Talk:John H. C. McGreevy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

PROD[edit]

Proposed Deletion notice removed due to: 1) latest version having specific citations related to the individual, 2) recipient being a Member of the Order of Canada (only 133 members admitted p.a. since the order's creation (similar to a knighthood in the UK or Medal of Freedom in the US)), and 3) other Wikipedia entries regarding Order of Canada recipients being less detailed, with fewer citations and of individuals with less evidence of distinction. Finally, see existing Wikipedia entry for another John McGreevy - a less notable an individual than this John McGreevy. If these are all admissable then this entry should be, as well.Wjadada (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

  • (1) very few of the citations seem to be mention this individual, apart from the medal listing and his schooldays. Which of the citations are you saying relate to him? Was there an obituary in a Canadian paper - not necessarily online - which you could use as the source for all these statements about his worthy activities, because the links you offer don't support much of it. You must have a source you're working from? (unless it's all family knowledge?) Does he get a mention somewhere in the 19-page pdf history of the Ladies' Protestant Home? It's still downloading but I haven't spotted his name yet.
(2) I'm not familiar with the Order of Canada, but perhaps this does give him notability. I'll enquire on the Canadian Wikiproject page... done:Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Order_of_Canada
(3) Having noted that there was an article at John McGreevy, you should have added a hatnote there so that anyone looking for your man could find him - I've now done so. There's a general WP saying WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: you can't justify the existence of one article by pointing out that there is already rubbish in the encyclopedia!
(4) Please learn how to cite references properly, rather than just dropping URLs into the article as you have done.
(5) What's the significance of the book The Damned: are you saying he is mentioned (page number needed then, quote can be useful too if appropriate), or just that it covers the campaign in which he was involved? Needn't be an External link when it's already a citation.

PamD 21:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

  • More than 133 people have been given the Order of Canada. The article on the Order of Canada states that 5837 people have been recipients. Having said that however, I would say that any member would be deemed notable in my eyes. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the OP didn't say that only 133 people have ever been admitted to the order; they said that only 133 members are admitted per annum (which is still slightly wrong, as it's actually 136, but is much closer to the truth than what you thought they said.) Bearcat (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

For the record, while it is generally accepted practice that a member of the Order of Canada is probably notable enough for an article, that still depends entirely on the quality of sourcing that can actually be provided about them; an article that relied solely on their name being present in a list of inductees, without any other substantive sourcing besides that, would still be deletable.

Most of the sources that were being used here were really bad ones that didn't properly support the content of the article — for instance, the claim that he served as president and treasurer of the St. Brigid's Home Foundation was sourced only to the homepage of the foundation itself, and not to any content that verified his past role with the foundation. Accordingly, I've had to strip most of the "references" as invalid ones — which leaves us with two college yearbook entries, one of which is just a photograph; one reference whose content I simply can't verify at all because it isn't online; and, guess what, his name in a list of inductees with, guess what, no other substantive sourcing.

