Talk:Rethra

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Rethra is already covered in the article Lutici. Radagosc does not appear to be a commonly used name (no hits at google books except 7 unrelated results [1], cf. "Rethra" >10.000 results). I redirected this article to Lutici as an unsourced content fork under a wrong title. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Radagosc was a TOWN. Lutici were a PEOPLE. See the difference? Stop. Your. Stalking. And Harassment. Now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And since I just started the article a few minutes ago, don't even TRY to pull any of this "unsourced" crap. It will get sourced in due time. If I can work on it without having to put up with this vindictive disruption.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rethra is covered at length in the Lutici article. Whether it was a Lutician town, temple, deity, or all of it at the same time is not even clear, the respective dispute is covered in the Lutici article. This is merely a content fork under a non-used title, Radagosc (now moved to a nearly non-used title, Radgosc, which yields 47 mentions on google books, most of them unrelated, compared to >10.000 hits for Rethra.
None of the claims here are sourced, in contrast to the coverage of Rethra in the Lutici article. The one source added is not a dedicated source, but a book about economic history mentioning a "Radgosc" in passing.
Please explain why this article should not be speedily deleted under A10 or redirected to the article where Rethra is already covered. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop squabbling, both of you. Some comments:

  1. A10 speedy is not an option ("This does not include split pages or any article that expands or reorganizes an existing one or that contains referenced, mergeable material.")
  2. The topic of this place seems objectively distinct enough from that of the tribe that it can be usefully factored out into a spin-off article. I don't think the existence of this as a separate page should be an issue of contention.
  3. At the same time, it's pretty obvious that the existing coverage of the topic in the Lutici article is vastly superior to what we currently have here. If you want a separate page, you'd fare much better doing a proper attributed spin-off on the basis of that material.
  4. Please stop the accusations. The "stalking" accusation seems unjustified: Skäpperöd is the principal author of the existing, extensive coverage of this topic in the other article, so it's obviously legitimate that he should take an interest in how a fork/spinoff should be treated.
  5. The naming needs to be worked out. Going by what I've seen on Google books so far, it does seem that a case for "Rethra" might be stronger than that for any of the "Rad-" versions.
  6. There was already a bit of relevant article history at Rethra. In terms of article history it might have been better to restart the page on that basis, as we might need a histmerge of the two at some point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to FS@P

  1. Yup
  2. Yup
  3. Yes, BUT. Skapperod turned this article into a redirect less than two hours after it was created (which is equivalent for all practical purposes to deleting it, without going through an AfD). Obviously, I was not finished with this article. And yes, of course text from the Lutici article can and will be incorporated here. The problem here was with how quickly he jumped in.
  4. Well, here I disagree. If Skapperod had come to this talk page and raised his concerns in a civil manner then we wouldn't have a problem. The fact that his actions were to delete/redirect this article suggests some kind of retaliation for... me simply asking him to stop using my former username. The problem is not that he's taking an interest in an article I created, that's fine (and yes, we both have an interest in this topic area). The problem is with how he's acting on this and other articles - blind reverts, etc. So I think any reasonable person could legitimately feel stalked/harassed in a case like this. But I'm willing to drop it here, though I want this worked out on the AN/I page (which shouldn't really be that hard since my request is very very simple)
  5. How about we leave the naming issue alone for now, until the article is expanded. However, let me just point out that the google books searches for "Rethra" includes a whole host of German works (majority of the hits?), includes a whole host of medical works on the part of a Urethra (you know, the little hole in your body that pee comes out of - somehow I don't think that's related to this article), it was a Slavic town so they used a Slavic name, the early chroniclers used Radgosc as well, due to clumsiness of Western authors with Slavic spelling "Radgosc" has a lot of slight variations in spelling etc.
  6. See #3.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

name and google books[edit]

The "Rethra" name hits (>10,000!!! apparently) includes things like:

  • "Rethra Der Name dieser geheimnisvollen Stadt beruht auf einem Missverständnis ."
  • "Dor hebben se de Schatze vergraben twischen Rethra un Willenso - oewer de Schatze sall Water fleeten."29 Da von wuBten um die Jahrhundertwende offenbar viele zu berichten: "Wenn Festtiden wiren, seten se tosaam ... un vertell"
  • "Das Bistum Havelberg"
  • "Die Slaven: ihr Name, ihre Wanderung nach Europa und die Anfänge"
  • "Der Anfang vom Ende der Ottonen: Konstitutionsbedingungen"
  • "Die kollektive Bal[l]ett-Oper "Mlada"
  • "Der tempel zu Rethra und seine zeit "
  • "Rethra: das Heiligtum der Lutizen als Heiden-Metropole"

and so on and so forth

and

  • "Mend ironom odadiu rethra. gochae sidium scellan Mono ironom odadiu rethra. gochae sidium "- Saga\ ironom odadiu rethra. gochae ndium scellan"

and that's just off the first couple pages.

