Talk:Lord Nicholas Hervey

Summary of Notability

I would be inclined to remove BB's 1st paragraph summary of notability; Hervey is not primarily noted as a political figure; his notability is in significant part affected by his family and the tabloid attention on his brother and the enormous wealth of his mother and the Hervey family history in general. His news items are also significant for suicide, bankruptcy and mental illness and nobility background. Politically, his funding of S.African entities is beyond "conservative," arguably. I'd say w/o any articles discussing his notability (eg, his death notices...) we would be doing new work by making this statement. Agreed? 96.224.40.10 02:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the sentence you are objecting to is this:

"He was a pro-monarchy activist and a figure in British conservative politics."

(I wrote "minor figure" but User:Counter-revolutionary deleted the adjective as "sneering", which is also debatable; Lord Alfred Hervey is described as a "minor politician" and he achieved more than this chap.)

It seems frankly bizarre to start a Wikipedia article without any indication of why the subject is notable. Without the sentence I added, there was nothing but one sentence naming his parents. I would welcome another wording, or a complete re-cast, of what he was notable for: aristocracy, bankruptcy, mental illness and suicide among them. (A citation about South Africa would be most welcome.) A news article doesn't have to say explicitly "Lord NH was notable for his XYZ". It just has to write about the factors -- whatever they may be -- for WP to use them legitimately. BrainyBabe 21:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

We're in danger of having too much on his family. I think as it is now is fine, however. On notability - I think he was more notable as a political activist than anything else, he was nothing like his brother and this needs to be clarified.--Counter-revolutionary 21:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What would you propose as your ideal intro paragraph? BrainyBabe 21:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is fine at the moment, perhaps specific ref. to Vice-Chancellor of the IML?--Counter-revolutionary 21:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be most helpful to review his death notice for guidance here, which I don't have at hand. I believe the main notability was nobility and the Hervey family connection in particular. I really don't think there is a need to create a notablility sentence, some biographical pages have them, some don't. I do note he was neither an elected politician, candidate nor had a governmental post or job nor released tracts. I don't think a summary sentence would be good here. There has also been nothing comparing him to his brother in print and so I don't think this can necessarily be "clarified." I note his Times death notice did refer to him as a "confirmed bachelor," which is a frequent euphemism for homosexual, which would then be a similarity b/t them. The brother was arguably more entrepreneurial, as he worked various business interests; in other words, you can't, based on news reports, say his brother was a wastrel and he was not. As much as one may not like his brother, they were close in life to a certain degree, spending significant time together; I noted Nicholas was arrested w/his brother but released. I suppose you could note his father and brother had criminal records and he didn't, and his brother was noted for flashy dressing but no published reports describe Nicholas' dress. I'm not inclined to expand the page much (eg, he "was a very strange boy," and other quotes from published sources) but I didn't start the page to begin w/. 71.190.70.203 23:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). The first paragraph should state "what they did and why they are significant". BrainyBabe 08:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

While I note his brother's page has no such sentence, and the Manual states it is not obligatory, I refer you to the prior post re death notices. The sentence as stands re known as a political activist is simply incorrect I feel. There is no activism referenced on his page, other than membership in monarchist league, and he certainly wasn't notable for that; his death notice was not printed in the paper, nor was his bankruptcy, etc. (ie, substantive articles on him) due to his role in the monarchist league; in fact, it may not have been mentioned in his obit/notice. It certainly may be re-argued he is not notable at all, but I suggest a misleading notability sentence is wrong. I propose none at all or one that is accurate.71.190.74.155 04:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

<un-indent>If there are problems with other pages, by all means make changes there, and argue any contentious suggestions on their talk pages. The biographies MOS is, like all such manuals, a series of guidelines rather than policies, if that is what you mean by not obligatory. It begins by saying "Adherence to the following guidelines is not required; however, usage of these guidelines is recommended." In other words, there has to be a good reason not to follow them. I agree with you that a misleading sentence is wrong; I invite you, with your close reading of the source texts, to propose one. BrainyBabe 23:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

My clear position is that there should be no such sentence here. I do not feel the present one is accurate, and since no support for it re my prior questions of it has been provided, I will delete it for now and ask CR to justify it if he can before it is put back up. You've read the texts too, you want a sentence, why don't you provide it - it should be accurate and I don't think it's a good idea. Perhaps attempting to draft it you'll agree.71.190.74.155 04:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Family section

I am concerned about the recent changes to the article. The family section in particular I feel is out of hand and I prefer the old version, open to minor revisions. Hervey family has its own page on Marquess of Bristol and John has his page; I feel this now is too loaded on family background and too full of characterizations and adjectives instead of facts. "Sexual omnivore" is both loaded and a term I've not heard but as sex by brother w/children and animals not noted (or even much w/women), homosexual seems more accurate, and many homosexuals (and heterosexuals) have large numbers of sexual partners; I don't see how this belongs on Nicholas' page as there are no articles discussing this; this is, remember, a news summary page of printed articles on Nicholas.

As to Hervey background, Lady Montagu time is not their notable or aged beginning, William the Conqueror and Sir Nicholas Hervey of the 1500's are; this in my view is not the place to summarize the family; perhaps a sentence noting there is a long memorialized family history here, descended from Wm. C and Marquess of Bristol cite would cover (arguably unnecessary, clear from MofB cite/link).

I really didn't feel this page needed a lot of revision, it seemed pretty much done and adding lots of text is loading it down imho; anyone interested in family can access the links. Other opinions? 96.224.40.10 02:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There also needs to be a cite for statement how his brother's example affected him; I don't think there is one and his suing for more money may have indicated a desire to be extravagant himself (ie, it may not be accurate as well as being unsourced). 96.224.40.10 02:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for raising all this here. And thanks for starting a new section! I will take the liberty of splitting one of your points into its own section and responding separately.

The family section is longer than it used to be, I agree; I am happy with its length now, in that it attempts to balance father and mother's side. It should present, briefly, the influences that made the subject of the article what he became. I started adding to the father's side because there was nothing here, and that seemed odd and unbalance. Both parents are interesting. That section need not grow longer. One useful addition would show that the historical family info is on the MofB page; that isn't obvious to the average reader. I like your idea of "a sentence noting there is a long memorialized family history here, descended from Wm. C and Marquess of Bristol". But something needs to indicate the flavour of the family -- not just boring virtuous country squires. That's why I added the Lady Mary WM quote (and expanded it -- I forgot to read here first, sorry, didn't realise it was potentially contentious).

There is no problem with characterisations and adjectives per se as long as they are backed up by facts; where they are not, by all means let us prune them. I withdraw my offer of "sexual omnivore" if that is not to your taste; it is hard to choose the right word. "Homosexual" is too clinical; arguably he was bisexual in that he seemed to love his wife; gay might well fit, in that he lived that life in New York.BrainyBabe 20:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting you consider "homosexual" clinical, yet not bisexual, and in an encyclopedia reference you think "gay" is more appropriate; do you think it's preferable to state in Wiki bio's that a person is "straight" versus "heterosexual" (or perhaps "breeder")? 71.190.74.155 04:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Words change their meanings over time. Many words with the suffix "-sexual" carry connotations of clinical labels, sexology, and indeed the DSM; I would include all three listed here, though of course "heterosexual" has not been pathologised. "Metrosexual" is an interesting coinage that breaks the rule, but it is slang, as is "breeder" . "Gay" and "straight" are roughly parallel in usage, so yes, I would have no problem accepting that word in someone's biography. Both describe the subject's life overall, not just their sexual activities. But getting back to the matter at hand, do you have any objection to describing the man as gay? BrainyBabe 23:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems like a casual usage for me. Straight, to me, would be out of place in an encyclopedia. I do think gay has entered the language as a term for homosexual (primarily male) but to me it is the same as fruit, fairy and other such terms - its derivation is from a descriptive of "stereotypical" or noticeable male homosexual qualities (even if tip of the iceberg re #'s) - in this case gay-ness. That said, whether the term is like "n..ger", an appropriated terminology, or any other take on it, is a long etymological and linguistic issue. In other words, I don't think at all there is a movement against the term gay, so I can't really object, but I personally question its usage. I also question relatedly your second to last statement there - you can be homosexual or heterosexual w/o that describing your life overall - in other words, I feel the issue is a little loaded, the terminology carries it w/it. Since I deleted gay and inserted homosexual I do have some problem w/it.71.190.74.155 04:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I note on reading it, gay lifestyle can be ambiguous and confusing still (ie, the original and still used meaning of gay, having nothing to do w/homosexuality, which is what you are really referring to.)71.190.74.155 05:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Citation requirement

