Talk:Constantine XI Palaiologos/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Wikipedians by language

I started a little table by counting Babel boxes. If someone thinks this is useful/fun then feel free to expand it. This all refers to the English Wikipedia only. Haukur 22:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I added Greek by checking the relevant category [[Category:User el-N]]. Similarly Italian, Spanish. Andrew Dalby 12:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Great, looks good! In case someone comes in and doesn't see the context the question was raised in discussion above whether editors of the English Wikipedia were predominantly native speakers of English or native speakers of other languages. This is a very imperfect attempt to gather some data on that. Haukur 13:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Language	Native speakers	Wikipedians	Wikipedians per 100000 native speakers
Faroese	70000	5	7,14
Icelandic	300000	48	16,00
Norwegian	4600000	218	4,74
Danish	5000000	155	3,10
Swedish	8200000	282	3,43
Greek	11500000	112	0,97
Dutch (NL+Bel)	19000000	436	2,29
Polish	38500000	314	0,81
Italian	60000000	279	0,47
French	120000000	750	0,63
German	110000000	1145	1,04
Spanish	225000000	635	0,28
Russian	115900000	389	0,33
English	380000000	9125	2,40

Wow, this is so incredibly off-topic. john k 23:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It was sparked by something you said :) And most of this talk page is off topic if the topic is Constantine XI. That said I'm sure there is a better place for this somewhere, maybe at one of the village pump pages. Haukur 23:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that, but still. I do have a couple of thoughts - firstly, we've got two thirds of editors listed so far as English speakers. Second, wikipedia is not written for editors. It is written for readers, and theoretically, for the English-speaking population of the world. The vast majority of the world's English speakers either speak English as their first language (UK, Ireland, United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Anglophone Caribbean), or else as a second language where any reading on a subject like, to take a completely random example, Byzantine history, would be in English (people in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Indian subcontinent, for instance - I doubt that too many Indians are upset because the conventions of wikipedia are so different from the way the Comneni are referred to in Tamil). Wikipedia should be named based on the usage that would be familiar to these people, and not for the rather small collection of mostly Europeans who are fluent in English but are upset when English usage is different from their own native usage. If one wants to name articles based on German usage, that is what the German wikipedia is for. And so forth. We have a policy that says naming should be based on usage in English. That can only mean, I think, written English, and written English is mostly written by native English-speakers. I don't want to drive away foreign editors or anything, but foreign editors should accept that things like the names we use are going to be based on English usage, not on what is more familiar to native speakers of foreign languages. john k 23:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm impressed by your fluency, John. At a quick estimate, 100% of the true statements in that posting are written in a way likely to mislead the reader ... Thanks for the link posted above, by the way. I'll follow it. Best wishes Andrew Dalby 08:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Re-reading ... I was unfair there. But I really am impressed by your fluency. Andrew Dalby 11:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? john k 15:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I mean: you write well. You marshal arguments well. Andrew Dalby 16:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, thank you then, I guess, although as initially formulated it was certainly a most back-handed compliment. john k 11:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Solution for names problem

Maybe I have solution for that problem !! Why we do not write name of article ( Byzantine ruler ) like any other ruler ? For example I will take Charles V emperor of Holy Roman Empire. Name of article ( under which is in Wikipedia ) is Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. Can somebody tell me why we do not write article name of last Byzantine dynasty in that way ? In example name of today article John VIII Palaiologos ( I am personaly against Palaiologos ) will be John VIII, Byzantine Emperor. Similar will be needed for governors of Morea. I think that this solution will make everybody happy ?? rjecina 30 June 2006.

