Talk:James O'Higgins Norman

Credentials and honors

Here's what I told the editor who just replaced these. "Please note that our WP:BLP policy is pretty rigorous. You've already violated WP:BURDEN by replacing 'knighthoods' that have no source. The Order of the Dragon of Annam has not given out awards since 1945 and the subject wasn't even born then. These are violations of our BLP policy and also do a disservice to the subject. And if you read the link to WP:CREDENTIALS you will see that Stephen Hawking is not called 'Dr. Stephen Hawking' so please follow our guideline on this. Thanks". Dougweller (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The Order of the Dragon of Annam was revived in 2002 by the direct descendent of the last Emperor of Vietnam. He was entitled to do thi sunder the various rules that govern orders etc. See explanation on http://www.imperialvietnam.net/dragonestablish.html

Apart from the subject of this article others who were born after 1945 have received the Order after it was revived including a number of European royals - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Dragon_of_Annam#Distinguished_knights_and_dames.

Also, what is your problem with the use of flags in the list of honours? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.140.136 (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

And what reliable sources say that this new 'order' is legitimate? Thanks for pointing out the problem with our article on the order. It is using a source that was decided by consensus cannot be used for BLPs, Royal Ark. WP:FLAG explains that you shouldn't be using flags there. And User:Ollamhnua, please try to login when you edit. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Ollamhnua, issue raised at WP:BLPN#James O'Higgins Norman‎, other BLPs & a knighthood from a dubious order. Dougweller (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

There are three forms or sources of legitimacy that support the revival of the Order of Annam. Without starting a whole new page on this, in summary:

The international principles for considering the validity of an Order of Knighthood are published by the International Commission on Order of Chivalry (ICOC) who state that:

The dynastic (or family or house) orders which belong jure sanguinis to a sovereign house (that is to those ruling or ex-ruling houses whose sovereign rank was internationally recognised at the time of the Congress of Vienna in 1814 or later) retain their full historical chivalric, nobiliary and social validity, notwithstanding all political changes. It is therefore considered ultra vires of any republican State to interfere, by legislation or administrative practice, with the princely dynastic family or house orders. That they may not be officially recognised by the new government does not affect their traditional validity or their accepted status in international heraldic, chivalric and nobiliary circles.

Other sources including World Orders of Knighthood and Merit by Stair Santy and Rafe Heydel-Mankoo will confirm this.

It is based on the above principles that the Head of the Imperial House of Vietnam had the right to revive an Order of Knighthood which had previously belonged/existed within his family.

Furthermore, the other reliable source on the validity of an Order is Canon Law which allows an Order to be revived within 100 years of the death of the last Knight of the Order in question. The revival by the Head of the Imperial House of Vietnam of the Order of the Dragon comes within this period of time (i.e. 1945 to 2002).

Finally, recognition comes in a third manner, that is to say, the fact that Heads of other Royal Houses accept the honour means that they are de facto recognising it and the Royal House from whom it is granted.

You are correct that there are at least two false orders operating under the same name. However, the genuine Order was conferred upon the subject of this article and this will be confirmed by contact with their Order's representatives.

It might be good for you to read http://www.imperialvietnam.net/dragonBAO.html

I hope this clarifies the matter for you.

Regarding flags, I don't see on the page you reference any mention that we can not use flag icons in the way I used them so please point this out. Thank yo.

Ollamhnua (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

This should be at BLPN and I've copied it there. Someone else has suggested we remove it for the moment, and on the basis of what has been said above and my comments I agree and will do so. I'm not quite sure why we are being referred to the ICOC as I can't find this order on its lists at either [1] or [2]. Note that the ICOC is also called the "International Commission for Orders of Chivalry" As for the book World Orders of Knighthood and Merit I don't know what it says, but again it isn't clear why we are being referred to it as the website I'm told is the official one says[3] "There is a book called "World Orders of Knighthood and Merit" which does not mention HIH Prince Regent Nguyen-phuc Buu Chanh. Why?

A. That particular publication has a number of errors in it. Including various mentions attributed to the Imperial Nguyen Family of Vietnam." The website itself is pretty amateurish with pages that go nowhere. So far there are no reliable sources establishing that this is a legitimate order - and if there are 3 orders all saying they are the correct one, we should certainly not be choosing or suggesting any of them are. Dougweller (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You clearly have a biad and refuse to be open to the evidence I have pointed to, instead you resort to argue based on circumstantial evidence to support something you have already decided upon. For the sake of clarity I will state again here why I pointed you towards the ICOC and World Orders of Knighthood but beyond that I have no time to engage in this type of petty argument.

While the ICOC has not issued a recent list of Orders and thus several are missing from its registers, the basis principals on which the ICOC recognises an Order remain intact and supported by most scholars in the field of chivalry. The relevant principals among others are:

"The Dynastic (or Family or House) Orders which belong jure sanguinis to a Sovereign House (that is to those ruling or ex-ruling Houses whose sovereign rank was internationally recognised at the time of the Congress of Vienna in 1814 or later) retain their full historical chivalric, nobiliary and social validity, notwithstanding all political changes. It is therefore considered ultra vires of any republican State to interfere, by legislation or administrative practice, with the Princely Dynastic Family or House Orders. That they may not be officially recognised by the new government does not affect their traditional validity or their accepted status in international heraldic, chivalric and nobiliary circles".

and

"It is generally admitted by jurists that such ex-sovereigns who have not abdicated have positions different from those of pretenders and that in their lifetime they retain their full rights as “fons honorum” in respect even of those Orders of which they remain Grand Masters which would be classed, otherwise, as State and Merit Orders".

