User talk:Gwinva/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This 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.

Contents

You're Back

I see you're back. Welcome back. I don't remember where the process was when you left, but the episode review process is very different now. We just review them on the talk page of the LOE page, and theres a list of all current reviews as WP:TV-REVIEW. Just to let you know. i said 23:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Six weeks... it has been that long hasn't it. I don't know how you managed :D i said 23:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I responded to your stuff on my talk page. Welcome back! Montanabw(talk) 20:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Phoenix Islands

I am looking for documentation of the discovery of the Phoenix Islands, perhaps by John Palmer. There were numerous sailing ships named Phoenix in the right era (must be a Masonic thing). Resources are limited in my inland, non-Pacific area. Can you help?Pustelnik 12:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I write artcles that I look for but don't find, too.Pustelnik 22:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Is John Palmer also associated with Antarctica?Pustelnik 01:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops. The Antartic Palmer is Nathaniel Palmer, and American. He was in Antartica in November of 1920. Some of the British and American whaling families of this era were inter-related, but I don't know about the Palmers.Pustelnik 01:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting that captains named Coffin were mentioned in connection with the Ganges. The Coffins are a prominent Nantucket family of whalers, and the reason that there is a character named Coffin in Moby Dick. It suspect that the London whalers named Coffin are from the same family, and maybe the same individuals. There are odd mentions of "British", maybe East India Company sea otter traders using Portugese flags of comvenience out of Macao, ending up in the Pacific Northwest, such as the San Joa and Fenix. The whole whaling/sealing business in the Pacific was an early example of "globalization". For no particular reason, I wonder if Hugh Moore discovered the island/Pustelnik 00:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Pitched battles versus showing off!

I like your analysis. Really interesting. Amazing how little we really know, and how much comes from historians who don't know horsemanship or horsemen who don't understand historical analysis and research. The bayonet thing makes absolutely perfect sense. And indeed a single shot musket wouldn't really have been worth a damn. Here's a place for you to look: The Ottoman Empire. I am running across stuff in studying about the Crabbet Arabian Stud and the travels of Lady Anne Blunt. What piqued my interest was the political situation in the Middle East in the mid to late 1800's. Essentially, the Blunts in fact were correct that the Arabian horse was becoming endangered in its native land. The Bedouin used mares as war horses (they didn't believe in castration and stallions are useless for hit and run raids because they are too noisy). But they were losing huge numbers in battle against the Ottomans, 400 mares in a single battle in one account. What is incidentally coming to light is basically that it took the Gatling gun to do in horse cavalry.

Also remember that the US Army and the Indians, both light cavalry with similar weapons, fought each other to a standstill. (The American west has rough terrain that limited where you could bring in heavy artillery like cannons or gatling guns) It was the slaughter of the American bison, essentially biological warfare, that ended the Indian wars. The Great Plains tribes, particularly the Cheyenne and the Comanche, were superior horsemen, the Cheyenne were once called "The greatest light cavalry in the world" by a US military strategists. Essentially, the Indians were superior horsemen fighting on their own ground, which offset the disadvantage they had in having weaponry that was always just a little behind that of the army. Don't know why the Bedouin didn't figure that out when fighting the Ottomans in the same era, but there's an interesting study for you. Both nomadic peoples, both fighting on their own territory, both with tough horses and supposedly excellent horsemanship skills...what made the difference? Rarely were Indian horses killed on the battlefield, most "massacres" by the US Army (Fetterman, Chivington, Wounded Knee, etc.) were when they hit the Indian camps of mostly noncombatants. That or when hit and run tactics were rendered ineffective, such as the blizzard (and presence of noncombatants) that contributed to the military defeat of the Nez Perce. Well anyway, be fun if a couple of chicks figure out what has evaded mainstream historians for decades? (grin) Montanabw(talk) 15:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Further excellent essay. OK, so cannon is pretty worthless against cavalry, but the gatling gun, and later the machine gun, would be deadly. Basically if we look to the rise of the tank around WWI, and the fact that tank units are today called "cavalry," seems to suggest that horses in general were done in for that reason. The switch from heavy back to light cavalry does seem more terrain-oriented than weaponry oriented. You may be on to something. Hmmm. I think that your guess that military tactics changed to defeat the advantage of mounted shock troops is the best. Possibly another factor is that if we look to the living conditions of Europe circa 1300 or so, they weren't so hot. Lots of poor people, lots of hunger, lots of scarce resources--mounted knights were expensive. Kirkpatrick Sale's The Conquest of Paradise paints a pretty grim of Europe prior to the Columbian exchange and the reason for the demise of the knight may have been economic also...we can look at the decline of the entire feudal system as mercantilism expanded as another source. I'm kind of thinking about Don Quixote -- the knight rendered obsolete by the modern world. Hmmm. Indeed, too bad wikipedia limits folks to research already done by others. This may be a discussion to take to email, you wouldn't happen to have a PhD around, would you? (grin) Montanabw(talk) 03:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Smallville pilot

