Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:46, 22 August 2009

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

Biography: Peerage and Baronetage Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as Low-importance).

Anglicanism Start‑class High‑importance

Cosmo Gordon Lang is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AnglicanismWikipedia:WikiProject AnglicanismTemplate:WikiProject AnglicanismAnglicanism Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Yorkshire B‑class Low‑importance

Cosmo Gordon Lang is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Pulled

The page included the following:

"In 1943 Lang wrote "The Mongolian Master and his Disciple-in Quest of the Little World of White by Frater Om-soc" - the author "Om-soc" being "Cosmo" spelled backwards. The 8 page one-act play was privately printed and is considered to be a spoof on occultism in general and the poet/ magician Aleister Crowley (1875-1947) in particular. Apparently Lang knew both Crowley and the author Arthur Calder-Marshall (1908- ) in whose autobiography "The Magic of My Youth" Lang was mentioned."

According to the British Library catalogue, "The Mongolian Master" was written by Cosmo Trelawney. (I have not found much on the web about this Trelawney but he appears as an editor of a collection of Crowley's writing so presumably an associate.) I have therefore deleted the passage as probably a case of mistaken identity. I would however be very interested in knowing of the source for the assertion, even if it isn't correct, or any other Lang biographical snippets. Aardwolf 18:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Full name

The official website must have made a mistake (they probably confused him with his successor). For example:

The KING has been pleased, by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm, bearing date the 2nd instant, to confer the dignity of a Barony of the United Kingdom upon The Most Reverend and Right Honourable Cosmo Gordon Lang, G.C.V.O., D D., late Archbishop of Canterbury, and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten, by the name, style and title of BARON LANG OF LAMBETH, of Lambeth in the County of Surrey. (London Gazette, 3 April 1942) Proteus (Talk) 13:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sexuality

David Starkey, in his documentary "Monarchy", refers to Lang as "homosexual, probably non-practising". The Times also refers to him as being gay: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/michael_gove/article1147059.ece. Does anyone know if there's any proof of this? --The Thieving Gypsy (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Family?

Did he never marry? Looking at the comments in the above section I guess not. This should be brought out in the article somehow. I am not sure if the gossip about him should be included, unless he professed his love for a man, I think it would be inappropriate to include the speculation of others regarding whether or not he was gay. NancyHeise 15:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

'Tithe War', 1935-36

One issue the article doesn't mention is Lang's alleged hardline stance over the so-called 'tithe wars' in 1935-36, when tenant farmers in East Anglia refused to pay tithes to the Church of England in protest at what they regarded as an undemocratic form of taxation. A cinema newsreel item covering the event (referenced in this article) accuses Lang of encouraging the seizure of property and eviction of farmers from their homes. This article from 1933 gives the impression that the issue had been live for a few years previously. LDGE (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Article expansion

During the next few weeks the article will be expanded to a full length biography. The non-free portrait has already been replaced with a PD photograph, and more images are to be added. The main sources for the additional text will be Lockhart's biography of Lang, Iremonger's biography of William Temple, Hastings's History of English Christianity 1920-1985, the Oxford DNB, other church histories, and various books dealing with the abdication crisis of 1936. There are also numerous reliable on-line sites relating to specific aspects of Lang's life and career.

I can confirm (per Nancy's comment) that Lang remained unmarried. The question of his sexuality, or of speculation about it, needs to be handled with discretion. The tithes dispute will definitely be covered; in 1935, over this issue, Lang's effigy was burned by demonstrators in Ashford, Kent. Editors are welcome to suggest other content, and/or to comment on the expansion as it unfolds, though the idea is to send the article to Peer Review when it looks to be in a suitably advanced state. I have begun the process by posting a provisional expansion of the lead, though this could change as the article develops. Brianboulton (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Progress: As of 3 August the expansion has reached 1908, the year of Lang's appointment as Archbishop of York. Progress is a little slow at the momemt, due to other commitments, but I hope the draft will be complete by around 12 August, thence to peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have moved the underconstruction banner to the sections which still require major work. I have also experimentally deleted the infobox, which contined no information that wasn't either in the adjacent lead, or in the tables at the end of the article. Brianboulton (talk) 08:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the whole point of the infobox is to be an extremely brief summary of the article, I tend to agree that to a large extent it's redundant to the lead, but I beleive it's used on every other ABC, so for consistency I think we're stuck with it. David Underdown (talk) 11:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we are "stuck with it". Infoboxes are a choice, not a requirement (as is repeatedly emphasised at FAC). However (see below) I'm not warring on this. Unless a consensus develops otherwise, it stays. Brianboulton (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox detail may be redundant to the text but is a useful place to be able to see the information at a quick glance without having to read through the article. If your argument were true then we would strip out infoboxes from every article. I suggest it is reinstated. Keith D (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a body of opinion in Misplaced Pages that thinks precisely that about infoboxes. I don't feel that strongly. However, I am writing an article that I hope people will read...and you're telling me I need to provide an infobox so people won't have to read it! (I'm sure you didn't really mean that) Anyway, the box is back, for better or worse. Brianboulton (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would exactly mean that. Having an infobox at the top of the article that, for instance, gives me the full dates of Lang's tenure, mentions his predecessor and successor, and notes that he was archbishop of Canterbury seems like a useful thing to have. john k (talk) 05:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Archbishop of Canterbury or archbishop of Canterbury

One minor point, the changes as they go so far seem to be using archbishop of York, bishop of Stepney etc, I know this is the style that ODNB uses, but then they also don't cap eg duke in duke of Westminster. Wikiepdia certainly recommends Duke of Westminster, and titles of Archbishops etc normally seem to follow that practice to me (the other just looks wrong to me, but I appreciate that may jsut be perosnal preference). I think even The Guardian, which is generally very restricitve on the use of capitals prefers Archbishop of Canterbury etc. David Underdown (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I started following the ODNB style, although it feels wrong to me, too. I was going to raise the matter here, to see what others think. My personal choice would be to use bishop and archbishop, uncapitalised, when referring to church titles, but Bishop of ..., Archbishop of ..., etc, when referring to church offices. How does that seem? Brianboulton (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be my preference too. David Underdown (talk) 10:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The practising Cosmo Cantuar story

This anecdote is restored for a second time. The reason for deletion is said to be that a "reliable source" is required. The source is, as the footnote indicates, Anthony Howard, one of the most reliable journalists of his generation and the official biographer of Cardinal Basil Hume. The anecdote also serves to balance the article, relying as it does largely on a single, rather reverential, source. Ragbin (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I know who Anthony Howard is; his personal reliability is not the issue. As I said in my note to you, the source has to be retrievable in some form. It's no good saying that Howard said this on the radio, if no one can actually check what he said. Is there a recording, or a published transcript that can be referred to? In any event, anecdotes should not be reported as fact. If the source can be verified, one might say "The story is told that..." etc

As it happens, a similar story is told by Lockhart, p. 127. I was proposing to include it, with suitable caveats, later in the article. In Lockhart's version the signature practice occurred not at Oxford, but during Lang's incumbency at Portsea. Lockhart recounts it as "one of the stories people were beginning to tell about Lang", so it has to be treated with appropriate caution.

You say the article relies on "a single, rather reverential source". For the early part of Lang's life, which is all that is written thus far, Lockhart is pretty well the only detailed source available. His book is dated in style, and certainly sympathetic to his subject, but I don't think it is "reverential"; Alan Wilkinson, who wrote the ODNB entry for Lang, draws heavily on Lockhart's biography and maintains that it has stood the test of time. As Lang becomes more of a public figure, there are more sources upon which to draw. There will be plenty of material that will "balance the article".

I have adjusted the story to conform with published sources, and have relocated it chronologically. If you have other Lang material that can be cited to reliable published sources, I'd be pleased to hear it. Thank you for your interest in the article.

Brianboulton (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Source organisation

Do we really need to give full details of the London Gazette refs in both the refs and notes section, and sources? It seems a bit clunky to me. I've always thought the point of the Sources bit was to avoid giving full details each time when referring to multiple pages of the same book, different pages from different issues of the Gazette is a bit different, particularly since we can link direct to the source in each case.

It has been my habit, on all articles, to provide a complete list of sources used, even though with on-line sources this repeats information in the notes and refs section. The two sections, Notes/references and Sources, have different functions. The first lists each in-line citation, the second is a general list of all sources used in compiling the article. There may be different views on the necessity of this, but I find it useful, and worth the rather tiresome effort. Brianboulton (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Similarly, we currently split links to the ODNB across several different notes, with different page numbers - I'm not clear how these page numbers have been worked out, they're not given in the online version, are they actually from the paper copy? David Underdown (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The page numbers are from my printout from the online version. You are right, they don't appear in the on-line version itself. There are 26 citations to the long ODNB article; I will change the page numbers to ONDB section headings. Brianboulton (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: I am sending the article to WP:Peer Review to obtain comments, if possible, from the wider Misplaced Pages community, and would be grateful if any future observations could be recorded there. You obviously have an interest in the article, since you've been tracking it ever since I started the expansion, and have contributed several corrective edits. I would be interested to have your broader views on this treatment of Lang's life - is the balance right, does it do him justice, etc? I look forward to your contribution at the peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Burial place?

ODNB says St Stephen's Chapel (Westminster), our article (except in the infobox where I changed it at some point), says St Stephen Martyr, Canterbury Cathedral, cited to Lockhart. Now, I know that chapel was restored in his memory since I took the photo, but I think we need to resolve this somehow. David Underdown (talk) 08:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Lockhart is very specific in his narrative: funeral at Westminster Abbey, body then moved to Canterbury, a second service followed by cremation. After lying overnight in the Chapel of the Old Palace the ashes are taken to the Chapel of Our Lady Undercroft, and are then committed "in the Chapel of St Stephen in the North-East transept; and there they now lie, close to the tomb of Archbishop Chichele ... within the Cathedral which Lang had loved so well." St Stephen's Chapel, Westminster, was evidently destroyed by fire in 1834. Brianboulton (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

ODNB error then, makes more sense of the fact the one in Canterbury was restored in his hnour anyway. David Underdown (talk) 09:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionary of National Biography...

Is not only a subscription online service but also a set of printed works, and in either form is a perfectly fine source. Subscription databases and other subscription only services are allowed as sources as long as they are noted as such. Since I didn't take the source out, I am not sure where to readd it in, as it should be. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It is my understanding that subscription websites are not permitted as sources as it is not possible to cite the source in the accepted manner. If you believe otherwise please provide the Wiki information to support this. Until then I request that any references which rely on subscription services should not be included. Afterwriting (talk) 13:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It's NOT just a subscription service, however. It's also a print work, so even if there was a blanket prohibition on subscription services, it would not apply in this case. Meanwhile, I will dig for the information on subscription services. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that WP:V does not say anything at all about subscription services being disallowed. In fact it specifically requests sources from University Presses, which Oxford University Press is. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

See Reliable Sources noticeboard Archive 18, Archive 8 - where the subject is ONDB, Archive 31, Archive 13. Hope this helps. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the links but these only appear, however, to be opinions and not authoritative. My reading suggests that vague references to information on searchable websites does not provide sufficient information to be a reliable source unless actual information from the printed version is also included ( such as page numbers ). Afterwriting (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Afterwriting, I think you're wrong and the consensus at FAC is against you too. All of my bishops' articles include links to the ONDB, and they've passed FAC with no problems with that. Are you perhaps looking at WP:EL for the basis of your information? That doesn't deal with sourcing, it deals with the external links that accompany the article, as a "further reading" section. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to be proved wrong. But I cannot understand how just poviding a link to a website that requires searching can be acceptable. Surely more information should be required? Although I haven't yet found anything that officially forbids such references I also haven't found anything that officially states that it's acceptable either. Afterwriting (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused by your statement "just poviding a link to a website that requires searching can be acceptable" ... the link is to a complete article on the person. There is no searching required, the link goes directly to the relevant article. You could also list the print version in a bibliography just referencing the article title without giving page numbers, and it would be a valid form of bibliographical entry. The entry for Lang's article gives the title of the article, which is given in full bibliographical detail at the bottom of this article as "Wilkinson, Alan (2006). "(William) Cosmo Gordon Lang (1864–1945)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved 26 July 2009. (subscription required)" and if you were writing a scholarly article and referencing the article you could go "Wilkinson, Alan (2006). "(William) Cosmo Gordon Lang (1864–1945)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press." which would be a perfectly legitimate reference. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ealdgyth on all counts. Misplaced Pages is not a compendium of free internet information, we often have information not available online, or available online only by paying money. It is nice when something can be verified with one click, but it is not always the case. Sometimes you have to go to a book, or choose between paying money to an archive service or going to a library to examine microfilm. Very surprised at this discussion and the parallel one at WP:RS.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

As I've said, I'm happy to be proved wrong. The problem was that when I clicked on the link it didn't go to the article on Lang - I suppose it might have done so if I was a subscriber and already signed on. I would still appreciate an official Wiki statement, if possible, that states it's okay to use such sources. I'm not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand such things more adequately as most editors are not experts on the inticacies of Wiki policies - so I'm surprised at your surprise about this discussion. Afterwriting (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Afterwriting, you are misinformed on this account, and I wonder where you formed this opinion? There is no policy or guideline on Wiki that requires that sources be available online or that prohibits using subscription services; that would prohibit the use of many superior sources. For example, note that most medical FAs are sourced to journal articles that are rarely available online but are indexed at PubMed, and links are provided to the abstracts only, while a subscription is often required to access the full journal. This is no different than sourcing an article to a book, which doesn't have to be available online. If you have reason to doubt that a source is being represented accurately, please remember to AGF, but you can always request a quote to back up the text from a source you can't access. Please do not continue removing sources, as there is simply no foundation in policy for your concern. An "official Wiki statement" is not needed on this topic: it is up to you to justify your misunderstanding with a foundation in policy or guideline: where do you find any policy on Wiki that requires that sources be accessible online? There isn't one. Books, journal articles, library archives, many such sources are fully acceptables, and courtesy links to databases such as PubMed are routine and acceptable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The problem is, wiki policies don't work that way. Policy is the highest level of guidance, but it doesn't normally rule on this sort of detail. Guidelines are where details are given, along with the WP:RSN, where you asked the question. If consensus on the RSN is that it's allowed, it's probably as close to an official pronouncement as you'll get, I'm afraid. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Requests for peer review
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (peerage) articles
• Low-importance biography (peerage) articles
• Peerage and Baronetage work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Anglicanism articles
• High-importance Anglicanism articles
• Start-Class Christianity articles
• B-Class Yorkshire articles
• Low-importance Yorkshire articles
• WikiProject Yorkshire articles
• Unassessed London-related articles
• Unknown-importance London-related articles