It doesn't resolve issues like Alexios/Alexius, Romanos/Romanus, and Nikephoros/Nicephorus. I also don't think it's particularly good otherwise. john k 20:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind it as an idea, but John VIII Palaeologus[sic] is English usage. It would be preferable to the imposed un-English system, however. Septentrionalis 01:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the current system. We should all learn to adapt to modern usage, rather than perpetuate outdated 19th century historiographical traditions which obfuscate the true nature of the past. It should be Komnenos first, followed by 'or Comnenus', as it is at Manuel I Komnenos. Bigdaddy1204 23:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and call them Marcus Antonius, Traianus, Hómēros, Virgilius, Móshe, Yeshua... According tio me, we should stick with the most common English form, and if this widely derives from Renaissance or 19th century scholars, we should accept it. As far as I know, the most widely used form in non-scholar works is the Latinized form.--Panairjdde 00:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree this proposal would not solve the overall problem, and even in such articles that would be helped by it we would still be arguing which forms should be used for the family names and other personal names within the article. Septentrionalis and Panairjdde, we have already gone over this and you cannot continue to claim that the Latinized usage is THE English usage. We do not live in the Renaissance and the 19th century and matters of taste (whether good or bad) should not be used as an excuse to diverge from current practice in a field entirely dependant on its own scholarship. Surely you should be able to see that it is more important for us to be in agreement with what is not marginal and not outdated. The opposite is simply absurd. Imladjov 14:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I still claim the Latinized form is the most used form in English culture. You still have to prove that the Greek form is the most used, and you are backing your claim, as far as I remember, only on OBD basis, which is a scholar source, and therefore representative only of scholarity, not of non-scholar culture. And I am not claiming that we should live in the 19th century, but that the Latinized forms "are" the the 21st century English forms for these names. And, please, Imladjov, I understand you do not agree with me, but at least respect me and to not mis-interpret my position.

• My position is that we should use the most diffuse common usage form for names. Your position is that we should use the most diffuse scholar usage form.
• My position is that Latinized forms are English forms. Your postion, if I recall well, is that we should stick to Greek forms because they are used in the most important scholar text for the matter.

Let's discuss this.

And note, it is not only me and Septentrionalis the ones who dislike the "current" situation.--Panairjdde 11:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit of an exaggeration to say that the Latinised form is mainly 19th century - it dominated 20th century scholarship as well and is still in use today. Roydosan 15:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see the problem with the system as it is at Manuel I Komnenos:

"Manuel I Komnenos, or Comnenus, (Greek: Μανουήλ Α' Κομνηνός, Manouēl I Komnēnos), November 28 1118 – September 24 1180), was a Byzantine Emperor of the 12th century who reigned over a crucial turning point in the history of Byzantium and the Mediterranean."

What's wrong with that...? Bigdaddy1204 17:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Such an introduction seems to provide all essential variations. I see no problems with it. Valentinian ^(talk) 19:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is the rest of the article, which should use English; Manuel Comnenus. Septentrionalis 22:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK Oxford University and Dumbarton Oaks are both located in English-speaking countries. Many English-speaking reviewers had no problems either and the work won two awards in 1991 [1]. Two forms are in use, not one. But all in all, this is a trivial matter, which is being blown out of proportion. Valentinian ^(talk) 11:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Valentinian, would you please read the arguments of this discussion, if you bother reading and writing here? The point is not the authority of Oxford scholars, but if there is a difference between scholarity and common people, because if there is a diferent form for "common people" of the Byzantine names, WP mandates its use.

