Talk:Matthew, Mark, Luke and John

Changes

Several corrections of errors - a frequently quoted author is "George" not "John", and he does not quote Ady as claimed - having read the actual book. I also chunked all his quotes together in one section, which shows that very little of it has to actual do with this rhyme, but appears to be a change to the Lord's Prayer made by a witch as recorded by someone else - ie Foster instead of Our Father. I'm not sure why this is all in here, but I kept it for now. MaxKen (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)MaxKen

This article needs some cleanup. There appears to be original research with no verifiability. Some claims don't have cites, and the conclusion is original research. Since this is a popular children's rhyme, many feel different about it, so without proper research, it also violates the neutral point of view. Suggest putting original research in origins section, with citations if they can be found, else it violates neutrality (not everyone agrees), original research (if can't be cited), and verifiability. Also, since this is a children's prayer rhyme tagged for the WikiProject Children's literature, suggest if original research has too much about witchcraft casting with no relationship to actual history of *this* topic, that it be tagged for moving. MaxKen (talk) 10:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)MaxKen

I have reverted the extensive recent edits because they introduced a number of problems: some of which are concerned with format and the WP:MOS, some of which are sources and some about POV. It is not that I do not think these may be valid, but there are so many that I cannot see exactly what is going on here. In these circumstances it is usually best to go through the problems one at a time, if only to make sure that editors are in agreement about the content of the article. I have tried to correct the factual errors that you point to (the name of Sinclair seems to come from an error in one of the (usually reliable) sources), but I cannot spot the other errors from the edit summary because there are so many changes, so perhaps you could point them out individually. I checked checked Sinclair's book and it cite the story from Ady, although it does not give his name and I have adjusted the text accordingly. If there is a continued problem perhaps you could just highlight it here. Could you specifically point out the OR, as I could not spot it among the edits and couldn't see a conclusion in the article. The Father Stephen (and perhaps the etymology dictionary) are not WP:reliable sources, so it is best to avoid those. The citation from Foley looks fine (when formatted), but the comments after do not seem to have a secondary source to support them and so seem to introduce, not remove OR. If there is OR somewhere else then please point it out specifically so that we can sort it out.--SabreBD (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm putting the actual Catholic origin of this rhyme back in. The user's original material purports that a well known children's rhyme is a black paternoster spell, and in support misquoted original source material, even getting the name of their most cited author wrong – they never read it. I'm not going to edit this users material again (author's name made up, material in source quoted isn't there - I looked, original research used and not cited). A quick check online reveals almost *no one* calls this the "black paternoster". I'm putting the Catholic origin of the material back in, as well as the quote from Thomas Ady, which is the only material that seems to mean anything about origins. I was too kind not to simply delete material about black / white patornosters which not only does not have anything to do with *this* kids prayer, but could be viewed as harmful to kids. It's a different topic. If there is formatting errors that is no excuse to delete actual material. Just reformat if it isn't an excuse. If you want to edit your sections, all your material is still there. We can discuss moving it to another article later. MaxKen (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)MaxKen

Please read WP:BRD and WP:Consensus. You have been bold, I have reverted it. Now lets find consensus. It will take me a little time to look into the point you make about the black paternoster.--SabreBD (talk) 08:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I am a bit puzzled with the assertion that this is not called the Black Paternoster, as a Google books search turns up several references. See [1].--SabreBD (talk) 08:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Since Ady isn't in the material of Sinclair, as the quote was untrue, there is no link to use of souces to most of the rest of the article. also a patornoster is a generic term. Fyi - "being a bit puzzled" isn't an authorative manner of writing - you overuse it. I can find a few references to virtually anything, but that is the problem - a few late books on witchcraft doesn't mean this rhyme is "called" that by the millions who actual use it. You should just admit you used original and wrong research, and let go. The whole article is junk because it has no authorative source. When you check the original source you used - which Wikipedia indicates you originally wrote this article, that source does not quote Ady like you claimed and was not written by the person you originally cited. This poem, which is a kids prayer, does not deserve original research turning it into a "spell". MaxKen (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)MaxKen

I am sitting looking at Sinclair and he quite definitely cites Ady, not by name, but it is clear where the story is from, as the reliable secondary sources that you keep deleting indicate. It is also clear that Sinclair has two versions of the rhyme, one called the White and one the the Black. I have never denied writting the article and freely admit that I make mistakes. If I appear to be writting in an a non-authoritve method it is because I am looking for compromise and consensus and not confrontation, it would be unwise to misinterpret that. Coming to the talkpage to declare someone else is wrong and then redoing your edits, espeically using a sock, is not a way to get consensus. I do not know why you are disregarding what is clearly in reliable sources and I am open to reasoned suggestions of why we are seeing this is two different ways. In the meantime I do not see any reason to let original research and dubious sources replace reliable ones. If you can explain your view of the sources then I am still listening and indeed to any other reasonable arguement.--SabreBD (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"He cites by Ady, but not by name" is called not citing, and is as childish as the rest of this behavior. I'm reverting your recent vandalism, and also putting back the citations to a catholic origin for the rhyme, which is against Wikipedia rules to remove. If you have any other research, you ought to put it in, as I am sure it will interest everyone that I direct to this page in the future - we want to know who is doing things like this - and indicates child abuse. I am sorry if that is your motive, but the best way to get over that if it is is just be truthful about it. MaxKen (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)MaxKen

Multiple relaible secondary sources indicate that he is citing the source and that is sufficient. Your own interpretation is not relevant here. Please stop your deletion of sourced material and replacement with unsourced material and that based on unrelaible sources such as blogs. You also need to be aware of the following policies: WP:Relaible sources, WP:Lead and WP:NPOV. Please stop your disruptive editing, that is vandalism.--SabreBD (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Different version

i remember from childhood it was "Matthew Mark Luke and John, Hold the horse while I get on." Where does that come from| 86.173.98.24 (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It is a satire originally from Scotland I believe. I will try to find a reference and put it in.--SabreBD (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Matthew, Mark, Luke and John/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 22:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this up so quickly. I look forward to it.--SabreBD (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

On first pass, this looks quite strong--well written and sourced, and clearly just about ready for promotion. It's brief, but Google and Google Books searches show that there's not much out there. This appears to cover the available "main aspects" well. Again, thanks for your work on this.

I only have one initial note before moving onto the checklist:

• " pioneering and controversial anthropologist Margaret Murray" -- this might be an unnecessarily loaded introduction to her name, especially since it lacks a source.

I added a reference that covers the controversy. I put this as an indication that readers perhaps should treat her statements with caution, but I am not wedded to it, if that doesn't work.--SabreBD (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Tell you what, I made a slight rephrase to name the work as controversial; that way the slightly peacocky/questionable "pioneering" also disappears. It still conveys a note of caution, but moves away from more general assessment of Murray. Does that make sense to you, too? Feel free to revert me if you disagree; I by no means intend what I just wrote to be the final word on this if you're not happy with it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I think its a good change. More accurate, avoids the probably unnecessary bit and still coveys the meaning. Good call.--SabreBD (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is clear and correct. Spotchecks against the Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes show no copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The discussion of Murray could use a citation--let me know your thoughts on this.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Gloag Four corners to my bed.jpg and File:Grosseteste bishop.jpg appear to need US public domain tags.  Done
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass