User talk:Lobsterthermidor

Talk:Manor of .... and general Descent concerns

Hi Lobsterthermidor. There is a discussion concerning you at Talk:Manor of Tottenham, Wiltshire. You have created a new article on a topic that appears not to exist in order to present a Descent of the manor, listing the noble families who have lived in the area. In addition I note that, despite agreement in this discussion in 2013 (that Descent of the manor material should be presented at length only in a sub article), you have not cleaned up Alveston, Old Shute House, Horton Court, or Purleigh, and have recently inserted bulky Decent material into Clifton Campville, Eaton Bray, Blackborough, Devon, Spencer Combe, etc.

There are times on Wikipedia when consensus goes against us, and that can be hard to take. It can be particularly hard when we feel that the consensus is wrong. But we follow the consensus, until such time as we can get agreement that the consensus was wrong, and we were right. If you feel that settlement articles on Wikipedia should have detailed Decent material on the settlement page rather than on a sub article, then the appropriate way is to seek to get consensus for doing that. You should not be continuing to do something you agreed not to do. And you should not be recreating an article that had to be cleaned up. This can create resentment because you are taking up other people's time, and creating work for other volunteers.

You are a productive editor on Wikipedia, who does good research, and are the sort of person I want to see continuing to work here making useful and positive contributions. However, I am concerned about the way you are inserting Descent material onto Wikipedia against consensus; and at the way you appear to be ignoring concerns, and continuing to do things your way.

It would be helpful if you explained your rationale for creating Manor of Tottenham, Wiltshire, when it appears that such a manor does not exist. And why Manor of Tottenham, Wiltshire simply duplicated Tottenham House, which I had cleaned up. And why you inserted Descent material into Tottenham House in 2015 (two years after you agreed not to do such a thing again).

I can see that you are still editing on Wikipedia, even though you have been pinged to the discussion on Talk:Manor of Tottenham, Wiltshire. You are not obligated to join that discussion. You are a fellow volunteer, and the amount you engage on Wikipedia and with whom is up to you. But when people have concerns about the editing a user has done, particularly when it appears that the user is repeating problematic behaviour, then it is in that user's own interest that they engage with the discussion to put forward their point of view. If you prefer to discuss this matter here or on my talkpage, or even by email, that's fine. SilkTork (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@SilkTork: Hi SilkTork, "Descent of the manor material should be presented at length only in a sub article" - I agree 100%. Trouble is when I write such an article it's promoted by various outher users to a "super article" i.e. top level, and my text is criticised as "having nothing to do with the house" (many contributors persist in believing that a "manor" is a "manor house") or "why are you talking about a random bunch of families who just happened to live there", etc. Even you have referred to "listing the noble families who have lived in the area"!

This is extremely frustrating, I have been through this argument time and time again, and solutions have been reached time and time again, namely that the articles be stand alone under the title "Manor of xyz". My article on Tottenham was the first detailed history of that estate (manor is always a loose term, depends on whether a manorial court existed, but that's the colloquial term for a large important historic estate). So how do you write a "sub-article" when no "super article" exists? The sub-article should have validity as a stand-alone article, and if someone else wants to write a more superficial article on the architecture of the surviving house, that's fine, but the descent article should not be destroyed / trivialised / converted to a "super-article".

Please - I'm blue in the face of saying this, it's not about "a group of random people who lived in the area". It's frustrating that anyone involved in discussing such articles can say that. The people concerned turned this land from pristine wilderness into a profitable business - a manor, with a complex administration system, they built a series of remarkable large houses on the site, transacted historic business under its roof, put it "on the map" and in the history books. Not "random people", as if everything was already there and they just moved house from somewhere else. The house and estate are merely symptoms of the family, the family is the important factor, not the bricks and mortar which are a mere interesting by-product. I know that will be controversial, but that is the crux of the two viewpoints - one interested in the history, one in the architecture. And usually both sides are interested "just a little bit" in the other, but only as a footnote. In fact when you visit a country house open to the public, e.g. National Trust, most of the brochure is about the family, the descent!

The 21st century mindset of moving house every 5 years is not applicable, especially in the American model, where life is temporary and houses are still built out of wood, basically temporary structures. The concept of a permanent link to the land of a family is a difficult one for the modern mind to grasp. These families created the estate and often lived there for many centuries. They built the parish church too, right next to their manor house so they could plug themselves into the "power grid" as closely as possible. The church is often full of their monuments, often works of art in themselves - again appreciated by many for outward form, not for the history they represent. That's why the topic is of such great interest, why so many books and articles exist on this topic.

As for me "inserting bulky decent material", most of those article I created from scratch, specifically on the topic of descent. Spencercombe, for example, created by me, is only of interest because "Robert Spencer of Spencercombe" made a prominent marriage into royalty (turns out the history books got it wrong he wasn't from here at all), it all needs to be dealt with. There comes a tipping point when descent material warrants its own article, but until that is reached, surely descent material can sit quite happily within the "super-article"? Else I'd be creating tiny stub articles on descents - which would attract criticism in another form.

So I agree with you as follows: A: and most importantly, there is a place for detailed descent material on wikipedia; that's all I care about in this regard, what the article is named as I care not a jot. B: the appropriate place for that detailed descent material is in a stand-alone article. But as to B, there is a tipping point in the detail which triggers such a WP:SPLIT move to a sub-article. I think I've got the trigger point about right. It should in my opinion be like growing a plant, it starts in a small pot, when it outgrows the pot, it gets moved. You don't start a seedling in a big pot. So I do add descent material to "super-articles" when it's in the seedling stage, that should be fine. Splitting out such text is not "wasting the time of other editors" as you imply, it's a normal part of editing on wikipedia, I do it all the time on many topics and I don't regard it is a tiresome chore, I'm interested in building wikipedia, and that involves such house-keeping. So please don't try to shame me into thinking that my work of the last 11 years is just a tiresome burden for everybody else. I know I've added huge value to the wp project.

You say "it is in that user's own interest that they engage with the discussion to put forward their point of view" - with respect I've been doing this for years and years and it's getting tiresome. And I reach solutions every time, and a certain user who knows the details of every row I've ever had on wikipedia since 2009 (cos he usually starts every one, in innumerable areas - not just this. I get messages on my talk page when I've put a full stop in the wrong place. Literally. He's been told to cut it out following a big row many years ago).

I want to find a permanent solution to this problem, so that the arguing can stop. I'm fed up of wasting my valuable time as a contributor going through the same arguments and reaching the same solutions. Thanks for your positive and constructive comments Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I got an edit conflict as I was about to post something myself! I'll take the time to read through your comments and then get back to you. My aim here is to a) allow you to continue editing as I can see that you are a productive and useful contributor, and b) reduce your stress and that of others by finding a solution agreeable to all that meets Wikipedia's best editing practice. Be aware that "agreeable" doesn't necessarily mean "enjoyable". It is clear that you enjoy entering Descent of the manor material, and you would not enjoy being restricted from continuing to do so. But if voluntarily restricting yourself from entering such material (or doing so in a manner that is acceptable to all) means that you can continue to enjoy editing Wikipedia, then everyone benefits - you, me, the rest of the community, and Wikipedia as a whole. I'll now take a closer look at your comments and get back to you. SilkTork (talk) 10:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I note that you haven't responded here since Smalljim left a comment. Smalljim has agreed to refrain from posting here. If they have any questions for you, they will be posted via me, and not asked to you directly. I feel we have made a good start with our discussion, and I would like to continue. SilkTork (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Manor = organisation

I will jot things down here as they occur to me. The first point is regarding both the usefulness and notability of the Descent material. Your comment, "The people concerned turned this land from pristine wilderness into a profitable business - a manor, with a complex administration system", struck me as quite useful. And it seems to me that the most useful way of looking at the Descent material is as the history of a corporation or other organisation. Would you agree? SilkTork (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Hallelujah! Yes SilkTork, that is exactly what a manor was, a "going concern" business, before the corporation/ltd company was invented. They were revenue-generating entities, with their own complete staff and officers, with corn mills, churches to which the lord of the manor appointed and controlled the rectors, tradesmen of all varieties, and a manorial law court to resolve all disputes, some with the power of capital punishment. Almost entirely self-sufficient. All established by the family / lord of the manor, from scratch. They were bought, sold and traded as investments, or as barter for marriage (being allocated to sons and daughters in marriage settlements) but many were never or rarely treated as investments but as seats, residences. So when you look at a country house or parish church, this is why they are there, the creation of one family, or one bloodline often stretching over many centuries. Nothing to do with "random families who lived in the area"!

Thank you for your engagement, I will be extremely grateful if we can finally find the correct "niche" for these articles on wikipedia, finally safe and immune from comments such as the last, but of course open enthusiastically to expansion and improvement by editors interested in this subject. There was a wikipedia guideline on writing on "human settlements" which I expanded a few years back to cover treatment of this area, that might be a good place to set an approach "in stone", or as close as we get to that. Can't remember where it is, I'll try to find it. I will not however be discussing this quest with the person I mentioned, for the reasons given, as advised by the very wise Kim Dent-Brown.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The main guidelines on settlements that I am aware of are WP:Settlement, WP:UKVILLAGES, and WP:USCITIES. There are others for India, Canada, etc, but those are the main ones. WP:Settlement was created in 2011 to try to provide a broad overview, and give guidance for those parts of the world which didn't have their own specific guidelines. I've taken a look, and don't see your name as a contributor to those. And I don't see a draft in your userspace, though you may have created something in your sandbox. SilkTork (talk) 12:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

It's probably this (June 2013) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Manorial histories created shortly afterwards.  —SMALLJIM  13:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

That looks OK. The inclusion of a manorial history, where appropriate, makes sense. The discussion could turn to what form a manorial history could take. I looked back at the most recent manor article you created Lobsterthermidor, and found Manor of Scadbury. That appears to me at first glance to be mostly about the family who held the manor, but tells us little about the manor itself. Perhaps it would be useful to hear what you feel defines "manor", and what sort of information you feel should be included in a history of a "manor"? SilkTork (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Shame v edits of concern

"please don't try to shame me into thinking that my work of the last 11 years is just a tiresome burden for everybody else. I know I've added huge value to the wp project." I agree, and I apologise if I gave that impression. It is not all your work that gives me concern, merely the edits that I have come upon, namely your insert of Descent material into Tottenham House, changing it from this to this and changing the name from Tottenham House to Tottenham, Wiltshire, and then creating Manor of Tottenham, Wiltshire which repeated this. In both cases there has been some time and effort expended by myself and others in sorting that out. I'll confess, I grew a little concerned when you repeated what you had done in Tottenham House on Manor of Tottenham, Wiltshire after it had been decided that no such manor existed, and that existing articles adequately conveyed the pertinent and notable information. I must further confess that in becoming aware of your editing history during which similar such edits had been discussed, and in which you agreed not to do them any more, I grew even more concerned, as the impression I took was of an editor who wanted to do their own thing, and who felt that they were in the right and everyone else was wrong. Some of what you say above still gives me that impression. Such as "I'm blue in the face of saying this", "This is extremely frustrating, I have been through this argument time and time again", "It's frustrating that anyone involved in discussing such articles can say that", and "I know that will be controversial". This indicates to me someone who is not in step with others in the Wikipedia community. Now, either you are right, but you haven't managed to convince others yet, or you are wrong, but others have not yet managed to convince you. Does that sound reasonable? Now, to me, and to others experienced in dispute resolution on Wikipedia, it really does not matter at all which way round it is. The golden rule here is we follow consensus, even when we think consensus is an arse. If we disagree with consensus we try to change consensus. If we can't change consensus, then we abide by it, or we go elsewhere. We do not continue to do edits that we have agreed are against consensus. Does this make sense?

So, just to summarise that long post. I do not wish to shame you, or stop you from making useful edits to Wikipedia. But I do want to help you come to some agreement about the edits you are making which are causing concern. Just those edits. OK? SilkTork (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

SilkTork, thanks, I think my frustration arises from the fact that detailed histories of the manors/estates/families do appear to be welcomed by the WP community (as you yourself seem to have stated), so the problem seems "merely" where to put them and what to call the articles. That seems to me to be a minor detail - but still not one which I am ignoring, I don't care what they're called, rather I'm totally confused. I've been told by some to call them "manor of xyz" and by other to call them "family of xyz", which I don't particularly like as the family can change name several times even during one century due to succession via female lines. Whatever I do call them gets criticised by someone else. These huge rows are stirred up every few months by someone who has made it plain that he is waging a long-term war to remove me from wikipedia before he feels able to retire - he's stated that he no longer enjoys editing here. Now his whole career on wp has descended to chasing me round the project and pointing out my errors no matter what size. This appears intended to demoralise me. He deletes my work out of the blue - for example List of Latinized names and tries to delete virtually everything I turn my hand to, English feudal barony, List of licences to crenellate, the list is endless. It's not just about this topic of manorial histories, far from it. It's very creepy. He was told to quit it by Kim Dent Brown in 2013, he restrained himself for about 6 months, apologised on my talk page, then returned to the attacks with twice the force. He later took a long wikibreak of a few months and broke his break by launching into another sustained attack on my work - literally his first edit in many months - using my contributions log as his worksheet, starting with the current entry I was working on. That seems to me like a personal attack. When I have a dispute with another user (rare) on something entirely unrelated, he suddenly pops up in the talk page discussion out of nowhere, to disagree with my position. This to me is the sign of someone who is not well, and it concerns me greatly. I have received no support from other users, whom I have informed of the problem, which is disappointing. But returning to the topic - I would really like to examine what happened at Tottenham in detail and go through the chronology, I want to get it cleared up. I don't want you to have the impression you expressed.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

As I indicate below, the question is not just "where to put them and what to call the articles", but what information they should contain. As regards your dispute with Smalljim, that's a separate matter. Smalljim has agreed not to post here, and so we can put that matter to one side and simply deal with the content issue. My experience in these matters is that if the reason for a dispute is resolved the dispute itself clears up. SilkTork (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Continuing the discussion

Hello Lobsterthermidor. I felt we made a good start in the discussion and would like to continue. If there's any reason why you feel you can't continue the discussion please let me know. If you prefer, you can contact me by email. If you don't re-engage with the discussion to give your side of things and/or negotiate a solution, then I will proceed with cleaning up the articles into which you have inserted dense and lengthy Descent of the manor material. Be aware, that reverting clean up edits without engaging in discussion would be viewed as disruptive. SilkTork (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@SilkTork: Hi SilkTork, I'm not good at consulting my talk page, largely due to the 7 year plus stalking problem, but I'm grateful for your input. I'd be very happy to send you an e-mail, I'll try to work out how to do that.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

See WP:EMAIL for information about emailing. SilkTork (talk) 13:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@SilkTork: OK, can't do that as my e-mail is disabled for privacy purposes. Sorry. I am very keen to "give my side of things and/or negotiate a solution", and I certainly don't want to "revert clean up edits without engaging in discussion". Clearly this is a topic which forms the central element of my work on wikipedia, so it's important to me to get back onto a very firm footing where I can proceed with clarity and confidence. Please advise how I should proceed. Ideally we can form a set-in-stone user guide as to how these articles are to be written, which I think would be very helpful.

