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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Shortly after this article was created most of the content was removed, citing "unsourced". In fact there was an inline citation at the end of the final paragraph which I believe was intended to reference the whole article. But even without this there was no call for the content to be removed: a tag for "citation needed" would have been appropriate. The content was not concerning a living person, and was unsuitable for the encyclopedia in any other way, so need not have been removed. I reverted the "bold" move which had removed it. Rather than follow "Bold, revert, discuss", my reversion was reverted with "I am not convinced that everything is from that one source." I have since consulted the source cited (ODNB is freely available to anyone with a ticket from most UK public libraries) and can see nothing in the article which is not supported by the ODNB article. (An article from an earlier edition of ODNB is in Wikisource, but the current article will reflect modern scholarship). Any further discussion should be on this page, but unsourced uncontroversial content about a non-living person should not be removed because an editor considers it inadequately sourced. That's what we have maintenance tags for. I haven't replaced the "one source" tag because I believe that an article in the current ODNB is considered adequate sourcing by most editors. PamD 22:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PamD. OK I'll take your word for it. Thanks for checking the source. But would you please restore and stop removing the two maintenance tags in the article? Also, could you please confirm that the actual details from the article are actually in the source, and that there isn't any copyright violation (i.e., word for word copying)? The same editor repeatedly added large edits to other articles; very little of the information was actually in the sources, and some of it was word for word copying. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained why I consider "one source" inappropriate. OK, "Cat improve" got thrown out with the bathwater, so I first replaced it, then resolved it. Another time, please tag an article for improvement rather than removing text wholesale unless it is controversial or BLP. Thanks. PamD 22:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PamD. I restored the "one source" template. I'm not sure where communication is breaking down here. I cannot understand why you removed it. It's a perfectly appropriate template for an article that has one source. Sundayclose (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sundayclose: As I have explained above, I don't see the point in adding that template when the one source is something as highly regarded as ODNB. PamD 23:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD: Generally speaking, an article that has the best source in the world as its only source can be improved by another good source or two. I've never seen an article that had only one source that was not improved with the addition one or two good sources. So I don't agree that it is considered adequate sourcing "by most editors". "Acceptable" maybe, but not usually the best quality. In any event, your removing the template (twice) is inappropriate if it is restored; you alone (nor I, nor anyone) do not decide whether a legitimate template should be removed. By the way, and I don't mean to make this a rant, but I want to set the record straight because I dislike have misleading innuendo directed at my edits, the editor who created the article completed the Bold part of WP:BRD. I completed the Revert part. That's when it should have gone to the talk page for Discussion. Thanks for your improvements to the article. Sundayclose (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sundayclose: I disagree on both counts. I'll replace the tag (ah, I see you've done so) although I believe it to be pointless clutter: any article except a FA can always be improved in many ways but we don't add every available tag. The original editor created a simple sourced article, nothing "bold" about that. You decided to delete most of it rather than tag for improvement: that was "bold". Ah well, on to something more constructive. I've just tidied up that editor's first contribution where they misplaced their reference. PamD 06:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD: And I disagree on both counts. We have differences of opinion on this, which is fine, but your opinion does not entitle you to remove a template that is well within policy after it has been restored. The "one source" template is not "every available tag"; please leave the hyperbole out of this discussion. And, yes, the editor who created the article made the first edit in the BRD process. "Bold" doesn't have to mean daring or dramatic. WP:BRD does not state that the first edit is not Bold. In fact, Wikipedia explains bold as: if you want to make an edit, "go for it". Wikipedia does not describe it as: "Bold is adding a controversial edit." The Bold part of the process may go no further than making the edit if no one objects. If someone objects and removes the edit, that is the Revert. I'm fine with not pushing this matter, except I again want to clarify that I did not stray from BRD. You threw out the accusation; I'm stating that it has no basis. I'm fine with your restoration of the content that I deleted. That's not the issue. The issue is that your removal of the template was based solely on your opinion, and your opinion is not enough when another editor objects. Sundayclose (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
