Talk:Minstrel/Archive 1

Questionable edits

I think these uncited anonymous changes are basically wrong, but I don't really know the topic well enough to say. The notion of calling, say a 19th century (or later) street singer a "minstrel" in any but a metaphoric sense seems wrong to me. I'd appreciate if someone who knows more about the history of music would weigh in. I'm going to tag it with {{expert}}. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, though googling certainly doesn't confirm it. Tuf-Kat 02:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

GOOGLE IS THE FINAL WORD ON EVERYTHING! Fuck Google, it's hardly the source of all knowledge. If you know something and Google doesn't say it then trust yourself and hunt out another source, if you've time... Anyway, a less offensive but likely equally unimportant point is that the same photo of a "modern-day troubadour" is being used for a "modern-day minstrel". Which is he meant to be? Given the distinction between the two that I had always assumed and that the Googling wonders of Wikipedia seem to confirm, he can hardly be both. Unless he's neither... (The argument from whoever posted the photo will be "But he's playing the same music". So what? The mediaeval minstrels played much of the same music as the mediaeval troubadours and there's a distinction.)88.66.62.104 23:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Since this mostly plausible massive uncited unwikified anonymous addition also removes external links and interwikis and sneaks in the words "butt sex", I'm going to guess that it is plagiarised from somewhere and is basically vandalism, so I am reverting. - Jmabel | Talk 03:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ha! It was just rearranged paragraphs from this very article. - Jmabel | Talk 03:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Can we get a picture from a manuscript or something, instead of the pseudo-parodic RenFair fellow? Chubbles (talk) 01:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! An authentic historic depiction would be A Good Thing.

65.213.77.129 (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

also found in wind?

In the See also section there is a link to the Minstrel's Gallery article, followed by the parenthetical remark "(also found in wind)". The article link makes sense, but what does "also found in wind" mean? If someone knows what it's trying to say could they fix it to make it a little less cryptic? Otherwise I'll just take it out. Eleanorquantifier (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

COMPLETE REWRITE

It is my intention to completely rewrite the 'Minstrels' entry correcting many factual errors, including new information and removing sections or entries that are not related to what I understand to be an historical article about Minstrels. I feel reasonably qualified to do this because of my extensive reading on the subject. This revamp may take a while and the article may not be complete when you see it. I will post here to say when I have made all the changes I see fit. Happy to receive constructive comments about my changes Robynthehode (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)