Talk:Christopher Hatton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Deletion Of Factual Material From A Reliable Source[edit]

Hi Agricolae,

You deleted this section today, with the edit comment '300-year royal descent is hardly notable' [1]:

Through his mother, Alice Saunders, Sir Christopher Hatton was thus a descendant of King Henry II by his mistress, Ida de Tony.

I haven't reverted your edit, but please cite the Wikipedia policy here under which you made the edit. I don't know of a Wikipedia policy which states that factual material from a reliable source WP:RS can or should be deleted from an article, but perhaps there is one, and you can cite it. It doesn't seem helpful to deprive Wikipedia readers of factual material from reliable sources. It may be that some Wikipedia readers would find the statement you deleted of no interest, but other Wikipedia readers might find it very useful to be informed of it. NinaGreen (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOR, WP:RS (you say it is from a RS, but it isn't cited as such). That will do for starters. The benchmark for inclusion is not whether it is factual or not (if you find a reliable source that said that Queen Elizabeth had a fried tomato for breakfast on June 29, 1987, it doesn't necessarily belong in an article, however factual it might be), nor is it whether there is a single person anywhere in the world who 'might find it useful'. Do the biographers of Christopher Hatton find the fact that he descends from king Henry II notable enough to devote significant coverage to this fact? If not, then for this Wikipedia article to include this bit of trivia is to give it an undue weight, to suggest by implication that this is a highly relevant piece of information in understanding the man, when none of his biographers think this is the case. Agricolae (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
The statement was in the middle of material concerning Hatton's mother, and the citations from reliable sources are listed at the end of the preceding sentence. The statement meets the benchmark you've described above. Most Wikipedia readers who are interested in Hatton, a favourite of Queen Elizabeth I, would be interested in his family background, and virtually all biographies of Hatton begin with some discussion of his family background. In any event, thanks for providing your rationale. It seems to me a good practice to place the rationale for deletion of factual material from reliable sources in any Wikipedia article on the Talk page for discussion, rather than merely deleting the material with an edit summary. If there's merely an edit summary, most editors and virtually all Wikipedia readers won't even notice that the material has been deleted, and useful factual material from reliable sources may thus be lost to the article. Putting the suggested deletion on the Talk page together with the rationale for deletion allows for discussion prior to deletion, and even if the material is eventually deleted from the article, the discussion remains on the Talk page for everyone's consideration. NinaGreen (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, now that the source is clear, I can add WP:NOR to the list of policies. The citation in question (which really should come at the end of the text depending on it, by the way) refers to 4 works. The ODNB is a RS, but says nothing about Christopher Hatton's wifemother being descended from Henry II (doesn't mention Henry II at all). The Visitation of Northamptonshire from 1564 is a reliable source for the period immediately preceding the time it was recorded, but not for a descent from a king 400 years before. That is not an issue, however, as it does not show Christopher Hatton's wife being a descendant of Henry II (it names neither Christopher Hatton's wife nordoesn't name Henry II). The newsletter of the Monument Inscription society is debatable as a reliable source, but again it is moot. It doesn't show Christopher Hatton's wifemother as being descended from Henry II (doesn't name Henry II). Finally you have the Richardson book, which is debatable as a WP:RS, as it is self-published, but some would consider him an expert. Again it doesn't matter, though, because it doesn't say that Christopher Hatton's wifemother is descended from Henry II (it doesn't name Christopher Hatton's wifemother, and only names Chris in reference to works of his composition). In other words, none of the cited sources reach the conclusion that was presented in the article. now, one could take information found in three of the four and construct such a descent, but that is Original Research by Synthesis, and is not to be employed in editing. Agricolae (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
It's well established in reliable sources that 'Sir Christopher Hatton was the second son of William Hatton (d. 28 August 1546) of Holdenby, Northamptonshire, and his second wife, Alice Saunders, the daughter of Lawrence Saunders (d.1544) of Harrington, Northamptonshire, and his wife, Alice Brokesby', as I stated in the article. I don't know of any dispute among reliable sources that Alice Brokesby was Sir Christopher Hatton's grandmother, and Richardson clearly and concisely traces back Alice Brokesby's ancestry to Henry II and his mistress [2], as I also stated in the article, as well as to Richard de Clere, one of the twenty-five barons who guaranteed Magna Carta [3]. Richardson's Magna Carta Ancestry and Plantagenet Ancestry are cited as reliable sources in countless other Wikipedia articles by editors other than me. In any event, I haven't reverted your edit, despite the fact that the descent is established in reliable sources. Hopefully Wikipedia readers and other editors who are interested in the information will find it here on the Talk page, despite the fact that you've edited it out of the article, and they can make up their own minds concerning it. NinaGreen (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
It is still Original Research by Synthesis - you can't take a source that says Joe is old, and another source that says old people have gray hair, to then put a statement in the article that Joe has gray hair - you have to have a source that says 'Joe's hair is gray. Anything else is synthesis, a form of original research. A chain of logic, however coherent and, well, logical, is still an example of the editor reaching their own conclusion, which is not supposed to happen. By the way, if you were only using the Richardson source to document the ancestry of Hatton's mother, he really shouldn't be cited at all. Agricolae (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
As I said, I haven't reverted your edit, and Wikipedia readers and editors can make up their own minds about this issue from this discussion on the Talk page.NinaGreen (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Agricolae and I have made similar points to NinaGreen in the past. I have just moved a chunk of text relatives out of the first paragraph into a not as it is not directly relevant to the subject's biography. -- PBS (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

And I've explained in detail just now on the Talk page [4] for the article on William Hastings, 1st Baron Hastings, that Wikipedia policy permits the deletion of unsourced material, not the deletion of sourced material, and that the proper procedure, before deleting any sourced material, is to open a discussion to all interested editors on the article's Talk page, and only proceed to deletion if and when consensus is reached by all interested editors that deletion is required. Moreover you've improperly moved significant material from the article into a note, i.e. information involving Hatton's heir. Again, there should be a discussion on the Talk page prior to moving significant information from the article to a note. NinaGreen (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christopher Hatton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christopher Hatton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)