Talk:Maurice Jarre

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Mid-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

France Start‑class

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in France may be able to help!

The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Siobhain Butterworth (2009-05-04). "Open door". The Guardian.
GENEVIEVE CARBERY (2009-05-06). "Student's Wikipedia hoax quote used worldwide in newspaper obituaries". The Irish Times.
Reuters (2009-05-07). "Student's Wikipedia Hoax Fools Newspapers". Fox News. {{cite news}}: |author= has generic name (help)

On 7 May 2009, Maurice Jarre was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. (Traffic)

All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

Cimbalom

What is a cimbalom? RickK 16:28, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

A cimbalom is a hammer dulcimer.

Pronunciation

How is Jarre pronounced?

Like "jar," only with a soft "j," as if it were "zh." Rich 05:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update

I made a major update to this article. if anyone has an image that is not subject to copyright, please do post it. If you have anything to add or to comment on feel free to do so, BUT PLZ don't edit the article before posting your edits for discussion. Tx A J Damen 09:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 07:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video with this great man

This site: [[1]] has this great man and his art.Agre22 (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)agre22[reply]

Death date

I only found reference that are dated today which state he died. Most accurately says he was 84 at the time, but none of them mention the exact day or time it happened. Clearly assuming it was the same day is speculation. He could've died the evening before it was reported. Can someone actually verify the date? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Hoax in the News

"A WIKIPEDIA hoax by a 22-year-old Dublin student resulted in a fake quote being published in newspaper obituaries around the world. The quote was attributed to French composer Maurice Jarre who died at the end of March."[2] cojoco (talk) 11:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

also http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/04/journalism-obituaries-shane-fitzgerald

This story has also just been reported on RTE Radio 1 News (Ireland's public sector broadcaster), and the sociology student from University College Dublin (UCD) was interviewed. (06/05/2009 1.30pm). Bmbwiki (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link to RTÉ radio news interview ("Experiment shows Internet can be unreliable"): http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0506/news1pm.html --89.101.220.70 (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article's history, it looks like it was IP user 86.42.227.123, which resolves to: 86-42-227-123-dynamic.b-ras1.cld.dublin.eircom.net. ☆ CieloEstrellado 01:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty rude "experiment". Like you can mess with peoples' trust of Tylenol by putting poison into a few bottles as an experiment too. Or you can mess with peoples' trust of policemen or accounting auditors by planting evidence and/or entrapping them. If this was really an experiment about which the student was writing a paper for a class or other credit, he should be penalized. In the U.S. I think that experimental review boards of universities would govern, and would judge that "experiment" would not be ethical. doncram (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I may agree it's something of a rude experiment have a bit of proportion. This is not equivalent to getting someone arrested or poisoning their Tylenol. It's more like doodling on a library book or at most streaking at the Oscars.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One small inconvenience for the wiki, one large eye-opener for mankind. All it did was inconvenience a few spam fighters an imperceptible bit more, but it shows everyone how even major 'respectable' newspapers will print anything without checking. (Imagine what Fox news will do for a story...) You concern trolls need to check and see if any damage was done before you complain. (Other than to the reputations of a few soon-to-be ex-journalists...) - WNight 74.198.50.165 (talk) 06:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Imagine what Fox news will do for a story..." What the hell? What a revealing bit of ignorance! Fox Derangement Syndrome - a useful signal for letting the reader know you're not interested in serious, sane discussion. Children's table is over there. 208.111.220.239 (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia needs this, Journalists and Traditional media need this experiment. Wikipedia is Wikipedia, not a traditional book. It should be treated with respect and with care. The blame here is on Journalists using the quote. Wikipedia makes it too easy to do research sometimes, and we need people fighting back and showing why that is a bad thing. -- Sverdrup (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he made his point by luck, and only through persistent vandalism, since he had to add the quote three times before it eventually stayed for more than a few hours, as can be read on the Guardian article: "Wikipedia editors were more sceptical about the unsourced quote. They deleted it twice on 30 March and when Fitzgerald added it the second time it lasted only six minutes on the page. His third attempt was more successful - the quote stayed on the site for around 25 hours before it was spotted and removed again." [3] Laurent (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

