Email this user

User talk:Jbmurray

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
FACs needing feedback
viewedit
Thunderbirds Review it now
Potemkin Review it now
Too Much Too Soon Review it now
2006 UAW-Ford 500 Review it now
2012 Daytona 500 Review it now



Restoring unsourced content[edit]

Is it really becoming of an administrator to restore unsourced content to an article? Do you want me to provide scans of the sources that are being cited, so that you can see how they do not align with the text? I can do that, if you want me to. RGloucester 03:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not unsourced content. You have a disagreement about the sources, and their use in the article. As I've said on the talkpage, I find your arguments strange at best. But the point here is that in no way is the wholesale deletion you undertook a question of removing "unsourced content." It's gutting the article in the name of some strange idée fixe of your own creation. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 04:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
It is unsourced. I'm sorry if you're not willing to go to a library and slave over texts like I am, but the fact remains, the sources do not support the text. I can provide scans for you, and it will be apparent. Do you want them? RGloucester 04:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

reason[edit]

Re: "Why everything has since blown up, I'm not quite sure." Long story. Part of it is the [1]. (Scroll down to Eric Corbet (2). This has now disappeared as it was closed with no block and the filer was cautioned not to file there.) Rationalobserver filed this request to block Eric Corbet two days after this editor was blocked for 48 hours per comments at WER. The filing editor used the same discretionary sanction violation. (See [2] and scroll down to Eric Corbett, blocked by Sandstein and habbed.[3] She has filed ANI requests and polarised editors among other things. EChastain (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

On Historiography and Historical Narrative[edit]

On page 113 Rarick ascribes motivation to Native Americans that his notes do not provide a source for. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

As I've said, I'm not particularly interested in further discussing Rarick. As such, I'm changing the section title. From your comments, it sounds as though you may be interested in a broader and at the same time more thorough-going discussion of the problems of historiography and (particularly) the writing of historical narrative. If that's the case, then let's do it. If not, that's fine too, but we can bring this chat to a speedy close. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 22:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

According to this, "When you write a historical narrative, you combine fiction with nonfiction." Is this inaccurate, or just overly generalized? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a terrible source. As I've been suggesting, let's try with a real book, shall we? I've suggested E H Carr or Hayden White. But I'm open to other ideas. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 22:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure you're right. Which book should I look at first? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
At a glance, White looks controversial, and the subject far from settled. Is it your position that Wikipedia should adopt his approach wholesale? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
"Hayden White's diagnosis of history as constructed narrative has wreaked permanent damage to traditional conceptions of history, philosophy, and narrative alike; it is no longer the moment simply to assess that damage, but rather to respond to it with new proposals and new creativity, something this extraordinarily stimulating collection does in exemplary fashion." – [4] Fredric Jameson, William A. Lane, Jr. Professor, Duke University, USA. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, White is--or was in his time--fairly controversial. But even in Carr, who's as traditional as you can get, there's an understanding that history can't simply be a matter of "just the facts." White merely pushes that understanding a little further; further perhaps than some historians would want. And yes, as it happens, I think that one of Wikipedia's weaknesses is that it can sometimes be too literalist. But White's position is not that we should abandon history, or the attempt to deal seriously and carefully with historical sources. It's just that (to simplify) we shouldn't feel quite so comfortable when we do so: all narrative is by its very nature a distorsion; and yet narrative is inevitable, we can't do without it. NB, though, that there's a distinction between narrative and fiction; it's not that everything's somehow "made up."
But let's start with Carr. I see there's a pdf here. I'll commit to reading at least chapter one, "The Historian and His Facts," by Monday. Do you want to do the same? While we're at it, we can see if we can improve the relevant article, too. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 02:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to be pretty busy this weekend, but if I don't read the chapter by Monday I will read it on Monday. Thanks for being willing to explain this to me. I appreciate your effort, and I promise it won't be a waste of time! Rationalobserver (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, if I'm following, the schools that demand facts free of interpretation are Positivists and Empiricists. Lord Acton suggests that interpretation is necessary, and even advocates what we might call synth: "our Waterloo must satisfy French, English, German, and Dutch". Houseman says "accuracy is a duty, not a virtue". Scott says "facts are sacred, opinion is free." What Parsons is talking about is a kind of intellectual cherry-pick, where facts are only important after the historian selects them, thus the historian "fills the sack" so it can stand on its own, influencing the final product. It's an interesting point that history is made up of selections of facts that do not necessarily paint the whole picture; e.g., much of what we know about ancient Greece comes from the Athenians, but other perspectives are overshadowed if not completely forgotten. Barraclough's asserts that history is not a collection of facts, but rather a collection of judgments. I think this pertains to the Donner Party especially well. In much the same way, Bernhard's story has been shaped by judgment and circumstance, not mere facts alone. "Imaginative understanding" sounds like "know your audience", and it helps shape what facts are included in a history, and what importance they hold. Collingwood and Nietzsche are basically saying that all facts are influenced by the opinions of those who record the facts. Clark suggests that input and output are equal partners, and if you try to over emphasize one or the other you are risking a heresy. Is this primarily about balance? Clark: "The historian without his facts is rootless and futile; the facts without their historian are dead and meaningless." How close am I to understanding this chapter? Rationalobserver (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Great! I'll get back to you on this tonight, maybe late-ish (Pacific Time). --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 20:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Latin American literature
Thank you for quality articles on Latin American literature such as The General in His Labyrinth, on academic background, for teaching, knowing "potential pitfalls", in teamwork, for your "attempt to keep to a zero revert rule", but improve instead, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (7 April 2009, 26 June 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 823rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit]

