Talk:Jethro Tull (agriculturist)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Recent revert

I reverted (twice now) because the edit did nothing except re-organise and re-cast some of the article to no purpose, while introducing poor English. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, how I beg to differ. I see that you've fought the good fight in warding off various vandals, but the rank hypocrisy in defending the relatively poor quality of the previous version by characterising my efforts as being to no purpose and "poor" is particularly loathsome. Shall we start?

1. The opening reference to "scientific agriculture" is misleadingly close to the modern field of agricultural science (but agricultural revolution has been moved to see also).
2. There was no actual reference to the specific agriculture practice with which the seed drill is concerned, sowing (but tillage has been moved to see also).
3. The seed drill did not so much as create holes of "prescribed" depth, but of a standard or specific depth.
4. Not biggies, but nevertheless, no wikification to such directly relevant articles as crop and yield (also since revised) and hoe.
5. You cannot reasonably consider that "war on weeds" is ultimately an appropriate turn of phrase to retain in Wikipedia, with its long range vision for excellence.
6. "Organic emendation" (aka fertilization) similarly should not have long stayed in the article, as it plainly presents as a laboured and obscure expression, and does not appear to be an industry term in wide use (happy to be corrected on this point).
7. And my personal favourite, the sentence "Although Tull was in error on this latter point – the error of a pioneer, it should be noted – (etc) ". Now I think the difficulties with this baby should be self-explanatory, but I am open to you creating the article "on being a pioneer", with the section "personality traits characteristic thereo", and wikifying "error of a pioneer" accordingly.

Although I wish I did not have to talk you through these more or less basic points, in the spirit of why can't we all get along and using this event as an opportunity to re-examine and recast my version, it has been modified. As you clearly view the previous version with a certain paternalistic fervour, an attitude which left the article unimproved for so long, you will also note that much of it has been reinstated, but with revisions addressing the points outlined above. 203.198.237.30 05:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

1. Your offensive tone does you no favours (nor does your heavy-handed facetiousness).
2. Your new version is something of an improvement on your last, though it over-links (including a number of pointless links, such as crop and yield — for which there are in fact no articles, just disambiguation pages with brief dictionary definitions). A problems shared with the old version is that seed can't lie fallow — land lies fallow. New problems include the use of "fertilisation" to mean "fertilising" (insects go in for fertlisation of crops, farmers fertilise them).
3. What on Earth is all that stuff about creating articles on "being a pioneer", etc.? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Mel, I really will need to stand by my so-called "offensive tone" and "heavy-handed facetiousness" when you were the one to start casting about aspersions in response to a good faith edit of an article which obviously could be improved. It is hypocritical for you to say this, and in this regard I refer back to the comments in my first paragraph. I would have thought that the offensive attitude, first displayed by yourself, is what did you no favours.

  I wrote a compressed edit summary; there's a difference.

1. With regard to your "tidying & correcting" by way of changing science to Science, hoe (tool) to Hoe (tool), and by capitalizing the see also articles, we can leave these alone if you insist.

   The articles are capitalised, so it's more efficient to capitalise the links where possible.

2. However it is arbitrary and seemingly partisan of you to determine that crop and yield do not require links. What did the seed drill accomplish for society? It massively improved crop yield. Fewer seeds required for larger crops, and more seeds for next season. It is not for you to rule that readers should not be able to learn for themselves what these terms mean, particularly as the articles themselves may likely be expanded over time, in the way of Wikipedia. A better solution would be to create the article crop yield. Any takers? NOTE to future editors: the significant impact of the invention on society is not really explained and should be briefly mentioned in the Tull article and much expanded in the seed drill article (and perhaps something for another time, there is speculation that the seed drill was first invented in China and imported to Europe).

   There's no point linking words when there's nothing useful to link them to — as I explained. We assume that readers can use dictionaries, if they don't understand simple English words.

3. You have also removed the links to invention, sowing and innovation. These need to be reinstated. On the one hand sowing is the very practice Tull revolutionized, and on the other the man was an inventor and innovator extraordinaire. In a way you lessen him by not allowing readers to discover more about inventions and innovation by reading these relatively extensive articles.

   As for the previous comment. Have you read the Wikipedia policies and guidelines concerning overlinking?

4. And you have also changed nutrient#Nutrients and the environment to nutrients, which although the same article, takes everyone to nutrients in the body. I think we need to change this, don’t you? In your apparent haste to make some change to the article, you also removed the link to weeds which previously existed. I’ll put that back in for you.

   I saw no reason to go to the specific section when the whole article was relevant; "weed" falls into the same category as "crop" and "invention".

5. Re the use of fallow, I can only rhetorically wonder, if this was an issue for you, why didn’t you address it since the time you were first logged as doing something to the page, back in March 2005? And on the meaning of the term, while it may be very slightly creative to characterize seeds as laying fallow, it is not incorrect. But happy to leave it out, and I have modified this section in any event.
6. Re fertilization/fertilizing, am I to understand that you are going to debate the appropriate use of noun and verb forms? And are you really going to insist that only insects "go in for" fertilization of crops? If this is important to you, we can again leave it alone.

   Correct, clear English matters to me, yes. And I didn't say or even imply that only insects fertilise.

7. Re the "pioneer" bit, ok maybe I did get carried away there. Basically, you did an absolute reversion without any regard to the form or substance of the edits, and then later characterized the edits as "poor English". Yet, you were quite happy to leave in, amongst other things, the phrase "the error of a pioneer, it should be noted". Seeing as how you had no difficulty with this phase, I was simply suggesting that you could explain for everyone what it meant by creating the appropriate article.

   I still have no idea what you think is wrong with "the error of a pioneer, it should be noted". As I was reading this while in the Common Room I asked a couple of colleagues to see if I was missing anything; no-one could see what you were getting at.

Your critique of my revisions has resulted in a better article. Are we satisfied to leave it as this? 203.198.237.30 04:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted the excessive Wikilinking, etc. If you're happy (or if you'd like to read Wikipedia policies and guidelines on article-writing, and then find yourself happy), fine. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Mel, every change I have made following my first revision has been made specifically with reference to issues you have raised. I'm listening to you man (if you look through the cut and thrust), how about a similar courtesy? With regard to the claim of "overlinking", this strikes me as particularly disingenuous, given that (for example) the seed drill was an invention which deals with sowing and you have unlinked invention and sowing! 203.198.237.30 11:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

By "disingenuous" you seem merely to mean "mistaken". I'll repeat: we assume that our readers understand English, and that if they don't know ordinary English words, they can use a dictionary. There's nothing in the article on "invention" that helps the reader of this article; "sowing", on second thoughts", is probably OK (though in fact everything that the reader needs to know is in this article). We can also assume that the reader knows what a horse is and what "innovation" means. I take it, though, that you still haven't read the policies and guidelines?

Concerning: "Without regard to where they landed or whether they germinated" — there's no reason to think that this is true (though the latter part is obscure anyway; how could one scatter seed with regard for whether it germinated?). The point is lack of control, not lack of concern. "Some sources indicate" is too vague to be useful, and so manages merely to be clumsy. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• At last, we're getting somewhere, although I don't know where you get the idea that any linked article must always assist readers of this article. It also seems rather misleading to blend in by way of support of this doubtful view, that it is all about assuming a certain level of English comprehension. On this I say that you have it the wrong way around entirely. It is not about whether the invention article assists readers of this article, it is that we are in fact dealing with a particularly ingenious, revolutionary invention, and readers may well want to learn more about them generally!

1. Re horse, fine. Re innovation, also fine. However, I think it just smacks of supreme arrogance to assume that people will know exactly and completely what the term means (Mel, I'm glad you do), not to allow them to discover for themselves this meaning, or to learn about related concepts. Your view on this seems incompatible with what Wikipedia is about.
2. Re the germinated bit, again fine (modified slightly). The point is that the previous version was lacking. Its now improved. We move on.
3. Re the year Tull died, we in effect have "He died in 1740. Or 1741". You want to leave it like this, ok.
4. I have also left out the disambiguated link to nutrients in the environment, over your preferred link to nutrients in the human body.

What I have done is tidied "fertilising" simply to fertilizer, and reinstated the link to invention, weeds (this was in the original version!), and changed your "nutrients…in soil could be released through pulverising it" back to "nutrients…in soil could be released through pulverisation". Can we please at least agree that we should not be ending sentence fragments with "it". 203.198.237.30 03:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Links and Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context. There are already more than twice as many links as lines, with just under 10% of all words being linked (over 10% with your additions). "Innovation" and "horse" are plain English words, and don't need linking (and the idea that it's arrogant to assume that people will understand them is bizarre). My link is to the Nutrients article, not to "nutrients in the human body".

I dislike the barbarism of giving a Latin root a Greek ending, so have returned to "fertiliser" (if the article were in U.S. English, I shouldn't have that option — but it isn't). I also dislike the clumsy "pulverisation", especially when there's a perfectly decent gerund to be used. And I have no idea what you have against ending a sentence with a pronoun. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• I refer you in turn to Wikipedia:Build the web, and also note that in accordance with making links relevant, invention is particularly relevant to the context. Will you please reconsider and link it yourself?

  Have you read Invention? Do you really think that it adds anything?

Your claim to "better style" is not sustainable, simply because your "and germinated (or failed to germinate)" presents as more clumsly than "to germinate (or fail to germinate)". Similarly with your preferred "pulversing it" over "pulverisation". These two sections read quite awkwardly as you currently have them. In view of this, your continuing edit comments to the effect that your style is superior is unwarranted.

First, no-one sows seeds to fail to germinate, though they might well sow seeds that fail to germinate — hence my preference. Secondly, "pulverising" is a much more everyday and wieldy than "pulverisation".

Re the nutrient article, you're plainly wrong. Follow the link you've maintained to nutrients in the human body. The disambiguation link to the appropriate part of article is clearly more appropriate.

My preferred link goes the article, not to a specific part of it.

We are simply at cross-purposes regarding "fertilizer". Apart from the pedantry we are descending into, we are dealing with the same article in both cases. Agreed on Brit usage (sp checker bias). As I am now unclear on the subject matter of Tull's belief (did he have a problem with the efficacy of fertilizer per se or the use of it - fertilizing?), I leave this one alone.

So I change nothing as you will simply automatically revert, but I do ask that you reconsider invention. 203.198.237.30 04:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I never automiatically revert; I only revert if I've judged that it's the right thing to do. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Can we please keep it real by not breaking up my responses with yours.

1. Regarding the invention article. Yes, it needs work (I will see what can be done about this). Nevertheless, linking would be entirely consistent with linking articles which are relevant to the context and with Building the web.
2. Regarding your comments on the germination section. These are not relevant, as the phrase in question does not transform to "sows seed to fail to germinate". Compare "seeds were sown simply by being cast upon the ground, and germinated (or failed to germinate) where they landed" with "seeds were sown simply to be being cast upon the ground, to germinate (or fail to germinate) where they landed". One seems rather less awkward (a better version is possible) than the other...
3. Regarding your comments on pulverising/pulverisation. Also not relevant, as the phrase in question is "pulverising it" versus simply "pulverisation". You may well use "pulversing", but using "pulverising it" halfway through a sentence is plainly inelegant!
4. Regarding the nutrient article. It is becoming increasingly pointless to purse this one. You previously stated that you did not link to nutrients in the human body. This is true, but the point is, why not simply have a disambiguated link to that part of the article which specifically deals with nutrients in the environment. A "straight link" otherwise takes you to that part of the article which specifically deals with nutrients in the human body. This is not overlinking (you have maintained the link itself), so why not simply disambiguate it? As I've said over and over, we are dealing with the same article and I simply suggest linking to the relevant part of same, by using the link nutrient#Nutrients and the environment.
5. Regarding automatic reverts, I think the edit record and the nature of your edit comments are the judge of that.

What a pedantic pair are we! So what about invention and "pulverisation"? 203.198.237.30 03:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Concerning the link to Invention, fair enough (especially if the article can be improved); I still think that it's just a plain English word that doesn't need linking, but OK. I really dislike "pulverisation" though; depending on when I think about it, it sounds either like U.S. military-speak, or something from the Beano. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Your argument is longer than the article. If you want to actually improve the article you could actually tell us more instead of arguing about useless technicalities. 68.145.207.92 23:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ==Just a thought==

Tull is one of the most significant memebers of history. Dare I say, he's had more impact on the world than most pre-Enlightenment figures. Now, many may argue, history's very most significant figures were pre-Enlightenment, but their numbers are few. I've heard it said that Confuscious influenzed more lives than any other person that lived, certainly that does not directly translate to historical and actual significance, but it's a "title" that holds obvious value. That being said, a strong argument can be made that Tull has had more impact (thus is more significant) on China than Confuscious has. You never ehar about Tull in hsitory books, at least not at the elementary level, but he is responsible for so much about the world today.