Jump to content

Talk:Jim Duffy (journalist)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Australian Committee

[edit]

It's not exactly NPOV to just delete something. Please move the text to the talk page so it can be cleaned up and reinserted. I've done so for you on this occassion.

Internal evidence shows that Duffy's contribution was prepared with an integrity that might not have been expected by those preparing the committee's remit; they had specifically excluded any contribution from non-republicans, yet the Irish appendix honestly reflected an ambiguous Irish experience of republican practice.

Anyone want to take a look at this? It's all Greek to me... --Dante Alighieri 19:57 31 May 2003 (UTC)

I restored a little bit because I assumed the problem was the way it was phrased. Of course, if it's factually wrong (or disputed) then it must go... Evercat 20:01 31 May 2003 (UTC)

From my talk page:

ambiguous is a POV term -- 172.128.44.13

Yes, I do see your point. That could be rephrased, I'll try in a sec. Evercat 20:30 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Author of what?

[edit]

As the person is presently identified with being an author, may we get to know what is the main opus authored by him? and isbn... Arrigo 21:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Duffy is the author of numerous articles but no published books (yet). Jonathunder 07:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Duffy on Wikipedia Issue

[edit]

Jim T Duffy In Real Life is user:jtdirl. I think it is important that the article mention this, given that he's the author of most of it. Notanerd 11:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. First of all, since Jtdirl is an anonymous user with a username, there is no way that any Wikipedian can actually know his identity, unless he reveals it. Speculation does not belong in Wikipedia articles. Jtdirl has refused to confirm that he is Jim Duffy. I think we can assume either that he is, and doesn't want us to know, or that he isn't. (The latter seems more likely, in my view, as your speculation was added [1] on 4 April this year by (now) banned user NoPuzzleStranger and it wasn't until 18 August that Jtdirl noticed and reverted [2]. I assure you that if I'm really the Duchess of Cornwall, editing under the username Ann Heneghan to protect my anonymity, the Duchess of Cornwall page will be on my watchlist.) In both cases, it would seem irresponsible to add our own private speculation to a Wikipedia article. If he wishes to edit anonymously (like you, since you also have a username), he has the right to do so. Secondly, there are a few people who are notable enough in their own right to have an article about themselves, and who edit on Wikipedia. In the cases that I've looked at, the articles do not say that they edit on Wikipedia under such-and-such a username. It would actually be a bit unencyclopedic, in my view. Ann Heneghan (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: he was not anonymous and he did confirm it. It doesn't seem to matter now, as he has left the project. Jonathunder 22:00, 2005 September 11 (UTC)
Jtdirl has avoided stating that he is the same person as the subject of the article. His name in real life may or may not be Jim Duffy – both Jim and Duffy are fairly common names. It is obvious that Jtdirl either was not Jim Duffy or did not want people to know that he was. Either way, we should respect the privacy of those who register with a username; we should avoid making claims which are based on speculation; and we should certainly avoid giving a stalker what he wants. Ann Heneghan (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented more fully here. If I may be allowed a different perception, it seems fairly obvious (to me) that either Jtdirl is: really Jim Duffy, and was initially happy enough to juxtapose the two identities on public mailing lists; or, someone else entirely, who has been going out of his way to lead people to believe he was (a) Jim Duffy. It's remotely possible he's some different Jim Duffy, of similar age, location, interests and employment (both occasional Irish newspaper columnists?); or that someone other than User:jtdirl was posting as him unchallenged on the mailing list. But one or other of the first two seems to me much more likely, and in either instance to amount to some fair degree of "pulling a fast one". As to the "harrassment"/"stalker" stuff: if this is as well-established as you ask the Jtdirl/J.D. correspondence to be, I'm pretty sure the Gards would want to know about it, and are certainly in a better position to judge and act on such than we are. Alai 02:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add a comment to your comment on the other page – maybe tomorrow. Does Gards mean Administrators? If so, they do know about it, and some of them have recently lamented the fact that they didn't do enough at the time. To answer Jonathunder's comments above that Jtdirl "was not anonymous" and that he "did confirm it", I've read the links provided on various pages discussing this issue (and also sent to me in a private e-mail by Jtdirl's stalker). I don't see any evidence that Jtdirl ever confirmed that he is the Jim Duffy in the article (who, incidentally, ruined the political career of someone I voted for). I agree there's evidence that his name is James Duffy. I argue again that it is not an uncommon name. They could even be cousins. Personally, I think it's quite likely that it's the same person, but it has not been proved, and he has declined to confirm it. That's as far as I'm prepared to go. If it is the same person, then of course he shouldn't have started the article. However, he never showed an excessive interest in it. There are nearly as many edits to it from banned users, sockpuppets, and anonymous stalkers, as there are from Jtdirl. Since he has left Wikipedia, the potential conflict of interst is no longer an issue. Ann Heneghan (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Gards" meant "An Garda Síochána". If we're going to characterise behaviour on the wiki as "stalking" we're being a little melodramatic, especially given the tendency of some people to describe anything along the lines of "someone re-editted/commented on [n] of my edits" as such. At the very least, the qualifier "wiki-" is key.
I'm glad you now recognise the likelihood of them being the same person, though I think you're still underplaying the coincidence that would be required for them not to be: is there more than one Irish newspaper columnist called "James Duffy"? Or did Jtdirl misrepresent himself as such? (I ask this rhetorically, I'm not suggesting a P.I. be hired or whatever.)
I disagree about the conflict of interest issue: most of the content of the article came from Jtdirl, or from a large anon edit that's also (unsurprisingly) been claimed to be him. (I don't claim there's strong evidence of that, though.) Sockpuppet edits, etc (and reverts thereof) might increase the total number of edits, but haven't greatly changed the article itself. I think a degree of "fair warning" to other editors is appropriate, though I suppose the rest of the talk page contents serves that about as well as any formal "known/suspected wikipedian" template. I am concerned, however, that we're in danger of setting a bad precedent for further thinly-disguised autobiographers, though admittedly it's not especially obvious in any event what could be done about the more successfully incognito ones. Alai 00:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I considered the possibility that you might be referring to the Gardaí, but since the plural in Irish is Gardaí, not Gards, and since in English we say either the Guards or the police, I dismissed the idea, preferring to assume that you were not being deliberately sarcastic about something that obviously caused a lot of distress to a fellow editor. Anyway, it's standard practice, in a Wikipedia environment, to refer to Wikistalking as simply "stalking", without further qualification, since it's unlikely to be misunderstood. See, for example, this link.
