Talk:Robert Bell (Speaker)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Cleanup[edit]

Looks like a mess, needs structure and major rewrite to make sense for outsiders (like me). Bjelleklang - talk 06:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

what is an outsider? is there a wiki junior for kids? I am not sure how to simplfy the material for the General reading level, of which you you may be referring?

I was primarily thinking of people like me, who have limited knowledge to the subject. An article may well be somewhat difficult, as many can be hard to explain in a simple way without making it too long, but as it was when I tagged it, ut looked like it had been randomly copied from various books. You've done a great job fixing it! Bjelleklang - talk 07:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I was editng it when you tagged it, but please let me know how it reads, so I can compose the material accordingly. Thanks!

I think it looks quite good, only needs some headers, and a table of contents, and possibly a picture if it can be found. Bjelleklang - talk 08:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I will have to retire this session, and will brief the tutorials when I return, on how to set up or install headers and a table of contents, the image of the subject can be purchased from the appropriate party, who has the 'Copyright'. Thanks for the input. (RRLB)

By chance, does the article currently meet the criteria for which you have taknen the time to inform me? If it does, would you please remove the Header. I doubt, that I can present the material in a more simplified form, and perhaps, the article should be removed? or returned to a less significant version? Please share with me your perceptions concerning this matter. (RRLB)


In my opinion the "complete rewrite" tag could be removed. I have a question. The numbers like this (1), are they in reference to the sources at the bottom? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Removed the rewrite tag, has improved very much! Thanks. Bjelleklang - talk 21:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have numbered the Sources to match the citations. I hope this helps. (RRLBell)

It's looking good. Way better with the sections and the reference numbers gone. Great work. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It appears that this tag may have been abandoned, by the editor who placed it, as no suitable remedy has been offered, and or suggested, that would serve to appease the tag's removal from this article. Should any further modifications be warranted, an expert is requested to bring this artice into compliance. (RRLB)

Some areas needing improvement[edit]

  • The second paragraph is just undigested notes - this information needs to be built into a connected narrative.
  • The association between universities and religion - Oxford (Catholic) and Cambridge (Protestant) needs elaboration - they don't seem to be borne out by the articles on those universities. If anything, the articles suggest the reverse association.
  • Some words and phrases, like architect and unfolds the possibility and earnestly and third are italicised for no apparent reason.
  • What on earth is this all about? What relevance does it have to Bell?

No doubt, the tempering of one's soul during this period, surely would have conditioned and or allowed for the refinements of character, necessary, for one to acquire a taste for a latitudinarian posture, with respect to the many religious issues, that at the present time, were, proving quite controversial, and, very dangerous; particularly, in consideration of the many unfortunate, if not, senseless, deaths that both faiths suffered; (Deaths that were inflicted by those "Holy and True" representatives of God and faith (both Catholic and Protestant), who, together, curiously, seemed to embrace the same, "true"ly misleading 'spirit').

  • Marriages: this too is just notes, but needs to be in narrative form, and without non-standard abbreviations such as 'dau.'. This kind of abbreviation is necessary in printed media but not in an electronic medium with little need to conserve space.
  • The Henry Neville mentioned is almost certainly not the right one, as he would only have been 15 years old at Bell's death.
  • "... (the realm's fount of honour) ...". This is true but irrelevant. Of course the Queen can bestow honours.
  • "... and Hobart (pronounced Hubbard) ...". This is an article about Bell - how someone else pronounces his own name is irrelevant here.
  • Heraldry: unexplained bolding; unexplained linking of 'three' to 'Holy Spirit', relevance of quotations unexplained
  • References: Three web addresses at the bottom of the list. these should be formatted (* [address description]) and probably listed under 'External links'.

Colonies Chris 12:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This still reads like a random assemblage of bits copied from archaic sources. It requires considerable clean up, in my opinion. Ground Zero | t 12:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your missive. The article has been composed in the fashion that you have identified, but that does not necessarily mean that it needs considerable cleanup (at least it is not plagiarism). In my opinion, it would be helpful for you to consult the references so that you can appraise the precise quanity of bits that have been incorporated into the artice from the archaic sources. Perhaps after you have done this, you will find that other works covering this subject (from the sixteenth century) also contain certain levels of assembledges. which only compliment the work (when cited). Additionally you may find that this article containes a considerable amount of authorship. This article has bot been composed as an essay, however, represents a semi-comprehensie monograph of the life, career, and the family of the subject in cursory detail. The footnotes cite the documented sources, as well as direct quotations, to meet or exceed current Wikipedia Quality standards. Since you are an administrator, I respect your perceptions, however unless you can improve how the article reads without taking too much away from the documented content, I kindly ask that you reconsider your opinion and remove tag. User:Wales 14:10 10 October (UTC)

There is no doubt that you are to be commended for your rigorous footnoting of this article. It is exemplary. The problem is that it reads like a "a semi-comprehensive monograph... in cursory detail", and not like a Wikipedia article. A Wikipedia article should be written so that it can be understood by readers of different education levels and different levels of English proficiency. I do not ask that you remove the footnotes, but that the article be written so that it can be understood. For example, archaic language could be removed to footnotes and replaced by modern words and phrasing.