What Imladjov is arguing is that, since OBD use some particular form, we should use it too. I do not know where you took your name, but it is the English name of a Roman emperor, Valentinian; Imladjov proposal is equal to pretending to change Valentinian to Valentinianus becaus the latter is the scholar form. Would you change it, or stick with established English form?--Panairjdde 18:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It is trivial, though. Getting articles written and getting Byzantine history better known is the important thing. So far as I know, "common people" who speak English don't talk about Byzantine emperors at all, under any name, ever. If such a person knew that all this time was being wasted on how to spell Komnenos in English, that person would call us all fools, and would be right. Andrew Dalby 18:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Your points are not helping to settle the matter. We are not writing this articles for those who don't care. Note also that the Latinized form was used before this change was called.--Panairjdde 22:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that most people do not know anything about the Byzantine Empire does not mean that the usage of scholars is the most common usage. This is a completely bogus argument that is constantly used. Also, scholars are quite different from readers, in that they know the languages of the place, and are thus, of course, completely familiar with the proper Greek names of Byzantine emperors, or Latin names of Roman emperors, or whatever. That means that we should be cautious about using explicitly scholarly works as our only guide for usage, since they are addressed to an audience that is distintctly different from the general audience. As Roysdean notes above, there's also a rather ridiculous exaggeration being made here to claim that the Latinized forms were a "19th century" form. But it seems quite clear that the Latinized forms were pretty overwhelmingly dominant at least until the ODB was published in 1991, as shown by Imladjov's determination that we shouldn't be able to use works before 1991 in determining what common usage is. That all being said, it seems as though we are in a period of transition here, where it's difficult to say what the most common usage is. Personally, I prefer to be conservative on such things whenever reasonable, but I'm not sure it's worth the effort to change it back. But could everyone please not use hyperbolic arguments, and try to view the situation as it actually is, rather than in ridiculous extremes (either "Alexius Comnenus" is an archaism proper, perhaps, to Edward Gibbon, but not such enlightened souls as ourselves, or "John Palaiologos" is a ridiculous concoction that leads us on a slippery slope to "Marcus Antonius" and so forth - in fact, neither of these is true, because usage is, at the moment, divided, and we should all be willing to admit this.) john k 00:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

True. Andrew Dalby 07:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

True. Septentrionalis 18:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

True, but let's get some things straight. My position is not that we should use specifically scholarly forms, it is that we should use forms current in the field. A form as Anglicized and as deprived of diacritics as, say, "John Komnenos," cannot be properly called "scholarly" in the way that several of you are trying to allege. A truly scholarly form that might cause problems for "common" readers would be something like Thoukydidēs for Thucydides, Xusrō for Khusrau, Miθradāta for Mithridates, or r'-msj-sw for Ramesses (I am using examples I can more or less type with the special characters available on this page). Such forms are obviously problematic for article naming in the English Wikipedia. But "John Komnenos" and the like are not. In fact they cannot be described as a specifically scholarly usage, or for that matter as usage restricted to the Byzantine field (see the short booklist above); it just so happens that the vast majority of works (specialized or not) on Byzantium are written by Byzantinists; therefore scholars set the practice for their field, and the style followed in the ODB and the plethora of recent works. As for the "common reader": the point remains that the common reader is sufficiently unfamiliar with the field that we do not need to perpetuate the obsolescent (happy?) practice of older scholarship. Panairjdde's example of Valentinian vs. Valentinianus is utterly wrong: "Valentinianus" is the correct Latin form, but in English both the scholarly and "common" forms are "Valentinian." Even in the ODB! By the same token the same work uses "Justinian" instead of the Latin "Iustinianus" and the Greek "Ioustinianos," and "Constantine" instead of the Latin "Constantinus" and the Greek "Kōnstantinos." The Latin forms of family names are no more English than the Greek, they are simply more antequated and more artificial. There is simply no reason to perpetuate them where current works follow another standard with increasing consistency. Where the evidence for an extraneous debate like this is so muddled, I would think that the basic practice shared by the standard English reference work and the current scholarship cannot be seriously objected to.

What you mean when you say "we should use forms current in the field"? In the field of what? If the answer is Byzantine scholarity, then this is what I "seriously object to", since Wikipedia is not a resource for Byzantine scholars, but for all the people speaking English (my opinion). It looks like this is actually the difference between our positions, do you agree? If you do, then the matter is settled (almost): let's request a third part comment, not on wheter we should use Latinized or Greek forms, but if we should stick to common people or scholars' forms. Do you agree?

