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.

Architecture: Historic houses

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Historic houses task force.

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]

Always there when needed!(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I guess you folks had realised that I was going to restore the text following "Always there when needed's" latest intervention, but I jumped the gun a bit as my computer clock said 13:14 whilst after I had restored the edit summary said 12:14, so as I don't want to contravene the 3RR 24 hour rule, I immediately self reverted. My edit box comment was something like please address talk comment "may I suggest that you reinstate the "descent" content for now, and if you remain unconvinced of its validity, raise an RfC?" by Smalljim 19:04, 9 May 2016".(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Hchc2009: regarding your bullets, I don't think any further discussion is needed for the quotes: your opinion just adds to the already clear consensus that they should not be included. About the descent – as I said above, this issue doesn't just affect this article; there must be dozens of them in which Lobsterthermidor has included descents like this. So based on your second bullet, there are three questions, IMO:

(1) should such descents be included in Wikipedia at all? After a bit of digging I found that Lobsterthermidor set out his rationale for them back in 2013 at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Manorial histories. If they should be included, then:

(2) in what format should the descents be presented and how far towards trivia should the detail spread?, and

(3) should this one be in this article, or in a spin-off? (like was done at Orleigh Court / Manor of Orleigh, and others)

These are reasonable questions that need to be answered either by discussion leading to a consensus, or no consensus (or no discussion) – in which case the default will continue (i.e. the descents stay and Lobsterthermidor can add whatever he wants to them).  —SMALLJIM  12:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask me, there is a place for manorial history on WP. They are included in many secondary works, including the most recent and scholarly editions of the Victoria County History (VCH). BUT they should not be included in the way Lobster has been including them. Whether they exist in his format in one, ten or fifty articles is irrelevant. Lobster has repeatedly claimed that his format follows the practice of county historians, stemming from the 16th century; it also follows the layout of some VCH works, especially earlier ones. That is also irrelevant. Wikipedia is not designed to be a County History; it is an encyclopaedia and like all encyclopaedia's, it's job is to summarise. In the case of WP, we summarise reliable secondary material. The descent as it stood on this page and as it stands in many of his articles are not summaries. They are something close to genealogies. The information they include may well be factually accurate and even well-cited (that is another discussion into which I shall not venture now), but they do not relate closely to the manor. To be sure, a manor in the legal sense is property and so it makes sense to describe the passage of that property, which under English law either reverts to Crown for some reason, passes to descendants by heredity or bequest, or is purchased. These are things which can and should be summarised. However, much of the detail Lobster puts into these articles detracts from the descent and amounts to trivia.

