Talk:Anthony Hungerford of Black Bourton

BRD

@user:Winkelvi you make a bold edit. Some of all of it is reverted. We then discuss your proposed changes and reach a consensus for change. It is not make a bold edit and then revert when someone reverts all or par of your change -- see WP:BRD

So please explain why you think your changes are an improvement to the article. -- PBS (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

It was all in my edit summary. The content I removed is variously trivia, does not help the reader better understand the article subject, and is non-MOS. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

PBS, I thought you were making a good faith effort at discussing (that's what your comments above indicated). Now that you've done this [1], I can see you are just interested in edit warring and having the article reflect your preferred content and style (content and style which is against MOS, unfortunately). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit clash) BRD: You make a bold change it is reverted we then disuses the changes and come to a consensus for those changes.

Lets start with some less contentious parts.

1. Which parts of your edit do you think was removing non-MOS?
2. The date of birth of his father is important because there are lots of Anthony Hungerfords so a DOB helps to sort out which is which.
3. The facts about his time at university is a direct copy from a reliable source but dated source. Do you have a newer source that states he is the "Anthony Hungerford of Wiltshire, who matriculated from St. John's College"?

-- PBS (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll just take this point by point as it's easier:

• (died 1589) after the article subject's father's name is trivia and doesn't help the reader better understand the article subject. It's unnecessary and should not be there.
• seems to be the Anthony Hungerford of Wiltshire This is an encyclopedia. We don't add things that might be or are speculated to be or probably is or "[seem] to be". Content is supposed to be written as absolutes with references to support. If they aren't absolutes, we specify that ("scholars believe...blah blah blah").
• but he is probably the Anthony Hungerford 'Armiger' who was created M.A. on 9 July 1594. See above.
• * Sir Edward (1596–1648) a roundhead,... etc and the rest of the list: Write it in prose, not a list with details about people that are not directly related to helping the reader better understand the article subject. Everything else is trivia and undue weight, making it non-MOS.

There you go.

-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

1)The date of his father's death allows someone who is interested in this man to find out more about his family and their relationship with other Hungerfords. As Anthony Hungerford is a common family name his date helps to identify him in exactly the same way as naming the father of a woman helps to identify her.

2) The speculation about his university action is an accurate reflection of the source. What I will do for you is check in the more modern ODNB and see what it says. The point about the MA is the same.

3) I presume that you have not been involved much in historical English biographies. It is really quite common to include details of children and grandchildren if they do not have their own biographical articles, and what you find trivial is not necessarily so.

You have repeatedly stated that something is against the MOS please explain what it is that you think in this article is contrary to the Wilikpedia Manual of Style

-- PBS (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

1) The date of his father's death is trivia, undue weight, and does not give the reader a better understanding of the article subject.

2) The speculation may be accurate, but as written, it is not encyclopedic in nature or in prose. It needs to be changed the reflect an encyclopedic tone.

3) It doesn't matter if I've been involved in historical English biographies. I have been involved in editing encyclopedic Wikipedia articles. It may be common in such biographies outside Wikipedia, it's against MOS to add undue weight and trivia not related to the article subject.

-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The ODNB which tends to have less biographical details than the DNB includes the date of his Father thus "the second son of Anthony Hungerford (d. 1589) of Down Ampney, Gloucestershire ...". So including the DOD of his father is by no means "trivial". The ODNB (which is subject to copyright) says of his education:

Extended content

Hungerford matriculated at St John's College, Oxford, on 12 April 1583, but left university without taking a degree. Wood suggests that this setback was forced upon him by his father's impoverishment, though Hungerford's own memoirs record that the family had recovered its fortunes by this time (Wood, 2.410). The explanation may have been at least partly religious: his father, though a puritan, had married into a Catholic family, and by 1584 Hungerford, encouraged by his mother, a convicted recusant, had been admitted to the Roman church. None the less, he was created MA on 9 July 1584.

The ODNB full citation is:

• Lancaster, Henry (May 2009) [2004]. "Hungerford, Sir Anthony (bap. 1567, d. 1627)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/14170. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)

-- PBS (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is not in the WP:MOS guideline it is in the policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. UNDUE says "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." So UNDUE has nothing to say on whether the date of the father's death in included in an article. -- PBS (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)