Talk:Harriet Arbuthnot

Hostess

I am removing the assertion that Harriet was hostess at the Duke's society dinners. I have the Smith book and have been unable to find any such thing in it. It would have been highly improper for anyone to serve as the Duke's hostess other than his wife, daughter, sister, sister-in-law, or mother. If anyone can cite a source for the proposition that she was actually his hostess, we can restore the assertion. Laura1822 19:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The statement was made on a tour of Apsley House. Which does not necessarily make it true. - Kittybrewster 22:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your response somehow. I will add it back in with a reference to the Apsley House tour. How I wish I could go on that tour! Laura1822 17:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I checked dates and the Duchess died in 1831, while Harriet lived until 1834. So perhaps Harriet served as his hostess after the Duchess died, but I still think it unlikely. Laura1822 17:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Posthumous journal?

I don't know who created the last note (currently number 30), but I suppose Arbuthnot didn't record Charles' and Wellington's doings in her journal 30 years after her death? The terse note ("Arbuthnot") presumably refers rather to some of the critical apparatus of her journal — a footnote, preface, or whatever? Note 30 should preferably say so. And in any case references to books need to give the page the info comes from. "Arbuthnot" isn't a proper kind of reference for a book (though it might do if a website was in question). Frutti di Mare 16:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Thank you Frutti di Mare, this is currently a page undergoing a major edit and expansion. There are still one or two edits and referencs left from previous editors which I am hoping to check out. That is one of them. I will try and see from the history who made that edit, and ask them if they could clarify. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Giano 16:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Smith, page 152. - Kittybrewster (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

'Bamford' footnote goes nowhere. And, some notes could be expanded?

There is a cite to 'Bamford', but no corresponding work by Bamford in the list of references. Is this note trying to point to her Journal? Also, many of the notes are to a single word, making it not immediately clear to which work they refer. Does anyone object if I add a couple of explanatory words to some of them? EdJohnston 18:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll look at the Bamford note in a second - trouble with taking on a page that had notes already - i changed a lot of the references to other worksm that may be a stary one. The single word reference is the way Wikipedia likes it done! It should relate to eitherthe author of a book in which case there is a page number, or to the author or name of a website in which case there is a link in the references. It is actually the easies way of doing it - Right I'll go and check Bamford! Thanks for pointing that our. Giano 18:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Note Change

the 28th notation should read "This assertion is stated in the official tour of Apsley House; if true, it is unusual for the standards of etiquette of the period". Briaboru

Keeper of the King's Private Roads

This seems to have been some bonkers title dreamed up by George III as I can only find two people that ever had it, both in 1772 (father of Harriet, Thomas Fane, 8th Earl of Westmorland, and Thomas Whately). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 01:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Doctors now call that porphyria not "bonkers". I would have thought Keeper of the King's Private Roads would make a lovely little article. Yomangani^talk 01:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately it doesn't look like it was the work of bonkers George..I have found another holder of the said title: "Sir Henry Erskine, fifth Baronet of Alva and Cambuskenneth had been appointed Keeper of the King's Private Roads, Gates, and Bridges in 1757" (from Correspondence of Thomas Gray, Page 712, 1935). And earlier, "In 1717 the Keeper of the King's Private Roads and Bridges and Conductor of the Royal Progresses was made a member of the Board of Works" (The British Almanac - Page 50, 1913- Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 02:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

WTF the Artikle has no BioBox

OMG please fix it asap!80.133.146.120 03:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Aristocrats are too posh for infoboxes. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 03:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What's the information you require? I'll read the article and explain it to you. --Wetman 04:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Lesbian?

I am removing "lesbian" from the lead sentence, as the article doesn't mention it, and I suspect vandalism on this edit: [1]. If I am wrong, readd with citation, or at least a mention in the article. 128.208.6.193 05:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That was me. mkehrt 05:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an excellent example of why articles should be semi-protected before they show up on the front page. There has been an inordinate number of IP vandals on this page in the last few hours. Horologium t-c 06:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles on the front page are not semi-protected. If you disagree with this policy, bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy, though it's unlikely that you'll get very far. ShadowHalo 09:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Did she have any children ?

I saw she had the children of her husband to raise, but did she have some offspring of her own ?Rosenknospe 13:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think she did no. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

None were recorded in any research, that is not to say that she did not but I think it unlikely. Giano 15:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Irony in action

Funny and sad at the same time (stealing your quote, BDJ) that this makes featured article when the number of other Arbuthnot articles in AfD numbers in the dozens. DarkAudit 16:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Featured 2nd time Sept 10, 2022Wis2fan (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Links from Notes to References

I'm thinking of putting links from the Notes to the References, as at Che Guevara and as described/discussed here. Comments? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Any particular reason? If it currently works don't fiddle. Giano (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harriet Arbuthnot. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070604155641/http://www.touruk.co.uk/houses/houselincs_fulb.htm to http://www.touruk.co.uk/houses/houselincs_fulb.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Infobox comment

There is an undated, unsigned, and unexplained comment at the top of the article, requesting that no infobox be added.

I'll wait a reasonable amount of time, and if no explanation is provided, I will add one. Geo Swan (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• The request was added over a decade ago, by a contributor who left the project over a decade ago. Geo Swan (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Really? Then you must have an extraordinary way of marking time. Furthermore, since when has three hours been “a reasonable amount of time”? Giano (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• This is not an explanation for your extraordinary request.
• As for whether you left the project over a decade ago - the edit in question was made in 2009 by Giano II, and the record shows that ID made its last edit in 2009. Geo Swan (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

explanation for third parties

After I determined that the contributor who added the extraordinary request, an undated, unsigned and unexplained request that no one add an infobox, hadn't edited the wikipedia since 2009, I concluded there was no point waiting for them to return here, and offer an explanation. So I added an infobox to this article.

Giano restored the 2009 wording, with the edit summary "No infobox required. All relevant information and more is simply available in the lead paragraph - as it should be."

There are two things wrong with this assertion. First, infobox are supposed to provide a quick summary of key points of the article. Second, for the record, Arbuthnot's spouse, father, place of birth, place of death, were not in the lead section. Geo Swan (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• I restored the infobox, with the edit summary "As a courtesy to other contributors, could we discuss complicated or controversial issues on the talk page, not in our edit summaries..." I then took my own advice, and explained myself here.
• Giano reverted to their preferred wording, a second time, but this time without any explanation.

  Sorry Giano, while this is not an instance of WP:3RR, I am concerned that it is nevertheless an instance of edit-warring, since you have made no meaningful attempt to explain yourself.

  Adding an {{infobox person}} template, or one of its sibling templates, is so routine it would be truly exceptional for a BLP to be exempt from having an infobox. So, where is your explanation?

  If what is really going on here is that you don't personally believe in {{infobox person}} templates, in general, I think this would be such a minority view that you should go along with the majority. A good faith contributor who disagrees with a policy or convention that is very widely accepted does have venues where they can voice their opposition - a user essay for instance. But simply reverting stuff based on a distinctly minority view, without explaining one's self, may put you at risk of being considered a vandal.

  I think you should watch out. Opposing a widely accepted policy or convention by reverting things, without making a meaningful attempt to explain yourself, may trigger sanctions. Geo Swan (talk) 04:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

There are no rules regarding info boxes. Especially so when all relevant information is within the lead. If there’s any convention at all, it is to discuss this on the talk page and wait a little longer than three hours. Furthermore, the convention, such as it is, if for the principal editors of the page to have their views consulted. There is no requirement or need for an infobox here, so I shall remove it - again. Giano (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• Infobox are routinely applied to BLP, without any prior discussion, so I question your assertion I had any obligation to seek approval on the talk page to add one here. As for whether I should have waited longer for you to provide a justification for your request that this specific article go without an infobox - you made your request in 2009, so you had eleven years to explain yourself. Surely that was long enough for even the world's slowest writer?

  Note, this is the second time you justified your extraordinary insistence that this article not have an infobox with the claim everything in the infobox was in the lead paragraph. I think I already disproved this assertion. In this edit I added three fields to the infobox containing information from the #Early life section.

  Note, even if your assertion that everything in the infobox were in the lead section was true that would still be a very weak reason to remove the infobox. Readers have grown used to looking for infoboxen. Readers who want a single fact, like nationality, date of birth, age, or date of death, are better served looking to the infobox, than reading the lead paragraph.

  So, yet again. I am going to restore the infobox. Geo Swan (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• and yet again I have removed it. I am the principal editor of this page, you have contributed a negligible amount. The page clearly does not require an infobox. All relevant information is in the lead. You and your readers clearly do not have the attention spans of gnats, I write for people who do. Now, please go and find something constructive to do. There must be hundreds of pages in urgent need of your attention. All you are doing here is trolling. Giano (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• Geo Swan, MOS:INFOBOXUSE is quite clear: you must try to find consensus here, and you are clearly not finding it yet. I would add that you probably need to read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions, esp. the "Remedies" section, which allows any uninvolved editor to sanction whoever violates it. And I consider this edit warring, and the specious AN3 complaint, to be disruptive. Drmies (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• Giano, why is "closest woman friend" in quotes and italics? Ty, Drmies (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Drmies That’s a very good question. I expect because Elizabeth Longford said it, but I can’t find her very dull book on Wellington. I expect it’s at the top of a bookcase somewhere with all the other boring books bought for Wiki articles whose reading proved to be less preferable than suicide. I’ll remove them until I find it. Giano (talk) 10:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Infoboxes are best for bios of politicians & sports figures. Arbuthnot is neither. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Echoing a few of the above: there is no automatic right for IBs to be forced onto a page where there is a long-stnading status quo and consensus against one. Edit warring to force one on is disruptive, particularly after expecting a response within three hours. - SchroCat (talk) 08:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• I too support Giano on this and echo the comments made by SchroCat and GoodDay. To delete an instruction telling you not to add an infobox, and then you go and add one, is very disruptive. Cassianto^Talk 08:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you all. Until next time, and there will be a next time, we will leave poor Mrs Arbuthnot’s portrait and lead to speak for themselves. There will be a date in the not too distant future, I suspect, when a huge box will have to record the dates of her first tooth, first menstruation, deflowering; her identifying gender and finally the wood of her coffin and depth of her grave. Until that unhappy date, we shall edit on. Giano (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest that there is a rough consensus here (and at AN3) against having an infobox in the article. Per WP:HIDDEN, I'll amend the hidden text to point to this discussion, which should hopefully avert any future problems of dating, authorship or reasoning. --RexxS (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Age difference

Just a comment that isn’t appropriate in the thext- What 45 year old male would not enjoy the company of a pretty and intelligent 21 year old woman?Wis2fan (talk) 04:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Charles Arbuthnot burial

This article tells where Mrs. Arbuthnot and Wellington are buried, but not Charles. His article doesn’t say either. Where is he buried? Put it in the articles. Wis2fan (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

He was buried at Kensal Green Cemetery. I have added that to his article. DuncanHill (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020 review

I have reviewed this article for WP:URFA/2020, and initiative to determine if older featured articles still meet the featured article criteria. I was hoping to nominate this article for today's featured article on Sept 10, her birthday, but I have some concerns which I have outlined below:

• There are a couple of citation needed tags in the article, which should be resolved.
• The "Relationship with Wellington" section is quite long. Is there a way to break this up with level 3 headings or to rearrange the information?
• The Legacy section is quite short. Should her death information be moved to this section, and her legacy be expanded?
• The citations need a lot more detail and to be edited. "Charmley, John" needs inline citations in the article and two Longford sources are used but the inline citation doesn't say which is for the ref
• Refs 14 and 15 need refs, and should probably be notes instead
• I'm not sure what ref 29 is or if it is reliable.
• I did a search for additional sources, in case this article could be expanded, and found some that I think can be used in the article, which I have listed below:
  • Gayle Rogers, Speculation, ch 6 (found in the De Gruyter database at WP:LIBRARY)
  • Rory Muir, Wellington, ch. 15 (found in the De Gruyter database at WP:LIBRARY)
  • E.A. Smith, George IV (found in the De Gruyter database at WP:LIBRARY)
  • "THE APOTHEOSIS OF THE RENTIER: HOW NAPOLEONIC WAR FINANCE KICK-STARTED THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION" (found in ProQuest at WP:LIBRARY.)

Is anyone interested in fixing this up, or should it go to WP:FAR? Z1720 (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)