Thanks. Now that it's on the front page, the good news is that it's receiving more attention and more critical eyes to come in an copy edit some more. :)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wallace

Dear Gwinva, I found your comments about Wallace to be impressive. Please don't put yourself down and please blame me for your sudden fall in self assurance. It was not my intention. I agreed with everything you said. Keep up the good work and please...you are welcome to comment on Wallace any time because you are clearly qualified to do so. I was delighted to see someone trying to blow away the myth of medieval man's stature. Anyone who knows the height of Edward I is a good guy or gal in my books. Any frustration you detected was due to the previous edit and not yours, which was nothing but extremely helpful. I apologise if I was a bit brusque. It was not directed at you. TheBourtreehillian 11:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Again Congressmen are notable

We are not talking about City tax collectors, we are talking about Florida Congressmen. These are Notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.212.234 (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who Fob Watch

It's an American thing. We don;t call them fob watches. Admittedly, you may be an American so you might already know this... (although, I don;t think Pertwee was shown in the U.S. till the mid/late 70s so that throws American upbringing into doubt).--Dr who1975 18:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Horses and such

Hi, and say, did you ever have a source for the notion that economics may have done in the armoured knight more than either the longbow or gunpowder? I'd like to add such to both horses in warfare and horses in the middle ages if we have a source, or can make a reasonable inference from multiple sources without violating the wikipedia "no original research" thing. Thanks! Montanabw(talk) 01:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


Hmmm. It all makes perfect sense. Let me propose a run-on sentence from hell and see if you can source it (and maybe tweak the grammar too): "The end of the era of the knight may also have been a result of multiple factors: Changing military tactics that put less emphasis on the role of the individual knight,(source) the increased frequency with which the nobility sent others to fight instead of partipating in combat themselves,(source) as well as the economic challenges of keeping a fully armoured knight in the field,(source) particularly when compared to the more efficient uses of (infantry?) brought about by (better weapons technology??).(source)"

That reads horribly, but I think you can glean where I am going. Montanabw(talk) 22:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense. THANKS! But yes to "I've got references (somewhere) for the fact that it's not long bow or gunpowder that did them in" If you can find a source for that, it would be cool to add. Montanabw(talk) 20:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Knights

I have been busy dealing with other stuff and have just not gotten to it, so if you want to plop anything into an article, go for it, and if I get to it first, I'll go for it. The whole thing would go well into knight somewhere, I haven't been into that article much, it may need some shrinking down for horses in warfare, but to do so nicely will take some time that is currently being taken up chasing vandals and organizing all the list of horse breeds articles (sigh).Montanabw(talk) 16:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I just put about as much as I dared into Horses in warfare, just to keep that article under control, I had to limit what I could add, but could you check the cites? I used a bit of copy and past, thus not sure everything you had is linked in the bibliographic stuff at the bottom with full cites (this article isn't quite as properly formatted as Horses in the Middle Ages). What is left on my talk page (and yes, it's OK you used it for a sandbox, I'll archive it all eventually but won't toss it), I think should go, as appropriate, into either Knight or Horses in the Middle Ages, both of which I shall defer to you for proper editing. Montanabw(talk) 04:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who Poll

Quick, hurry over to the "Time Crash" discussion page and register your vote for "The Doctor!!"

