Talk:Kate Dover/Archive 1

Notable for only one event
This seems to be a clear case of WP:1E; Kate Dover is notable solely for her role in the murder of Thomas Skinner and the associated trial. Content should be merged into the trial article and then redirected. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I shall be dealing with this matter later today, when I shall be free to do so. Please have patience. Storye book (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Update. I have edited the article to clarify notability. Please see the discussion on the Women in Red talk page. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussion is here. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Lead revision
Are you okay with the first paragraph of the lead as it is now?T "of Heeley in Sheffield, South Yorkshire, England" was not clear what it referred to, at first glance (whether it is her birthplace, her hometown, where she resided, etc.). Combined with the shortened name "Kate Dover", for which the article is already named, the first sentence was very cluttered and would be disorienting to a first-time reader who would want to know the main notability of the person. This revision is to follow the points outlined in MOS:FIRST, and present the most immediately notable aspects of her (while still retaining minor context, e.g. that she was English) at the very beginning.

On the issue of her family background in the lead, we have "summarize the most important points covered in an article" per MOS:INTRO. Her father being a wood carver, her employer being etcher and painter, and her skill at drawing flowers are not what I would characterize as the most important points about this article. — MarkH21 (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * No, that does not work. Her notability is not just her as the subject of her own trial, which is already covered in another article. Of course the court case is an important part of her notability, so it's OK to put it in the first paragraph of the leader. However "woman" instead of "artist and housekeeper" sidelines her as a non-individual female. Part of her notability in her lifetime and today is that she was not the kind of brute that society in those days might expect a notorious killer to be. Compare her character with, for example, the personality of Charles Peace, a contemporary murderer from Yorkshire, whose trial attracted equally large crowds to the same courtroom, and equal news coverage. Peace appears to have been a vicious brute. Dover was quite the opposite. Her letters are surprisingly eloquent, bearing in mind that mandatory education for all only began in England around 1870 - when Dover was no longer a child. She was an artist who was accepted as a student at the Sheffield School of Art as a young woman. She is likely to have had a bursary because her father would have had an average working class income, which means that her talent was recognised early on. Her talent was commented on by journalists later as well. The fact that her father, her employer, and she herself were all artists means that the major events in her life occurred in the context of an artistic subgroup within a town overwhelmed by heavy industry. If that context of her life is not shown in the leader, one of the most important parts of her notability as an individual is being sidelined or even purposely hidden to reduce her to a mere cipher of her own trial, and I'm sure that is not your intention? Altogether, she was an unusual and interesting type of killer, quite the opposite of a brute, and that point about her as an individual is as important as being a killer. I shall be correcting the leader to reflect this. Storye book (talk) 09:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * But her notability is purely due to her role in the trial. All of the other coverage on her personality and background is literally from her role in the trial. In the article, there is not a single source of media coverage on her that is not related to the trial.Regardless, her profession was a housekeeper and not an artist right? My understanding is that her being an artist was in her early education and hobbies, not as her profession. Nor was she notable for being an artist. — MarkH21 (talk) 09:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The notability is complex, and I have explained that in the header. Please do not remove that explanation. The media coverage relates to far more than just the trial. Have you actually read it? Please stop edit warring. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 09:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Explain to me how your continued reverting ( and  as well) of multiple editors (e.g. ) and ignorance of this discussion is not edit warring. Yet you have the audacity to accuse others of it?On the note of coverage being solely related to the trial, have you noticed that every single reference in that subsection has the title "The Sheffield poisoning case, trial of Kate Dover"? Anything else about the notability being more than the trial due to her personality is your own personal interpretation. — MarkH21 (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Moved from RfC below

 * Not a hobby, not OR, not edit warring, I would be still working on improving the article for notability and citations if you had not blocked my work. There is no evidence that for Kate Dover art was a hobby. On the contrary, there is evidence that she was a trained artist. If you are a trained artist, you are an artist, even while you do not have a pencil in your hand. We do not know whether she was useful for creating flower designs for the bread and butter platters which her father carved in the 1880s, an era when flower patterns were fashionable on that item. We do not know for sure whether she was useful for creating flower designs to be etched by Thomas Skinner her employer. However she was not just a housekeeper but an acting partner in his etching business during 1881. She had opportunity to contribute her skills. I could add into the header that she was employed and trained to assist in the etching business because we have a citation for that. Because she replaced the previous housekeeper Jane Jones, she would have done Jane Jones' work; Jane took part in the actual etching process. It would be very odd if Dover's drawing skills were not used. At lease one of the examples of Sheffield knives etched according to Skinner's patent which I uploaded to Commons, includes a flower pattern. As for your OR tag on the last para of the header - I would like very much to be able to improve the article to cover that. There is more research available which can be used - I am constantly researching this - but this kind of time-wasting process is preventing me from rectifying that situation. I need a few days to edit the article to clarify the points made in the header and to use the appropriate citations. If you interrupt that process and block further editing, the situation will only deteriorate. Re your accusation of edit warring against me - you only have to look at the history of the article to see what has actually been happening. I have been attempting to improve the article regarding notability, but before I have had time to complete the editing, you have removed my work. It is irrelevant to judge the content of the article while I am in the middle of a major re-edit. Storye book (talk) 10:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Is this comment for the RFC or the section above?
 * She's not notable for her being trained as an artist.
 * The third paragraph of the lead is WP:SYNTH as there aren't any sources that say anything about Her education and cultural environment, together with her complex personality of both intelligence and dishonesty, made her an unusual and notable type of killer, especially if compared with the contemporary murderer from a nearby town, Charles Peace.
 * Three reverts in 24 hours on multiple editors about the same part of the lead, while ignoring discussion on the talk page, is edit warring.
 * There is more research available which can be used - I am constantly researching this is not an excuse to ignore discussion and remove tags and concerns of other editors.
 * I have not been obstructing your editing, nor have I removed significant information - in fact there is only one edit that I have made on anything outside of the lead.
 * Assume good faith and edit collaboratively. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have removed "known as Kate Dover" from the leader on the understanding that contributors to the above discussion want it removed, and I agree with that. I have also removed it in the hope that the removal of this cause of dissent will speed up the resolution of other matters under discussion about the leader. Yes there are sources for the last para of the leader. However as I understand it, this process that you have instituted is blocking me from editing the article to demonstrate that. I was about to do so, as I have already said, and it will take time. If you were able to read all the sources, you would see what was going on in the 1870s and 80s. I need to edit the article a lot more to show that. But I have already said this. Storye book (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This doesn't have to do with the rest of the article. Feel free to edit the non-disputed parts as you wish. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the freedom to edit the body has now also been confirmed to me elsewhere. I shall now userfy a copy of the article and take time to re-edit the lot as a whole properly. I cannot do this openly to a good standard, because a half-edited section is liable to disruption by editors who cannot appreciate the full content of the citations for free without a UK library card, and by editors who do not realise that there is more to be added imminently. There is no point in people making random comments like "she was not an artist" when they are unable to see the full content of the citations - some of which are very long, complex, formal and authoritative pieces of journalism. So please understand that during the next few weeks the article will be under improvement, although the process will not be visible in mainspace. When the job is completed I shall replace the mainspace article with the new version. I am also considering removing this set of three articles from the DYK process, because whether or not the above represents a bullying attitude, it feels like the presentation of WP rules in a bullying manner from where I stand, and I cannot take this kind of stress much longer. Please now leave me in peace to improve the article carefully and to a good standard. Storye book (talk) 09:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on lead formatting
&#32;
 * 1) Should a shortened version of the subject's full name be included and bolded in the first sentence of the lead, as in  (or compare )?  (resolved)
 * 2) Should the subject be characterized as an "artist and housekeeper", wherein art was her hobby and education but housekeeper was her profession and role in her trial / crime, or just as "housekeeper"?
 * 3) Is the following paragraph appropriate for the lead?
 * "Her background was one of artists and artisans. Her father was a wood carver, her employer was an etcher and painter, and she herself attended Sheffield School of Art and was skilled in drawing flowers. Thus she was a member of the working class in a town dominated by heavy industry, and at the same time a member of an artistic subculture within that. Her education and cultural environment, together with her complex personality of both intelligence and dishonesty, made her an unusual and notable type of killer, especially if compared with the contemporary murderer from a nearby town, Charles Peace."


 * "Her background was one of artists and artisans. Her father was a wood carver, her employer was an etcher and painter, and she herself attended Sheffield School of Art and was skilled in drawing flowers. Thus she was a member of the working class in a town dominated by heavy industry, and at the same time a member of an artistic set within that. Her education and cultural environment, together with her intelligence and dishonesty, made her a complex character."

