Talk:Jean de Venette

My edits

Please stop changing my edits with edit summaries that amount to WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. I deferred to your objections which were valid and made a separate paragraph on the Three Marys Manuscript and you reverted with a objectionable edit summary. You also changed the English translation to the French. This is English Wikipedia and that was inappropriate as well. You then followed my contribs to Jean de Venette and made changes in a deliberate manner intended to be difficult to revert. That is vandalism. Next time I will report you. I am not a Newbie. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Citation

Johnbod: The citation did not work when I or the Bot tried it. Clearly it is now fixed. That's fine. I would ask you though since you feel that manuscripts should be named in English re:Naming Conventions - Manuscripts, why do you have the heading in this article in French? It is also suppposed to be in english on English Wikipedia but I am not going to make a big deal about it. I just wondered. Mugginsx (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It works for me (in the UK); google links are sometimes not global. The Histoire is a work, not an MS (I expect there are many of these, hence the variable exact form of the title), and is also always given in French by scholars writing in English. Johnbod (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been watching this and trying to figure out what's going on here. Using the French name of the poem is fine, just as Froissart's Chronicles are often referred to as his Chroniques and Michel Pintoin's work is named in French. I am very confused however about the section saying that maybe he is or maybe he isn't the author of the poem. It probably needs more research. The urls should be formatted too - can get to it myself later if not done. Adding: shouldn't the images be identified as from Froissart's Chronicles? As it is, without captions, it seems to suggest they from Venette's. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I have now attributed the pics to Froissart, and other pics, as the wording appears in Commons and all other articles that use them. As to the "truth" of whether or not there was another Jean de Venette who lived in approximately the same time, was also a monastic, was also a Carmelite monastic, was also literate (all Carmelites were not literate), was also a chronicler and was also from the same country, it is probably unattainable at present. If the historians cannot be sure, I am not certain how we can find it. Mugginsx (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Froissart didn't paint the pics - they're from manuscripts of his Chroniques. At least one looks like it's from Bibliothèque Nationale MS Fr. 2646. I'll fix though. Also please post the specific page numbers from the g-book here - the links go to a series of pages (using "the" as a search term picks up more pages than worth scrolling through) - I'll format w/ the correct pages. I get that there's a question of attribution but was confused about what was written here, but it's better now. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Johnbod: Also, the Three Maries (or Marys) is also referred to as a manuscript here: Manuscripts of the story of the three Maries <> London, British Library, Egerton 3050. Old Ashburnham 602. XIV / XVth century. Paper. 223 f. Bastard. 2 columns of 41 lines. Initials. I found it at the link I sent you. Mugginsx (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course all copies before printing are MS. If that MS had an article the title would follow Naming Conventions - Manuscripts. But the section here is taking mainly about the work in general, across (no doubt) several MS & a number of printed editions. The BL library MS appears to be a different one from the one the article mentions I see. Johnbod (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the explanation. Mugginsx (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link you sent - I've mentioned the various MS as listed there, though no doubt other exist. Johnbod (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Glad you liked it. Here is a link to that site that automatically updates itself each month: http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=fr&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.pecia.fr%2F The pictures and the manuscripts are beautiful and I think you will enjoy it each month, plus prior issues. Mugginsx (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

A Fillon is a writer of a long poem or prose. It was rather his nickname then his name. Mugginsx (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not how I read the French blog ("Auteur vers 1357 d'un long poème en vers français sur l'histoire des Trois Maries (encore inédit), Jean Fillon, dit de Venette, près de Compiègne, raconte qu'il rendit plusieurs fois visite à ...", nor is it evident from Fr WP [1], or eg here or here. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I am reading from The Chronicle of Jean de Venette, translated by Jean Birdsall, late Associate Professor of History Vassar College, Edited with an Introduction and Notes by, Richard A. Newhall, Brown Professor of European History William College. (N.Y. Columbia University Press 1953). In the Introduction: 1. The Author and his work and beginning in paragraph two it reads as follows: The identification of the author rests upon internal evidence. As early as 1735 J.B. de La Curne de Sainte-Palaye demonstrated that he was the Carmelite friar, Jean de Venette, called "Fillons," author or translator of a long poem on the three Marys, which was written about 1357. It goes on. I do not have a scanner or I would send the scanned page to you but if you find the source at your library, you will see it is exactly as I have stated.Mugginsx (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that de Venette refers to the fact that he was from Venette and called Fillons or dit Fillons refers to a surname. Here's an additional source that's also helpful. http://books.google.com/books?id=aBHSc2hTfeUC&pg=PA935&dq . Doesn't mention the poem at all. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The passage and its meaning are quite clear and exactly as I have re-created here. I am sure the book is available at most libraries. Is the reference you gave of the movie director John Huston's book? Mugginsx (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I have included a reference to the passage in the Book on the Chronicle of Jean de Venette I cited above - it is 1) Mémoirs de ĺ' Académie des inscriptions, XIII (1735), 520ff Mugginsx (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, there are several clear sources saying the opposite. Not clear what the 1735 ref is. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The link I added in my post above goes to The Middle Ages: Dictionary of World Biography, Volume 2, edited by Frank N. Magill, p 935. If you're seeing something else, then g-books is worse than I thought! And yes the passage is clear, from Venette, called Fillons. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

There are qualities to references, the number is not one of them. It look ridiculous in my opinion, but I am not going to waste my time fighting over whether a John Houston book which is one of the references given, is a better reference then the scholars I have cited. Mugginsx (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

