Talk:Glove

Hi all. I've just foolishly created a duplicate article, gloves, that is redundant with this article. Almost immediately after making this mistake, I realized that glove should be singular in the article title and so went to "move" the article to glove. That, of course, was not possible because glove already existed.

The current article, glove, is essentially a verbatim dump of the 1911 encyclopedia article. That's fine, I used that encyclopedia as I wrote my duplicate article for gloves. I would like to replace the current long article with my short edited article, however. But I don't want to do it without feedback. My logic is that I researched and edited some of the basic facts from the encyclopedia rather than just copy it here.

Look at gloves. there are references to pliny the younger's works. There are links for you to read these works. There are links to Herodotus. There are discussions of whether gloves were, in fact, mentioned by Homer (perhaps not, after all, even though 1911 encyclopedia says yes). I tried, to some degree at least, to limit what i wrote to what i could verify at this point. That seems better to me than putting all of these 1911 words here without first judging them.

I also think that the 1911 article is almost bizarrely Anglocentric by modern standards. Do we really want pages and pages of English history in an article on gloves? I don't think so.

Any comments? Any advice?

Arthur 03:31 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Well, what I've done, as you see, is put your text from gloves at the top of the article, and kept the 1911 text under a line at the bottom. I've just done this for speed, and haven't attempted to remove the bits of the 1911 text that you've covered - those parts about Homer can certainly come out, for instance. As for the rest of the 1911 text - it needs a lot of work, and some of it is redundant and can just be deleted, but I think some of it can probably be updated and merged into the main article. Once it's served its purpose, the 1911 text can be deleted altogether - whenever you think we're at that point, I think you should go ahead and delete it. By the way - I like your article a lot more than the 1911 one - good job. --Camembert

Actually, thinking about it a bit more - as the 1911 article is linked to from the article, and as your version of the article is pretty good, I personally wouldn't mind if the 1911 text was deleted from this page right now. Others might disagree about this, however. --Camembert

I added a sketchy sentence about baseball. It could really use expanding. -- Zoe

Regarding feedback: I dumped this article from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica not least to challenge (or gain some feedback on) the notion that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and to utilize whichever knowledge of respectable encyclopedists past which the copyright regulations presently admit. (See also the entry Gooseberry.)

While I surely agree to shorten the article to be talked about, I'd also wish that the knowledge presented there could remain an accessible part of the Wikipedia contents. The rather difficult tasks of this sort seem to be an important aspect of the WikiProject Encyclopedic Network (WikiPEN).

Frank W ~@) R 22:28 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC).

I don't necessarily trust the "knowledge" of the 1911 encyclopedia authors. Here's an excerpt from the 1911 article on negros:

Other characteristics appear to be a hypertrophy of the organs of excretion, a more developed venous system, and a less voluminous brain, as compared with the white races. In certain of the characteristics mentioned above the negro would appear to stand on a lower evolutionary plane than the white man, and to be more closely related to the highest anthropoids.

I think that needs serious reconsideration.

But I'm glad you don't mind shortening the article. Maybe I will in a few days, when others have had a chance to speak their minds.

(I tried to read WikiProject Encyclopedic Network (WikiPEN), but it made no sense to me. I'll try to study it more.)

best wishes,

Arthur 23:44 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

I don't necessarily dismiss statements as "untrustworthy" only because they appear (or were perhaps even meant to be) offensive or inopportune. Here for instance is an excerpt of recorded public appearances of Arthur:

ARTHUR: Right! One... two... five!

GALAHAD: Three, sir!

ARTHUR: Three!

[angels sing]

[boom]

(One may of course ask for much more explicit and discerning references.)

But I'm glad you don't mind giving serious consideration to the writings of the 1911 encyclopedia authors. Perhaps (some day) the above excerpt from the 1911 article on negros may receive recognition in the context of

[`[ The sin of unwarranted differentiation  : amongst humans | culminates with the N word ],].

(And not least to reinforce this formal idea, here's a nod to

[`[ Wippycadia, the fictional free encyclopedia : according to | http://www.google.com ],]. :)

Best regards, Frank W ~@) R 06:16 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC).

Mild complaint: Arthur3030's edit didn't maintain the historic context and references quite as carefully as suggested.

Did Wikipedia hereby have to lose all knowledge of/references to Bertram de Verdun, or gages ?

Best regards, Frank W ~@) R 23:29 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC).

I hear you, Fwappler (Frank W ~@) R). Perhaps I was unclear, but i didn't mean to imply that I'd save all historically accurate statements in the 1911 article. I thought, instead, that I'd restrict glove a little and give it a more solid base and reduce the (what I took to be extraordinary) English bias in the discussion. Liturgical gloves (which i left in the part i edited) and all of the traditions related to them might better be discussed in some article on bishopry (is that a word?) or the practices of the Anglican Church. I'd prefer a short synopsis here, or a simple reference, and then back to "gloves"--the topic of the article.

I'd not be against the inclusion of more historical information, however. Arthur 23:54 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

---