Talk:Moxon Huddersfield

Lack of verifiability

In view of the article multiple issues, this editor asked here that only verifiable material should be added back, avoiding spam and weasel terms. Nevertheless, the previously challenged version of the article has been restored, with the following comment: "Editor Verification of sources required prior to effective erase of verifiable material". This is not how WP works. The following rules of verifiability are reminded:

• The "policy requires that [...] any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation".
• "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed."

Following these rules is key to our collaborative work. Thank you,   Racconish ^Tk 09:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I thank you for your contributions and guidance.--HMS sovereign of the seas (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you are making a confusion between naming references and using them, as citations or footnotes.   Racconish ^Tk 09:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not the best of editors, however what I have gone through are a British education, and a tour of Moxon. The two combined have enabled me to write this article, using respectable vocabulary and with much trouble. At its end, i could say I have done my very best, using the press pack presented to me after enquiring whether it would be alright to write an article about the firm on wikipedia, I have as yet not been able to do the inline citations, due chiefly to a lack of time. Since you have found your own sources, perhaps you could assist with the inline citations ?--HMS sovereign of the seas (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. In turn, please add only inline sourced material. Thank you.   Racconish ^Tk 22:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Racconish, referenced material has been added. Your refusal to acknowledge its existence is suggesting a worrying trend. As the message I left you on your talk page indicates, which you have subsequently deleted, your edits are more than welcome so long as they are constructive add to the article without its effective destruction. Your apparent disregard for the opinions of others is also something which is not very easy to stomach. The only gracious request I have made is that you respect the structure of the article, maintaining headers, titles, images and the like, whilst adding and referencing your content where it is appropriate. Your reply was to delete my message, vandalise the article with no respect for the work and hours the previous editors of the article have made. The issue is not with the content you are adding, but the complete destruction of an article which has been re-written in such a way so as to render it as verifiable as possible. There may of course be certain things you are not in agreement with, and it is my position to say that I urge you to remove them, but to have the good grace to respect at the very least the structure and hard work put in before. It is my wish to see an article built with the use of both my material and yours, but your refusal to recognise anything which you have not written yourself is worrying and quite frankly disrespectful to say the least. Wikipedia is a community so let us behave like one. Please add to the article as you please, but as outlined repeatedly above, kindly respect the structure, as respect is only gained once it is offered.--HMS sovereign of the seas (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of the record:

• I did not delete your messages but moved them from my talk page to yours ([1] and [2]) and answered. You blanked your page without answering me.
• I did try to improve the article within the existing "structure", removing first tendentious edits, up to this point, when I realized the remaining part of the article was still not verifiable and had to be removed.
• I don't see any reason to follow a "structure" without quality sources or if reliable sources found don't fit in.
• As indicated at WP:NOTVAND, Boldy editing is not vandalism.
• You repeatedly removed sourced material and refused to provide inline citations to support your challenged material.  Racconish ^Tk 17:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Dubious claim on age

The current version of the article states that Moxon Huddersfield Limited "is a prestigious British textile manufacturer of luxury worsted and woollen cloth, [...] without question, the oldest in existence today". The info-box says the foundation date is 1556 and the founders are the "Moxon Family". The article adds "the firm essentially came to prominence" before 1603. These exceptional claims require exceptional sources. There is none. It is possible somebody called Moxon was a hand weaver in the Yorkshire in the 16th century. It remains to be established by reliable secondary sources he was prominent then and directly and continuously linked to Moxon Huddersfield Limited. According to the list of oldest companies, the oldest weaver in the UK is Robert Noble, established in 1666.   Racconish ^Tk 09:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The age claim is not dubious. It has been verified by several of the non web-based sources, namely 'The Sunday Telegraph Magazine 30 June 2002: p. 9, Altai Cashmere Socks' which state this. Simply because it has not yet been added to the list of companies does not make it dubious.--HMS sovereign of the seas (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. i have checked the source for Robert Noble, and it is not independent, it is in fact the company website.--HMS sovereign of the seas (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is the verifiability of your own claim on Moxon. Your recent inclusion of Moxon in WP's list of oldest companies will not bring anything per se, as WP is not a secondary source. My point was that the oldest UK weaver in the list - prior to your inclusion of Moxon today - is 100 years younger than Moxon, which makes the claim on Moxon even more extraordinary. We need a thematic quote from a reliable secondary source. Maybe the book on the Moxon family you included in your references?   Racconish ^Tk 16:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned in previous response, 'The Sunday Telegraph Magazine 30 June 2002: p. 9, Altai Cashmere Socks' makes a reference to the establishment. The book contains information on several family members who have over the years had an association with the firm, going back quite a way. The inclusion on the oldest companies list was not as a reference I am sure you could notice, but done in appreciation that such a list exists. Thank you.--HMS sovereign of the seas (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it doesnt make it more extraordinary. In Yorkshire, it is widely acknowledged the firm is the oldest still around, almost like a local treasure situation. They even have a 'how many of my grandchildren will still be able to work in this company' theme in certain places, highlighting that the textile industry there has reduced, but that the oldest still going.--HMS sovereign of the seas (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

If such a "local treasure situation" is "widely acknowledged", thematic reliable secondary sources should be available. I take it from your answer the book on the Moxon Family, though "going quite a way", does not prove the challenged claim. It may very well be that Moxon is the oldest weaver in the Huddersfield area, but you have per WP:CITE the burden to provide inline citations verifying it is the oldest in the UK and founded in the 1556 - or that it is either the oldest in the Huddersfield area or as old as verifiable secondary sources deem it to be.   Racconish ^Tk 20:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

As stated in two previous responses, which I am assuming are thus unread, the 'Sunday Telegraph Magazine article, is a secondary source regarding the establishment. Additionally, the article from 'DNR Magazine 11 October 2000: p. 1, Dress British, Think Color' also makes a reference to the firm's establishment in 1556 in a less straightforward but completely justified manner. The area where Moxon is situated is a very rural part of Huddersfield, making it somewhat unlikely that the firm hits mainstream media on a daily basis, which is why the firm has hence been restricted to weekly publications and fashion magazines. Although unnecessary to add, unless one was physically present in either 1836 or 1838, there is no justifiable way of determining the date that Charvet Place Vendome was founded based on Racconish's criteria, whose sources seem to be included in French on the English Wikipedia, surely more suitable to the French version, where they would be understandable, and unlikely to be of any use to English readers. Thank you for your help and guidance.--HMS sovereign of the seas (talk) 03:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this DNR article makes any reference to Moxon's foundation or age. An inline citation must be provided to support directly the information presented in the article, as indicated in WP:IRS. For example, we could cite inline a DNR journalist who wrote "whose history goes back to 1556" or "Moxon dates back to 1556, it claims" (both found here). But such claim should be handled as neutrally and carefully as possible: the Guinness Book of Records lists the Whitechapel Bell Foundry, established in 1570, as the oldest manufacturing company in Great Britain...

In any case, this does not sustain the other claim, that Moxon is the oldest weaver in the UK, which may be original synthesis. Nor justify puffery as "established a tradition of close involvement in the creation of quintessential quality English cloth" or "essentially came to prominence" .  Racconish ^Tk 10:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Since you have now located some sources, and are a good member of the wikipedia community, perhaps you could help with the inline citations. Referring to your Guinness recrod about Whitechapel Bell, it is no surprise that they are oldest in manufacturing, since Moxon began as a Cottage industry back in 1556, it therefore did not and could not for a while qualify as a manufacturer per se. but since you have located additional source material, it would be great of you to add them and support the previously questioned material.

In addition, referring to your second point, "established a tradition of close involvement in the creation of quintessential quality English cloth" and "essentially came to prominence", my reply would be that I'm British and was taught to speak and write like one, which may lend itself to the use of superior language wherever it is I am writing. On a separate note, perhaps you could be the good member/editor and explain the presence of French sourcing at Charvet to quantify its date of establishment ?--HMS sovereign of the seas (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the second part of your claim, "the oldest in existence", please note Hartley Investments Group, previous owner of Moxon, traces its own history to "a small woollen mill which enters recorded history in 1532".   Racconish ^Tk 07:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Once again, another of your numerous examples has let you down, again a worrying trend. The example you have cited, and referenced, is in fact the company website again. Please consider your sources well, as should you have access to the Moxon website, which unfortunately operates on a pay-per-view basis, you will no doubt find that it was in fact established in 1556, and by your criteria, this would be an acceptable source. Once again, consider your examples wisely.--HMS sovereign of the seas (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not arguing that company is the oldest or that their claim is based on a more reliable source than yours, but that your own claim concerning Moxon is not supported by a reliable source. Guinness, a reliable source who investigated the question "which is the oldest British manufacturer?" concluded it was Whitechapel Bell in 1570. The point is not in the distinction between cottage industry and manufacturer, but in continuous linkage. We should be more careful here.   Racconish ^Tk 18:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Continuing to research the subject, I found some information on John Brooke, a textile mill which "reaches back at least to 1541" and would be "Britain's oldest family firm". According to the source, the claim had been endorsed by the Guinness Book of World Records. The precision that the founder was a yeoman who leased a fulling mill adds credibility to the claim (See here and here). In comparison, the claim on the "earliest Moxons nurturing their growing relationship" (a plural becoming later in the article a singular, when we are told about the unspecified "ancestor's contribution") seems pretty vague.   Racconish ^Tk 14:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Dubious claim to be "the finest in the world"

The current version of the lead states:"Moxon [...] due to its antiquated manufacturing process and machinery, claims to be the finest in the world." In terms of verifiability, the question is not what Moxon claims but what independent reliable sources say. None is quoted. The secondary sources I have found note Moxon uses expensive material and has a small number of looms, but do not corroborate the claim their manufacturing process is the most "antiquated" in the world.   Racconish ^Tk 09:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sourced in article entitled "Daily News Record 25 June 2001: p. 28, The Harry Winston of Fabrics" where Moxon is claiming to manufacture the world's best cloth. I believe that has enabled the statement "Moxon claim to be the finest in the world". It is also mentioned in the article how the firm took a step backwards, by refraining from mass producing and concentrating on its quality. All done in a manner which takes significantly more time, and has been attributed as "antiquated", both due to the older machinery in question, and the considerable operational time.--HMS sovereign of the seas (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Naming sources is not citing them inline. A direct quote of this article in DNR, accessible here, would allow to verify it only says Moxon is "one of Britain's best woolen mills", without any consideration on the machinery or the production time.  Racconish ^Tk 08:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You refer to the wrong article. Moxon are claiming to make the word's finest cloth, exactly what our wikipedia article suggests. The key word is 'claim'. Thanks.--HMS sovereign of the seas (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, my point is that your statement on antiquated manufacturing process and machinery is not backed by any source. In any case, Wikipedia is not Moxon's soapbox and it would be more neutral to say what others think of Moxon instead of what they claim to be. Besides, you also write "the cloth manufactured by Moxon is widely regarded as the rarest and most exclusive".   Racconish ^Tk 18:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Dubious claim on archives

The article currently states that "Moxon is widely considered to have the world's most comprehensive archives of woven worsted and woollen samples, spanning the centuries of the firm's distinguished existence". This extraordinary claim is not supported by any reliable independent source. A 3rd party source I found says that "they use archives from the 1930s for ideas".  Racconish ^Tk 10:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The article entitled 'DNR Magazine 20 October 2000: p. 33, Luxury Fabrics' refers to an entire section of Moxon's archive, which has increased over time to include firms folding.--HMS sovereign of the seas (talk) 15:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems you are referring to this article, where I could not find such section. You may be confusing this article with that one, which says: "Moxon dates back to 1556, it claims, and keeps archives of its fabrics going back many years, including some fabrics it made for men's fashions of the '30s." Please provide an inline citation if you wish to maintain the challenged claim.   Racconish ^Tk 08:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

These are the wonders of wikipedia, whereby members assist members in completing a masterpiece of an article. Since you have successfully located a source, which effectively verifies the material previously posted, please assist me, for the benefit of wikipedia and readers in general, in sourcing the material already in the article, now that you have found it on the web. It should not be too difficult, since you have also added questions wherever you require citations. Thanks.--HMS sovereign of the seas (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Your source does not mention archives. Mine does not support your claim.  Racconish ^Tk 08:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The Sunday Telegraph, which you are reluctant to review, is the referenced source for this article, where considerable material refers to the archives, as stated in the section entitled 'Sources'. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HMS sovereign of the seas (talk • contribs) 15:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, the burden of evidence lies on you, not me. I did try to find the source. The articles of the Sunday Telegraph of June 30, 2002 are available here. The article you mention is not listed. Same for the Yorkshire Post as indicated above. Please check your references and provide quotes. At this point, verification failed.   Racconish ^Tk 18:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Dubious claim fabrics are handcrafted

The article currently says the cloth is "handmade", but the picture provided by the main editor shows a Hattersley power loom. The article is illustrated by the picture of an "antiquated" wooden scouring box, but no reference is made to the acquisition in 2009 of a £ 120,000 milling machine reported here.   Racconish ^Tk 10:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Tour of the mill, plus photos, was made prior to 2009, which is why it has not been mentioned. The Hattersley loom, which is around 75-80 years old, unlike modern machinery requires much handwork, which has given lease to the handcrafted nature. It is nothing like modern equipment. Handwoven is what Racconish is no doubt referring to. A link was also included when using the quote "handmade" to the WP article, which also states: "Handmade means something made by an individual, rather than one made by mass production. It need not literally mean that no machine at all is used in making it."--HMS sovereign of the seas (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)HMS Sovereign of the Seas

Hand-made is opposed to machine-made. The title of the article section refers to the "handcraft tradition" which suggests the product is made by hand. In any case, is this original research? If not, please provide inline citations.   Racconish ^Tk 08:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You could interpret handmade as opposed to machine made, but as the article states, which I have provided an internal wikipedia link to, handcrafted and handmade are against mass production, again, not literally that no machine at all is used. If you are against this thought, perhaps you should edit the wikipedia article entitled 'Handmade', which I had nothing to do with. Again, nobody is suggesting anything, handcrafted is the situation the firm is in, due to small production, and old machinery which requires much handwork in relation to newer machinery, used by everybody else.--HMS sovereign of the seas (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The page you are referring to is a disambiguation page, not an article. The point it makes - but does not elaborate- is that handmade products are made by a single person, regardless of the nature of the tools they used. Handcrafted is defined by wiktionary as : "Made by hand or using the hands, as opposed to by mass production or using machinery." In any case, we should avoid such misleading terms here.   Racconish ^Tk 17:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Dubious claim on location

The current article repeatedly states the company is located in Huddersfield, when it is in Holmbridge, 11 km away. With one of his last edits, the main editor added that "Holmbridge is in Huddersfield".   Racconish ^Tk 10:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The name Huddersfield is in the company name, much like Charvet Place Vendome is in Charvet's. If such care was taken, one would notice that Holmbridge is to Huddersfield what Manhattan is to New York as an example. The mere fact of it being "11 km" away, does not mean that it ceases to be a part of the Huddersfield area. In England, which is where this company is based, that is how the town system operates. It is vital such information is checked prior to making such statements.--HMS sovereign of the seas (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You could say that Holmbridge is in the Huddersfield postcode area, but not that it is in Huddersfield. It is a distinct village, closer to Holmfirth, as stated here.   Racconish ^Tk 08:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where it is you are writing from, but if anybody writes Holmbridge on its own, nobody will deliver the mail. Holmbridge qualifies as part of Huddersfield, like Staines, Hackney, Westminister are in London. Your theory would be like saying "Westminster is near the City of London, but not actually in it, perhaps 11km away", The fact is both Westminster and City of London are in London, as both Holmbridge and Hudderfield Town are in Huddersfield. Secondly, the fact is Moxon's postcode, if you checked, I'm assuming you have not or you could not possibly have pursued this is HD something, which means it is within the confines of Huddersfield, meaning it is not illegitimate to include Huddersfield as its location. To reference another name, the last time I checked it was DKNY, or Donna Karan New York, and I'm sitting here wondering why it is you are not challenging whether DK's presence is truly within the confines of New York ? Because it most probably is or she would not write it. In England, Racconish, towns include many villages around them, and Huddersfield is the town where Moxon is nearest to, and therefore a part of whether you ,me or the man walking his dog down the street like it or not. PS Holmfirth is also one of the villages within the confines of Huddersfield, just in case. Thanks.--HMS sovereign of the seas (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

According to Moxon's post code, HD9, its post town is Holmfirth, not Huddersfield. Coordinates added.   Racconish ^Tk 08:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I wonder where it is you thought where the 'D' in the postal code came from, as I can assure you it is not present in the word 'HOLMFIRTH'. It is in fact a shorthand version of the word HUDDERSFIELD, which you seem to hate so much. Your refusal to acknowledge the above fact is the most worrying of all.--HMS sovereign of the seas (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you avoid this obvious precision.  Racconish ^Tk 18:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Dubious claim on Altai cashmere

The current version claims that "Moxon's affiliation with Altai Cashmere is historic. This unique Cashmere takes its name from the Altai Mountains of Mongolia. It has one of the finest micron counts within the cashmere family and is regarded as the rarest due to the scarcity of food in such high altitudes where the weather gets extremely cold." This unsustained claim is dubious. Altai cashmere can either refer to cashmere provided by Altai cashmere Ltd, a corporation, or cashmere from the wool of Gornoaltaiskaya goats a breed "formed between 1944 and 1982 on collective farms of the Gorno-Altai Autonomous Region". The last quoted source does not support the claim on scarcity of food.   Racconish ^Tk 10:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Altai Cashmere has been referred to in the following articles: 'British Airways Business Life December 2002 – January 2003: p. 76, Sock it to me' and 'Yorkshire Post 12 September 2001: p. 17, Old-fashioned methods with socks appeal'. The former mentions the scarcity of food in the region, which is attributed as Altai Mountains of Mongolia, of which WP also has an article. The latter article also mentions the date of establishment of the firm, the "old-fashioned" or "antiquated" method of manufacturing.--HMS sovereign of the seas (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Please provide inline citations supporting directly the information presented in the article.   Racconish ^Tk 08:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Although I have contributed to wikipedia, I am not privy to how it is inline citations are made. I have given you the article where it is present, you could instead of chasing every last penny, add the citation and we could move on happily every after. Please, if it not too much trouble, could you add the citation where it is you feel would be appropriate? Thank you for your help.--HMS sovereign of the seas (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Everything explained there. Otherwise, just quote your sources here.   Racconish ^Tk 08:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Referencing completed. Thanks.--HMS sovereign of the seas (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Inline citation still missing. What exactly does which source say?  Racconish ^Tk 18:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Dubious claim on flexibility

The article currently claims that "Moxon is unique amongst textile manufacturers for its niche ability to make whichever quantity its approved clients specify, even as little as a suit length." This unsourced extraodinary claim is contradicted by a reliable source stating a more plausible "minimum of 70 meters".   Racconish ^Tk 11:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

This source is from several years ago I believe. After contacting Moxon in early 2009, it was possible to have a suit length made, provided I paid the extraordinary price, which I no doubt could not afford.--HMS sovereign of the seas (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

No original research.   Racconish ^Tk 08:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Please contact Moxon regarding this matter and the article would have a first-hand source.--HMS sovereign of the seas (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No promotion.  Racconish ^Tk 08:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The presence of the above fact, which is 100% confirmed, is a representation of the current situation of the company, hence its inclusion in the header aptly named 'TODAY'.--HMS sovereign of the seas (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

100% confirmed by who?  Racconish ^Tk 18:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Dubious claim on water salinity

The article currently claims "the freshwater, which has cascaded down the Pennines and into Moxon's water reservoirs, contains natural cloth softening characteristics, largely due to having low concentrations of dissolved salts, a composition unmatched anywhere else in England." This unsourced extraordinary claim is contradicted by a geological study.  Racconish ^Tk 11:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

This article mentions nothing in relation to dissolved salts in Pennines, which is the reason textile manufacturing is centred in Yorkshire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HMS sovereign of the seas (talk • contribs) 14:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Please don't reverse the burden of proof and provide inline citations to support your claim.   Racconish ^Tk 08:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You didnt assume I would read your article, which has absolutely nothing to do with the presence of water with dissolved salts in the Pennines. Perhaps you assumed erroneously that the presence of many formulas would discourage the reader.--HMS sovereign of the seas (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith.   Racconish ^Tk 08:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Good faith is unrelated to the fact that your article has nothing to do with the topic of the conversation, something which is bewildering to say the least.--HMS sovereign of the seas (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, concern is your statement in the article, not backed by any source at this point.  Racconish ^Tk 19:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Dubious claim on finishing

The current version of the article claims "Moxon is currently the only remaining textile manufacturer in England with its very own on-site finishing plant". There is at least one counter example. Such extraordinary claim should be supported by secondary sources.   Racconish ^Tk 12:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

In England, Vanners is a silk weaver. A good editor would have inserted the word "wool" in front of textile manufacturer, or stated "of cloth" and no such dispute would have arisen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HMS sovereign of the seas (talk • contribs) 14:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

A good editor would ... provide inline citations to support his claim. As for my edits, you reverted all of them so far.   Racconish ^Tk 08:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You edits were far from good editing, they were not constructive. You could easily have done the addition mentioned above, which is perfectly plausible, and earned my respect as what a good editor is like, and about the wonders of wikipedia.--HMS sovereign of the seas (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"Encyclopedic content must be verifiable", not plausible.  Racconish ^Tk 08:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Your refusal to recognise the existence of sources which are not your own makes your requests very difficult. The fact is now referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HMS sovereign of the seas (talk • contribs) 14:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

What source? Where did you quote it or where can we read it?   Racconish ^Tk 19:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced statements on machinery

The description of the pictured loom as a Hattersley loom should also be supported by a secondary source, as well as the alleged refusal to purchase foreign machines. DNR reported here in 1987 that Moxon had replaced its older British looms with new Swiss looms.  Racconish ^Tk 12:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you have not been reading that Moxon underwent a change of direction, ie a reversal from the entire industry in the mid nineties and reverting to the older and slower methods of manufacturing. You are referring to an article from 1987. The current Moxon is 180 degrees away from that, as is mentioned in the majority of sources.--HMS sovereign of the seas (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This source says: "In June 1977 two section of 20 looms were scrapped and replaced by a modern Sulzer loom."   Racconish ^Tk 08:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how this relates to the Moxon currently in existence, of which the article is about, and which I have visited, and owns none of the looms you mention, since the firm has since changed both location and ownership. It is perfectly acceptable, and something I am urging you to do, for you to add the information to the article in the past tense, in the history section, under the year 1977, without removing the header or title, or the work of others. Thank you.--HMS sovereign of the seas (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The quote is clearly dated. You could have moved the material to another place in your structure instead of repeatedly deleting it. The current version is not neutral enough.  Racconish ^Tk 19:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Use of misleading pictures

The view of the "Moxon village" from the Moxon plant is misleading. There is no Moxon village and the reader is led to assume it is a view of Huddersfield, which is doubtful at this distance.

The picture of a wooden "Dolly" scouring box leads the reader to assume it is in use, while the only scouring device confirmed at this point by a 3rd party source is a modern expensive one.   Racconish ^Tk 11:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Current situation of the article

After HMS sovereign of the seas's 5 deletions in 5 days of reliable sources and maintenance templates ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7]), the article is essentially back to where it was before I tried to improve it, as can be seen here. The issues can be summarized as follows.

Misrepresentation of reliable sources

Challenged hereabove to comply with WP's verifiability policy and to provide inline citations of reliable sources, HMS sovereign of the seas, instead of providing them, asked me to do it. Nevertheless, after deleting my edits, he used them in a misleading way to support the prior text:

• [8]. Claim: Moxon [...], due to its antiquated manufacturing process and machinery, claims to be the finest in the world. Actual source: a merchant told a customer Moxon is "one of Britain's best woolen mills".

• [9]. Claim: In 1556, the Moxon family of Yorkshire, England, established a tradition of close involvement in the creation of quintessential quality English cloth. Actual source: "Moxon dates back to 1556, it claims".

• [10]. Claim: Established in 1556 the earliest Moxon nurtured their growing relationship with that most natural and healthy of materials; wool, which heralded an era of significant development in handloomed cloth. Actual source: "Moxon, whose history goes back to 1556".

• [11]. Claim: The use of Noble rare fibres such as Mink, Ermine, Beaver and Vicuña was maintained together with the use of natural Silk and Pearl Sliver cottons, specialist weaving keeping with the firm's illustrious history. Actual source: "Moxon, the small but famous Huddersfield, Yorkshire, mill has now introduced its super 210s".

• [12]. Claim: The firm has placed an emphasis on the use of British textile equipment, refusing to purchase from overseas, preferring instead to pay more for British machinery. Actual source: Moxon "invested about £120,000 in [a] new scouring machine made by Holmes Heaton [...] Its managing director said he was "proud to be able to buy locally".

• [13]. Claim: Early in the XXI Century, Moxon relocated to the historic Yew Tree Mills in Holmbridge, in the heart of Yorkshire's rural picturesque landscape, surrounded by extensive Pennine Moorland. Nothing related in source.

• [14]. Claim: Behind the mill, Moxon has two private water reservoirs built over a century ago which, with Yorkshire's year round rainfall, ensure an uninterrupted supply of soft untreated water, historically an essential component in the dyeing and finishing processes of cloth, and one of Moxon's key ingredients today. Actual source: "June 2007 was the wettest calendar month on record in much of Yorkshire".

• [15]. Claim: Moxon is widely considered to have the world's most comprehensive archives of woven worsted and woollen samples, spanning the centuries of the firm's distinguished existence. Actual source: Moxon "keeps archives of its fabrics going back many years, including some fabrics it made for men's fashions of the '30s".

Use of unreliable sources

Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as [...] promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions."

Such is the case of [16] and [17].

As for the British Airways Business Life Magazine, inline citations would be welcome for this source cited 6 times.

I am beginning to wonder what the use for the Sources section in the article is for, since as you are effectively saying, they serve no purpose as you refuse to verify them. Please read the articles prior to making judgments. To answer you second point, I fail to see how the lack of availability of a source online, effectively rules out its use, in addition, how this has anything to do with how many times it is cited. If the article is comprehensive, it will be cited.--HMS sovereign of the seas (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources where a link is provided are easy to check. "Non web-based" sources should be quoted if challenged.   Racconish ^Tk 19:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Promotional link to self published sources with copyvio concern

• [18]. Text nearly similar in article and in PR: "Moxon is a prestigious British textile manufacturer of luxury worsted and woollen cloth, which, due to its antiquated manufacturing process and machinery, is the finest in the world. Established in 1556, it is, without question, the oldest in existence."

• [19]. Text nearly similar in article and in PR: "The ancient firm essentially came to prominence during the glorious reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth I of England, who reigned from 1558 until 1603, primarily as a Cottage industry. At the time, there were three main stages to manufacturing cloth: carding, spinning and weaving [...] Its unique location within West Yorkshire, on the very borders of England's Pennine Mountains, the most rural of Huddersfield's surrounding countryside, has supplied Moxon with a crucial element in its enigmatic recipe, the area's infamous rainfall. Behind the mill, Moxon has two private water reservoirs built over a century ago, which, with Yorkshire's year round precipitation, ensure an uninterrupted supply of soft untreated water, historically an essential component in the dyeing and finishing processes of cloth, and one of Moxon's key ingredients today. The freshwater, which has cascaded down the Pennines and into Moxon's mini lakes, contains natural cloth softening characteristics, largely due to having low concentrations of dissolved salts, a composition unmatched anywhere else in England."

Although I agree these PR may postdate the article, I see no reason to leave such copyrighted promotional material in the article.

It is not a question of "may" postdate the article, they do. Check the dates and this will be confirmed to you. Thank you.--HMS sovereign of the seas (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The article should be expressed in an original and non promotional manner. The similarity of the article with the company's PR is disturbing.   Racconish ^Tk 17:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Alleged use of "non web-based newspapers"

Despite HMS sovereign of the seas's claim, the Yorkshire Post and the Sunday Telegraph Magazine archives are accessible online.

Considering that a source from the Yorkshire Post, 12 Sept 2001, is used 7 times in the article, it should be an article significant enough to be found here with a search by date. Such was not the case. An additionnal search in the archives for articles with "socks" in the title returned no match.

Same concern for the Sunday Telegraph Magazine, 30 June 2002, cited 3 times. The newspaper is on Highbeam, but this search returned no match.

Inline citations at least and hopefully links would be welcome here.

It is both ignorant and unrealistic to think that the above Newspapers would have records up to and including the year 2001, which is when the articles were written. Your over-reliance on being able to check all sources at the palm of your hand unfortunately suggests a short-sighted nature, not suitable for verifying wikipedia articles with the correct frame of mind. Please verify sources prior to deleting referenced content. Thank you.--HMS sovereign of the seas (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

As explained above, such records are available online, except I could not find the references you mention. In any case, please provide here or in the article full quotes.   Racconish ^Tk 17:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of reliable content

All the content I added, based on 21 reliable sources, concerning for example the history of the company prior to the acquisition of the company by Mr Chamsi-Pasha and coordinates, have been deleted with no explanation.

The above complaint is ironically the same levelled at you. The stubborn refusal to respect work other than your own is worrying.--HMS sovereign of the seas (talk) 15:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I explained clearly my concern: Your sources are either misreprentated or not cited.  Racconish ^Tk 19:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of maintenance template

Despite due warning, a {{ Underconstruction }} template has been twice removed, leaving me slightly doubtful on HMS sovereign of the seas's alleged sincere appreciation of my future edits.

For the above reasons, together with non encyclopedic tone, lack of neutrality and self confessed original research, I consider the restored content fails to meet our verifiability policy and must be reverted. Statements such as "Please contact Moxon regarding this matter and the article would have a first-hand source" or additions such as the "view of the Moxon village" (which does not exist) are simply not acceptable. I hope we can move on in a constructive way. Thank you.  Racconish ^Tk 23:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You persistence on maintaining a patronising tone, which has been mentioned to you earlier via message, but no doubt too negative in connotation to remain on your talk page, is starting to be an issue. Please assume good faith, and remember that Wikipedia is a community, of which you are not the Founder or owner. I am not ruling out working with you on making this article better, in fact that is my ideal scenario, but how is this possible when you effectively erase all work apart from your own? Usually content is added to the work of the creator of the article until the work reaches its peak. Please don't take this to mean that I don't want the removal of certain things, by all means, if you feel they should not be there, remove them, but to destroy the work completely, or for example re-write the first phrase of the article by changing words like "prestigious" for the equivalent "high-end" or "Textile Manufacturer" for "Weaver" is suggesting a lack of good grace, especially as Moxon also has its own finishing plant, which means "Weaver" on its own is in fact erroneous. The situation as I see it is the following, with two very gracious and simple requests:

-Please add your verifiable content under the relevant article headers without removing them, meshing them into the content where you see them appropriate -Please do not delete images which help illustrate article content, and enrich wikipedia.

I seriously hope, for the good of the article, that the final article is a fusion of our hard work, referenced and up to the standards of the best of wikipedia articles.

I thank you for your trouble and apologise for the manner in which the situation has progressed up to now, as that is all I can offer apart from a virtual handshake.

Sincerely,

--HMS sovereign of the seas (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

High-end describes the market and is more neutral than prestigious. Weaver is more precise than textile manufacturer. Finishing is accessory to weaving.

Requesting your additions to be left untouched is not a proper base to build consensus if your additions are challenged as not verifiable.  Racconish ^Tk 20:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

After a 6th deletion of sourced material, improperly described as a return to an "unvandalised version" (removing unverified content is not vandalism), I think we need a third opinion.  Racconish ^Tk 20:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request:

I have decided, in the best interest of the article, to make the following recommendations. I request that both editors respect the decision that I make, but can still voice their concerns on the talk page. Firstly, I will note that there are an excessive number of tags on the article. They should be summarised with a general "cleanup" tag. Also, I will recommend that the under-construction tag to be reinstated, and should be the only tag to be placed until this dispute has been finalised (for a minimum of one week). There seems to be an excessive amount of puffery, synonyms for said (do not use the word "emphasis" in an article), and a lot of expressions of doubt, such as "claim to be / is considered to be". Be very explicit about the establishment of Moxon, eg "Moxon was established in 1556...". It is not appropriate to have in 1556, the Moxon family of Yorkshire, England, established a tradition of close involvement in the creation of quintessential quality English cloth. From my reading of these pages, I will make it clear now, that for this encyclopaedia, Moxon does not make handmade goods HMS sovereign of the seas, I request for you to provide explicit references to justify the use of Noble rare fibres such as Mink, Ermine, Beaver and Vicuña was maintained together with the use of natural Silk and Pearl Sliver cottons, specialist weaving keeping with the firm's illustrious history. Please provide your references on the talk page. Additionally, there was a breach of Original Research on the "Claims of Flexibility" section. Since there is a source that states the contrary of the original research, Moxon, for this encyclopaedia’s purpose, makes to a minimum of 70 metres. These references [20] and [21] should not be located in this article. They are about the geographic and historic information surrounding the neighbouring towns, including Yorkshire. These should be in the Yorkshire article. Reference [22] actually cites Wikipedia. This is a circular reference, and is a violation of Verifiability. I do not think that [23] article should be used. However, I think that this article [24] can be used, but only for solid facts, such as date of establishment and other objective information. Non-web newspapers must still be verifiable. Just because they may exist, still means that other editors should be able to confirm that this content is true. I request that Racconish makes all further edits to the article, however all other editors may make their discussions about the article on this discussion page, and that Racconish may remove the under-construction tag when Racconish finishes editing the article. I will come and review this website in a few days to check if the best interest of the article is being preserved.—Panpanman (talk) 15:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

​

Accepted. Article and section templates removed and replaced by single {{underconstruction}}. Will gradually remove inline templates.  Racconish ^Tk 16:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Accepted. Neutral rewrite of History section, some sources added. I suggest the "history" section should go to the acquisition by Chamsi-Pacha and the "today" section should start from there.  Racconish ^Tk 18:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

 Declined . I have not added this source: it is a copyrighted press release from the company (Same policy as for the related Hield, see here).   Racconish ^Tk 21:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Was not aware about the legal restrictions for this source. Thankyou for clarifying that for me, and it should not be added. Panpanman (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well done

Dear Racconish

I believe the article at the moment is making good progress, notice my lack of intervention, as I am naturally eager to let you improve it as you see fit. There are only a few things I would ask you to do, firstly to restore the images, as they are very descriptive on their own. You may of course put whichever descriptions to them you see fit, but it is not every day somebody goes to visit that mill and thus they must be included.

Secondly, from the references you have included, it appears Firas Chamsi-Pasha is British, therefore Syrian-born British citizen would probably fit the description more efficiently.

