Talk:Acting Witan of Mercia

9 May Edits

In my opinion, the 9 May "JzG" edit has considerably weakened the article, leaving it as a stub. There is now only one section, called "The Mercian Constitutional Convention", whereas the article is entitled "Acting Witan of Mercia", so the former is anomalous. The remaining section begins by saying that the Mercia Movement was the catalyst of the MCC, but, as all the previous background has been edited out, the MM appears out of the blue, so we've no idea what it was/is and why it was instrumental in setting up the MCC. Also, as a result of the material removed by the edit, we no longer really know how the AWM came about and why it exists. Therefore, I think it's imperative that the edit should be undone and the article revert to how it was after the previous edit, ready for further constructive improvement.

Also, I think that the "Bobrayner" edit of the same date has done the article a disservice in removing the (concisely-stated) philosophy of the Constitution of Mercia/AWM because, without it, we no longer know what the AWM stands for. So, reluctantly, I believe this edit should be undone too.

Obviously, I could just undo the edits myself and see what the outcome is, but that would be being discourteous and instead I wish to discuss the situation here, with a view to trying to reach a consensus to go forward on the article.

Snoobysoo (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It appears that WP:SYNTH was an issue; current issue is WP:OVERCITE. - Location (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Is the point you're making connected to my comments above or is it a separate one? I'm not clear. Snoobysoo (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Both. The article contained issues related to WP:SYNTH and the edits that you object to removed those issues. The article in its current state still has problems related to excessive citation that need to be addressed. - Location (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, it seems to me that the WP:SYNTH issues have been resolved at the expense of the value of the article, which is now in a pretty weak state, in my opinion. Wouldn't it be better to restore the article as it was after the previous edit (to address the issues I raised above) and then for the Synth aspects to be edited and improved (by me and anyone else who wishes to be involved)?

Regarding your second point, I'd be happy to remove as many as you wish of whichever citations are deemed to be the less important ones, or you or someone else can if you wish. I don't mind, so please let me know.

Thanks.

Snoobysoo (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

1) Compliance with policies regarding original research, such as WP:SYNTH, is not optional. If needed, your best bet is to make the case for small amounts of material before moving on to the next bit of material.

2) Yes. Use only the sources you need and have them be the most reliable. Ten (10) citations for one sentence is almost certainly more than needed, particularly when they appear to be news reports covering the same event. - Location (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, will do. Snoobysoo (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

"Make the case" means present an explanation on the talk page why you feel specific material should go back into the article. - Location (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Having considered your previous comments, I decided to leave be the essence of the previous deletions, most especially the one deleting the sections on the the Norman Yoke, the Movement for Middle England and the Mercia Movement. Therefore I thought the discussion on here was at an end and made what I felt were essential and non-controversial additions to the existing article to resolve its current inadequacies. Anyway, the cases for the material I'd added are:

1. Regarding the subheadings restructuring, the existing article is called Acting Witan of Mercia, but the only subheading is The Mercian Constitutional Convention, which is incongruous and is the subheading under which the AWM is specifically presented!

2. The 'Norman Conquest' and 'Norman Yoke' additions are essential, otherwise we've no idea why the AWM was formed and exists.

3. Without the Mercia Movement addition, that organisation just appears out of the blue in the article and there's no explanation of what it was/is.

4. The philosophy addition is essential, otherwise we've no idea what the AWM stands for except that it wants an independent Mercia. The equivalent would be an article on the (UK) Conservative Party saying that is supports the continuation of the UK, with no other comment on what its core philosophy is.

5. The aims of the AWM addition is so that the aims of the AWM can be known, otherwise we don't know what its specific objectives are.

6. The Further reading additions are because the added books are as essential as sources as any of those listed prior to The Mercia Manifesto.

Thanks and I look forward to receiving your feedback in due course. Snoobysoo (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Over two weeks have passed since I posted the above explanations as to why I believe my edits should be accepted in the article and there has been no response. So it seems that there's no objection to that and that the discussion of the merits is at an end. Is it now possible for the edits to be made?Snoobysoo (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• There is no such agreement or consensus to add any further details - these are entirely unnecessary and out of all proportion to the importance accorded this subject by independent reliable sources. In addition, due to your conflict of interest, you should not be editing this article directly --_nonsense ferret 12:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

1. I opened the discussion about the article in the first place because two edits had left it very weak, which it remains, as per my various comments above. All I'd like to see is a good, readable article, which makes sense.

2. I was asked by Location to make the case why specific material should go into the article. I did so above in good faith, but in over two weeks there has been no response to it from anyone.

3. Your post has contradicted what Location asked me to do.

4. You say that the additions I've suggested 'are entirely unnecessary', but have given no reasons (neither overall nor in each case) why that is so. If they're not acceptable, could you please let me know why, in each case, my suggestions would make the article worse rather than better?

5. Can you please explain your point about why my suggested additions are 'out of all proportion to the importance accorded this subject by independent reliable sources'? The article has more reliable independent sources than many, and probably most, Wikipedia articles have, so I don't understand the problem.

6. As all I wish is to see that the article is a good one, which makes sense when read, I don't particularly mind who improves it. If that's not me, that's okay, although at the moment no-one else seems to want to improve it. But, out of interest, can you please let me know what the conflict of interest issue is?Snoobysoo (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

As User:nonsenseferret has pointed out, the previous version of the article had many issues regarding sourcing. For example, the material you wish to restore regarding the Norman Conquest and Norman Yoke cites Christopher Hill, which does not even mention AWM, and the AWM website, a primary source. Where are the secondary sources tying these things to the AWM? WP:SYNTH is one of the relevant guideline here. Points 2 through 6 have similar issues. The problems with WP:OVERCITE still have not been addressed. - Location (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Responses

1. I disagree that the article is weak in the way you suggest. The subject is only briefly covered in independent sources. To base a large detailed article here on self-published primary sources would therefore be inappropriate - as an encyclopedia we should weight the importance of things by mainstream coverage. Indeed the article as it stands curiously fails to mention any criticism of the claim by mainstream historians so this isn't exactly balanced.

2. A sensible case can only be made by reference to coverage in independent reliable sources.

3. I see no contradiction.

4. The length and detail of coverage here should be proportionate with the depth of coverage in independent reliable sources.

5. The reliable sources you mention are largely brief mentions in the local newspaper rather than any serious in-depth independent scholarly appraisal of the claims.

6. The conflict of interest issue concerns your direct relationship to the subject of the article, for more guidance see Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide

We are not here to create a hostile atmosphere, the goal is that wikipedia should be balanced and reliable and not accord an importance and attention to a subject much greater than mainstream sources. --_nonsense ferret 15:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Location, I'm not really wishing to restore material. I'm hoping to help tidy up the article, which is currently stated as not being up to the desired Wikipedia standard. My 12 May edit removed the Christopher Hill reference and addressed the over-citation problem by removing all the non-independent references, as well as some of the independent ones. When my edit was deleted shortly afterwards, all the reference changes were lost. Can my 12 May references edits therefore be reinstated, if you think they're appropriate?Snoobysoo (talk) 10:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Nonsenseferret, I agree with most of what you say. I agree that the article shouldn't be out of proportion to the mainstream sources available for it. I think that we might have been having a misunderstanding of intentions. I have no desire to try to reinstate the history-packed original article or chunks of it, but I do wish to help tidy up the existing article, which is stated to be well short of the sought standard. I'm actually suggesting a few small alterations to that end. Could I put them one by one on this Talk page, with the reasons for the proposed changes, for your opinion on them?Snoobysoo (talk) 11:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no objection to adding suggestions here. --_nonsense ferret 12:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I think one by one on the talk page is a good way to proceed. - Location (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions for article improvement

My suggestions for the improvement of the article are below, one by one. Although they are individual suggestions, I think it would be best for them to be read together because my aim is to give the article consistency, as well as improve it in specific places. A number of my suggestions consist of proposed additions, but they are small in size and are not suggested in order to increase the length of the article, which I agree with you is of approximately the right length and doesn't need to be substantially expanded:

1. The current structure is nonsensical because there is just one sentence under the "Acting Witan of Mercia" heading and the rest of the article (including all the specific information on the AWM) is under the subheading of "The Mercian Constitutional Convention", which was a forerunner of the AWM and only important in that it shows how the AWM came about. So I suggest that the "Mercian Constitutional Convention" subheading should be deleted and its two further subheadings ("Convention" and "Independence") should be replaced by the new subheadings of "Origins" and "Formation and Campaigns" to make the structure more relevant.Snoobysoo (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The beginning of the article is the lede; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. I have made the changes to the titles as you have suggested. - Location (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

