Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1755 Lisbon earthquake/archive 1

1755 Lisbon earthquake

A very readable, succinct, and highly syncretic Wikipedia feature. Reads like a thriller. Self-nomination. Sandover 05:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• support. i hahahaha like sandover's self nomination very much indeed. i tweaked it a bit a removed a funny section about skin colour. if considered useful, i can make a compreensive list of buildings that were destroyed and buildings that survived. muriel@pt 10:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The article looks pretty good, but: 1) The lead section says: "The earthquake had a strong impact on 18th century society.". First of all, I think this should be appended with "in Portugal". Second, I think the "Social implications" section doesn't quite give information. It mentions religious, philosophical and political implications, but doesn't quite get to the actual social implications. For example: " For the religious minds of the 18th century, this manifestation of the anger of God was difficult to explain." -> how did this manifest? Did people become less (or more) religious? Did they convert to other religions? 2) In the "The birth of seismology" section misses a reason why the query was conducted and what was done with it in the 18th century. Also, this section needs some explanation of geological terms (tectonic plate, subduction zone). An illustration with the plates near Lisbon might offer a good help here. Jeronimo 11:42, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • "The earthquake had a strong impact on 18th century society." - Thats correct because it was not only in Portugal; the social implications section shows this. Now maybe you are right about this section. It does not deal exclusively with social things, also with philosophical implications. Maybe rename it? And if so to what? As for the geological terms (cf. your comment on Battle of Alesia :) ) i'll make them more clear. A drawing will be difficult because there is still hot debate about this theory. Scientists agree is a proto-subduction but the whereabouts of this is still not consensual. muriel@pt 11:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I made a few small changes, which satisfy (I hope) Jeronimo's relatively minor objections. Sandover 14:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It's an improvement, and I consider 1) fixed. As for 2), I still miss "a reason why the query was conducted and what was done with it in the 18th century". Also, I still think an image would illustrate the situation well. If there is debate, an image would be exceptionally interesting, since it could explain the debate more clearly. Jeronimo 07:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The Lisbon earthquake has traditionally been regarded as something of a philosophical/religious watershed in Enlightenment thought (something separate from the aesthetic concept of "the Sublime"). This may well be a simplified notion, but it needs to be acknowledged and somehow engaged with—I was quite taken aback to find only the sentence "Thinkers of the European Enlightenment drew varied inspiration from the Lisbon earthquake". I should think shockwaves from the earthquake can be traced in the philosophical/cultural/literary history of every European country. For the important "Enlightenment criticism of religion" aspect, the single sentence "For the religious minds of the 18th century, this manifestation of the anger of God was difficult to explain", which Jeronimo mentions, is still holding the whole theodicean fort alone (actually even doing so in a weakened state, from an addition that looks strangely irrelevant to me). That's far from enough—for one thing, the non-religious minds of the 18th century seized on the earthquake as proof that God was either dead or bad. Please get a philosophy student in there, if at all possible. (This is a "wanted" ad! I'd read up and make the addition myself, but I just don't have the time.) Otherwise a very interesting and well-written article which I would like to see featured. Bishonen | Talk 18:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) Support. Bishonen | Talk 07:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I hardly understand your objection! :/ I'll see what i can do to help... muriel@pt 19:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • As far as I know, this earthquake was seen by most contemporary philosophers as an evil occurrence, since it had so many terrible consequences. For those who believed in God, it was difficult to find any theory which could satisfactorily explain "what sort of a God could allow this to happen" (I think that was Voltaire's Candide). I think this may have been the start of the idea in the insurance industry for "acts of God" being a synonym for natural disasters (but I'm not sure). 'Evil acts' like the Lisbon earthquake could not have been done by men or caused by sin (it was thought), therefore philosophical and religious theories of the time which had held that people were the cause of all evil were questioned very severely. The concept of 'natural evil' came up, even for atheistic philosophers. WhiteC 01:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree with WhiteC above - that's broadly my understanding of the quake's philosophical impact. Voltaire's reaction is the most noted. Wombat 09:48, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object though I like this article a lot too. Bishonen is right; a truly comprehensive article on the quake would have a lot more on its philosophical and theological ramifications, which were extensive (and also much more on the social and political aftermath). I've added a little bit, but this is not a topic I know very much about. -- Rbellin|Talk 20:46, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Weak object, if Bishonen is satistied you can strike mine, too. I'm amused that Bishonen and Jeronimo have opposite objections! I'm with Bishonen here, and think the article needs to be fleshed out to the point where this will be clear enough that no one will make Jeronimo's objection. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:49, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Object because of the issue regarding the Washington Post article. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-14/Misinformation_on_Wikipedia). Let that die down first. --JuntungWu 14:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey! What is this got to do with the article?? It had something unreferenced, this Theresa made a fuss, i informed her (politely i guess) of wikipedia procedures, namely that it doesnt have to be me to correct something and that the article isnt mine but ours. She did nothing and now apparently is holding that back against wikipedia. The thing is not even in the article anymore. You can follow the thing in the talk page (which is very messed thanks to Theresa, btw). muriel@pt 16:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see how The Washington Post issue provides valid grounds for an actionable objection. I don't see how this issue has anything to do with this article being an FA (It might not be politic to feature the article any time soon on the Main Page, but that's another matter, and I think we can let Raul be the judge of that). Paul August ☎ 20:29, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • I am interpreting the "no controversy" and "no edit war" stipulation for an FA in a very broad sense. I find this very unfortunate and I object with great reluctance but I would think it would be better to delay consideration of this. Raul can be the judge on if my interpretation is correct: if he believes there's no problem I'll withdraw my object and change my vote to support because I actually like the article. JuntungWu 12:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I thought more about this and digged through the talk pages. I guess it would be okay. I withdraw my object. JuntungWu 12:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Looks like the issues have been resolved and this is well referenced. - Taxman 16:14, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

