Talk:Chaytor baronets

Relevance of Clervaux information and reliability of sources

The Longestaffe material warrants inclusion for the following four reasons:

I: It is a reliably sourced in a book that has been reissued, with an ISBN number, over 5 times in the past 10 years (cf. amazon and google), sc. in 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, by different publishers, due to the use of the book as a reliable source by academic scholars.

II: It is the main authority on the topic used by scholars at Oxford University. The 2015 edition, which has been produced from the copy in the Bodleian Library, Oxford University, is prefixed with the text ‘This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it'.

III: It is the main authority on the history of the Chaytor family, to whose ancestry over 1/3 of the Clervaux book is dedicated. The ‘entire Anglo-Norman gentry’ did not descend from this branch of the royal family, despite the claim of IP user 50.37.124.74 / 50.37.117.26. The importance of this Clervaux-link to William the Conqueror for the Chaytor family is reflected in their continued use of the name Clervaux as a surname, including Major General Sir Edward Walter Clervaux Chaytor, Sir Walter Clervaux Chaytor, 5th Baronet, Sir William Henry Clervaux Chaytor, 7th Baronet, and at least five other Chaytors on the Longstaffe genealogy. Sir William Chaytor, 1st Baronet, even named the new castle he built for his family, Clervaux Castle, after his Clervaux ancestry. Therefore, even if the material were not notable in itself, it is certainly notable in an article about these particular subjects.

For the above reasons, it is clear that 1: there is great academic interest in the subject; 2, that the source is considered reliable by academics (indeed, not merely reliable but the most reliable source). The opinion of this IP user - 50.37.124.74 / 50.37.117.26 - is his subjective/affective opinion, which has not been shared by other editors, is not shared by academics, and is not based on the rules of WP. Therefore, his deletion of this material is disruptive editing, WP:DE and WP:DIS and the continuation of his deletions might result in him being banned from editing.

- P.S. The Burke sources, which do not supply anything that is not supplied by the Longstaffe, with which they are in entire agreement, are used ubiquitously as reliable sources on Wikipedia, where they are considered to be acceptable and reliable by almost all editors apart from this IP user. Therefore, he must await consensus before he deletes the material again.

To answer these points -

I. The book is not reliably sourced. It is your typical 19th century genealogical vanity book. More importantly, it is laughable to suggest that it has been reissued because it is used as a "reliable source by academic scholars". It has been 'reprinted' by publishing mills that take scans of any old book they can find, usually Google Book scans, and make it available, to order. This is no more an indication of the scholarly value of a source than a publisher reproducing Wikipedia dumps means those pages are considered reliable by academic scholars.

II. Yes, Google scanned it from the Bodleyan Library, not because it was culturally relevant but because it was in Bodleyan Library and Google was scanning everything. That the publisher has decided to hype their book in this way is their right, but that doesn't mean it is true.

III. This whole line of argument is based on the fallacy, entirely without foundation, that the Chaytor family only used the name Clervaux in later generations BECAUSE that family descended from William the Conqueror. That they used the name is reason to describe the Clervaux family in discussing the Chaytors, but you haven't the slightest reason for suggesting that it was the royal descent, and only the royal descent, that made this connection important to the family. You have thus provided no support whatsoever for your claim to notability of this genealogical trivia.

For these reasons, it is clear that the genealogical connection between the Clervaux family and William the Conqueror is of great interest to you, but not to any academic. It's inclusion remains WP:UNDUE given that nobody writing about the Chaytor family seems to care, except for one Wikipedia editor.

Threats to prevent an editor from editing over a clear content dispute represent a significant lack of good faith. You added undue material and I took it back out. Why, exactly does that mean I must have consensus and you don't? 50.37.123.108 (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

To refute your points:

I: The source is reliable. Your contention that the fact the source was published in the 19th century makes it unreliable is an assertion, without foundation in evidence, that is not shared by any other editor on Wikipedia, where such books are used ubiquitously as references.

II: In the previous 10 years, seven different publishing houses would not have chosen to reprint a book, from 5 different original versions, if the book were trivial. There has been no effort to 'hype' the book by any publisher. The fact that you cannot even spell the word 'Bodleian' correctly - or, given the uncertainty, be bothered to look it up - hardly suggests that your edit is motivated by a desire for the accuracy of the information. Also, the word 'hype' is a noun, not a verb, and the use of such colloquialisms is not going to endear your inept argument to the sympathy of other editors, whose agreement you require before defying the rules again by making the same edit.

III: The Chaytor family did use the name Clervaux as a mark of their descent from Charlemagne, which is made patent in the source, which you obviously haven't read. A third of the entire book, related under the title 'The Royal Descent of Clervaux, etc. Through Percy, Neville, and Lumley', is dedicated to recording the descent of both the Second Line of Chaytor of Croft, sc. that of Sir Christopher Chaytor (knighted 1571), and the first line of Chaytor of Croft, sc. that of Sir William Chaytor of Croft Hall (knighted 1612), from Charlemagne and Edward III. The source itself could not be more patent in its statement of the royal descent as the basis for the use of the name: the descent is the main subject of the source. Therefore, and for the other reasons specified in the first passage, the descent is evidently not genealogical trivia to the Chaytor family, the subjects of this article, to scholars of their family, or (and this is really the only important criterion) to a single other editor.

IV: To conclude, both your assertion of unreliability and your assertion of non-notability are without evidence or precedent. They are not shared by Wikipedia or Wikipedians. The latter is explicitly invalidated by the source itself, which you haven't read, the lack of reliability of which you continually allege (without a single piece of supporting evidence) but cannot prove. I recommend that you read WP:HERE and WP:5P1 if you are a new user who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies. You deleting material from a source, which appear to have not read, due to your assertion of its unreliability, which is not shared by anyone else. It is clear that the descent in question is highly objectionable to you: but it is not objectionable to a single other editor. Wikipedia requires consensus: you do not even have corroboration - corroboration for an edit that is contrary to the rules - because not one editor who observes the rules finds the material to be undue. There is no 'threat', unless you use this word to denote my alert to you that by proceeding with edits based on a unique personal assertion, that is not shared with a single other editor, you are likely to be banned from editing - by an administrator. You assert the material to be unreliable, repeatedly, but no other editor supports this assertion because it lacks evidence. You have not even read the source. Not one other editor or anyone writing about the Chaytor family considers the material to be undue, and not one of Wikipedia's rules show the information to be undue, and yet still you proceed with your deletions, which are destructive edits contrary to the principles of Wikipedia and noted in WP:HERE. Therefore, as I concluded previously, you must await the consensus of other editors before you delete valid information again. Currently you have none. If you delete the information again, you will be reported for disruptive editing, WP:DE and WP:DIS, and this may result in you being blocked. (2A02:C7D:607F:3500:F8D6:AB68:7F83:ACEC (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)).

Extinction of the earlier baronetcy

Apparently because Sir William Chaytor, 1st Bt had no surviving male issue at his death, the baronetcy was extinct; however the article then positions William Chaytor, M.P., father of Sir William Chaytor, 1st Bt of the second creation, as grandson of the first Sir William, which would mean he did have surviving male issue at his death, and which means that the baronetcy wouldn't have been extinct. Is there some error here?

You are, of course, correct. Croft passed to his nephew Henry, who had a son William MP, who had an illegitimate son William, the first baronet of the second creation. I will fix it. Agricolae (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noticed we've been editing 'around each other', so to speak, in the past few minutes! I had been aiming to streamline the article a bit having noticed it contained a lot of extra detail on seemingly irrelevant members of the family (looking at the history, it seems a particular contributor was very- possibly unduly- keen on emphasising the great status and antiquity of this Clervaux family?); I hope none of my edits have been detrimental in any way. When I commented here I didn't realise anyone was paying much attention to this article, and hadn't expected a response!

No problem. I had it 'on my radar' but hadn't the time for the agro that might have resulted from resistance to really cleaning it up, but two similar opinions makes a consensus (sort of). I am done, for now, so if you want to change anything else, it won't clash with me making changes. Note: please sign your Talk page comments. Put four consecutive tildes ('~') at the end (there is a button at the bottom of the edit window to do this automatically) and the system will sign and timestamp it. Agricolae (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)