This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jbmurray. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I was wondering if you would like to help me write a dispatch on plagiarism for the Signpost. After working at DYK for a few days, I've realized that we need to make the discussion about plagiarism much more visible. Awadewit (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to invite you to this podcast about using Wikipedia as an educational tool. I know you know something about that! Awadewit (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Sources
JB, I went to the library today and I found these additional sources that say the Church claimed as its title Catholic Church. Two of them use the word "exclusively" please see:
1)From The Oxford English Dictionary, 1978, Oxford University Press, Volume II, C, ISBN0198611013, page 186 Definition of "Catholic":
(a)After the separation, assumed by the Western or Latin Church, and so commonly applied historically.(b)After the Reformation in the 16th c. claimed as its exclusive title by that part of the Western Church which remained under Roman obedience.
2)From The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church by F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, Oxford University Press, 1997 ISBN 01921165x, Definition of "Catholic" page 305:
"(3)In historical writers, of the undivided Church before the schism of E. and W., traditionally dated in 1054. Thereafter the W. Church usually referred to itself as 'catholic', the E. preferring to describe itself as 'orthodox'. (4)Since the Reformation RCs have come to use it of themselves exclusively."
3)From The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism general editor Richard McBrien and some of the 280 authors are listed here [1] published in 1995 by HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. ISBN0060653388, Definition of "Catholic" page 240: "
"However, the use of the word 'Catholic' became divisive after the East-West Schism of the eleventh century and the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth. The West claimed for itself the title Catholic Church, while the East, which broke the bonds of unity with Rome, appropriated the name Holy Orthodox Church. After the Reformation split, those in communion with Rome retained the adjective Catholic, while the churches that broke with the papacy were called Protestant."
If we include these with the 1995 Academic American Encyclopedia [[2] and the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica,[[3]] we now have a total of five sources saying the same thing - that the Church has claimed as its title Catholic Church and that the title is its exclusive title. I don't see how we can be expected to support Soidi's argument when these sources represent the most respected modern scholarship. NancyHeisetalk17:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Nancy, a few things:
First, personally (as I've said many times), I really don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not for or against either Catholic or Roman Catholic...
Second, as again I've observed frequently, it does seem that on the whole this is the same attitude taken by the vast majority of scholars and churchmen and women alike. We have made a mountain of a molehill in this discussion, and any footnote should observe that.
Third, as far as I'm concerned the debate on sources relates to what's in the main text. The footnote should be devoted to outlining the disagreement, rather than to proving one side or another right. As such, the quality of these new sources that you've come up with is not particularly relevant. But as you seem to want my opinion...
Fourth, these are all tertiary sources. They're not good sources. I would not, for instance, want a student of mine to cite a dictionary in an essay they wrote for me. I would not expect to cite a dictionary or an encyclopedia in any scholarly essay that I wrote.
Fifth and finally, then, in the absence of any definitive discussion (Whitehead points to such a discussion, but because he doesn't cite any sources himself, his position is weak), the note has to say that in some respect the question of the official title remains unclear.
Really, it would be nice to have some kind of scholarly discussion of, say, the debates at Vatican I to which Whitehead refers. I have looked for that discussion, although admittedly haven't done primary research in a library, and can't find anything of relevance. Again, however, the fact that it is so hard to find serious discussion of this debate shows, I think, its relative marginality.
Again, I think that the footnote can (and should) be very simple: it should say that the balance of evidence is that "Catholic Church" is the usual title, but that there can be and are dissenting views, and that the institution is known by a number of different names in different contexts. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
So your position is to toss these sources as reliable references? Even the Catholic Encyclopedia and McBriens latest 2008 book entitled "The Church" for which we do not have a bad review? How about using them as evidence of the fact that there is no scholarly debate over the name of the church since all of these sources say the same thing - that the Church has claimed "Catholic Church as its title"? JB, I have a problem with putting information into the note that is created by pure speculation of Wikipedia editors who cite original documents and then have zero scholarly sources to back them up. I have a problem with tossing the only scholarly sources put forth and a virtual wall of encyclopedias, Catholic writers and worldwide Catholic media that all state the same clear and important fact regarding the Church's name. I think you are being very unhelpful. We have been pestered for months on this issue and I would have gladly gone with some wording that Soidi and Gimmetrow wanted if it could be referenced but that has not turned out to be the case, in fact, I am being asked to agree to wording that goes against modern scholarship and relies on OR instead. I do not understand why you came to the page or what you are proposing. NancyHeisetalk19:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Nancy, these are not good sources. Again, if you want to talk sources... really the only two halfway decent secondary sources are the two books by McBrien, who is by some distance the most competent scholarly authority that anybody has come up with to date. I note, however, that you have repeatedly argued against taking the first book by McBrien seriously, though now consistently champion the second. I have explained at length to you why and how you have misinterpreted the review you read of McBrien's earlier book.
I have no interest in speculation. I have described repeatedly and with great clarity what I think the note should do. In brief (and to repeat myself once more): it should defuse all this argumentation, rather than further inflame it. It's very simple.
As for what is helpful or otherwise... As far as I can see (and I've repeatedly said this, too), what's unhelpful is to go round endlessly in circles repeating the same arguments ad infinitum. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The note
jbmurray: On the mediation talk page, you say "... it beggars belief (to me) that a footnote should in turn have footnotes." I can well understand why you would say this. However, the guideline states very clearly that we must use objective criteria and reliable sources in a naming conflict. The note is, thus, a way of documenting what criteria and sources we have used. How best to do this is yet to be determined. We have to state our sources or criteria. If we don't want to use footnotes, we could use one of the other styles for presenting citations. Let me know your further thoughts on this. Sunray (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Sunray, my point is that this footnote should be explanatory, and so should be clear and simple. Obviously, I have nothing against either objective criteria or reliable sources, but by debating sources we're putting the cart before the horse, and encouraging the continuance of this argument in which everyone's either trawling for new sources they hope will support their particular point of view, or continuing to shout past each other about the same few not very good sources that have long been on the table. Once more, the point is to decide on what this note is going to say, and how it should say it. The sources can be added, as unobtrusively as possible, thereafter where necessary. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Good point. It seems that all too often participants veer off into "my source is better than yours" type arguments. However, the advantage of insisting on sources is that they are a reference point other than a participant's subjective opinion. Some participants will, no doubt, continue to grind axes. Still, in all, the group has made great progress. In fact, I would say we are really just agreeing on finishing touches. The key is that we are building consensus. Whenever someone brings up a concern and someone else takes it seriously and adapts the product, the consensus gets stronger. Sunray (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Recall clerking
I'm an admin who is open to recall and my recall system uses uninvolved clerks to remove the personal bias from the process. Recently one of my clerks, Sarcasticidealist (talk·contribs) retired from editing. I've seen you around and you seem like a nice guy, and we don't interact that much, so I was wondering if you would be willing to serve as a clerk? MBisanztalk00:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Jbmurray has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Jbmurray's day!
For your groundbreaking work on the educational use of Wikipedia,
enjoy being the Star of the day, Jbmurray!
If you'd like to show off your awesomeness, you can use this userbox.
Thank you
For writing a decent note for the RCC name issue, hopefully this issue can be put to rest soon. Sorry I got upset with you earlier but you really are annoying sometimes, especially when you trash my sources. NancyHeisetalk22:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for this, Nancy. Much appreciated. We are all on the same "side" here, I hope: we both want this to be the best article that it can be. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who took the time and trouble to take part in my RfA whether support, oppose or neutral. All comments are valued and will be considered carefully in the coming weeks. Feel free to add more advice on my talk page if you think I need it. SpinningSpark00:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC) In case you're wondering, the image is a smiley, just a little more aesthetic, but not as serious as the Mona Lisa
No problem, and apologies... That article gets so much silly but minor vandalism, but I should have been more alert. Thanks for the correction. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Help with cite
Hi Jbmurray, hope you are doing well. I am having trouble with getting {{Harvnb}} working properly on a cite with multiple authors, it is the "Latkin" cite at the article Rajneesh movement, perhaps you could take a look? Cirt (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The name is Jon, Jon Murray; shaken, but not stirred
Finish what you started, Mr. Bond, or SPECTRE may have the last laugh :-) Geometry guy22:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC) (Those were individual reassessments: if you intended to start community reassessments, please let me know.)
Yes, although it might be helpful for future editors if as well as delisting, you added some further comments to your reassessment reviews. A comprehensive review is not needed: just indications of a few things that should be fixed before renomination. Geometry guy20:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I stress, this is asking very little: the Golden gun review already has several suggestions, so could be closed as it is, though one or two more sentences would be welcome; the Live and Let Die review doesn't need much because the article is so far from meeting the criteria, but a three sentence review is a bit sad and a paragraph would be more encouraging. Geometry guy21:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
OTRS invitation
The OTRS system is looking for trusted volunteers to help staff our Spanish info and permissions queues. I would like to invite you to look over what OTRS involves and consider signing up at the volunteering page. Thank you. MBisanztalk14:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Jbmurray/Archive 12 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Jbmurray/Archive 12's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Jbmurray/Archive 12!
Please add them to your watchlist, stop by, and so forth. The latter page has a couple of logistical issues that we should discuss sooner rather than later, so I'd appreciate if you could find some time to comment on them.
Yay, we've missed you. FAC is getting a higher workload of articles, and Sandy was, for a while, looking for good reviewers. You're one of the best, so that's good. :) ceranthor21:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Brown wasn't a dictator, he was a businessman, and therefore dictatorial. And the book said 'sex organ', not penis, and since it's a quotation, I think it should stay as is. Feel free to revert this, I've said my piece. Czolgolz (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Hola Jbmurray, disculpa si realicé el traslado de la página sin mencionarlo en la página de discusión, ya lo mencioné y di referencias necesarias como base de justifición para volver a redireccionarlo. Estaré tratando de arreglar un poco el artículo y las categorías relacionadas a él. Gracias por tu aviso, saludos. --Kanon6917 (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
i see you have been removing some links i added... why? i added "david rock" to the disambiguation page, but someone removed it because there were no links to it. so i added the links, but then you removed them. i could create the article, but there would be no links and no disambiguation page that linked to it... so someone could tell me that it's not notable. it's a never-ending cycle.--camrnag19:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I see you've reverted some recent "vandalism" to the Dave's Farm article. It accused the owner of the farm, David Rock, of being a pedophile. Anyways, I thought I'd draw a little additional attention to this, as some of the vandal's links link to police reports that seem real.
This information has appeared about 3 times in as many days.
Anyways, David Rock, is a youtube celebrity and the most popular Canadian content. He runs a farm, that seems to attract a fair number of young people. So, I do think there is a public safety issue (maybe not the domain of wikipedia), but also maybe a libel issue as he is an 'entertainer' and the documents are the only source for this information.
I put a link to the document in the talk page of the Dave's Farm article. Which raises another issue, the documents are not well redacted and I have concerns about protecting the identities of victims of sexual abuse. --Lightenoughtotravel (talk) 03:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I have some concerns about the text on liberation theology in the article Catholic Church. According to NancyHeise, you wrote this text. Could you look at the discussion on the Talk Page and give us your thoughts on the issues that I raised? Thanx. --Richard (talk) 05:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you please point out the sources in the Catholic Church article that you think are not good sources? You have accused me of arguing with people over sources. I do that sometimes. I remember doing it with you when you wanted us to use a book by Richard McBrien, (Catholicism) that has been condemned by the USCCB as containing inaccuracies and has numerous bad reviews from fellow scholars. I hope you are not referring to this argument you and I had - that was posted on the now deleted Catholic Church mediation regarding the name. NancyHeisetalk18:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Nancy, really this is simply another instance of a) the way in which your apologies are half-hearted at best and b) the way in which you consistently miss the point. Sometimes you miss the point so badly that it leaves me scratching my head in amazement.
As it happens, I do disagree with you about the McBrien book (your attitude to it was a good example of the way in which you do not understand how scholarship works, and the way in which you misread book reviews, for instance). But I wasn't thinking about that at all; that particular dispute is long water under the bridge. The issue here is not the specific sources: as I said at your RfC, this is not a content dispute. This is about how you react to content disputes. You need to understand that.
Let me simply repeat the point I made to you before, and also pointed out at the RfC, but which for some reason you consistently ignore. Wikipedia is a place for collaborative editing. There are a number of knowledgeable and well-intentioned editors--Hamarkheru is merely the most recent--with whom you have chosen to have a scrap rather than work constructively. This does not help you, and certainly does not help the chances of Catholic Church becoming a Featured Article.
I have once again taken Catholic Church (and indeed your RfC) off my watchlist. It becomes draining and counterproductive to continue on in the battleground atmosphere for which, I believe, you are very much (if not solely) responsible. I admire the patience of someone like Karanacs--I know you believe for some reason that she is your enemy; she is absolutely not. And, as I have consistently said for months if not years now, I wish you and the article all the best. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
JB, you accused me of arguing with people over sources. I stated that I remember arguing with you over the use of Richard McBrien's Catholicism. You wanted us to use that book in the article. You insisted that it is a good source. I showed you that the book has been condemned not only by the USCCB [9] but other scholarly peers of Richard McBrien.[10] They all condemned the book as containing inaccuracies. Yet somehow I am wrong to argue with you or anyone else about sources when you are suggesting these? I posted a note on your talk page a short while ago because you have made a very unkind accusation about me on my Rfc instituted by Karanacs. If I am so difficult to work with as you describe, then how do we have such a great article at Catholic Church? What sources listed in its bibliography do you think are not good enough to be there? I think you are not addressing my question because there is no way to support your accusation.NancyHeisetalk21:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
(copied from your talk page:) Nancy, let me put this as simply as I can. The issue is not your arguing over sources. Of course, there are going to be differences of opinion and point of view. I continue to differ with you about McBrien. But I am not going to argue that now. That is a content dispute, and it is not what concerns us at your RfC. The problem is the way in which you react to content disputes. And yes, you are doing it again right now by presenting yourself as the victim of so-called "unkind accusation[s]."
Again, look at the comment to which I repeatedly try to draw your attention. That comment is not about sources so much as it is about the way in which you deal with editors with whom you disagree. Specifically, that comment is a response to your statement to Hamarkheru that "you have to try to convince us you are correct by giving us decent quotes and sources to oppose ours." You immediately set things up as "you" against "us," "your sources" against "our sources." And your sources have to "oppose" our sources. This is confrontational, unhelpful, uncollaborative, and is what helps contribute (as per the RfC) to this "battlefield mentality." Please stop it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jbmurray. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