the Theresa Carpanelli/Washington Post controversy

I had no idea that misinformation deleted a month ago from the 1755 Lisbon earthquake entry ("roving priests" who exacted vengeance in the streets of Lisbon) appeared in the Washington Post, nor that Wikipedia was being blamed for originating the error. Thank you, Michael Snow, for writing it up, and for providing the links to the two online columns from a vigilant homeschooling parent in Canton, Ohio, Theresa Carpanelli (who apparently appears on her own religious radio show, "Truth Matters"). All of this yet another curious ripple effect of a sublime event which occurred just shy of 250 years ago. Just Fascinating.

According to Michael Snow, the offending Washington Post piece was published on December 31, 2004. (Theresa Carpanelli says December 30th in her article.) I only saw the 1755 Lisbon earthquake entry in the days following the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake (I confess I was much more preoccupied with contributions to the tsunami article, which was little more than a stub at the time of the Dec 26 tsunami).

By the time I made my first edit, on January 19, the discussion page already raged with Carpanelli's (anonymous) objections. She altered the entry itself only to make a request for footnotes, but never troubled herself to actually delete the offending Wikipedia material on her own. The offending line was deleted on January 20th (and never restored). Carpanelli continued to rage about the line on the discussion page until January 29th.

If there's one thing that really troubles me about Carpanelli's seemingly well-researched complaint, it's the way she wilfully misrepresents the Wikipedia editing process. "I requested of Wikipedia that a source be cited for this allegation. The person with whom I was corresponding claimed not to have written the line, that it was a 'remnant' from a previous version; but she left it in anyway. She writes: 'i dont have a reference though i dont find the allegation strange, considering the power of the Jesuits at the time and the religious fanatism of the time' [sic]." Carpanelli doesn't mention the fact that this exchange occurred on the discussion page (where informal, uncapitalized language is commonplace) and that she herself was able (and, in fact, invited repeatedly) to delete the reference if she objected to it.

• "Willfully misrepresents the Wikipedia editing process." How did I "misrepresent the Wikipedia editing process"? And how do you know it was "willfull"? I stated earlier, very clearly, that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute. Why have you (willfully?) left that out of your quotes of me? As for your charge that I don't "mention" where the exchange took place - that will be corrected in a part-three article I will be doing. I made an assumption - that my readers would be able to find their way to the discussion page when they found their way to the article, which they could easily do as I did - a search for "1755 Lisbon priests etc" brought the Wikipedia article up as the first google hit. As for my "continuing to rage" until January 29th, I am seeking a source for the original assertion - and that is made clear in my so-called "rages." Polycarp7 09:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An uninformed reader of Carpanelli's column (and I would surmise that the vast majority of Ms. Carpanelli's readers are unfamiliar with Wiki practices, and Carpanelli did nothing to enlighten them) would draw the conclusion that this exchange occurred with a spelling-challenged gatekeeper of some sort, someone in a formal administrative capacity at Wikipedia, someone with a grudge against Catholics, someone who refused to make a change, rather than with another contributor (a well-meaning one at that) who was actually trying to resolve the problem and help get to the bottom of the truth and the origins of the allegation.

• Once again, I happily will provide a link to the discussion page, now that it has been placed in chronological order as the discussion ensued. They will see for themselves that I was invited to make the change myself, but that I did not wish to alter the claim, just to find a source for it. Space was limited for me, and my beef was with the Washington Post, not with Wikipedia, except for noting how many people have used the unattributed (and seemingly false) allegation. Part of the problem also was that I did not feel the person I was corresponding with was not "trying to resolve the problem and ... get to the bottom of the truth of the origins..." I felt I being asked simply to delete it and forget about it - after it had been published in virtually every major newspaper that picked up the Washington Post and CBS News articles, and picked up all over the Internet and even in a school curriculum. For me, getting to the truth would have included giving me the original source. Why do you conclude the readers would draw the conclusion you outlined? I concluded that they would be smart enough to check out the Wikipedia article for themselves, and to read the discussion page. I do regret not providing a link for that purpose, but it was, at the time, the first hit one came to for those interested in reading it. And many did find it, without my adding a link.Polycarp7 09:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, truth matters. But if Carpanelli really cared about the truth, she would have resolved the matter on her own and edited the line out (as suggested to her). Instead, it's obvious that she preferred to see the error stand as long as possible. (Or should I say possible error -- because she has by no means proved the original allegation of "roaming priests" false. To my mind, Carpanelli's calculated misrepresentation of Wikipedia's editing process only shows me that she is capable of distorting a lot of other facts as well. Given how interesting this debate about "roving priests" has become, I intend to fully examine the allegation going back two and half centuries and incorporate them into the entry. It's obviously quite relevant to the social implications and effects of the 1755 earthquake, which continue to this day. It's interesting to note that the Portuguese Inquisition, which raged for centuries against suspected crypto-Jews or marranos, continued past the earthquake until 1765, and there's no doubt that the 1755 earthquake and tsunami affected the dynamic involved in Church authority. It's also interesting that Voltaire's Candide has a character who, yes, is hanged after being overheard discussing the earthquake outside of an orthodox religious context. "This was not customary", Voltaire writes, obviously in full satirical flourish -- though whether he is simply satirizing priests' actions, or exagerrating those actions for satirical effect, is something I've yet to determine. Perhaps Voltaire to blame for this anti-Catholic slur against priests; Carpanelli suggests as much. We'll see.)

• Now they are "calculated misrepresentations." Perhaps you think you see that because you are calculating? I am not. I simply state things as I see them, and unfortunately, leave things out that you think I should have put in. I will try to correct that in Part Three. You make an erroneous, derogatory, and wholly unknowable allegation about my intentions, then conclude that I am capable of "distorting" other facts as well. This strikes me as quite convenient for one who might like to believe the allegation is true, and would like to stretch the truth to make it so. Witness your "eagerness" at finally being shown the about.com picture, and what you, with no source cited, allege in your caption that it shows, yet when I attempted to edit the caption to say it was looters being executed, you state there is no "proof" they were looters. Yet the Kozak collection's caption, which your article links to, states: "Lisbon a few days after the earthquake. Camping outside the damaged town, executions of robbers and looters. (Copper engraving, Germany, 1755) Lisbon, Portugal." You seem to prefer about.com's wholly unsourced allegation, over Kozak's caption. I have cited several sources for my claims in the discussion page of the Lisbon article which state that looters, murderers, and arsonists were executed by hanging, by order of the civil, not Church, authorities. Witness also your decrying the fact that I wouldn't edit the allegation out. Because you would have edited the line out, and I didn't, you feel you can doubt my care for the truth? Why do you believe, in MY search for the truth, I would have tried to hide the fact that priests were hanging people, by deleting the allegation, if in fact it happened? Then you might have accused me of hiding the ugly truth? You practically state my real motives in the rest of your statements - I haven't proved the allegation false, and cannot. It is precisely because I do not know for sure that it was erroneous, unless the person who wrote it cannot provide a credible source, that I was not willing to delete it. I can prove only that there is no credible source for it that I have seen. The onus is on the person who wrote it to provide a source that makes it possible that it did happen. In my search for the truth, I was asking for a source, from the original author, but did not know how to do that due to my inexperience with Wikipedia's protocols. I am not a contributer, just a user. Somehow, that translates to you as "calculating" and "willfully distorting" Wikipedia protocol. I have checked a great many books and articles, (more detail in the discussion page), including many, many eyewitness accounts. None of them mention this event, and I believe, had this happened, ONE of the eyewitnesses would have mentioned it, or at least one original source book would have mentioned it. I freely admit that my research has not included every book written on the subject, and one cannot "prove" a negative - that it didn't happen. My assumption was that possibly the originator of the Wikipedia article might have a source. I doubted it, but I sincerely was asking for his/her source, and would be interested to see one. In Part Three, I will discuss the "source" the Washington Post put forth. If you think you can find a source, and I would prefer a credible one, I would be happy to see it. Polycarp7 09:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Carpanelli cannot prove that Wikipedia was the reporter's source. Her addendum to the article, which summarizes a conversation with the Washington Post reporter, reveals that he used other sources as well.

