![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mel: There was no implication that a fellowship entailed a vow of celibacy in my earlier wording. There was a requirement that fellows had to be ordained within a ctain amount of time, and ordination meant taking a vow of celibacy. Dan Knauss 15:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Will soon (I hope) add Elizabethan material. -dk
What you say is not implied even weakly. It's an absurd speculation I suppose someone could draw, but who would? The original sentence was grammatically bad, but it did not imply that a fellowship involved "mandatory sex" or was incompatible with celibacy. It implied that non-celibacy was technically compatible with a fellowship where the possibility of marriage was still open if one quit the university. This was strongly indicated against in that culture because a fellow was on track to being ordained. Analogy: Catholic seminarians can permissably get married without scandal, but that is the end of their prospective priesthood, and it is a bit of an upset and disappointment for the church and seminaries. An ordained priest who quits to get married is shaking things up a lot more. But we're talking about a time in the past when marriage for clergy was mostly considered a terrific scandal. 70.94.8.139
Yes, but only because you've come up with new fish to fry. Dan Knauss
The article tends in places to read like an academic paper, presenting vari[o]us views and then correcting them. For example:
This needs to be corrected; could published sources be found for claims like these? -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 09:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I'd say it reads like an academic paper or an academic reference work that indicates to readers that there are different views and conclusions about the subject, not all of them of equal value, with reasons given for those judgments.
What exactly needs to be "corrected?"
Wikipedia is a published source. I hope to complete an article or two on these things and get them through the long waiting line for publication in some specialist journals, at which point they may be cited here if you like. But Wikipedia is getting this information first in the most accurate account of Crowley to be found anywhere, as I am probably the only person engaged in a complete review of all the relevant primary and secondary literature. (da-dum! crowd goes wild!) I have done heavy fact checking, and many "published" (i.e., printed) scholarly sources are wrong or misleading on various points, the most important of which are noted above.
Which claims do you feel need corroboration from printed sources? I mentioned Jenniffer Loach, a significant historian who is now deceased, unfortunately. I have corresponded with another scholar who is an expert on Day and Seres; she has informally agreed with me on the Fane and Somerset business, but I don't recall her making this explicit in anything she has published yet. As for the Blayney-Hailey letters, I've corresponded with them both and have a copy of the letter cited here. Blayney sets the gold-standard for authoritative unpublished information in early modern studies. This is material going into a book he will eventually publish, and it will be venerated by all serious students of all things remotely pertaining to the early English book trade.
I realize this is highly irregular, and that is why I am doing it. Print and a scholarly imprint guarantee nothing and perhaps less and less these days. Very little fact checking is done, and in the case of some major research resources like the STC, it is notoriously unreliable on details, yet it is like a spotty recension of scripture on a moldy, moth-eaten manuscript -- if it's all the Bible you have in the monastery, it's the authority. However, in such cases there is not a very strong basis for presumptively dismissing critical correcters as people in need of corroborration by non-existent or equally dubious sources.
FYI, I've sent the ODNB folks lists of errors and dubious claims for three Crowley-related entries. They plan an update of the online edition in a year or so, so it will be interesting to see what happens.
Dan Knauss 03:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
That's an utterly stupid, incoherent, self-contradictory set of rules, so it isn't very hard to make a case that I am following them. Regardless, you won't find anyone else who know beans about this subject without them doing the same kind of "original research," which I entirely welcome by the way. But I doubt anyone will want to bother with this entry at all unless being a pedantic, censorious meddler strikes their fancy as much as it does yours.
There is no meaningful distinction between "original" vs. "unoriginal" research. 99% of this, like most humanities research, is "unoriginal" in that it is essentially a summary of existing secondary material. What is inevitably somewhat original is the particular arrangement and synthesis of information. All summary is interpretive and leads to some degree of "novelty"--and even more so when factual errors are corrected. That is the only "original" material from me--the correction of secondary sources with primary sources. This cannot possibly be prohibited.
For instance, on Crowley, many of the dates given in secondary scholarship for when he was doing X or was appointed to Y are in contradiction. You can look up all the existing, published authorities, and they disagree. So you go to the primary sources and sort it out. That is "original research," and it is not a violation of the "rules." If you say it is, you are wrong and/or the rule is an ass/also wrong. The only alternative is to produce incoherent, erroneous bilge, which you apparently favor.
As for letters, dissertations, unpublished scholarly material--these are common and accepted secondary, "unoriginal" sources.
It appears it would be wise for me to write, in the future, in a much less intellectually transparent way, without citing so many sources (as is the case for most wikipedia entries) so as not to invite your obstructionistic "help." -DK
I'm afraid that I was losing patience — but also, I'd say that his whole post was couched in the tone he's adopted ever since I first encountered him (when he deigned to reply to me) — mildly hostile and patronising. The specific bits of abuse were certainly not just one part of this message:
If you or anyone else can get him to co-operate, and to edit in line with what he's dubbed "an utterly stupid, incoherent, self-contradictory set of rules" I'll be overjoyed, and suitably admiring and grateful. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 21:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
What damning stuff! -DK
For practical reasons (if nothing else), I recommend ignoring the "no original research" question in this context and focusing on the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability and its related style guide Cite sources. I think mutual understanding can be arrived at on the basis of the need to be able to verify the contents of a Wikipedia article. That a contributor says "trust me" is not good enough. Then again, there are MANY unsourced claims in Wikipedia, and no one should hold contributors to this article to higher standards than exist in similar articles elsewhere in wikipedia (example: unremarkable uncontested unsourced claims often are allowed to stand). WAS 4.250 23:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Is there a wikipedia protocol for old date references, as in history and literature studies? (NS/OS?) The dates given here and in similar articles may not be uniformly "new" or "old style." At the least, individual articles could indicate which calendar is in use and make all dates follow it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.94.45.243 ( talk) 18:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
This whole section was pretty deep in the scholarly weeds when it was written and is no longer necessary, since the publication of Peter Blayney's magisterial history of the Stationer's Company in 2014. It should be sufficient to identify Crowley as a printer, briefly, who later became a stationer. Blayney's account: https://books.google.com/books?id=SLGkAgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT927&vq=crowley&pg=PT928#v=snippet&q=crowley&f=false Dan Knauss ( talk) 17:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)