Talk:Whitechapel, Bishops Nympton

OR and SYNTH

This article, like Manor of Molland, was entirely created by now-retired User:Lobsterthermidor. As explained at Talk:Manor of Molland, his contributions, though well-intentioned, were problematical. This article is very similar to Manor of Molland in that it synthesises a descent of a manor that has not apparently been worked out before. This means that this article is the first place that this descent has been published in full. Since Wikipedia does not publish original research, this content cannot remain here. The rationale is as set out in this section of the Manor of Molland talk page; the other two issues mentioned there apply here too (lack of reliable secondary sources, and shot through with difficult-to-disentangle original research).

In consequence of the above, I propose to reduce this article to a stub, in accordance with WP:STUBIFY. Comments welcome.  —SMALLJIM  22:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd give it a few days to give anyone out there a chance to respond to the tags, but yes, given the paucity of references and the primary sources being used, cutting out uncited and OR material may well be the only solution here. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

OK. I've reduced it to a bare stub per the above. Some expansion using reliable sources is certainly possible: I might have a go myself at some time.  —SMALLJIM  23:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Reverted stubificfation, total over-reaction to a lot of hard work, all derived from good sources. If you want sources to be cited, add citation needed tags as usual. I will try to add more line refs to the article in due course.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC))

Please don't get over-confident again, Lobsterthermidor! I may not have been editing recently, but I have been keeping an eye on my watchlist. Following your return, and up to the last week or so, I've seen nothing in your edits to warrant commenting, but you're starting to take things too far again. And, as before, you are ignoring the most significant problems despite clear explanations being given: see above regarding this article being a not-previously-published synthesis and the fuller explanation at Talk:Manor of Molland, where the two other issues are also noted. By all means let's discuss these points and get opinions from other editors, but until there's a consensus regarding the validity of this article, it needs to go back to a stub. You're welcome to work on it in your user space (or publish it elsewhere), of course.  —SMALLJIM  22:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The history of this manor is well documented in several reliable sources, all cited in the article. The earlier in Risdon, the mid-part in Meredith and Vivian, the later in Snell, with an overview linking all parts in B264's historical summary. If you interpret use of these sources as synthesis, you need to explain why these sources are not adequate for you. Few WP articles are written using single sources, which you seem to be advocating. Different parts and aspects of the history are related in different sources. Using these and linking them into chronological order is not synthesis. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC))

Sources used

Reverted stubification, a total over-reaction and unwarranted. The following sources were used, the article has perhaps not been sufficiently peppered with line refs, an easy omission to put right, which I will do:

• National Archives B264, which contains a summary history of the manor in the catalogue entry, not primary source. The catalogue entries themselves for some of the primary source documents have been used, allowed by WP: The catalogue summary is:

Administrative history: "Whitechapel itself is located in Bishopsnympton; other estate properties included Reeds and Hammetts, West Berwill or Berryfield, both in Bishopsnympton, and properties in Mariansleigh, Kingsnympton and Roseash. Whitechapel (recorded in the 1086 Domesday survey as Blaunchapele) was owned by the Bassetts till 1603. The Amory family held it until around 1660, when a series of settlements and legal agreements passed it back and forth between the Amorys, Gibbens and Lears. Then, from 1734 to 1777 the Shorts took over ownership of the estate. The estate was split up and sold in 1777. However, Whitechapel itself and the other properties mentioned above were bought by John Sanger the elder and passed down eventually to various members of the Sanger family. John Sanger and his wife Frances had four children, including Edward, John the younger and possibly Mary. Mary held Reeds and Hammetts; she married William Tucker and also had a family of four - Edward, William, John Sanger and Mary (Denziloe/Coppinger). John Sanger the elder disinherited his son Edward (who had left home and married without permission). John Sanger the younger therefore inherited Whitechapel. This was probably the reason behind two cases involving the brothers at the Devon assizes in 1822 and 1823. These cases may also have been a factor in John Sanger the younger's wills (which were drawn up in various forms between 1824 and 1833); these gave a great deal of property and influence to his servants Alexander and Mary Fisher; they made James Pearce, Joshua Bawden, John Pease, William Flexman and J. Riccard trustees; they gave very little to his immediate relations, although his nephew Edward Melton Sanger was left Whitechapel on the proviso that he entered a profession; annuities were given to Edward, William and John Sanger Tucker.

The Fishers held Whitechapel probably in trust from 1834 to 1866, when the Sangers again took over the estate. A succession of different owners has come and gone since 1900".

This certainly forms an adequate basis on which to build this section of the article.

• Snell, Frederick John, The Blackmore Country, 1911, which has not been sufficiently line ref'd to.
• Risdon

Will improve line refs in due course.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC))

Lobster, for the benefit of those who haven't been into the archives, could you explain how this document is a reliable source and published? It isn't very clear to me who actually wrote it it, and when it was distributed to the public. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to B264, National Archives. The historical summary which precedes the listing of catalogue entries is written by a professional archivist employed by North Devon Record Office. It is a summary of the history of this manor which the archivist has understood, interpreted and absorbed from his/her work in assembling the constituent documents into a catalogued archive. (The listed building text, written some time ago, states that "Documentation relating to Whitechapel has been deposited with the Devon Records Office, accession no 3777") It is thus "reliable", a secondary source, and "published" because it has been made publicly available. Remember that under the WP policy that is the definition of "published". No distribution needs to take place. Hope that answers your question. By the way, I will be removing more text which I now accept has not been sourced adequately, namely the section on the very latest history, watch this space.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC))