User talk:Jbmurray/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This 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.


Contents

withdrawing was not the way to go a bad decision

Hi Jb,

You had Support from Tony (Good Granny! I don't recall ever seeing him Support), Awadewit, qp10p, Ceoil—Good Granny, the only endorsements missing are Abraham Lincoln, Mother Teresa and User:Jimbo. I didn't !vote, but my implicit Oppose based on WP:StubArticlesShouldNotBeFeatured was gonna get exactly zero traction. Carcharoth should not have attempted major restructuring of an ongoing FAC, but this could have been easily corrected with a little discussion, a revert, and C working in userspace (as mainspace workpages are expressly disallowed). I did exactly this in the RCC FAC, with no problems at all.

Withdrawing at that point is like coitus interruptus. You leave everyone hanging; in the worst case scenario, you open the door to hard feelings and finger-pointing! I think it was a bad decision. You were sailing to a virtually assured FA. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ping [1]: jbmurray, since I have no idea if anyone will see a talk-page comment on an archived FAC, I am letting one party know of its existence! –Outriggr § 07:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to the both of you. Outriggr, as it happened I already saw your comments. But I appreciate the ping. And I also appreciate the time you took to write them. Ling, thanks to you, too, for your thoughts.

As I've said on Ling's talk page, I do think a bit of a pause might be a good idea.

For the moment, let me just say the following:

  • I recognized that bringing this article to FAC was possibly controversial; I didn't realize just how controversial, but I didn't have any problems with the vast majority of the discussion that took place at FAC.
  • I was, as I said in my nomination and also later in FAC, trying to do something a little different with this article; I was trying out some things that I'd suggested elsewhere, working through a few theories about how I thought (and still think) certain Wikipedia articles could be written.
  • As such, and as I tried to say repeatedly at FAC, I had no problem at all with unactionable opposes. Moreover, I had no problem at all with the notion that this might fail because of unactionable opposes. If the consensus turned out to be that we did not want this kind of article to become featured (which is essentially what I read Outriggr as saying), then so be it. But I wanted us to have that discussion.
  • Given that, the problems I had with what Carcharoth did (and I understand he or she is watching this page, but I'm happy to copy this comment over to his or her talk page if necessary) were threefold.
    1. First, in general, this was a major revision in the middle of what was clearly a highly controversial FAC that had, within two days, attracted what on my computer were thirty screens worth of commentary and discussion. This inevitably led to instability, to Ceoil's revert, to Carcharoth's (partial) revert back, and the threat of further discussions about the very basics of the article's structure and so on.
    2. Second, and this is in some ways a minor point, I did happen to disagree with Carcharoth's revisions. I would have had to vote against featuring the article that emerged from them.
    3. But third, and this is the most important point, what Carcharoth did was to turn the article into... well, into a regular Wikipedia biography. And the whole point of my nomination was to try to suggest a different model. As such, the whole point of the exercise suddenly became moot.
  • I recognize that what Carcharoth did was in good faith, and was an attempt to respond to some of the suggestions at FAC, as well as no doubt to his or her ideal of how what the article should look like. However, I would have far rather that he or she had simply opposed at FAC. If that oppose, together with that of others (actionable or not) meant that the article, and as such the model I was trying to propose, failed, then so be it.
  • At the end of the day, I think that there are three possible ways forward:
    1. First, that we just leave the article alone, and it is what it is.
    2. Second, I invite Carcharoth (or whomever) to work on it as they see fit, and to bring it back to FAC at some point in the future. I would be happy to play no further part in the editing, though of course I would want to be able to comment at FAC, as at other FACs.
    3. Third, perhaps Carcharoth (and others) could allow me, and I would also hope to ask other editors such as Ceoil, Tony, Awadewit, Laser brain, Qp10qp‎, and others who seemed to believe in this approach, to try again: to bring the article back to the way it was and to continue working on it, along the same lines, and to take it again to FAC so we can try to have the debate again, and this time take it to its conclusion.