• I did not claim to have "proved" anything. I outlined my suspicions, and why I drew them in Part Two - perhaps you should have read it. I based my suspicion that it MIGHT have been Wikipedia for these reasons: 1). The article originated in October 2003, while the Post article, to which I was mainly objecting, originated in December, 2004, with many other more recent articles I listed showing up in January. 2). The language was very similar to the Wikipedia article, and I found other articles on the Internet, using the same language, even to the use of the misplaced modifier, most of them listing Wikipedia as their source. 3). Mr. Vargas told me he used Wikipedia, and noticed that the other sites he used, which he named, also used the same language as the Wikipedia article. I had already confirmed that some of the sites he named, which included the allegation, listed Wikipedia as their source. In addition, my Part Two article states clearly that Wikipedia was one of other sources Vargas used, but I believed, that since Wikipedia dated to October 2003, and was listed as the source for many of the other articles, it MIGHT have been the original source. That is precisely what I am still trying to discern, but cannot unless the originator of the article will come forward with his source - if he had one. This is speculation, but it's entirely possible he assumed it - one might do that after seeing the caption under the about.com picture, reproduced now in the Wikipedia article. If priests were "supervising" the hangings, which assumes, (contrary to what credible source materials state), that they had authoritative involvement, and it's not a far stretch to say they "roamed the streets" looking for people to hang.

And by the way, I was not, prior to this, affiliated in any way with Catholic Exchange, so my correspondence with Ms. Gottrop had no motive other than a search for a credible source. I asked CE them to help me get this information corrected, since it has proliferated so widely since the Post article came out, but had no idea of that during my corresponsence with Wikipedia. My beef was with the Post, and my intention for writing the Part Three article is to conclude with my discussion with the Washington Post. But now that I have read such ad hominem and hostile accounts of my alleged "intentions" with regard to Wikipedia, and the unjust charges to which I have been subjected, simply because I am trying to obtain the truth of the allegation, I feel I must spend some time discussing that, as well. Ms. Gottrop has apologized for offending my Faith, and it was probably my ignorance and frustration in how to ask for what I wanted on Wikipedia that led to her irritated reply to me. But as I have stated elsewhere, Wikipedia users - and that is what I was - NOT a contributer - should not have to go through this to get a simple question resolved. Polycarp7 09:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was completely unaware of any of this controversy until I opened my Wikipedia homepage this morning. It's funny to see my username cited in it, and to be given credit as the one who finally deleted the objectionable material. To be honest, I didn't give it too much thought. I deleted it merely because the discussion was getting hot, because Carpanelli's (anonymous and unsigned) objections on the entry itself were beginning to take over the page (nb: I never had any exchange or dialogue with Carpanelli myself). It was obvious -- although Carpanelli doesn't say this in her own article -- that no one seriously defended the allegation about roaming priests, apart from the one offhand comment (which Carpanelli quotes). On deleting the citation, I figured that if someone was going to re-insert that slur into the article, they could only do so only with supporting information. That's normal Wikipedia procedure, and the slur has not reappeared.

