Talk:George Sidney Herbert

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that as executor to the estate of Sir Sir Sidney Herbert, one of Sir George Sidney Herbert's tasks was to ensure a locked tin box was "destroyed unopened by cremating"? Source: The Daily Mail 1939: "A request that a locked tin deed box and its contents should be 'destroyed unopened by cremating' was made in the will of Sir Sidney Herbert."; The Western Gazette 1939: "The executorys are his cousin, Colonel the Hon. Sir George Sidney Herbert, Bart., and Lord Bicester".

• Reviewed: 2003 Carolina Dodge Dealers 400

Created by Usernameunique (talk). Self-nominated at 07:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC).

• Hi Usernameunique , review follows: article created 12 April; article exceeds minimum length; article is well written and cited inline throughout to reliable sources; no overly close paraphrasing from the newspaper snippets I checked; hook is interesting, mentioned in article and backed up by the sources cited; a QPQ has been carried out. If you are interested in expanding on his military career you can find it in these pages of the London Gazette (he joined the Volunteer Force in 1905) - Dumelow (talk) 06:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Please provide another QPQ, as you were ineligible to do that review and someone else had to finish it. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yoninah, sure: Template:Did you know nominations/Frédéric Boniface --Usernameunique (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you. Restoring tick per Dumelow's review. Yoninah (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Daily Mail

David Gerard, I reverted your removal of the Daily Mail as a source. The Daily Mail article in question was from 1939; as stated by WP:DAILYMAIL, which you linked to in your edit history, "[s]ome editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context". This recalls a similar edit by you some months ago, which also removed a 1939 source and which was also reverted for the same reason.

The desire to remove the Daily Mail as a source is certainly understandable. At the same time, it would help to treat older Daily Mail articles more generously than newer ones. And it would be even more helpful to look for non-Daily Mail sources which could replace Daily Mail sources, rather than entirely removing all Daily Mail-sourced material. After all, the Daily Mail's demonstrated issues with reliability do not mean that what the Daily Mail reports on is not worth including in Wikipedia; they just mean that better sources are needed. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I am tempted to chorus 'Hear, hear!' The Daily Mail is older than most present day tabloids - the sins of the Rupert Murdoch era should not be visited upon older editions which are of more historical value.Cloptonson (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)