Comments collapsed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

And from a different barrel:

  • The International journal of surgery: "The floor of this pace is formed by the triangular ligament of the rethra ... Jomposed of two layers, an anterior and a posterior, he former, dense, is prolonged forward around the rethra ; the latter connected with the fibrous invest-"
  • Medical record (beware, pictures of scary looking instruments in there)
  • A System of surgery :theoretical and practical: "Milton conceives the mechanism of chordee to be due to mm of the muscular fibres , described by Mr. Hancock and rofessor Kolliker as surrounding the whole course of the rethra. "
  • A general system of surgery in three parts: "Shews the Manner in which the Catheter is to be introduced into the U- rethra, and afterwards pasted into the Bladder. A denotes the Surgeon's left Hand elevating the Penis, B his right Hand thrusting the Catheter into the Urethra"
  • The philosophical transactions and collections: "The Excretory Duct of the last mention'd Glands, before it passes under the Bulb of the Cavernous Bxiy of the Urethra. I, The Bulb of the Cavernous Body of the I rethra, partly Distended with Wind, and Divested of the Acceltrat"

and so on and so forth.

In creating this article I followed the name used in the Cambridge Economic History series. This source has the benefits of:

  • Being in English
  • Not being about a part of the penis
  • Being obviously reliable
  • Being authored by specialists in the field
  • Being widely recognized as authoritative.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Though thinking of it some more, if this article was in fact named 'Rethra', there's some great DYK hooks I can think of that are sure to get lots of page views.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please make at least an effort at discussing reasonably. Your tone is not okay. BTW, I'm still saying this as an uninvolved administrator; I do not consider my small interjection above as constituting "involvement" in this dispute.
Now to the Google results: Try a Googlebooks search for "rethra + Slavic" to get English-language results by preference. You'll need to sidestep Google's helpful attempt at correcting your search and offer you the anatomical details instead, but if you insist you'll get this [2], with plenty of pertinent and reliable sources. The same search with "Radgosc" gives only three apparently pertinent results, the "Cambridge History" being one among them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am discussing reasonably and there's nothing wrong with my tone. Also I haven't brought up any "involvement" issues here.
In regard to the google book search, you need to click through to the last page and also actually look at the entries. The number of hits given on the first page is incorrect. Looking at pages 11, 12, 13 of the search also shows that they're almost entirely composed of non-English sources. Adding "Slavic" eliminates (most) the medical works but it doesn't eliminate non-English works.
It's possible that a third name like "Radegost" or "Radigost" or similar would probably be the most appropriate. But like I already said above here we run aground of minor spelling variations used by Western authors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And speaking of an unacceptable tone, I would very much appreciate it if you didn't make personal attacks by calling other people's edits trolling [3]. WP:PA applies to regular editors and administrators alike. (And how does being prudish about the word "penis" square with putting the word "dick" in an edit summary?) Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm calling a spade a spade. You were disrupting this talk page; don't do this again. You can also get this as an official adminstrative warning from me if you insist. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And with that it's obvious there's no point in continuing any discussion with you any further. I am not going to participate in a discourse in which I am being threatened.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rethra, urethra, Radgosc[edit]

Google book searches

Skäpperöd (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you realize that your >10,000 hits search for "Rethra" consists of virtually only works in German, rather than English language sources, so I don't know why you keep insisting on this. "Rethra" and "Radgosc" aren't the only two possible titles either.
Of course the more time we waste on arguing about the name now, the more the moving of text and completion of the article is slowed down, which appears to be what is annoying you so much. So how about we put off that discussion till the article in some decent shape, ey?Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion, read and digest WP:Google searches and numbers, in particular One of the biggest fallacies in determining notability of a subject is the results of a Google search using the title or keywords of an article or subject, essentially known as a "Google test.". Too often Bibliometry is used on wikipedia instead of consensus building through discussion. As a matter of general principle either of you can form a Google search to favour whatever result you like, as a means of settling a dispute its worse than useless. Worse than useless, in that you each convince yourself it proves YOU right and the OTHER person wrong and so perpetuates the dispute. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Create article here, at Rethra or not at all?[edit]

As obvious from the book search above, neither Radagosc nor Radgosc are titles which will remain stable (no/almost no usage). As also pointed out above, Rethra has an edit history. That means, that if a stand-alone article on Rethra is going to be created, that should happen at Rethra and not here. In any case, since the material about Rethra in the article Lutici is vital there, too, the first step in creating a stand-alone article would be to copy the relevant material from there, and then expand significantly to not violate WP:CFORK.