I accept that I have been somewhat of a pioneer in this area, largely inspired by the Victoria County History series and the voluminous work of 19th century antiquaries. Often pioneers struggle to find a foothold and need to display persistence. There has got to be a place for it - in expanded and linked form - on wikipedia. These often minor players, the county gentry, were the gene pool for the local administration of England for many centuries until quite recently, in the form of the humble "JP", not worthy of a stand-alone article. Often they proceeded to greater things, so provide a useful background to some major players. Also often although themselves having led fairly obscure careers they feature in surviving portraits or monuments, which therefore require background history. When such items come up for sale at Christie's etc, the catalogue entry usually delves deeply into manorial history, which gives the objects much of their interest - and value! (else the auction houses would not employ expensive researchers to dig it all up). Such objects are continually coming onto the market as elderly childless people die and their possessions are scattered. Apparently minor players in the line of descent can thus come to prominence quite suddenly. It's a trend which is set to continue as the internet gets fuller and fuller of images of such previously unseen objects.

It's an established discipline of academic study and a subject of great importance to art historians, students of heraldry, family history researchers and many other disciplines, all hopefully welcome readers of wikipedia. I like to think my work is consulted by church visitors who have seen a wide and bewildering array of monuments, coats of arms and stained glass windows and want to find out rapidly, without re-inventing the wheel and without having to do the hours of research that I do, how it all fits together.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

"I have been somewhat of a pioneer in this area". That's OK, as long as you are proceeding along Wikipedia guidelines and policies. One of the areas that causes some users the most confusion and stress and upset, is our inclusion criteria. You mentioned above that you edited the UK settlement Wikiproject guideline to introduce some advice on introducing manorial history into a settlement article: "Manorial history. Where the village formed part of a former manor, almost always the case with English villages, the subject may be treated summarily as a sub-section within the history section, or where such text has expanded to make the article unbalanced, as a detailed stand-alone article, which should be linked to at the start of the sub-section with a main article tag." That seems to me to be good advice, and I would support introducing a manorial history into appropriate articles. However, the crux of the matter is what constitutes manorial history.

The material you introduced into Tottenham House was not a history of the manor but a genealogy. On the whole we don't do genealogies per WP:NOTGENEALOGY, though we do do them where appropriate if they provide useful information which would inform the reader and give them greater understanding of a topic. The fine line is deciding what persons to include in a manorial history, and what information to provide about them. We generally include in articles which people were responsible for notable aspects of the topic through history - so, for example, we would mention who was responsible for building/altering/destroying/restoring parts of the building, or the area, manor, or settlement - such as I did here: Covent_Garden#Bedford_Estate. So, rather than introduce into Covent Garden a dense and lengthy and largely off-topic history of the Russell family, I selected the relevant and important details.

I asked you above, and I'll repeat the questions as I think they are key: What you feel defines "manor", and what sort of information do you feel should be included in a history of a manor? If we can get that sorted I think we'll be a long way down the road to resolving this matter. SilkTork (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@SilkTork: Thanks SilkTork, that's very helpful, I forgot where that "UK settlement Wikiproject guideline" was located. I'll try to give this my full attention now as we seem to be moving forwards productively. Let me deal with your last question first, a good one. (I'll deal with the "genealogy" point later). As you no doubt know the technical definition of a manor is "an estate which operated under the jurisdiction of a manorial court". But I think that's too technical and pedantic for our purposes, it's not really relevant as a criterion. These topics are really about "notable historic estates" or "seats of notable families" or merely "seats of long-lived families" (for example Kelly in Devon held by the entirely obscure Kelly family for many centuries, I think the most ancient family in Devon, which still lives there - a very notable estate just due to having been retained for so long, the manor house is historic, but nothing outstanding, it's the family history which makes it so notable) not whether a court existed or not (if records haven't survived it would be impossible to say whether a court existed or not anyway). But I would also suggest that virtually every "historic estate" is notable, in the same way that a hamlet or small village is. Obviously anything at all listed in the Domesday Book. I would certainly suggest that anything with a descent discussed/listed in Victoria County History under "manor" is notable - by definition, it has been "noted"; these are invariably dealt with under a VCH section called "manors" - I think just as a convenient term; let's use for example "Ladbrooke, Warwickshire" as treated in VCH here[1]; you will note the completeness of the descent given; anything listed in Burke's Landed Gentry, and in the Heraldic Visitations, where families are usually dealt with as "xyz (family) of abc (manor/seat)". All "notable" and all I think properly termed "manor" as a broad identifying term.

As to your next question "what sort of information do you feel should be included in a history of a manor?", I feel strongly that "completeness" is essential - after all it is the unbroken period of occupation that gives these estates their notability, so that is the key feature. That may just mean the mention of that particular obscure "link in the chain", together with name and manorial origin of wife. Thus "John Smith (born-died) who married Anne Bloggs, daughter (and heiress) of James Bloggs of Place in -----shire (let's call that "basic info"). Really this is the precedent set by the VCH treatment, and such a vital reference for local historians, students of heraldry and family historians - important users of wikipedia, not that we discriminate I'm sure between "worthy" and "unworthy" users. Especially important to mention "heiress" (i.e. where her gentry/armigerous father died without sons) for heraldic purposes as her father's arms will thenceforth be quartered by her descendants - and often be plastered all over the parish church, on monuments, etc. and may even pop up a century later on a monument in a church 100 miles away. Quartered arms are merely a description of how many such heiresses the family has "nabbed", and as you no doubt also know the more quarterings the more "noble" the family was deemed. For any understanding of heraldry you need to identify the heiresses, and these (and their fathers) can be entirely un-notable in career terms, but nevertheless very notable in heraldic terms, explaining the presence of a certain quartering (which might pop up for example in a highly important stained-glass window in a great country house built by a very notable descendant - e.g. the Percy Window in the Chapel of Petworth House).

To the "basic info" needs to be added mention of any monument in the parish church or elsewhere, these are notable, the UK is very lucky to have so many surviving. Every one would be snapped up by an American museum if given the chance.

Sorry for the long post. In conclusion, I think the definition of "manor" should be the widest one possible and I think it's essential that every descent should be complete - by which I mean the owner (better described as "holder" in the feudal era), i.e. the eldest son or heir male to whom ownership passed under primogeniture (but sometimes to females too), obviously with more notable persons in the chain dealt with more fully, for example if they played a role in county administration as a justice of the peace (eqivalent to county councillor today) or sheriff (an office which merits separate article/biog), or obviously MP, and if sufficiently notable dealt with in a separate article. But also younger sons of "obscure links" in the chain need to be mentioned, often they started their own branch, resident at a new seat/manor, or maybe a poet, notable sailor, etc. (which is why genealogical reference books (eg. BLG) always deal with familes by seat, genealogical convention, treating each branch as a separate entity. ("The xyz family" turns into a spaghetti-like mess, too complex)

As for the point you made "we don't do genealogies per WP:NOTGENEALOGY", these families are "county gentry", not "normal familes" as modern folk think of them in the meritocratic age. They were an elite and highly inter-bred exclusive pool from which the county administrators, sheriffs and MPs were self-selected. They inter-married their respective children as business deals, to cement alliances and consolidate landholdings, usually within the same county. The basic reqirement for membership was the bearing of a coat of arms, proof that they were "gentry" - of gentle birth, and most importantly they had to own large estates to have an iron in the fire. No estate, no chance of being selected to official position. This is not mere "genealogy". In fact they are almost the same as "nobility" which had titles, but just lacked the automatic seat in parliament which went with that status.

I already always try to keep the biographical info in my articles to this minimum level, and I recognise in many articles I come across where irrelevant info is inserted, for example mere names of younger children, which have no relevance to the descent, and have no monuments. Generally second wives can be omitted too, where for example no issue has resulted - but the descent can sometimes veer off wildly a century later to a distant branch, so may have to be noted to make sense of later events.

I am trying to find a pithy answer to your question "what sort of information do you feel should be included in a history of a manor?" Maybe the answer is to follow the broad precedent of the VCH approach, i.e. basic completeness, but expand on it and link to/from it where possible. VCH gives what I would regard as the bare minimum level of content.

So, details of every succesive holder (i.e. pater familias): name, dates, name of wife, possibly her dates if relevant, her father's name and seat, whether "a daughter of" or "the daughter and heiress of / a daughter and co-heiress of" (where she has sisters). Ideally if heiress note coat of arms. (note VCH draws all coats of arms, I suspect to help church visitors, etc, not just to look pretty!) And so on down the generations from father to eldest son. Also note if monument exists in church, note if any building work done to manor house or church (note: lord of manor usually patron of church, who appointed / controlled rector, had own manorial chapel in the building, right to burial in church, erect monuments, etc, responsible for construction of the building and enlargements - hence coats of arms sculpted on columns, etc); note any anecdotes, often published in church leaflets, i.e headless ghosts, etc, absurd, but that's what fascinates people and fills the local history books;

Such an article is useful to the following readers of WP: all who now live in the parish and nearby; church visitors; visitors to the manor house if open to public; genealogists; people living all over the world researching their origins, a popular activity; students of heraldry; architectural historians; auctioneer's cataloguers / students of history of art / museums; I think that covers my thinking fairly fully, sorry it was so long.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Definition of manor

I have read through your post several times. It is difficult to find the answer to the first part of the question as to how you would define manor. You start to branch off into other areas, such as notability of manors, bringing in your notions of what makes a manor notable, etc, and then shift around in your definition from the estate (the land itself), to the manorial court, to the family, etc. You have given me plenty to think about, but perhaps too much, and certainly some that appears off-topic, such as monuments in the parish church. We could spend weeks just talking about the various threads in your post. But really, if we are truly to make progress, it would be helpful to remain focused and concise. Please make another attempt to give me your own understanding of what constitutes a manor. SilkTork (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

What I am looking for is one or two sentences, like a dictionary definition, just to get at what you feel essentially defines a manor. The reason I am asking is that you appear to feel that the families who run manors define "manor", and this to me runs at odds with every definition I have consulted on the matter (I can list them if you wish). If it is the case that you feel the family are essential, we can discuss that further. If your thinking follows the convention, that it is the manor itself that defines the manor, loosely understood to be the land, the house, the people, then we can move on to discuss why you wish to include so much detail from the family that run the manor, and if you had considered that by including so much detail it somehow unbalances and distorts articles on manors.

I'd also, later, like to discuss why you feel we need an article on Manor as well as an article on Manorialism. Plus other topics which you have brought up in your reply above. But first, let's get the basics done. Let's get some clarity on your understanding of manor to see if it fits the mainstream definition, or if you have a less common or individual view. And if you do have a less common view we can discuss the viability of that view to see if it can fit in with existing Wikipedia practises, and if it doesn't, what options are open. SilkTork (talk) 08:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@SilkTork: Thanks SilkTork. I'm not interested in writing about "manors", I'm interested in writing about "notable historic estates", as in the VCH model. A "manor" is merely a technical sub-set of the "historic estate". (A manor is defined as I mentioned above as "a geographic area subject to the jurisdiction of a manorial court"). There's a pithy 2-line response, or as close as I could get to it.

Several years ago I was (willingly) "shoe-horned" into calling these articles "manor of xyx" by earlier community discussions, in order to WP:SPLIT them out of the "higher level" article on the village of the same name, so accordingly I called them "manor of xyx" (the choice of wording was not mine, but I was OK with it), which was accepted by the parties concerned in that discussion as a good way of dealing with this - until the issue blew up again recently at Tottenham. So I suggest this isn't really about the definition of a manor, it's more about what constitutes a "notable historic estate", the criteria for notability, and what such articles should be called.

In the colloquial sense (to "informed people") a manor is "an historic estate" - although to people unfamiliar with this whole area (let's call them "uninformed people" / people with better things to do than interest themselves in dusty history - without meaning to be judgmental or rude) a "manor" is incorrectly understood to mean a "manor house", i.e. the home of the lord of the manor and the site of the manorial court which was held in the great hall. That topic is in the realms of architecture.

So what constitutes a "notable estate"? I would suggest at least three things:

• • • 1: notable geographic features, for example beautiful landscape, whether natural or man-made: a topic for those interested in landscape gardening;
    • 2: notable architecture of manor house / mansion: a topic for those interested in architecture;
    • 3: human occupants; whether for length of occupancy by the same family (and successor families in a female line of different surname) in itself "notable", or whether for "historic importance" of the family seated there. Thus it is conceivable that a "notable historic estate" could today have no building remains visible whatsoever above ground (no architectural relevance), and could have no aspects of beauty whatsoever (no landscaping relevance). It would still be a "notable estate". For example Darnley, the seat of the father of King James I/VI now a suburb of Glasgow, covered in council housing and tower blocks. The history and descent of the estate of Darnley is nevertheless a notable topic. Maybe it's worth thinking that the whole topic of "history" is about things that were once important but may be irrelevant to life today.