I accept that this is not a case of plagiarism and that there is a fair bit of authorship. This is really a question of style. This style may be appropriate for scholarly work, but not for the encyclopedia of the people. Ground Zero | t 18:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  • There will be much scratching of heads regarding your reply. Maybe you can simpliy the following article so that it can be better undertstood by readers of different education levels and different levels of English proficiency; from what you have stated, I suppose that the following article may need a tag too, String theory. This article may make more sence to you! Gladiator (movie), and Sesame Street. Which article is better understood by a wide range of audience, hitherto, dude? User:Wales 10 October 2006 (UTC)

(Amended) As you may find, there is a range of style to be found within various Wickipedia articles, not to mention the reding and comprehension of the subject matter varies greatly as well. What articles have the correct style? is a matter of debate as it would apply to each category of article. Wilst, this article may boast a certain style that may not necessarily agree with your taste and preference, save that, for the subject was for the people. However, perhaps, undating this passage may help modernize the article, but I doubt it really helps with the way it reads. "..."and the money thereof cominge to be ymployed towardes the payment of my Debtes and bringinge upp of my children at the order and discreation of my saide Executrix " 19

The passge provides the reader with a sample of Elizabethian pronunciation, and only adds to the antiquity of the artice. I suppose it could be replaced by mordern phrasing "and the money is to be used for the payment of debts and the raising of my children as my executrix deems necessary and proper" Please offer some suggestions and or kindly remove tag. Thank you User:Wales 13 October 2006

Blazon[edit]

Blazon is wrong I think. The image shows the fess not touching the edges of the shield so should be: Sable a Fess couped Ermine or Sable a Fess humetty Ermine. Alci12 19:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

RE: Yes it does resemble a Fess "humetty" Ermine. Proper understanding is the key, and should be able to make the necessary changes Jediforce 04:23, 2 December 2006

article title[edit]

Why the tilde?GraemeLeggett 11:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

For that matter, why the capital "K"? Chris the speller 06:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

RE: In the recent past the title was moved from Sir Robert Bell (Knight) to Sir Robert Bell (knight)?. I attempted to move it back to the capitalized form, such as the article knight, however, unsuccessfully. It was then moved to Sir Robert Bell (Knight~Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Robert_Bell_%28Knight%29 but this version proved too long and was shortened to Sir Robert Bell (Knight~), to follow the title found within the Coat of Arms image in the Heraldry section Wales 06:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The guideline [Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)] would place him as Robert Bell (disambiguation modifier). I shall see if there is a suitable one. Then shift and update the redirects which are quite shockingly bad at the moment. GraemeLeggett 09:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Linking[edit]

Really, there is no precedent in Wikipedia for linking individual letters of words. That makes no sense whatsoever. the reader should expect to have some idea of where a link will take him or her. Furthermore, linking plain English words is not the Wikipedia style, nor is repeatedly linking the same article over and over (to wit, Elizabeth I of England. This article remains well overlinked after my attempt to remove the most egregious offences, and remains a mess. Reviewing the previous response to my comments above, I will encourage User:Wales to review the article on "No personal attacks" andWP:CIVIL, and keep his/her responses civil, in keeping with Wikipedia standards of behaviour. Ground Zero | t 02:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is some useful information on linking from Wikipedia's style manuals:

From Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context:

In general, do not create links to:
  • Plain English words.
  • The same link multiple times, because redundant links clutter up the page and make future maintenance harder.

From Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links):

It is possible to link words that are not exactly the same as the linked article title — for example, English. However, make sure that it is still clear what the link refers to without having to follow the link.
Quotation: Words in quotations should not be linked for context. The text should remain in the same form and with the same emphasis as it did in the source. This is especially true for linking dates which, if linked, are changed according to readers’ date preferences.

