A rather belated welcome - and some useful links edit
|
If I can do anything to help, then please do ask. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I want to make some fundamental changes to the article Colonel Anthony Hungerford . It will move it from relying on primary sources, to secondary ones. However it will not mean loosing much information. I have a couple of questions on some information you have included in the article that is not in the DNB or the ODNB so I will leave it a day or so to give you a chance to respond to this message. Please leave a message on my talk page when you read this message. -- PBS (talk) 07:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- OK I've waited, but I guess that you do not check in here very often. If you had enabled your email I would have emailed you notification. -- PBS (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Colonel Anthony Hungerford edit
Reply to changes on Wikipedia article from coningbmw
I feel that there was nothing wrong with the original comprehensive article on my ancestor Colonel Anthony Hungerford, and I feel that any serious enquirers had enough information provided to further their researches. Adding information is one thing, improving the layout? Yes by all means, but my original page was removed! The page is not added to, it is completely changed!
I have no problem with inquiries about my sources, or challenges to facts. However the quoting of speculation by William Hardy [Dictionary of National Biography] and Stephen Wright [Oxford Dictionary of Biography] to replace my sourced information is a bit rich! One might just as well say read the DNB or ODB!
It may interest you to know that I wrote to Stephen Wright via ODB, when the new update was in the planning stage- with all of my information. I also submitted my information to Dr. Peter Sherlock of the Hungerford Society, who confirmed my information.
With regard to the editor’s three specific criticisms about not understanding the three specific sources quoted, I feel that any ‘educated but non specialist reader’ could Google search my reference should they need clarification.
Surely this is preferably than to replacing my source reference with another reference to the OBDN or DNB which a Wikipedia reader, wanting to follow up the source, would have to go to the trouble of obtaining a copy of this work. They would then only find the very same source reference that I had used originally, and which had been replaced!
The editor asks about abbreviated source references-
- C.S.P. Dom. Chas. l, 18 March 1646/7 -- What does C. S. P. mean and who published it? [Calendar of State Papers Domestic King Charles I ]
- Dictionary Nat. Biog. -- There is no, volume number, page number, or article name.[Surely a Wikipedia reader interested in Colonel Anthony Hungerford, and seeing the ‘basic’ reference Dictionary of Nat. Biog-would look for an article in that publication on Anthony Hungerford? If the information on my original page had come from this same publication, but under another person’s biography-Then I would have stated this]
- Egmont MSS. 1 1573 - 1661 Page 445 -- What does "Egmont MSS" stand for and who published it? [Once again a simple search on Google would have clarified this source for any Wikipedia reader. However I must point out that this was one of the last source references which I added to this page. While I was aware of the fact that Colonel Hungerford had been ‘shot in the head’, I obtained the further information about his being ‘shot in the mouth’ from the Wikipedia entry for the Battle of Dungan’s Hill-where the reference used is - Egmont MSS. 1 1573 - 1661 Page 445. The full reference being Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons . Historical Manuscripts Commission. Report on the manuscripts of the Earl of Egmont. Vol. I. Part II [electronic resource]. Cambridge [eng.] : Proquest LLC, 2007.(REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS) - Transcribed from: Historical Manuscripts Commission. Report on the manuscripts of the Earl of Egmont. Vol. I. Part II. 1905 [Cd. 2570]
The editor has also removed the information about Colonel Hungerford’s family! Why? Is this not of interest to Wikipedia readers? Coningbmw (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- In reply to the posting on my talk page:
- It is not just I who can edit the article, anyone can including you.
- The article before I altered it said much of what it now say but as disjointed sentences almost in a list form, and I think that the DNB style is more encyclopaedic (it reads less like a series of notes). But this is just a personal opinion. The thing is that there is no reason why we can not combine additional information from the old article into the article as it is at the moment, providing that the sources are broadly acceptable and do not breach WP:OR.
- I suggest that we discuss changes to the article on the talk page, and that we address each potential change in turn. The first one I have mentioned is the question of the children. Lets discuss that further at talk:Anthony Hungerford (roundhead), and when we have reached agreement on that one then perhaps you would like to suggest a change you would like to make. -- PBS (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
PBS edit
It seems that PBS has a thing with wiping people's stuff. He just did it with me on the Walter Hungerford page claiming that I have no real sources. I used online sources for my information as I use the Tudor Place a lot, then I searched google books which has full copies of books online... but he called my source a snippet. Apparently this is just the way he is. Also, this was over Sir Walter and Anne Dormer's children as well. Have you noticed though that he has many complaints and warnings on his page? He just does this. Lady Meg (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)