Hi Jbmurray. In 2012 you uploaded the Kidd Pivot logo ("link here") to Wikipedia, with the copyright notice that it could only be used on the Kidd Pivot Wikipedia Page.

I was hoping to also use this logo for the Crystal Pite page (as she founded the company). How would we go about getting copyright permission to also use it on Pite's page?

Thanks for your help, Z1720 (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'll look into this. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 03:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Let me know if I can help. Z1720 (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello from the team at Featured article review![edit]

Cscr-featured.svg

We are preparing to take a closer look at Featured articles promoted in 2004–2010 that may need a review. We started with a script-compiled list of older FAs that have not had a recent formal review. The next step is to prune the list by removing articles that are still actively maintained, up-to-date, and believed to meet current standards. We know that many of you personally maintain articles that you nominated, so we'd appreciate your help in winnowing the list where appropriate.

Please take a look at the sandbox list, check over the FAs listed by your name, and indicate on the sandbox talk page your assessment of their current status. Likewise, if you have taken on the maintenance of any listed FAs that were originally nominated by a departed editor, please indicate their status. BLPs should be given especially careful consideration.

Thanks for your help! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Please respond at Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/sandbox#Pinging next round; thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Entry you edited previously[edit]

Hi! I think you were the last main editor of the entry on Brian Leiter, having added a useful section on the fall 2014 controversy. But an edit war has erupted since, with another editor trying to turn the article into an article about the controversy, and completing ignoring your work and misrepresenting the RS cited. You may want to take a look. Thanks.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have half an eye on it but am not too keen to intervene. In part for lack of time, but I have also received multiple emails from Leiter himself about the article, which I didn't really appreciate. I'm sure there are many vested interests trying in various ways to influence things. It's a time sink, and sadly, as always on Wikipedia, the ones who have the energy to stay the course are those who feel they have most at stake. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 11:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Canada and United States affiliates meetup[edit]


Flag of Canada.svg
Wikimedia Canada
Wikimedia DC
Wikimedia New York City
The GLAM-Wiki US Consortium
Cascadia Wikimedians User Group
New England Wikimedians
North Carolina Triangle Wikipedians
Flag of the United States.svg
You are invited to attend the Canada and United States affiliates meetup at Wikimania 1015, Friday, July 17 at 17:30 and Saturday, July 18 at 18:00. Please RSVP and state your topic preference(s)!
Wikimedia Canada
Wikimedia DC
Wikimedia New York City
The GLAM-Wiki US Consortium
Cascadia Wikimedians User Group
New England Wikimedians
North Carolina Triangle Wikipedians


Nomination for deletion of Template:NRG[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:NRG has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Latin American barnstar[edit]

Gold Star-L.png The Latin American Barnstar
For your hard work on Latin American literature, I proudly present this barnstar to you! ¡Buenisimo! Erick (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)