Talk:Theophilus Hastings, 7th Earl of Huntingdon

However, another historian, Alan Hobson, has argued that...

To editor Alanrhobson: Please do not cite your own work in articles. Per our Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle the discussion should happen on the article's talk page, not via edit summaries. Further, if your argument regarding your edits is that you're an expert and we're not, I would remind you that Wikipedia belongs to dilettantes. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Earl of Huntingdon article

Chris - I was disappointed by your message. Firstly, because Robinvp11 ‎was the first one to conduct discussion/argument by edit summary - I was just replying to him. Secondly, I have already continued the discussion on Robinvp11's talk page. Thirdly, what is this 'we' business? I didn't say anything about other editors, just Robinvp11. By saying 'we', you are automatically allying with him, which doesn't suggest fairness or impartiality. You are also, by saying 'we', in effect accusing me of saying I know better than all editors, which is daft - of course I don't, and nor would I claim to. Fourthly, there are several weaknesses in his version of the article, which weaken it - not least, by omitting an important quote from the writer he mentions, Walker, which alters Walker's intended meaning.Alanrhobson (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Just to ensure we're clear; I explained why I left out Walker's quote but for completeness...his statement appears at the end of a lengthy article, most of which paints Hastings in a very different light. I left it out because i doesn't appear in any of the other 18 sources used for this article, including a book written by Walker. However, since life is short, I included it.

I am happy to take on board any other 'weaknesses' identified in the article. Please list them.

Robinvp11 (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

For completeness....

Robin - I don't find it very 'civil' for someone to delete/undo my entire contribution to an article, so it is a bit puzzling that you are seeking to lecture me on civility, to be honest. I have been a registered editor for six years (and an unofficial one for longer than that!) and I have never once deleted/undone an editor's entire contribution to an article.

There are several weaknesses in your article (I assume that you are the author of the bulk of it), which my additions improved upon, including providing balance, so one might have hoped that you would have welcomed them. Indeed, with one exception, I didn't even delete the several dodgy bits, as I hate deleting other editors' works - nearly all my edits are additions to articles.

There is a very good reason that my published article/booklet on Huntingdon does not appear widely on Wiki - it is a specialised article, on one man. Obviously its main use is going to be on the Wiki article on Huntingdon himself. However, outside the world of Wiki, it is used by others. For example, recently a Scottish academic wrote to me saying that he had used it (i.e. positively, not critically) in one of his articles. A while ago, another academic (with whom I don't always get on, so it was all the more of a compliment) wrote to me an unsolicited email giving my Huntingdon article/booklet strong praise.

I can't 'send' you a copy of the article/booklet for the very good reason that it is not available online - it was published in 2005 by the Royal Stuart Society, and they do not have online copies. However, they sell copies of their Papers (including my two), for just a few pounds each, so you could order one from them. Alternatively, several libraries such as the BL and the London Library have copies, though I guess these are more likely to be reference only than in the lending section.

In any event, for one important aspect we disagree on, you don't need to have read my booklet. If you look at the House of Lords journals from the 1670s to 1701, Huntingdon was repeatedly appointed to committees and other positions of responsibility by his fellow peers, so they clearly had high regard for him. They are considerably more likely to know about him and his reputation than, say, JR Western does, given they were Huntingdon's contemporaries and colleagues.

If you delete my contribution again, I shall revert it and - given that we are not allowed to enter into an edit war - appeal for third party arbitration, unless you have a better idea. I am letting you know now, as we are required to do. I am unfamiliar with the process, as over 98% of my previous edits have been accepted (I once checked back and counted up!), so I have never had to use the arbitration process before. As I say, if you have a better idea, let me know.

Response

Thank you for your response, which I read with interest.

Wikipedia is a collaborative environment and I welcome any input that corrects 'dodgy bits' in the original article. I always try to be positive and even when I disagree, it helps because it makes me look at the article in a more critical manner (as you may have noticed). I think its fair to ask you to provide sources; I've used 20 separate ones, so that's not unreasonable.

I am extremely interested in the claim he was appointed to committees and other positions of responsibility by his fellow peers, so they clearly had high regard for him. Since it differs from other sources, that would be really useful; please let me know if I can help.

My concern (clearly stated in my original response) was not the point per se but the reference provided to back it up; for obvious reasons, Wikipedia does not permit use of your own research. I'm not sure why that's controversial for someone with a PHD and First Class degree in history.

Your second edit expanded on the original, and added 'The historian Alan Hobson;' unfortunately, the same issue arises. Presumably you wouldn't support me altering your articles, then writing 'Robin van Persie, celebrated 17th century historian', as rationalisation.

If I can summarise your explanation (please feel free to correct me if wrong), you can't provide a copy of the article. That's a shame, but does cause a problem when using it as a reference. Peter Walker also wrote an article just on Hastings and I can find that online no problem, so I don't entirely follow why yours is different.

Have you changed your name recently? So far, the only entries I can find listed under the one name are similar interventions (for example, the 1701 Act of Settlement), which unfortunately suffer from the same issue. Apparently, I'm not the first person to have issues over your use (or otherwise) of Sources.

You are welcome to submit this issue to arbitration; let me know what I can do to help this process.

Robinvp11 (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Robin, I fear you have misunderstood Wikipedia:No original research. Whether a user has himself written a source is immaterial, provided that the source is reliable and not self-published. So if in this case the user is not himself the Royal Stuart Society, he may use his article as a source without violating the OR policy.--MWAK (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Poorly written maybe - my problem is not the document per se (eg if the late AJP Taylor turned up, I wouldn't question him) but the fact that the editor cannot provide the source. If Steve Pincus had time to edit Wikipedia, and used his work as a reference, I can look at it; he wouldn't have to give me a lengthy explanation of how unfortunately its not publicly available but a distinguished Scottish academic told him recently how useful it was, so will that suffice? Robinvp11 (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Your main point to me was that you didn't think that I should be using my own booklet as a source, so not sure why you are now telling MWAK that that is not the problem. Also, I have repeatedly told you how you can get hold of a copy - it's just that you can't be bothered. Also, it is publicly available, from several sources, as I have made clear, so to say it is not is just untrue, frankly. Alanrhobson (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Robin - Your reply was also interesting, so I can return the compliment. Alas, though, parts of it came across as rather passive-aggressive - not sure whether that was accidental or deliberate.

For example, you are wrong: I provided you very clearly with a way (well, three ways, in fact) that you can get hold of my booklet/article. The easiest way is via the RSS, because they just post it out to you. That is how others have obtained it. You will remember that Scottish historian I mentioned? He contacted the RSS and they sent him the booklet next day. If you don't want to use that simple and effective way of obtaining one, that's up to you, but please don't claim that I haven't made it available to you - I have, by showing you exactly where and how you can obtain a copy. If you want to look it up on the RSS website, it and my other published booklet for them are here, in their list of publications: http://www.royalstuartsociety.com/publications.html

However, those are just the titles; as I say, you would need to ask them to send you a copy through the post to see the body of text.

Not sure, at all, why you are making such an issue of my article not being available online. I have seen literally hundreds of references in Wiki articles to material not available online - usually pages in a hard copy book. Since I have only read a small number of the 5 million + Wiki articles, that means that there will probably be hundreds of thousands of references to material that is not online, across the whole of Wikipedia. Moreover, there is nothing in Wiki rules that says that sources have to be online.

Indeed, printed source references can be more reliable than online ones. In my experience, at least one in ten Wiki refs to online material are dead links, where either the website has disappeared or the article in question has been removed or moved - you may have found the same thing.

You are mistaken, too. I did not add 'The historian Alan Hobson' in my second edit on 11 October; it was present in my original edit, on 2 October. You can check the history of edits on the page if you want confirmation of that. The only reason I put it (having never done before in any of my other edits), was because you referred to 'the historian Peter Walker'. Walker, as he was the first to admit, was not a historian - he was a journalist. So I thought 'we might as well have a bona fide historian mentioned if journalists are going to be called historians'. I have since been told it is against Wiki rules to mention oneself, so it is not something I intend to do again.

You are also mistaken when you say 'Apparently, I'm not the first person to have issues over Sources'. Well, as far as I am aware, you were the first - no-one had raised it with me before you did. Moreover, you admitted yourself that you weren't sure about Wiki rules about sources, and neither was I. Subsequently another editor contacted me and said I wasn't allowed to refer to myself in the text of an article [see above], but that was after you, not before (and interestingly that same editor, during subsequent discussions on his talkpage, referred to your actions as 'bad form', so he certainly wasn't taking your side over mine).

I have already given you the source for my statement that 'appointed to committees and other positions of responsibility by his fellow peers, so they clearly had high regard for him' - the House of Lords Journals. I trawled through them in the House of Lords Records Office, but, happily for you (as you clearly like things to be available online), they are available online. As you are 'extremely interested' in the point, you can enjoy looking through them and seeing all the occasions when Huntingdon is appointed to committees, chair of committees and other positions of responsibility. Given there were many more peers than positions of responsibility, clearly he was highly regarded to be so repeatedly chosen.

