Devon Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Devon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Devon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DevonWikipedia:WikiProject DevonTemplate:WikiProject DevonDevon Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://ica.princeton.edu/digitalbooks/digitalworldofarthistory2013/2.C.Larkin.pdf#page=2&zoom=auto,-14,793. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Jolly Ω Janner 00:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revert 00:00, 4 March 2016‎ Jolly Janner: the text quoted is fully referenced, with full credit to author. This is not a copyright issue, but a mere quotation, perfectly proper.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited.". This is of course subjective, but I've been involved in establishing where the line is drawn in these matters with other articles. This is the single most text I have ever seen quoted, so I don't think there's a slither of hope of claiming fair-use rationale. I am amazed that you are not aware of this, based upon how much content you have written for Wikipedia. It's worrying to say the least. Jolly Ω Janner 00:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The quotation has been used to "establish context" concerning Hearst's collecting habit. It could not be stated better than in Larkin's own words, hence the inclusion. Has been indented, placed in quotation marks, fully credited to Larkin (admittedly before the quote rather than after it, which can easily be altered). In my opinion it's just a paragraph, which is a not unreasonable length. The effect of this is not to damage the author or publisher in any way, rather to draw attention to her great work. Academics like to be quoted! WP is not going to be sued on this one, as no damage is done to anyone, let's take a common sense approach.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC))(further, see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2016 March 5)[reply]

I don't agree. There's absolutely no reason why the material could not be expressed in different words. But it's anyway of little or no relevance to this article; the collecting practices of William Randolph Hearst should be covered in that article, not here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much of this article consists of potted biographies of apparently non-notable people called Drewe. I can't see what relevance these have to the topic; why do we care if the wife of one of them "descended in a junior line from the Walronds of Sea"? I suggest removing all content that does relate to the Grange itself. At the moment this reads more like someone's personal family history than an encyclopaedia article about a notable house. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I take it this is the first time you've come across one of Lobster's articles? Jolly Ω Janner 12:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about a manorial descent, which is a well established subject written about for centuries by some of the greatest county historians. Sir William Pole's work concerns little else, Tristram Risdon's ditto, the fathers of Devon history. You may not "care if the wife of one of them "descended in a junior line from the Walronds of Sea", perhaps you are not interested in the topic. The Walronds of Sea were a very important Westcountry family. Please try to be more broadminded, WP has many nooks and crannies! (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: Firstly, I agree with you and the others who have commented here that both the quotes are inappropriate and need to be removed – the first (Swete) is far too long and rambling, and the second (Larkin) is substantially irrelevant and also violates WP:NFC. However, this article is just one of a series of similar articles that User:Lobsterthermidor has been creating over a number of years now (see for example Upcott, Cheriton Fitzpaine, Manor of Molland, and Heanton Satchville, Petrockstowe). While there have been concerns about his research and referencing, there is tacit acceptance that these descents of properties are acceptable content in the appropriate articles – at least you are the first one that I'm aware of who has deleted the content on the grounds of "not a family history site". I'm sure Lobsterthermidor can explain the value of these descents better than I can. Since the issue affects more than this one article, may I suggest that you reinstate the "descent" content for now, and if you remain unconvinced of its validity, raise an RfC? Thanks,  —SMALLJIM  19:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted back to the pre-edit war version of this article in March, pending discussion on this page. In terms of the points mentioned above:

• Our policies don't encourage long (590 words in one of these cases) verbatim quotes in our articles - this is a certainly a problem.
• Describing the ownership of an estate or a building over time, in my opinion, isn't the same as producing a list of biographical stub sentences on particular owners, each in their own section, often with little explanation of how the information on each of them - which I think often ventures into trivia - relates to the subject of the article. It's not a style used by modern historians or in modern encyclopedias that I've read. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]