I sent this yesterday, but it hasn't made it on the list, so I've
resubscribed and sent it again. BTW -- I did two google searches on
Pepin the short vs. pippin the short. One came out hugely in favor of
Pepin (but was jam-packed with genealogical sites), the other came out
in favor of pippin. I had a look round at the types of sites, and
pippin was frequently found on university pages. Go figure. I don't
think googling is a great option, because it can be manipulated and
again, you have to know enough to check your source material. J
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julie Hofmann Kemp [mailto:juleskemp@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 1:33 PM
> To: 'wikipedia-l(a)nupedia.com'
> Subject: If I were having second thoughts...
>
>
> Elliott's last comment at Talk:Henry I of France has pretty much made
> me sure that my decision is the right one. As some of you know, after
> Lee jumped in, I began to question my own motives a bit on the
> ridiculous Pepin-Pippin thing, partially because I'd been somewhat
> inconsistent myself in their use. Yes, I probably made the changes
> in reaction to what seemed a concerted effort by a faction of French
> irredentists who were attacking my reputation and sources without
> providing evidence of their own or defense of the sources I questioned
> (like the ones not written by historians).
>
> The thing is, I can in good conscience stand by my decision, and would
> have made the changes at some point, albeit more diplomatically.
> Here's why:
> I looked at Elliott's comment, which quoted Lee's (more or less)
> "The convention here, which is shown on the naming conventions
> page, and worked out among our users by consensus, is to use whatever
> form of the name appears most commonly in other English-language texts
> which the reader is likely to encounter in scholarly research. "
> Strangely enough, I'm pretty familiar with that convention -- I helped
> write it. And it isn't consistent. Why? Because my so-called "new"
> usage of the name Pippin (which is basically closer to how it is
> written in all the records -- Pippinus) isn't new at all. After all,
> Steinbeck was aware of it. So were the authors of "Pippin!" And
> strangely enough, as I pointed out, it is the name more and more
> likely to be found in "Scholarly research" -- which is, in fact, what
> I do. For some reason, there seems to be a confusion between what's
> most commonly found in non-specialized texts and websites, and
> "scholarly." So, while Pippin is not as often found in basic texts,
> I stand by my assertion that it is a growing trend among
> English-language Carolingian specialists -- which is all I ever said.
> Unfortunately, the naming convention seems to be a bit contradictory
> in some people's minds.
>
> Anyway, I only bring this up because I'm still somewhat addicted and
> couldn't let Eliott's nasty comment pass, but am sticking to my guns
> and trying to wean myself off the wikipedia. What concerns me is that
> a relative newbie who (among DW, Suzanne L, Constance A et al.) has
> not yet proven himself as a contributor or as someone who can work
> within the community be allowed to come in and judge people who have.
> I'm not the only one who has dealt with this, and doubt I'll be the
> last. Good luck.
>
> Jules
>
>
>
>