Cite for "industrious boy..." is House of Hervey, one of several general source cites below article text. I believe citation required cite can therefore be removed? 96.224.40.10 03:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The citation tag stays until a precise citation is given inline. See WP:REF for a good explanation of policy and technique. It states: "inline citations, that is, references within the text, which provide source information for specific statements" are necessary for direct quotations. If you have a copy of the book to hand, could you add it? Thanks. BrainyBabe 20:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know how to do footnotes, but see that other quotes cite generally "Daily Telegraph", eg. w/no dates or pages. So a simple "House of Hervey" may do. Perhaps the one who added that section (CR?) can add the note? If not, I can try to find a page cite. 71.190.70.203 22:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:REF, or to give it its full title, Wikipedia:Citing sources, will show you how to do inline references (which then automatically appear as footnotes). Or, if you prefer, read Wikipedia:Footnotes. Those existing references that are vague could do with more precision; it would be a valuable contribution for you to amend them, if you have the sources to hand.BrainyBabe 23:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe removing the quotations is sufficient for now unless whoever posted the cite or you or another wish to put in the fn; ie, if the quotes are added, a citation should be added, otherwise it's just like every other summary isn't it? If needed, the general source House of Hervey can be inserted as cite, as was suggested to you earlier.71.190.74.155 03:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A book cannot be given to support a specific citation, as all the policy documents (note: not guidelines) referred to above make plain. A page number is needed. BrainyBabe 23:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

what i mean is w/o the quote it's not a cite, is it - otherwise every item and phrase would need a fn. I understand you have frequent difficulty understanding me, but believe re-reading my prior post should be sufficient (I won't resort to your frequent re-quoting of yourself). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.74.155 (talk) 03:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

<un-indent> The quote derives from page 227 of HofH where the author states "in point of fact his record at Eton would indicate that he was an industrious boy w/..." As such I don't think it should be in quotes and leave it's fate to you all.

As to IML, on p.228 of HofH it says "he failed to pay money he owed to the ML and eventually allowed his membership and vice-chancellorship to lapse." This was stated right after Cirencester (late 1980's) and preceded by the sentence "his behavior, however, now began to seem erratic." I may have read 1992 elsewhere, but can't cite it so since CR, who was a member of Western Goals, etc. if I recall, doubts the date, maybe it was not 1992.71.190.74.155 04:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

obscure sentence

"Nicholas Hervey was a descendent of William the Conqueror on both his mother's and father's side, and has one common descendant." What does the last bit mean? How can a man who died childless have any descendants at all? BrainyBabe 23:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I presume it means that all his ancestors go back to one person (couple!), indeed obscure, as everyone has the same claim! --Counter-revolutionary 23:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Mitochondrial Eve perhaps?! BrainyBabe 23:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Or just Adam and Eve but, yes, that sort of thing! --Counter-revolutionary 23:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean Y-chromosomal Adam....But on a separate note, I have just seen alternate spellings of the same word in one sentence. Sloppy indeed! I'll wait a day or two and see if anyone wants to justify it.BrainyBabe 00:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The jist is that he is slightly inbred, which everyone is not necessarily, at least recorded so. Burke's gives this info and it refers to an ancestor on his mother's line breeding with an ancestor on his father's line and having a child (named Nicholas and for whom he can be presumed named). Certainly the wording can be improved and I agree inbred is more easily understood.71.190.74.155 05:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If everybody in the world is inbred, in the sense that our mothers and fathers share a common ancestor, then it is hardly an encyclopedic fact. Unless his parents were recognisably, if distant, cousins who married, it is not worth mentioning. NH may not be named after that Nicholas mentioned in Burke's -- there may well be others nearer on his mother's side -- we don't know and shouldn't speculate. Recommendation: delete the phrase "and has one common descendant". BrainyBabe 08:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you review Burke's - it has a special inbreeding listing you can access - we are not all inbred in that sense, and many, many people on Burke's have a 0% inbreeding number. The Nicholas referred to in Burke's are 2: it is under Nicholas Hervey, the subject of this page, and the inbreeding index refers to a prior Nicholas Hervey, who is in fact on both his mother's and father's side.71.190.74.155 03:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

<un-indent>Thanks for that clarification. I suggest a wording along the lines of "He was descended on both his mother's and father's side from Nicholas Hervey (born xxxx, died xxxx) ." If you have access to that info, please add the sentence. I will delete the "and has one common descendant" as it is not understood by non-specialists. I had never heard of "a 0% inbreeding number" -- the things one learns on Wikipedia! BrainyBabe 23:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I will do so when I have a chance, which may not be for awhile.71.190.74.155 03:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