Thridly, at the beginning you could remove the word for suits altogether, by replacing the word fabrics with cloth, as that is much more specific and refers more closely to suits than any other word.

Thank you for maintaining some of the structure at the very least and I look forward to reading the article as it nears completion.

Best,

--HMS sovereign of the seas (talk) 11:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Per MOS:IMAGES, "images should be inside the major section containing the content to which they relate (within the section defined by the most recent level 2 heading)". Per LAYOUT, "you should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can." Of your 4 pictures, I picked for each section the most relevant one. Concerning the 2 other picture, we could link to Commons with {{commons}}, but I have some concerns about them, explained here.

Concerning the nationality of Mr Chamsi-Pasha, with reference to WP:BLP, we have to be careful with the wording. This source describes him as "Syrian-born, British-based", which is not clear about the nationality. The article in Syria today says "my family is Syrian" and The Economist says "Firas Chamsi-Pasha arrived in Huddersfield from Syria in 1981". In the context of a litigation with a maid, more recent sources also referred to him as Syrian, (here and here). Finally, Mr Chamsi-Pasha himself declared here he was born in Syria. I hesitated between a paraphrase of The Economist, replacing "Syrian-born" by "who arrived in Huddersfield from Syria in 1981", and the current version. As Mr Chamsi-Pasha himself declared he came to England from Lebanon, I find the current version more neutral. I shall replace the source from Syria today by the source from the BBC in the article.

According to the article on textile, "the words fabric and cloth are used in textile assembly trades (such as tailoring and dressmaking) as synonyms for textile. However, there are subtle differences in these terms in specialized usage [...] Fabric refers to any material made through weaving, knitting, spreading, crocheting, or bonding. Cloth refers to a finished piece of fabric that can be used for a purpose such as covering a bed." The term cloth does not necessarily imply the use for suits. I think suiting fabric is a more precise term.   Racconish ^Tk 13:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. {{under construction}} removed. Please add only neutral and verifiable material. Thank you,   Racconish ^Tk 19:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Chamsi-Pasha

Prior occupation

The Economist wrote: "Firas Chamsi-Pasha arrived in Huddersfield from Syria in 1981 when Hield Brothers, an old family-run weaving business for whom he was an agent, ran into trouble. He bought the company". The Yorkshire Post writes: "Three decades ago, his merchant father rode to the rescue of a supplier, Hield Brothers of Bradford, which was under threat of hostile takeover. The family business, a textiles and real estate group, bought the shares of Hield and took the business private." The two sources slightly differ (or more probably complement each other) on who exactly acquired the company. They are both quoted in the article. But the second does not contradict the first concerning the former agency and its presentation of the acquisition, "rode to the rescue ", does not reek of neutrality. The deletion of the sourced reference to The Economist is detrimental. Racconish ^Tk 13:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Moved from Racconish's talk page

The latest article shows Chamsi-Pasha had no involvement with the business in any shape prior to his father's acquisition. To continually state an erroneous fact is not only wrong, but harmful to the credibility of wikipedia. I state this because the only way you could know more about this subject is if you actually worked for Moxon. i am a customer and am certain of facts, and information included in the Yorkshire post article are as accurate to the reality than any of the previous ones. You reverting changes would show an unwillingness to jointly improve the quality and accuracy of the page, which should be the objective of every editor and is without question my own. I hope you take this message in the right way, and help co-operate to make the page as best as it could be.

TY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southpole1 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I take it what you call "the latest article" is this one from the Yorkshire Post. quoted above. The article says nothing of Firas Chamsi's activity prior to his taking the direction of Moxon. It only says: "He was asked in 1996 to look after the business". Unless you provide a reliable source, there is no reason to discard the - generally reliable - specific source used in the article on this point, i.e. The Economist, which wrote Firas Chamsi "was an agent" for Hield Brothers when he "arrived in Huddersfield ... in 1981". It makes no sense to replace "textile agent" by "businessman" and to leave the reference to a source which says "agent".Racconish ^Tk 13:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Nationality

Southpole1 has recently modified the article to add "British" after "Syrian-born", based on a recent article in the Yorkshire Post. The article says Firas Chamsi-Pasha is "of Syrian origin", which is much too vague to support the statement. I have found no source stating Chamsi-Pasha is British. Many, such as the Daily Mail, the Telegraph or the Evening Standard, say he is Syrian. None, he is British. Syrian seems to me clearer than Syrian-born, though not incompatible with British, for which a reliable source must be supplied. Racconish ^Tk 06:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Moved from Racconish's talk page

I find most baffling the refusal to acknowledge facts presented to us in the various articles to the detriment of the page. Let us examine facts:

1/ Chamsi-Pasha settled in England in 1981, where he has been working ever since. Working for 3 decades and not becoming naturalised would not only be most unusual, but nigh-on impossible. Your refusal of this fact strikes me as shocking and somewhat of an ulterior motive. Please put it aside and allow the accuracy of the page to be improved by other editors, who may not have your experience but on occasion, may know more about a subject than yourself. it is wise to assume good faith as well.

2/ He is referred to as 'of Syrian origin' which implies Syrian-born naturalised British citizen to everybody, apart from you for some reason. If he was still Syrian, the Yorkshire Post would have stated so and not put the word origin which suggests a separate nationality has been acquired. It is quite likely he is no longer Syrian, which supports the use of origin but to dispute the fact that he is British is bewildering and makes me quite uneasy about your motives in your edits. If the newspaper were written outside the confines of the UK then it is most certain British would have been inserted, but stating the obvious is not always to the benefit of readers. Syrian-born British citizen is by far the most correct and need not even thinking about.

It is deeply troubling since I have only started when noticing erroneous information, but to be welcomed by a "last word" editor is the last thig I would have imagined, and has seriously affected my opinion with regards to wikipedia. Put your obvious impartiality to one side and concentrate on facts, which are easily noticeable if one made the slightest effort, instead of taking a guilty unless proven innocent perspective.

TY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southpole1 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion (2)

Blanking this page or reverting a 4th time the article to the version you like without acknowledging the concerns expressed by other editors is not the way to resoleve a disagreement. I shall ask for a 3rd opinion. Racconish ^Tk 15:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

After blanking this page again, Southpole1 has added the following comment:

We can all ask our best friends for third opinions and unless the third opinion is the subject in question himself, there is no way of resolving this. You are clearly refusing to acknowledge information which has been presented to you for God knows what cause. But it is to the detriment of the accuracy of this page and I cannot simply watch you add inaccuracies when I happen to know more about the subject. Be considerate and permit the contributions of others. Follow the rules you expect others to and above all, do not threaten and think you are above because you are more versatile with the operations of wikipedia.

TY— Preceding unsigned comment added by Southpole1 (talk • contribs)

Please make yourself familiar with the third opinion process: it is not about asking one's best friends. Nor Mr Chamsi-Pasha. For the sake of clarity, here is why I disagree with you: Recent sources, such as the Evening Standard in November 2010, said he was Syrian. Your conjecture on "Syrian origin" meaning "British" is either WP:SYN or WP:OR, but not supported by sources. There is a significant number of sources saying he is Syrian, Syrian-born, coming from Syria and of Syrian origin and none saying he is British. As for the reference to his prior occupation, you don't give any reason nor any source for your repeated deletions. Racconish ^Tk 16:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

After blanking this page again, Southpole1 has added the following comment:

I don't agree at all. It is quite impossible to work in a country for 3 decades and not be naturalised. To consider otherwise would be ridiculous to the government as the person would pay less tax. The latest article addresses mis-information in the previous ones. Again, if you consider the meaning of "Syrian origin" in a British newspaper about somebody living and working in England for 3 decades, the answer is not an unsolvable equation. Your lack of acceptance of facts is an issue I am not finding easy to comprehend. Thank you for the help regarding signatures.

Southpole1 (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

After removing content from this page, Southpole1 added the following comment on Racconish's talk page:

You asking for a third opinion seems to reek of asking a good friend for support. Unacceptable as the person you select could not possibly know more about the subject unless as I stated, he is the subject in question, or works for the company in question. I put it to you that it seems to be a question of everybody is wrong except you to be honest, affecting accuracy of articles. It is obscene.

Southpole1 (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm here in response to a third opinion request made by Raccoonish. Before I start, let me just clarify one thing. As Raccoonish has already said, the third opinion process is not about "ask[ing] our best friends" to give opinions. This is a formal step in dispute resolution, where two editors request that someone with no prior involvement in an article provide a third opinion. My opinion is not binding or official in any way, but it helps to resolve the dispute.

This dispute is in two parts, so I shall deal with it as such. This source clearly establishes that Chamsi-Pasha was "an agent" of the business. The second source which Southpole1 provided does not oppose this at all. Therefore, it is acceptable to refer to Chamsi-Pasha unless and until a source which directly opposed this view is provided.

As for his nationality, all the sources that Raccoonish has proivided - the Daily Mail, the Telegraph or the Evening Standard - all attest that Chamsi-Pasha is Syrian. I appreciate that efforts that Southpole1 has gone to in determining his nationality; however, any statement must be verifiable. Wikipedia's original research policy states that only an editor should not conduct his own research (which includes attempting to work out whether or not a man has gained British nationality) in an article.

My view is, therefore, that Chamsi-Pasha's prior occupation and nationality should remain as it was before Southpole1 began editing. I appreciate the effort to improve the article and I expect it was done in good faith, but I strongly recommend that Southpole1 reads WP:V, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I hope that helps. I shall continue to watch this article and its talk page for a little while. Let me know if there are still problems. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done. I have reverted to the last version before Southpole1's last edit, as it benefits from 2 additional sources, the articles in the Yorkshire Post and the Evening Standard, then added an additional source from the Daily Mail. I have refrained from using the 2 other sources establishing Chamsi-Pasha is Syrian (the Daily Mail and the Telegraph), as they were written at an early stage of the litigation between Chamsi-Pasha and his maid and could be unduly detrimental to the person. The comparaison between the article before Southpole1's first edit and the present article can be seen here. Thanks for the third opinion. Racconish ^Tk 19:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That's great - I'm glad I could be of assistance. If you need any more help, just drop me a note at my talk page. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the third opinion. I have accepted your point regarding nationality, but the mis-information of former agent, which is not referred to in the Yorkshire Post because it is a fault, has been removed. The page is therefore referenced well in its current format, with a middle ground between Racconish and myself found.Southpole1 (talk) 03:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Moved from Racconish's talk page:

I hope you agree that the word "businessman" is an entirely accurate description of the job, furthermore it highlights what is currently being done, since it is in the "Today" section.

Southpole1 (talk) 03:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not agree with these changes.

• Nationality. You say you accept the third opinion on nationality, but you don't. We have now 4 sources in newspapers of record establishing the man is Syrian (Daily Mail, April 2010, Telegraph, May 2010, Evening Standard, November 2010, Daily Mail, November 2010). I had used in the article the 2 last ones, from November 2010. Your edit removes these 2 references which do not support your new "compromise" claim.
• Prior activity. Granted Chamsi-Pasha is and was a businessman, this is not a reason to avoid following a reliable source describing his prior activity as being an agent for Hields. Your 2 new arguments, (1) "which is not referred to in the Yorkshire Post because it is a fault" and (2) "it highlights what is currently being done, since it is in the "Today" section", are not acceptable. (1): Not referred to in source (A) is not a reason to reject source (B) which refers to it, even more so when source (B) is generally considered reliable. (2): The sentence is not about the acquisition back in 1993 or 1996 (depending on sources) by Firas-Chamsi or his family (depending on sources) and what the man himself was doing before. It is not about describing his job now. The latter description is in the infobox. As a result of your change, the note in line 145 does not make sense: it starts with 'another source", but you cancelled the reference to the first source.
• Socks price. There is no reason to remove a recent and reliable reference (Evening Standard, August 2011). And if we add the source, we have to deal with the price variance between the different sources, hence the note you suppressed.

To summarize, your edit is not acceptable because you have to get rid of 3 reliable sources and to avoid following a fourth one in order to force the article to match your view, which is going against WP rules reminded above. At this point, I am reverting you for removal of sourced content and suggesting the following procedure:

1. I shall ask ItsZippy to express his third opinion on our last edits, in particular (a) on how his recommandation was followed and (b) on the source on socks and the resulting note on price variance I added and you deleted.
2. You should respond clearly, saying what you accept and eventually what you don't. I will do the same. Thanks, Racconish ^Tk 05:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Moved from Racconish's talk page:

OK. Did as requested, whilst removing the mis-information which you seem eager to keep. It is now middle ground. Thanks for guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southpole1 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Why would you reference from an old source when the latest source regarding socks informs us clearly that they are priced at £400. Please explain your reasons. Thank you.Southpole1 (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

No, you are not doing as requested: you removed again the sourced precisions he is Syrian and was a textile agent.

Concerning the price of socks, we have four contradicting sources:

1. Daily Mail, 2002: £275.
2. New York Post, 2010: $400 (£260).
3. Evening Standard, 2011: £ 200-plus.
4. Yorkshire Post, 2011: £400.

Sources (1), (2) and (3) are coherent, despite the time difference. Source (4) is not coherent with the 3 others. I kept source (3) in the body of the article, as more recent than (1) and (2) and more conservative than (4), but mentioned in a note the variance between sources.

In view of your insistance to delete what differs from your "truth", including this talk page, I suggest you to read WP:DE while waiting for ItsZippy to give (or not) his opinion. In the mean time, I am reverting your changes which contradict the cited sources.Racconish ^Tk 15:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You are being blinded by arrogance. The fourth source is an interview with Chamsi-Pasha himself, surely as Managing Director of the firm, the undisputed authority on the price of socks made by the firm, making all others obsolete. Point settled no argument. If you cannot agree here we have a problem.

Second, somebody cannot be referred to in any way shape or form as of Syrian origin if he did not hold another nationality. Granted, you don't want to insert British, which I have accepted, but to refuse 'Syrian origin' which is the information in the LATEST article tells me it is your way or the highway. Unacceptable in a scenario where you are wrong.