• My "anonymous and unsigned" objections were corrected when I learned, through Ms. Gottrop's help, how to do that. I didn't see the point in stating a negative - that no one defended the allegation. Once again, I didn't do what you think I should have done, but I don't feel the need to state the obvious. Polycarp7 10:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it would be better to let this issue die down now before reconsidering the article for FA. But the feature status shouldn't depend on whether at one point there was false information in the article (if, indeed, that information was false). The obstacle to feature status, as pointed out by a number of observers, is that the philosophical implications section needs to be fleshed out in a much more thorough way; since I haven't received other complaints, this section is going to be my future focus. I (and I hope others) will have to do a bit of homework on it. I also want to track down an image of the Marquis of Pombal and perhaps other illustrations.

I hope the entry keeps its quirky, concise character. One of the things I most admire about the 1755 Lisbon earthquake is that it manages a complex and varied topic with brevity: it has benefited from the surgical intervention of (among others) an amateur historian, geologist, a tourist who loves Lisbon (that would be me), and several philosophers, none of whom decided to make it their own magnum opus. I hope the entry stays that way and never becomes bloated. Notwithstanding my rather extended comments here, quantity is not quality. Thanks, everyone, for the good advice. Sandover 18:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) Sandover 20:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) [revised] Sandover 02:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) [revised]]

I agree that the story alone is not a legitimate reason to keep this from being a featured article. It would be like rejecting an article just because of some vandalism in its history. The state of the article now is what's important. In this situation, the incident is a reason to be especially careful and thorough, making sure that facts are checked and references provided. But it shouldn't be a barrier to featuring, and it would be great to be able to say, "Yes, there was this mistake, but not only were we able to fix it, we improved the article so much that now it's one of our showcase products".

With respect to the timing of this nomination, it might still be possible to do the needed work relatively quickly, but that's for those involved in writing the article to determine. If all reasonable objections are addressed, whether now or later, the surrounding controversy shouldn't matter. --Michael Snow 18:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I've fallen in love with the page, but I look at the necessary improvements requiring some significant reading and research. It's going to take a few months for me to circle around to this project again. Unless someone else wants to jump in and go rah-rah on it right now, let's just table the feature consideration for now. By all means, read the entry in its present form. It will be all the better later on when we remember the evolutionary process, and to voice support when this pops up in time for the 250th anniversary (which is November 1st this year). Sandover 18:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As the person directly involved with Ms. Carpanelli i have to say a couple of things: i was never impolite (despite the hysterical, slightly irritating tone of her notes) and i tried to motivate her to edit the article, i even left welcoming message at her talk page. The whole affair can be followed in Talk:1755 Lisbon earthquake. I am quite amazed with what is said about her article. She acted in absolute bad faith with me and with the project and i'm finding very strange that the acts of a biased scandal-seeking person are depriving the article from feature status. I agree with Bishonen et al. objections about the philosophical section and i'm only sorry that my knowledge is not enough to answer their requirements. These are valid objections and I hope Sandover is successful in his attempt to clarify them. Ms. Carpanelli's article is not a valid objection and i cant believe that this will be held against the article in the future. muriel@pt 21:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Please read my response to Ms. Gottrop's above statements on the Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-02-14/Misinformation on Wikipedia at this address: (Not sure how to do the link - please spare me the criticisms for my ignorance in your protocols). Polycarp7 16:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

encyclopedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-14/Misinformation_on_Wikipedia

Back to the philosophy

• Update: I think that leaves only my objection—not sure about Jeronimo's second one. I've hung back because I'd pick several arguments with WhiteC's version if it were offered in the article—a modern distinction between belief in God versus atheism just doesn't seem to me to enhance our understanding of how these issues were thought of in the 18th century—but Rbellin's additions to the article are excellent, and seem to be in process. I'm in two minds whether to strike my objections or not, because I would very much like to see just a little more from Rbellin first. Still, as Sandover says, the whole article has a pleasing quality of conciseness. OK, I'll strike my objections, provided only that the phrase "religious minds of the 18th century" goes, I do think it's anachronistic. Still hoping for a little more from Rbellin, but I won't insist on it. (Incidentally, not of course an objection, the copper engraving is fantastic, I'd make it a bit bigger if it was me.) Bishonen | Talk 09:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've now run out of sources on, and exhausted my own knowledge of, the quake's philosophical consequences. I guess it would be undecorous to continue my own objection until someone more knowledgeable than me showed up, so I'm striking it. The article is pretty good now, and can continue to improve later. Bishonen, thanks for the kind words; you can decide if this looks good enough for a featured article in its current state. -- Rbellin|Talk 16:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

maybe I put too much emphasis on that (God/atheism), but the problem was really trying to find the ultimate cause of this evil thing that happened, viz the earthquake killing people, etc. The modern viewpoint that natural disasters just occur without anyone being to blame for them (for whatever reason, including but not limited to divine punishment) developed as a result of lengthy arguments about the causes and blame for this earthquake. It is impossible to discuss this without delving into controversial philosophical and religious issues--this is why it generated so much discussion, because it WAS controversial.

Perhaps that is why I am reluctant to get involved here... I would have to describe C17 religious and philosophical viewpoints and arguments in a correct historical context, remain neutral, explain that they were historical views, and deal with people who took offense. In my opinion, the article would need to do these things in order to be completely successful, which is a tall order. WhiteC 20:51, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, even though this entry is my baby, I'm going to object for now, because I believe it should be made much better on a number of levels, including the historical and philosophical. Thanks, everyone, for putting those references onto the page; I have a little background myself in philosophy and look forward to following the syllabus. It will be a project of mine over the coming months. The Theresa Carpinelli controversy (described above) has piqued my interest and directed me to other resources I didn't know existed. Because Wikipedia is the second hit when a person googles "Lisbon earthquake", we deserve better before the 250th anniversary (November 1). Stay tuned.

I'm not the best with images and layout, and agree that the one added yesterday deserves to be a) larger and b) outfitted with a frame and caption. Perhaps -- even -- the central part of the image should be expanded as a "cameo." There are more images on the way. Also, if there are any Portuguese readers who can have a look the newly-published November 2004 book by Joao Duarte Fonseca (ISBN 972-8479-32-8, published by Argumentum in Lisbon under a UNESCO grant), I'm told its an excellent resource. Sandover 16:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Object but this should be actionable. This has nothing to do with the Washington Post controversy, where I withdrew my object after studying it carefully. Two issues: (1) the intro's prose is weird: The 1755 Lisbon earthquake took place on November 1, 1755 at 9:20 in the morning. It was one of the most destructive and deadly earthquakes in history, killing well over 100,000 people". (2) What were the actual answers to those questions at the "The birth of seismology" section? If the answers are somewhere they should be alluded to in the article. JuntungWu 06:14, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Update 2: Sandover, I'm glad to hear it, though I'm ready to support now. I did an emergency "religious minds"-ectomy myself, leaving a rather childish sentence that does not well introduce the next paragraph, please improve it. I actually meant the top image, I've enlarged it a little now. Please see what you think. Note that while the image is PD under the {{PD-art}} principle, the description on the image description page shouldn't be used unchanged for the image, because I think it's a copyvio (lifted from here, probably shouldn't be on the image description page either). Juntung, the prose you quote isn't weird in any obvious way (except it needed a comma, now supplied), could you specify what's wrong with it? Bishonen | Talk 07:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• It is most certainly not a copy-vio. The image comes from NISEE/Berkeley, not the site you pointed to, and I had a long telephone conversation with the head librarian there (as well as confirmation e-mail) before posting it to Wikipedia. Sandover 08:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Sandover...? The image is PD according to our policy, you don't actually need any permissions or head librarians for it. Let me expand the {{PD-art}} tag for you:

The two-dimensional work of art depicted in this image is in the public domain in the United States and in those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years. This photograph of the work is also in the public domain in the United States (see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.).

(Click on the Bridgeman link, it's very encouraging! :-)) The description on the image description page would seem to be a copyvio, that's all I was trying to say. It's taken verbatim from about.com. I was tempted to use the nice wording in it myself, but checked it out and saw it was a steal, that's why I thought I'd just caution others against improving my caption with it. Sorry it was confusing. Bishonen | Talk 10:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) P.S. Also, I was talking about the top image. Lisbon burning as seen from the tsunami-stricken harbor. I see that you're probably referring to the other one, the one that you uploaded, with a reference to NISEE. I haven't messed with that. The engraving of the harbor is the one I enlarged. Anyway, both of them are PD. Bishonen | Talk 11:08, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)