No, that's fine. I'll unwatch. I haven't time to be here anyway. But seriously if you believe that I'd link a John Huston book as a source for a medieval French chronicler, then you're talking to the wrong editor. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

This is your link at present (check it above) - probably an error [2] It links (in America at least) to the John Huston book of his favorite essays. Mugginsx (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope. That's not at all what my link shows me - yes, checked it, no not an error. I added the bibliographic info so maybe it can be found with a search. But the urls are completely different, so whatever. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It links to book of essays on Huston, this one by Christiansen, a medieval historian as far as I can see. It has the advantage of being in English, a language you can read, unlike the many other refs you can find in Google & the one you produced yourself. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That is strange and interesting - maybe important for future research - Your [here] above gives the exact same url as mine and links to John Huston p. 167 Essay entitled A Walk with Love and Death by Christensen and mentions Jean de Venette on that very page. A reference in English like the one I gave only mine were by noted, published scholars. At this point, you seem to want to argue over everything. A search in the library would find the truth but I am not going to help any further. I did so in good faith. It is a waste of time. Mugginsx (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That's just very odd! Anyway, it's a good source about him and unfortunate that others can't see. Veenstra too has a bit (source can be found on Bal des Ardents). I'm on my way out for the day. Will capture notes at another time from that source that's apparently only visible in the US. I don't understand though why the one I produced has a page specific url and the other (the Huston one) has a search parameter url with "Fillons" in the search string. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I would have to disagree if you are saying that John Huston is a good source. The Url you gave is the John Huston book and does mention Jean de Venette on the page you gave. It even shows your search terms. That is too much of a coincidence. Anyway, virtually everyone knows that people in the middle ages were known often for what they "did" and "where they came from". If there were more than one Jean de Venette than it is entirely plausible that, at the time, one was given the name fillon because he chronicled a long poem or prose or translated one. There are examples through medieval literature too numerous to mention. "Baker" is one of thousands and so on. I too am through. The conversation is becoming disingenuous and absurd. Mugginsx (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It's about Huston, by Christensen (again). Very many French people had modern-style surnames by the 14th century. I can see no evidence elsewhere that Fillon is some term for a writer, & frankly I think you've misread a source in French, which is a language you don't seem to speak (correct me if I'm wrong). Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it was the two scholars who interpreted the French text, not I. I quoted them verbatim. Yes, I know some French, but not middle French, do you? Mugginsx (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Where was that? I can't see it. You can see my Middle French here. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

You are incorrect. You seem to like to argue. I do not find it the mark of a productive editor. The French source in the Introduction to the Chronicle of Jean de Venette is what I was obviously referring to you, answering your previous question. As for the middle French, it was a rhetorical question. Also, you have it backward - The reference that you think is so good is a book by two editors quoting Huston's favorite essays, one of the essarys is by Christensen. This conversation has gotten very disengenuous. You have not even read The Chronicle. The only other good reference you have is the one I gave you. On to productive researching and editing. Mugginsx (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Name

Jean de Venette was almost certainly Jean Fillon. I hestitate to post another link, but here's a sampling, and another in French. Should the page be moved/renamed? Certainly a redirect should be created. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

*Against change of title - Two leading scholars have described what a fillon is - a writer of long poem or translator of a poem. It is in the Introduction to the book The Chronicle of Jean de Venette translated by Jean Birdsall, late Associate Professor of History Vassar College and Edited and Introduction and Notes by Richard A. Newhall, Brown Professor of European History William College (Columbia University Press 1953). The description of a fillon is in the second paragraph of the Introduction of that book. His name was Jean de Venette or Jean of Venette, his descriptive name was fillon which is not at all unusual for that time in history, especially if there were two Jean de Venettes who were both Carmelites, which is believe by some historians. The book The Chronicle is a scholarly reference and has been carefully researched by historians.

Also, see: JSTOR: Review of The Chronicle of Jean de Venette by Richard A. Newhall by: Dorothy MacKay Quynn in Speculum, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Jul., 1957), pp. 593-594 Journal.Mugginsx (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

What has that to do with it; it doesn't mention "Fillon" at all (like most sources)? Johnbod (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Mugginsx is correct here, and I'm glad to see her using scholarly sources so well. No surname is recorded for Jean, and in fact he is too early for it to be likely that he had one. That is why, when we want to refer to him by a short name, we just say "Jean", and if we want to alphabetize him, it is under J. The addition "de Venette" is a toponym, that is, it does indeed refer to where he lived, worked or originated, but it is no less part of his full name for that. Other kinds of descriptors can also become part of a name, including jobs and titles and personal attributes (Blind Harry, Chandos Herold, Anastasius Bibliothecarius), so in theory there is no reason why fillon could not have been part of a name. But that is hypothetical, because it is not what he is in fact called. --Doric Loon (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Dr. Mugginsx (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Please quote the exact text on what a "fillon" is, since I can find no trace of this term elsewhere. In French it only seems to mean "coquillage proche de la telline, comestible" in zoology, plus of course the current French Pfrime Minister. Johnbod (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I was simply floating an idea. I thought there might be more definitive evidence - Birdsall is almost 70 years old and I'd hoped more work had been since then, but after a fairly comprehensive search yesterday that turned up little, I realized not - unlike Michel Pintoin about whom the scholarship is more recent. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Leave it as it is was. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Latest edits

Muggins, Cohn is perfectly clear that "the anonymous chronicler" is the one whose identity is in doubt, just as the French source you produced (but weren't really able to read) gives the identification at the start of the Trois Maries tr to Jean de Venette. Johnbod (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually it was you that said you couldn't read it. You must provide a reliable source that contradicts the edit concerning the term fillon or please leave it alone as pr WP:Reliable Sources and other guidelines. Thanks Mugginsx (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I first said I couldn't find it, & then when you provided an updated link, read it and said it was evident that you couldn't read it very well, as you had used to it source things it didn't say. This stream of inaccuracies from you is why you have been asked for exact quotes on the two remaining issues, which is perfectly appropriate under WP guidelines. Johnbod (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Mugginsx, this getting to be problematic.

• 1., this edit summary is not acceptable. I've read the sources and assume that Johnbod has too - as written the article was not reflecting the sources in an accurate manner.
• 2., you've now reverted four times, here, here, here, and here - which is clear edit warring.
• This issue must now be discussed. Personally I think the page should be protected until the issue can be resolved.
• To begin the discussion - we must resolve whether Fillons refers to the surname or to, as you've asserted, the word used to describe a poet. If the latter, I'd want to see more evidence. The source isn't being disputed - what's being disputed is whether the information from the source is presented as accurately as possible. I don't think the current version of the article is at all accurate, so it's being questioned and as such can be tagged. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

There were no three or four reverts. Please check the edits. Three scholars have affirmed the word fillon. Another scholar also affirmed it - he is on Wiki and his response is above. I am sorry that you will not order the book and read it. It is a reliable source and, as you know, it cannot be reverted because you wp:IDON'TLIKEIT. Please look up the use of templates as well. An edit about one word in an article does not constitute a template stating the entire article is in dispute. Mugginsx (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

No. It's very clear. You wrote above in this edit that

from The Chronicle of Jean de Venette, translated by Jean Birdsall, late Associate Professor of History Vassar College, Edited with an Introduction and Notes by, Richard A. Newhall, Brown Professor of European History William College. (N.Y. Columbia University Press 1953). In the Introduction: 1. The Author and his work and beginning in paragraph two it reads as follows: The identification of the author rests upon internal evidence. As early as 1735 J.B. de La Curne de Sainte-Palaye demonstrated that he was the Carmelite friar, Jean de Venette, called "Fillons," author or translator of a long poem on the three Marys, which was written about 1357.

I interpret this to say that "Jean de Venette, called Fillons" is also known as Fillons. But it could be interpreted to say that Fillons refers to the clause "author or translator of a long poem". I believe the modifer "called Fillons" refers directly to the previous phrase – Jean de Venette – and not to the phrase "author or translator". This evidence is further supported by the this: "(Auteur vers 1357 d'un long poème en vers français sur l'histoire des Trois Maries (encore inédit), Jean Fillon, dit de Venette, près de Compiègne, raconte qu'il rendit plusieurs fois visite à ...", that translates to de Vendette was also called Jean Fillon, presented in this edit, or by all of these scholarly sources that say Jean de Vendette was also called Fillons.

Yes, there were four reverts. I linked all of them.

Yes the disputed point can be templated. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I haven't seen the Birdsall/Newhall book, which I'm sure is only available in pretty large libraries, though I have read the two reviews on JSTOR. I have asked Muggins above for exactly what it says on the Fillons point and which work is considered certainly the work of the Prior of the Place Maubert Jean. Johnbod (talk) 05:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Try InterLibraryLoan to do your research. I have twice now given the exact wording in the book and the section and page number as well as the reference used by the scholars. It is above in two places. Also kindly remove my name from the heading of this section if you don't mind. It violates: Behavior that is unacceptable Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to get it from ILL but usually takes a fairly long time. Question: how to explain these records from Worldcat. A number of them show the name as "Jean Fillon Venette". The issue here is whether the information in the article has been interpreted accurately. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, my source has interpretated the definition of fillon with regard to Jean de Venette by three scholars, four counting the scholar on Wikipedia who commented above that I was correct and that my reference was scholarly. That is what I have to be concerned with when determining what is considered an acceptable reliable source on Wikipedia. Again, please see Wp:Reliable Sources. Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately a Wikipedian is not a reliable source. For all you know, I might be a scholar. Here's a snippet view of the relevant passage: [3]. Clearly "Fillons" here refers to his name. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

And here are three that state it is a nickname:

http://www.smartdefine.org/jean_de_venette/definitions

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Venette,+Jean+de

http://books.google.com/books?id=5G43AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA221&lpg=PA221&dq=Jean+de+Venette,+nickname+jean+fillon&source=bl&ots=HQ-RGN72SP&sig=GsxW8wyJ56XPqcoAIUOco7EFAKc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yBfyUIyJEIW10AHvgYHwCg&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Jean%20de%20Venette%2C%20nickname%20jean%20fillon&f=false

If you would do the research, it is easy to find. Your recent example actually disproves the point you were trying to make. The operative word there is Jean de Venette "called" Fillon. Dr. Dunphy is a published PhD and no, I would not mistake you for a scholar. Mugginsx (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I have done the research and already read that page. It says "otherwise called Fillons" - cannot be more clear. The second part of your post is very close to a personal attack so you might want to take a bit more care. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Scholars know they can be verified so they usually put their credentials on their User Page with that in mind. They are also unmistakable in their references given, their research, their speech and manner they used to describe the work. That is what I meant.

