User talk:Jbmurray/Archive 19
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Restoring unsourced content
Is it really becoming of an administrator to restore unsourced content to an article? Do you want me to provide scans of the sources that are being cited, so that you can see how they do not align with the text? I can do that, if you want me to. RGloucester — ☎ 03:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- It is not unsourced content. You have a disagreement about the sources, and their use in the article. As I've said on the talkpage, I find your arguments strange at best. But the point here is that in no way is the wholesale deletion you undertook a question of removing "unsourced content." It's gutting the article in the name of some strange idée fixe of your own creation. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- It is unsourced. I'm sorry if you're not willing to go to a library and slave over texts like I am, but the fact remains, the sources do not support the text. I can provide scans for you, and it will be apparent. Do you want them? RGloucester — ☎ 04:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
reason
Re: "Why everything has since blown up, I'm not quite sure." Long story. Part of it is the [1]. (Scroll down to Eric Corbet (2). This has now disappeared as it was closed with no block and the filer was cautioned not to file there.) Rationalobserver filed this request to block Eric Corbet two days after this editor was blocked for 48 hours per comments at WER. The filing editor used the same discretionary sanction violation. (See [2] and scroll down to Eric Corbett, blocked by Sandstein and habbed.[3] She has filed ANI requests and polarised editors among other things. EChastain (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
On Historiography and Historical Narrative
On page 113 Rarick ascribes motivation to Native Americans that his notes do not provide a source for. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- As I've said, I'm not particularly interested in further discussing Rarick. As such, I'm changing the section title. From your comments, it sounds as though you may be interested in a broader and at the same time more thorough-going discussion of the problems of historiography and (particularly) the writing of historical narrative. If that's the case, then let's do it. If not, that's fine too, but we can bring this chat to a speedy close. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
According to this, "When you write a historical narrative, you combine fiction with nonfiction." Is this inaccurate, or just overly generalized? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- That's a terrible source. As I've been suggesting, let's try with a real book, shall we? I've suggested E H Carr or Hayden White. But I'm open to other ideas. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sure you're right. Which book should I look at first? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- At a glance, White looks controversial, and the subject far from settled. Is it your position that Wikipedia should adopt his approach wholesale? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- "Hayden White's diagnosis of history as constructed narrative has wreaked permanent damage to traditional conceptions of history, philosophy, and narrative alike; it is no longer the moment simply to assess that damage, but rather to respond to it with new proposals and new creativity, something this extraordinarily stimulating collection does in exemplary fashion." – [4] Fredric Jameson, William A. Lane, Jr. Professor, Duke University, USA. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed, White is--or was in his time--fairly controversial. But even in Carr, who's as traditional as you can get, there's an understanding that history can't simply be a matter of "just the facts." White merely pushes that understanding a little further; further perhaps than some historians would want. And yes, as it happens, I think that one of Wikipedia's weaknesses is that it can sometimes be too literalist. But White's position is not that we should abandon history, or the attempt to deal seriously and carefully with historical sources. It's just that (to simplify) we shouldn't feel quite so comfortable when we do so: all narrative is by its very nature a distorsion; and yet narrative is inevitable, we can't do without it. NB, though, that there's a distinction between narrative and fiction; it's not that everything's somehow "made up."
- But let's start with Carr. I see there's a pdf here. I'll commit to reading at least chapter one, "The Historian and His Facts," by Monday. Do you want to do the same? While we're at it, we can see if we can improve the relevant article, too. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm going to be pretty busy this weekend, but if I don't read the chapter by Monday I will read it on Monday. Thanks for being willing to explain this to me. I appreciate your effort, and I promise it won't be a waste of time! Rationalobserver (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, if I'm following, the schools that demand facts free of interpretation are Positivists and Empiricists. Lord Acton suggests that interpretation is necessary, and even advocates what we might call synth: "our Waterloo must satisfy French, English, German, and Dutch". Houseman says "accuracy is a duty, not a virtue". Scott says "facts are sacred, opinion is free." What Parsons is talking about is a kind of intellectual cherry-pick, where facts are only important after the historian selects them, thus the historian "fills the sack" so it can stand on its own, influencing the final product. It's an interesting point that history is made up of selections of facts that do not necessarily paint the whole picture; e.g., much of what we know about ancient Greece comes from the Athenians, but other perspectives are overshadowed if not completely forgotten. Barraclough's asserts that history is not a collection of facts, but rather a collection of judgments. I think this pertains to the Donner Party especially well. In much the same way, Bernhard's story has been shaped by judgment and circumstance, not mere facts alone. "Imaginative understanding" sounds like "know your audience", and it helps shape what facts are included in a history, and what importance they hold. Collingwood and Nietzsche are basically saying that all facts are influenced by the opinions of those who record the facts. Clark suggests that input and output are equal partners, and if you try to over emphasize one or the other you are risking a heresy. Is this primarily about balance? Clark: "The historian without his facts is rootless and futile; the facts without their historian are dead and meaningless." How close am I to understanding this chapter? Rationalobserver (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Great! I'll get back to you on this tonight, maybe late-ish (Pacific Time). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Precious again
Latin American literature
Thank you for quality articles on Latin American literature such as The General in His Labyrinth, on academic background, for teaching, knowing "potential pitfalls", in teamwork, for your "attempt to keep to a zero revert rule", but improve instead, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (7 April 2009, 26 June 2009)!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
A year ago, you were the 823rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Kidd Pivot Logo
Hi Jbmurray. In 2012 you uploaded the Kidd Pivot logo ("link here") to Wikipedia, with the copyright notice that it could only be used on the Kidd Pivot Wikipedia Page.
I was hoping to also use this logo for the Crystal Pite page (as she founded the company). How would we go about getting copyright permission to also use it on Pite's page?
Hello from the team at Featured article review!
We are preparing to take a closer look at Featured articles promoted in 2004–2010 that may need a review. We started with a script-compiled list of older FAs that have not had a recent formal review. The next step is to prune the list by removing articles that are still actively maintained, up-to-date, and believed to meet current standards. We know that many of you personally maintain articles that you nominated, so we'd appreciate your help in winnowing the list where appropriate.
Please take a look at the sandbox list, check over the FAs listed by your name, and indicate on the sandbox talk page your assessment of their current status. Likewise, if you have taken on the maintenance of any listed FAs that were originally nominated by a departed editor, please indicate their status. BLPs should be given especially careful consideration.
Thanks for your help! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Please respond at Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/sandbox#Pinging next round; thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Entry you edited previously
Hi! I think you were the last main editor of the entry on Brian Leiter, having added a useful section on the fall 2014 controversy. But an edit war has erupted since, with another editor trying to turn the article into an article about the controversy, and completing ignoring your work and misrepresenting the RS cited. You may want to take a look. Thanks.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I have half an eye on it but am not too keen to intervene. In part for lack of time, but I have also received multiple emails from Leiter himself about the article, which I didn't really appreciate. I'm sure there are many vested interests trying in various ways to influence things. It's a time sink, and sadly, as always on Wikipedia, the ones who have the energy to stay the course are those who feel they have most at stake. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Canada and United States affiliates meetup
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
You are invited to attend the Canada and United States affiliates meetup at Wikimania 1015, Friday, July 17 at 17:30 and Saturday, July 18 at 18:00. Please RSVP and state your topic preference(s)!
| ||||||||
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
Nomination for deletion of Template:NRG
Template:NRG has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Latin American barnstar
|
The Latin American Barnstar | |
| For your hard work on Latin American literature, I proudly present this barnstar to you! ¡Buenisimo! Erick (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC) |
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Block Notice
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Mike V • Talk 03:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Jbmurray (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
There is no way that any reasonable person would think that with this edit I contravened WP:BLP. After all, a clunky reading of that policy would get the entire page in question deleted as an exercise in impersonation. More to the point, the fact that Mike V seems unable or unwilling to address my points, and rather to make a clearly involved block to resolve what is effectively a content dispute, is dismaying. Finally, in any case I have clearly not been blocked for violating WP:BLP; if so, the original author of the text I restored would have been blocked. I have simply been blocked for having a different reading of WP:BLP than Mike V does and daring to say so. jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC). See below for a more laboured explanation of one aspect of why this block is wrong-headed.
Accept reason:
Looks like you've already been unblocked per consensus at ANI. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Satire
From the OED:
satire, n. Pronunciation: Brit. /ˈsatʌɪə/ , U.S. /ˈsæˌtaɪ(ə)r/
I. A literary composition, and related senses. 1. a. A poem or (in later use) a novel, film, or other work of art which uses humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize prevailing immorality or foolishness, esp. as a form of social or political commentary. Freq. with on, of, against.Originally distinguished from lampoon in being directed at a fault rather than at a person who has that fault, though there is now considerable overlap between the two terms.
To labour the point... Any halfway-decent reader would recognize that The Lady Catherine de Burgh is an account created for the purposes of satire. It claims to be the voice of an "author, stateswoman, Wikipedian and lady" who "was born 1st January 1910 at Scrotum House, Grosvenor Square, London, the youngest daughter of Phimosis Bonkbuster, 14th Earl of Scrotum (1860–1930) and his wife the former Arabella Wyndham-Berkshire." In short, the tone adopted is of an upper-class woman of leisure from a rather distant age.
As such, the Lady Catherine uses "humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule" to expose what she (or rather, her author) sees as the peccadilloes of Wikipedia and Wikipedians. You may or may not find such humour amusing; you may or may not agree with her critiques. So be it. But the genre in which she is writing (or in which she is written) is quite clear.
In line with this general mission, the Lady wrote a user's guide to the current Arbcom election, in which she comments on the various candidates in the style to which she is accustomed: of Drmies, for instance, "my third husband was short in stature too"; of Keilana, "Obviously she had very sensible parents and I suspect some good breeding"; and so on and so forth.
Along the way, she put in an aside about the current Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, to whom she referred as "that revolting, little Mr Corbyn." This, of course, is precisely the way in which you might expect an aristocratic Englishwoman to regard Mr Corbyn--or indeed, any other leader of the Labour party. It is part and parcel of the style and prejudice of such a person, in line with her comments about husbands, maids, Napoleon Bonaparte, not to mention the candidates themselves.
Again, any halfway-decent reader would recognize this fact. And if they could not, then to be honest the entirety of the Lady Catherine's output must remain utterly unintelligible to them. The author is not claiming (in encyclopedic style) that Corbyn in fact is revolting. He or she is simply claiming that his invention, the Lady Catherine, is precisely the kind of person who would think such a thing... and indeed, that this reveals rather more about the Lady Catherine than it does about Corbyn.
None the less, an administrator who goes by the moniker of Mike V, whose account I scarcely believe to be intended as satire or parody (though I am beginning to have my doubts), decided that this was a violation of Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of Living People. He thus eliminated this reference. I reverted him, pointing out the page's satirical style. He reverted me, and then another editor who made precisely the same point. When I reverted once more, suggesting that the way such things are done on Wikipedia is through discussion, he promptly blocked me.
Now, I hardly find this block to be much of a bother: it's not as though I am editing all that frequently these days. But I find such officious, kneejerk implemention of poorly-understood policy without thought or discussion to be somewhat alarming.
Moreover, just as the Lady Catherine's comments tell us more about her as a literary creation rather than making any claim to the truth of what she says about Corbyn, so Mike V's block tells us more about him than about me. I am surprised to see that a fairly seasoned editor does not have a clue as to how satire works, and thus that this admin, oversighter, and checkuser is also someone who is essentially unable to read with any competence.
(Full disclosure: I am paid to read for a living; I am also what many would regard as a Corbynista; oh, and I come from Manchester.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- A rather concerning misuse of the tools, some would argue...Irondome (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- It's satire. This block is a mistake. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with above that this block was a mistake. This should probably be reviewed at Administrator Noticeboard/Incidents.--MONGO 06:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Not that you want the drama Jbmurray, but this is a terrible block and needed review so I posted to AN/I here.--MONGO 07:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Stunningly misjudged block. No way is this a BLP issue. pablo 06:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- This is all very unfortunate, but rather proves my strongly held beliefs that Wikipedia is falling under the spell of communist agitators and such like; it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see that funny little man with the unfortunate haircut for North Korea topple poor dear Mr Wales from his throne; he's probably already running fro arbcom in disguise. This is just the thin end of the wedge, I expect that odd American administrator who is "Mrs Pankhurst's" sidekick will turn up next and try to assassinate me like the poor Romanoffs. I thought Communism was illegal in America anyway; why don't they enforce their laws properly - it's all very well singing and saluting their star spangled banner, they need to wave it wack some some of these Bolshies over the head with it. I suggest some sane person in authority releases this poor editor toute de suite! The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- A serious case of overreaction. I have opened a discussion on the talk page here. I never thought I would be discussing something on the talk page of a subpage of the userpage of a joke account on Wikipedia. I am ashamed of myself. Kingsindian ♝♚ 07:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Stunningly bad block, particularly since it's coming from a cu and election commissioner. Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I have unblocked per the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block review. Both sides could probably have handled this better (edit warring over a satire page?), but the block was clearly way too heavy-handed for what was a joke (even if one would consider it a poor or ill-advised one). Fram (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- I realise Argumentum ad Jimbonem is not a great idea, but when Jimbo started to put more pressure on adhering to BLPs back in 2006, one of the examples he gave was "Wikipedia has grown in size to the point that many people who are NOT particularly famous have an article. It is easy to understand that supporters and opponents of George W. Bush will keep an eye on his article and make sure it do" [5] As the official leader of the opposition of a major first world country, and one who has far more problems well documented in the news right now than a bit of light-hearted satire on a joke page, I would say that Corbyn is right up there with Bush in terms of "particularly famous" and hence this whole incident is exactly what BLP was not supposed to be about. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, all. As I've just said over at ANI... Having rather needlessly contributed to such drama, I pledge to write some content today as penance. I have but a couple closing observations: 1) it perhaps bears repeating that the Lady's guide was not "insulting our article subjects." As I explain at some length, any halfway-competent reader would realize immediately that the guide's author (hint: this was not the Lady Catherine de Burgh) if anything meant quite the opposite. 2) Even if it were insulting (and again, it most definitely wasn't), it wouldn't have been defamatory. Some people need to re-read the BLP policy, and the reasons for it, a little more carefully. Of course, it would still have been totally inappropriate in article space; but not for reasons of BLP.
I had thought of adding a few further sections here, on "irony" or "defamation," for instance. But now I am free to write elsewhere on the encyclopedia today, I feel I should do so. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
License tagging for File:Ratto-trasfondo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Ratto-trasfondo.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
DYK for Patricia Ratto
 | On 19 December 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Patricia Ratto, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Argentine author Patricia Ratto's novel Trasfondo depicts life on a submarine during the Falklands/Malvinas War? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Patricia Ratto. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
This case shall be suspended from December 22nd, 2015 to January 2nd, 2016.
For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 20:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
| | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |