Jump to content

Talk:Robert Scot

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Use of British Isles

[edit]

It should be deleted, as Scot wasn't born in England, Scotland, Wales, what is today Northern Ireland, what is today Republic of Ireland, Channel Islands & Isle of Mann. The same person being born in all those places is impossible. Geographically speaking he was born somewhere on the island of Great Britain & politically speaking, in the Kingdom of Great Britain. -- GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No strong view either way. KofGB is accurate for citizenship, GB is accurate for location. Currently the infobox says KofGB (changed from "British Isles"), so I suppose it boils down to: how is the infobox field normally used? Citizenship or place of birth? (Did the notion of "citizenship" as we currently understand it even exist back in 1744?) TFOWR 14:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon back then, one was merely a 'subject'. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right, but I'm maybe overthinking it: he was born in the KofGB, and that's all that matters. TFOWR 15:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to amend the biography section along the lines of Scot was born in 1744 though it is unclear precisely where. Some [or one] source[s] state[s] that he was born in Edinburgh, Scotland,[2] while others [or another] give[s] him as a native of England.[3] The Early United States Quarters website merely states that he was born "somewhwere in the British Isles" [4] ... . Before I make the change perhaps interested readers could give their views on my suggestion. LevenBoy (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's your rationale for the change? It seems a little odd, not to say WP:UNDUE, to single out a specific source, particularly a source that's less specific than the others. The sources we have already point to Great Britain - adding one that merely points to "Great Britain or somewhere else in the British Isles" seems... odd. TFOWR 16:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The guy wasn't born in Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Mann & Channel Islands (i.e. British Isles), that would've been impossible. BI isn't needed here. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My rationale is that it confirms the uncertainty, and above all it is well sourced. It would seem to be a pertinent fact that his place of birth is not confirmed, so arguably sources that give a location are misleading. That aside, the fact that he was born somewhere in the British Isles is all we know, and a source stating that position is to be welcomed. If the consensus is that "he was born somewhere in Great Britain", fine, but please find a source. And BTW, don't forget the source was there and was taken away, so I'm hardly proposing to add it. LevenBoy (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you've a source he was born somewhere in Ireland, Isle of Mann or Channel Islands? GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) "Great Britain" also confirms the uncertainty - and we have sources for "England" and "Edinburgh". TFOWR 17:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And they are conflicting, so what use are they, other than in the context of uncertaintly, which is very well expressed by the original source. LevenBoy (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
England and Scotland are both within Great Britain. Where's the conflict? GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some that we know would claim that as OR, but I won't. As I said, if you want GB maybe find a source that says it? LevenBoy (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me, it's not OR, that England & Scotland are both within Great Britain. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know they are (and they are also both in the British Isles, of course), but again - if you want GB, find a source. LevenBoy (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You're welcome to post at WP:NORN, but frankly I regard the idea that suggesting England and Scotland in 1744 were part of Great Britain constitutes original research is ludicrous. This seems rather WP:POINTy. TFOWR 17:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear! Read what I said. LevenBoy (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've a source for England, a source for Scotland. It's undisputable that he was born somewhere in Great Britain. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) if you want GB maybe find a source that says it We have two. TFOWR 17:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And they are? LevenBoy (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are the sources that state "England" (a country that was part of the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1744) and "Edinburgh" (a city within the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1744). TFOWR 18:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TFOWR, you really need to look in more detail at the extensive material at the BISE page and its archives. Since you're new to the issue you've probably not realised just how much importance is, or was, placed on the need for word-specific sources. A substantial majority of the cases brought to that page were ultimately concluded (not agreed, mark you) on the basis that "the source says [something other than British Isles]". No amount of persuasion was great enough to overcome this argument. If it didn't say "British Isles" then British Isles had to go. No matter that England, Scotland, Wales, IoM, CI, Anglesey, Great Britain (take your pick of any two - or even one) are part of the British Isles, the source didn't use those specific words, so tough. Now, here we have a similar situation, what am I to make of it? I re-iterate, the sources do not state Great Britain. The two sources you've introduced are conflicting, so they are worse than useless, apart from to emphasise the uncertainty, an uncertainty which is accurately described by the source you've removed - which coincidentally uses the phrase "British Isles". Ask yourself this question - if the removed source had used the term "Britain" would we be here now? LevenBoy (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WT:BISE deals with "British Isles", which is a contentious and frequently ambiguous term. The same can not be said for "Kingdom of Great Britain". (The only disputes around KofGB tend to be whether it should be "United KofGB", "united KofGB", or simply "KofGB"). So... if you don't think "Kingdom of Great Britain" constitutes original research, then we're done here. If you do think it's OR, then WP:NORN is where you need to be. Roping specific uses of "Great Britain" into WT:BISE's remit (specific uses of "British Isles") is not something I'd advocate, or support. TFOWR 18:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No we are not done here, and you don't seem understand the point I'm making, so let me spell it out again; at BISE British Isles was never acceptable terminology unless the source used those precise words - we were not at liberty to interpret GB&I or 'England and Ireland' as British Isles, but now you want to interpret conflicting references, one saying England, the other saying Scotland, as KoGB&I or something similar. Well sorry, in the overall debate about British Isles you can't have it both ways. I await some genuine reasons as to why my proposal is not acceptable, and what about the point I made about not being here if the source used Britain instead of British Isles? LevenBoy (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're not at WT:BISE, and there's a reason for that. (Though if you think there's a case to add "British Isles", you can, of course propose it at WT:BISE). We're discussing, not "British Isles" at WT:BISE, but "Great Britain" at a talkpage. There's broad consensus here and at WT:BISE that the sources we have support "Great Britain". If you disagree with that consensus you can raise it at WP:NORN. If you want to repurpose WT:BISE so it includes "Great Britain", you can propose that at WT:BISE. But yes, we really are done here. TFOWR 18:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, we really are not done here. You have failed to address any of the points I made and are trying to sidestep them with what are, quite frankly, bogus arguments. Unless you or others come up with sensisble arguments against my proposal I will implement it in a couple of days (that should give enough time). I would draw your attention to your comments above; "WT:BISE deals with "British Isles, which is a contentious and frequently ambiguous term." If that is your view - and it clearly is, you have no place in facilitating the difficult arguments concerning use of British Isles, so I respectfully suggest you resign from this role. LevenBoy (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to add "British Isles" to this article, you know how to go about it: raise it at WT:BISE. If you think "British Isles" is uncontentious, take a look at WT:BISE for a quick education. If you think I have no place facilitating the difficult (shome mishtake, shurely?) arguments concerning use of British Isles, by all means propose that at, say, ANI. I decline to follow your suggestion. TFOWR 18:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Look, it is simple, as far as I can see - NO way does BI have a place on this article - if you disagree with KofGB in the infobox start a new section here seeking consensus to either remove it totally just leaveing the date behind, or recommend some replacement text. - I think this section can now be closed and lets all move on. Codf1977 (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thought you might, but you are clearly unsuitable for the role - in my view you are partial. I've thought so for a while, now I know. I'm still waiting for your reasoned arguments against my proposal. You continue to sidestep the issue. LevenBoy (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To save me having to re-read the above thread again, could you restate your proposal? TFOWR 19:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...or do you mean the one that involves adding The Early United States Quarters website merely states that he was born "somewhwere in the British Isles" [4]? TFOWR 19:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this is the nub of it: I propose to amend the biography section along the lines of Scot was born in 1744 though it is unclear precisely where. Some [or one] source[s] state[s] that he was born in Edinburgh, Scotland,[2] while others [or another] give[s] him as a native of England.[3] The Early United States Quarters website merely states that he was born "somewhwere in the British Isles" [4] . And I genuinely would like your views on the point about not being here if that original source said "Britain" and not "British Isles". For me, that says it all about this whole BI issue. LevenBoy (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to understand how "The Early United States Quarters website" came to make that claim, did they take the two other sources and join them together to come up with BI because of the disagreements in sources ? or do they have another reason ? Codf1977 (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The proposed addition adds nothing to the article. By stating "one source says Edinburgh, one source says England" we amply cover the dispute between sources. The two sources used show that he was born in Great Britain. Adding a third source that merely says "somewhere in the British Isles" adds nothing. If we found a hypothetical fourth source that said "somewhere in Europe" I'd be opposed to that too, on the same grounds - it's pointless. We need to be as accurate as we can be, while noting discrepancies.
I'm also concerned about the wording, though obviously that can be modified: why mention the name of the source in the text? Why should the reader know or care about "The Early United States Quarters website"? What relevance does "The Early United States Quarters website" have to Scot's life? It's a source, that's it.
If a source merely said "Britain" (instead of "British Isles") I'd still prefer the two specific sources - it seems to me to be be more useful to the reader to know that it's not definitely known where in Britain he was born, than the generic fact that he was born in Britain. By the same token, if his date of birth was disputed - one source saying 1744, one source saying 1749, we wouldn't say "born sometime between 1744 and 1949" - we'd say "either born in 1744[1] or 1749[2]" and note the disagreement between sources. TFOWR 19:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on!!! I've just had a more detailed look at those two new sources. Soruce 2 is the website of a special interest coin collecting blog and the text is written by someone called "CoinLink" !! Source 3 - Bunker Hill Rare Coin - is a commercial investment services website. Not to put too finer point on it, but those "sources" are crap - big time! If I'd have suggested the like at BISE I'd have been ridiculed. The source that's been removed was much more authentic, and didn't claim a fact that is obviously in dispute. Come on, what's going on here?? LevenBoy (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Time for you to propose addition at WT:BISE? TFOWR 19:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've re-opened it. LevenBoy (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A Kingdom that covered the island of Great Britain & that ain't OR. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LevenBoy is arguing on two points. The first is that the sources are not reliable, and the second that the sources are ambiguous. Let's look at the sources first.
  1. The original "British Isles" reference came from the earlyusquarters website. On the "Contact Info" page, we learn the website owner has written a book (on "Bust Quarters") and is a member of a number of collectors organizations. It is a private website.
  2. The "trained as a watchmaker in this native England" reference is from "Bunker Hill Rare Coin" website. This is a commercial website specializing in rare coins. This reference is not attributable to a person, and no sources are specified. This source could be discounted as unreliable.
  3. The original Google Book stating "Robert Scot, a native of England, born in 1750" reference comes from "The Numismatist Volume 107" from the American Numismatic Association, printed in 1994. This is a magazine for enthusiasts, and the article was written by Danny Hoffman who was 17 years old at the time since he was 18 the following year. This source could be discounted as potentially unreliable.
  4. The article written by Coinlink is not distinctly attributable although a list of contributer are provided here. I'd have to agree with LevenBoy to discount this as a reliable source.
  5. The "register of officers and agents, civil, military, and naval in the service of the United States" lists "Robert Scot, engraver" as being born in Scotland. Undeniably reliable and must be given weight - especially given the fact it was published in 1816 (before he died).
  6. The offical US government website for the United States Mint states he was born in Edinburgh, Scotland in 1745. This must also be given weight and is undeniably reliable.
FWIW, there *are* reliable sources, and they state born in Scotland in 1745. I'd drop the references for England. Nice bit of research and good finds on the official sites. This is also posted at BISE --HighKing (talk) 22:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any objections to changing this to only read "Scotland", or does anyone have any other suggestions? --HighKing (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no probs. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, refs 5 and 6 outweigh any others. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Scot&oldid=1210277106"