Also, you asked for more references and I supplied them. The references I gave you even use the word "Nicknamed" fillons in them. Please review them. To make it easier for you: this one: http://books.google.com/books?id=suhnAAAAMAAJ&dq=editions%3AS0X_x8XNU2QC&q=translator#search_anchor also describes what a fillons is i.e, an author or translator of a long poem. It is on pg. 3. So far I have given you four sources. The term is called a Sobriquet Please refer to the article.

A final explanation: Kind of like Henry I, king of England being called Henry Beauclearc meaning 'fine scholar'. It's a sobriquet between historians because it can be used in place of his name and others would immediately know who you're talking about. This works for several English kings.

• William I = Conqueror
• William II = Rufus
• Henry I = Beauclerc
• John = Lackland
• Edward I = Longshanks

You can use their sobriquets and most would know who you're talking about. Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a disconcerting strength of feeling here about what seems to be a fairly minor matter, unless I am missing the point. Since I've not worked on Jean, I won't weigh in here, but can I just point out that when you have a solid scholarly work like Newhall/Birdsall to refer to, it really is not important what a French blog or a Russian encyclopedia say. Why not just take over the wording from Newhall? There really doesn't seem to be anything better. Incidentally, the most recent publication on Jean which I know is this by Régis Rech. You need a subscription to read it on-line, but you will find the paper copy in the library. I realize that it has a slightly unorthodox view on the question of one or two Jeans, and of course since is in a reference work which I edited, it would be immodest of me to push it. But I just make the point that its bibliography contains nothing more recent than Newhall/Birdsall, so probably it would be wise to accept that for the mean time there is nothing better out there. --Doric Loon (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the article should be accurate per alternate names, so maybe not all that minor. Not to personalize it, but despite Mugginsx assertion that I couldn't possibly be a scholar, I do know a bit about poetry - even medieval poetry - and having never encountered the term fillons to describe a poet, that point has been questioned. If in fact "Fillons" is the alternate name as the predominant evidence in the sources seems to suggest, then we should reflect it correctly in the article. Thank you for the link. I may have access to that - will look for it. Certainly the abstract is quite clear in regards to who wrote the poem and who wrote the chronicle. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately Muggins' initial writing-up of sources that we can see gave inaccurate versions of what those sources say, which is why she has been asked for exact quotes as to what is said on two key points in Birdsall/Newhall, which she has yet to supply. The strength of feeling came initially from Muggins.Re Muggins' new reference just above, this doesn't seem to be saying that Fillons is a term for a writer etc. I notice that it also contradicts Muggins on the other point, that the certain identification of the historical Prior is with the poet, not the chronicler, as Muggins continues to insist. That she can't see this is part of the problem. Johnbod (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Truthkeeper and Johnbod: How disengenuous can you get, the both of you. It is all above for anyone to see. I gave the Newhall/Birdsall source from the beginning. I quoted it for you word for word. I gave you page and paragraph number. Other than delivering the book personally to you, I don't know what else I could do. But you continued to argue against it. Doric agreed with me and reinforced it. Others were given. You chose to ignore them all and you, Truthkeeper, you even stated that you disbelieved that the above was a scholar and have now completely turned your story around for all to see if they care to look. It is very sad to see the truth twisted for your apparently self enjoyment. I gave further lesser sources which were also accurate, again at your insistence, which you again ignored. And now, you try again to misrepresent what I said and did even though it is all above for anyone to see. Your refused the source as long as you could, but though I and others pleaded, we could not force you to do your own research and due diligence. Mugginsx (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll not again link what I've linked many times before - if anyone wishes to wade through this they can. But to clarify: I simply stated that Doric Loon cannot be used as a reliable source (unless they've written about the topic). I've not ignored any sources - I've looked, read, analyzed and repeatedly explained my understanding of what the sources are saying. We cannot misinterpret sources. There have now been five reverts, which breaks the 3 revert rule, and continued personal attacks. Please stop. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I Reverted per Administrator Tom Harrison's instructions. Take it up with him please. Mugginsx (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually Doric Loon has written on the subject - see the bottom of his talk page. But note also his comment above. Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Mugginsx undid his last revert when I notified him about it. Consulting the sources and relying on exact quotes is a good way to agree on wording. But, I'm not here as an admin, just a regular editor. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Try again

Apologies, with revisiting this at intervals, I have been missing what seems to be the case, that the two remaining points in dispute rely entirely, on Muggins' side, on this quotation from Birdsall/Newall, as given above:

from The Chronicle of Jean de Venette, translated by Jean Birdsall, late Associate Professor of History Vassar College, Edited with an Introduction and Notes by, Richard A. Newhall, Brown Professor of European History William College. (N.Y. Columbia University Press 1953). In the Introduction: 1. The Author and his work and beginning in paragraph two it reads as follows: The identification of the author rests upon internal evidence. As early as 1735 J.B. de La Curne de Sainte-Palaye demonstrated that he was the Carmelite friar, Jean de Venette, called "Fillons," author or translator of a long poem on the three Marys, which was written about 1357.

I am perfectly clear that this quotation is saying the following:

1. Jean de Venette was known as a historical figure who wrote or translated "a long poem on the three Marys".
2. In 1735 de Sainte-Palaye demonstrated from internal evidence in the chronicle that de Venette was also the author of the chronicle, ie the chronicle MS declared no author's name, beyond de Naugis presumably, so The identification of the author [of the chronicle] rests upon internal evidence.
3. "Fillons" is a name used by or of de Venette, of whatever status.
4. "Fillons" is not presented or defined as a French term meaning "author or translator of a long poem on the three Marys" or "author or translator of a long poem".

All this is of course in agreement with what the other sources such as the BnF Maries MS quoted in the article, Cohn & the reviews all say (ie their reading of Birdsall/Newall), and the lack of other evidence for Fillons as a term.

Can we all agree on this? Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Not your # 4 for the very source I have given and you have yourself repeated. The term, Fillon is called a Sobriquet not a name but a nickname as I explained in great depth over and over on this talk page as well as giving other examples above of other medieval figures and their Sobriquets. I never said it was French, I really do not know what is the root language for the term fillon. I will check the reference for the others you mentioned but, at first glance, they appear to be accurate.

Further, historians disagree if there were two Jean de Venettes. I do not think we can definitely state he is or is not the same Jean De Venette who wrote the Chronicle. Mugginsx (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It is a matter of English comprehension. Truthkeeper & I are clear as to what that sentence means, & Doric Loon avoids commenting on that point. You are presumably not suggesting that the definition of "Fillons" is "author or translator of a long poem on the three Marys", so on your reading the phrase starts as a definition and then continues to give additional particular information without any punctuation. This would be very poor English to say the least & most unlikely in such a work. No one is trying to "definitely state he is or is not the same Jean De Venette who wrote the Chronicle", but the quote, and the other sources, make it clear that such uncertainty as there is relates to the chronicler, not the poet (1 & 2 above).Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree Johnbod. Doric agreed with me not once but twice. The scholars who translated and wrote the book, The Chronicle of Jean de Venette, translated by Jean Birdsall, late Associate Professor of History Vassar College, Edited with an Introduction and Notes by, Richard A. Newhall, Brown Professor of European History William College cannot be ignored. They state: The identification of the author rests upon internal evidence. As early as 1735 J.B. de La Curne de Sainte-Palaye demonstrated that he was the Carmelite friar, Jean de Venette, called "Fillons," author or translator of a long poem on the three Marys, which was written about 1357. Mugginsx (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

So they did, but you are mistaken as to what that means, as with other sources you have used, I have to say. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflict: Please try to be civil. I seem to remember giving you a source which you seemed to fine good enough to thank me for. The meaning is quite clear. The source is a scholarly source. You cannot pick and choose what phrases you, as an editor on Wikipedia, or what to pick and choose to believe in a reliable source. Mugginsx (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

If we are all at least agreed as to what the issues are, namely two points arising from the interpretation of a single short passage, I suggest we do an WP:RFC & get other eyes in. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no justification in Wp:Guidelines. The source has been determined to be reliable by three historians, the phrase is there and in other references given above. If historians disagreed, you could make mention of it of course, but the simple fact is that there is no disagreement by any historian as to what a fillon is. If you personally wp:IDON'TLIKEIT is not cause enough to have an RFC. If you decide to have one anyway, I assume I will be notified. Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

What paragraph is it that Mugginsx wants to say Y, while Johnbod preferes X? What exactly is the wording in our article that is at issue? Sorry, but it's not entirely clear to me at this point. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It's the first sentence in the lead [4]. Johnbod and I believe "Fillons" refers to his name, Mugginsx believes it refers to his occupation as a poet/translator. In my view it's important to be accurate with something that comes so early in the article given that it will be picked up by google and displayed prominently. I'll post more later re JB's points (agree with all). Truthkeeper (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The quotation is this, as bolded:

from The Chronicle of Jean de Venette, translated by Jean Birdsall, late Associate Professor of History Vassar College, Edited with an Introduction and Notes by, Richard A. Newhall, Brown Professor of European History William College. (N.Y. Columbia University Press 1953). In the Introduction: 1. The Author and his work and beginning in paragraph two it reads as follows: The identification of the author rests upon internal evidence. As early as 1735 J.B. de La Curne de Sainte-Palaye demonstrated that he was the Carmelite friar, Jean de Venette, called "Fillons," author or translator of a long poem on the three Marys, which was written about 1357.

See my list of points above, but those at issue are essentially the "Fillons" one, and whether this is saying that the known author of the 3 Maries poem was further identified as the author of the chronicle in 1735, or vice versa. See this diff for example. Johnbod (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't see any basis for thinking "Fillon" or "Fillons" is anything other than a name. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Tom, what is it that is not clear about this: i.e., that a fillon is writer or translator of a long poem? Here again is the quote: The identification of the author rests upon internal evidence. As early as 1735 J.B. de La Curne de Sainte-Palaye demonstrated that he was the Carmelite friar, Jean de Venette, called "Fillons," author or translator of a long poem on the three Marys, which was written about 1357. The fillons, agreed to by the scholars is a Sobriquet. They have made several different arguments, one that Fillons was his name, another that he is different than the Jean de Venette that wrote The Three Maries. My argument is to the one point that the word Fillons is, as the scholars say, an author or translator of a long poem. It is a clear and reliable source. How can they arbitrarily decide differently then the reliable source? They can state their second argument, i.e., that some historians (actually only one that I know one) Regis Rech has stated he believes there were TWO Jean de Venettes who were both Carmelites, both French, and both lived at the same period in time and that one of them wrote the Three Maries. I do NOT dispute that may be put into the text as there is a historian's dispute to that. What they cannot do is change the definition of Jean de Venette as a fillon. That is irrefutable in the reliable and scholarly source. Mugginsx (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to need a source that says explicitly "a fillon is writer or translator of a long poem." Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time for this today and will post more later if necessary but just want to point out that on the link above the author is identified as "Jean Fillons Venette" in the bibliographic information at the bottom of the page. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It is explicitly stated in the sentence I gave to you which also Editor: Doric Loon, who identified himsellf as Professor Dunphy also believes if you will look at his two edits above. The first reference: The Chronicle of Jean de Venette, translated by Jean Birdsall, late Associate Professor of History Vassar College, Edited with an Introduction and Notes by, Richard A. Newhall, Brown Professor of European History William College. (N.Y. Columbia University Press 1953). Introduction, Paragraph 2 first three lines. Second, a lessor source: http://books.google.com/books?id=suhnAAAAMAAJ&dq=editions%3AS0X_x8XNU2QC&q=translator#search_anchor. Sobriquets or nicknames were common in the middle ages and Professor Dunphy went into great depth to also explain this. I myself, also gave several examples above. Finally, logically speaking, if one monk was named Jean de Venette and the other was named Jean Fillons, why would there be a dispute as to whether or not they are the same persons? Mugginsx (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not explicitly stated, nor implicitly either. An explicit statement would be "a fillon is writer or translator of a long poem," or an entry in a French dicionary that said (in French) "Fillon: writer or translator of a long poem." It seems like disputes about naming might have arisen for a number of reasons, not all of them entirely explicable. Finally, if a monk is named Jean Fillons, is his name not then Fillons? Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Muggins, the "lessor source" is exactly the same source, Birdsall/Newhall, in a google snippet. Johnbod (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Tom: All I can say is that if there were two monks, one named Jean de Venette and another Jean Fillons, why would historians be arguing over whether or not they are the same person? It is not logical to me. Also, the sentence is marked by commas to explain what a fillon is i.e., Jean de Venette, called "Fillons," author or translator of a long poem on the three Marys, which was written about 1357. a comparison might be to say a seamstress, one who makes or repairs clothing, has been described as excellent as early as 1357. Anyway, I have sent a message for User:Doric Loon who is Professor Graeme Dunphy to weigh in here and would ask that you please withhold your judgment until he can explain, since he is a scholar and a published author and contributor to "Medieval Manuscript, I am sure that he will explain better than any of us can. Since we are fortunate enough to have an editor who is a scholar and familiar with this material, it would seem be prudent to wait for his opinion. Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It may be as well to throw in at this point the start of BnF MS Fr. 24311, per Muggins' source The Medieval Manuscript. Monday, December 12, 2011, online, with my translation (as in the article):

Cy commence le liure intitule le liure des troiz maries lequel compila fit & ordonna frère Jehan Filions de Venette lez compiegne en beauuoisins de lordre des Carmes lan 1357 acompli ou moys de may ledit an a lheure des compiles

Here begins the book called the book of the three Marys which was created, made and done by Brother Jean Fillon of Venette near Compiègne, a member of the Carmelite Order, in the the year 1357, finished in the month of May that year at the hour of Compline

Friars are not strictly monks, btw. Johnbod (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Tom: These are my sources:

• 1) The Chronicle of Jean de Venette, translated by Jean Birdsall, late Associate Professor of History Vassar College, Edited with an Introduction and Notes by, Richard A. Newhall, Brown Professor of European History William College. (N.Y. Columbia University Press 1953). In the Introduction: 1. The Author and his work and beginning in paragraph two it reads as follows: The identification of the author rests upon internal evidence. As early as 1735 J.B. de La Curne de Sainte-Palaye demonstrated that he was the Carmelite friar, Jean de Venette, called "Fillons," author or translator of a long poem on the three Marys, which was written about 1357;
• 2) http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Venette,+Jean+de
• 3) Dr. Dunphy's prior remarks on this particular issue which I will cut and paste below for your convenience here:

His prior comments: Mugginsx is correct here, and I'm glad to see her using scholarly sources so well. No surname is recorded for Jean, and in fact he is too early for it to be likely that he had one. That is why, when we want to refer to him by a short name, we just say "Jean", and if we want to alphabetize him, it is under J. The addition "de Venette" is a toponym, that is, it does indeed refer to where he lived, worked or originated, but it is no less part of his full name for that. Other kinds of descriptors can also become part of a name, including jobs and titles and personal attributes (Blind Harry, Chandos Herold, Anastasius Bibliothecarius), so in theory there is no reason why fillon could not have been part of a name. But that is hypothetical, because it is not what he is in fact called. --Doric Loon (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully, we can wait to see if Dr. Dunphy (User Doric Loon) will made a final comment. He is also a published PhD of the Medieval Manuscript and other publications here: http://www.dunphy.de/ac/profile.htm. Then, for what it is worth, the evidence seems overwhelming in my view on these points i.e., whether or not fillon is a Sobriquet, that Jean de Venette was his name, and the meaning of the word fillon. Thanks Mugginsx (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Johnbod, yes I essentially agree with your points. The one thing that has my curiosity piqued is this abstract Doric Loon posted that seems to suggest there were two Jean de Venettes - the poet and the chronicler - which is at odds with Birdsall's 1950s examination of the chronicle. I see it's a new paper and inaccessible unless we try the resource exchange (or whatever it's called) to get it, so probably not much to be done about it. As for the rest, yes, an RfC to achieve consensus is most likely the only option at this point. I have limited availability for the next few weeks fwiw. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I originally had a note about Regis Rech and his alternate theory about two Venettes in the article. Johnbod removed it here saying it was not needed: [5]. Since no one contest the historians disagreement about two Venettes here it is not important. More time for you to order the book.

Administrator Tom Harrison is negotiating the difference in some of the issues. Read above. If there are questions after that it should go to Reliable Sources Noticeboard. That is the appropriate venue. Mugginsx (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No it isn't! Sadly we don't have an "Unreliable readers of reliable sources noticeboard". Johnbod (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Rech is not a paper as such but an entry in an online encyclopedia, the one Doric Loon is overall editor of (as he says above). The "two Jeans" theory is not original to Rech - see Cohn's passage from 2004 which is cited in the article & available online. He cites Eric Le Maresquier in 1969 (still 15 years after Newhall) - perhaps Doric Loon's bibliography is not as up to date as it should be! Note that if there are two Jeans it is the poet not the chronicler who is Fillon/s. Johnbod (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I actually prefer not to push my credentials on Wiki, but since they have been mentioned several times, let me say that my field is German, English and comparative literature, and I have long been heavily involved in interdisciplinary work on medieval chronicles. I am not expert on Old French. I've read Jean's chronicle, but the Three Marys are a bit off my radar.

At the point when I commented further up this page, the article head gave priority to the name-form Fillons. I gave my backing to Mugginsx who seemed to be arguing against this. Jean is everywhere known as Jean de Venette, and that's what we should call him. I've just been down to the library to look at Newhall/Birdsall. They use the form de Venette throughout, and once in passing mention that there is also the Fillons form. So I would either drop that from the Wiki article as unimportant, or take over their wording briefly and pass on without making a meal of it. They don't say any more than what was quoted above: Jean de Venette, called "Fillons". They say nothing about what, if anything, Fillons means. As far as I can see, the only other place they print the word is in their index, where they have "Fillons" - see Jean de Venette. What strikes me is that both times they put it in inverted commas, which means they are distancing themselves from it.

Johnbod is right that IF there are actually two Jeans, Fillons does not refer to the chronicler, which will be why Rech doesn't mention it, and Newhall/Birdsall don't go into it. You would need a study of the Three Marys if you want more on this. I think the dispute on this point should be mentioned somewhere down in the article, but the majority view seems to be that there is only one author here.

I will e-mail the full text of the Rech article to Truthkeeper and Johnbod using the send e-mail facility on Wiki. I sent it to Mugginsx last year. Johnbod is right that it is not a paper as such. It is recent and should be scholarly but it is very short. It does contain its author's own thoughts, though, and he worked from the original text, so it's a secondary rather than a tertiary source, and is citable if it says something interesting. Its bibliography is not meant to be complete, and would not include something like Cohn, which is actually a book on an entirely different topic. But it would include another monograph if there were one, and that's what we really want. Anyone looking for a PhD topic? --Doric Loon (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems Eric Le Maresquier did the Phd in 1969, in French, as cited by Cohn. Johnbod (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The only other thing to mention is that in that passage Newhall/Birdsall reference a 1735 study which deals with the identification, so you could look there for more info. They give it as: J-B de la Curne de Sainte Playe, Mémoirs de l'Académie des Inscriptions, XIII (1735) 520ff.--Doric Loon (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in with your expert opinion. As I said above to your proposal Johnbod, I have no other disagreement other then that Fillon was a not a name for Jean de Venette but possibly a Sobriquets and Doric, as you know, for some time I have shared the opinion as to whether or not there were two Venettes but mentioned Rech anyway as you advised. Unfortunately it was reverted by Johnbod. If the changes are made per your information, I have no further argument. Perhaps Tom or Johnbod would take Fillons out of the lead as it was originally. somewhere near here [6] I do not want to be accused of 5 or is it 6 RR's. Thank you so much. Mugginsx (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I replaced Rech with Cohn, who gives more detail and citations on the "two Jeans" issue, and is freely available online via google. I also added the issue to the lead, where it obviously belonged. I've no objection to Rech being re-added - Doric Loon has kindly sent me his short text, & he does give the length of the poem etc. Since Rech is only discussing the chronicler, who he believes not to be the poet, it is not surprising that he doesn't mention "Fillon", which relates only to the poet (as Doric Loon confirms above). If Fillon/s was the name of the Provincial Superior, which still seems highly likely from his own introduction to his poem, then even though Jean de Venette is certainly his usual name, & should be the article title, it is correct to begin the article as I did, as we do with, for example, "Raffaello Sanzio da Urbino, better known simply as Raphael,....". Johnbod (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's better. I noticed that Doric Loon sent email but haven't yet had time to read it and the current time pressure kept me from looking more closely at Rech in the first place - I thought the word count referred to an abstract without realizing that was the entry in its entirety. Agree with everything as it is now. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hold on. There is a new edition of the chronicle, too recent for Rech to have known it. But it is mentioned in the Arlima bibliography, which somebody has already linked from the article. I would expect the introduction to that will give you the fullest and most recent answer to all your questions. Here's how it's listed:

Chronique dite de Jean de Venette. Édition, traduction et présentation de Colette Beaune, Paris, Librairie générale française (Le livre de poche, 31547. Lettres gothiques), 2011, 500 p.

I'm glad that you seem to have achieved a compromise now. Mugginsx has done an enormous amount of good work on this article, and Johnbod and Truthkeeper are making useful contributions here, so try not to get irritated with one another. Don't anyone be discouraged. --Doric Loon (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Dr. for your kind words and all of your invaluable help. Mugginsx (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

The belief of dual authoroship is a minority view yet it is mentioned in this article at least three times, stated in slightly different ways. I would ask you to please review: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view more specifically:

Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.

and

Due and undue weight

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to the Flat Earth belief. Thanks Mugginsx (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've read it thank you. This is an important point (not to mention one you fought tooth and nail to keep out of the article, against the scholarly evidence) and deserves repeating for others. That it is a "minority view" is far from clear; there are very few stated opinions in the literature, hardly enough to make an assessment of that. Johnbod (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

That is untrue and ridiculous. I have other things to do then to argue with you. Anyone can see that a minority view does not need to be in the article three times and my dispute with you was over whether scholars regard the word fillons as a Sobriquet or not, a viewpoint which is a different issue than whether there were two different Venettes or not. Mugginsx (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Tom: Three Times? Doric stated that he is known to all scholars as Jean de Venette, yet Johnbod kept in the name Fillons as if that were his name and not a Sobriquet. The only scholar who has stated he believes there are two Jean de Venette is historian Regis Rech. That was also pointed out. It is no wonder why only 4% of scholars read or use Wikipedia. Mugginsx (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. Read the article and references again. Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Kindly do not condescend to me. You make yourself sound foolish. It is you that needs to read the references (the scholarly ones) and read what the expert had to say on the talk page. Mugginsx (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty clear to me that there is some disagreement about whether there was one person or two, and sometimes he/they are called Jean de Venette, sometimes Jean Fillons, sometimes Jean Filons de Venette. I think the article presents that appropriately. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

What was actually said above by the scholar is this:

Since I've not worked on Jean, I won't weigh in here, but can I just point out that when you have a solid scholarly work like Newhall/Birdsall to refer to, it really is not important what a French blog or a Russian encyclopedia say. Why not just take over the wording from Newhall? There really doesn't seem to be anything better. Incidentally, the most recent publication on Jean which I know is this by Régis Rech. You need a subscription to read it on-line, but you will find the paper copy in the library. I realize that it has a slightly unorthodox view on the question of one or two Jeans, and of course since is in a reference work which I edited, it would be immodest of me to push it. But I just make the point that its bibliography contains nothing more recent than Newhall/Birdsall, so probably it would be wise to accept that for the mean time there is nothing better out there. --Doric Loon (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Newhall/Birdsall states that a "fillon" is a author or translator of a long poem" NOT HIS NAME but his Sobriquet. That is one issue. The second issue is that only one historian, Regis Rech, has stated that he believes there were two Jean de Venette. Mugginsx (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

They say nothing of the sort, as amply covered above. Johnbod (talk) 11:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

AGAIN, yes it does: PLEASE READ THIS from the source. Maybe if I repeat it enough times you will actually read it:

The identification of the author rests upon internal evidence. As early as 1735 J.B. de La Curne de Sainte-Palaye demonstrated that he was the Carmelite friar, Jean de Venette, called "Fillons," author or translator of a long poem on the three Marys, which was written about 1357. Reference: The Chronicle of Jean de Venette, translated by Jean Birdsall, late Associate Professor of History Vassar College, Edited with an Introduction and Notes by, Richard A. Newhall, Brown Professor of European History William College. (N.Y. Columbia University Press 1953). Introduction: beginning of paragraph two. You cannot have read this source because there is no other interpretation but this one. Mugginsx (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

If fillons means author or translator of a long poem, cite a dictionary that says so. Otherwise, drop it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Here are three sources, including one dictionary source, though it is an inferior source, it also agrees: http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Venette,+Jean+de and http://books.google.com/books?id=suhnAAAAMAAJ&dq=editions%3AS0X_x8XNU2QC&q=translator#search_anchor and http://books.google.com/books?id=5G43AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA221&lpg=PA221&dq=Jean+de+Venette,+nickname+jean+fillon&source=bl&ots=HQ-RGN72SP&sig=GsxW8wyJ56XPqcoAIUOco7EFAKc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yBfyUIyJEIW10AHvgYHwCg&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Jean%20de%20Venette%2C%20nickname%20jean%20fillon&f=false page 221 states it as Jean de Venette, otherwise called. It is a Latin term so I do not know if it will be in a dictionary but I will continue to look. This is the opinion of now three scholars. Mugginsx (talk) 13:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Three sources, none of which says fillons means author or translator of a long poem. Also, I'm pretty sure fillons is not Latin. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

All of this comes from your misreading of the first link. The 2nd one actually says: "Venette, Jean de /(nickname of Jean Fillon),..." ie Fillon is his name. No one else agrees with your reading. We all read it, and read it correctly, the first time. Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, nickname, a Sobriquet. It would like me saying John Smith, called Muggins, which is the way it is worded in the reference you gave but you have shown differently above. It is here, at it looks in the 2nd reference you indicated, http://books.google.com/books?id=suhnAAAAMAAJ&dq=editions%3AS0X_x8XNU2QC&q=translator#search_anchor and I agree with that. Doric also states above "that is not in fact his name". Also, I cannot imagine where I reverted Doric's edit as stated above, since all I have ever done is agree with him, and he, me. Would you please show the edit history that shows me reverting Doric because if I am incorrect Doric has certainly not mentioned it. At any rate, I do not intend to get blocked by reverting it again. I am, and have been, on to other things.Mugginsx (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

"I am, and have been, on to other things." If nobody is suggesting a change, then there's no need to say any more about it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)