So what do I propose? Well, this article is actually, I think, about a manor, so there is no scope for a spin-off here, although it is possible in articles about villages. Here, we must re-write and convert into prose the descent which Lobster has shown; I managed to do this with some help over at Holnicote Estate (cf. [1], focusing on the manorial descent). Most of the books he uses are available online, so it is possible for editors to build up the descent based on them if need be (I would advise fact-checking - some of these descents are complex). I imagine it the size can be reduced significantly without actually depriving the article of the descent of the manor itself; layout can also be simplified, making navigation far easier. Now, if the families mentioned are notable according to our guidelines, then Lobster can create an article for that family. There, he can go into detail about marriage, offspring, heraldry and biographical details which are, in and of themselves, irrelevant to the manorial descent shown in this article. That will still need to be in prose form, without the trivia. Each person need not have their own section, but it can be useful and removes the perceived need to have family histories detailed in articles about manors. That's my two cents anyway. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Noswall59 you are too self-effacing with your comment! I want to engage with it, so I have unhidden it above (you beat me to it yourself!, edit conflict). To address your points: You say "There is a place for manorial history on WP", good. You have stated that the VCH layout, the many works of County historians, etc., is not a valid precedent for WP. Why not? Until there's a settled WP policy on the matter is it not a good idea to follow a well-established way of doing it? You say WP's job is to summarise. To summarise a VCH manorial descent would produce a very meagre article indeed as VCH is already a bare-bones summary. Surely WP gives the scope for all kinds of fairly obscure topics to be dealt with in greater depth, provided sources are available? Manorial histories are indeed "something close to genealogies", as you state, so the articles are de-facto genealogies of notable county families. That's the whole point of them. Such articles are within the scope of WP are they not? You say "they do not relate closely to the manor", yet those families and their connection to the manor are the central point of the articles. In feudal times the importance of a family was determined largely by its feudal tenure, so the "seat" of that family was its powerbase. No seat no power! That's why seats and their occupants has so fascinated county historians over the centuries. That's why histories of estates are traditionally given in virtually every work on the subject family by family. You have classed some of my work as "trivia", yes, totally in the great world, but not within the very parochial world of that manor! It is thus essential for example to know whether a wife was an heiress, as it was mainly by the means of marrying such ladies that men became powerful, by increasing their land-base and feudal standing. You class such matters as trivia, yet the sources specifically mention them! You say "we must re-write and convert into prose", yet section headers and bullet points are provided by WP to be used. Such articles without a very well-regimented series of bullet points and sections would become genealogical spaghetti! Your final point "removes the perceived need to have family histories detailed in articles about manors". Without family histories an article on the topic of manorial histories cannot be written - it is the core topic. If you want to write articles about the funtioning of the manorial court, the court officials, etc, that's a different topic and in most cases no records survive.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

There is a policy on WP for how to write articles. To quote the very first point at Wikipedia:Five pillars, WP "combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not ... an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents". And further in WP:NOTEVERYTHING, "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". Even if you believe manors should be afforded some 'special exception', then that does not diminish the fact that there is no reason to base how to write an encyclopedia on the way antiquarians wrote history books in the 17th century. Wikipedia serves a different purpose to those works.

To address the point about genealogical information and 'trivia', I believe that manorial histories are not genealogies. They are histories. The descent should, of course, follow a direct male-line descent, although, as I have said, there are lots of ways to acquire property. All of that can and should be described. But there is no need to list all of a lord's children, or his wife/wives. What we need to know is (a) when and how did he acquire the land, (b) what did he do with it, and (c) when did he die/sell it and who took over it afterwards. We don't need to know the rest to know the manorial history. That is the difference between family history and manorial history. Now, I agree that the marriage of an individual has always been important in defining their social status. Where the wife was also an heiress, it brought new sources of wealth and status to the person in question and their descendants. That I agree with. But that information has nothing to do with The Grange or any other manor. The only justification for including that sort of information in this article is when it explains how the manor or estate was acquired by someone. Where it is relevant, as I say above, is in a separate article about the family itself, or about the individual who married the heiress, if he (or she, the heiress) is notable.

On an organisational point, just because WP gives us certain tools, we don't have to use them. MOS:EMBED is one such case. I believe I have addressed your points. Regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May I respond as follows. The text on the present article under discussion (and similar ones I have been involved with) is not an "indiscriminate collection of information", as you imply. The information all relates specifically to the manor and the family, so I don't follow your argument. If any points do not relate to the manor or family, then I would agree they should not be included. Perhaps you could give an example of "indiscriminate information" in this case? Most of the modern sources I have come across do indeed follow the pattern of "antiquarians (who) wrote history books in the 17th century", for example Lauder, Rosemary, Devon Families, Tiverton, 2002 and numerous others. In fact I don't think I've ever seen a modern work on the topic which does not use a family by family narrative. Perhaps because it's the best and most logical way of doing it? There is no revolutionary modern way of writing manorial histories, that I am aware of. You can of course propose a new way of doing it for WP, which perhaps you could set out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Manorial histories, which would be great. I would dispute your assertion that "manorial histories are not genealogies". Read Pole, Sir William (d.1635), Collections Towards a Description of the County of Devon, Sir John-William de la Pole (ed.), London, 1791 (which is one of my principal sources) or if you want a modern one, read Lauder. Almost pure genealogical info, and lots of what you call trivia, but what these authors felt were important pieces of info. Do we perhaps have a misunderstanding about article titles? My contributions are primarily about the descents of manors. Would you be happier if the article was re-named "Descent of The Grange, Broadhembury"? You state "there is no need to list all of a lord's children, or his wife/wives", I usually restrict myself only to listing such relatives where these provide links to other estates/manors or gentry families. The mediaeval gentry of Devon (with which topic I am most familiar, same for other counties too) is an amazing inter-connected network of relationships, and it is essential that the reader understands how one gentry family and estate relates to another. Thus a man's grandmother may be relevant to a future inheritance or marriage, and is thus mentioned. The fact that a brother form Norfolk visited his sister in Dunster Castle is relevant because during that visit he met and later married a great Somerset heiress and founded one of the most prominent English families, which included judges, MP's, baronets and Earls, all arisen from that chance meeting. Not trivia! Unfortunately on a cursory reading these details can seem irrelevant. Some WP articles need to be studied fairly carefully to follow the thread. You state "the only justification for including that sort of information in this article is when it explains how the manor or estate was acquired by someone". I disagree, as my contributions also concern the life lived by the family on the manor, which will include notable anecdotes, re-builds/demolitions of manor house, etc. You seem to want to restrict the article to a purely transactional narrative. You advocate "a separate article about the family itself, or about the individual who married the heiress, if he (or she, the heiress) is notable", but this would produce a series of dislocated articles on families who all occupied the same estate over time, many related to eachother. The logical way of doing it is to group such family histories together under the one common factor: the manor on which they all lived. That is a manorial history. The other problem with your suggestion is that a certain individual may be highly relevant to a manor, for example the proverbial black-sheep who inherits and gambles it away. He's not WP:Notable because he never did anything in his life except gamble away the family inheritance, which is highly significant to the history of the manor. And perhaps there was a card table made with the losing hand of cards depicted in marquetry? Which is still owned by his descendants? Trivia? I think not, fascinating, relevant detail. On your final point "just because WP gives us certain tools, we don't have to use them", they are there to be used, not to be proscribed, as you appear to advocate for this sort of article.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Holnicote Estate (mentioned in Noswall59's first post) is an important point. Only once Lobsterthermidor's descent was radically re-worked did the article gain Good Article status. Like it or not, that status reflects current consensus on what our articles should look like.  —SMALLJIM  16:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have a problem, folks. Myself and the last above contributor have a problem, which was resolved on 9 November 2013 by Admin Kim Dent-Brown who closed the very lengthy and bitter dispute with the following words: "The consensus appears to be that you should both go away, act your age, leave one another alone and get on with editing". I am not prepared to disregard that much valued and very wise advice. The person concerned here after a self imposed WP:IBAN of almost three years has now popped up again on 23 April 2016 and has daily recommenced bombarding me with messages and notifications on a variety of topics seeking to renew interaction with me. I will be following Kim's advice and will not be entering into any dispute with this editor on any level. Including on this talk page.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

That's a shame. For anyone interested, I had this brief conversation with Kim Dent-Brown shortly afterwards.  —SMALLJIM  20:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I take issue with your response for several reasons. Firstly, you say that "The information all relates specifically to the manor and the family", but again, the manor and the family are distinct for reasons I have already outlined. You say that "Most of the modern sources I have come across do indeed follow the pattern of "antiquarians (who) wrote history books in the 17th century"". Again, History books and encyclopedias are different things with different purposes. Our article on William the Conquerer is not written in the way that antiquarians would write about him, nor is it written as a history book. It is a written as a summary of his life in an encyclopedia based on history books and other sources. It is not there to replicate those sources, nor the way that they present information. To return to my point: the way an antiquarian, modern or otherwise, writes about manorial histories has no bearing on the way that an encyclopedia should write about it. You say that "There is no revolutionary modern way of writing manorial histories". That is irrelevant. We are not writing manorial histories, we are summarising them. You say that "I usually restrict myself only to listing such relatives where these provide links to other estates/manors or gentry families". The interconnectedness between families is fascinating, but that is not the subject of this or similar article. It is relevant to the family, and an article for a family would allow you to show this information and it would be very appropriate there. Unless that information explained a change in ownership of this manor, it is irrelevant here. Further, you contend that "The fact that a brother form Norfolk visited his sister in Dunster Castle is relevant because during that visit he met and later married a great Somerset heiress and founded one of the most prominent English families, which included judges, MP's, baronets and Earls, all arisen from that chance meeting. Not trivia!" You're right, that's important information, but it has nothing to do with the manor, it has everything to do with the family. Once again, the two are separate. By linking to separate articles about families in articles about manors you can ensure that the manorial descent is clear, succinct and in summary form, without the clutter. Connexions between families relevant to the manor itself are retained, and those not relevant to the manor are to be found in the family articles. And, as for the gambler, someone gambling away his fortune is relevant to the manorial descent if it forced him to sell the manor; it fulfils (c) of my criteria for inclusion (above). Under those conditions, it is relevant to the article, and so I am not sure what point you are trying to prove with this example. Lastly, I am not suggesting that you write solely about the descent. If evidence about buildings etc. exists, then summarise it appropriately. If it relates to a building which has its own article, it is best to cover it in detail there, and perhaps mention only key changes in the article on the manor itself.

This reply is too long already. I do not want to get bogged down into further discussion on this. If you cannot see my reasoning, then we fundamentally disagree in two ways. You believe family history = manorial history, whereas I do not. You believe that articles should follow the style of county history books, whereas I find that inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If, as I suspect, we disagree on these points, then I have said enough and there is little point in continuing this discussion, —Noswall59 (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Reference the questions above, posed by SmallJim:

(1) should such descents be included in Wikipedia at all?

• I think my views on genealogical descent histories are very similar to Noswall59's: as he proposed, the reader needs to know "(a) when and how did he acquire the land, (b) what did he do with it, and (c) when did he die/sell it and who took over it afterwards." This is the focus of modern works on National Trust properties, English Heritage buildings, local histories etc. The focus needs to be on the subject of the article itself.

If they should be included, then: (2) in what format should the descents be presented and how far towards trivia should the detail spread?

• Trivia is perhaps a loaded word (we shouldn't be including trivia at all!) but in general the article should follow WP guidelines, being expressed in prose, with proper sentences etc.; the attention to detail, and the sorts of detail chosen for the article, should reflect the focus of modern, secondary reliable sources and encyclopaedias on the given subject. I accept that Victorian writers wrote about county histories in a different fashion, but we should be following modern conventions. In this case, I might start, for example, by looking at English Heritage's summary of the Grange (available on-line).

(3) should this one be in this article, or in a spin-off?

• The genealogical details might belong in articles about the families concerned (if notable if their own right), but I can't easily see a spin off here. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hchc2009. (1) & (2) If there's consensus for your and Noswall59's opinions regarding the descents, would you expect a programme of rewriting the existing ones (a lot of work!), or would it be OK to leave that to any future upgrading in article status (GA etc). Also, would it be reasonable to ask Lobsterthermidor to stop writing them in the style that he been using? Re: trivia – I only used the word following your use of it :)

Regarding (3), it seems to me that we should have an article focused on the house – its grade I listing ensures its notability: indeed it needs an article. This would necessarily include relevant details of its notable owners and those who did something to the building. The full descent could then go in a spin-off article, maybe named Descent of The Grange, Broadhembury, or if it's not so excessive as to unbalance the rest of the article, could remain here.  —SMALLJIM  20:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Hchc2009 here. Thank you for articulating this so clearly. —Noswall59 (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

May I suggest we restore the status quo text pending resolution of this discussion, for these three reasons:

• Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary states: "Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo (except in cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved)", which suggests that in a fully developed dispute (I think we qualify here) WP does have a bias to the status quo.
• Smalljim's suggestion "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" has not been engaged with, one way or another.
• Other editors won't know what we're all discussing.

Thanks.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

After the above discussions, there's clearly no consensus to restore the original content under "Descent" (as in this version). Lobsterthermidor wants his work reinstated, following the principles he has suggested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Manorial histories#Layout: sections. But Justlettersandnumbers wanted it all removed, though he hasn't commented since. Jolly Janner was only concerned about the quotes. Hchc2009 and Noswall59, who are experienced in writing Good Articles, have given persuasive policy-based reasons for rewriting it in a text format under a heading of "History", following the Holnicote Estate model.

I haven't expressed an opinion yet, and I'm not wholly convinced that a purely text format (à la Holnicote) is the best possible way of expressing this type of information that naturally falls into small discrete blocks. I'd probably prefer something like a bulleted list at the end of the article, with footnotes for any incidental information – though I haven't experimented to see whether or not this would work in practice. Overall, I'm happy to go with the GA-approved style (if I can call it that), and unless anyone else wanted to volunteer I would have a go at rewriting it.

It could be argued that more input would be desirable, since this decision will affect a number of articles, both already written and new ones to come. An RFC would be needed for this, since we're not likely to get any further unsolicited input in this historical backwater. We can reasonably assume that Lobsterthermidor would be the one who would most want to do this, so I think doing that is best left to him.  —SMALLJIM  14:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree from the discussion above that there's no consensus to revert to the March version - (I'd also add to your list User:Arjayay, who also removed the challenged material this month, citing WP:COATRACK). I'm relaxed about whether an RFC is necessary; this issue could simply be resolved on a case-by-case basis I think. That said, happy to take part in such a RFC if that is felt the best way forward. Given Lobster's preference not to engage with you directly (see above, 17:02, 10 May 2016), if you did propose an RFC, you might wish to find an admin to help chair the conversation or act as a mediator. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting that additional revert, I hope Arjayay comments. Lobsterthermidor has tracked down a bracketed comment in an essay to support reverting again (section below); I won't comment on its applicability. Since this is more important than anything else he's doing here at the moment, I think it's reasonable to allow him one day to get the RFC going before we start rewriting the article. I'm sure he'll note the need for "a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue" in the RFC: if it's not worded carefully, it won't draw anyone in and we'd be left with the current consensus (even stronger now due to Just's comment below). Regarding our relationship, I think he's putting himself at a disadvantage by making that choice, but we'll see how it plays out: I certainly won't do more than voice my opinions in this RFC.  —SMALLJIM  11:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, regarding resolution on a "case-by-case" basis: there may be quite a lot of cases. I recently used AWB to correct the title of Vivian, the 1895 book of Devon pedigrees that's one of Lobsterthermidor's main reference sources. He obviously pastes the book details from an offline source, and the title was wrong. (It also needs correcting here now that the content is restored: it's "Visitations".) His use of that source in an article is an indicator that it will contain similar content to this one. There are about 400! – see 8 May edits by Smallerjim. Some will be minor uses and the ones used in bios would probably not be covered by the decision here, but (following your reply 17:12, 10 May 2016 to bullet (2)) all would in theory warrant being looked at for layout and relevance of content.  —SMALLJIM  18:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NB: I don't deny that there are a large number of problematic articles involved here... Hchc2009 (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's good :) Hchc2009, I see you reverted Lobsterthermidor again. Now that the RFC has been started I wonder if leaving his version visible might make it easier for newcomers to the discussion to immediately see the matter at issue. After all, it's not the sort of content that we can't have in the article for a while (there are plenty of other live examples!). Or do you think the matter of principle overrules that? I know well how persistent he can be!  —SMALLJIM  19:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On policy ground, I'd prefer it to remain at the last stable version (which was around for 6 weeks or so before the current edit-warring began). Hchc2009 (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In response to a ping from Smalljim: I came here to deal with the copyright problem – the disproportionately large quotations; that's largely fixed, though there's still one small quotation that has no relevance or justification for being here (I'd copy-edited that section to resolve that, but those changes became casualties of war; Hchc2009, would you care to restore them?). I've only minimal interest in the rest of it. I've a couple of comments, though:

• The edit-warring by Lobsterthermidor is totally unacceptable and of course totally unproductive – repeatedly restoring content removed by three different editors is really, really unlikely to be seen as a persuasive argument for keeping that content
• A Wikipedia article needs to deal with the WP:topic in hand; we have a neat system (little blue links) to take readers to connected topics if that's where they want to go. A page on a historic house should be about that house. If the Drewe family is notable, an article on it could be created (Drewe family might be a good title for that page); if a specific member of the family is notable, that too could become a separate page. Our pages do not contain screeds of irrelevant content to give "context". The collecting practices of William Randolph Hearst should be covered in that article, not here, for example. And so on.
• A book written in the seventeenth century is not reliable for our purposes; our articles are based on modern sources. If what Pole wrote then is still relevant or considered correct, modern scholars will have discussed it.

Most of this has already been said by other editors above. I've asked for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture/Historic houses task force. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matter now taken to Wikipedia:Requests for comment, as suggested, see new section below. This article is not about "a historic house", you've missed the whole point! Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture/Historic houses task force is not relevant. Your suggestion that "A book written in the seventeenth century is not reliable for our purposes" is somewhat sweeping and absurd. Pole is the principal source for the history of Devon estates! He spent much of his life visiting his friends' houses and looking through their ancient deeds and forming deductions therefrom. These deeds have now mostly been lost in the intervening centuries, so all that's left is Pole's huge and extremely scholarly work. A few of the estates he discusses were owned by himself or his son-in-laws or other relations! It's a shame to dismiss the work of such a great and well-regarded man in the way you have! Now if you had said Thomas Westcote instead of Pole, you might have a point, he's known to be unreliable, which is why I never go near him as a source!(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers, I get it now – you were responding to Jolly Janner's copyvio report – thanks for that! Regarding your second bullet, Lobsterthermidor says you have missed the point, but I'd say it's an important point: "The Grange, Broadhembury", (or following the building's listing details, now called Grange, Broadhembury) is the obvious title for an article on the house, so apart from the other considerations we're discussing here, we either need to add the details of the grade I listed building to this article, or move the descent of the estate to another logical title (to be determined). The reliability of the old sources that he's fond of citing is a whole other can of worms!  —SMALLJIM  18:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restored to pre-dispute text. "Consensus to revert to the March version" not relevant as under WP:ROWN this is a case of a fully developed dispute which is attempting to be resolved. I will indeed be requesting an RfC, and thus there will be some further mileage to go before this dispute is resolved. Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary states: "Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo (except in cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved)", which suggests that in a fully developed dispute (I think we qualify here) WP does have a bias to the status quo.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 06:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

By the way not "Lobster's preference" not to engage with editor concerned, merely Lobster following wise advice from Kim Dent-Brown! which will continue to be my policy.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

To what extent is an article concerning the subject of the complete descent of ownership of an English manor or historical estate permissible on WP?(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Should the use of section headers and bullet points be permitted or is a purely narrative style required? This is an area I have spent much of my 6 year career on WP writing about - and possibly pioneering, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Manorial histories. Some editors have now mounted a quasi-existential challenge to one such article, above (stubified), created by me, which after a lengthy discussion on the talk page I now bring to RfC as suggested there. I request your comments please. The relevant versions are [[2]] (pre-dispute text restored for discussion) and [[3]] ("stubified" text). (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Proposal In agreeing that a the biography of every generation of Drewe to have lived there is overly detailed in the context of an article about an estate; yet also recogising that it would be an odd article about an estate if it never mentioned its residents; may I suggest that a small paragraph is inserted here, and the family themselves have an article about them: Draft:The Drewe family of Broadhembury...? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]