![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
![]() | On 7 May 2009, Maurice Jarre was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. ( Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
What is a cimbalom? RickK 16:28, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
A cimbalom is a hammer dulcimer.
How is Jarre pronounced?
Like "jar," only with a soft "j," as if it were "zh." Rich 05:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I made a major update to this article. if anyone has an image that is not subject to copyright, please do post it. If you have anything to add or to comment on feel free to do so, BUT PLZ don't edit the article before posting your edits for discussion. Tx A J Damen 09:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 07:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
This site: [ [1]] has this great man and his art. Agre22 ( talk) 01:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)agre22
I only found reference that are dated today which state he died. Most accurately says he was 84 at the time, but none of them mention the exact day or time it happened. Clearly assuming it was the same day is speculation. He could've died the evening before it was reported. Can someone actually verify the date? - Mgm| (talk) 10:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
"A WIKIPEDIA hoax by a 22-year-old Dublin student resulted in a fake quote being published in newspaper obituaries around the world. The quote was attributed to French composer Maurice Jarre who died at the end of March." [2] cojoco ( talk) 11:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
also http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/04/journalism-obituaries-shane-fitzgerald
This story has also just been reported on RTE Radio 1 News (Ireland's public sector broadcaster), and the sociology student from University College Dublin (UCD) was interviewed. (06/05/2009 1.30pm). Bmbwiki ( talk) 12:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Link to RTÉ radio news interview ("Experiment shows Internet can be unreliable"): http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0506/news1pm.html -- 89.101.220.70 ( talk) 20:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the article's history, it looks like it was IP user 86.42.227.123, which resolves to: 86-42-227-123-dynamic.b-ras1.cld.dublin.eircom.net. ☆ CieloEstrellado 01:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Pretty rude "experiment". Like you can mess with peoples' trust of Tylenol by putting poison into a few bottles as an experiment too. Or you can mess with peoples' trust of policemen or accounting auditors by planting evidence and/or entrapping them. If this was really an experiment about which the student was writing a paper for a class or other credit, he should be penalized. In the U.S. I think that experimental review boards of universities would govern, and would judge that "experiment" would not be ethical. doncram ( talk) 06:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
One small inconvenience for the wiki, one large eye-opener for mankind. All it did was inconvenience a few spam fighters an imperceptible bit more, but it shows everyone how even major 'respectable' newspapers will print anything without checking. (Imagine what Fox news will do for a story...) You concern trolls need to check and see if any damage was done before you complain. (Other than to the reputations of a few soon-to-be ex-journalists...) - WNight 74.198.50.165 ( talk) 06:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia needs this, Journalists and Traditional media need this experiment. Wikipedia is Wikipedia, not a traditional book. It should be treated with respect and with care. The blame here is on Journalists using the quote. Wikipedia makes it too easy to do research sometimes, and we need people fighting back and showing why that is a bad thing. -- Sverdrup ( talk) 09:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a pretty disturbing experiment, but in terms of the story in the context of Wikipedia, it definitely does not warrant an entire section in this person's bio. Maybe one sentence? It's much more suited to Wikipedia and its various sub-articles. Joshdboz ( talk) 08:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Now that the quote has been reported by reliable sources, it can be put back in the article. Wikipedia rules don't require the quote to be real - they just require it to be verifiable. Grundle2600 ( talk) 20:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I love Wikipedia but I'm saddened by these discussions:
I THINK THAT GUY WHO PUT THAT HOAX QUOTE DIDN'T REALLY MEAN TO VANDALIZE.AFTER ALL, HE ADMITTED TO IT, WAITED TILL NEWSPAPERS TAKE BACK WHAT THEY PUBLISHED,...I MEAN,... IF HE WERE JUST INTERESTED IN MAKING A LITTLE PRANK... HE WOULD HAVE LEFT IT AS IT IS... I THINK HE WAS MORE INTERESTED IN THE RESULT AND EVEN TOOK HIM A MONTH (I THINK) TO TAKE BACK WHAT HE PUT THERE... -BEENG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.96.25.98 ( talk) 02:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
That certainly stays here because so many actually believe what WP say are facts. And this is a good reminder why they should NOT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 ( talk) 09:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Not including a mention of the hoax in this article, given the worldwide attention it has received, is a joke, and is the precise reason why no one takes Wikipedia seriously. Crotchety Old Man ( talk) 15:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The "hoax" is a good example of why no one should trust a single source for information, particularly if that source can be edited by anyone. John Paul Parks ( talk) 15:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I will add, however, that deliberate insertion of false material into Wikipedia, or any other source, is wrong. John Paul Parks ( talk) 15:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I can't believe people really believe that Wikipedia is a credible source of information. What a laugh. And the people on here try so hard to make wikipedia look equivalent to Encylopaedia Britanica, but it isn't. I have seen so many false statements and false facts here on wikipedia it isn't even funny. I once tried to edit the "Kill Bill" movie article to say that at the very end of the movie she is seen crying and laughing in the bathroom. I got into an edit war with someone and then got a violation for vandalism. All one needed to do to verify that I was correct was to watch the last 2 minutes of the movie. Wikipedia is bullshit and you all know it. It is nothing more then a collection of miscellaneous trivia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamisonhalliwell ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not an unregistered user. I just don't know how to sign my comments. How do you cite something that happened in a movie? If someone dies in a movie how should I cite that? If someone laughs in a movie, how should I cite that? What I had written was something you could visibly see in the movie itself. There was no two ways about it. Jamisonhalliwell ( talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 17:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC).
While I know nothing about the man mentioned in the article, I think Shane Fitzgerald did a great thing. He helped out wiki. You should help me start his Article. -- I iz guy... so iz u ( talk) 19:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC) The college student proved a point and like he said, Wikepedia passed....Get over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.185.188.2 ( talk) 00:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC) HE was 82
Take a look at Special:Contributions/86.42.227.123 before anyone makes Shane Fitzgerald out to be some kind of great investigator. He appears to have edited Maurice Jarre, Blessington, and Guppy. I know an IP address can be shared by multiple users, but there is a similarity in the spelling and grammar of these edits, and in the general nature of the changes. It looks like three clear cases of childish vandalism to me. So the media got duped by his latest vandalism, Fitzgerald watched with glee for a month, and he eventually stepped forward to take credit and stoke his own ego. While there are lessons to be learned, let's not help him get famous over this! Taquito1 ( talk) 03:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
69.212.37.115 ( talk) 00:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)NotWillDecker
Yeah you seriously need to look again at the edits. Saying they have similar spelling and grammar is completely false. Also the other edits were in 2008 so its obvious they were not the same person. Gune ( talk) 09:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
People have opined extensively above on the question about whether any or how much information on the hoax is included here. It may be helpful to have people give their brief opinion summary here, leaving further comment in other sections. Bongo matic 04:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
This article doesn't credit him with composing the music for The Longest Day, yet the Wikipedia article on that film does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjnyc ( talk • contribs) 23:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
There are plenty of decent photos; can somebody find one without copyright issues? ~E 74.60.29.141 ( talk) 19:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I have undone a bot deletion of a link I added to my own obituary of Jarre. I totally agree that Wikipedia must not be a repository of links. That does not stop my article being perhaps the most substantial obituary of Jarre in English. Perhaps some of the volunteers who monitor this site could take a view on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.24.108 ( talk) 21:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Fine, Dirk, though as a rare editor here I am not sure why your word is better than mine (though it probably is). If one wants to guard against link-creep, one has to examine the content being linked to. Otherwise one is saying "newspapers good", "blogs bad", which is a meaningless criterion. Either one should get rid of all, as you suggest, or examine the value. 78.149.24.108 ( talk) 21:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes -- we have agreed all that. But then why are you eliminating my very substantial blog piece (more so than the others at least), but not removing the newspapers at the same time? Happy New Year. 78.149.24.108 ( talk) 10:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes I did, and it certainly adds a LOT that is not in the article. It does so by placing Jarre in a French historical tradition. It also says much more than the newspaper obituaries. You could say that the fact that I wrote it biases me. On the other hand, it also means I know what I am talking about. 78.149.24.108 ( talk) 14:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Maurice Jarre. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
![]() | On 7 May 2009, Maurice Jarre was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. ( Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
What is a cimbalom? RickK 16:28, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
A cimbalom is a hammer dulcimer.
How is Jarre pronounced?
Like "jar," only with a soft "j," as if it were "zh." Rich 05:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I made a major update to this article. if anyone has an image that is not subject to copyright, please do post it. If you have anything to add or to comment on feel free to do so, BUT PLZ don't edit the article before posting your edits for discussion. Tx A J Damen 09:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 07:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
This site: [ [1]] has this great man and his art. Agre22 ( talk) 01:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)agre22
I only found reference that are dated today which state he died. Most accurately says he was 84 at the time, but none of them mention the exact day or time it happened. Clearly assuming it was the same day is speculation. He could've died the evening before it was reported. Can someone actually verify the date? - Mgm| (talk) 10:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
"A WIKIPEDIA hoax by a 22-year-old Dublin student resulted in a fake quote being published in newspaper obituaries around the world. The quote was attributed to French composer Maurice Jarre who died at the end of March." [2] cojoco ( talk) 11:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
also http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/04/journalism-obituaries-shane-fitzgerald
This story has also just been reported on RTE Radio 1 News (Ireland's public sector broadcaster), and the sociology student from University College Dublin (UCD) was interviewed. (06/05/2009 1.30pm). Bmbwiki ( talk) 12:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Link to RTÉ radio news interview ("Experiment shows Internet can be unreliable"): http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0506/news1pm.html -- 89.101.220.70 ( talk) 20:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the article's history, it looks like it was IP user 86.42.227.123, which resolves to: 86-42-227-123-dynamic.b-ras1.cld.dublin.eircom.net. ☆ CieloEstrellado 01:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Pretty rude "experiment". Like you can mess with peoples' trust of Tylenol by putting poison into a few bottles as an experiment too. Or you can mess with peoples' trust of policemen or accounting auditors by planting evidence and/or entrapping them. If this was really an experiment about which the student was writing a paper for a class or other credit, he should be penalized. In the U.S. I think that experimental review boards of universities would govern, and would judge that "experiment" would not be ethical. doncram ( talk) 06:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
One small inconvenience for the wiki, one large eye-opener for mankind. All it did was inconvenience a few spam fighters an imperceptible bit more, but it shows everyone how even major 'respectable' newspapers will print anything without checking. (Imagine what Fox news will do for a story...) You concern trolls need to check and see if any damage was done before you complain. (Other than to the reputations of a few soon-to-be ex-journalists...) - WNight 74.198.50.165 ( talk) 06:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia needs this, Journalists and Traditional media need this experiment. Wikipedia is Wikipedia, not a traditional book. It should be treated with respect and with care. The blame here is on Journalists using the quote. Wikipedia makes it too easy to do research sometimes, and we need people fighting back and showing why that is a bad thing. -- Sverdrup ( talk) 09:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a pretty disturbing experiment, but in terms of the story in the context of Wikipedia, it definitely does not warrant an entire section in this person's bio. Maybe one sentence? It's much more suited to Wikipedia and its various sub-articles. Joshdboz ( talk) 08:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Now that the quote has been reported by reliable sources, it can be put back in the article. Wikipedia rules don't require the quote to be real - they just require it to be verifiable. Grundle2600 ( talk) 20:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I love Wikipedia but I'm saddened by these discussions:
I THINK THAT GUY WHO PUT THAT HOAX QUOTE DIDN'T REALLY MEAN TO VANDALIZE.AFTER ALL, HE ADMITTED TO IT, WAITED TILL NEWSPAPERS TAKE BACK WHAT THEY PUBLISHED,...I MEAN,... IF HE WERE JUST INTERESTED IN MAKING A LITTLE PRANK... HE WOULD HAVE LEFT IT AS IT IS... I THINK HE WAS MORE INTERESTED IN THE RESULT AND EVEN TOOK HIM A MONTH (I THINK) TO TAKE BACK WHAT HE PUT THERE... -BEENG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.96.25.98 ( talk) 02:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
That certainly stays here because so many actually believe what WP say are facts. And this is a good reminder why they should NOT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 ( talk) 09:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Not including a mention of the hoax in this article, given the worldwide attention it has received, is a joke, and is the precise reason why no one takes Wikipedia seriously. Crotchety Old Man ( talk) 15:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The "hoax" is a good example of why no one should trust a single source for information, particularly if that source can be edited by anyone. John Paul Parks ( talk) 15:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I will add, however, that deliberate insertion of false material into Wikipedia, or any other source, is wrong. John Paul Parks ( talk) 15:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I can't believe people really believe that Wikipedia is a credible source of information. What a laugh. And the people on here try so hard to make wikipedia look equivalent to Encylopaedia Britanica, but it isn't. I have seen so many false statements and false facts here on wikipedia it isn't even funny. I once tried to edit the "Kill Bill" movie article to say that at the very end of the movie she is seen crying and laughing in the bathroom. I got into an edit war with someone and then got a violation for vandalism. All one needed to do to verify that I was correct was to watch the last 2 minutes of the movie. Wikipedia is bullshit and you all know it. It is nothing more then a collection of miscellaneous trivia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamisonhalliwell ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not an unregistered user. I just don't know how to sign my comments. How do you cite something that happened in a movie? If someone dies in a movie how should I cite that? If someone laughs in a movie, how should I cite that? What I had written was something you could visibly see in the movie itself. There was no two ways about it. Jamisonhalliwell ( talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 17:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC).
While I know nothing about the man mentioned in the article, I think Shane Fitzgerald did a great thing. He helped out wiki. You should help me start his Article. -- I iz guy... so iz u ( talk) 19:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC) The college student proved a point and like he said, Wikepedia passed....Get over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.185.188.2 ( talk) 00:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC) HE was 82
Take a look at Special:Contributions/86.42.227.123 before anyone makes Shane Fitzgerald out to be some kind of great investigator. He appears to have edited Maurice Jarre, Blessington, and Guppy. I know an IP address can be shared by multiple users, but there is a similarity in the spelling and grammar of these edits, and in the general nature of the changes. It looks like three clear cases of childish vandalism to me. So the media got duped by his latest vandalism, Fitzgerald watched with glee for a month, and he eventually stepped forward to take credit and stoke his own ego. While there are lessons to be learned, let's not help him get famous over this! Taquito1 ( talk) 03:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
69.212.37.115 ( talk) 00:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)NotWillDecker
Yeah you seriously need to look again at the edits. Saying they have similar spelling and grammar is completely false. Also the other edits were in 2008 so its obvious they were not the same person. Gune ( talk) 09:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
People have opined extensively above on the question about whether any or how much information on the hoax is included here. It may be helpful to have people give their brief opinion summary here, leaving further comment in other sections. Bongo matic 04:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
This article doesn't credit him with composing the music for The Longest Day, yet the Wikipedia article on that film does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjnyc ( talk • contribs) 23:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
There are plenty of decent photos; can somebody find one without copyright issues? ~E 74.60.29.141 ( talk) 19:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I have undone a bot deletion of a link I added to my own obituary of Jarre. I totally agree that Wikipedia must not be a repository of links. That does not stop my article being perhaps the most substantial obituary of Jarre in English. Perhaps some of the volunteers who monitor this site could take a view on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.24.108 ( talk) 21:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Fine, Dirk, though as a rare editor here I am not sure why your word is better than mine (though it probably is). If one wants to guard against link-creep, one has to examine the content being linked to. Otherwise one is saying "newspapers good", "blogs bad", which is a meaningless criterion. Either one should get rid of all, as you suggest, or examine the value. 78.149.24.108 ( talk) 21:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes -- we have agreed all that. But then why are you eliminating my very substantial blog piece (more so than the others at least), but not removing the newspapers at the same time? Happy New Year. 78.149.24.108 ( talk) 10:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes I did, and it certainly adds a LOT that is not in the article. It does so by placing Jarre in a French historical tradition. It also says much more than the newspaper obituaries. You could say that the fact that I wrote it biases me. On the other hand, it also means I know what I am talking about. 78.149.24.108 ( talk) 14:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Maurice Jarre. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)