Talk:Annery, Monkleigh

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)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 - [1].  —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. Erledigt
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.  Erledigt
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.  Erledigt, 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. Erledigt, information removed, comment below.
7. Agreed. I'll take it out. Erledigt
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))