News also in the italian Corriere della Sera Template:It. --CristianCantoro (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Laurent1979: So what? The point isn't that he could make an edit stick, or that he was vandalizing. The point is that journalists trust wikipedia when they shouldn't. CapnZapp (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well we've learnt that some journalists don't check their sources, which is nothing knew. This issue probably exists since journalism exists, and I don't think it was worth vandalising Wikipedia multiple times to (re)discover it. Laurent (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Shane Fitzgerald now had his 15 minutes of fame. Leave it at that. --bender235 (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And also in the news in Australia.[4] As the above Guardian article shows, our fact-checking processes worked fine but various media outlets failed theirs. Here, an editor added incorrect info to an article three times and each time it was removed as unsourced. In the wider media, a journalist added incorrect info to a newspaper article and no one fact-checked it at all before it went to print. Then a bunch of other newspapers copied the incorrect article and reprinted it without checking.

To those editors who quickly removed the false material, well done. To the editor who added it in the first place, please don't vandalise Wikipedia articles, even for "globalisation experiments". To the journalists who got the obituary wrong, you're welcome to base your articles on Wikipedia entries but you should also check out the page references at the botttom and not just cut and paste the main body of text. Euryalus (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty disturbing experiment, but in terms of the story in the context of Wikipedia, it definitely does not warrant an entire section in this person's bio. Maybe one sentence? It's much more suited to Wikipedia and its various sub-articles. Joshdboz (talk) 08:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - I think even one sentence is giving the isue undue weight in this article. Jarre didn't make the statement and was an incidental bystander in this editor's "globalisation experiment." To a large extent the hoax is not even about Jarre - his death was just the vehicle for the vandalism. And if the amterial is not relevant to jarre, its not necessary to detail it in his article. perhaps Wikipedia, perhaps nowhere.

Also, material in an article also needs to be notable and I seriously doubt this event will have anything other than a transient attention. In (say) five years, will anyone be talking about Fitzgerald and his fake quote?

Having regard for the above, I'd propose the sentence be removed entirely. If people feel its notable enough to put in the article on Wikipeida, they are of course free to move it over there. Any other views? Euryalus (talk) 08:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even Dilbert has something to say about this [5] --Deepak D'Souza 12:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should overhaul our standards. If people are going to rely on information in Wikipedia, we need a process other than "consensus" to prune the false entries. Whether it's a "test", deliberate sabotage, or ideological viewpoint pushing, there must be a better way to stop it. Treating this lightly only postpones the day when Wikipedia will be regarded as a reliable source.

Can we set up a Wikipedia:Vetting committee? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the quote has been reported by reliable sources, it can be put back in the article. Wikipedia rules don't require the quote to be real - they just require it to be verifiable. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it's been mentioned before, Maurice Jarre is not notable for that event, so it shouldn't appear here. However, if the event is indeed notable enough, perhaps it could be mentioned in the Wikipedia article in the "Cultural significance" section? Laurent (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Many things are mentioned in reliable sources but they don't all deserve inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Things like giving undue weight to a minor event, and including details that are not actually about the subject of the article (but might or might not belong somewhere else) are the issues here. Euryalus (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It doesn't belong in a biography. Orderinchaos 01:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia hoax II

That certainly stays here because so many actually believe what WP say are facts. And this is a good reminder why they should NOT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 (talk) 09:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - the article is about Maurice Jarre and he is not notable for that hoax, Shane Fitzgerald is. So either we write an article about Shane Fitzgerald (which probably wouldn't survive because of WP:SINGLEEVENT) or we integrate this stuff in an article about notable vandals, notable hoaxes or equivalent. Laurent (talk) 09:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Laurent - It's not our job to make political or social statements in articles, we're meant to write encyclopaedic articles. Orderinchaos 01:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]