Talk:Charles Bosanquet (academic)

Personal life claims

@Edwin of Northumbria: I appreciate that you believe you can assert the accuracy of the source, but that's not really sufficient to address the issues here. Of the two claims cited to that particular source, one (the wife's dates) ought not be included at all since there is no special contextual relevance - a problem that extends to other claims made in that section as well, and it's unclear on what basis you've removed the tagging related to that problem. The other claim is not directly supported by the photo, and unfortunately you're not a reliable source. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

As I hadn't finished making additions to the article, you can be forgiven for not possessing the gift of foresight. It is now slightly clearer why Bosanquet's wife is of interest here (i.e. she was an integral part of his Vice-chancellorship). I haven't yet included information on the likely "crucial role" she exerted on Bosanquet re. the visit of Martin Luther King Jr. to Newcastle (Ward, 2017) as this event really deserves a separate section of its own.

Despite my personal experience of spending a brief holiday in Rock village (where there is nothing else to do but wander round the church and grounds), I see no prima facie reason to question the information on the Find a Grave website, hence the reason why I removed the tag (on other occasions where I have come across the site, I have also found no disagreement between it and sources such as newspaper obituaries and official burial records). I am unsure exactly to what "other claims" you are referring, but since the article is biographical in nature, I do not see an issue here – all the more so because Bosanquet's family owned the entire village (as they still do) and otherwise his appointment as High Sheriff of Northumberland in 1948 would have been somewhat odd!!

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC))

While it's great that you've not personally encountered problems, the community consensus on the matter is that this is a generally unreliable source. Also, even with your additions, not seeing a rationale for inclusion of birthdates for the subject's relations. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

So, we have a photo of the gravestone. We also have another (reputable) source which refers to the stained glass window. The latter (on a different page of the website) also notes that the village is owned by the Bosenquet family and the estate is their family seat (i.e. it is where one would expect Bosanquet to be buried). Taken together, I do not believe there is sufficient reason to question the information on the Find a Grave website. Whatever the general policy, in this particular instance, strict adherence to it would simply be factually incorrect and I will stand up for the truth any day of the week. If I had the slightest doubt about the information, I wouldn't have included it. Reading through some of the past comments on this issue, it is far from the case that there is a single opinion on the matter, especially where photos are involved as many of those on Wikimedia Commons are user-generated and could therefore be classed as unreliable on exactly the same grounds.

As for the dates, I included them for historical context (as would be normal in a history textbook) and did so only where I considered the details to be pertinent. So far, you haven't provided an obvious reason why they should be removed, other than it would be your personal preference. I work on the principal that I don't remove the information added by other editors without very good cause.

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC))

The problem with that line of argument is that you are conducting synthesis to arrive at a particular conclusion. Your conclusion could be correct, but that doesn't make it appropriate. And as already noted, our specific Manual of Style requires special contextual relevance, not just following what a textbook might do. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

As I'm sure you realise, that doesn't apply here because I was using the information to support another source.

Your idea of what is contextually relevant is clearly different to mine.

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 04:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC))

You are using the information to support an unreliable source; no reliable source presented so far supports the conclusion drawn.

The rationale you've provided on the dates - historical context as would be normal in a history textbook - is by definition not special relevance, because the same argument would apply to pretty much any historical figure. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

As I said previously, Bosanquet's wife's links to the U.S. and highly relevant here – I suggest you read Ward's book before you pass further judgement on the matter.

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 04:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC))

No, but all the "reliable" information supports the supposedly "unreliable" source. That is the point I was making – that one needs to consider all the evidence as a whole, not disregard one of the sources on somewhat spurious grounds.

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC))

I understand the point you are trying to make, but the problem remains: there is no reliable source (so far presented, at least) directly supporting the claim. That does not make it okay to rely on either synthesis or unreliable sources, as both conflict with our core content policies. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

"That does not make it OK to rely on either synthesis or unreliable sources". I would agree. The key word here is and.

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 06:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC))

You are trying to apply a "one size fits all" argument, when in this case it doesn't.

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 06:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC))

All right, I'll amend my statement: that does not make it okay to rely on synthesis plus unreliable sources. Or unreliable sourcing backed up with synthesis. Either way, same problem: no reliable source directly supports the claim. That's not just any "one size fits all" argument, that's basic policy. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but the policy IS "one size fits all". It takes no account of a more nuanced situation like this, as at least one of the more enlightened contributors to the debate pointed out.

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC))

If there was a template which could be applied to the section concerned alone, advising the reader that the specific source (listed) might not be reliable, I would have no issue with that, especially if it was made clear that the source was not contradicted by other information. The problem, as I see it, is that the application of the template is too general and makes the reader doubt everything that is in the article. In other words, the weakness is perhaps more with the labelling than with the policy.

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 07:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC))

(I often add notes to articles pointing out that there is a discrepancy between sources).

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC))

As requested, I've added inline templates to flag the specific issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The importance of certain facts wasn't mentioned. You only referred to the dates. I have removed the templates I disagree with, as otherwise a considerable amount of material on Wikipedia would have to be tagged for the same reason. I am willing to regard the other changes as an acceptable compromise, given that I do not see an ideal solution to the problem. However, I would have preferred the use of {{Better source needed}}.

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC))

I have added back in the dates for Bosanquet's wife, because she doesn't have her own Wikipedia entry but is such an important in his life and career (I refer you to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, where this is standard practice).

Note that the other dates were included to give the reader a better idea of how far back in time the Schieffelin family's roots within the upper echelons of US society extended, without having to follow several other links to find this out.

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 08:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC))

As already noted, we have our own Manual of Style outlining our approach; the practice used by ODNB is irrelevant. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Not really, as they are pretty much the experts when it comes to writing biographies. The question is, are you more interested in following the MOS or producing high-quality articles? It seems to me this is an example of pedantry gone mad.

Moreover, there is an academic called Barbara Schieffelin Powell, who (if she followed the example of Barbara Bosanquet) may well have been called Barbara Schieffelin before marriage. To remove any room for confusion, therefore, I believe it is sensible in this instance to include the dates.

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC))

The vast majority of Wikipedia articles I've come across (especially in the humanities and social sciences) contain errors, use misleading simplifications, lack references, or the references cited only support a small portion of the text. I suggest correcting these issues (as I am trying to do) would be a much better use of your time.

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 05:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC))

As an example, rather than simply deleting references to thepeerage.com, which then leaves content unsupported, it might be better to consult the sources listed therein (most of which are both readily available and considered reliable) and check the facts for yourself to see if these could be used instead. There is a big difference between destructive and constructive editing.

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC))

See WP:UCS. I have applied what I consider to be common sense here.

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC))