Talk:Robert Morrison (missionary)

Nationality

Call me stupid - but how can someone who was born and grew up in England be Scottish? The article should either say he is English or English of Scottish fatherhood - or at least explain how he is Scottish.

Somebody keeps changing this back to Scottish just because one American library says this in a document about somebody else. If you care to read his entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography - there is no mention of Scot, Scotish, Scotland. It seems his only claim to Scottishness is a Scottish father. But that does not make one Scottish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinigi (talk • contribs) 21:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, quoting myself, "His father, James Morrison was a Scotsman who had been born in Dunfermline, and had settled in Northumberland. His mother was of local Northumberland ancestry. ... the Morrison children were brought up in the Scottish church", and I believe that he considered himself Scottish, but I don't have a reliable source for this off hand. BabelStone (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

A couple of examples from Google Book Search:

• Robert Morrison, a scot of humble origins
• Robert Morrison (1782-1834), a Presbyterian Scot born in England

BabelStone (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

To paraphrase the quintessential Englishman Wellington (himself born outwith England) "Being born in a stable does not make one a horse". Which is why we do not apply Category:Horses to our Jesus article.

Wikipedia:Verify is an official Wikipedia policy. There are lots of reliable external refs which refer to Morrison as Scottish; I simply picked one from a highly respected university - Columbia.

By the way, there are many notable Scots born outwith Scotland. Wendy Wood and Michael Russell are two Kent-born examples which spring to mind.

There are also many notable French people born outwith France, many notable English people born outwith England, many notable Americans born outwith the United States... etc etc etc. User:Kinigi is going to have a very brief Wikipedia career if he tries to go around thousands of biography articles changing the nationality description of these people.--Mais oui! (talk) 01:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Mais Non! Your examples betray your agenda: one of Nationalism rather than Fact! The reality is that he was born and grew up in England (as a member of a Scottish church)and was a missionary with the London Missionary Society. Is there any evidence that he ever set foot in Scotland? And as for self -declarations: Livingstone called himself an Englishman - but I bet you wouldn't allow that on his Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinigi (talk • contribs) 08:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Dearie dearie me. You really ought to read WP:NPA. It'll save you much grief. Simply because a User cites 2 nationalists as examples does not make the User a "nationalist" (sic). I also cited Wellington: does that make me a British nationalist? Sigh.

Wikipedia is built on reliable external sources, not on the opinion of some passing English nationalist. There, see what I did? --Mais oui! (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Mais Non! Je suis moins anglais (et plus ecossais!) que notre heros M. Robert Morrison! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinigi (talk • contribs) 15:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks for changing the nationality description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinigi (talk • contribs) 20:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Stupid. — LlywelynII 14:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, though, talkpage bickering aside, it's ridiculous to lard the WP:LEDE section with six separate (and, what makes it still more pointless, random and non-authoritative) sources for a simple and uninteresting point. (WP:OVERCITE.) If it's really so contentious, start a #Nationality section of the page and go to town on the "controversy". — LlywelynII 14:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Quote

I removed the quote listed earlier, which actually is attributed to William Milne, Morrison's colleague.-— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.209.120.238 (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Robert Morrison (missionary) → Robert Morrison — This should be the primary page rather than one among several on the disambig page. Cf. WP:DISAMBIG#Primary_topic. Brian0324 18:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I oppose that move. There are about a dozen other Robert Morrisons on the disambiguation page, and the main reason that this one has so many incoming links is its inclusion in the template Template:Protestant missions to China (which is transcluded in nearly 200 pages). I like templates being used to facilitate navigation between articles, but that transclusion should not lead to overriding the normal dismabiguation process, which works much much better when the primary page is the dab page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is some justification to make this Robert Morrison a primary subject compared to the numerous other Robert Morrisons, no move should be done and Robert Morrison should remain a disambig page. Dl2000 20:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I did a search on Google minus all Wikipedia sites and he is the only subject of all of the other individuals on the disambiguation pages that I could find in the first 3 pages (30 sites) of search results. The missionary is really the primary subject on the web and Wikipedia should reflect that.Brian0324 21:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Brian0324, I think you are misunderstanding the policy about making something a primary page. We should make something a primary page only when the term is almost exclusively used in one manner with perhaps incidental or very outdated uses existing for the term in question. If the term has many multiple uses then a disamg page is most helpful to aid readers in finding the correct entry. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't dispute that there are other Robert Morrisons, but there are none as notable. Is there one other that comes close? Joseph Smith, Jr. could be called Joseph Smith (Mormon), but I think that it makes sense as it is. I'm just saying that the missionary is most searched for.Brian0324 22:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make is that we do not give the term to the most notable when there are many other common uses for the term. Doing so causes problems. For example, would result in improper linking to the most notable use when folks intended it to be used for another purpose. This causes unnecessary confusion and wrong usage that can be avoided by using a disamb page which alerts readers/editors that the term may be used in multiple ways. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Mrs Night, you don't understand the policy. Kindly actually reread WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If this Robert Morrison is getting more attention than all his namesakes—as Brian's checking seemed to show—then their mere existence has no bearing whatsoever. — LlywelynII 14:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a clear primary topic here. There isn't a single individual who dominates search results. A primary topic isn't just one that is first among close to equals, it is one that clearly predominates against all other uses of the term combined. (Whether we should have all the redlinks in the disambiguation page is debatable, but not relevant to whether this is the primary topic. GRBerry 22:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert Morrison (rower) is the only other Wikipedia article that has the exact same name. A disambiguation link at the top of the page for the missionary should solve any confusion.Brian0324 22:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the proposed move for the same reasons given by BrownHairedGirl and GRBerry above. Ubi Terrarum 00:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert Morrison, 1st Baron Morrison was called Robert Morrison for much of his life, and prsumably still is, especially since the barony is extinct. If this Robert Morrison were clearly more notable, we could deal; but I don't see that he is. Nor that he would be if first' Protestant missionary in China were proven, which it is not. (Likely, yes.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This is off topic - but it is cited in the article that he was the first. I've never seen that in dispute.

Oppose. Given the number of people with this name how can we really decide a primary use? Vegaswikian 03:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a fair amount of disagreement with this move. Understood that the evidence needs to be beyond doubt for the use of his name to be unmodified.Brian0324 15:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Am I right to read that as meaning that you have withdrawn the move request? If so, could you remove the {{move}} tag from the top of the page? Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks to everyone for the input.Brian0324 17:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Support, pending any actual data showing the guy isn't the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The posters above seem to have badly misunderstood the policy in question and provided no actual data to support their opposition. — LlywelynII 14:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Organization of article

I made some changes in organization of article. My idea is to article be divaded in two sections: Biography with several sub-sectios and Work with two main sections Missionary work and Scholary work. --Vojvodaeist 16:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Quotes

Is there a reference for theese quotes?--Vojvodaeist 16:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

List of works by Robert Morrison (missionary)

Is it OK to move list of his works in specific article?--Vojvodaeist 16:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Literature

Is there any new literature on this subject?--Vojvodaeist 19:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Missionary Vandal

I just cleaned up a vandal at William Carey, and now I see vandalism on this one. Both have a similar pattern...

Yeah dude, PowerUserPCDude was here (yeah) (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Institution in Singapore

The Institution in Singapore founded by Morrison did not collapse, as is described in this article. Morrison co-founded Singapore Institution (the present Raffles Institution) with Sir Raffles, and the Institution is extant at present date.

Furthermore, to state that "new governor manifested less interest" regarding the establishment of the Institution is untrue, given that the co-founder is Sir Raffles who is described as the founder of Modern Singapore and a prominent administrator of the East India Company.

It is an object of my general concern that this biographical article employs large amounts of subjective language and presents sensationalistic instead of objective reportage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.74.206.5 (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Works

http://books.google.com/books?id=QvtGAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=69Y_AQAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=RyYQAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Rather orientalist/insensitive/non-encyclopedic tone

The entire article reads to me as from an unduly romantic, pro-Western perspective, in tone and often in text. It's about a Western Protestant missionary of course, but I think there's a lot of work to be done to balance it. For example, I just removed a passage that, while sounding a bit archaic and unconcerned with goings-on in China (outside the context of trying to Christianize it) throughout, I had to remove an instance of the 'chinaman' slur. I know it's a singular example, but I hope the issue I'm raising is well-represented and understood. Remsense (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)