User talk:Coemgenus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives: 2005 | 2006
[edit] My Edit Count
[edit] Wikipedia survey
Hi. I'm doing a survey of Wikipedia editors as part of a class research project. It's quick, anonymous, and the data will be made available to the Wikipedia community later this month. Would you like to take part? More info here. Thanks! Nonplus 23:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Inclusion of the episcopal succession
I object to the inclusion of episcopal succession charts:
- If they are obtained from Catholic Hierarchy which is © David M. Cheney 2005, it is not fair use, but a copy. Without a declaration from the copyright holder, I believe it to be a violation of his copyright.
- If they are obtained from any other source, that source should be credited.
- In these biographical articles of bishops, their immediate consecrator might be mentioned in the article text, but the rest of the historical episcopal lineage is irrelevant except in the case where it is disputed. That refers to the validity of orders.
- Who they consecrated is likewise irrelevant.
- The succession box for the office held by the bishop (i.e. diocesan ordinary, curial appointment) on the other hand is relevant.
- If Cheney makes a correction, how is that propagated back to the Wikipedia mirror?
- If a Wikipedia reader detects an error, how is that communicated back to Cheney?
- Biographical articles on bishops should focus on what they did, not their status.
In general, I oppose "pump and dump" from other reference sources into the Wikipedia. It makes the Wikipedia someone else's content fork and it's cheap content.
The greater problem faced by Catholic Wikipedians is the locked-in exclusion of obvious facts such as "The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ" in favor of "scholars have shown the Catholic Church was not founded by Jesus Christ." There is no problem at all connecting the 21st century Catholic hierarchy to the 17th century Catholic hierarchy.
With reference to the Cardinal Spellman article: It's is a terrible article for one who had so much influence both in the Catholic Church but also in the history of New York and the United States. It is not helped by the adding a huge text block of his episcopal lineage. It's sad that Spellman's bio doesn't draw the interest of Catholic Wikipedians for improving the article, but only the interest of homosexual advocates for the detraction of Spellman's character. I hope to put some more time into the Spellman article. Tragically, only the Cooney biography is available as a resource and even there, the obsession is with the rumors and hearsay excluded from the text. patsw 16:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
The state of the Cardinal Spellman article is disappointing, I agree. I don't know much about him, and I hope you are able to find more information to fill out the article. As to the matter of the succession:
- I disagree with your contention that the information is copyrighted. These are historical facts, not artistic expressions. As the Wikipedia article on copyright states, "Copyright law covers only the particular form or manner in which ideas or information have been manifested, the "form of material expression". It is not designed or intended to cover the actual idea, concepts, facts, styles, or techniques which may be embodied in or represented by the copyright work." (emphasis added) You're right that is it not fair use: fair use is an exception to the copyright rules; this situation concerns something (facts) outside of those works altogether. A photograph of the website, on the other hand, would likely be a copyright violation. A similar question (about far more questionable material) was recently litigated in Baigent v. Random House
- I disagree also that the episcopal lineage is "irrelevant" to the article. This manifestation of the legacy of the Church is part of the essential character of a bishop. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, "To fulfill their exalted mission, 'the apostles were endowed by Christ with a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit coming upon them, and by the imposition of hands they passed on to their auxilliaries the gift of the Spirit, which is transmitted down to our day through episcopal consecration.'" (#1556). A reader of the article might be interested in something so important.
- You say that "the historical episcopal lineage is irrelevant except in the case where it is disputed." This troubles me, because it would mean that the only place an episcopal lineage could be researched on Wikipedia would be when it was the lineage of a schismatic. Would you document those orders that are dubious and ignore those that are recognised? It would be a shame if the only examples of apostolic succession a researcher could find would be those of the most irregular sort.
- As for future possible discrepancies between Wikipedia and Catholic Hierarchy, I confess that I do not know the answer. I would hope that any Wikipedian who discovered a discrepancy would notify Mr. Cheney, but I can't be certain that he would. But the same could be said of any material that is documented both on Wikipedia and on another site. Wikipedia aims to be the "sum of human knowledge." What's wrong with adding some more?
--Coemgenus 18:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Source and copyright
- The question of copyright law is outside of my competence. Neither you nor I are going to resolve if Catholic-Hierarchy meets the threshold of originality criterion. It's a matter for the Wikipedia Foundation and David Cheney to work out should it come to that. As it stands now, David Cheney claims All Rights Reserved and in my reading of applicable Wikipedia policy is the we're obligated to honor that.
- Should you decide to honor Cheney's copyright and use the material under fair use, The Wikipedia has this boilerplate request to copyright holders for permission to incorporate material as fair use.
- As a moral matter, I believe you should have the permission of David Cheney to use his research and to let him decide how it should be copied and attributed. patsw 20:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Relevance
- The validity of the episcopal succession (e.s.) of a bishop is always relevant in the abstract — but as an editor of biographical articles on Catholic bishops, I would only include a discussion of the e.s. when it had been disputed. The actual detailed e.s. of a bishop, whose validity of orders is not questioned, is irrelevant and should be not included in a specific Wikipedia biographical article.
- As a matter of editing and creating good articles, it also brings up the question of how much weight should be given in terms of the text to a specific bishop's e.s. and what weight to what he did in his role as bishop. It would create a truly poor collection of articles to auto-format the Catholic-Hierarchy data on birth, ordination, assignments, and episcopal succession and add nothing else.
- No existing compiliation of biographical articles on Catholic bishops that I am aware of include each bishop's e.s.
- The general question of apostolic succession is covered in the article on Apostolic Succession which, compared to other religion articles, is quite compatible with Catholic teaching. patsw 20:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
We seem to be in disagreement, and I doubt further discussion between us will resolve it. Should we ask for a third opinion? I'd suggest a poll on the site, but I don't know that it gets enough traffic to give a good sample.
--Coemgenus 20:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've asked some experienced Catholic editors to have a look. patsw 02:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Hiya, having been asked to comment I want to say this:
- I have no clue about the copyright situation and hence no view on this.
- I don't think the "episcopal lineage" should be included into an individual bishops article, just as we don't include the complete succession list of his see (or sees). The same goes for secular rulers: we don't include the whole succession list or genealogies (which would be the parallel for the episcopal lineage). However, we may very well link to such lineages.
Str1977 (smile back) 11:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Some above average vandalism I came across
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Purcell&diff=prev&oldid=68926461
Destructive, sure, but it's more creative than most
--Coemgenus 02:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] August Esperanza Newsletter
|
|
|
[edit] Paul Kalmanovitz
Hey, thanks for creating the article on Paul Kalmanovitz. It's one of those that I'd been meaning to get around to, but never seemed to have the time. Anyway, thanks again. --Brownings 03:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, glad you liked it. I kept coming across his name in articles (Wikipedia and otherwise) about beer and thought he ought to be on here. --Coemgenus 02:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Tyrconnel.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Tyrconnel.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] September Esperanza Newsletter
|
|
|
[edit] Philly meetup
Hi, Coemgenus! There will be a Wikipedia Meetup in Philadelphia on 4 November. If you're interested in coming, RSVP by editing Wikipedia:Meetup/Philadelphia 2 to reflect the likelihood of your being able to attend. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Hopefully, we'll all see you (and each other) on the 4th! --CComMack (t•c) 17:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hope to see you there! --evrik 16:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Hi there Coemgenus. That was a very nice surprise to find on my talk page. I noticed you also made some improvements to the article - I hope you still like it. Thanks for your kind words on this little known war. It is much appreciated Raymond Palmer 21:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well spotted! I've re-uploaded the image. I thought the shaded boxes might be more controversial, but so far in the peer review no one's complained - it may even catch on! Although we'll see if the article goes for A-class review. Thanks for the help btw, there is alot of editing it seems. Raymond Palmer 19:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] November Esperanza Newsletter
|
|
|
[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Anne Hyde.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Anne Hyde.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 15:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What are the odds?
That we'd revert the same vandal on the same page within 3 minutes of each other? JCO312 21:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Niagara Falls JCO312 21:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Northeast Philadelphia
Sorry I missed that part in the Northeast....thought I got it all Shoessss 16:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Northeast News Gleaner
Stub created; feel free to fact-check. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