You are mistaken in saying that I "now" recognize the likelihood that it's the same person, if by "now" you mean that I did not recognize it before. I have read the links provided so gleefully by Skyring; I still claim that unless Jtdirl acknowledges it himself we cannot consider it to be a "fact".
I take your point about the conflict of interest when people can edit their own biographies, and can see why you might think that readers should be warned. However, without proof, I think it would be quite improper to make such a claim. Also, since he has left Wikipedia, it's no longer relevant. He's not editing it now. If you're concerned that he contributed too much to the original content, then why not edit it? Actually, I would be quite happy to see the entire article deleted. I live in Dublin, and I had never heard of Jim Duffy before Skyring started his harrassment of Jtdirl. I don't consider he's notable enough to have an article in an encyclopaedia.
So, the solutions are to edit it until you're satisfied that it's no longer an article written by the subject, or have the page deleted. If Jtdirl is really Jim Duffy, he might not be pleased with either solution; but at least neither solution would be an improper intrusion on someone's privacy, based on speculation (even with a high degree of probability), and instigated by a stalker. Ann Heneghan (talk) 11:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think I "contracted" the spelling "Gards" from an Anglo-Irish friend; I used to spell it "Guards" too, and am obviously now just a hopeless linguistic mish-mash. Anyhoo, I don't think the "English spelling" has any official standing in any case. (I don't generally hear people say "police", though I wouldn't be surprised if that were a function of the county ones lives in.)
I wasn't being sarcastic at all: actual stalking is a criminal matter; annoying and abusive edit summaries on a wiki are something else entirely, however reprehensible. And the waters in this instance already seem to have been somewhat muddied between the two, given the nature of some of the accusations I seem to recall flying around. I'd strongly prefer to maintain some measure of clarity and distinction. Yes, of course I've seen "stalking" used in the way you suggest, and it strikes me as, as I previously said, melodramatic, if not to say a trivialisation of real stalking. Note that Skyring's Arbcom not only doesn't make the contraction/equation of the two, but introduces the term "wiki-stalking" in "scare quotes", so I'd like to think it's not as standard a practice as you claim, or at least not an accepted and respectable one.
If I'm mistaken, then I surely have cause: in your first comment in this thread [3] you stated it was your view that it was more likely Jtdirl was not (the) Jim Duffy, which is what in large part motivated my link-hunting in reply. If you felt it was probable all along, you could have been clearer. And "probable" is putting it mildly: if we take Jtdirl's edits of User:Jtdirl, and Jtdirl's edits of Jim Duffy (author) at face value, it seems to me next to impossible they're not the same person. Just how many 30-something Dublin-based newspaper columnists with UCD doctorates in history and/or politics called "Jim Duffy" do you suppose there are? If it were established that there's only one (and all the above would be matters of public record, just rather tedious to exhaustively check), would that suffice? Not to mention their common interest in religious affairs, gay rights, the Australian constitution... Not as I said, mathematical proof, but I think well beyond "any court in the land" standard of evidence. Of course, Jtdirl may have entirely misrepresented himself on his user page: there's nothing I can do to verify that.
I hadn't heard of him either, despite being at least generally familiar with Brian Lenihan saga, and the article does seem to represent his role being pivotal to a degree I found surprising; but (by that very admission, clearly) I'm not currently familiar enough to either substantially rewrite the article itself, or assert that he's definitely non-notable; a rewrite of the B.H. article would perhaps also be required, J.D. featuring heavily in that account too, from a very early version of that article as editted by Jtdirl (surprise). I agree though, that in principle what you suggest is the preferable solution in the long run.
I also have to say I find this whole "instigated by a stalker" line of reasoning rather distasteful. Not only is the choice of language unduly colourful, as per my earlier comments, it's an argumentum ad hominem: Skyring is a naughty banned person, and made the association between editor and subject, therefore it's an inherently wrong association to make: even if it's entirely accurate? Isn't it possible to determine suitable criteria for inclusion in the "Notable WPian" category without getting into the whole "windows into men's souls" territory? Nor is it accurate; Jtdirl's various contributions indicate it, as already documented; User:172 makes it, and Jtdirl is happy to quote him at length of his user page[4]; User:Michael Snow makes it, in adding the since-deleted "wikipedians with article" category to this article [5]; no-one challenges or removes this, until the whole category is deleted. If there's a consensus that the category, or the similar list, is only for people who acknowledge their notable RL identity, then fair enough, he shouldn't be included (though even that's rather marginal). If it's on just about any other basis I can think of, it seems to me he ought to be included. Alai 00:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's him! see this usenet post - he even posts with "jtd" (+"irl"=Ireland) .Jonto 02:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notanerd is the banned user Skyring. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This article was created by User:Jtdirl. As such, he has to have knowledge of the person. And, he additionally proved he has knowledge by reverising my edit. If Jtdirl is not Jim Duffy, all he has to do is say so. - Ted Wilkes 03:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if he were this person, the information on his Wikipedia User page is not reliable enough to count as verifiable information to be added to a Wikipedia article. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It's easy enough to resolve. As a Wikipedia:Administrator, I'm certain User:Jtdirl would definitely want to clear this up. All he has to do is state he is or is not Jim Duffy (author) as he is the one who in fact created the article with help from User:Zoe. - Ted Wilkes 03:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stop trolling. If you edit the page again, you will be blocked for violating WP:POINT. And what do you mean, with help from Zoe? I never edited this page, nor can I recall having ever seen it, until I just reverted your edit. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Violating WP:POINT? Sorry, Mr/Ms Zoe, but that is a bit off the wall. Never edited this page? 03:04, November 15, 2002 Zoe. - Ted Wilkes 03:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed that when I looked through the edit history. But big deal, I cleaned up an invalid edit. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for your information. User:Ted Wilkes is frequently gaming the system. He did this several times in the past. Most people may remember his mud-throwing campaign against arbcom member Fred Bauder. There is much evidence that he is identical with multi-hardbanned User:DW. For a summary of facts supporting this view, see [6]. Wilkes was blocked for one week by administrator Jtdirl. This kind of contribution seems to be his personal reaction. Onefortyone 04:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter?

[edit]

Duffy is clearly well known enough to be the subject of an article anyway so does it matter whether or not he is also editing,if he is? Zymurgy 08:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My personal feeling is that it doesn't matter; he just needs to be especially rigorous in citing anything he adds or changes. But the widespread view is that an article subject should definitely not edit an article. Everyking 12:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a well established principle in Wikipedia that people don't edit their own biographies. Jimmy Wales got into trouble over it, so did Michael Everson, and I'm sure there are many more. 213.94.241.138 14:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

renaming

[edit]

As this man is more widely known as a journalist or historian than an author, surely he should be called Jim Duffy (journalist) or Jim Duffy (historian)? In the future his books may be more famous than his journalism, but right now it is his journalism that is more famous. How does Wikipedia rename articles? This one should be renamed. 213.202.131.130 23:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without wishing to embarrass JTD in any way, I propose to move this article to Jim Duffy (journalist). Jim Duffy has a long and respected career as a journalist, and that is beyond dispute. While he may have written books, he doesn't seem to have published any, and I find the article title misleading, mainly because there seem to be several existing authors by that name, as found on Google. --Pete 02:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good move. There seem to be a lot of Jim Duffys according to Google, including soccer managers, senior civil servants, authors and others. This guy is known widely as a journalist so it is the right name to have this article under. 83.71.17.35 17:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jim Duffy (journalist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Jim Duffy (journalist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jim_Duffy_(journalist)&oldid=1205004916"