Volunteer Marek, as you are the one who insists on having a stand-alone article, please outline how you want to proceed. The current situation, with Rethra redirecting to this stub rather than to Lutici where it is an extensively covered central topic, should not persist for long. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that a different name is appropriate. When I created it I was following a particular source. However I am not at convinced that "Rethra" is the appropriate title. Radigost or similar is probably better.
I am moving material from Lutici here. However, I am also verifying the text as I go, particularly with concern for potential copyright violations, given the previous track record here. Since I'm not fluent in German this is taking some time. It would help things if you collaborated on this by providing requested pieces of texts.
As FP@S said above, it is obvious that this concept - a city - is distinct enough from Lutici - a people - to merit a stand alone article. So it's not just "my insistence".
The material on Radgosc in Lutici article can be shortened and point to this article once the transferring (with verification) has been done. I will continue working on this today.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly object to any moving of material from Lutici here, I consent to copying/"transferring". I also strongly object to shortening anything at Lutici. I included the material about Rethra there with a reason [4], I made Rethra a 2nd topic of that article for the same reason, and you may have noted that Rethra was bolded in the lead when you replaced it with a link to this stub under a non-used name [5] and redirected Rethra here. In my view, that was not the wisest course of action, especially since we were supposed to stay out of each others way for awhile. There are plenty of articles where I am not the main or sole contributor, why did it have to be Rethra now which I had extensively covered at Lutici?
Now there is indeed a chance that something good will come out of this. I am not saying that my coverage of Rethra over at the Lutici article is exhaustive, and that there is no room for additions and improvements justifying a stand-alone article. What comes to mind is e.g. the Prillwitz idols or the story about defining Feldberg pottery - these are issues which are connected to Rethra, or rather the search for it, and not to the Lutici. Be aware, however, that most of the sources, especially the expert sources, are in German, naturally. One of the leading authorities in this field is Lübke.
It will all depend on whether you came here with a confrontational or a colloborative attitude, and whether you have significant amounts of material to add. If you are just going to copy my work from Lutici here and rephrase it, insisting on the use of non-used names like Rad(a)gosc, and use aggressive language, then it is probably best to reinstate the redirect and disengage per NYB. If this is going to be a collaborative project expanding the coverage on Rethra, I am in. Your choice. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Rethra" is a PLACE. "Lutici" are a PEOPLE. Therefore they should have two separate article. How many times does this simple distinction need to be made?

And I'm sorry but the one who started out with a confrontational attitude was you, by deleting the new article out of process by turning it into a redirect, without even bothering to discuss it. And that's even putting aside your battleground attitude on AN/I, elsewhere and even here. So don't make accusations which you are guilty of yourself. A good example of your approach is this strange insistence on "objecting to moving the text from the Lutici article here" but "consenting to transfer the text from the Lutici article here". And yes stuff at Lutici will need to be shortened once this article is more developed.

And if we were supposed to stay away from each other for awhile (funny, I don't recall you ever agreeing to that, nor to promising to stop outing behavior on your part) then why did you show up to this article which I created?

So how about we drop all this and concentrate on the article. As you say, most of the sources are in German, and yes, Lubke is probably the main guy here. Can you provide the text from these sources as I asked on the Lutici page?Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No progress? Skäpperöd (talk) 02:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Busy with real life stuff - was there a deadline or something? Also I was waiting for a book to come in through ILL, and in fact just got a message that it did.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FP@S[edit]

Future Perfect, you are now reverting OTHER (genuinely uninvolved - unlike yourself) editors who are trying to remove your insult and collapsing of my comments. You are changing MY talk page comments, which is generally considered rude and a breach of etiquette, on Wikipedia and the rest of internet. I'm sure that if I hatted your comments somewhere and called them trolling you would be offended. So why do insist on doing it to others? Tell you what, I'll remove the word "trolling" but leave the comments collapsed. Will that work?Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

okay with me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved; the revised Google results indicate that this is the common name. Miniapolis 23:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Radgosc → Rethra – The place is commonly addressed as "Rethra," and only rarely as "Radgosc," in international as well as English literature, as indicated by the above discussion and the following google books results:

Radgosc

Rethra

The article should thus be at "Rethra." Relisted. BDD (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Skäpperöd (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As already explained above, your search for "rethra" is picking up virtually all German language sources NOT English language sources, in addition to some hits for "urethra". Might as well move it to Radogoszcz. Your search for "rethra" + "slavic" is still picking up non-English language sources (for example [6], books from the 19th century (outdated usage [7]) or both [8] [9] [10] [11] and so on. And there is not "294" hits but rather 109 (and that's including all the non-English language sources).Volunteer Marek 19:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the current name of the article was chosen on the basis of [Cambridge Economic History] which has the benefit of being both authoritative AND actually in English.Volunteer Marek 20:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge uses Radgošč in the text. —  AjaxSmack  02:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As seen by the results, the proposed title is used more than the other combined and the current title is the least common. Here's a Google Ngram of five of the names. The current title doesn't even show up in the results. —  AjaxSmack  02:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ajax, for starters you have to go to the last page of a gbook search to get the actual number of hits. "Rethra" Slavic temple does not get 425 hits but [12].Volunteer Marek 03:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Google books results for "'Rethra' Slavic temple"
Google books results for "'Rethra' Slavic temple"
Thanks for the tip about book results but the total on page three of 120 is still the single largest. I will annotate the list above to reflect this. —  AjaxSmack  03:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rethra&oldid=1200506731"