what the blazes is a "consanguinity index"? Like User:BrainyBabe I have not heard of inbreeding listing. - Kittybrewster ☎ 10:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You incorrectly made a link of consanguinity index in the article; like your note above, putting double brackets around a word should, I believe, only be done if there is a page for that link that you are linking to. (BrainyBabe is the expert so maybe she'll fill us in on that). There is a page for consanguinity that you may find helpful, as it has several sections, including one on nobility using consanguinity to get out of arranged marriages they don't want. I didn't link the page because it is tagged as needing extra work. Googling consanguinity index may be helpful to you; it shows up in a range of work. Inbreeding is the more common term, as in, here, he is slightly inbred. It is prominently mentioned in Burke's, so mentioned here.71.190.74.155 19:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, inbreeding listing which you've bracketed to make a link is not a page or link, but inbreeding is, albeit also tagged as in need of work. It has links and resources, though, and refers to and links "coefficient of relationship", which is also a non-existent link. Googling helps. CofR brings up many items, I just looked at one [it happens to be a dog breeding page, but breeding is breeding], maybe you will find it helpful (I note that Wiki does not have to define every term - the goal may well be links for everything, but sometimes you have to do your own research, and not everything is on the web). "The standard definition of inbreeding is that it is any scheme which results in the sire and the dam having common ancestors. Many breeders use the term "inbreeding" for close relatives and "linebreeding" for more distantly related individuals, but there is no fundamental difference. The parameter used to express this common heritage is called the inbreeding coefficient and was first proposed by Sewell Wright in 1922. Designated F by Wright (but more commonly IC or COI by breeders), it...indicates the probability that the two alleles for any gene are identical by descent...The inbreeding coefficient is a function of the number and location of the common ancestors in a pedigree. It is not a function, except indirectly, of the inbreeding of the parents." 71.190.74.155 19:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Kitty, I looked up your userpage and was surprised with your genealogy awards and background you haven't heard of consanguinity or inbreeding listings. So I connected to your Arbuthnot Peerage link on your userpage and see that for the Arbuthnots there (possibly due to the work not being done) no consanguinity index. However, on Peerage.com (Burke's) which you link to for this, I clicked FAQ and this may explain to all:

"Consanguinity Index (Cumulative Inbreeding Coefficient) Throughout the database, I show a Consanguinity Index (more correctly referred to as Wright’s Equation or a Cumulative Inbreeding Coefficient) for individuals where this is greater than zero. This is a measure of how much the parents of the individual are related to each other, and therefore how inbred that individual is. In theory this index ranges from zero (completely unrelated) to close to one (parents are the same person). In practice this measure is maxed out at around 0.28 where an individual’s parents were uncle and niece (evidently a common practice among the medieval Spanish royalty).

For a more complete discussion of consanguinity, and its associated calculations, see:

Calculation and related exercises: http://www.infobiogen.fr/services/chromcancer/IntroItems/ConsangGenealEng.html Wright’s coefficient and alternative:

   http://www.highflyer.supanet.com/coefficient.htm

Genetics and Inbreeding Information:

   http://www.tenset.co.uk/links.html"

I do note your Arbuthnot connection, as it were, and wonder if you could comment on the Arbuthnot Hervey connection (I recall it may have been evidenced through Alexander Pope's poetry?). Was Arbuthnot supposed to be Hervey in that poem, or he was just referred to. (Isn't that the butterfly/wheel lines?). I may be confusing lines, but do recall Arbuthnot as a Hervey connection. [You tap my mind I'll tap yours!]71.190.74.155 20:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

References

Date of Death

@Carbon Caryatid: The article has for some time listed Lord Nicholas' death as 26 January 1998. This is consistent with the Times news piece I added, dated Thursday 29 January which says, verbatim "Lord Nicholas Hervey .... was found hanged in his Chelsea flat on Monday". The archived Telegraph piece from the same date, added some time back, also says this. But Burke's Peerage states he died the day before, the 25th, and it's perfectly possible for somebody to be found dead over 24 hours after they actually were, particularly in cases like this. I don't want to labour the point too much as, from what I can tell, this Hervey was a nice guy and his death is rather sad, but we should at least make sure we get the facts right. (Also ping @Dr. Blofeld:, @Sagaciousphil: who tend to be on the ball with these things). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Where there is a disputed date a footnote is usually the best solution. In this case it might be best to just say "found dead =dates and then a footnote explaining the difference in sourcing and that his body may have been lying there for over 24 hours etc.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I've searched everywhere I can think of and all I'm finding is "found dead on 26 January 1998" except for that Burke's Peerage entry. From what I can see on the snippet view I can access of De-la-Noy's book, that just has "in January 1998" without specifying the actual date. I'd be inclined to stick to found on 26 January and, as Dr. B suggests, add a footnote about the date discrepancy; after all, it could even be a simple typo in Burke's. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me, but I have no special information nor any particular view on this. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)