Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hchc2009 (talk | contribs) at 11:12, 6 July 2013 (→Proposed expansion: Note). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Devon Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Devon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Devon on Misplaced Pages. 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Original research

Like a number of similar articles that I've checked recently, I've had to flag up some apparent original research here. "It appears that...", "He appears to have been..." and "was possibly..." are OK to use only if that's what the source says, but in two of these cases there is no clear source cited, and in the third it's not at all clear that it accurately reflects the source.  —SMALLJIM  17:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Great catch and tag! Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I left those {{OR}} tags for User:Lobsterthermidor as another follow-up to the message I posted on his/her talk page a few days ago. But no matter, if they're resolved by removal, they're still resolved!  —SMALLJIM  22:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Uncited information

I'm unable to find citations for:

• The estate was sold after her death in 1912 to Mr Bayly.
• Mr Bayly was a famous polo player. He and his wife modernised the house and installed an electricity generation plant. He died of meningitis soon after moving in, and his widow sold off parts of the estate piecemeal to the occupying tenants, retaining only the lodges and home farm.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't know at present - perhaps User:Lobsterthermidor can help with these. —SMALLJIM  22:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The text is sourced from exactly where I said: the (short) article by Rosemary Lauder. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC))

If you look at this version (before I started major edits), you'll see that there were no citations provided. Would you please provide page numbers / citation info for each of the 3 sentences? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The information was found in the Lauder book and added back to the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Fleming

I found one source for this information at http://www.wearegiffard.info/history/story-of-weare-giffard/WG-Building-Buildings-of-Interest.pdf It's a site about Weare Giffard village, but it's not clear if it's a municipal site or someone's personal site.

• Miss Lilias Fleming (1855–1941) was the purchaser of Annery, where she lived with her adopted daughter Crystal Frazer. The house quickly became dilapidated after her death.

Any opinions about whether this is a reliable site? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that although not independent it's reliable enough for this material - WP:SELFSOURCE probably applies. This page on the website says the pdfs are a direct conversion from the printed book The Story of Weare Giffard which was written by the community. That book is mentioned as further reading for the Weare Giffard entry in my favourite overview book on Devon parishes:

• Harris, Helen (2004). A Handbook of Devon Parishes. Tiverton: Halsgrove. ISBN 1-84114-314-6.

which I cite all the time.  —SMALLJIM  22:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Lovely! Thanks so much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Edits

Moved from User talk:CaroleHenson to keep in the relevant place:

• I'm not happy with your edits to this article. An estate is not "a house" as you imply in your new intro. What do you mean by "The Annery"? I despair. You've done some superficial research and waded right in! All the ISBN's are great, but your text is embarassingly awful and naive. Please tell me where Annery was mentioned in the Domesday Book. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC))

Response:

• My mistake, I corrected a typo for a sentence that started out "The Annery"
• As cited, the information regarding the Domesday information came from here, on page 19.
• See page 4 of the same link for "Annery House"
• I am sorry that you feel that the text is awful and naive. The point was the focus on the subject of the article, which is the Annery estate. As I have seen posted on your website, it appears that there seems to be a disconnect about Misplaced Pages guidelines - particularly about including geneological and biological information that is not directly related to the subject of the article. The comments have been made by several people - and if it helps, I'm happy to point them out.

What do you think can be done with the current article, in accordance with WP guidelines, to make it better?--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

1. Carole, I'm sorry but I'm going to be direct. This article was intended to be about the estate of Annery, not specifically the house.
2. I'm not sure you are aware of that (you mention there being a "post-mediaeval hedge", which suggests a misunderstanding, as on the several 100 acre estate there would have been many dozen hedges, mediaeval and post, not noteworthy and somewhat absurd). This is a key feature of English local and parochial history, and articles on descents of estates or manors are valid for WP.
3. I have just had a long discussion about the matter on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements, under the last section "manorial histories". Please read it and see if it suggests some of your removals of text were heavy-handed.
4. As I said before, there are problems with many of your edits, for example you have discarded as a source Lauder, who is probably the leading expert on this subject, and is herself a source for the one you substituted. You removed my source to the North Devon Journal and replaced it by a more general source. Curious. Why? You removed one of my page numbers to Lauder. Why? Examples of some of your inexplicable edits. You are still at it with "updating sources": you replaced my "Debrett 1968 p.365" with "Debrett 1836 p.365". Please stop doing this. The 1836 edition is totally different. I quote from editions I have actually used. You have likewise casually rejected John Prince (biographer) as a source. Why?
5. You have removed all my carefully sourced blazons from the captions of coat of arms, why?
6. You have replaced some of these good sources with text copied word for word from an architect's report. Annery is not mentioned in the Domesday Book, but you have blindly copied this text from the architect's report.
7. You have removed some of my text as un-notable but have then added that "19th & 20th century pottery has been found on the site".
8. Is that really worth mentioning? You have introduced some ridiculous wording into the article such as "The esquires X & Y did...", "it was described as a messuage..." which make the article seem as if written by someone without any basic understanding of the topic area.
9. I don't think in my 3 years on WP I've ever seen such a bad, inconsistent, hypocritical, long-winded and careless edit. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC))

Cough. I shall assume we edit-conflicted - .  —SMALLJIM  23:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

1. I agree.
2. It's wasn't about a "hedge" it was about a "hedgebank". It was just a descriptive feature of the property. There would generally have been stables, too, right? I don't have any problem removing that. Done
3. I took a glance at the material, and based on the return comments to your comments, I don't see anything I disagree with.
4. I didn't intentionally remove any sources. If the source information was lacking entirely, I searched until I came up with citations. (I think you sometimes think text is cited when it isn't.) If there were incomplete citations and I wasn't able to find a source, I also looked for a source. If we can get complete source information and where it applies, I'm happy to go update the article.  Done
5. See WP:Captions. I don't remember, though, how long the citation text was in this case. I'm sure that there's a way that we can resolve this.  Done, in this case the captions weren't overly long.
6. See above. Regarding Domesday, I'll check on the Open Domesday site, which I see that you reference as well. Once thing I've noticed, though, is that there is a spelling discrepancy at times about the place names attributed to Domesday. And, it was not likely called Annery or Upannery at that time - so we'd have to backtrack to the historical info provided. Done, information removed, comment below.
7. Agreed. I'll take it out. Done
8. Edit suggestions would be helpful! I totally agree that you're an expert on the subject.
9. I'm not quite sure what your objective is when your language is attacking in nature. It's much more of a reflection on you than it is on me - and I'm not quite sure how you think that's going to make me more likely to cooperate. I choose not to respond to anything else from you that is attacking in nature. We can reach out for third-party resolution if needed.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I have had a brain injury - and my words get jumbled some times.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding 6. I checked the Domesday site by checking people's names and came up with nothing, but this book Report & Transactions... mentions a Wrdieta in the Domesday book, index number 231 - but not in the "Testa de Nevill". There's also something in here. Still no direct tie, though. I don't have a problem removing that information since there's nothing to back it up.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding item #4, citations:

• I've added back the Prince citation.
• You don't need to say "Obituary, North Devon Journal 30 June 1853, quoted in Scrutton, p.87" I had the Scrutton, p. 87. citation. If you want a note added that the information came from the obituary, that's fine, but it's not really needed.
• I've added back the one Lauder citation.
• I have added the Debrett citation for 1968, but also kept the one I used to verify the information. Somehow I had put the wrong page # in that citation.

As to why this happens: This happens because after seeing a pattern when editing articles you've worked on, I do the searches first to find the information in published sources, and then verify that there are sources for all the content. This is completely opposite of the way I consistently work. If citations were consistently applied to only the information that came from the source, I wouldn't need to do that. It's been a case of wanting to verify the information with my own eyes. Unable to see what you had seen, I didn't always know how much of the text your citation applied to.

One tool someone shared with me makes formatting citations a breeze, you might like it: http://reftag.appspot.com/ You just need to copy in the url from google books and it makes a complete, properly formatted citation. I hope that things will go much smoother from here.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Revert to clean start

Carole, here's what I'd like to do: There have been some serious problems with your edits on a number of fronts. I feel these were done too hastily, without properly researching the subject or the article type. I'd like you to start again at your 2nd edit, in a considered fashion, discussing your proposed changes here first. Your first edit was simply to delete Category:Monkleigh, to which the proper collaborative action should simply have been to create the category, but let's leave that now and start from Smalljim 17:38 24 June 2013, just before your second edit. Some of your additions were good, i.e. Annery in fiction, but some were not, and many of your deletions and removals need to be discussed here, should you still wish to effect them. Thanks. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC))

This new version has very little new content. Here's a summary of the changes:

