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@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