Blaine Blaine Coughlan (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello there

I see you are interested in the Life On Mars Television Series, as I am.

At the moment I have A Life On Mars Wikiproject currently up for approval by the Wikiproject Approval Council. As you are interested in Life On Mars I was wondering if you would be interested in adding your name and joining. If you are interested you can find it on Wikipedia: WikiProject Council/Proposals its right at the very bottom you cant miss it as its titled ‘Wikipedia: Wikiproject Life on Mars (Television Series)’. And after your name is added to Wikiproject propsals please add it to the main page Wikipedia:Wikiproject Life On Mars

If you are interested by all means feel free to join

Regards

Police,Mad,Jack


Ok thank you anyway :)

Police,Mad,Jack —Preceding comment was added at 14:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Howdy

Hi again. Ah, GA sweeps, see the talk page of Arabian horse. You got off light. I got nailed by an overeager sweeper. Montanabw(talk) 19:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. --Maniwar (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

New mission in the medieval horse land

Saw this: Old English Black, seems to be a type that developed mostly in the UK, and is definitely claimed as an ancestor of the Shire horse (you know, the great big huge things that claim descent from the Destrier. Also does not appear to be the Forest Horse nor the Black Forest Horse (but those are cool looking critters!) Anyway, thought you might want to eyeball it and see if any of your sources say anything about it. The article is crap, but I have run across many references to the "Black horse" or "Great Black Horse" in various horse breed and history articles. Be nice to clear this up. From the article, it isn't the Destrier, nor was it necessarily a Black (horse). But anyway, if you can add anything to the article, that would be cool. Thanks much! Montanabw(talk) 05:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a made up theory, I've come across it in passing in a number of places, but like our original discussion over the Destrier, there are assumptions that may not be necessarily so. Hence, why I call upon you. While the article is unreferenced, I don't think the article is too far off base from what passes for "common knowledge" (in fact, I wonder if it was an import from the public domain Britannica), just unsourced and not well-written. The Shire horse people defnitely claim it as an ancestor. Possibly it was a 17th or 18th century critter, maybe even 19th. Just hard to find anything. Am discovering that many "world horse breeds" books out there are unsourced and generally, well, suck. Montanabw(talk) 00:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and FYI, note I created User:Montanabw/Gwinva-Medieval Sandbox off of my talk page. We can play there or on the main page, but I THINK I saved everything in there should you require any of the drafts or refs. Montanabw(talk) 02:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
My answer on my talk page, makes more sense to consolidate the whole discussion over there. Montanabw(talk) 17:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Central discussion of objective criteria

Your feedback is welcome at Proposed Objective Criteria for TV Episode Notability.Kww (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I am thankful for your promt reply but I dont want to cheat I just need some help.Can you please give me some resoures to start out with.Thanks.Loperman2510 (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)loperman2510

Outside eyes

Hey, I am working with some other people to bring a horse article, Appaloosa up to GA status. As a person who has endured the GA process and lived to tell the tale, would you take a look at it? We are all horse aficionados plugging away at it, and so you are the perfect non-horse sort of person to give this a look-see, and if we are using a lot of jargon or making insider assumptions about a reader's knowledge base and/or otherwise making no sense whatsoever, you will be able to let us know (without being cruel). Just toss any comments you have on the talk page there, OK? And thanks in advance! Montanabw(talk) 22:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Dark Materials Troll

I deleted his post and the responses from Misc. Desk and left a note on the Refdesk talk page.(Sorry - I didn't know how to do a link there to the offending post.) I suggested a block per Deltopia's comments. SpockMuppet (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ref on longe/lunge

I am trying to reach a reasonable compromise with the other editor on the longe/lunge issue. So I am sourcing the OED. Can you go to Longeing and insert a proper cite where I just say "Oxford English Dictionary?" Danke, mein freund! (to completely mix up the language!) Montanabw(talk) 05:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ref on longe/lunge

I am trying to reach a reasonable compromise with the other editor on the longe/lunge issue. So I am sourcing the OED. Can you go to Longeing and insert a proper cite where I just say "Oxford English Dictionary?" Danke, mein freund! (to completely mix up the language!) Montanabw(talk) 05:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive This 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.