sure, is that General Government is not the name of German administration in Poland, but it is the name of German colony, that consists of about 30% area of Poland. Putting the description of the administrative divisions of the whole Poland, to General Government make equal sense to putting administrative divisions of Britsh Empire to article about England alone.

However, you are right, that those description, that doesn't apply to GG should be removed form GG. (Please do it). GH

Huh - I have absolutely no memory of doing that - nor do I have any idea why I would do that. I'd also note that if you check out my "user contributions" page, it doesn't show said edit. Apologies if I did somehow do it, but I really have no idea how that came about. john 21:17, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hmm...I'm not sure how it would then appear in the article history as though I'd done it, though...it's all very strange. I do recall looking at the Szopen talk page, but I certainly have no memory of reverting (or of typing in an edit summary about reverting, which indicates that it can't have been done inadvertently). Very strange... john 19:33, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hello there, I noticed you are a profesional historian, so I wondered if you could take a look at this article I wrote: Great Depression in the United Kingdom. I tried to get User:172 to look at it but he seems too busy. I just wondered if you could give me any feedback and/or tips from a profesional: cheers G-Man 01:10, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Liked your addition to Poetry re the Greek: maybe it would be useful to add the old English scop, which shares a root with the modern 'shape'? Cheers Bmills 11:15, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I suppose I was thinking that while the Greek is the direct root of the English words, the concept of the poet as Old English scop/shaper, Scots makar/maker is a common thread in many European traditions (although the Irish file is cognate with 'to see'). So that the idea is not just Greek, but also vernacular? Bmills 13:37, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi Adam, we had a brief exchange about overlinking awhile back. At the moment, a discussion about this has resumed at Wikipedia talk:Make only links relevant to the context and I would be most interested in hearing your views as a professional historian. I feel that wikipedia links should be used judiciously and only to link higher-order concepts related to a given article, but to my dismay I seem to be in the distinct minority here about that. Thanks. -- Viajero 13:42, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi Adam. Sorry it took me so long to get back. We have a major new exhibition opening in my Museum on Monday, so I don't know whether I am coming or going. As for the Armenian quote: I remember reading somewhere that it is one of the "urban legends of the Holocaust" and that Hitler never really said it. I do not know, but I have been unable in the little time I have to track the source of the quote either. Danny 00:01, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

On the Armenians, please see p219, p220, and p221 which I extracted from amazon.com (told you it was a useful resource). Then please ask Danny to hard-delete them as they are a possible copyright issue. I'd want to look at the paper of Koch cited on p219 before saying anything about the authenticity. However it does seem that this "speech" appeared during the war and its provenance is an issue. I should have just left for a week away from home so I'll leave this in your hands. --Zero 00:58, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I am just thankful RK didn't see that. LOL. Danny 11:48, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I haven't had the pleasure of RK's company. Adam

Hi Adam, the work on the translation is great but Wikipedia is not a place for source texts. It really needs to be placed at Wikisource. Are you aware of the discussion of the same article at the Polish Wikipedia? It is at Dyskusja źródeł:Protest Zofii Kossak-Szczuckiej if you are interested. I was not able to understand the whole discussion but it seems to have been decided to implement a Źródła (Sources) namespace instead of moving the text to Wikisource. I was speaking to Taw about it and it seems the namespace is preferred over ps because the interface of ps is in English. I think the article on the English Wikipedia should be an explanation of what the document is with a link to the full text at the Wikisource address. I appreciate the work that you and GH are putting into the translation, but it is best that this is moved to a proper location. Angela 21:37, Nov 5, 2003 (UTC)

Dear Adam, i see you're still here and making a fuss (and i bet proud of it :) ). I just had a look in Zofia Kossak-Szczucka and i have a comment for you (since you written it an i also wanted to say hello): dont you think the debate part should be better if not in "dialogue" - that is summarized? Cheers, Muriel Gottrop 11:52, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Photos don't require captions if they are unambiguous; please see the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. - Hephaestos 13:56, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

If you don't want me to copy-edit the articles you write (uniformly excellent ones, I might add) I will of course respect that; if you expect nobody to do it I'm afraid you will be sorely disappointed. This is a wiki. - Hephaestos 14:09, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Again, refer to the manual of style. These are accepted norms. In my opinion removing the caption does improve the readability of the article. There's no reason the reader should be repeatedly beaten over the head with what the article is about, once he or she is past the first couple of sentences. Were I to do a complete copy edit I would also probably change "Kurt Schumacher" to simply "Schumacher", for example. - Hephaestos 14:20, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

As a contributor of 600 captioned photos. I think you are correct, Adam. Any photo without a caption looks quite odd to me, I can't explain why. So no matter how obvious the subject, I would always use a caption. Just looks unprofessional without it!

Adrian Pingstone 14:32, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi Adam. I left a note last night about the spelling. The two English-language biographies I have at home, Heiber and Manvell, give his name as Joseph. Heiber even goes on to say that his name is spelled "Joseph Göbbels" on his birth certificate. I will try and check some more sources today, but I have an incredibly hectic day (exhibition opening tonight, and I'm running a symposium tomorrow). Danny 11:24, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Re List of socialists - is there another Herbert Morrison? Adam 06:27, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The other is Herbert Morrison (announcer), he is the fellow who narrated the Hindenburg disaster. - SimonP 04:14, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)

I don't entirely understand your point about not existing term Lubus in English. If you write let say an article about the geography of China. If the name of the province doesn't exists in English, you simply should adopt local name. In the matter of fact, some territories that were taken over by Poland after WWII in the West, didn't belong either to Pomerania or Silesia, but they were known under term Ziemia Lubuska when they belonged to Poland. The term is also mentioned in the German vikipedia see Neumark. Before WWII they belonged to Brandenburg province, but Brandenburg is located even West from Berlin. The best idea is to introduce the term Lubus that is even the name of Polish Voivodship. GH

I don't agree. In English these territories are generally known by their German names. My pre-war German atlas tells me that all the annexed territories were in East Prussia, Pomerania, Brandenburg or Silesia. English-speaking readers don't need to know their historical Polish names in this article. Adam 08:39, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Also, what to the words Natolin and Pulawy mean in English? Adam

http://www.rochester.edu/College/McNair-Program/2000Journal%20/History2000.html

Names of the towns, where communist factions gathered. GH

While I read that, this will interest you also:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/sipa/REGIONAL/ECE/gluchowski.pdf Adam

At the first sight seems interesting. Requires further reading.GH

Dear Adam, just to tell you that i found arborealoids very funny. I think you put the finger in a serious problem in a very stilish manner... Cheers, Muriel 12:17, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Adam, could you possibly post it as a personal subpage? (assuming you still have the markup). Thanks -- Finlay McWalter 22:59, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Funniest thing I've read in a while, and a very serious point. Glad to see it appeared to have some effect, too. Bmills 16:28, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I promise to look at it over the weekend. After Sunday, life returns to normal. YAY! Danny 01:38, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

On Zionism, yes we are close. I have a few small edits I want to make in the next day or two. --Zero 11:57, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

(Apologies for re-editing). I may not answer in some hours bc I am quite busy today. Pfortuny 16:24, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What I got with respect to Aplank is what I wrote and his "signature". There is no more. Also, I only stated my opinion, I did not know it was definitive for the unblocking of the article. Please do paste this text there if you think it proper. I have also been surprised at its de-blocking... Pfortuny 16:23, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

As you can see, Wik has reverted your edits to Adolf Hitler. I have reverted to include your edits. I hope you can appreciate my cooperative actions. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Saddam was avowedly anti-socialist. Lirath Q. Pynnor

If you happen to have the books you recommend for "further reading" on hand, it would be nice if you could include the ISBN, so it automatically shows up as a link (e.g., ISBN 1-57835-065-4). --Jiang

...of course I do. --Jiang

Dear Adam, i followed your example in the Augustus Caesar and just finnish the rewrite of Julius Caesar. Care to have a look in an inoffensive (i sure hope) topic? I see you are involved in the Macedonian fun. Beware with the signatures! Cheers, Muriel 13:33, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yes, you are smart. That's why i asked you to read. I was not sure, that was in the old version, i'll remove it. Muriel
- Good night then (here is 3pm). And please do check the text. I'm not famous for my grammar... Cheers, Muriel

I'm happy. Just make sure you guys agree with any changes I made. Danny 04:59, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm happy for the Zionism article to move to its final resting place. --Zero 12:00, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You seem to put in random values for image widths. If you put them in at all (not really necessary) you should use the correct value. You can get it by displaying the image by itself then using "page info" or whatever your browser has to see information about the page. --Zero 12:56, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

i've started work on a 3DB article for Wiki at 3DB

If you're more informed then me about DB's history could you flesh the article out thank you.

PMA 13:04, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for you're edits and comments on the great depression UK article by-the-way, I will consider them. Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you G-Man 12:38, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You should be advised that someone other than the anonymous IP that used to sign as GH has claimed the username GH, so the anonymous IP formerly known as GH is now AM. -- Cyan 02:43, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)