As for Manor / Manorialism, manor is the base topic about which manorialism is an extension and embellishment, for example, nation and nationalism; human and humanity, humanism, inhumanity. It's the foundation topic. Manorialism is the political theory (quite recently "invented") which examines the factors surrounding the existence of the manor, and its effect on society as a whole, more social science. That's way beyond the scope of a basic article on a manor, which just describes what it is, the nuts and bolts. I deliberately did not insert text on the nuts and bolts into an article about the lofty topic of the organisation of feudal society.

So where will text on the history and descent of "historic estates" fit in best on wikipedia? I think that's the question.

So we could write articles on the manor house, check; the garden/landscaping/natural features, check; the legalistic aspects of the working of the particular manorial court (sometimes historic court rolls have survived and this might well form a notable article), check; What about the people / the residents / lords of the manor who have created all these things - landscape, houses, manorial rolls? We cannot treat them as mere by-products of the former, that would be to misunderstand and take for granted (in an unthinking way) how history and landscape/architeture come into being. Those things are mere manifestations of the family, like an anthill is of the ants within it. In response to your point above, monuments in the parish church are indeed directly related to this topic as they relate to and evidence the presence of the person concerned on the estate.

In conclusion I think it might be better to name articles on this topic as "Historic estate of xyz", that is broader, and seems to describe the contents better. Perhaps we could then develop a definitive wp guideline on "writing about historic estates" which hopefully will be the outcome of this discussion. I appreciate the time and effort you are putting in to this issue.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Interesting responses as usual. A little longer than I wanted, but I see the point in some of the development of your response. Thanks.

I accept that the definition of manor as "a geographic area subject to the jurisdiction of a manorial court" falls within the mainstream, so is not original research, though I would quibble with the narrowness and awkwardness of the definition as my reading of the subject indicates that the manorial court is but one aspect of a manor, and the court itself is but the means by which the lords of the manor may enforce their rule; it is like defining manor as "a geographic area worked by people under the manorialism system" (looking at it from the other end of the telescope). However, the sense that it is the land (or "geographical area") which is mostly associated with "manor" is what I was hoping to see from you, and you have provided that. Thank you.

For our readers (informed or uninformed and any scale in between) a manor is defined by the manor house. So for our target audience, the definition of manor as "a geographic area with a manor house" makes sense, and is how they would understand manor (and the majority of definitions of manor would go along with that). I think that is an important point to make, and one which I hope you understand and acknowledge. If we write all manor articles with that thought in mind we won't go far wrong, and will be communicating effectively with our readership, and cooperating effectively with our fellow editors. Bear in mind that our readers don't come here for an education, but simply to be informed - the overwhelming majority of our readers don't go further than reading the lead, and most don't go beyond the first few sentences. When people want a deeper and broader understanding of a particular manor or manors in general, they will seek out the books we have listed or will do their own research. A good many will already know the subject, but are using Wikipedia as a quick reference to remind them of certain details like key dates.

You make an important distinction in your area of interest, and again I thank you for that. Yes, "historic estate" makes sense.

I will look on your 'what constitutes a "notable estate"' and on your comments on Manor / Manorialism a little later. Thanks for what I have read so far. I think from what I have read so far, quibbles apart, we are broadly in agreement, and you seem to be mostly mainstream in your thinking. SilkTork (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment removed, dialling it down.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for delay responding. I've been busy elsewhere, and not had much time for Wikipedia. I will return to this discussion later today. I have read the comment you deleted. You were right to delete it. It's worth taking a look at WP:Lead, WP:LENGTH, and WP:RF for a little more information on some of the issues raised. And don't just stop at those pages, follow the links to other related pages. If you put 10% of the effort into researching Wikipedia as you do into researching notable estates I think you'll find you'll appreciate and enjoy Wikipedia a little more, and will be more in harmony with the community. SilkTork (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@SilkTork: Thanks SilkTork. I am always studying Wikipedia guidelines, indeed your admonition to me below (which at first reading I thought somewhat harsh and unnecessary as one of the many other participants in that discussion could have made the point in that thread had they felt the need - and why you yourself picked it up and brought it to my talk page where it was unlikely to act as an emollient to the previous productive discussion we were progressing with so well perplexed me somewhat) prompted me to re-read many. But I have learnt that wikipedia is not the place for squealing so I hope you will think that my response showed that I was "turning the other cheek" sufficiently, if you will allow me to sum up wikipedia philosophy in that way.

But as you did read my deleted comment, and as you effectively responded to it above, let me make a short response, because I think it might be relevant to the previous business-like discussion (which I hope we will be returning to shortly). I learned that "Very large articles (I don't think I've ever written one of those) should be split into logically separate articles", that "Each Wikipedia article is in a process of evolution and is likely to continue growing", etc., all of which I thoroughly support. Nothing I read suggested to me that we should tailor our articles for people who don't read past the first few sentences or that we are aiming at a readership of limited intelligence, if you will allow me to paraphrase your post in such terms. Please let's get on with the productive and cordial discussion we were having before, I am very appreciative of your input. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Difficult to keep this discussion on track as we are both exploring avenues as they appear :-), however one thing that I think is important to make clear is that I do attempt at all times to treat people with polite respect, and it is not in my nature to make harsh or unnecessary comments. When I speak with others I hope I am being factual and neutral. What I mainly intended when drawing to your attention that your personal remarks were not helpful was to give some advice. I am sorry that you felt it was otherwise. There was no personal animosity toward you at all. Same as when I advised (instructed?) Smalljim not to talk to you directly or leave messages here on your talkpage [2]. SilkTork (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@SilkTork:Thanks, No worries, let's get back to the discussion, I'll study all your comments and get back to you tomorrow and then hopefully give it my full attention.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Notable estates

So what constitutes a "notable estate"? I would suggest at least three things:

• • • 1: notable geographic features, for example beautiful landscape, whether natural or man-made: a topic for those interested in landscape gardening;
    • 2: notable architecture of manor house / mansion: a topic for those interested in architecture;
    • 3: human occupants; whether for length of occupancy by the same family (and successor families in a female line of different surname) in itself "notable", or whether for "historic importance" of the family seated there. Thus it is conceivable that a "notable historic estate" could today have no building remains visible whatsoever above ground (no architectural relevance), and could have no aspects of beauty whatsoever (no landscaping relevance). It would still be a "notable estate". For example Darnley, the seat of the father of King James I/VI now a suburb of Glasgow, covered in council housing and tower blocks. The history and descent of the estate of Darnley is nevertheless a notable topic. Maybe it's worth thinking that the whole topic of "history" is about things that were once important but may be irrelevant to life today. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

1. would come under Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features), particularly WP:GEOLAND. If there are reliable sources which talk in depth about a defined historic estate, the physical geography of the place, then there would certainly be good grounds for writing an article on such an estate, and this is what we do: Category:Country houses in the United Kingdom (also, but lesser used, and the distinction between the two unclear: Category:Country estates in the United Kingdom). It might be appropriate to have a discussion regarding those two cats. Do they overlap? If they don't overlap, what is the distinctive difference as "country estate" and "country house" are, for our purposes on Wikipedia, the same thing: an estate house with attached land (not just the garden, but the land including farms and villages).

Anyway, yes, that's a good notability point which fits in with our existing situation. SilkTork (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

2. would also come under Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features), though in a different section: WP:NBUILDING, and we categorise those in Category:Buildings and structures in the United Kingdom. Where we are writing with a focus on the building, it would come under Category:Buildings and structures in the United Kingdom, and if it were a manor house there would be some mention of its role as the manor house, though this would be kept to an appropriate size per WP:LENGTH, WP:Scope, and WP:Topic. If the lands belonging to the house were of sufficient notability to meet your point 1, then a separate article could be created.

So we could have an article just on the estate, which has a short section on the house. An article just on the house, which has a short section on the land. Or both. Though I'm not sure how many articles we have in which both house and land have sufficient notability and substantial noteworthy and interesting detail to necessitate two distinct articles. But there is certainly scope for two such articles to exist side by side, and there are likely to be several examples that I can't bring to mind. SilkTork (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

3. would come under WP:BIO, and we would generally put the people who run an estate under Category:Noble families of the United Kingdom, though some individuals may be categorised somewhere in Category:People. As with the point above about deciding how much of an article on an estate should be about the house and vice versa, there needs to be a decision about how much information about a family there should be in an article on a geographical location or a building. It's like when we do articles on albums. When doing an article on Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band there will be some information on the band who made the album, but we wouldn't expect to put all the information about The Beatles in the article on one of their albums. And while it is appropriate to give some details about the songs on the album, where a song is particularly interesting and notable, we have separate articles on those, such as "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds".

So, I think we are broadly in agreement. You say above that you agree that descent material should, where appropriate (sufficient notability per WP:Bio and sufficient material for a standalone), be dealt with in a separate article. And you say you don't care what such an article is called. And I think we could now move on to that part of the discussion. The conventional name for an article about a noble family is Foo family as indicated in Category:Noble families of the United Kingdom: Anson family, Arundell family, Asquith family, Astor family, etc. The questions would be: when is a family notable enough for a dedicated article? And how should the history of the family be presented? I think the answers would be found in the existing articles on noble or notable families. SilkTork (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@SilkTork: The problems I forsee are: Noble families implies there is a title of nobility / peerage title. That of itself warrants an article under the title, e.g. Baron Astor, and every holder of the title merits (I think) a separate article, as all were until recently hereditary legislators in the House of Lords. Estate is not therefore the criterion for inclusion. Many notable families are mere "gentry", no titles held. (Gentry is by the way possibly the basic minimum qualification for notability - defined prima facie by the possession of a coat of arms - the whole purpose of the Heraldic Visitations was to identify gentry and reject fraudulent gentry). Burke's Landed Gentry is the standard modern source for these notable families, and the family is always dealt with under the heading "XYZ family of ABC estate". Families holding an estate can change surname, where for example the holder dies without sons and it passes to the daughter and her husband. It is in effect the same family, so do we have two separate articles, one called "XYZ family of ABC estate" the other called "UVW family of ABC estate". That would be artificial and would involve a lot of repetition on the background of the family and estate. I suggest it's best to treat all descendants as a continuing family within the same article. Some families change surname up to 5 times, but it's the same family just via a female line. That would be absurd to treat as 5 separate families. Look at Charborough House. As for "when is a family notable enough for a dedicated article?" I would suggest 1: where listed in Burke's Landed Gentry; 2: where listed in any Heraldic Visitation; 3: where sufficiently referred to in published sources, i.e. where it has been "noted" by an author, it's prima facie "notable" by definition. Existing articles on noble or notable families I assume require something "notable" to have been done by the family. Often with notable gentry families they have done very little. For example the Kelly family of Devon, very little involvement in public life, even no notable marriages, but they've been there for many centuries, one of the oldest families in Devon still resident in its original seat. That fact alone is highly notable and makes the family itself of great interest. Some Roman Catholic families were not allowed to participate in public life until the 19th century, but still were notable gentry families. So I think the article should be called "Descent of the estate of XYZ" - it cannot always be named after a single family as I have explained. That would hopefully suggest to the reader that it was mainly about people / biographical, not about architecture or landscape, and it would solve the problem of defining "manor". However, some estates are known to have been manors, where manorial rolls survive, so it would seem strange not to call them such. As for your comment "there needs to be a decision about how much information about a family there should be in an article on a geographical location or a building" (sic); the article is of course not about "a geographical location or a building"! Aaargh! lol. It's about the family and its relationship to the estate. Once the family leaves the estate, it loses its notability and interest (unless it has a title, even a baronetage (no legislative function) - in which case it retains notability), that may be an important point. Frankly it becomes just another anonymous family living in a flat in London or wherever, of no interest to anybody unless one of its members does something noteworthy. It certainly falls out of BLG, although some overlap is allowed, of say one generation or so, by the formula "XYX family lately of ABC Estate". As for the difference between Category:Country houses in the United Kingdom and Category:Country estates in the United Kingdom, I would guess both deal mainly with describing physical features, not descent. I think there are three notable areas here: House, Land and Occupants, call it a "triangle of interests". The article on the house (architecture) refers fleetingly / in passing to the land and occupants; the article on the land (landscape gardening/topography) refers fleetingly to the house and occupants; the article on the occupants (biographical) refers fleetingly to the house and land. In my experience I have found that people interested in one of the three "triangle topics" tend not to be particularly interested in the details of the other two. All three are totally different disciplines. I hope I've covered all the points raised by you, I'll go onto the next section later.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

"As for your comment "there needs to be a decision about how much information about a family there should be in an article on a geographical location or a building" (sic); the article is of course not about "a geographical location or a building"! Aaargh! lol." I was talking there about articles on a geographical location or a building, not about articles on families. In an article on Foo House, it is to be expected that there be some mention of the family that owned the house, and in an article on Foo Estate, it is to be expected that there be some mention of the family that owned the estate. However, what we don't want, per our guidelines, is someone coming along to an article on, say, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and inserting the contents of The Beatles. Same as with an article on an estate or manor. The content needs to be proportionate. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. If you think back to what you did with Tottenham House, which first brought us in contact; that is the sort of thing we must avoid happening again, and the sort of thing we must fix. I am aware there are several articles in which you have disproportionately inserted material into articles. People have pointed out to you that this was not what we do. And you agreed to stop doing it. But you have continued to do it. A large part of the aim of my discussion with you is to bring you to some awareness of this, and look for ways in which you can continue editing on Wikipedia without continuing friction. But it's not just the friction, and you battling with others to continue with your work on estates and their families, it's also the rest of us who have to deal with what you are doing. By finding a way forward within existing consensus and guidelines it will help you edit without stress and conflict, it will help others who have encountered your work and been frustrated by what you have done (and I am one of those), and it will help the readers of Wikipedia, which I am aware you don't as yet understand, but I hope will gradually come to understand and respect more than you do now. At the moment you appear to be editing mainly from your personal interest, perhaps with an eye to those who share your interest. But Wikipedia is not for the specialist or those with a narrow interest. Wikipedia is for the general reader. Our aim here is to give an overview of a topic, not in-depth detail. The fans of The Beatles will learn little here on Wikipedia about The Beatles. They will already have the books and be on fan websites. Our article on The Beatles is for the general reader who doesn't know much about the band to give them a quick understanding. When writing an article about Foo Estate, we aim to give an overview of that estate - the house, the land, the people. If people wish to learn more, they can go to the specialist detailed texts, such as Victoria County History. But what we don't do is simply repeat the contents of Beatle fan sites here, same as we don't simply repeat the contents of VCH. We select, organise, and explain. SilkTork (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@SilkTork: Sorry to have mis-understood your point on "articles on a geographical location or a building". Of course I edit from my own personal interest, with an eye to cater to those readers who share my interest. That's a somewhat absurd veiled accusation, wikipedia is a voluntary unpaid project, most people contribute in areas that interest them. I entirely disagree with your comment that "Wikipedia is not for the specialist or those with a narrow interest". There are hundreds or thousands of editors who contribute mainly in very specialised areas, that's fine. There are also lots of editors who just like to copy edit text on any subject, there are also "gnomes" who spend all their time correcting grammar. All are welcome and all are useful - surely? I don't know where you got that information from, please point me to the guideline where it says "Wikipedia is not for the specialist or those with a narrow interest". We wouldn't have any articles on railway trains or Starwars if that was the case. I'm not interested in Starwars, so I will not be contributing to Starwars articles. I actually contribute very widely, see my interests listed on my user page, but that's not a requirement. So again, please don't try to shame me for being "interested" in the subjects I contribute on, and for hoping that what I contribute will be read by others also interested in those subjects. Maybe I should contribute only on Arsenal football club, something I have zero interest in? But wikipedia would have to pay me to do that, I'm not giving up my precious time for free to do that. Maybe for £30 an hour I'd consider it. That is the sort of work you would expect professional paid contributors to Ency. Brit to do, they are workhorses, we are not workhorses, we are totally different and our contributors have widely varying motives for getting involved.

By the way you telling me that "our aim here is to give an overview of a topic, not in-depth detail" and then quoting the article Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band made me chuckle - it's a huge article which examines every possible aspect of that topic in minute detail. That's no "overview"! I'm mildly interested in the Beatles, a "general reader" on the Beatles, but not anything like in that depth - that is an article for study, not mere reading. But I'm proud we have that article to be read by someone who is more interested in the topic than I am. That's far far more relative detail that I have ever contributed on any article ever, far more detail than my text on the descent of Tottenham House. Seems the reader folk who are interested in the topics I'm interested in contributing on are being treated by you as second class citizens, deserving of superficial disjointed carelessly put together articles only, whilst Beatles fans are being catered to in the minutest detail. "The music journalist Chet Flippo stated that McCartney was inspired to record a concept album after hearing Freak Out!" (quote from the above article) - you assure me above that all Beatles fans know that, and this is of interest to the general reader only. That is highly detailed information, I approve 100% of its inclusion, but it in no way supports your assertion. That's the equivalent of me writing about the lord of the manor's 6th cousin's second wife's pet goldfish. That's seriously drilling down into detail. I don't go nearly that far, I have no wish to do that, I try to stick to relevant details only.

Articles in which I have "disproportionately inserted material", I'm well aware of the issue, what happens is the text starts off as a paragraph and grows organically. (many of these articles were new articles started by me, but possibly under the wrong name, so I wasn't "adding to existing articles", minor point I'd like to make). Tottenham House is possibly not a good example, we can discuss that in detail if you wish, that was clearly an error on my part, I should have split it out from the "house" article far sooner, or even started as a fresh article. But the descent text has been horribly truncated, that was the purpose of my recent edit, which I accept was somewhat pig-headed. The question is at what size does it become "disproportionate" and require to be WP:SPLIT. I think I know the answer to that, but it's going to be hard to define exactly, so please don't chastise me if I overstep by two words, two sentences or two paragraphs. I'm not deliberately trying to add text disproportionately into the wrong article, why would I want to do that when I'm quite happy with a split article, so it's not me doing it deliberately, it's just that the thing grows and needs to be split. Again, as I commented above, this is something that happens naturally in an expanding wikipedia, all articles are expanding and all need to be split at some point - I try to WP:SPLIT when appropriate, but if I exceed the (undefined) limit inadvertently, that's a temporary situation which will eventually be put right, either by myself or by another editor, in the natural course of things. It's a collaborative project, I'm constantly improving/correcting the work of fellow contributors, I don't view it as a chore. Please assume good faith, my contributions will usually start on the "village" article, and grow from there. I can't start a tiny new stub article every time the occupants of the manor house are mentioned, that would be surely be absurd. When contents become disproportionate due to organic growth, it needs to be WP:SPLIT, that's a simple administrative task I am always keen to do, it's building wikipedia. I understand entirely what you are saying with your analogy on Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. You will find, I am certain, that the first article on wp in this area was "The Beatles", which then grew organically over time, with various sections being split off. So I get it, it's all about triggering the split at the right point. I've done a bit of (mainly copy-editing work) on Paston, Norfolk today, where the existing "biographical" text within this "village" article possibly needs to be split now or fairly soon. There is room for expansion. So it's not just me, this is how such articles develop naturally. I don't want to be accused of doing something wrong every time I add biographical text into a "village" / top level article. I can however guarantee that I will not in future be adding very large amounts to such articles, on the scale of Tottenham House, that will go into a new split article to be named ..... well I dunno, please let's work that out. I think we've agreed above that this class of article is notable, we seem to be going round in circles now. Let's develop a naming protocol, criteria for notability and method of writing, and then summarise that in a guideline.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I've been away, then busy so not had a chance to look into Wikipedia. I will read over what you have written and then get back to you. My offer of having this discussion by email is still open - I look at my emails on a more regular basis than I look at Wikipedia these days. Contacting people on Wikipedia by email is very safe - I will be the only person to see what you write. If you don't wish to use your regular email, that's OK. Many users create a separate email just for use on Wikipedia, and you can set up a filter on that new email to forward all emails to your regular email so you are aware of when someone contacts you. It is very easy to set up a separate gmail address. SilkTork (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@SilkTork: Thanks, but I would prefer to use talkspace. But I appreciate the offer. Sorry if that makes it less convenient for you.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Title of articles and sections

Given the above, in which the existing way of naming articles about families is to use the family name, I think we can turn to the naming of the sections within articles on the house that was built to manage the estate, and the articles on the land that belonged to the estate. The existing and standard method of naming the section that deals with the history and development of the house or land is to name it History. I can see that you prefer the term Descent of the manor, and I also like that phrase. However, I think it would be clearer to our readers if we follow existing guidelines and methods and use WP:PLAINENGLISH. There are a number of essays and guidelines on this: WP:MODERNLANG, Wikipedia:Remember the reader, Wikipedia:Use modern language, Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable, etc. Our readers come from all walks of life, not all are well educated, not all have a high intelligence, and many don't have English as their first language. Our aim is always to make things clear and simple and understandable. The phrase "descent of the manor" is not a common phrase, nor it is intuitive what it means; however, the term history is a common word, quickly understood. Section headings, per MOS:HEADINGS, follow the guidelines for article titles (MOS:AT), which is: "A title should be a recognizable name or description of the topic that is natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with those of related articles." What do you think? SilkTork (talk) 06:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@SilkTork: I'm reading your above post now, missed it first time round, sorry. OK, up to speed now. "The existing way of naming articles about families is to use the family name", I'm not sure we have reached that conclusion at all in relation to this topic. It would be impossible in the case of Charborough House as I mentioned. We're not writing about family chunks separately, I still don't think you have understood the concept we are dealing with, with the greatest of respect. We are dealing with the descent of an historic estate, that may cover several families. We are writing about families as they relate to the house and estate, they belong together in the same article and have no interest or notability whatsoever when disconnected from the house and estate. They are all logically united by the fact they have all owned the estate in succession. That's how VCH treats the topic, as do all the thousands of articles and books written on such topics.

I see what you are getting at with your second point, but "history" covers prima facie the history of the building and history of the garden, i.e. their development. I forsee that if I start writing about ownership even in summary style under that heading, even under a "main article" pointer tag, I will get criticised for straying off topic. How do we convey the concept of "history of ownership" specifically? (By the way "ownership" is a very inexact and incorrect term to use relating to feudal landholdings, only the monarch "owned" land under allodial title, everyone else was merely a tenant who "held" the land from the crown, or from a tenant-in-chief. I usually link "held" to article feudal land tenure in England). As for WP:PLAINENGLISH, "descent" is about as plain a word as exists, 2 syllables, anyone who has been on a bus, mountain or aeroplane knows what it means, it's modern timeless language, admittedly of Latin origin. I'm not sure I follow your point. "Inspiration and conception" is a heading in Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, much bigger fancier words - two of them - 4 and 3 syllables, both also of Latin origin. Apparently Beatles fans can cope with that. Unless you think readers of articles on houses, gardens and villages are "village idiots" I think we're fine in assuming they can cope with those words. And "manor" is just the correct word, nothing "fancy" there, surely? The fact it's a manor will have been mentioned and linked in the article already. I do think you are possibly under-estimating the brightness of our readers ? I would guess readers on villages are just as bright as readers on the Beatles. Let's not discriminate.

If they don't have English as their first language, there is Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia which states "The Simple English Wikipedia uses fewer words and simpler grammar than the original English Wikipedia. It is focused on readers who tend to be quite different from the typical Wikipedia reader with different needs, for example, people for whom English is not a first language". I don't think we have to write for foreigners as you suggest, or for "children, translators, and people with learning disabilities or those who read below a proficient level", that's for Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia. "Descent" is the correct term, it's the heading used by VCH, I did not invent it! I really wish I could agree with you more on some of these points, I'm trying my best, but I assure you I've been thinking about these issues for the past 10 years! I came to the conclusion that VCH got it right a long time ago. Not saying I know best, but I'm explaining why I use that term. I'm glad you like it, why shouldn't others be as you? Lobsterthermidor (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@SilkTork: I'm not happy with what happened to Incledon on 25 Sept, akin to vandalism. This is one of the oldest families in Devon, very notable, still surviving via female lines, still owning its original estate of Incledon from which it took its name in 1160. I think Kelly is the only other one which can claim that. All deleted by someone with zero interest in or understanding of the subject. I'm not sure if this is part of a concerted campaign - I think it would be appropiate to reinstate the text until we have completed this major discussion on the future of the topic. I'm not going to do that for obvious reasons, but I would ask you to do so on my behalf. I noticed it because in search of examples for disciussion in this thread I was re-visiting article Knightshayes Court where, following a request, I recently WP:SPLIT the biographical detail to a new article Manor of Knightshayes, under the heading you suggested ("History") (which on further reflection on my part might not be such a bad idea as I expressed above). It too has been amended by the same anonymous user as at Incledon, on the same day - I had it as bullet points - it's effectively a list of holders, why would bullet points not be suitable? But I'm not going to change that either during this discussion - I think a moratorium on all sides would be a good idea. I wonder what you think of the "splitting arrangement" at Knightshayes Court? Could that form a model?Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I still don't think you have understood the concept we are dealing with. I have stopped reading at that point. I think the problem is that I am attempting to explain to you how we do things on Wikipedia, and you are not quite getting that. If you're not prepared to make the effort to engage with the advice I am giving you, or to be at least aware that I am giving you the bulk of my Wikipedia time in order to assist you, then it may be best to stop this, and simply go to AN/I to seek a sanction. Please take on board what I am saying. I am not saying this to make you feel small or anything, or to insult you, or anything like that, but just to make you aware of the situation. You are a disruptive editor who does not edit in line with consensus. Disruptive editors either adjust their editing to fit in with Wikipedia consensus or they are sanctioned. The sanction could be some form of restriction such as a topic ban and/or a revert ban, or it could be a site ban. Your behaviour is not at the level of a site ban, but the disruption you cause is enough to make a topic and revert ban a likely outcome. Either you make a serious effort to edit in line with consensus (and that is what I am helping you to do) or we take this to AN/I. Please stop arguing with me, and please follow very carefully my line of reasoning. I am not here to harm or insult you. My intention is to make it possible for you to continue editing on Wikipedia. When you have acknowledged that you have not just read this, but have understood it, I will read the rest of what you have posted, and we can continue this discussion. If you don't feel able to accept my advice, you can either say so, or simply not respond at all. For the avoidance of doubt, if I do not get an appropriate response within seven days, I will start making preparations to take this matter to AN/I. SilkTork (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@SilkTork: The problem as I see it is that you are talking to me with two hats on: one (as we commenced) as an editor trying to reach a productive solution to the issue of what to call articles dealing with histories of notable estates, which is much appreciated as I really want to resolve this issue. That requires a discussion, in which disagreement is a natural and essential element. But you are now speaking increasingly with the authority of an admin who requires his advice to be accepted. The two roles are becoming confused to the point where I feel unable to disagree with you on any point at the risk of escalating into disciplinary sanctions. Please advise.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I have always had those two hats. You are correct to detect that I am gradually leaning more heavily on the admin role. It would be helpful if you glanced back at our discussions with a view to discovering why that might be so. As regards disagreement. I have always welcomed polite and reasonable disagreement. And I have reasonable tolerance for a certain amount of reluctance and resilience. But continued lack of progress will eventually tend to close down offers of help. A combination of slow responses to discussion, responses which wander off target and are lengthy, an apparent lack of understanding, and comments which are hostile to Wikipedia tend to wear down my motivation. SilkTork (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@SilkTork: I think the problem here was that we were making very constructive progress on the question in hand (i.e. how to write about the history of notable estates) until you instructed me to "please stop arguing with me" when I questioned what I considered to be important issues raised by you (apparently unsupported by any wikipedia guideline), most notably the assertion that one should not be contributing on topics which interest one (cf in which one has a personal interest/involvement). I don't know how to proceed with the discussion if any disagreement on my part (an essential element of the discussion process) is likely to be met with threats of disciplinary action. That has a chilling effect.

I have made no "comments hostile to wikipedia", I support wikipedia very strongly, and I do not consider myself to be a disruptive editor. Taking a couple of issues to talk page discussions after one bold and one revert, as I did recently, is not "disruptive editing". I have a good track record on wikipedia over the last 9 years and have been very productive.

I'm actually very disappointed that the positive discussion and work we were having seems to have hit a hiatus, and I would ask you to continue where we left off. I think perhaps at this point the work might best continue with broader community input at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements under section "history": Manorial history. Where the village formed part of a former manor, almost always the case with English villages, the subject may be treated summarily as a sub-section within the history section, or where such text has expanded to make the article unbalanced, as a detailed stand-alone article, which should be linked to at the start of the sub-section with a main article tag. Extant text added by me on 10:06, 14 June 2013 after discussion on talk page. There is also Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Manorial histories. I have also just made a further comment on your own talk page concerning your ongoing discussion on Manor of Knightshayes, in relation to this whole issue, which possibly encapsulates the whole question.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I am close to bringing these discussions to an end because there appears to me to be a lack of direct engagement with my questions, with responses going off at a tangent and other issues being raised, making it difficult to remain focused and remain on track. Often we seem to be talking at cross purpose. And you show little understanding of the issues raised. However, I am willing to give it another go because it could just be that the lengthy protracted discussion we've had so far have allowed neither of us to actually see the other's point of view. What might work is if you were prepared to set aside an hour or two of your time so we could discuss this matter in detail. I'd prefer email, as there would be no edit conflicts, but if you are still reluctant to do that then we can set up a subpage here - like /Discussion. Let me know if you think that is worth doing, and then we can consult diaries and set a time. SilkTork (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@SilkTork: That would be great SilkTork, much appreciated. I would rather not use e-mail, no reflection on you whatsoever, sorry if that's inconvenient for you. Wouldn't it be best to do it in talkspace, maybe having it in writing will help to focus the mind and might serve as a useful record of any conclusions we will hopefully reach? If it doesn't work out maybe I can think again. I will be free most of tomorrow if that suits you, please give me a time and I will await your further instructions. I will check in again here late this evening, and tomorrow morning. Regards.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I am occupied most of tomorrow, but am free daytime Friday. A subpage works fine because there is a record of the discussion, but it's more private. Click on the link: /Discussion. SilkTork (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

That's fine with me, I'll check-in on Friday. Many thanks.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

If Friday is fine for you, let's say between 10 and 12am. We should be able to make decent progress in that time. SilkTork (talk) 01:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine, I appreciate you devoting your time to this topic.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Historic estates in Wiltshire

A tag has been placed on Category:Historic estates in Wiltshire requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The Grange, Broadhembury

Just thought, after the event, I should disclose (to show good faith) a minor edit kind of on this topic I made to The Grange, Broadhembury today. I hope it will not be interpreted in a negative or disruptive way. Just needed some context and linking re Northmoor. Resulted from a somewhat careless former "trimming" in a splitting process. I was just consulting that talk section to refresh my memory because there was a big row there which somewhat resolved the issue we are discussing.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know Lobsterthermidor. I assume this is the edit you mean. That's not a minor edit. The history of that article shows you reverting five different users to reinsert dubious material into the article: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]; and the talkpage, Talk:The Grange, Broadhembury, has three threads started by three different users showing concern for for your edits. And then there is a lengthy RfC where eight additional users (those who have not previously commented or been involved in the edit war) appear to support the view that lengthy descent of manor material is inappropriate (I've not read it closely). Given the history of that article, and given that we are talking about the concerns that people have with you inserting inappropriate (off-topic or out of scope) material into articles, do you think it was wise to make that edit? SilkTork (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Copying this here as you seem to have missed it. Can you look again at your edit in the light of the concerns about your editing and the history of that article and let me know if you still feel after consideration that it was an appropriate edit. SilkTork (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I am disappointed that you have not responded. I have rolled back the edit. Please do not make any more such edits (inserting Descent of the manor material anywhere on Wikipedia other than in your own sandbox) until we have finished discussing the matter. Making such edits delays and inhibits our discussion; it gives a bad impression of you; and if it happens again will result in the termination of our discussion and the opening of an AN/I thread. SilkTork (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@SilkTork:Sorry for delayed response, I've been monitoring my talk page but nothing from you for a couple of days (seem to have been looking at thread "Continuing the discussion", missed your post 2 Oct here for some reason, apologies). "Making such edits delays and inhibits our discussion; it gives a bad impression of you", agreed, exactly why I notified you, I realised after making the edit it was possibly not wise in view of the on-going discussion, I should have just reverted it myself. Let's continue and get it resolved. Thanks. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I will respond to your detailed comments above in relation to defining manor either later today or tomorrow. SilkTork (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll check in tomorrow, God willing.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

"GEC Complete Peerage" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect GEC Complete Peerage. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 5#GEC Complete Peerage until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Agricolae (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

"User:Agricolae may wish to apologise for that accusation, and may wish to find more productive uses of his time than pre-emptive "purging" - before he then asks for community input as to the correctness of his action." That is unnecessary and is combative. Comment on the merits of the discussion only. A good argument carries the day much better than engaging in insults. Indeed, the merits of an argument can get lost when people react instead to a personal comment attached to the argument. SilkTork (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@SilkTork:Yup, I agree, offending text struck out. Thanks for pointing that out.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed you were having this discussion behind my back. You will get no apology here. The examples that SilkTork gave were mostly of uses of "G.E.C., Complete Peerage." or similar. While this is still an abbreviated reference, at least it is clear that G.E.C. is representing the author and Complete Peerage the name of the work, and it is used this way within antiquarian publications where the meaning will be clear to the expected audience. With GEC Complete Peerage, which Lobsterthremidor is inexplicably so fond of using, there are no such clues to indicate that GEC represents the author's initials, and this is further exacerbated by LT's not infrequent use of just GEC Peerage or even simply GEC without further indication of the title. Unlike the reader of an antiquarian publication, your average Wikipedia reader is unlikely to know what it means. As Silk pointed out, ODNB uses this abbreviation, but ODNB has a whole page defining their source abbreviations, something that is common in books that are repeatedly citing the same sources. Each author or editor decides on their own preferred abbreviations - I could name other books that simply use CP to refer to it, and it should not be assumed that this is some universal abbreviation. The use of such abbreviations at all is obscure, awkward, and unnecessary, particularly when used within the flow of the text.

There is also a second problem with using such a slap-dash abbreviation. There are two editions of Complete Peerage, and since most of the second edition is still under copyright, what most people will find who do a Google search is the first edition, but it is almost universally the second edition that is being referred to. For that matter, when referring to volume 12, there are two volume 12s, parts 1 and 2. Then as if that wasn't bad enough, when they went and reprinted it, in the compressed format with 13 original volumes in 6, it added a level of confusion over what is being referred to by a simple volume number. With this level of potential confusion, it is important that we give the reader enough information to be sure what we are referring to.

As such, at a minimum, we need to distinguish the author's name from the work's title, specify the edition and volume (and in the case of the volumes 12, the part). Given the relative availability, i think it preferable to cite the original second edition rather than the reprint with its double old/new volume designations. Agricolae (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

This matter has been discussed at RfC with closing comment "the result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 08:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)", that seems to be the community consensus.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

The consensus was to KEEP THE REDIRECT. Redirects are kept when they might be a search term someone uses. That in no sense means that they are appropriate as the style used in citations. Most commenters called it 'harmless' as a redirect, with one adding, "We certainly shouldn't be using any of these abbreviations on Wikipedia." It is sloppy and incomplete, and it shouldn't be used as a citation style. Stop it. Agricolae (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for disruptive editing. You've been asked multiple times not to use styles that are not usual on wikipedia, such as 'GEC Complete Peerage', but you've just done it again[8]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lobsterthermidor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This seems a total over-reaction to an entirely innocent action on my part. The RfC closed as "The result of the discussion was keep", which I took to mean "it's OK". There was no admonition whatsoever in the judgement that it could be used only in restrictive circumstances. One of the contributors may have made a comment "We certainly shouldn't be using any of these abbreviations on Wikipedia", which I actually didn't notice, but surely it was just that, one opinion amongst many in a discussion on whether to keep or delete the redirect. If it was so material to the decision as is suggested, surely it would have been included in the RfC closure notice? If we "shouldn't be using any of these abbreviations on Wikipedia", how it is possible that it was approved for retention? That is illogical. This is totally confusing and makes editing wikipedia like walking on eggshells. I frequently use redirects as another way of referring to something, for example Hugh Lupus (a redirect) as a way of referring to Hugh d'Avranches, Earl of Chester. I thought that's OK? Surely either it's a valid redirect and can be used or it should have been banned, which it was not. Is this block really warranted for using the phrase GEC Complete Peerage, approved as a redirect, instead of The Complete Peerage? If this is wikipedia policy, surely we need to create two classes of redirects, one which can be used freely and another which can be used only in restricted circumstances. Editing wikipedia should not be like walking on eggshells, it should be regulated by clear and non-ambiguous rules and decisions. "The result of the discussion was keep" seems to me clear, unambiguous and unqualified, and I think I was entitled to rely on that, without having to go through all the comments to second-guess it, qualify it or re-interpret it. I think this block is very unfair and unwarranted, I was acting fully in good faith, and request an unblock. I am aware that there are some people on the project at present who may want to make my life on wikipedia like walking on eggshells, if they want to get rid of me in such an under-handed way I will argue my case every time with determination and confidence. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This block has expired, and is no longer active. SQL^{Query me!} 23:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The block does not arise from the redirect discussion. You are blocked because you were asked at least twice not to use "obscure, awkward, and unnecessary" and "sloppy and incomplete" citation styles, but you carried on doing so anyway. It is disruptive to continue with a series of edits after being asked to stop. DrKay (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

To answer one question above, different redirects serve different purposes on Wikipedia. Some serve as convenient ways to refer to another page - that use is OK (though for a name as indistinct as Hugh Lupus, you may want to give the reader more information about whom you are talking about so they don't have to follow the link to find out). Other redirects, such as 'common typo' and 'common misnaming' redirects, are there just because someone might use them as search terms, not to be used in actual text. That does not mean it is OK to intentionally use these typos and erroneous names in articles just because the redirects exist. With one of the Keep !voters saying "We certainly shouldn't be using any of these abbreviations on Wikipedia", and another saying "I can see the redirect being of occasional use to a bemused reader" - reader NOT writer, and bemused is not something one really wants to emulate, is it? - that is two of the three other Keep !voters who made substantive comments hinting at use as a search term only. Add to that the two No !voters who explained why it was a problem, plus my nomination and what I said above, and you really are flying in the face of opinion to keep using it. I accept that you might not have picked up on this, but that same excuse doesn't apply to completely blowing off the 'edition problem' with your recent edits - any reference to volume 3 without an edition can refer to two entirely different books. You even used your abbreviation on an article that already cited it properly, with the edition indicated, to the exact same pages you were citing, when all you had to do was add a ref-name pointer to the existing already-named citation. I don't care about the block, I just don't want to have to keep spending my time searching for and cleaning up sloppy citations, when it does not require that many additional keystrokes for you to just use a legitimate short citation, "Cokayne, Complete Peerage, new edition" instead (in a ref citation - in the bibliography the full citation should always be used for every book). Agricolae (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@DrKay: (edit conflict/Agricolae, I'll read your post in a minute). Dr Kay, Now you're throwing the kitchen sink at me. Please make your mind up what you blocked me for. Now it's citation style apparently. "Obscure, awkward, and unnecessary" would be a lawyer's dream, that's totally obscure in itself. What's "Obscure, awkward, and unnecessary" about "GEC Complete Peerage, Vol.X, p.10" as opposed to "The Complete Peerage, Vol.X, p.10". I think this is getting petty. Why does it bother you so much? Enough to block a productive user? If you find something "awkward" in any of my future citations, you will block me again I assume? That's something impossible to avoid, you are trying to dangle a Sword of Damocles above my head. I have used the same citation style for the last 10 years, it may not be perfect, but it is adequate and I believe it meets the guidelines. If you want to insist on perfect citations to PhD standard, you will lose all your good contributors and be left with a lot of people who can't write articles but are great at citations. The tail will be wagging the dog. Do you think you have possibly lost some perspective here? This is a collaborative project. I'm not expected to deliver a perfect article, I deliver step one into the wikipedia process, I think to a fairly high standard. I'm not delivering a completed doctoral thesis, I'm submitting a wikipedia article which will be improved endlessly by other users over the next several years, that's how wikipedia operates. Maybe you are a Doctor with a PhD, I am not. Nevertheless my text is high quality and very competent. As I said, it's obvious to me that I'm being made to walk on eggshells with the end-game to remove me from wikipedia, that's very transparent.

This is a rules based project, if you have a particular problem with anything, surely you should take it to RfC and get a formal ruling so that the position is clear. Just because I get "asked" to do or not to do something does not necessarily over-ride wikipedia guidelines, and RfC judgements which I rely on. I relied on the RfC judgement which I understood to clear me to use the style "GEC Complete Peerage", without any qualification whatsoever. If someone then "asks" me as you say "to stop", that person not having won his case in RfD, what am I to do? I rely on the RfD judgement, else what's the point of RfD for resolving disputes? Surely that person "asking" should have accepted the RfD ruling against him and ask no more. Instead he carried on the argument here on my talk page after the matter was closed. It seems to me that carrying on a closed argument is "disruptive", yet I am being accused of that even though I am acting in accordance with the RfD judgement, following and relying on the judgement.

"Sloppy citations" is surely not a sufficient reason for imposing a block? Where is even one official warning on that issue? In 10 years? It may well be a matter for failure in a University of Oxford doctoral thesis, but that's not where we are Dr Kay, so it's inappropriate to try to hold me to top class academic standards. I'm just a bloke off the street who likes history, I don't have an Oxford education, I'm mostly self taught, but certainly competent enough to make good contributions to wikipedia.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I haven't changed the reason for the block. It's the same as it ever was. To explain, for the third time: You're blocked for disruptive editing: continuing to make disputed edits after being asked to stop at least twice. Users should not continue to make edits that are the subject of a dispute. DrKay (talk) 08:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Agricolae: You are splitting hairs over something that seems to me extremely petty. Why does it bother you so much? I note you have made no comment about the article itself. That's what readers come here for, not to admire perfect Harvard citation standards. My references are adequate and meet WP basic standards. If another editor wishes to tidy them up into super-duper form that's fine, it's a collaborative project. I've never received such a comment before, in 10 years, to the best of my recollection. I'm relying on the rules and RfC judgements, clear and unqualified, not trying to second-guess the nuances of every comment, favourable or unfavourable, warranted or unwarranted, sensible or absurd. They are comments, not obiter dicta of the judgement. I've seen numerous RfD's which have all sorts of suggestions in the comments, it's the judgement that matters, not the arguments in the comments. The judgement was simple and clear.

This whole issue was taken by you to RfD, and you did not win your argument. The redirect was allowed, and was not marked "restricted use", as you are trying to suggest. To continue arguing your case here seems to me disruptive. "I just don't want to have to keep spending my time searching for and cleaning up sloppy citations", nobody is forcing you to do that, you have opted to do it, so if you don't want to do it, stop. The world will not end. There are lots of people who enjoy perfecting citations, lots of people who enjoy correcting grammar, spelling, re-phrasing more elegantly, all are useful contributors, all choosing what to do with their own time.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The decision was clear, but it didn't address what you are pretending it did. It was simply answering the question: is there community consensus for deleting the redirect or not? Where or even if that half-arsed abbreviation should be used in article space was never subject to adjudication. No, I did not 'win', nor did I fail to win - nobody wins an RfD, nobody loses one, it is not a competition, it is a determination of consensus. There is no such thing as tagging a redirect for 'restricted use' - look at Boris Johnston (note the extra 't'), an misspelling redirect. Is there a 'restricted use' tag on that redirect? - no, there isn't, not on the redirect page, not on its Talk page (it doesn't even have one). So does the fact that it exists and doesn't have a 'restricted use' marker mean you should go ahead and intentionally misspell it in article space? for Dog's sake, no. Nevertheless, even though not the formal question being asked, just about everyone who gave their opinion indicated one way or another that the use of this abbreviation in articles was a bad thing.

Rather than asking me why obscure and incomplete references bother me, why don't you ask yourself why you are not only satisfied with, but adamantly insist upon such an unclear, sub-par product? THis is not about super-duper form, it is about the minimum requirements for clarity. If, as you said in your first draft, it seems so petty a difference to you, then why insist on doing it wrong when it is so easy to adjust to a correct format that resolves the issue entirely? Do you think you are doing readers a favor by forcing them to play detective and figure out what the hell you are referring to rather than just telling them clearly? Do you think it is the responsibility of other contributors to clean up your messes? Do you think that means you are 'winning' at Wikipedia? Agricolae (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Agricolae:, please try to abide by WP:Civility ("what the hell you are referring to"). This has been blown up into such a huge issue, over something very small and insignificant. You chose to take it to RfD, where the decision went against you. Regardless of that, to try to calm down this whole matter, I'm going to do it in future your way. Please tell me exactly how you would like me to do it, and that's what I will do in future.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I already did, above, but I will again. In inline referencing, one should use a citation that 1) makes a clear distinction between author and title (set them off with a comma and the title in italics); 2) specifies which edition you are using, the 1st edition (from the late 1800s) or the new/2nd edition (early-to-mid 1900s); and 3) when reference is made to volume 12 of the new edition, indicate which part of vol 12 you are using, since the two 'parts' are really completely separate volumes with distinct pagination. Example: "Cokayne, Complete Peerage, 2nd ed., 12(1):123-132".

Preferably, more information should be given in a bibliographical listing, for example: Cokayne, George E. Cokayne, The Complete Peerage, new edition, St. Catherine's Press, London, 1953, vol. 12, part 1, pp. 123-132 (or simply copy/paste the listings given at the bottom of The Complete Peerage in full and add relevant page numbers).

Finally, please use the original St Catherine's Press editions when citing, as given on The Complete Peerage, and not the altered volume numbers of the Sutton Publishing reissue - the latter just reprinted the original 2nd edition pages, including page numbers, four to a page in 6 volumes, but this edition is much less available, and while the original volume numbers can readily be used to find the pages in the reprint, it takes a lot more work to figure out which original volume corresponds to a given Sutton volume and page number. Thank you. Agricolae (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Agricolae: I own a complete set myself, the large full size volumes, "new edition, revised and much enlarged", that's what I will be quoting from. If you want me to cite, looking at vol III for example, "The Complete Peerage, Vol. III, London, 1913, p.xx", will that be sufficient? That clearly and unambiguously identifies which edition is being referred to. I would be happy to do that. Surely you only need to know the publisher for modern books where you might want to buy one from the publisher? Else there seems little point. Obviously it's now out of print in that edition.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The publication information is just a standard part of a full-length citation, but I guess not critical, but why not include the author and be explicit about the edition? Yes, you can deduce both, but we are talking about 15 additional keystrokes to save the reader the detective work. (Here is a thought, though. There are templates for citing DNB, EB and other commonly used sources. Complete Peerage is used enough that a template could be made for the new edition where one just typed something like {{CP|vol|page}} and it would fill out the ref in a standard format.) Agricolae (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Agricolae: It's not critical. "Why not include the author and be explicit about the edition?" On the other hand "Why include the author and be explicit about the edition - if it's not critical". You are usually the master of "pare it down to the bones" but now you want non-critical padding added. What has come over you sir? I genuinely cannot see what "detective work" would be involved. If you want to totally humiliate me, I will make those extra 15 keystrokes, if you so request. Then perhaps GEC-gate can be put to rest.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Because having it there helps the reader confirm when they find a work catalogued with a similar name that they have identified the right work. (It is also just appropriate attribution of any scholarly or journalistic work to name the author.) Being explicit about the edition likewise makes it clear which edition is being referred to. In a perfect world, it would always be easy to deduce this from the year of the volume, but given the broad variety of ways these works are catalogued in brick and mortar libraries and online, having this one additional nugget of information can be incredibly helpful. This is not about humiliating anyone, it is about doing things that require minuscule additional effort on our part but make things much easier for the reader - you know the people we are supposedly all doing this for. Agricolae (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Prioritizing men over women

Please stop. Children are best listed in order of birth, not biological sex. DrKay (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@DrKay:In Debrett's Peerage, Burke's Landed Gentry, and most genealogical sources males are always listed first - because in the era of primogeniture, still in effect for UK peerage titles, the male lineage was of principal importance as far as the title is concerned. Following long-standing convention when dealing with peerage topics/ historical royal family.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Armorial vs Arms

I note that you have mislabeled a lot of your heraldic additions. The word 'Armorial", when used as a noun, refers to a book of heraldry, or more generically, a collection of coats of arms. When a single coat of arms is being shown, that is not an armorial. So, 'Arms of Neville', 'Coat of Arms of Neville', 'Neville Coat of Arms', or similar, not 'Armorial of Neville', unless the legend is referring to a group coats of arms. I have fixed a lot of them, but if you are aware of or come across other examples where you have called a single coat an armorial, please correct them, and please refrain from describing a coat as such in the future. Agricolae (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Agricolae:Sorry, I have gone through your edit contributions and found some uses by myself of that incorrect term, from a while back. I agree that it is incorrect and I don't use it anymore.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I searched for "armorial of", but there if the term is used with different phrasing (e.g. something like "family armorial") I would not have turned it up. Just keep your eyes open for it please. Another valid alternative phrasing I forgot to mention that you could use if you are looking for variation would be "armorial bearings", where armorial is used as an adjective rather than a noun. Agricolae (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Frankly I was surprised I had used that term, but I went back and checked and you were correct, I did use it quite a lot in the past. I now use "arms of" and am quite happy with that. Thanks for spotting it.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Lobsterthermidor, this edit of yours is rampant original research. I would have thought that as an experienced editor, you would know that. Please self-revert as soon as possible, and don't do it again. Bishonen | tålk 19:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC).

Not original research, it was merely expanding the quote to give the full context (he was talking about Mexico sending people into US), with a note added concerning the reliability of the text, stating that the text was merely a transcript from spoken words open to (possibly wilful political) misinterpretation. I think it's important we maintain balance in articles about Donald Trump. The general tone of much of our coverage is hostile, that's not desirable for articles supposed to be neutral.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, that reminds me...

Lobsterthermidor, I don't think that you were ever officially warned about creating an utterly indefensible article entitled "List of Jewish organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups" which had to be speedily deleted. I guess it is too late for an official warning now but I think you would be very well advised to stick to less sensitive subjects that you are knowledgable on, and where you can contribute constructively, and to stay well away from controvercial political subjects where your personal opinions are sometimes far too evident and are very likely to get you into further trouble. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I didn't know certain subjects are out of bounds. There were at least two Jewish organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups, possibly more exist, therefore a list was appropriate. If we are only able to write favourably about certain topics we will lose balance. Nothing to do with my personal opinions, which I don't think you should be examining.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes people don't know their actions can be seen as prejudiced, so let me point out that when someone goes through a list of 97 "others", and only picks out the two Jewish groups, and then creates a list article using just those two Jewish groups, and gives it an inflammatory title, given the history of abuse and prejudice against Jewish people, then it would fairly universally be seen as a prejudiced action. If you had created a list article of "List of organisations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups" there wouldn't have been a problem. We might have considered if such a list met our inclusion criteria, given it comes just from one source, and there might by copyright issues, so it would unlikely stay on Wikipedia, but I don't think anyone would feel from such a list that you were prejudiced against Jews. But by just selecting the Jewish groups from the entirety of the list, which stretches to hundreds of groups, it does give the appearance of anti-Semitism.

Your note in the Trump article is an editor giving their opinion. We absolutely do not do this. If multiple reliable sources around the world say "black is white" then we do not argue that "black is black" and change the wording, we just neutrally report what is said. That is the entire essence of Wikipedia. We do not alter what sources say, nor offer our opinion on them. And as regards your argument that he didn't say they are rapists, he was asked about this, and his response was to confirm that he meant: "Some are good, some are rapists and some are killers".

As regards people commenting on your personal opinions. Difficult not to, when you did it in the note in the Trump article. You can't give your personal opinion, and when people comment that you shouldn't display your personal opinion, say that people shouldn't be examining your opinion. We don't go round looking for people's motives for sure. But when you say things like: "The press appear to have interpreted Trump as calling all Mexican immigrants rapists" you are giving your personal opinion loud and clear, and you are giving it in an article, so - yes - we have to comment on it, and we have to advise, even warn you, that such behaviour is not appropriate.

I haven't looked fully into your history Lobsterthermidor, but in what I have seen and become aware of, I note that people give you advice and warnings, and you don't seem to understand. You push back and argue, and/or ignore the advice and do your own thing. I have tried to help you, and I am considering where to go with that, as I don't think we have made much progress because you are unwilling to see where you are at fault. I am wondering if we have a competence issue here. Having been given some explanation of the issues regarding the Trump article and the Jewish issue, can you see where you went wrong? SilkTork (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@SilkTork: "If you had created a list article of "List of organisations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups" there wouldn't have been a problem." Already exists! Not created by me, longstanding article. There are 17 of them, see List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups. The Jewish ones were listed within category 17 "other". All I did was to expand the list from 17 to 18. Jewish hate groups do exist, the Middle East is a cauldron of hatred and violence on all sides. I think your comment is very unfair, and hastily made. I await your confirmation that as you said there's no problem with what I did. I have no idea what you are referring to when you question me on competence. All you had to do was search for the very term you wrote "List of organisations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups". I think I deserve an apology!Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@SilkTork:As for my edit to Trump, my main aim was to expand the truncated quote to provide context. I think that is a positive edit, and I felt I had to explain in a note why. The context shows that clearly Trump was talking about people who enter the US illegally. That vital part had been cut off. The point he was making, which he has made frequently in the last 4 years, is that in his opinion, whether true or not, he believes the Mexican government has in the past turned a blind eye to their own "bad hombres" leaving Mexico, thus relieving the Mexican government of the burden of dealing with them and suffering from their violence. Thus Trump believes that "Mexico is sending to the US all their bad people, their murderers and their rapists". That was what the speech was about. He frequently talks about MS13 gangs in this context, not people the Mexican government have any incentive to retain within their own country, which have taken hold in many US inner cities with devastating consequences. He frequently talks of violent crimes committed by such gang members against US citizens, often against Latinos who have come to the US legally, as they tend to migrate to established Latino areas. As you said Trump did indeed say that some illegal immigrants from Mexico are good people, and (classic Trump) doubled-down on his main argument that many of them are seriously violent criminals. Understanding the way Trump speaks is a skill that requires some practice and application. Wilfully mis-interpreting his obscure way of expressing himself is on the other hand very easy to do, and many democrat-leaning news outlets have exploited that to the max. Of course the febrile position in the US today is reflected in highly partial media on both sides, exemplified by CNN and Fox on opposing sides, really just proxies for the two political parties. So US media at the moment cannot be treated as paragons of impartiality, or as unbiased sources. About half of the US population does not trust the truthfulness of mainstream media at the moment, those include wikipedia readers. So I was pointing out that the source may not be reliable as to what Trump actually expressed or wanted to express, it was their (possibly wilfully dishonest) interpretation of his spoken word, specifically "they're" or "their", not quoted from a written speech.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

You are advancing an unsupported personal theory that I have not heard anybody else raise when discussing this matter. There is absolutely no reason to believe that he was saying "their" instead of "they’re". If he was then we can be sure that he, or his surrogates, would have made that point very loudly and clearly and asked for the transcripts to be corrected. You can hold your opinion if you like but it does not belong in Wikipedia without RS references to support it.--DanielRigal (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

As I said I was drawing attention to the possible bias of the source in these highly politically charged times. I don't think there's a single right of centre news-outlet (no such thing as a bang-on-centre one anymore) which has printed those words in that form. As for Trump's campaign not insisting on the negative interpretation being corrected, they probably had their hands full trying to correct 101 other erroneous accusations, from Russian prostitutes (reported by countless US media outlets and by the the BBC as quasi-fact) and Trump being a Russian agent (ditto). It was probably just discounted as ranting at the weather. I certainly think the full quote added by me should be retained for context, even if you disagree with the validity of my note, which I am prepared to accept.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Please can you explain why you thought it appropriate to separate out the tiny list of Jewish groups from the main article (which, as you say, already existed) and make them into a whole separate article? Please can you also explain why you chose to do this specifically for the Jewish groups and for no other categories? Finally, please can you confirm that you have read the AfD discussion and that you understand the reasons why the article had to be deleted and that you understand that your behaviour gave off a strong appearance of anti-Semitism, whether or not that was your actual motivation or not? If you genuinely made that article in mistaken good faith then it is fine for you to learn from this and move on. If not, then I think we have a problem here. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

List 2.12 "Male supremacy" heading contains two groups, yet the Jewish hate groups have not been similarly elevated from category "other", even though there are at least two obviously Jewish groups in that list, containing the word "Jewish" in their title. I'm not an expert on the topic, perhaps others exist under less obvious names, I don't know. Whether forming those Jewish hate groups into a separate article was necessary rather than merely starting a new section headed "Jewish groups" or something similar is possibly a point well made, perhaps that would have been better. That possibly remains an omission in the present article. Do you think that needs to be expanded to add a new section?

The reason I focussed on this particular group was that I was studying the article and wondered whether there were any Jewish ones (curiosity not anti-semitism), and had to do some considerable sifting to answer that question. Of course the whole concept of the "hate-group" derives from the Holocaust, so Jewishness is pivotal to the whole topic, I merely wondered given that position if there were any groups of people who were "hated" by some sections of Jewish people. So that was the rationale of my curiosity. It's possibly an obvious question. I shouldn't have to say this but I feel I have to respond to the veiled personal attack made on me, my much-loved step-grandmother was Jewish, so I am not anti-semitic. It's a pity I have been forced into having to justify my own personal position. I think we need balance, and although this is a sensitive topic I don't think people should be terrified of making a contribution by the fear of being called bad names, as I have just suffered.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I have given all my explanations above, fully reasoned, please explain why they are inadequate. You yourself stated "If you had created a list article of "List of organisations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups" there wouldn't have been a problem." When I pointed out that such an article did indeed exist, you made no reply, nor did you apologise for your oversight. I have been accused of racism, which is a violation on the flimsiest of evidence of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which I have denied very clearly; for that I am then accused of "apologising for racism". I do not accept your characterisation of my edits.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Re Constable of Chester

There's a discussion that involves you at Talk:Constable of Chester#Speccot. It's about your use of an extract from Risdon. The opinion is that you should stop making use of it in any articles.  —SMALLJIM  10:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@SilkTork:, you call Risdon an "ancient and unreliable source", he is not any more "unreliable" than any source of his era. He is frequently quoted in academic articles, he is one of the two foundation sources (with Pole) for much of the history of the Westcountry. Use of Risdon does not contravene Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Please show me how it does that. I think we are a rules-based organisation at wikipedia, I am entirely within the rules and guidelines on this issue. I think it's inappropriate of you to threaten me with a block for the matters you refer to before giving me a chance to defend my work on the talk page concerned. I would like this matter taken to Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Also, your repeated mention in this public forum of my supposed "racist edits", which I entirely refuted, seems to me possibly in violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I would ask you respectfully to refrain from repeating that false accusation - which even if it were true, which it isn't, has nothing whatsoever to do with a discussion on the matter of original research.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@SilkTork: Please see Talk:Constable of Chester "Request for Comment: Is Tristram Risdon an allowable source?". I would appreciate your input.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Insertions of genealogical (or "manorial") history

You have been informed numerous times over the ten years you have been here that it is unacceptable to dump large amounts of inappropriate genealogical (or what you term "manorial") detail into articles, yet you continue to do so, as here a few days ago in Walter de Lacy (died 1085) where you have been reverted: [9] by Ealdgyth. Given that despite agreeing in 2015 after a community discussion not to insert such inappropriate material into articles ([10]), you have continued to do so, and when discovered have been reverted and told that is not what we do yet still continue to do so, I am now making the matter more formal:

With the help of several other editors I have gathered details of your problematic edits and behaviour over your ten year career and have prepared a report to take to AN to gain formal consensus for a topic ban on editing any articles related to manorial history and geography of the UK. I will hold off presenting this report to give you a chance to amend your editing. This would mean complying with the formal warnings already issued, and any further guidance or warnings you may be given. Please do the sensible and appropriate thing and follow both Wikipedia guidelines and the advice people - repeatedly - give you. SilkTork (talk) 12:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@SilkTork:I'm totally bemused. I actually reduced genealogical information by demoting to a note the sentence "A niece was married to Ansfrid de Cormeilles", which I felt was irrelevent, especially as we were not told who "Ansfrid de Cormeilles" is, and there was no link. So prima facie it's not notable. All I did was to rearrange the existing genealogical information into the standard wikipedia format of bullet points for issue/children (is that disallowed?), adding the date of death for the eldest son and heir, and stating that he was the eldest son and heir (is that disallowed?). That's four words, and not "inappropriate", entirely relevant. As is standard in thousands of wikipedia biographies. How is that possibly interpreted by you as "dumping large amounts of inappropriate genealogical detail"? The section heading "Family and death" is clearly totally absurd, if not comical, what has "family" got to do with "death"? The two topics are unrelated, so I split them into two logical categories. "Family" can mean either birth/ancestry or marriage/descent. Thus "Marriage and issue" is a clearer heading. If such a criticism is really deemed a valid reason to threaten me with a block, I have no choice but to request a Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Please see Talk:Walter de Lacy (died 1085) (section: Marriage and death / genealogical information)Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Manor of Knightshayes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Manor of Knightshayes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manor of Knightshayes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SilkTork (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Henry Green (English judge)

Hi SilkTork, I want to expand the article Henry Green (English judge), which at present gives no information on his parentage or origins. I'm terrified that if I do so you will block me, per your warning on my talk page 21 November "Formal warning for inserting genealogical (or "manorial") history into articles If you insert genealogical (or "manorial") history into an article you will be temporarily blocked". My source would be Lora Sarah Nichols La Mance, The Greene Family and its Branches from A.D. 861 to A.D. 1904, New York, 1904, pp.18-19 et seq.[11]. I also want to explain more clearly how his "descendants include Queen Catherine Parr", as the article now states. Sorry to bother you with this, but you have left me in quite a limbo-land with a Sword of Damocles dangling over my head. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I have copied the article to a subpage of your user page: User:Lobsterthermidor/Henry Green (English judge). You can make your expansion there, and when you are ready ping me and I'll take a look. SilkTork (talk) 10:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Great, thanks.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I also want to explain more clearly how his "descendants include Queen Catherine Parr", as the article now states. Please don't. Contrary to the whims of some editors, a relationship at almost 200 years remove is not noteworthy unless historians writing about Henry (not those writing about Catherine) highlight this relationship. Agricolae (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The text is already in the article, with no source or explanation given. So we should either delete that or explain it. It is notable, mentioned in the source given (a history of the Green family), and especially notable as the arms of Green were quartered by William Parr, 1st Marquess of Northampton, the brother of Queen Katherine Parr (both children of Matilda Green), and by his sister's husband William Herbert, 1st Earl of Pembroke. They appear in notable stained glass windows in museum collections, for example in the Detroit Institute of Arts. Matilda Green and her sister Anne Green were the ultimate heiresses of Henry Green (removed 8 generations), in the senior line. Being the founder of a family which ends in the mother of a Queen Consort of England is surely notable? Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

No, being founder of a family that ends in the mother of a queen is not "surely notable". People are ancestors of later people. The specifics are happenstance. Do we understand Henry better by knowing that his descendant had a daughter who married well, when that marriage had absolutely nothing to do with Henry? Absolutely not. You are right that it shouldn't be there without documentation or explanation, so I deleted it. There are 1000s of Wikipedia biographies of people descended from this man (the same applies to any man of this period) and it is simply not noteworthy to list them all, unless there has been special focus on this in stand-alone accounts of Henry Greene to this effect. Given that the HOP biography of Henry is 5 times the length of our article and it doesn't mention Catherine Parr at all, it is out of WP:PROPORTION for us to do so. Agricolae (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

"There are 1000s of Wikipedia biographies of people descended from this man", that's your guess. Don't you think there is a big difference between being a distant collateral descendant and being a daughter of one of the two co-heiresses of the senior line?Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't so much matter what we think, as what reliable sources say. We do select information from reliable sources (we don't publish "everything"; we summarise), and in that selection we do need to make judgements. But we make that judgement based on the reliable sources we are consulting, rather than an exchange of personal opinion among fellow Wikipedians. Yes, we consult with fellow Wikipedians, but based on a discussion of the sources. So, if there are several sources which mention the relationship between Green and Parr, or at least one source devotes special attention to it, that would be worth bringing up as an argument for including mention of the relationship. A useful argument for inclusion of the mention of the relationship would be one that provided evidence of notability of that relationship based on reliable sources. And even then, it would likely just be a mention. Turning the article into a genealogical trail from one to the other would not be what we tend to do on Wikipedia. That much trivial detail would be for specialist books on the subject, not for a general encyclopaedia. If that was what you planned to do with this article, then it may be you're going to waste your time. But, step by step. First thing is to cite the sources that mention the relationship. Let us look at those and let you know if what you are planning is likely to work or not. SilkTork (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

What SilkTort said. Though not particularly relevant for those reasons, since you asked with a 'don't you think' manner that seemed to assume your opinion was self-evident, the answer is: No, I don't think a coheiress' daughter multiple generations removed is noteworthy - it is not like Catherine herself was a coheiress, though unless they were his own daughters I wouldn't think the eventual coheiresses of the family would themselves be noteworthy either. (Queen of England Eleanor of Castile was daughter of one of the coheiresses of the Dammartins, yet in the article Alberic II, Count of Dammartin we do not mention her, nor do we on the admittedly rudimentary page for his son Alberic III. Only when on the page for the last male, Simon, do we mention that one of his coheiresses, Joan, was mother of Eleanor.) That the Greenes ended in coheiresses is not particularly noteworthy for understanding Henry - this was the eventual fate of most 14th century families and had nothing to do with him personally. That one of those coheiresses had a notable daughter is just happenstance, not something that is historically noteworthy in Henry's article, unless sources about Henry - not about Catherine - decide this relationship is worth mentioning in his biography. Also be aware that while notability (being worthy of a stand-alone page) does not change over time - once notable, always notable - the same does not apply to noteworthiness/proportion (whether a particular factoid is worth mentioning on a page). Biographical sensibilities change over time, and Wikipedia reflects the weight given by modern historical scholars. The fact that HOP makes no mention carries more weight than if a 19th century antiquarian periodical or self-published book mentions it. Agricolae (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, SilkTork, I certainly had no intention of turning the article into a genealogical trail, I know you don't like that. I just wanted to mention it as briefly as possible. I was wondering whether in view of the virulent opposition of Agricolae it was worth me pursuing your suggestion of submitting a draft, but in view of your somewhat more supportive comment I will do so anyway. May as well do it here, it's pretty simple: "Green founded the family of Green of Greens Norton which died out in the male line six generations later leaving two co-heiresses, one of whom, Matilda Green, was the mother of Queen Katherine Parr". That's about as pithy as I can make it. All in my source. It could also include a link to the existing article Sir Thomas Green, Matilda's father, but that might be pushing my luck too far. Ideally I would also like to add the text "several notable monuments to his descendants survive in Greens Norton Church". The mediaeval monuments are indeed notable, mentioned and illustrated in my source, and drawn by a notable 17th c. person (the genealogist Henry Mordaunt, 2nd Earl of Peterborough (1621–1697)), one comprising life-size stone effigies of his son and daughter-in-law on a chest tomb and the other a monumental brass of Matilda's grandfather, all mentioned in my source. The article on Greens Norton village already states "There are monuments and a brass to members of the Greene family", you may consider one mention on wikipedia is sufficient. So in summary I propose the text of the following 46 words, please strike out anything you don't like:

"Green founded the family of Green of Greens Norton which died out in the male line six generations later leaving two co-heiresses, one of whom, Matilda Green, was the mother of Queen Katherine Parr". Several notable monuments to his descendants survive in Greens Norton Church"

Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Please tell me you accidentally gave the wrong citation, that this is not your understanding of WP:V. The cited pages never mention Henry Greene, Katherine Parr, the Greene family, its foundation, the number of generations, coheiresses, that the monuments are notable (it is cataloguing all monuments) or related to the family that held Green's Norton. Nothing you want to say is supported by the reference, let alone that its presence represents proportional weight in a biography of Henry. Agricolae (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The citation to Pevsner relates to "Several notable monuments to his descendants survive in Greens Norton Church". The source for the Green family is Lora Sarah Nichols La Mance, as stated above. Let's try to remain calm Wikipedia:Civility.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I’m not seeing that the 1904 work by la mance is anything more than a genealogical work. Did she do their works on genealogy that are considered reliable now? Ealdgyth (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

This type of work, more reflective of 19th century ancestor-collecting than historical scholarship, is not considered reliable. It lacks citation, was produced by a subsidy publisher, and was compiled by someone who thinks that everybody with her (common) surname must be related. She does list 'Authorities consulted' at the beginning, and many of them are themselves unreliable or could at best have provided superficial coverage. Agricolae (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Lobsterthermidor, after I said this type of source carried little weight in the face of the coverage given in a modern biography like in HOP, don't try to make it my fault that you decided to use its information anyhow but just not cite it for your proposed text. Also note that genealogies are a poor representation of what is noteworthy. By analogy, I was once looking through a geological society publication that reported the decease of a man who in his 20s had done some amateur work on local Scottish borderlands geology, while the obituary never mentioned something that would have been known to all the readers, that he later served as Prime Minister of the UK. When evaluating noteworthiness, one has to discount the weight given by publications of niche interests: the whole purpose of genealogies is to show lineages, but that does not mean lineage is noteworthy from the perspective of the biographies we are writing. So, the source is old (not written with modern sensibilities), it is special-interest (giving disproportionate emphasis on lineage), and it is unreliable (self-published, no citations, a magpie collection of 'authorities' covering the full range of quality from seemingly scholarly to something only described as 'R.I. genealogies'). I take it you have no modern, biographical, reliable source? Agricolae (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

"Source reliability falls on a spectrum: highly reliable sources, clearly unreliable sources, and many in the middle. Editors must use their judgment to draw the line between usable and unreliable sources" (image and caption from Wikipedia:Reliable sources

Agricolae, We cannot wait for a "knight in shining white armour" to appear from over the horizon brandishing the perfect source, published by Oxford University Press and peer-reviewed yesterday by the top 10 academics in the field. Wikipedia does not demand only ideal sources. Where is the evidence to support your assertion that this worthy lady "thinks that everybody with her (common) surname must be related"? She is clearly an amateur, but that does not disqualify her as a reliable source. She is an authority on the Green family - in the spectrum probably somewhere in middle I would suggest, maybe even upper middle. A long way from the bottom, and a long way away from being "unreliable" as defined by wikipedia. She has subjected the work on the Green family by "Robert Halstead" (Henry Mordaunt, 2nd Earl of Peterborough (d.1697), the base material on the Green family, to useful criticism and correction. She has moved the topic forwards to a great degree. To Ealdgyth I would respond, yes, it's a work on genealogy, so surely ideal to consult in support of a simple paragraph of text relating to genealogy. I don't see the issue. That seems like a good match for sourcing purposes. Lora La Mance has written one further work, which I have not consulted, The House of Waltman and its Allied Families (1928). This discussion has possibly been deflected from the main question, namely the suggestion of adding the paragraph given above.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I don’t find the work at all a good source. It doesn’t cite its own sources. It repeats information from Halstead such as the Greene family at one point was the largest landowner in England, which is utterly unlikely to be true. It discourses on various kings and queens with uncited details of their personalities...there is no critical engagement with any of its so called sources when it does mention any in passing. It claims that the ancestor of the first Alexander Greene was a Norman knight who came over with William the conqueror ... also laughable, as the confirmed named such individuals are well traced, so unless it’s a maternal descent, it’s vanishingl unlikely. It, in short, is a typical amateur genealogical work from the 19th century or earlier and has no sign at all that we would consider it reliable. No reputable professional genealogist would consider it a reliable source either, at least not for anything relating to medieval genealogy. And we would still have the issue that even if it was a modern work by a critically acclaimed and rigorous genealogist, it’s still not a good guide to what we, as a general encyclopedia should cover. Ealdgyth (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

All this, plus the entire opening predicate is wrong: we don't lack a 'knight in shining white armour' source - the HOP article on Henry Greene is modern, scholarly, and under editorial control - it is a high-quality WP:RS. That its compiler opts not to include the - what is it? - 7-generations descent should be viewed as instructive about modern historical sensibilities, rather than being taken as an implicit invitation to progressively lessen reliability standards until we find a source that will rationalize inclusion of the desired information. Indeed, the suggestion that the lack of a good source leaves us no choice but to fall back on a bad one is the tail wagging the dog. Our text should arise as a summary of the reliable sources, rather than editors first deciding what they want to say and then looking for sources (however far standards must be lowered to find one) to justify their personal preferences. Agricolae (talk) 07:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

"Our text should arise as a summary of the reliable sources, rather than editors first deciding what they want to say and then looking for sources." I think this is excellent guidance. I shall copy this to my user page. I know I am as guilty as other editors in sometimes doing the latter (largely out of laziness), and it's good to have a prompt to remind me not to do that. SilkTork (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

That's a great sentence which should certainly be inserted into the most suitable guideline or essay, but it does not appear to relate to this discussion. I had no pre-meditated idea I wished to propose or validate and came to the article with no prior agenda. I'm just quoting this source as asserting that Henry Green of Greens Norton was 6 generations removed from the father of Matilda Green of Greens Norton, the mother of Queen Katherine Parr. We know they were of the same family, lords of the same manor, it's a reasonable assertion from an author who has studied the family in some detail. Henry died in 1369, Matilda's father died in 1506, both as adults, a gap of 137 years, divided by 6 = 23 years, which equates roughly to one generation. Therefore "6 generations" is entirely as would be expected. In other words the assertion is in no way unreasonable. That's "using a source with caution". I'm not using the source to claim the Green family was the biggest landowner in England, clearly incorrect as Ealdgyth identifies. I'm using the source as credible information for a simple fact about the descent of the Green family, the core expertise of the source. But clearly the consensus is against my view, so I'm not going to continue arguing the point. Thanks to all for your input. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Unless you have another use for it, I'll have to delete User:Lobsterthermidor/Henry Green (English judge) per WP:UP#COPIES. SilkTork (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Natalis soli invicto!

		Natalis soli invicto!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Manor of Cobham, Kent

Now all the important info on the manor and house appear in articles on the families. No attempt seems to have been made to keep info relating to house and estate on this page, whilst moving what you call "genealogical" info elsewhere. It seems very careless. Do you hate aristocracy and country houses? Some people are interested in these subjects, and in the details. You may well disapprove. I have no interest in beer or the Beatles, let alone in all the minutiae about Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds which you seem to find so fascinating. I'm happy to live and let live. Why does it matter so much to you? We should perhaps not let our own personal prejudices get in the way of expanding Wikipedia. Anyone interested in Cobham has been let down by wikipedia, but anyone wanting to know about the Beatles and obscure breweries will be in endless clover. Have a great 2021, Comrade.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Part of the reason for your dislocate here is that you don't yet quite understand how to organise material. It would have been good to have continued our talk, but you made that difficult by wandering off topic, arguing about minor points, and not responding at all for long periods. And I could see it was very difficult to get you focused on the main issues, let alone to agree that your approach was problematic, and then to look at remedies. I don't think you are a bad person, and I still think you could be an asset to Wikipedia, but you have a belligerence about you, and an unwillingness to accept you are wrong that makes me think that you will continue to be an irritant, and may again be problematic. Your focus on the noble families of England is a legitimate interest, but we already have accepted ways of dealing with families, as in Spencer family, and titles, as in Duke of Marlborough (title), and country houses, as in Blenheim Palace. The manor is the land on which the country house sits, where noble families may live, and which may be associated with various titles. But there may be other notable features in the manor, such as communities, a village or more, a church or two, a castle possibly, rivers, bridges, etc. Reducing a manor to being just about the descent of the various noble families who were granted that piece of land is not helpful to an understanding of the manor and its relevance to the history, geography and communities of the surrounding area. It's like looking at a building, such as Brixton Academy, and instead of dealing with the building and its various notable uses over the years, we went to that article and found a list of the people and companies who owned that building along with their children and distant relatives. Essentially in an article about a manor we deal with the manor; in an article about a building we deal with a building; in an article about a family we deal with the family. Everything in its neat little place so people know how to find the information they want, and are not WP:Surprised when they arrive at an article about a house (say Tottenham House), to find a lot of material irrelevant to the topic, impenetrable in its detail, and profoundly boring to the average reader. The day you realise you were wrong to insert that material into that article and then set about willingly to undue to harm you have done will be the day you become a true asset to Wikipedia, and I'll give you a barnstar and my personal thanks. SilkTork (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

If you want to continue our previous productive discussion about the way forward dealing with the descent element of manors, I would be delighted to continue. Communities, a village or more, a church or two, a castle possibly, rivers, bridges, etc., are all different topics. Articles on the village already exist, as do articles on the river and castle, and bridge too if anyone is so inclined. The topic of descent of manors is entirely different. That's what we have been discussing, you are an intelligent person, please don't pretend that after all this time you have not grasped the issue. Your careless, brutal and possibly angry edit displayed contempt for the issue of descent, you invented a new title of "Baron of Cobham" which makes Wikipedia into a laughing stock, and you omitted to mention the Brooke family altogether. You are misusing your power as an admin, it's not a free pass to win every editorial dispute. Please come back to the discussion table, stop treating my objections as "diversions and irrelevancies" and let's get this issue fixed.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for inserting genealogical (or "manorial") history by revert despite warning on 21 November 2020, as you did at Manor of Cobham, Kent. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  SilkTork (talk) 12:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I did not insert anything, I merely reverted your careless, brutal and possibly angry edit, done unilaterally whilst the two of us were still discussing the way forward on the treatment of the well-defined and much published topic of descent of manors. You should not have unilaterally made such a major edit before we had resolved the matter on talk pages.

You seem to admit above that you find the topic of manorial descents "profoundly boring" and "of no interest to the average reader". Your specialist topics of Beer and The Beatles appear much safer territory in that regard, let's just dumb-down the whole project! I think you're in danger of confusing your two roles of admin and editor, bringing in your own political / social prejudices and misusing your admin powers. It's not surprising that someone who on his talk page dismisses the magnificent baroque library at Melk Abbey as a "dusty old archive" also tosses out from the article "Manor of Cobham" the text "Charles Stewart, 3rd Duke of Richmond, 6th Duke of Lennox, re-built the central block at Cobham Hall, between 1662 and 1672, to the design of the architect Peter Mills. His "Gilt Hall" of 1672 (with marble wall decorations added in the 18th c. by James Wyatt) was considered by King George IV to be the finest room in England". No mention of it now whatsoever! The Brooke family too, gone! Don't care, boring, elitist bs, get me another beer. I note you have left in your fictitious new creation "Baron of Cobham", you really don't care, because you appear to have contempt for this area of knowledge and study. Such a shame, Wikipedia was designed to broaden minds and to foster the reality that different people have different interests, and that all are valid. But you've got the tools of an admin, so I guess you're going to bully your way in this dispute.

Wikipedia:Editing policy states "Be cautious about making a major change to an article. Prevent edit warring by discussing such edits first on the article's talk page. One editor's idea of an improvement may be another editor's idea of a desecration. If you choose to be bold, try to justify your change in detail on the article talk page, so as to avoid an edit war. Before making a major change, consider first creating a new draft on a subpage of your own user page and then link to it on the article's talk page so as to facilitate a new discussion". You failed to do that - and while we were in the middle of such a major unresolved on-going discussion, and you chose instead unilaterally to make a major change and a bold edit, falling back on your admin powers to prevent any response. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

As for your (absurd) comparison between the ownership of Brixton Academy and the ownership of the Manor of Cobham, there are some fairly obvious differences. One has thousands of words written about it - about the topic of descent - including Esmé Cecil Wingfield-Stratford, The Lords of Cobham Hall, London, 1959 (written by a Fellow of King's College, Cambridge). If there are such published sources on the ownership of Brixton Academy, I would support an appropriate article. I wouldn't find it boring, you possibly might. So despite the fact that there's a book written on the descent of Cobham Hall, you have dismissed the topic as "boring" and beyond the scope of Wikipedia, and blocked me for writing about "genealogy", despite the fact that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (often misquoted as "Wikipedia:NOTGENEALOGY") states : "Genealogical entries. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic". Manor of Cobham = notable topic and family histories not only appropriate but essential to support the reader's understanding.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

You are the one who is missing the point. The origin of the French Stewart family, before they ever were granted Cobham manor, is completely irrelevant to the descent of Cobham manor. The number of children that a particular holder of Cobham manor had is not relevant to the descent of Cobham manor. The fact that Hatch Beauchamp was the seat of the feudal barony of Hatch Beauchamp is not relevant to the descent of Cobham manor. All of this irrelevance was among the material deleted from the article in question, and that you then restored. That is the problem - you don't just trace the descent of the manor, you compose entire genealogical expositions on the families that held the manor, including their origins, marriages, heraldry, burial, and on and on and on (but often making no reference to their possession of the manor that is the subject of the article, such as with the Tottenham article where you covered 500 years of family history without mentioning the 'manor' once). You essentially use the manorial articles as sites to host extensive family histories, rather than using a little bit of relevant family history to explain the descent of the manor. Above you argue that a manorial article is different than an article about a town or a church, well it is also different than an article about a family, but while insisting on the other distinctions you repeatedly and entirely ignore this distinction. Not only does this bloat manorial articles with needless irrelevancy, it also ends up with you using original research and poor-quality sources just so you can supply a full account, and that is problematic on its own. Medieval genealogy is particularly prone to revision, error and outright fraud, such that Wikipedia should avoid it unless it is absolutely necessary, and limit it to only what is necessary, rather than the opposite approach of forcing as much as one can into articles where it need not be. Agricolae (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

February 2021: blocked for racism

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continuing to behave in a racist manner despite warnings, as you did at Antisemitism: [12] Given your long standing disruptive edits, coupled with the continued racism, this block is indefinite.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  SilkTork (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Category:Private battles in the British Isles has been nominated for merging

Category:Private battles in the British Isles has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. NLeeuw (talk) 09:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Kenton, Devon has been nominated for merging

Category:Kenton, Devon has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. AusLondonder (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)