The two biggest examples of what came across as passive-aggression (I stress again: not sure whether it was accidental or deliberate on your part) are these. Firstly, your point about Robin van Persie. Still not entirely sure what you were driving at, but presumably (presumably, because otherwise your point does not seem to make sense) you were making some oblique insult along the lines that I am no more a historian than RVP is, since RVP is a well known footballer, of course (although he never quite reached the same heights at Man Utd as he did at Arsenal!). Well, if that is your aim, then it is simply wrong. I have a PhD in History, I have published articles and booklets in History, and I am a p/t lecturer in History for a highly regarded university. People are called 'historians' if they have any one or two of those, so I must certainly be since I have all three (unlike RVP!). Not boasting about it - there are many better historians than me out there, and also, p/t is not as highly regarded as f/t - but simply stating a fact. Therefore, your attempt to equate me (a historian) with RVP (not a historian) falls apart.

Secondly, re your rather offhand (that's how it came across to me, at any rate) and odd query about 'Have you changed your name recently?' Que? No, I haven't, and it seems a bizarre question. I have always used the same username since I became a registered editor in 2013 (I acknowledged in my last that I used to do some anonymous edits pre-2013, but I presume you are not referring to that). I have also always used my own name in my published articles and booklets, apart from the Gazetteer (mentioned on my homepage) for a well-regarded historical trust, because all contributions on their website are anonymous. Why would I change my name, anyway? Moreover, I see that another editor has just pointed out (unsolicited by me) on this page that I am entitled to use my RSS article.

I've been typing this for over an hour; I think I have answered all your points. You can let me know if you think I have missed anything out.

Oh, one other thing, which I'll be mentioning to the arbiter, so will mention here out of courtesy, and also because you say you want to improve the article. It is untrue to say that Huntingdon is 'rarely' mentioned in sources. I trawled through hundreds of sources for my PhD, and Huntingdom was mentioned both in most of the primary sources and most of the secondary sources (mainly because, as you know, he was one of the main Whig lords in the Exclusion Crisis). That, therefore, is not 'rare' - that is often. Yet when I deleted 'rare' - virtually the only word of yours I deleted, as, unlike you, I hate deleting other editors' words; I much prefer adding things - you promptly put it back in! Alanrhobson (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Sending to Arbitration

This is what I am wanting to send to arbitration, although I gather I need to list it on here first:

I am writing to ask for arbitration on the following matter.

1) I am a Wikipedia editor with around 875 edits (although I know that is small fry compared with some editors!). I came across an article, Theophilus Hastings, seventh earl of Huntingdon, which although good in some ways, was flawed, both because there are one or two errors in it, and more importantly, because it misrepresented the view of an author (Peter Walker) who did an article on Huntingdon in 1977 (which I read whilst doing my own article on Huntingdon, in 2005).

2) I therefore added in sections to improve the article. I was pleased that I was able to do this tactfully and skilfully, deleting hardly any of the existing text – because I hate deleting other editors’ work – and concentrating almost entirely on making additions.

3) Despite this, the author of the article, robinvp11, deleted my entire contribution to the article. I found this aggressive and unnecessary. I have been a Wikipedia editor for six years, and I have never once deleted anyone’s entire contribution to any article.

4) Moreover, robinvp11, rather than using the talkpage as we are told to, argued their justification for doing this on the edit summary.

5) The reasons for my changes are as follows. Peter Walker ended his article by agreeing that Huntingdon did have genuine principles and genuine Jacobite views, as this quote – which forms the climactic, last part of the article, makes clear: 'His continued loyalty to James in his last years suggests that Huntingdon was not a man bereft of principle. Like so many of King James's supporters, he has suffered the opprobrium of posterity merely for being on the losing side’ Despite this rather explicit statement, robinvp11 ended his article by claiming that Walker argues that Huntingdon was unprincipled and just out for his personal gain. So I added this: that this does not explain Huntingdon's continued adherence to the Stuart cause post-1688. He could easily have transferred his allegiance to William, as some other former Stuart loyalists did. However, apart from the one wobble, in early 1689, he did not do so. His continuing loyalty to James during both the 1688 Revolution and William's subsequent reign cost him dear; he and his family lost permanently their political power and status in Leicestershire. Clearly there was considerably more to his motives than just a desire for self-advancement. Indeed, even Walker admits that 'His continued loyalty to James in his last years suggests that Huntingdon was not a man bereft of principle. Like so many of King James's supporters, he has suffered the opprobrium of posterity merely for being on the losing side.' robinvp11 promptly deleted the whole lot, before grudgingly later restoring half a line of it. They also, as I say, deleted my other contributions to the article as well.

6) One of the errors, which is pretty much the only thing I deleted, is where robinvp11 says that ‘ rare appearances in the historical record’. This is daft. It is untrue to say that Huntingdon is 'rarely' mentioned in sources. I trawled through hundreds of sources for my PhD, and Huntingdon was mentioned both in most of the primary sources and most of the secondary sources (mainly because he was one of the main Whig lords in the Exclusion Crisis). That, therefore, is not 'rare' - that is often. Yet when I deleted 'rare' - virtually the only word of robinvp11’s I deleted, as, unlike them, I hate deleting other editors' words; I much prefer adding things - he promptly put it back in!

7) At the request of an editor, I switched the discussion to talkpages. Initially this was on the article talkpage, but robinvp11 did not reply, so I switched it to robinvp11 ‘s talkpage. robinvp11 replied, but in his second reply, in quite an offhand and passive-aggressive way (or at least, that is how it came across to me). I spent over an hour answering all their points, when I had planned to go out to visit friends, and robinvp11 just replied with three curt sentences, ignoring nearly all of the points I made, and ending with ‘I look forward to hearing from the Arbitration team.’ So I feel I have no choice but to take it to arbitration.

8) robinvp11 kept repeatedly saying that I musn’t use my own published article as a source, but another editor (unsolicited by me) pointed out to them that ‘Robin, I fear you have misunderstood Wikipedia:No original research. Whether a user has himself written a source is immaterial, provided that the source is reliable and not self-published. So if in this case the user is not himself the Royal Stuart Society, he may use his article as a source without violating the OR policy.--MWAK (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)’ The RSS is a highly reputable and eminent organisation, as you can see by the list of historians who have contributed to it http://www.royalstuartsociety.com/publications.html (most of them a lot more distinguished than me!) – yet robinvp11 seems by implication to find it an unreliable source (hence robinvp11 has deleted all reference to it). I used my own published article because we are told as editors to use secondary sources, not primary sources, as often as possible, and the alternative would be to use the House of Lords Journals – which are a primary source.

9) robinvp11 keeps insisting that my article on Huntingdon is not publicly available, yet this is untrue – I have repeatedly shown them several ways they can get hold of it, including ‘you can get hold of my booklet/article. The easiest way is via the RSS, because they just post it out to you. That is how others have obtained it…[one] historian contacted the RSS and they sent him the booklet next day’. If robinvp11 doesn't want to use that simple and effective way of obtaining one, that's up to them, but they shouldn’t claim that it isn’t publicly available – it is.

10) robinvp11 has now started to vandalise my other edits. On 1 Oct I created a section, ‘Opposition’, in the Act of Settlement (1701) article, which improved the article because it had previously implied that there was no opposition. It also won praise, even though it was there (as it turned out) for less than two weeks. Today robinvp11 deleted my contribution and replaced it with their own. However, in their zeal to vandalise my section, they managed to make three grammatical errors in three lines.

11) For all the above reasons, I feel that robinvp11 is acting in an unhelpful manner, and by deleting my improvements to the Huntingdon Wikipedia article, robinvp11 has weakened the article.Alanrhobson (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I have taken a third opinion request for this page and am currently reviewing the issues. I shall replace this text shortly with my reply. I have made no previous edits on Theophilus Hastings, 7th Earl of Huntingdon and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. creffett (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC) Hello, I'm creffett, and I'm your third opinion for today. There are several different issues in play here, I'll try to make sure I get all of them. Regarding Alanrhobson's use of his own research: the policy that applies here is WP:SELFCITE rather than WP:OR. Citing oneself isn't against the rules, but it has to be done carefully. In this case, I think this does not meet SELFCITE as it appears to place undue weight on his research. Additionally (but not at all an official policy), I've generally found that if you're adding your own name to the article, you're probably not meeting SELFCITE. Regarding robinvp's concerns about the availability of the cited source: please review WP:INDICATEAVAIL. In short, there is no requirement that all sources on a Wikipedia page be available electronically, as long as the person citing the source can provide evidence of its existence. As for the additions in questions, I don't think they are appropriate for "Wikipedia voice." There are a number of problematic phrasees, especially repeated use of "clearly," that are more appropriate for an academic paper than an encyclopedia. Further, Alanrhobson's edits make it look like he is trying to push the point of view from his paper, since the second section added (the one beginning with "However, another historian...") is engaging in synthesis by selecting phrases from Walker's paper in order to prove a point. Summary: while I think robinvp could have been more polite about it and they didn't cite the correct policies, I think that their removal of Alanrhobson's changes was acceptable. Alanrhobson: I would encourage you to post to this talk page and work in good faith with other editors to come up with more appropriate ways to make your edits to the article. I believe that your changes could be constructive to the article, the problem is just with the way they were presented. You may also want to consider citing other sources - since you wrote a paper, I'd think that you might be aware of sources besides yours which could be useful here. creffett (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for your swift response.Alanrhobson (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

References