Talk:Jocelin of Glasgow

older entries

Should this be called "Jocelin, Bishop of Glasgow" or something? There are lots of Jocelins in various spellings. Adam Bishop 17:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's necessary. This guy is pretty famous, and there aren't many Jocelins without a surname or location name, and besides there is a dab page which I created for this page. The New Advent Encyclopedia also chose the name "Jocelin" for its title page (see here), so I think it's best left at that. Besides, the title Jocelin, Bishop of Glasgow would be rare for a famous bishop, and unprecedented amongst Scottish bishops on wiki, and that's ignoring the controvesial subordination of Melrose. Perhaps Jocelin of Melrose would be the least worse new title, but I certainly think the current title is fine. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Pretty famous to you, maybe :) Perhaps the other Scottish bishops are improperly titled too. I thought it was a Wikipedia convention to include a toponym or epithet in the titles of articles, if the subject is usually known by only one name. Adam Bishop 18:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, this Jocelin is the only Jocelin not to have a surname or geographical epithet. There's simply no need to move him. Moreover, there is no name he could be moved to that would not create confusion. And like I said, the New Advent Encyclopedia also chose to name him simply "Jocelin" (see here). As I am responsible for the majority of articles on Scottish bishops, I can tell you that the other Scottish bishops are named in the same manner as English bishops, see for instance [[1]], that is, they have their name with no title. Introducing a title would cause horrendous problems. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether that is true or not, there are many Jocelins of many spellings and this one is not likely the most famous so I see no reason to give him the name in preference to others. I would suggest a move. Srnec (talk) 05:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Per the arguments above, I think this place is the best of a bad bunch of options. You're welcome to hold a WP:RM though! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

GA nom on hold

I did some minor grammar fixes, but I just have a couple of small things before I can pass it. Can you work on the lead per WP:LEAD, perhaps expanding to 2 paragraphs that summarizes his accomplishments, etc.? Also, I put one fact tag in there as there was a statement that cried out for a source... Otherwise, well-referenced! plange 03:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see what I can do about that tomorrow. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's been over 7 days and the issues have not been addressed yet so I am removing the nomination. Feel free to re-nominate when you feel its ready.--Konstable 01:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I had forgotten about this. I addressed the issues. I expanded the introduction; regarding the citation request, I made it clearer that the note at the end of the paragraph was designed to cover all the information in the paragraph. I will re-list it. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Passed GA

Good work. Looks close to FA quality. Durova 17:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. You think this is close to being a FA? I'm not sure, to be honest, that there is much more info that can be used to expand this article. The only way I can see it being improved is with a good copy-edit. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Congrats, Calgacus. ~ Rollo44 00:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds stranger

"Glasgow Cathedral today. Although most of the building is much later, the modern cathedral shares the same site as Jocelin's late 12th-century structure."

This is the caption under a photograph of the modern Cathedrel, A building can't be "much later". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arthurian Legend (talk • contribs) 21:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Why not? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It does sound a bit odd, I think I would have said Although most of the building is more modern for example. --86.128.252.182 03:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That's just the way the clauses are organized.

Although most of the building is much later, the modern cathedral shares the same site as Jocelin's late 12th-century structure.

Could easily be

The cathedral shares the same site as Jocelin's late 12th-century structure, although most of the modern building is much later.

If you wish to change the clause structure or the wording otherwise, this is relatively uncontroversial and it would probably take less of your time just to make the change yourself than to get into a discussion over it here. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Denomination

I removed the reference to 'Roman Catholic Church' as being an anachronism - but an anon keeps replacing it. Jocelin relates to a time before Christian denominations. He belonged to the Church in the West (possibly defined as the 'Catholic Church' as opposed to the 'Eastern Church' - but even that is dubious). The Church at the time did not call itself 'Roman Catholic' it was simply the Church. Indeed to call the 12th Century Church by the post-Reformation designation 'Roman Catholic Church' is perhaps pov, since it implies that the Western Church relates directly to post-reformation Roman Catholic Church, whereas most modern Christian denominations would recognise it as a common ancestor. Jocelin was part of the Ecclessia Scottia (or whatever the latin is) of his day (which, yes, at the time recognised Rome) however, the modern Church of Scotland, and indeed the Scottish Episcopal Church would both claim to be the institutional descendents.

I don't want to argue the pov out. This is only an info box. But I firmly suggest that we identify Jocelin's affiliation simply as 'Christian' or 'Western Christian'. There's no need to be more specific as there is no other type of Christianity in the West at that time which we need to differentiate him from.--Doc^g 08:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a small article coming up on a Church of Scotland bishop before the abolition and will use the infobox. I accept what you say regarding the later designation of the church, but is necessary to distinguish the affiliations of bishops of the same diocese. Perhaps Jocelin could be described as a bishop of the 'church of Rome'? --Bill Reid | Talk 08:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to Jocelin (Bishop of Glasgow). JPG-GR (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Jocelin → Jocelin, Bishop of Glasgow — See the "older entries" section above for previous discussion of a move. "Jocelin" is a common name, today as well as in medieval times. This is hardly the primary usage of the name. I also propose redirecting this current title to Jocelyn, the current dab page. — Srnec (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support as nominator. Srnec (talk) 04:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support. If there's a _the_ Jocelin, it's Abelard's rival. Tevildo (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons stated above. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the "surname or geographical epithet" of Abelard's rival? I would have thought it was "of Soissons", which is really just his diocese. 04:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll support Jocelin (Bishop of Glasgow) then, in conformity with naming conventions for "Scottish" bishops.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That, of course, is fine with me. Srnec (talk) 05:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

WP:URFA/2020 review

I am reviewing this very old FA as part of WP:URFA/2020, an effort to determine whether old featured articles still meet the featured article criteria. Recent scholarship should be checked for comprehensiveness. This 2006 FA has some uncited text, and its main contributor has been gone for years. Unless someone can tune up the article, it should be submitted to FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Ping Deacon of Pndapetzim as the FAC nominator (was renamed). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to be a bit busy IRL for the next week or so, but if you come up with a list of things you want me to look at or address I will try to give the points my attention as soon as possible. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@Deacon of Pndapetzim: Picking up SandyGeorgia's review, there are a couple of sources listed in the "Further reading" section, and some uncited statements. Did anyone search for additional sources? Are you still interested in fixing up this article? I am happy to add cn tags if requested, or add potential sources to the "Further reading" section. Z1720 (talk) 15:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I might be able to help, but I don't know what's wrong with the article. Is it just that there are sentences without references? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Deacon of Pndapetzim: I can only speak for myself: I added cn tags to places where citations are needed. I notice that there are sources listed in "Further reading": these should be used as inline citations or removed if not necessary. I also would like a subject-matter expert to look for additional sources, to ensure that this article is an accurate summary of all high-quality sources. Additional sources can be found at Google Scholar, WP:LIBRARY, archive.org or databases that you can access from your local public library system. Z1720 (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

As you'll know, I've not been that active in the FA process for quite some time. I can understand the desire to footnote everything, but I'm a bit confused as to why Further Reading is now bad? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:FA? 1c says the article "is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". If potential sources are listed in Further reading, why are they not used as inline citations, so that their information is included in the article? If potential sources are not cited, is the article really a representative survey of the literature? Since this is a short article, I would expect that all potential sources are at least read and considered for inclusion as an inline citation. Also, editors will often add potential sources to Further reading, but they will be low quality, off-topic or promotional. That is why I encourage these to be either used as inline citations or removed. Z1720 (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Not trying to be argumentative here, I know it probably seems like it, but FA doesn't specify being 'exhaustive'. Looking at what the "further reading" lists, it's research work on archaeological investigations relating to Glasgow in Jocelin's era and a Latin editionsof texts relevant to the article...useful for someone doing more advanced research but mostly potentially WP:OR if utilised for the article. This is sure exactly what 'Further Reading' is supposed to be, no? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Deacon of Pndapetzim: I haven't taken a look at the sources myself, so I am speaking in generalities. If readers are interested in learning more about Glasgow during Joselin's life, why not direct them to a relevant Wikipedia article and use the source there as an inline citation? For the Latin text, should it be added to the inline citation as it is what the source is citing? I agree that the article doesn't have to be exhaustive: articles with a lot of potential sources can't use everything. But in this article, there aren't a lot of sources so, in my opinion, everything that can be accessed and is high-quality should be read and considered for use as a source. This will bring confidence to the reader that the article is "complete" and that there is no significant missing information. Z1720 (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate that a lot of things often listed in further reading sources are just sources that need to be included, or shouldn't be. In the case of published archaeological findings and printed primary texts these constitute research material that might be of interest to some Wikipedia readers but would not be suitable for direct inclusion in an encyclopedia entry. I also appreciate that there might be material here, like in the introductory sections, that could be used for the enclyopedia depending on what the scholar wrote and how she/he went about it, but the point is 'Further Reading' is a thing, I don't think we should think of it as a bad thing or sign that things are wrong per se, maybe a case of 'don't through out the baby and bath water' here? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)