As I have already stated, you cannot really separate works relating to Byzantium between a general ("common") literature and another specialized literature that follows a different practice. This simply is not the case. All relevant work is produced by the scholars of the field and, even those works that are intended for a more general readership are almost always produced by the same writers, using the same standards. In the past the common usage tended to be to Latinize, in the present (since the early 1990s) the general usage corresponds to that found in the ODB (although that usage has existed since much earlier). I will not waste any more time trying to explain this. I do not see the need for a third party comment on this, as you are simply misunderstaning the situation, and you are apparently unwilling to abide by the results of the mediation you yourself asked for. Imladjov 18:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Now, the next point of yours I do not agree with is that "the common reader is sufficiently unfamiliar with the field that we do not need to perpetuate the obsolescent practice of older scholarship". The common reader can be unfamiliar with both forms (Latinized or Greek). What happens if, for whatever reason, he becomes interested? If he goes to the public library and picks a random book (we can't safetly assume he will pick or even find the latest scholar publication), will he get a Latinized or a Greek form? With all the caveats I am aware of, a possible way to measure this event probability is through Google Books. For example, if this common reader is interested in (any) Alexius Angelus book, he will find 331 Alexius Angelus and 14 Alexius Angelos books (pages). I am not going to do a research for all of the Byzantine emperors: my point is that the true question we should ask ourselves, when writing these articles is "what is the commonest form common readers will be aware of outside Wikipedia?", and use this form. Do you agree?

We cannot assume that the general reader would necessarily pick an older book either. I will assume good faith and mere carelessness in that you searched for "Alexius Angelos" (if you look at it you will see why it turned up only 14 results--and I am surprised they were that many). We have been over these Google Book searches before, and I have pointed out the problems posed by the reprinting of older works in trying to evaluate common usage. I see no need to cover that again. Imladjov 18:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No, we cannot assume that he will pick an "old" (according to you) book, but with 331:14 chances, it will be very likely. As regards this kind of statistic, can you say that if you pick a random book it will more probably use Greek and not Latinized form? Note that I contenst your claim that these results are biased by reprinting of "old" book, because reprinting means that the books are still sold, and available to common readers, and we must take them into consideration.--Panairjdde 20:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

For the meaningless statistic (331:14), please pay attention and look above for a hint on why you got only 14 hits. That is assuming that you are not purposefully choosing to ignore it in order to make your point. You can contest anything you want, but the fact remains that many old books are reprinted by photoduplication in which for a number of obvious reasons new practices and information are not applied. Actually Google Book search includes plenty of old texts that have not been reprinted. Imladjov 06:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to Alexius Angelos instead of Alexios Angelos (but you could say it explicitly, instead of writing two sibilline comments on it) a search on "Alexios Angelos byzantine" gives 145 results, while a search on "Alexius Angelus byzantine gives 339 results. You were right about the error, but my point still holds true, that an average "common" reader will find, with higher probability, more books with Latinized that with Greek forms.--Panairjdde 18:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

We have been over Goodle Booksearch results already and there is no point revisiting them. You are not taking into account alternate forms of reference (not every book will have Alexios Angelos to the exclusion of say Alexios IV) and all other forms we are discussing. If you look at the historical progression, you will see that since the early 1990s forms like Angelos, Doukas, Palaiologos, etc, are becoming increasingly common and have either overtaken Angelus, Ducas, Palaeologus, etc, or are about to. Somewhere I had the numbers written down for comparison and if I find them I will post them. But otherwise I am not going to waste my time doing it again. You cannot live in the past or if you do, you cannot expect the rest of us to do so. Imladjov 19:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Imladjov, it was you who started all of this, you are not allowed to retreat saying "I have no time to waste". It looks like for you it is more important to stick with latest academic conventions than with real life experience of the readers. Fine. If you don't want to settle the matter with a compromise, I'll find other ways to be heard.--Panairjdde 21:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As regards Valentinian/Valentinianus, I shall assume, in the remaining part of this answer, Imladov's good faith. My point was not that Valentinianus is the scholar form; I was simply wondering: what if the scholars decide to call him Valentinianus? Shold everyone call him Valentinianus, because the scholars (in their own field) decided so? And my implicit answer was "no".--Panairjdde 11:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It is I who have to keep assuming good faith on your part. Your comment clearly implied that using (e.g.) "John Komnenos" is tantamount to "Valentinianus III" (you wrote "Valentinianus becaus the latter is the scholar form") and therefore equally esoteric within an English text. It is simply not so. If you know this is not so, then why use that example? Imladjov 18:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Because I just wanted to talk to a user calling himself Valentinian, if you really missed it (still assuming good faith, but it is always more dificult).--Panairjdde 20:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh that was so easy to miss. You either did not think through your example or were purposefully misleading. Again, read what you wrote. Imladjov 06:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks like I got influenced by your ermetic style.--Panairjdde 18:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Without wishing to go off on a tangent, I will only note that Ronald Syme, one of the leading English-language historians of Rome in the recent past, used "Marcus Antonius" and not "Mark Antony" in his work. And yet his work is considered seminal and is a standard reading in any seminar on late republican or early imperial history. And yet thanks to Shakespeare, "Mark Antony" at least used to be a household name.

This is precisely why scholarly usage tends to diverge from common usage. Syme found it inconvenient to discuss the relations between "Lucius Antonius" and "Mark Anthony" (and well he should); but all his authority is no reason to move Mark Anthony. Similarly, it may be convenient for a Bysantinist, about to quote untranslated Byzantine Greek, to use Iohannes Komnenos for John Comnenus; but we should not. Septentrionalis 14:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Panairjdde, nothing written above was intended to disrespect you or to misinterpret your position. However, respect is something that has to be earned. Mistaken examples like Valentinianus vs. Valentinian above make me question your knowledge of what IS common English usage and your ability to discern it; your renewal of your efforts after arranging the mediation to which you asked me to abide makes me question your integrity. But all this is immaterial. Your insistence of separating common and scholarly usage is creating a false dychotomy; there is simply not enough meaningful work produced by non-specialists so much as referencing Byzantine people to pit against what you wish to portray as merely scholarly usage; the Latinizing forms you are trying to perpetuate were found in works that were no less scholarly. The reference to yourself and Septentrionalis above was specifically because the two of you have been arguing that Latin forms are THE English ones, something which is (especially now) blatantly untrue. One of the complaints (on what grounds I do not see, since we are still talking about people named Basil and John and Michael) was that the ODB usage (which is not just ODB, as some like to forget) was somehow departing from the English standard used for the names of other monarchs. And since this revolves largely around family names, I would like to know what foreign dynasty on this site has a name changed from the original to conform to some illusory English usage? Certainly not the Bourbons, Hohenstaufen, Wittelsbachs, Habsburgs, Wettins, Valois, Romanovs. So if Palaiologos were somehow not English (or at any rate less English than Palaeologus), how does that disqualify it from being spelled in the manner preferred in the relevant literature? Just as Wikipedia does not list the Habsburgs as "Hapsburgs" (something done in some English works as recently as the second half of the 20th century), so Palaiologos should not be listed as Palaeologus. Best, Imladjov 19:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

dychotomy? I find this less than persuasive on English usage, myself. Septentrionalis 14:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. And this from someone who (1) spells "Mark Antony" with an h, (2) Byzantinist with an s, and (3) opposes Byzantinists spelling "John" as "Iohannes" (which they do not, since it is Latin), all within four short lines. Not to mention that Latin is English and (apparently) Greek. I rest my case. Imladjov 04:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"Your insistence of separating common and scholarly usage is creating a false dychotomy; there is simply not enough meaningful work produced by non-specialists so much as referencing Byzantine people to pit against what you wish to portray as merely scholarly usage; the Latinizing forms you are trying to perpetuate were found in works that were no less scholarly."

Ok, first part rebuttal. Google books gives 78900 books about Byzantine Empire. I am not a scholar. Are you saying none of these 78900 have been written for me? Just in the first page I see several books I would like to read.

And so...? I do not see what that has to do with my comment, which had nothing to do with who is reading these books, but rather with who is writing them. As for your interest, I suppose it is commendable. When you read more and become acquainted with a greater poriton of the literature, perhaps you will understand my point much better. Imladjov 18:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

And so, the question is are all of these 78900 books all written for scholars by scholars? In this case, how comes that they are using mostly Latinized forms?--Panairjdde 20:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course these books were not all written by scholars for scholars. But there is no difference in usage between books written specifically for specialists and books written for the more general reader. You cannot claim that the former Hellenize and the latter Latinize. But one can say that older books Latinize more often than not, and newer books Hellenize more often than not. Imladjov 06:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's assume that recent books all use Greek forms, while old ones use Latinized forms (your point). Let's assume the new books are less that the old ones. The end result is that Latinized form are the most common. And therefore, we should use them (my point).--Panairjdde 18:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

My point was rather more nuanced than that. But anyway, your conclusion is absolutely wrong. If we were having this discussion in 1850 and you proceeded on the same basis, you might as well be saying that we should be writing these articles in Latin throughout. When a usage is basically abandoned by the literature, any secondary compilations (such as this one) that try to stay current inevitably follow. This is not a fad that will go away, this is a system that will only become even more common. The number of overall cases of Latinized usage is irrelevant. Also see above. Imladjov 19:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No, because this secondary compilation has the express ambition to present informations to its readers in the most common and widespread form. Even if (and I wrote "even if") all of the books after 1991 were to use Greek forms, the most common form found in the books published, for the time being, is the Latinized one, and this is what Wikipedia used and should use.--Panairjdde 21:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Second part rebuttal. I do not care if Latinized forms are obsolete for you Byzantine scholars; I care that for me, the Latinized forms are the commonest, and I would expect Wikipedia to conform to them, not to the most authoritative reference among "scholar works".--Panairjdde 11:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

And you happen to be representative of every English reader to a greater extent than people who are native English speakers and happen to be familiar with more of the literature on the subject? No matter how you try to twist it, you cannot make the current practice into some sort of extraneous and prohibitive scholarly convention or to turn ignorance into some sort of virtue. You cannot sensibly expect Wikipedia to purposefully lag behind if a generally accepted and standardized usage is as readily available as it is. Imladjov 18:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Answer to the question. If you go in the average English library, would you find more books with Byzantine Latinized or with Byzantine Greek forms? If the Latinized forms are commoner, then Wikipedia will not "lag behind" (your words, I'd say Wp will avoid a bad fashion).--Panairjdde 20:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

A little more than a century ago the answer to your question would probably be that not only names, but the entire texts on the subject tended to be IN Latin. Any answer would be completely dependent on the time and place of inquiry and I do not think a solid generalization is possible. I have nothing to add to my response above. The merits of Wikipedia's usage corresponding to the current literature should be obvious to anyone, regardless of personal tastes. Imladjov 06:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Time: now; place: the public library of your city (assuming you are not entitle with ordering books for them). So, let me rewrite the question: "If you go now in the public library of your city, would you find more books with Byzantine Latinized or with Byzantine Greek forms?" This is the central question, will you answer?--Panairjdde 18:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps in Italy there is a clear distinction between public libraries and academic ones. Here there is not (i.e., university libraries are almost always open to the general public often even without a membership card). Different libraries have different kinds of collections influenced by date of compilation, collector's priorities, funds, and other resources. I have worked in libraries and I know. So it is impossible to give you a general answer that actually holds. On the mere frequency of forms see above. Your insistence on sticking to something outdated remains absurd. Why don't you go and try to resurrect Mahomet and Leghorn and Sardanapal, names more familiar to the "common reader" than Alexios Angelos and the like? I have the feeling that in this useless debate we are outdoing the Byzantines themselves who allegedly (allegedly!) argued about how many angels would fit on the point of a needle rather than defending Constantinople. Imladjov 19:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, since a direct question does not work (you are carefully avoiding it, and that means you understand it), I shall look for other means.--Panairjdde 21:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)