1. Completed incomplete citations
2. Added citations to uncited material
3. Removed geneaological and biographical information that was not in keeping the the subject of the article. See WP:Detail, WP:Original research, WP:UNDUE
4. There's much less new content than you think:

• A deerpark may have been in place as early as 1422, but is known to have been in existence about 1540. During the reign of Richard II (1377-1399), there was a fishery on River Torridge and a dovecote.
• neo-Classical building
• Thomasin Stapledon married "Sir Richard Hankford."
• Prust: "Their father was Joseph Prust."
• Arscott: "John's daughter and sole heiress married a man from London named Johnson."
• St Leger daughter :Eudlia or Ulalia on 7 October 1583. She was the widow of Edmund Tremayne of Callacome." Note: "Arscott's wife was also recorded to have been Elizabeth."
• Tardrew: "By 1822 the house had been rebuilt."
• Before 1800, a long gallery used to contain alcoves for beds. There were 30 alcoves on each side of the gallery, which provided some privacy to the occupants.
• Maria Somes (1816–1911), "a philanthropist," remained at Annery at least until 1879. At that time Annery was owned by J.P. Ley and John Saltren Willet and Mrs. Somes. When it was advertised for sale in 1912, it was described as having woodlands, shady walks, glass-houses, and 19th century kitchen garden walls.
• Annerey is said to be the location of a duel scene between Don Guzman and Will Carey in Charles Kingsley's novel, Westward Ho!. It also reportedly mentions the estate's deerpark and a banquet given by Sir James St. Leger in Annery's great hall.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If you question the addition of any of this new material, I am happy to remove it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Citation information

Most of the work was the addition and expansion of citation information.

A great deal of the article was uncited material. See:

Too much detail

The rest of the changes are deletions of biographical / geneaological information that are side discussions of this article, WP:Detail - and do not have citations.--16:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

===Hankford===
Do you have a source for: secondly, "either to Anne Montacute, daughter of John Montacute, Earl of Salisbury?"

===Boteler=== 
- changed name to Butler, based upon surname of the article on Thomas Butler, 7th Earl of Ormond  
- Tudorplace is an unreliable source, did not use that info.
- If you have the source information for "Bruce, p. 11" (re: Butler's land holdings), I'm happy to add that.

===St Ledger===

===Arscott===

===Prust===
I could not find any connection between High Prust and Annery
Do you have citations for info about Henry, Joseph, John?
Info I found says Joseph and John's father was Joseph

===Tardrew===

===Somes===

===Bayly===
Per an earlier talk page post, I could not find this info

===Fleming===
other info wasn't added because I couldnt' find a source for it

Don't replace cited content with uncited content

Uncited content should not replace cited content. I've seen this lots of times, if you want links, I'll find them.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If you have citation information for any of the information that directly related to the Annery, I'm happy to put it in. I didn't find it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I started a conversation at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#Advise please: Annery, Monkleigh.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments on the revert

I agree with CaroleHenson's (CH) revert back to her version, and had I been around yesterday I would have done the same myself. As she has since eloquently but tactfully pointed out, Lobsterthermidor's (Lt) version contained much information that was uncited; the citations that were provided were of a very cursory nature (I still don't know what "Bruce, p. 11" refers to); and there was a lot of extraneous information included (yes this is the most debatable point, but the consensus at WT:UKCITIES#Manorial histories – although not strictly relevant as Annery is not a village – was clearly in favour of the principles set out in WP:DETAIL and WP:Summary style). In addition, there was an amount of original research present, some of which I flagged in this edit (under Prust and Tardrew) and mentioned above, but the full extent of which is still, I think, undetermined.

Furthermore, CH explained all her original edits in edit summaries, and then she responded in full to the (9) points in Lt's follow-up post (which ended with a most incivil comment). She admitted to making some mistakes, and changed several items back to Lt's version. Yet despite this, Lt's next action was to revert the whole lot back to what is substantially his (I'll assume "he", unless contradicted) own version. The reasons given are vague, not persuasive and peremptory ("serious problems with your edits on a number of fronts", "done too hastily, without properly researching the subject", "I'd like you to start again ... in a considered fashion"): this smacks of trying to enforce ownership. On top of Lt's previous two messages to CH (, ), this sudden revert and its accompanying commentary is another incivil act, when CH's work has clearly all been performed with the greatest good faith. Sure, there are a number of issues that still need ironing out – there's some lack of clarity, for instance, and I do think that CH's removal of "extraneous detail" has gone a bit too far – but her version is clearly a superior foundation on which to continue building the article.

I'm going to post a further message on Lt's talk page about his behaviour.  —SMALLJIM  10:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and I'm happy to put back some of the information if we can get citations for it. It seems counter-productive to put information back that is uncited. If you can point out some of the kind of information to return (i.e., more background about the people that inherited the property, summary info about siblings of the people that owned Annery, etc.), though, I'm happy to search for citations.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

And, I am happy to help clarify information where needed (to the best of my ability), LT's input would likely be much more helpful.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You've been working at a severe disadvantage, not having a copy of Lauder's Vanished Houses of North Devon which contains a lot more info about the house. I've sent you a copy of the text on the 8 relevant pages (OK under fair use).  —SMALLJIM  12:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Saved me having to add it ;-)  —SMALLJIM  15:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Edits based upon Lauder book

The Lauder book was incredibly helpful and I made the resulting (total) edits. I could add more descriptive information about outbuildings, manor amenities, enhancements over the years, and similar information if you think it would help the article. Perhaps, putting that information in notes.

Anyone think that would be a good idea? Or, does that step into too much WP:Detail?--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

One could argue that it depends on what the article is actually about: if it's about the physical structure of the place, then it couldn't be too much detail (unless there was an inordinate amount of referenced information about one outdoor toilet, for instance!). But if it's really about the people who owned the estate, (as Lt originally intended) then it may be. See Talk:Orleigh Court where a similar issue arose last year.

In this case, I think a balance between the two aspects would be appropriate and since there is still more "Descent" info than "Structure" info, and the addition of more of the latter wouldn't make the article too long, I'd go ahead and add it.  —SMALLJIM  15:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson You've mixed up your Lauder refs somewhere today. Devon Families is now wrongly cited everywhere, and Vanished Houses has, well, vanished!  —SMALLJIM  18:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll fix it. There were two Lauder books, and I gave them both ref name=Lauder.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Fixed Lauder, Devon Families to this version for the Somes info. All the rest of the Lauder citations point to the Vanished Houses citations, including the bit about 1958, which is explained better in the Vanished Houses book. So glad you caught that!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed expansion

This article was intended by its creator to be mainly on the estate not the house, as I attempted to make clear in the intro. Thus manorial history type text is relevant here. I have read all the comments above and it seems the main problem perceived is one of sources. I will therefore re-introduce piece-meal the text removed to talk, with a reasonable level of sources provided in accordance with WP:CITE, which does not require an editor to make an in-line citation for every single fact and statement, but only for those in the editor's experience (see further below) with a chance of over 50% of being challenged. By all means then add cn tags to the restored text and make any specific challenges you wish, in accordance with WP policy (which is not, by the way to remove bona fide text to talk, as was done here, unless sourcing doubts exist in biogs. of living persons). In my 3 years experience and almost 15,000 edits I have encountered very few challenges to my text, well over 95% of which challenges have originated from just one user. Please note that monumental inscriptions in churches specifically qualify as valid sources under Misplaced Pages:Verifiability: "Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". (Footnote attached:) "This includes material such as documents in publicly-accessible archives, inscriptions on monuments, gravestones, etc., that are available for anyone to see" (end of footnote). This last point is relevant to the work I will be doing in restoring much of the text deleted to the articles Abbots Bickington and Monkleigh, but split to new articles on the manors, per the guideline at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements. As a FYI I have proposed a Wikiproject "Manorial histories" to help create a way forward for this type of article, and have invited participation of anyone interested in taking it forward. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC))

My cautionary note on using inscriptions, Lobster, is that, although they are published, they often aren't reliable secondary sources (with some exceptions) - it depends on who produced the inscription, and whether that person is a reliable secondary source, with "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Hchc2009 (talk) 11:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Vivian, 1895, p.731M
2. Risdon, p.276
3. Risdon, p.422
4. Obituary, North Devon Journal 30 June 1853, quoted in Scrutton, p.87
5. Scrutton, p.22
6. "Tardrew ships for coal" are mentioned in a poem composed in honour of the 21st birthday of Hon Mark Rolle, quoted in Scrutton, p.81
7. Scrutton, p.19
8. Scrutton, Susan, Lord Rolle's Canal, Great Torrington, 2006, p.87
9. Scrutton, p.22
10. Scrutton, pp.69-71
11. Lauder, p.23

• Start-Class Devon articles
• Low-importance Devon articles
• WikiProject Devon articles