Talk:Elizabeth Seymour, Duchess of Somerset

Stub classification

I have classified this article as a stub due to its level of detail and organisation. Capitalistroadster 06:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added more content and changed it to 'B' class. Craigy (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Article reverted to Stub status after copyright cleanup effort. MLauba (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

This article was expanded in 2007 with content following very closely on the corresponding ODNB article. This source is not cited, which is a concern for plagiarism, but I am also concerned that the paraphrase may be close enough to constitute a copyright concern. I am seeking additional feedback.

For one example, compare the following from the article at the time the content was added:

Despite maintaining a Whig prescence around the queen and Hamilton's urging that the duchess spend less time at Petworth House and more time at court, the Whigs received little advantage from the duchess's access to the sovereign, evident by the queen's growing aversion to being badgered by her Ladies of the Bedchamber. Ironically, the duchess's failure to manoeuvre the queen's political interests still afforded her to be described as being 'by much the greatest favourite, when the queen died' according to Dartmouth. and during Harley's desperate final days of his ministry, he paid tribute to this favour by asking to 'Send for the Dchs of Somerset—no body else can save us'.

The ODNB says the following:

Despite this outcome, and Hamilton's constant urging that the duchess spend less time at Petworth and more time at court, recent historiography finds that the whigs received little tangible advantage from her proximity to the sovereign. This is hardly surprising, given the duchess's characteristic discretion and Anne's growing aversion to being badgered by her bedchamber attendants. Somewhat ironically this failure to press the queen goes far to explain why Somerset was, according to Dartmouth, ‘by much the greatest favourite, when the queen died’ (Bishop Burnet's History, 6.34n.). During the desperate final days of his ministry the earl of Oxford paid tribute to that favour and her reputation for intrigue when he wrote ‘Send for the Dchs of Somerset—no body else can save us’ (Holmes, 216).

For another, the article said:

One of the terms of the original marriage contract stipulated that the duke was to eventually take the name Percy, but he was released from this obligation when the duchess reached her majority a few years later. This marriage was also unhappy and according to the 1st Earl of Dartmouth, the duke 'treated her with little gratitude or affection, though he owed all he had, except an empty title, to her'. Despite their unhappy marriage, the Somersets made an effective political team under Queen Anne. The duke was Master of the Horse and a member of the cabinet whilst the duchess was appointed a Lady of the Bedchamber in 1702

The ODNB says:

The original contract stipulated that he was to take the name Percy but she released him from this obligation upon the attainment of her majority. The marriage was well known to be unhappy, largely because of Somerset's imperious temper and overweening pride; according to William Legge, first earl of Dartmouth, Somerset ‘treated her with little gratitude or affection, though he owed all he had, except an empty title, to her’ (Bishop Burnet's History, 6.34n.). Nevertheless, under Queen Anne the Somersets made an effective political team. He was master of the horse and a member of the cabinet; she was named a lady of the bedchamber on 12 May 1702.

There are several other passages that concerned me, in addition to simply an overall reproduction of the structure of the original piece. While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both structure and language - are. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Leaving aside the plagiarism bit, like substituting in the ODNB references (i.e. whoever added this here didn't actually read those sources, they just copied ODNB without attributing who actually did the research) - yes, if I was R. O. Bucholz, I think I'd be pretty angry. There are too many distinctive turns of phrase copied more or less directly and the structure (thesis if you will) is copied pretty much intact. I see no additional creativity in selection and arrangement of facts. I may be swayed a bit by feeling that copying in this way is a bit dishonest, so keep that in mind. But I would say this is close enough to be copyvio. Franamax (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Franamax. Too close, needs to be taken back to the point prior to the introduction of the ODNB text and started again. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done The article was up for review at WP:CP today. Reverted to last known non-infringing version, references and non-creative content restored. MLauba (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

References

Proposed merger from Henry Cavendish, Earl of Ogle

• Merge from: Henry Cavendish, Earl of Ogle
• Merge to: Elizabeth Seymour, Duchess of Somerset

Henry Cavendish, Earl of Ogle has very little content about the earl himself, while there is some information regarding his wife Elizabeth. Since Earl of Ogle died at the age of 17 and did not hold any significant positions (e.g. MP), there is not much to mention about him. Therefore, I propose merging Henry Cavendish, Earl of Ogle into this article, and make it a redirect to Henry Cavendish, 2nd Duke of Newcastle. ネイ (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Klbrain (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)