I hope this helps explain the changes that I have made. Ground Zero | t 14:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: Thank you for this. I note that you find the coding of the article somewhat bizzare, and I would tend to agree with your perceptions, on a wiki-fied basis. However, the content has been tailored to deliver certain thematic material, that I suspect according to your previous commentary could possibly be the mess to which you refer. This is not necessarily the case, as each disambiguation was created as a result of organized deduction and with a particular source of inspiration. I have carefully reviewed your above comments; specifically I wish to issue a reply to your encouraging suggestion. At first glance I can understand why you might consider my reply vexatious, however, it was not intended to have been received as such. For what it's worth I would ch

ange what I had communicated and I could have used a dint more polish with my attempt at demonstrating a paradox. I am afraid that I misunderstood the tutorial that I had received from another senior user on my talk page, and was merely attempting to communicate with more culture. For this please allow me to extend to you an apology, of which I hope will be well received. Concerning your other edits and clean up: despite the removal of certain disambiguations that seem to dim the delivery of the message that has been encoded into the article, all being well, no harm done. Unless I am summoned to edit the article further, please consider my latest revision my final edits. Here are some other quotes that you may find somewhat bizzare, but such is life in some cases. "To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" Newton "I refuse to believe that God would play Dice with the Universe" Einstein

Matthew 12:34 Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. Wales 20:33 17 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The apology is received very well indeed, and I am now somewhat sheepish about the tone of my own remarks. I can understand that an editor unfamiliar with the conventions of wiki-linking might very well venture innocently and boldly in a direction not expected or understood by other Wikipedians. I do want to clarify that it is not the quotations that I found to be bizarre, but the linking of them, on occasion letter-by-letter, which, as mentioned, is not what on expects in Wikipedia. Best regards, Ground Zero | t 01:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Coflicting Sources[edit]

Conflicting details concerning the two below named entry's have been discovered in a number of published works, and have been identified with "[brackets]*." Critical analysis of this matter has been treated, in Chapter 7 of T.B.S.O, 2006.

2. His second son Sir Robert Bell (de Beaupre), b. (c. 1563 d. 1539), was a 'Captain of a company in the low countries' MP, built ships for the navy, [and was a founding member, contributor and share holder of the (London Company) Virginia Company of London and the Honourable British East India Company]* (c. 1600) married Elizabeth Inkpen.
5. His fifth son, Phillip Bell b. 14 June 1574 d. after 1630, Fellow of Queens College, Cambridge (1593-7), [Captain, Governor of Bermuda 1626-1629, Nassau 1630, & Barbados 1640-46, married the daughter of Captain Daniel Elfrith].* 22, a, b

Wales 23:39 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:The-Arms-of-Sir-Robert-Bell.jpg[edit]

The image Image:The-Arms-of-Sir-Robert-Bell.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion ‎Education and religion[edit]

RE: edits of 14:57, 4 January 2013‎ Jojalozzo (talk | contribs)‎ (→‎Education and religion: book of common prayer phrase needs more explanation) and 14:53, 4 January 2013‎ Jojalozzo (talk | contribs)‎ (→‎Education and religion: copy edit, remove statement with unverifiable source)

"Embracing an "erastian position, that is, supporting the right of the monarch to decide the religion of the realm,"[9] would have improved Bell's ability to unite the House. Furthermore, he seems to have been successful in resolving differences between fellow Members of Parliament during the various Embracing an "erastian position, that is, supporting the right of the monarch to decide the religion of the realm,"[9][not specific enough to verify] would have improved Bell's ability to unite the House. Furthermore, he seems to have been successful in resolving differences between fellow Members of Parliament during the various committees on which he was active while furthering the Protestant cause (including the Prayer Book)"

[not specific enough to verify]?? That's intriguing!! [Dude], that is a quote from Dr. Henry Summerson, Oxford.

Verified or not, this paragraph is self explanatory! Should it explore in further detail the dynamics between conservative and Protestant factions of the House of Commons, and the polarization of the religious houses during the reformation period? In order to properly treat that subject would require a new article. How does "Embracing an "erastian position, that is, supporting the right of the monarch to decide the religion of the realm" not specific?? If you understand what this means, then you understand the following regarding his efforts with uniting the House and his participation in the committees with the issues that concerned religion, for example the Book of Common Prayer (one of the committees that is relevant to the paragraph in question. Wales (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I am unable to verify that Summerson quote. Since verifiability is a requirement for the admissibility of content, let's locate a verifiable source or delete the unverifiable passages.
I continue to find the article silent on what the Book of Common Prayer has to do with uniting the House. Being cryptic is not encyclopedic. Please elaborate - in the article itself would be most useful. Jojalozzo 04:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)