Third, to cite a popular example, David Cameron is now PM of the United Kingdom, please explain to me where he is referred to as the Leader of the Opposition in any article printed now ? That is a situation where David Camerom WAS Leader of the Opposition, nothing to do with the mis-information you are insistent on inserting which is of no value to the page in any way shape or form. Aside from the fact that it is incorrect, it does not benefit the page at all.

Southpole1 (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. I've been asked to provided a third opinion on the recent changes, which I shall do. Let me jump straight in with the three contentious issues:

• Nationality - I see no reason not to refer to Chamsi-Pasha as Syrian. All the sources claim that he is Syrian and none even allude to him being of any other nationality. To call him "of Syrian origin" (or anything similar) is needlessly ambiguous. Our job is to present what the sources say as clearly as possible. The sources say that Chamsi-Pasha is Syrian; there is no reason to refer to him as anything other than "Syrian".
• Prior activity - It seems to me that Southpole1's concern is that the Yourkshire Post does not make any reference to Chamsi-Pasha having any prior involvement with the company. I understand this and, if it was the only source, there would be no reason to include it. However, the second source claims that Chamsi-Pasha was an agent of the company and this does not contradict the first source. For this statement to be removed we would need a source which explicitly says that Chamsi-Pasha had no prior involvement with the company. To take a source which does not mention prior involvement and then assume that it means there was no involvement is synthesis. The only other option would be to demonstrate that the second source is unreliable as a source. If Southpole1 can coherently demonstrate the unreliability of the second source, then the information could be removed. Until then, as it is sourced content, the information should stay in the article.
• Socks - The issue on the socks seems to be the price. I would suggest that the article contains only the current price of the socks and, therefore, the most recent reliable source should be used. This source, from 30 August this year, puts them at £400. This source, from 2 August this year puts them at at least £200. This is no contradiction with the £400 presented in the other (most recent) source. Therefore, I propose that the price is set at £400 in the article or the price is removed altogether.

I hope that helps, and thanks for continuing to discuss the article. If you agree with my proposals, that's great; if either of you has a problem with what I have suggested, I recommend you go to the dispute resolution noticeboard where another uninvolved editor can help to resolve this issue. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I see your point on the socks price and - naturally - I agree on the other issues. At this point, I would expect Southpole1, if he agrees, to change "of Syrian origin" to "Syrian" and "businessman" to "former agent of Hield" while leaving the current price at £ 400; and, if he disagrees, to say so. Thanks for trying to help. Racconish ^Tk 16:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Dearest members. I thank you for your opinions. I accept the following changes which make the most sense. I agree that the nationality is to be changed to Syrian, since it is present in many sources, and is therefore correct. However the issue of 'former agent' is only present in one source, out of dozens, and it is 100% mis-information, which is why it is only present in one source. Were it to be found anywhere else, I would have to agree with it but it is unquestionably erroneous, and why it won't be found anywhere else.

I will make the changes as promised. Thank youSouthpole1 (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Southpole1, this diff deleted a BBC source quoting Chamsi-Pasha on his past in Syria and replaced it with a reference to the article in the Yorkshire Post which says nothing about Syria. I assume it is a good faith mistake you will hasten to correct. Concerning the pending aspect, Chamsi-Pasha having been an agent of Hields Brothers before 1981, the burden is on you, as stated by ItsZippy, to demonstrate The Economist is not a reliable source, despite its good reputation for fact checking. The absence of mention by other sources is not a sufficient reason, but, at best, WP:SYN. We cannot censor a generally reliable source just because an editor claims to be an expert of the subject and says the source is "100% mis-information": this would go against WP:NOR and WP:V. I am sure you realize it is hard to fancy why The Economist would mis-inform its readers on such a matter. Should you be unable to present a valid demonstration, we should go back to the former version of the article, saying he was, before 1981, a "textile agent", or a variation of it, such as "an agent of Hield Brothers'. It would be perfectly acceptable to specify "according to The Economist". Thank you, Racconish ^Tk 20:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

As you asked for help on this here, I corrected the ref mistake myself.Racconish ^Tk 20:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Shocking this is still being spoken of. It is already clear that the source is inaccurate as it contains another inconsistency, which I have mentioned previously. It states he arrived in 1981 to Huddersfield, whereas Hield Brothers is located in Bradford. It is not until the purchase of Moxon Huddersfield in 1993 or 1996 that Huddersfield enters the picture. It is therefore proven that this source, in this particular case, is rendered unreliable. Thank you.

Southpole1 (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The article does not say Hield Brothers is in Huddersfield. But it is clearly written from "Bradford and Huddersfield". Racconish ^Tk 17:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It is obvious that is only in the title not referring specifically to the case in question. When referring to Huddersfield in 1981, a mistake is made, which renders the source unreliable. A good example of an un-checked fact.e

Southpole1 (talk) 05:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The Economist explicit reference to Huddersfield in 1981 concerns Chamsi-Pasha, not Hields. This article is an important source for ours. Many other of its explicit statements are proven to be true and some are used in our article. Please focus on the issue at stake, the activity of Chamsi-Pasha prior to the acquisition of Hields. You need to use some external proof to explain why you think we cannot follow The Economist statement Chamsi-Pasha was an agent of Hields before the acquisition of the firm. You replaced "former textile agent" by "businessman". Have you found a source that says it? Racconish ^Tk 09:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be comical if Businessman required a reference. As it currently stands it does not require a reference I hope you agree. The Economist article states that Chamsi-Pasha arrived in Huddersfield in 1981, to do what ? Were he an agent he would not need to go to Huddersfield as agents work from other locations. Were he working for Hield Brothers he would have gone to Bradford and it would have said so. The fact is he was never an agent, and the author of this article, slipped up, wrote Huddersfield without double checking, just as he wrote agent without double-checking. The Economist is not an infallible object, no matter how many times you try and say it is. The truth is it has humans, like you and I, working and making mistakes every so often. This article is one of them and it does not take much to see it.

Chamsi-Pasha was the son of the merchant father who purchased the firm Hield Brothers. When Moxon was purchased the son was tasked with running it. How does this tie up with him being an agent ? It does not. This article and the more recent articles go against each other. Why would he be an agent for a firm that his father buys from instead of working under the father ? The article is a slip-up whether we like it or not. Therefore working under the father, he was a businessman, and after the purchase of the first firm, he remained a businessman and following the purchase of the second, which he was charged with running, he remains a businessman, a description which requires no reference.

Southpole1 (talk) 12:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Raised at WP:RSN. Racconish ^Tk 13:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Fourth opinion

If you need one: I agree with Zippy and Racconish. I see no reason to discredit the source under discussion or to unleash an enormous amount of original research and analysis to prove it's incorrect/unreliable, and so "agent from Hield" is fine. Southpole is urged to stop edit-warring and to stop imposing their will: there already was consensus, to which I've added my voice. As a side note, both active editors are urged to have a look at Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Still, here we are, lame or not: Southpole, please stop reverting and removing, or be treated as a disruptive editor. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. Agreed on lame. Just hope not to loose - and have other editors loose - any more time on such matter of low encyclopedic value. — Racconish ^Tk 07:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)