This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
John Dee article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
John Dee is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 19, 2005. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm moving this to talk, because there's no evidence for it. The idea of Dee as a spy came from a book written by Richard Deacon in the late '60s, but his argument is highly speculative and not really taken seriously. Dee did have contact with Cecil and (more to the point) Walsingham at different times of his life, but to say he was Cecil's agent would be extremely misleading. I've never seen any evidence for the 007 part: Dee sometimes signed with a delta. Of course, if this can be backed up, it should go back in the article. PRiis 07:12, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
True, but the notion that John Dee was the original 007 is well-known, see for example [1] on About.com. Perhaps the above information could be included with the caveat that the evidence for it is scant, and even the explanation of why the notion exists in the first place. -- Susurrus 06:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Harleian MS 6986 fol. 45. (figure 1 in Peter French's "John Dee: An Elizabethan Magus") in the British Museum is a letter signed by Dee and sent to Elizabeth dated 10th Nov 1588 and sent from Bohemia to England is signed with a simple "John D" with what looks to be the number 8 as a prefix... the idea that 007 was used as code for Dee seems pretty silly when he's writing to her and signing his name without a care all the way in Trebon. Furthermore I agree with PRiis, there seems to be no evidence at all that Dee was 007 besides it being written that he was.. about.com provides no evidence at all, perhaps someone could reference this? ie what Deacon says and the evidence he uses (or doesnt). Dee was obviously in contact with the crown and gave them all sorts of info, but thats not the same as being a James Bond (besides the fact he slept with someones wife). Saul Vodanovic
But perhaps, nonetheless, the reference to the Stephen Fry television show doesn't belong in the main article on Dee ? I don't think such an ephemeral reference even merits inclusion in the 'Popular Culture' section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.188.21 ( talk) 14:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
If you have, would you check this citation please?
Benjamin Woolley, writing in his biography of Elizabethan mathematician John Dee (1527–1608/9), notes that immediately after 1582 English letter writers "customarily" used "two dates" on their letters. [1]
Which "two dates" does he mean? (Four hundred years ago today could have been written as 7 January 1620/21 or 7 January 1621 (26 December 1620). Thank you if you can help. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 18:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
References
The article has been tagged with {{
citation style}}
. Why?
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk) 13:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
<
ref>
citations that are being used multiple times, move those full cites to the bottom, and use {{
sfn}}
to match the rest of them. There is no reason to do anything with a <
ref>
being used only one time, since converting it would simply cause the reader to have to click twice to get to the citation details. I also saw one case of <ref>{{harvnb|...}}</ref>
I think, which can be converted to {{
sfn|...}}
for consistency.What's really unnecessary, though, is having both a
WP:LDR block of reused citations, defined inside the {{
reflist}}
, and a ===Citations=== subsection doing the same thing below it. Either put all the reused citations inside the ===Citations=== list (and eliminate the LDR list), or put them all inside the LDR list and eliminate the subsection. The former is easier, since each source doesn't have to be individually wrapped in <
ref>...</ref>
. This "duelling reused-citation blocks" may be why this was tagged with {{
citation style}}
, but fixing it is a matter of 10 minutes of twiddling. I can just do it if this is wanted.
However, in all of these cases, what should really be used is {{
sfnp|...}}
and if really necessary, because of an annotation, <ref>{{
harvp|...}}. Annotation here.</ref>
, because {{
sfnp}}
and {{
harvp}}
produce output consistent with all the
CS1 ({{
cite journal}}
, {{
cite book}}
, etc.) and
CS2 ({{
citation}}
) templates. {{
sfn}}
and {{
harvnb}}
are for use with Vancouver citations and a few other styles that do not put parentheses/round-brackets around dates. They came along earlier and got mentioned in more documentation and picked up in more articles when the templates were made, so people assume they are "normal" or "the default", but this is basically a long-running error when it comes to complying with
WP:CITESTYLE. This is a fully CS1 article, so it should be {{
sfnp}}
to match CS1. PS: My help page linked to above, shows how to use {{
sfnref}}
(a.k.a. {{
harvid}}
) to make {{sfnp}}
or where needed {{harvp}}
work with a source that has no by-line. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 21:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
<ref>{{cite book |last=Zounds |first=Xerxes Youill |date=2022 |title=The Zounds Method |publisher=Silly Books |page=ix |...}}</ref>
and instead unnecessarily move the full cite to the end and replace it inline with {{
sfnp|Zounds|2022|p=ix}}
, when you mouse-hover the citation, you'll see "Zounds (2022), p. ix.", not the full citation, and will have to click on it or manually go to page bottom to get the rest of the citation details. So, doing that conversion doesn't help the reader. Short citations are basically just for when the source is cited multiple times at different in-source locations, as a method of avoiding repeating all of the publisher, title, publisher location, ISBN/ISSN/DOI/etc. information over and over again. And it's better than "antique" ways of doing this like {{
rp}}
which is a form of (partial) inline parenthetical referencing, the entire class of which was
deprecated in 2022 as too much confusing clutter for readers. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 22:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
{{
rp}}
way of citing page numbers.
Skyerise (
talk) 22:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
John Dee article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
John Dee is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 19, 2005. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm moving this to talk, because there's no evidence for it. The idea of Dee as a spy came from a book written by Richard Deacon in the late '60s, but his argument is highly speculative and not really taken seriously. Dee did have contact with Cecil and (more to the point) Walsingham at different times of his life, but to say he was Cecil's agent would be extremely misleading. I've never seen any evidence for the 007 part: Dee sometimes signed with a delta. Of course, if this can be backed up, it should go back in the article. PRiis 07:12, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
True, but the notion that John Dee was the original 007 is well-known, see for example [1] on About.com. Perhaps the above information could be included with the caveat that the evidence for it is scant, and even the explanation of why the notion exists in the first place. -- Susurrus 06:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Harleian MS 6986 fol. 45. (figure 1 in Peter French's "John Dee: An Elizabethan Magus") in the British Museum is a letter signed by Dee and sent to Elizabeth dated 10th Nov 1588 and sent from Bohemia to England is signed with a simple "John D" with what looks to be the number 8 as a prefix... the idea that 007 was used as code for Dee seems pretty silly when he's writing to her and signing his name without a care all the way in Trebon. Furthermore I agree with PRiis, there seems to be no evidence at all that Dee was 007 besides it being written that he was.. about.com provides no evidence at all, perhaps someone could reference this? ie what Deacon says and the evidence he uses (or doesnt). Dee was obviously in contact with the crown and gave them all sorts of info, but thats not the same as being a James Bond (besides the fact he slept with someones wife). Saul Vodanovic
But perhaps, nonetheless, the reference to the Stephen Fry television show doesn't belong in the main article on Dee ? I don't think such an ephemeral reference even merits inclusion in the 'Popular Culture' section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.188.21 ( talk) 14:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
If you have, would you check this citation please?
Benjamin Woolley, writing in his biography of Elizabethan mathematician John Dee (1527–1608/9), notes that immediately after 1582 English letter writers "customarily" used "two dates" on their letters. [1]
Which "two dates" does he mean? (Four hundred years ago today could have been written as 7 January 1620/21 or 7 January 1621 (26 December 1620). Thank you if you can help. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 18:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
References
The article has been tagged with {{
citation style}}
. Why?
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk) 13:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
<
ref>
citations that are being used multiple times, move those full cites to the bottom, and use {{
sfn}}
to match the rest of them. There is no reason to do anything with a <
ref>
being used only one time, since converting it would simply cause the reader to have to click twice to get to the citation details. I also saw one case of <ref>{{harvnb|...}}</ref>
I think, which can be converted to {{
sfn|...}}
for consistency.What's really unnecessary, though, is having both a
WP:LDR block of reused citations, defined inside the {{
reflist}}
, and a ===Citations=== subsection doing the same thing below it. Either put all the reused citations inside the ===Citations=== list (and eliminate the LDR list), or put them all inside the LDR list and eliminate the subsection. The former is easier, since each source doesn't have to be individually wrapped in <
ref>...</ref>
. This "duelling reused-citation blocks" may be why this was tagged with {{
citation style}}
, but fixing it is a matter of 10 minutes of twiddling. I can just do it if this is wanted.
However, in all of these cases, what should really be used is {{
sfnp|...}}
and if really necessary, because of an annotation, <ref>{{
harvp|...}}. Annotation here.</ref>
, because {{
sfnp}}
and {{
harvp}}
produce output consistent with all the
CS1 ({{
cite journal}}
, {{
cite book}}
, etc.) and
CS2 ({{
citation}}
) templates. {{
sfn}}
and {{
harvnb}}
are for use with Vancouver citations and a few other styles that do not put parentheses/round-brackets around dates. They came along earlier and got mentioned in more documentation and picked up in more articles when the templates were made, so people assume they are "normal" or "the default", but this is basically a long-running error when it comes to complying with
WP:CITESTYLE. This is a fully CS1 article, so it should be {{
sfnp}}
to match CS1. PS: My help page linked to above, shows how to use {{
sfnref}}
(a.k.a. {{
harvid}}
) to make {{sfnp}}
or where needed {{harvp}}
work with a source that has no by-line. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 21:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
<ref>{{cite book |last=Zounds |first=Xerxes Youill |date=2022 |title=The Zounds Method |publisher=Silly Books |page=ix |...}}</ref>
and instead unnecessarily move the full cite to the end and replace it inline with {{
sfnp|Zounds|2022|p=ix}}
, when you mouse-hover the citation, you'll see "Zounds (2022), p. ix.", not the full citation, and will have to click on it or manually go to page bottom to get the rest of the citation details. So, doing that conversion doesn't help the reader. Short citations are basically just for when the source is cited multiple times at different in-source locations, as a method of avoiding repeating all of the publisher, title, publisher location, ISBN/ISSN/DOI/etc. information over and over again. And it's better than "antique" ways of doing this like {{
rp}}
which is a form of (partial) inline parenthetical referencing, the entire class of which was
deprecated in 2022 as too much confusing clutter for readers. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 22:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
{{
rp}}
way of citing page numbers.
Skyerise (
talk) 22:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)