As the Order of the Dragon of Annam belonged historically to the Imperial House of Annam the Head of that House had the right to revive the Order in 2002.

Furthermore, if we were to use your argument that we should not refer to an Order because there is more than one group claiming legitimacy then we would have to remove all references to the Sovereign Order of Malta, the Venerable Order, the Order of St. Maurice and St. Lazarus (Naples) and many more legitimate Orders. It is not the job of wikipedia editors to decide on the legitmacy of an Order but instead to report on facts - fact is that the subject of this article did receive the Order of the Dragom of Annam which was revived in 2002 by the Head of the Imperial House of Vietnam and despite your opinion on the Imperial House's website the House is legitimate and able to confer these honours. The subject of this article received the honour at a ceremony in the Mansion House in Dublin in 2013 and will verify this if asked.

Finally, several other articles in wikipedia use flags to illustrate the origin of an honour and I do not see why they can not be used on this page - see the following for example

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Balchin,_Baron_Lingfield https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Andrew,_Duke_of_York https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Bailey_%28interfaith_campaigner%29

Ollamhnua (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Reference to Murphy Report

If you read the actual text in the Murphy Report which is referenced and linked you will see that this individual was commended for his contribution to the Investigation into Clerical Abuse in the Archdiocese of Dublin - for some reason another editor keeps changing this to state simply that he "contributed" to the investigation. The actual text states that:

"he generously and selflessly agreed to assist her without seeking prior approval from the Archbishop and notwithstanding the fact that such assistance might put him in conflict with his diocese."

The edit that states he merely contributed to the investigation could be misunderstood as Dr. O'Higgins Norman being one of the priests who were investigated which he is not and also ignores a more qualitative analysis of his contribution as stated in the Murphy Report.

I suggest that the sentence should read that he was commended in the Murphy Report for the assistance he gave in support to a victim of clerical child sex abuse or something similar.

I hope this clarifies the matter for you. Ollamhnua (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for logging-in and engaging. But in particular thanks for clarifying why you kept changing that text. (This is why talkpages and edit summaries are so useful and recommended - so that other editors don't have to "guess" as to the intent of an edit or editor). If a note had been added to an edit summary previously, we might have addressed this issue sometime ago. Personally I had not read the text as having potentially "negative" connotations. However, I have reworded to hopefully address any interpretation of that type. While still hopefully reflecting the source. Cheers. (PS - WP:OWN and WP:COI guidelines might still be worth a quick scan). Guliolopez (talk) 02:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure if you have read the source or if English is your first language but the way the sentence is now constructed means that this individual helped others to give evidence rather than gave it himself and fails to acknowledge his efforts with victims before that - if you read the Murphy Report you will see that he provided support to victims who made allegations of sex abuse against his superiors which put him personally at odds with the Church and then subsequently he provided evidence to the Tribunal. Also you should use "who" rather than "that" in the sentence, so I suggest

He is a former Catholic priest who actively supported victims in cases of clerical sex abuse and subsequently was acknowledged for his efforts in this regard.

Ollamhnua (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your note.

RE: English/WhoVThat - Yes. English is my first language. Thanks so much however for the grammar refresher. As we're being mutually-supportive on areas of grammar I might highlight (in the same spirit that I'd received a refresher on demonstrative/interrogative pronouns) that there seems to be some remaining issues with the use of personal pronouns in other quarters (in particular second person pronouns in place of first person).

RE: ReadTheSource - Yes. I read the source. I read the source, and then linked the source. The latter of which had not previously been done. Which in itself caused problems with WP:VER (for me and for others). Having read the source (all clauses and sections which refer to the subject), I had considered structuring the sentence in a way which covered both "giving evidence" and "helping others give evidence". However, it made for an awkward construct. And as the role described was that or "support priest", this seemed to be the primary function that needed to be covered in such a summary. I will however, while also reviewing the "who V that" wording, review the other fragment as well.

In general, at the core here seems to be a concern about perception. And, bluntly, this concern is possibly not helped by close association issues. You might please want to read (in addition to the COI guideline already shared), the associated essays about this area. This might help perhaps with an understanding that, as a disassociated editor, my role and goal is to "summarize, inform, and reference, not promote". And perhaps clarify why and where your goals differ from these. And indeed differ from the goals of the project. It is perhaps this difference which is contributing to any frustration issues. And, unfortunately, is a difference which may be difficult to resolve - when editing articles with which you have a close association. That might be worth thinking about.

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

"former Catholic priest"

"He is a former Catholic priest ..." This is almost a throwaway line, like "He had a summer job at MacDonalds". Usually priesthood is terminated by death. James is still alive, so did he leave and by default become excommunicated, or was he dismissed and excommunicated? I think that this is a bigger deal and should be fully explained. Kiltpin (talk) 12:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James O'Higgins Norman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150906083626/http://www.dublindiocese.ie/2006/09/22/220906-launch-of-a-graduate-diploma-in-education-in-dcu/ to http://www.dublindiocese.ie/2006/09/22/220906-launch-of-a-graduate-diploma-in-education-in-dcu/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)