Talk:Anthony Hungerford of Black Bourton

BRD
@user:Winkelvi you make a bold edit. Some of all of it is reverted. We then discuss your proposed changes and reach a consensus for change. It is not make a bold edit and then revert when someone reverts all or par of your change -- see WP:BRD

So please explain why you think your changes are an improvement to the article. -- PBS (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It was all in my edit summary. The content I removed is variously trivia, does not help the reader better understand the article subject, and is non-MOS. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  17:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * , I thought you were making a good faith effort at discussing (that's what your comments above indicated). Now that you've done this, I can see you are just interested in edit warring and having the article reflect your preferred content and style (content and style which is against MOS, unfortunately). -- WV ● ✉ ✓  17:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * (edit clash) BRD: You make a bold change it is reverted we then disuses the changes and come to a consensus for those changes.
 * Lets start with some less contentious parts.
 * Which parts of your edit do you think was removing non-MOS?
 * The date of birth of his father is important because there are lots of Anthony Hungerfords so a DOB helps to sort out which is which.
 * The facts about his time at university is a direct copy from a reliable source but dated source. Do you have a newer source that states he is the "Anthony Hungerford of Wiltshire, who matriculated from St. John's College"?
 * -- PBS (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll just take this point by point as it's easier:
 * (died 1589) after the article subject's father's name is trivia and doesn't help the reader better understand the article subject. It's unnecessary and should not be there.
 * seems to be the Anthony Hungerford of Wiltshire This is an encyclopedia.  We don't add things that might be or are speculated to be or probably is or "[seem] to be".  Content is supposed to be written as absolutes with references to support.  If they aren't absolutes, we specify that ("scholars believe...blah blah blah").
 * but he is probably the Anthony Hungerford 'Armiger' who was created M.A. on 9 July 1594. See above.
 * * Sir Edward (1596–1648) a roundhead,... etc and the rest of the list: Write it in prose, not a list with details about people that are not directly related to helping the reader better understand the article subject. Everything else is trivia and undue weight, making it non-MOS.
 * There you go.


 * -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)The date of his father's death allows someone who is interested in this man to find out more about his family and their relationship with other Hungerfords. As Anthony Hungerford is a common family name his date helps to identify him in exactly the same way as naming the father of a woman helps to identify her.
 * 2) The speculation about his university action is an accurate reflection of the source. What I will do for you is check in the more modern ODNB and see what it says. The point about the MA is the same.
 * 3) I presume that you have not been involved much in historical English biographies. It is really quite common to include details of children and grandchildren if they do not have their own biographical articles, and what you find trivial is not necessarily so.
 * You have repeatedly stated that something is against the MOS please explain what it is that you think in this article is contrary to the Wilikpedia Manual of Style
 * -- PBS (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) The date of his father's death is trivia, undue weight, and does not give the reader a better understanding of the article subject.
 * 2) The speculation may be accurate, but as written, it is not encyclopedic in nature or in prose. It needs to be changed the reflect an encyclopedic tone.
 * 3) It doesn't matter if I've been involved in historical English biographies. I have been involved in editing encyclopedic Wikipedia articles.  It may be common in such biographies outside Wikipedia, it's against MOS to add undue weight and trivia not related to the article subject.
 * -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The ODNB which tends to have less biographical details than the DNB includes the date of his Father thus "the second son of Anthony Hungerford (d. 1589) of Down Ampney, Gloucestershire ...". So including the DOD of his father is by no means "trivial". The ODNB (which is subject to copyright) says of his education:

Hungerford matriculated at St John's College, Oxford, on 12 April 1583, but left university without taking a degree. Wood suggests that this setback was forced upon him by his father's impoverishment, though Hungerford's own memoirs record that the family had recovered its fortunes by this time (Wood, 2.410). The explanation may have been at least partly religious: his father, though a puritan, had married into a Catholic family, and by 1584 Hungerford, encouraged by his mother, a convicted recusant, had been admitted to the Roman church. None the less, he was created MA on 9 July 1584.

The ODNB full citation is: -- PBS (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is not in the WP:MOS guideline it is in the policy Neutral point of view. UNDUE says "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." So UNDUE has nothing to say on whether the date of the father's death in included in an article. -- PBS (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Undue can be broadly construed. Adding too much detail is considered undue.  Adding things that don't directly apply to the article subject are considered trivial.  This is where WP:COMMON SENSE needs to be used in conjunction with policy and MOS. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  18:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * a) Are you still saying that the article is non-MOS compliant? or are you saying it is not compliant with the Neutral point of view policy?
 * b) Given the ODNB includes the father's DOD do you still think it needs to be removed?
 * -- PBS (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * a) Yes to question 1. No to question 2.  I never said anything about WP:NPOV, my concerns were in regard to non-encyclopedic prose.
 * b) Wikipedia isn't the ODNB, it's Wikipedia. And yes, I think it needs to be removed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  19:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you are confused WP:UNDUE is a subsection in WP:NPOV it is not part of the MOS. Which part of the article do you think is furthest from MOS compliance?
 * There is an article on Wikipedia called Anthony Hungerford of Down Ampney and on 11 January this year an editor in their confusion linked the mention of the subject of this biography to that article (diff). By including the DOD in both this article and the dates on the children of the Anthony Hungerford of Down Ampney article both makes that sort of mistake less likely to happen and allows the reader to identify easily that the article about Anthony Hungerford of Down Ampney is about this man's grandfather. It is the reason why reliable sources such as the ODNB and History of Parliament includes such dates, and if such reliable sources excluded them how would editors on Wikipedia be able to tell which Anthony Hungerford of Down Ampney was father of this man?. It is good practice to include such dates as it removes one source of confusion (and is the practice in reliable sources). Now that has been explained to you do you still think that the father's DOD should be removed? -- PBS (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have already answered. I wasn't confused, I'm not uncertain in my responses.  My thoughts on the matter remain the same. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  13:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To which part of WP:MOS are you referring? Given that I have shown you that two reliable modern biographical sources include the father's DOD, what source do you have that indicates that to include such a fact is including "trivia" and "does not help the reader better understand the article subject" and is "non-MOS"? -- PBS (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Children of hist first marriage
I have removed these two entries:


 * Thomas, who emigrated to New England in 1628. He lived in Hartford, where he had children Thomas and Sarah with his first wife Rebecca Wallis. After her death, he married Hannah Willey in 1658, and together they had daughter Hannah.
 * Anne emigrated with Thomas. She married John Lee who was from London in 1636. They settled in Ipswich, Massachusetts, and had children.



Because neither of the sources given support directly the fact that these were the children of the subject of this biography. -- PBS (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The biography article on the Anne mentioned above was deleted as non-notable and it was created by a now blocked user called Kbabej. In creating the Anne biography the Kbabej cited two sources for  Sir Anthony and Lucy Hungerford as the parents there were: I do not have access to the first source and the second source is unreliable but does contain the information about Thomas and Anne: So until a reliable source is produced containing the information I suggest that the two children are not mentioned in the article. -- PBS (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * See Tudorplace.com.ar: Anthony HUNGERFORD (Sir Knight)