So what it comes down to is this: as a member of the Order of Canada, he probably is notable enough to be a valid potential article topic. But a member of the Order of Canada is not "inherently" notable in the sense that they're entitled to keep a badly sourced article just because they have an OC after their name — so no, he doesn't get an automatic entitlement to stick around until you can source the article properly. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an inevitable and inherent bias towards post-internet era sourcing, leading to e.g. comments above regarding a lack of verification due to sourcing not being online. There was, for example, a Quebec Chronicle Telegraph article regarding this individual's service and award - published in paper form. This is a weekly publication and the piece came out the week of 30th January 1989. Not having upload privileges, I can't submit a pdf of the scan but, as it wouldn't be online, I'm not sure whether it would be deemed to be valid. Please advise. (And, btw, the Quebec Ladies Protestant Home reference to can be found on p. 27 of the brochure that can be downloaded here: [1]) Thank you for your attention.Wjadada (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
There is no requirement for sources to be available online, or freely accessible - think of all the articles based on printed books found on library shelves but not digitised, and all the academic journals only available online to subscribers. If your information source is a newspaper article, then cite it properly: something like {{cite news | newspaper=[[Quebec Chronicle-Telegraph]] | date = 30 January 1989 | title= Xxxx | last = Yyyy | first = Zzzz | page = n }} (if it was written by Zzzz Yyyy with title Xxxx and appeared on page n), and cite it to support each main statement. I did ask, above, "Was there an obituary in a Canadian paper - not necessarily online - which you could use as the source for all these statements", telling you that offline sources were acceptable if properly cited. PamD 23:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
With offline sources it can sometimes be helpful to use the "Quote" parameter in that citation template too, to show the words you're using as a source. PamD 23:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I've made the relevant insertion/citation. Hope that I've done it correctly. One request: How do I create a link from the John H. C. McGreevy name appearing in the list of Presidents of the Literary and Historical Society of Quebec to this page? Thank you for your help.Wjadada (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I've turned your isolated "Citation" into a reference at the place where you originally tried to put it - I should have been clearer in showing that you need <ref> </ref> around the {{cite}} stuff. You can also name a reference, as I've done here, and then if you want to reference a particular point elsewhere you can re-use the reference as <ref name=meredith />.
For the link from Literary and Historical Society of Quebec... (incidentally it's always helpful to include a link when you're discussing a page you'd like someone else to go and look at!): the name had been put there without a space between the middle initials. We could have amended the format there, but instead I clicked on that red link, got to an empty page, and there created a "redirect" so that anyone else typing that combination of letters, full stops and spaces will get to the article. It's a big problem with initials, especially multiple initials - a reason why it's generally best to have the article at "John McGreevy" or "John McGreevy (something)", unless he really was most commonly referred to using his initials. Your newspaper ref suggests that this wasn't the case (the medal ref will always give full names, but his college yearbook photo page doesn't give him a middle initial though some others on the page do so). I'd move him to "John McGreevy (xxxx)", except that I really don't know, looking at him, how to describe him: "accountant" was what I used in the hatnote on the other JMcG. Any thoughts on an appropriate "disambiguator"? I'd wondered about "(Order of Canada)", but none of the other people listed in Category:Members of the Order of Canada use this. PamD 08:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Another small point: the last few words puzzle me: does it mean that he continued to work for the diocese after his retirement, or that he had a physicial office, a room with a desk, there after he retired? It could be either. Perhaps you could clarify. PamD 08:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Clarified the last sentence re the Anglican Diocese office. (It was a physical space (changed "his" to "an")). Based upon the sources reviewed, the full set of middle initials was used when he was written about so, while creating potential complexity, it is consistent; e.g. while that Chronicle-Telegraph headline doesn't include the middle initials, the body of the article does. BTW, how does this article (if it is deemed to be okay) migrate to being in the full, publicly viewable Wikipedia? (Apologies for being a neophyte. Thank you for your patience.)Wjadada (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
This article was "deemed to be okay" and has been in the full public encyclopedia since 5th Jan when it was moved from "Article for Creation", first accidentally to a misnamed Wjadada/John H. C. McGreevy (I'll request deletion of the redirect currently at that title, as it's not appropriate) and then, by me on 6th Jan, to the correct title of John H. C. McGreevy. I and other editors seem to have spent a lot of time helping clean up an article on a marginally notable person: I hope you'll now go on to work on other articles in the encyclopedia, having learned about how to cite references etc. Happy Editing. PamD 08:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Just for the record, PamD is correct here. Wikipedia does not have a requirement that sources be published online. For ease of consultation, we certainly like to link to an online version of the reference if one is available — but citations to print-only content (books, old newspaper articles, etc.) are acceptable, as long as they're actually cited. The only thing you can't do is say that there are all kinds of old print-only sources available while never actually ponying up any of the citation details. That said, I see you've started adding the extra citations, so thanks for that. Bearcat (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I do agree this is a problem....that is that people search the net for notability yet many people are notable long before the net was around. -- Moxy (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)