Anyhow, that's how I see it. It turns out that I said more than I thought I would. Other comments would be welcome. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, option 3 is preferable, obviously. Breathing space is probably a good idea; lets stand back, and come back to this in a while with more open minds. Ceoil (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm against breathing space. Each second that passes is one second closer to death. I say, make decisions now, and let the chips fall where they may. Facts are irrelevant. Wikipedians aren't paid to be right; we just need to make decisions. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Facts are irrelevant? Phew thats a relief; and makes citing so much easier! Anyway, there is a little tidying up left for the article yet, but I would be in favor of resubmission. I am also impatient about this kind of thing - result...NOW! Ceoil (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems only right and fair that we should wait for Carcharoth's response at this point. He or she may want to go for option two or option one; he or she may not like any of the options, or even the fact of presenting options at all. If, however, the possibility of further revision of Peter Wall looks likely, then I have a number of ideas of how to go ahead. If not, I think we should try to work on another article. I have a few ideas there, too. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I was being facetious. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't. Ceoil (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
My primary internet connection failed yesterday. :-( That is the reason I seem to have been a bit silent on this. I do have some responses (they will have to wait until later) but I'd like to just pick up on one point now: "the threat of further discussions" - I don't think discussions should ever be seen as a threat. My major concern here was that you flatly stated your objections without any indication that you were prepared to discuss them. If you had said "I will have time to discuss things later", or even "can we have a bit of breathing space", then that would have been fine. However, it felt to me that you were in some ways refusing to discuss things, and I found that very disorientating. Now you are once again discussing things on the talk page, this is no longer a problem. Could I just ask that you acknowledge my point about your brusque "thanks, but no thanks" (without explanation) approach, and whether you would do things differently in future? For the record, I've already said how I would do things differently in future. Carcharoth (talk) 07:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, and good to see you back. Quickly:
  • Let me clarify what I meant by "threat of further discussions." I didn't mean that you were "threatening" me (or anyone else), though re-reading I could see how you might see that. However, yes, I do think that "further discussions about the very basics of the article's structure" (to add back the full phrase I use above) threatened the stability of the article. As such, it began to fail criterion 1e of WP:WIAFA. Hence the withdrawal.
  • Maybe I could have reacted differently to what you did. I did try to open up a discussion off-wiki, which you declined (as was completely your right, of course). I was taken aback, and seeing the way things were unfolding, felt the best thing was simply to take the article off FAC and then return to it (or not) at a later stage.
Above, I've proposed ways to go about things in the future. I'd be interested to hear your response. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Will try to reply in more detail to the various points in the right location (discussion is getting a little bit spread out), but one point that struck me is that this is mainly a matter of presentation and style, and not content. The different versions of the article contain the same facts, but present them in a different way, a different order and in a different style. It is the extent and nature of those differences that determine how much the changes affect what a reader takes away from the article. My view is that both versions of the article are fundamentally acceptable, in that they present the same facts to the readers. Another point is that the version I came up with is not purely biographical. The contextual meat of the article, the "Wall Financial Corporation", "Vancouver real estate", "One Wall Centre", and "Other construction projects" sections were left untouched. In that sense, it would help me if you could explain how your "Biography" section helped with the "contextual" approach, and how placing that content there, before the other material, helped the article. But my comment here and your explanation should go on the article talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 09:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, presentation has a lot to do with the differences. On the other hand, I'm not sure about such a strict demarcation between presentation (style) and form. As for the "right location" for discussion, perhaps general issues and the question of where we go from here can be separated from the specific ones. I'm finding the article talk page impossibly cluttered. Though I'm sure that's mostly because I'm much slower than you, and like to go through things one by one. Again, part of my problem with what you did a few days ago was that it was such a major and abrupt change in the middle of an FAC devoted to discussing the article more or less as I had originally written it. That is no doubt why the criterion 1e is a good one: an FAC cannot continue if the article itself undergoes significant change in the course of the discussion. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent:) As I've indicated, it may be painstaking but I'll happily go through the individual edits if you want. This will be slow, but I'm prepared to do it if you feel it's important. But I would be grateful if at some point you were able to respond to the points I make above about the general way forward. That would be most useful to me. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs)

Taking your three points: (1) Leave the article alone - I think it can be improved following discussion, so I wouldn't be happy with that (though I some point I guess we will both lose interest and move on to other things). (2) I do lots of work on it - well, I am doing work on it, but not directly. I'm trying to get points resolved on the talk page, so I think we should go ahead with that. BTW, I laid out the stuff in sections so you could respond in those sections. If you did that, the talk page would be less cluttered! :-) (3) "to bring the article back to the way it was" and return to FAC - did you miss that the substantial changes I made were reverted? In my view, the article is already the "way it was". These are the changes that have been made since Ceoil's revert. If you can get "Ceoil, Tony, Awadewit, Laser brain, Qp10qp‎, and others" to agree to reverting any or all of the changes made since Ceoil's revert, then I would have no problem with that. But I don't think that is what you were suggesting. I do take your point about the 1997 date for the newspaper article, BTW, so I am going to make a change and see what you think (that is sometimes the best way to move things forward). Carcharoth (talk) 11:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Grand. I'm happy to leave you to continue with revising the article as you see fit. I do wish you all the best. Please feel free to give me a shout if at any point you think it is useful for me to take a look at it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I re-read the newspaper article, and would like your opinion on whether the following points are adequately made in the article:

  • "Like many of the 110,000 Hong Kong Chinese who came here over the last decade to escape the uncertainty in Hong Kong, Betty now dreams of going back, once she has the protection of a Canadian passport."
  • "For many Hong Kong Chinese, Vancouver is less a new home than a way station where they can safely keep their families and wealth while they wait to see what becomes of the island. Of course, the trip out of Hong Kong was one way for many exiles, and they are happily settled in Vancouver."
  • "But among the wealthiest immigrants, the only roots many have put down are in the billions of dollars they have pumped into the local economy. And the tentative nature of their residency here has led to friction and resentment."
  • ""No one really got out of Hong Kong," Hui said. "They just shifted their portfolios.""
  • "Many Chinese here say they are worried about recent attempts by the Chinese government even before July 1 to restrict civil liberties in Hong Kong. But they say they are even more worried about missing the chance to make money in Hong Kong, where housing prices are rising at the same time they are falling in Vancouver."
  • ""July '97 is not a date that has really changed anything," said Terry Hui, president of Concord Pacific Developments in Vancouver. The company, owned by Li Ka-shing, one of Hong Kong's richest tycoons, is making over a huge swathe of Vancouver's waterfront. About half of the 1,200 condominiums built so far have been sold to Hong Kong investors, who do not live in them."
  • "After the Tiananmen Square killings in 1989, panic over the coming takeover by the Chinese sent many Hong Kong families packing. They became rich overnight when they sold tiny apartments in Hong Kong for well over $1 million."

From re-reading the article, it seems that things are more complicated than the way it has been presented in the Peter Wall article. In particular, it is unclear how much is due to the panic after 1989 and how much is due to the 1997 handover date. Would you have any ideas how to address this? In my view, we need to stick to the clearly sourced and indisputable facts (immigration and property price rises), and make clear that the source you have quoted is not, in fact, clear on what the underlying causes are. And the Hui and Li Ka-shing bit is particularly interesting. Is he a bigger player in the real estate market than Peter Wall? Concord Pacific Developments and Terry Hui are redlinks, predictably. If there is less information about Hui and Concord Pacific, is it right that we have an article on Wall and Wall Financial because Wall more "colourful" and gets more coverage in the local Vancouver media? Li Ka-shing and Yaletown are interesting articles. Anyway, I just got your message on my talk page, so I'll stop waffling! :-) By sandbox, I meant a user subpage. And I've just realised I forgot to save this, so it might be all out of sequence. Consider this an early taking you up on your "Please feel free to give me a shout" offer, or an example of the perils of quoting from, or using, newspaper sources. Carcharoth (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not entirely sure of your specific questions. It might be good to look at all the sources used in that paragraph: the NYT emphasizes the post-1989 panic; the Georgia Straight emphasizes the handover; the Delany article stresses migration. Hence the Wikipedia article, correctly, includes all these as factors. (You might also note that this was a paragraph that underwent some distortions in copy-editing; look at this version, from when it went on FAC, for text that is more faithful to the sources. Had I continued to work on this article, I would have returned to these issues.)
As for whether Hui is or was more important than Wall, for this you can re-read the WP article itself, which establishes notability in ways that you would not be able to establish Hui's. Not least the fact that Wall built Vancouver's tallest building. I.e. Wall's notability is not premised on his colourfulness.
Otherwise, of course the article simplifies to some extent. That's part of our responsibility as encyclopedia editors. But you would need to look at the full range of the sources to get a decent idea of the actual situation, if you want to question the ways in which I've presented them. The sources very clearly, I believe, verify my presentation.
You may not have acccess to ProQuest. I'm happy, however, to email you copies of the articles used if you wish. I noted from your edit summaries that you had problems with some of the sources; I strongly disagree with your assessment of them, but that's your call as you re-write. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
From where I'm sitting, the NYT article doesn't emphasize the post-1989 panic. It mentions it along with a range of other factors, including the handover and economic stuff, and it makes the point that many are undecided. The title of the article is, after all "For Many From Hong Kong, Vancouver Is a Way Station". I don't have a copy of Delany, but I've looked at the Georgia Strait article, and that mentions both the handover and an economic factor: "Tens of thousands of people moved from Hong Kong to Vancouver in the late 1980s and early ’90s, concerned about the future of the then-British colony, which was going to be returned to China on July 1, 1997. In the late ’80s, there was also an investment boom from Hong Kong, triggered by concerns about what would become of the colony’s capitalist business culture after it reverted to China." Later in the article, Wong's three factors specifically mentions the late 1980s stuff and the economic investment that was happening even before Tiananmen Square. The Peter Wall article doesn't seem to mention this pre-Tiananmen Square stuff at all. For example, Expo 86#Legacy seems relevant. On the other hand, such involved analysis is tricky, and I agree that at some point keeping it simple is better, but not at the cost of distorting the picture. So what should be done, do you think? Carcharoth (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Carcharoth, if you think it's inaccurate, you should go ahead and change it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

I want you to know that your FAC comments on this page were very poorly made and not well thought out. When I read them, without knowing you were on the FAC team, I thought you were maybe some 18 year old who was just surfing the net looking for something to do - not a serious FAC reviewer. That's how bad I think your comments were and I'm not telling you this to be mean - you need to know especially if you are a FAC reviewer. If you are going to review this page again please make a bullet point list of comments that specifically point out what you think is wrong in the text, what FAC criteria has been violated and why - not blanket statements like the one on Catholics creating Catholic pages - that was unnecessary and ridiculous. I have never written something like this to any reviewer of our work and we have worked with many. Please take my comments to heart for the sake of improving Wikipedia. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, there was nothing wrong with my comments in the slightest, which were both particular and general, and which I continue to stand by fully. I do think that the way in which the article's editors responded to them was simply extraordinary, culminating in this patronizing comment on my talk page. If this is how you regularly treat your reviewers, I'm not surprised that your article has had such a long and tortuous passage through FAC. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I offered my comments to you to help you, I wrote it because I was shocked to learn that you were a FAC reviewer after what you wrote on the RCC page. Please consider your own need to improve your reviewing skills. NancyHeise (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I responded to you on my talk page. NancyHeise (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I am sorry if I contributed in any way to your unpleasant experience on Peter Wall by opposing it. I did not, and still do not, understand the point you were making, other than that you were nominating a business person for a FA. I have no problem with that.

My problem was with the article itself. But then I realized that it probably did fulfill FA requirements because the requirements themselves are so cut and dried, without any life to them. So I evolved the hypothesis that your nomination was really a method to point this out to the FA people. I am seeing now that I was wrong about this, that my interpretation was idiosyncratic. So, I apologize to you if, in my delusional world, I contributed in any way to your unsavory experience at FA. Sincerely, –Mattisse (Talk) 15:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse, thanks for this, but really neither you nor anyone else need apologize for opposing this article (or indeed, any other) at FAC. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 3

You might have missed it in some ongoing discussion, but I replied to you there. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. Thanks for that. I don't really want to get into much of a to-and-fro there. I'm no fan of wiki-drama, and there's enough of that already on that page. My concerns still stand, and perhaps the best thing is to suggest them to you as a piece of advice, whether your RfA passes or not. On Wikipedia (as in life), many restrictions can seem, at first sight or even after long reflection, random or arbitrary. On the whole, however, and notwithstanding WP:IAR, it is usually a good idea to stick to the agreements and commitments you have made, informally or formally, unless there is very good reason not to. This is true whether you are an admin or not. So, for what it's worth (and in the spirit of Sillyfolkboy's quite sensible comments on your talk page), that's my advice to you. Good luck, either way. I hope that the drama around your RfA isn't giving you too much stress. As others have said, I think in general you seem to be handling it very well. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I'm taking it OK, which is good, I guess. It really isn't that big a deal. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing - beat me to it. :) Did you mean to re-indent your oppose vote btw? (It was indented when an unrelated sockpuppet vote was struck below it) Orderinchaos 09:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Just trying to figure out what's gone on, and whether I made anything worse; glad you had caught it anyway. No, I'd like my oppose to stay. D'you want to go ahead and fix it? Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Norman

You are welcome, if you like, to expand on your views on the acceptable range of political views among professional historians who are to be taken seriously, or the degree of commitment expected of a academic before he can be considered "full-time". Johnbod (talk) 09:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm rather baffled as to whether you guys are being wilfully obtuse or not. Anyhow, for what it's worth, here is what I said: "that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong; just that he hardly is representative of the broader scholarly consensus." I did not say that his political views were unacceptable. For his professional profile, I looked at his Wikipedia page; you may wish to revise that if you feel it is misleading. As, however, with my other comments, it might be easier to read them with more care, and consider how they could be addressed rather than simply denigrated. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
" Moreover, I doubt there are many "scholars such as Edward Norman" as, judging from our page on him, he's a part-time academic associated with the most extreme elements of the Thatcherite right" Johnbod (talk) 09:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Ach, this is going to take a while, isn't it? Anyhow... My point was that he was unrepresentative, judging from our Wikipedia page on him. (Again, correct me if that page is wrong.) Your point is? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
He seems pretty representative of ecclesiastical historians to me - consider Henry Chadwick (theologian) - again not a very good article, but adequate to make the point. Another part-timer, Regius prof at both Oxford and Cambridge. Or his brother Owen Chadwick - don't know his political views, but he didn't seem a natural Socialist when I met him. Or this guy. Or Vidmar. Johnbod (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
OK. Now, this seems a much better response to my comment. I don't know much about ecclesiastical historians. (For what it's worth, though, and pace the histrionics from Xandar on the FAC, I happen to come from a longish line of theologians.) If you think he is in fact more representative of ecclesiastical historians that I had assumed--who may well be more inclined to be High Church Tories who have religious positions themselves--then perhaps that precision could be worked into the text. NB I believe that all my comments were actionable. Some of them trivially so, though similar work would have to be underaken throughout the article. But, for instance, personally I'd be happy then if the passage were re-worded along the following lines: Some ecclesiastical historians, such as Edward Norman, agree... Other scholars, such as Eamon Duffy, caution..." Please note the punctuation, incidentally.
And you should feel free to note that I'm distinguishing, at least implicitly, between an "eccesiastical historian" and a "Professor of the History of Christianity" (as Eamon Duffy is described in his Wikipedia article). It's my belief (and this was my point here) that when dealing with a controversial topic, it is all the more important to be as specific as possible about detailing who and what your authorities are. I haven't bothered looking into the whole Vidmar controversy, which has sparked so much heat elsewhere in the FAC, but I suspect that a similar approach could be used to defuse the difficulties that that source also seems to cause for many.
Now, I did also raise my eyebrows at the fact that Norman's book was "an illustrated history." This was not (I repeat not) to cast doubt on Norman's own credentials. However, I do wonder if this is the right book of his to cite, as anything that is an "illustrated history" smacks to me of a coffee table book. I could, however, be wrong about this. (As of course, about much else; I do not claim infallibility, simply that reviewers' comments merit some respect.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Norman was in fact considered Low Church until he coverted to Catholicism, which he did, in true Anglican style, unpon his retirement. I see no problem with the article text as it stands. Johnbod (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, we will continue to disagree. You might at least, however, fix the punctuation and grammar errors; or does your failure to see any problem cover these aspects, too? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like Tony Blair! Sorry, ignore me. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 11:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed any; I have only edited the picture captiions, but Nancy will fix any you find. Further thought - insofar as there is a real distinction between an "eccesiastical historian" and a "Professor of the History of Christianity", which is not very far at all, the subject both were cited on would probably fall on the ecclesiastical side, but both Norman and Duffy are more "History of Christianity" types. It's one of those irregular verbs:I am a Professor of the History of Christianity, you are an eccesiastical historian, he is a Tory High Church part-timer. There's no need to take the article into this murky backwater. Johnbod (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
"I hadn't noticed any." At this stage, I'm surprised by nothing. Look closer at the very two sentences that I had thought we'd been trying to think about in some depth. Anyhow, all the best with the article. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Baby Boy (song)

OK, I'll look out for it in the future. And please don't call me "sir"! Nobody else does.  :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs)

Ok, I will not. About Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Baby Boy (song), its fine. I know you've been busy this previous week(s). FYI, User:Wackymacs is not happy with the copy edits and I asked User:Trebor to sift through again. --Efe (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

your comments on FAC RCC

Hi Jbmurray,

I was reading your comments on the FAC page, where you write concerning the "origins" separated from the "history":

    • Interesting. I'm not surprised. This is, of course, how Wikipedia is different from other encyclopedias, in that its contributors are self-selecting, and so its content is generally written by fans and/or adherents. (Sometimes by detractors, but that's no better.) NB this does not necessarily mean that fans or adherents (or even detractors) cannot write good articles; but they face certain rather particular obstacles. Again, I'm not necessarily suggesting that history should be put before doctrine; but it is symptomatic that in fact the order is the other way around, in this article as in other similar ones on Wikipedia.
  • So this is certainly still an open issue, as far as I'm concerned, though personally I'm not sure I would insist on the revision at this point, as it would obviously require major reorganization. On the other hand, there is a degree of oddity, as the "Origins" section is separated from "History." If putting doctrine before history (like other WP articles, but unlike Britannica) is symptomatic, that stranded bit of history is symptom of the symptom. Something needs to be done about it.

The first paragraph has some interesting comparisons and observations, no obvious complaints. Then: "this is certainly still an open issue... I'm not sure I would insist on the revision... Something needs to be done." I may lack imagination, but what is "something" that is not a revision, and do you really think the origins-doctrine-history order is unacceptable?

Your strong oppose appears to be based on the abuse you've received from some of the other editors. You don't deserve the abuse, and the article deserves to be evaluated on its merits. Going back to the old nom, you summarize: "The problem is that the article portrays the Church the way in which the Church itself does." I think the article contains enough information so a reader will see how the Church understands itself, but also has been introduced to the debated points. That a person could gain some insight into a subject's self-understanding from reading an encyclopedia article doesn't seem to be problematic to me. Am I wrong?

Respectfully, The.helping.people.tick (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for this. First, a clarification: my comments above actually concern the fact that (at present) "Doctrine" is placed before "History." I do think that in an ideal world, the order would be reversed: that history would come before doctrine. I think, as I've said, that this is more "encyclopedic" (a word I don't otherwise use much, however in this case is verified for what that's worth by the rather different approach taken by the Britannica). I am not, however, suggesting this now, as it is a fairly radical change, and this is an article that has already been too long at FAC.
Yet the fact that the editors have chosen the structure they have, has left the article with an anomaly that a small part that otherwise would logically belong with "History" (about, essentially, the Biblical and first-century history of the Church) has been stranded, along with a paragraph about the Church's mission. It's also significant that it's under the section heading for the "Origins and mission" section that you have wikilinks to Main articles: History of the Roman Catholic Church and History of the Papacy. The first of those Wikilinks is then repeated, when we return to History, many sections thereafter.
There are good reasons for this anomaly, of course: the Church's foundation narrative also justifies its mission, which then sets the context for its doctrine. But it is undoubtedly a problem.
Oh, and still on structure, there's the much under-developed "demographics" section (that really should be improved), which one would of thought should in fact come after "History," as the church's demographics is a result of its historical development
I do think something needs to be done about this problem. I'm always a fan of minimalist solutions, which make silk purses out of sow's ears. However, at least right now, I'm not entirely sure how this could be done.
Nor, for that matter, do I think that reviewers need to come up with solutions. Of course, it's always nicer if they do. I would if I could. And in the end it's possible that the problem won't go away. No article is ever perfect. But my problems on the FAC is that the editors choose rather (in my experience; I recognize it's been a long FAC) to become defensive and dismissive when problems are pointed out to them. This hardly encourages me to work with them to help think through a solution. It prompts me, rather, simply to oppose.
Oh, and I strongly agree that the article should represent, and represent fairly, the Church's own beliefs, and the way in which the Church sees itself. Indeed, my comments also asked at one specific but crucial point for a source directly from the Church: who better, after all, to describe its own mission? But the article should also do more than simply mirror those beliefs. For instance, as I repeatedly have argued elsewhere, what an encyclopedia should do is put knowledge into context.
Finally, the problem about the article presenting the Church as it represents itself is related to the structure, but not reducible to it. However, again, I think the fact that the "Demographics" section is by far the worst is also significant. It shows that the article editors have a tough time thinking of the Church as a social phenomenon. They are hard put taking a sociological or anthropological approach to the topic. They confuse "demographics" with the doctrinal requirements for membership. It's another symptom of a rather fundamental problem in approach, albeit one that could be fixed if they only chose to benefit from the fresh eyes available to them in review mechanisms such as FAC. They seem, however, to see FAC as a confrontational or agonistic process in which the defenders of the faith have to suit up and put out the arrows of doubt. It's depressing. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I'll do some thinking. The.helping.people.tick (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

RCC

Dear Jbmurray, could you please put your edit citations in proper format if you are going to contribute to the aritcle, the refs are all messed up now, thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you regard as the "proper" format, eh? In what way are they "all messed up"? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see everything in the reference section just after your new reference number 309 here [2]. If a reference is not in proper format (like all the other refs all over the page) we end up with garble in the ref section as it is now. If you would like some help with this I would be glad to help but I thought you were an expert on this already having created so many FA's. NancyHeise (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. Please see it yourself. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The issue here was a single missing </ref> tag at the end of the reference, if that helps. If it looks bunged, it's usually some silly technical thing like that. Orderinchaos 17:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. And it was in fact fixed by the time that Nancy wrote to me. I was, after all, still actively working on the text. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, your new sentence may need to be split up a bit, it is kind of long and we have had some FAC comments about trimming our long sentences. Your use of "sigh" is really demeaning, I am trying to get the page to FAC and your edit messed up the refs, I just want you to put your new ref in proper format, is that a problem? Should I not be saying something when the page needs correction after your edit?NancyHeise (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Sigh again. (A sign of exasperation, nothing else.) I'm not done yet. See my latest edit about sentence length, however. --jbmurray (talk • contribs)
Your refs are still not in the same format as the others on the page and I think you have used quite a lot of weasel words. NancyHeise (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
In which format would you like the references? With which words do you have problems? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I have placed a comment on the FAC page regarding your changes. I think it is inappropriate for you to make these changes during the FAC vote - especially when you eliminated a paragraph that had been peer reviewed and upon which consensus was built for months. NancyHeise (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I can very confidently tell you that in this case, the consensus was wrong. I'm sorry you don't appreciate my help. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like some of the problems I experience in the far flung corners... just because something is there or even well-referenced and a majority can be found to agree with it doesn't necessarily mean it should be there, or that a majority of reliable academic or other sources concur. (Idle comment with no knowledge of specific situation) Orderinchaos 17:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It happens. The glory of the wiki is that such things can be fixed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Muntz

Your contributions to the Muntz article are good, thank you. I think I'm a little burnt out to tell the truth. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You're not the only one, I'm afraid. Glad I could be of some help. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Monty Hall FAR

Hi - You made some comments at the FAR page for Monty Hall problem (now archived at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Monty Hall problem/archive2) but didn't really follow up. The FAR is now closed (with a keep), but I'm still interested in improvements to the article. If you have the time (and interest), please bring up any issues you might still have at talk:Monty Hall problem. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it looked as though we had rather different interpretations of WP:LEAD, among other things, and I felt the discussion wasn't particularly productive. However, I'm happy to leave it at that, and have no real problems with the article remaining featured. Well done! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for informing me about the citation stuff over at Sandy's talk page. Now I can resume working on my article, hurray. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No probs. If I've won another person to the cause of {{Harvnb}}, all the better! :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, well I am still using {{Citation}} because it's so easy to use. I can't really see what more {{Harvnb}} actually offers. (And I don't want the burden of converting all the existing refs, really). Maybe I'll use it on my next article rewrite though? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Nah, you'd still use Citation. What's the article? I can show you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
My rewrite is temporarily at User:Wackymacs/Fordson tractor until it's finished to replace the existing Fordson tractor article. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Easier than I thought, but it would be nice if there was a way of getting the publication year into brackets. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Pah. Doesn't matter. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello again. Looks good - let me know when you're done, and I will copy and paste this into my text document (I have been writing this offline so far, and only put it in my user space for your convenience). I will find the publication places. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 19:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I'm done. Good luck with it! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I have added the places of publication, although I couldn't find out place info for the Crestline Imprint books. Does it look OK? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You can get this info from [3]. Easiest is to click on the ISBN (on your article page), scroll down, and then click on "Find this book at WorldCat free online catalog of the world's libraries." I fixed a few problems, but you might want to check them with the books themselves. NB preferably use the new, full, ISBNs, which begin with 978-. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Hah, I think you meant worldcat.org, not .com...I clicked your link and came to a power boat website...so my first reaction was "What the..." ;-) Anyway, worldcat.org is useful - thanks for letting me know. I'll check the rest. Thanks for your help again. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Heh. Sorry! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The archiving here

Just to let you know, the top archive tag and your closing comments should be inside the section header. Enigma message 00:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. In fact, I just copied the immediately preceding example (now itself archived). Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The way I learned this was by incorrectly archiving on a noticeboard (I also put the {{discussion top}} before the section header) and was later informed that that isn't the right way to archive. I guess we learn from our mistakes. :) Enigma message 00:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks again! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Muntz FA

Madman Muntz was just promoted to FA tonight, so I wanted to thank you for your help. I think for the moment I need to step away and try to work on something else, but I will get the page numbers in for the book citations sometime this week. And, of course, feel free to improve as you see fit. As for the stuff about Muntz's family, I'm pretty sure I'll be able to expand on it in the future once the documentary about him comes out. There ARE newspaper articles out there about his two famous wives, but the New York Times wants money to read them online and I'm a cheapskate. :-) Anyway, cheers. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, congratulations! NB if you want material that's behind a paywall, send me the details and I can email them to you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, will do. They may turn out to be useless, but worth a look. I'm not sure the URLs are permanent, so if you do an archive search (pre 1981), these are the titles that caught my eye:
  • PATRICIA STEVENS DIES; Founded Nationwide Modeling Agency and School (June 26, 1959)
  • Joan Barton Wins Divorce (February 17, 1955)
  • Muntz to Make Conditioners (June 25, 1953)
  • Muntz Car Co. to Handle Graham-Paige Products (October 10, 1946)
  • Highway Stereo: Sprechen Vous Italiano, Senor?; Highway Stereo (May 28, 1967)
  • For That Big Model, Try a Used Car; Used Auto Lots: Bastion of Bigness (October 16, 1977)
That last one is about another Used Car Dealer who copied the Muntz "Madman" persona. Hopefully some good info in these articles. Cheers! Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Tried the first three, and couldn't find them, either in the NYT or in any other newspaper archived by ProQuest. Can you provide full details (dates etc.)? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure thing, I've added the dates above. Are you sure you chose the right archive? There's a pulldown menu next to the search field that lets you select either NYT 1981-current, or NYT 1851-1980. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Got 'em all. A bit of a pain as the ProQuest index doesn't seem to pick 'em up. But email me, and I can send them to you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter Wall

Updated DYK query On 4 June 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peter Wall, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Weekend

Good sir, I was willing to grant you "long weekend" through Monday, but as of yesterday, I see you are still editing. I insist you change your template to read: "I will now only be editing at weekends, except when I don't." --Laser brain (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hehe. Pah, I'll keep the template as it is for now. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Practice

Got a job for you to practice admin buttons. See user talk:Gimmietrow. (Note spelling). Gimmetrow 20:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I left a note for Slp1 as well, so one of you can practice, but if you're interested, please have a look at the issues at the minor BLP, Alex Wolff. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I missed this; I've been busy. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Quickie MOS question

What's the best way to format "Three other coaches, Art Shell, Jon Gruden and Bill Callahan, have also taken the Raiders to the playoffs."? It doesn't look right to me. I was thinking something like "Three other coaches—Art Shell, Jon Gruden and Bill Callahan—have also taken the Raiders to the playoffs." because it's really a break in the sentence. Thoughts? Gary King (talk) 07:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Dashes would work, as you suggest. (And I agree that the original sentence is confusing.) I should say, however, that I do have a perhaps irrational dislike of the dash. And I say that even though in the document I'm working on right now, I happen to have just written a sentence with a dash in it. I much prefer the parenthesis.
Perhaps a still better option, however, would be to break the sentence into two. At present, after all, and however you do it, the three names rather intrude between the grammatical subject and the main verb. The effect is at best a tease, at worst frustrating. So you could try the following:
  • "Three other coaches have also taken the Raiders to the playoffs: Art Shell, John Gruden, and Bill Callahan."
This would enable you to be more informative. Here are some further options:
  • "Three other coaches have also taken the Raiders to the playoffs: Art Shell (in 1962), John Gruden (1974), and Bill Callahan (1981)."
  • "There are three other coaches who have also taken the Raiders to the playoffs: Art Shell (in 1962), John Gruden (1974), and Bill Callahan (1981)."
  • "Three other coaches have also taken the Raiders to the playoffs. They are Art Shell, whose team lost in the quarter finals in 1962; John Gruden, who took them to the Superbowl in 1974; and Bill Callahan, whose campaign ended with a defeat to the Bills in 1981."
Obviously enough, I'm making up the dates and other details. And note the Oxford comma, of which I'm also a big fan. HTH. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay thanks. Also FYI this is not a sentence I wrote :p I also like the Serial comma, although some other regulars at FAC don't like it. I dislike parenthesis because I usually skip those when reading something as I assume they will break the flow of the text since they are often used for extra information that is not important. Gary King (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

VNQDD

Hi Jb and thanks for the copyedit. When you were referring to choppiness, did you mean grammar/raw prose or did you mean that the logical development of the narrative seemed a bit disjointed? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

More the latter: transitions and connections between sentences and paragraphs. (There are a few grammar issues, too, but this is mainly a question of style.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Archive This 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.