Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:31, 7 July 2013

Devon Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Devon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Devon 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.DevonWikipedia:WikiProject DevonTemplate:WikiProject DevonDevon Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Error: Target page was not specified with to.

Original research etc

I've spent a while looking at just one section of this article, checking the information against the cited sources and any others I can find. The result is a number of {{citation needed}} and {{original research}} tags. There are also a number of dates of death that don't have any obvious references (I've only tagged some of them), so I hope that there is another so-far uncited source that has provided the details of these.  —SMALLJIM  16:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem, refs to be added shortly, probably from Vivian, Heraldic Visitations. I don't know why you removed the main article tag in Molland linking to the article on the manor? (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC))

Just to deal with that last point first, I finally expanded the History section sufficiently so that a sub-heading and a {{Main}} template seemed to be warranted. Comments on your edits today will follow.  —SMALLJIM  17:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I had noticed, good to see that article expanding. I await your comments. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC))

There are still problems

All of this was generated from just one paragraph of the 40 or so in the article.

On the left (Pre) is the wikitext including my inline tags. On the right (Post) is Lobsterthermidor's response.

• In this first snippet I asked for a reference for the death date of 1488 and the year that he was Sheriff, stated as 1470/1.

The date of death has gone (assumed OR), and the year 1470/1 explained as "11 Edward IV (i.e. 1740/1 1470/1)" (which might be borderline OR - how many people looking at the source would know how to confirm this?) The refs for this are given as Pole, p. 100 (on which page there is no mention of him in the Google Books version - it's on p.98) and Risdon (published 1811, not 1810 as stated), where it is certainly on p.11 of an appendix, the title of the relevant section of which is actually "The Sheriffs of Devon since the Conquest".

• So one piece of OR removed, one piece dubiously cited and both citations have errors.
• Solution: fix the citations, get advice on whether converting "11 Edward IV" into "1740/1 1470/1" is OR or not - WP:CALC refers.

• Here I asked for confirmation that Philip Courtenay was given the Hungerford manor of Molland by his parents.

Rogers, p. 385 states:

Sir Philip Courtenay (second son of Sir Philip Courtenay of Powderham, and Elizabeth daughter of Walter Lord Hungerford) had, through his mother, who was sister of Robert, Lord Hungerford, who married Margaret daughter and heiress of William, the last Lord Bottreaux, Molland given to him as his portion.

Does that confirm that he was given by his parents the Hungerford manor of Molland? I can't see it.

• The text seems to be interpreting what is in the source.
• Solution: rephrase to reflect what the source actually says - WP:STICKTOSOURCE refers.

• This asked for confirmation of Elizabeth's date of death, and that the Wonwall mentioned is in the parish of Kingston, Devon.

The date of death has gone (assumed OR) The first source cited, Vivian (p.246), says of the wife of this Philip Courtenay of Molland:

Elizabeth, da. of ... and widow of William Hyndeston of Wonwall.

The second source, Risdon (pp.182-3), states, under an entry for Kingston:

In this parish is Wonwell which gave name to its ancient owner Thomas de Wonwell ... Robert de Hendeston succeeded, and Philip his son after him, who left three daughters, Margaret ..., Elizabeth, wife of Phillip Courtenay, of Molland, and Phillippa ...

So Vivian indicates that the parentage of Philip Courtenay's wife, Elizabeth, was unknown, and he states that she was the widow of William Hyndeston of Wonwall. On the other hand, Risdon says that Elizabeth, the wife of Phillip Courtenay of Molland was a daughter of Philip de Hendeston of Wonwell in Kingston. Apart from the Hyndeston/Hendeston, Wonwall/Wonwell and Philip/Phillip inconsistencies (to be expected in this sort of material), in one source Elizabeth's parentage is unknown, whereas in the other it is the whole basis of her coming from Kingston. The assumptions made here are exactly the sort of thing that policy forbids us from doing. As it stands we are now the sole published source that Elizabeth, the widow of William Hyndeston, came from Kingston - yes it's possible, but it requires original research to make that connection.

Incidentally, Rogers (following immediately on from the section quoted above) says: "He married a daughter of Robert Hingeston of Wonewell." which further complicates matters.

• One piece of OR removed, and one piece of synthesis from inconsistent sources.
• Solution: Since Vivian is the principal source being used, scrap ("alias" Hendeston) and the mention of Kingston. A mention in a footnote of what Risdon says might be OK.

I'm sorry to dash your hopes again, Lobsterthermidor, but apart from the removal of a couple of dates (which I guess may have come from thepeerage.com, like these did) there's no evidence here that you have a sufficient grasp of our policy on No original research to properly deal with this type of material. The assumptions you make may be fine in genealogical research, but not here. To be fair, this isn't exactly easy stuff to apply the policy to (and I wouldn't claim to be 100% correct either - a third-party opinion would be most welcome), but if you've decided to publish your work on Misplaced Pages, you have to comply with it. Especially as very few other people are likely to take the time and effort needed to confirm it, so it is likely to sit here, unchecked, for years.  —SMALLJIM  11:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

This is getting absurd. I have consulted Misplaced Pages:Likely to be challenged, which tells me that I do not need inline citations for statements with a less than 50% chance of being challenged. I resent your assumption of bad faith that I am making up my text. I'm going to answer your points as fully as possible and then in future will rely on the guideline cited. You are not the average reader who takes text on trust, you seek citations for every date, every fact stated which is not in accordance with guideline WP:CITE.

• Your very first point is typical of your lack of good faith. The death of Sir Philip I Courtenay occurred in "4 Henry VII", i.e. "the fourth year of the reign of Henry VII" as is stated in my source Vivian, p.246, which states that his inquisition post mortem occured in this year. That means to most reasonable people that he died very shortly before then. That is the whole basis of mediaeval dating, very little is totally certain. That is a perfectly adequate source for stating he died in 1488. You too have that source and should have been able to verify it. If you don't understand that that means 1488 I can't help you further, it's a very standard form of giving dates in texts covering mediaeval history. (Henry VII (1485-1509), 1485 + 4 - 1 =1488)You are incorrect to suggest this form of dating is OR, it is very standard. If that's what you believe then every Heraldic visitation would be an inadmissable source for WP, whilst in fact they form the basic source for most biographies on mediaeval people.
• The ref supplied for Philip Courtenay's tenure as Sheriff is the source given in High Sheriff of Devon, which I have no reason whatsoever to assume unreliable. I also supplied yet another source of Risdon. What more do you want?
• I have dealt with your remaining points in-line using bold as an easier option. Please see above.

Your criticisms are unfounded, and your demands for sources are becoming unreasonable and bordering on the obsessive. Please desist. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC))

I object to interruptions (of the sort you added) in my postings, so I have removed them, per WP:TPO. Please respond in the usual manner, and without incivility. Then we can discuss this further. Thank you.  —SMALLJIM  20:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the conversion of (e.g.) "Chanc. Inq. p.m. 4 Hen. VII, No. 87." to "died 1488", I'm not convinced that falls within the definition of a routine calculation as defined at WP:CALC, so I've asked for opinions from any experts hanging out at WP:NORN.  —SMALLJIM  22:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Second paragraph checked

Maybe the examples above weren't all that clear. I think these from the very next paragraph of the article are better. I've changed the format to show displayed text with only the <refs> nowiki'ed – this seems to show the changes up more clearly.

As before, on the left (Pre) is the text including my inline tags. On the right (Post) is Lobsterthermidor's response.

• Here I first queried the "It is probable ..." since without a citation it sounds like the opinion of the editor. Secondly I asked for a citation for the statement that the so-described gothic chest tomb "of this couple" (i.e. Philip and Elizabeth Courtenay) once stood in Molland Church, and thirdly that it was later demolished, cut up, carelessly joined together etc. as a space-saving measure.

But we can cut this short. The supplied reference, Rogers, doesn't attribute this (destroyed) tomb to Philip I Courtenay of Molland, in whose section this text appears. Neither does Hoskins in the quote that follows – he carefully writes "a Courtenay and his wife" (evidently following Stabb). Pevsner (another good source for this type of material) just says" Fragments of a late Perp tomb-chest with quatrefoils and the Courtenay arms".(p. 572)

In fact, I can find no sources that say that this tomb was probably that of Philip and Elizabeth Courtenay, whereas the original text said it probably was - clear original research. If there is a reliable source for this statement, why was it not cited?

This looks very much like the correction of OR: 1. "quartering Bohun" has been relegated, to match the source, to "quartering a bend". The source doesn't mention "Bohun" here at all. 2. The apparent personal analysis of "placed sidewise" and "correctly orientated" has gone too.

In view of the interpolation previously made above (see here), I'm not sure if this was removed because it was wrong, because it was based on personal opinion, or because the source has not been recovered yet. I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere.

So we have three sentences in this second paragraph checked, all of which either apparently include or consist solely of OR.

I must point out that the purpose of this analysis is not at this stage to fully clean up this article (there would still be over 40 paragraphs still to check!), but to provide evidence that Lobsterthermidor has added original research that remains unchallenged because the subject matter is obscure. So where, above, he says to me "I resent your assumption of bad faith that I am making up my text", it's not an assumption of bad faith, but a considered view that after looking carefully at a lot of his work, I now hold and I am trying to provide evidence for. I would, nevertheless, be very happy if it could be shown that all the apparent OR actually comes from sources that have not, for some reason, been cited.  —SMALLJIM  00:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Because I'm making some pretty serious allegations, Lobsterthermidor, I'm giving you the opportunity here of proving me wrong which you can potentially do by making rational (and civil, please) counter-arguments.  —SMALLJIM  00:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Obsessive challenges

This article already has over 100 footnotes. Contributors are not required under WP:CITE to add in-line refs for text which in their own experience has a less than 50% chance of being challenged. I have erred on the side of generosity hence over 100 footnotes. If you have any reasonable requests for even more sources to be supplied, please add cn tags at the appropriate places in the text in the normal manner, preferably with clear, concise details of the perceived problem, and I will deal with them individually. At present there are none in the article. I am not prepared to be dragged into the obsessive and forensic examination of every source your Byzantine tabulation unreasonably demands. Some of your points are so obscure as to be difficult to comprehend. My contributions are made for readers who are reasonable, not for people who actively wish to deconstruct every possible nuance of every word written.

Please stand back a moment and review for example the absurdness of your previous challenge that my source did not support my text that "Wonwell is in the parish of Kingston". My source given was Risdon, p. 182, which under the paragraph heading "KINGSTON" (in capitals), states 8 lines below "In this parish is Wonwell". Yes, you actually challenged that!

Another of your challenges concerned my reliance on regnal years as valid sources, a wholly standard form used in countless historical text books, even in Encyclopaedia Brit!

Your first set of challenges, several in just one short paragraph, have been fully dealt with in my last post (including bolds, now removed by you, used as I stated to make responding easier to such an unstructured mass of forensically detailed challenges). You have now come back to have another go with a further mass of forensically detailed challenges. This is not reasonable behaviour. Please make your reasonable challenges clearly and concisely using cn tags within the article, in the normal way, and I will deal with them individually. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC))

• Start-Class Devon articles
• Low-importance Devon articles
• WikiProject Devon articles