2. The phrase ',as a result of the Norman Conquest and the perceived Norman Yoke.' should be added in the introduction after 'ancient English region of Mercia' because it explains why the AWM believes that the UK is in illegal control of Mercia. Otherwise we've no idea why they think that. This is commonplace in their publications and occurs not irregularly as an explanation in the independent sources. 'The Acting Witan claims' would then become the start of a new sentence.Snoobysoo (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you have reliable secondary sources for this? The previous version of this article cited sources that did not even mention the AWM because they predated the organization. - Location (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

3. The current article states that the MCC 'decided to accept The Mercia Movement's draft constitution as the basis for its deliberations.' The problem here is that we've no idea what the Mercia Movement was or is. It just appears out of nowhere and needs to be put in context. So I suggest that after 'decided to accept', the phrase 'The Mercia Movement's draft constitution' should be replaced by 'the "Draft Constitution For Mercia", produced by the campaign group, The Mercia Movement (formed in 1993),'.Snoobysoo (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

4. The present article nowhere states what kind of society the Constitution of Mercia projects. This is rather like having no idea what the Conservative Party stands for other than an independent UK and is a glaring omission. So I suggest that after the phrase 'wish to be included in the region', a new brief sentence is added, explaining this: 'The constitution offered 'a new holistic society' in Mercia, 'based on organic democracy, co-operative community and ecological balance.' This quotation is from the back cover blurb of the constitution, but has also been printed in independent sources as to what soceity the AWM wishes to see.Snoobysoo (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

5. The phrase 'After the "declaration of Mercian independence", the Mercian "Constitutional Convention"' is unnecessarily wordy and repetitive, with the out-of-the-blue inverted commas hindering the clarity of what is being said. Therefore, I suggest the phrase is simplified to 'After the declaration, the convention'.Snoobysoo (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

6. The present article nowhere states what the aims of the AWM are, which is a glaring omission. So I suggest that after the phrase 'renamed itself the "Acting Witan of Mercia", the following is added: ',which aimed 'to spearhead the full democratisation of the region and the re-establishment of its de facto independence'.' This quotation is from the back cover blurb of the constitution and has been referred to in independent sources as objectives of the AWM.Snoobysoo (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

7. In the May 2009 comment about the numbers of people who'd registered as ' "citizens" of Mercia ', the inverted commas are superfluous unless they're consistently used throughout the article every time a word is used in a non-Establishment context, which would make the article unreadable. So I suggest deleting the inverted commas.Snoobysoo (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

8. As the same phrase, 'citizens of Mercia' is used in the previous sentence, a few words before, it would read better if this time it was simply 'Mercian citizens'.Snoobysoo (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

9. In my now-deleted previous edit, I had reduced the number of references, as requested - from 31 to 22. I suggest doing this again, but, as at present I don't know what the outcome of my above suggestions will be and how they will affect the references, it will be best for the references reductions to be made after my above suggestions have been decided upon.Snoobysoo (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

10. In the 'Further reading' section, I suggest adding (before the current first item, for chronological reasons):

' "1066: The Story of a Year", Denis Butler, Anthony Blond Ltd., 1966.'

' "1066: The Year of the Conquest", David Howarth, Wm Collins Sons & Co Ltd, 1978.'

After "Bondmen Made Free":

' "Puritanism & Revolution", Essay 3, "The Norman Yoke", Christopher Hill, ISBN 0-4362032-0-0, Secker & Warburg, 1958.'

And last on the list:

'http://www.independentmercia.org'

The reason for these suggested additions is that they are just as valid as the items currently on the reading list and round it off.Snoobysoo (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no further suggestions for alteration and look forward to your feedback in due course.Snoobysoo (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Feedback response

Unfortunately, since posting the above suggestions for the improvement of the article, I've not been able to revisit this Talk page until now. Thanks for the responses to my first two suggestions. There are no replies to the following ones. Is that because I should deal with the response to my second suggestion before moving on?Snoobysoo (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Article Templates

There are quite a number of independent citations for a relatively small amount of text in this article. Should the Factual Accuracy and Tone & Style templates therefore now be removed?

Snoobysoo (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)SnoobysooSnoobysoo (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

If we discount the sources that are written or controlled by Jeff Kent, how many of the remainder are independent? 2A02:C7E:1028:F700:B118:727:48E7:5AFD (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)