(Paragraph changed during course of RfC) 06:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. 10:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: The discussion above is relevant to all of the above, and MOS:FIRST is relevant to question 1. — MarkH21 (talk) 10:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. As far as point 1 is concerned, no, See MOS:NICKNAME: Tom Hopper example. If it's not necessary to spell that out then neither is it here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment On point 1, the short form of her name wasn't for professional or any other formal purpose, and is obviously derivable from her formal given name, so I don't think it merits a bolded entry. On point 2, her notability rests on her being a poisoner, and that is what the opening sentence needs to communicate. William Avery (talk) 07:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @William Avery. When you posted the above, 1. The short form of her name was already removed, and 2. the first sentence already said "from arsenic poisoning." We cannot use the word, "poisoner" because of the reason why she was ultimately convicted of manslaughter (British version), not murder. The first sentence of the leader has been very carefully phrased on the subject of the death of Skinner, for that very reason. For further information on that point, please see the Trial article. I should add that the whole Kate Dover article is currently being rewritten away from mainspace (see my above post), so comments on the existing article may be redundant until the article has been updated. Storye book (talk) 10:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Update. I have now updated the main text of the article to support the material already in the header. Note that the use of trial articles in the text of this biographical article is valid. The major trial articles of that period were often long pieces of work, covering background, side issues and other matters besides the courtroom procedure. I believe that it is important that a comment about the complex character of Kate Dover is pertinent to the header, and shows part of her notability as an interesting and perhaps unusual type of killer of that era. At the very least, I believe that the casual reader of the header would be interested to know that she was not a predictably uneducated brute. I have removed the OR tag from the header, on the grounds that all the information in the header is cited in the main text.
 * Note that the above point 1. can now be discounted because the alternative name "Kate Dover" has been removed from the header. The above point 2. is erroneous and can be discounted because (a) the sources do not state that art was a "hobby" for her, whereas (b) they do state to the effect that she could out-draw the other people in the courtroom, that she was a trained artist, and that she was employed not just as a housekeeper but also in the trade of an etcher, from which one may reasonably assume that her talent could have been put to use there. Point 3 can now be discounted because that paragraph is now supported by the main text of the article, and has been re-worded slightly, to fit the sources.
 * I am now requesting that this Request for Comment is closed down. It based on assumptions made by people who are not in a position to read the sources, and that is inappropriate. It is also based on the wording of the header, which now matches the main text and is backed up by sources. I am particularly desirous that this RfC be closed down because I have felt unsafe on here, on the grounds that it feels from where I am standing that somebody is using WP rules to intimidate me. As the creator of the article, and as one who is in a position to read the sources and find more, I would like to be able to further improve the article should the need arise, and one cannot do this under stress of perceived intimidation. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The part on It would not be unreasonable to suppose that as a working-class but educated artist in an industrial town, with the virtues of regular employment, temperance and fashionable appearance, set against the errors that she made, would altogether make up a complex character and perhaps an unusual type of killer... is original research / synthesis. The only reference given for that is an article about Charles Pierce himself, not about the comparison being made. Such a synthesis does not belong in articles here. You are also assuming that other people convicted of manslaughter are "predictably uneducated brutes". This is a terrible generalization that is not worth reinforcing (and is not the general case anyways).
 * Regarding the off-topic mention of intimidation: I apologize if you felt intimidated or stressed by this, but this was purely a content dispute. I objected to your continued reverts that ignored attempts at discussion and I disagreed with you on various points regarding the article content. I was not trying to intimidate you in any way, shape, or form. But I apologize for having made you feel that way. On the other off-topic point about people who are not in a position to read the sources: yes, I can read many of the sources here through university libraries. — MarkH21 (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I have adjusted the text and header to reflect your last comments about content - as I have been attempting to do all along. What you saw as reverts without discussion by me, occurred when I was in the middle of a series of edits to the article which were intended, again, to reflect your comments on the article. Like many other editors, I have to multitask, and consequently have to save frequently in the middle of edits, while attending to other responsibilities.


 * Therefore I object to your hostile tone, which appears to come from assumptions. This whole matter could have been dealt with on a polite basis without all that, and without the formal attempts on your part to delete and RfC. My point about people not being able to read the source is certainly not off-topic. If you were really able to read all the sources, your assumptions would not have caused you to misunderstand to the extent of questioning article content in such a hostile manner.


 * I am now asking you to close down this RfC. You appear to be the only person who wanted to delete the article, and the only person who is still objecting to its current content. You are of course free to disagree, but I repeat that I find it intimidating that you should continue to do this in a hostile tone, such as the word, "terrible generalisation." We are talking about 19th century industrialised England here, where there was a very different situation and social attitude from today, and a situation very different from that in America at that time. For you to attempt to dictate your own 21st century American interpretation of the 19th century British sources, if indeed you have really read them all, would appear to be a far greater OR error than what you have imagined my editing to be. I repeat that I do not feel safe here, from hostile language or actions whenever in future I should need to update or correct the article in the light of further information and research. Storye book (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I assure you that none of this is hostility. I appreciate the good work that you do here and I am only disagreeing on content-related issues here. I am not trying to intimidate you. Yes, I am the only one opposing certain aspects of the current content, and you are the only one in support. That's the whole point of the RfC - to garner more voices and obtain a consensus.
 * By the way, the "terrible" in "terrible generalization" has nothing to do with you. The meaning is that it is an unfortunate and cruel stereotype of criminals in general. I am not saying that it is somehow foolish to make the generalization, but that it is terrible from a societal view.
 * The assumption that one editor has a better understanding because they use British English and the other uses American interpretation and therefore does not understand or cannot comprehend 19th century sources is ad hominem (and off-topic for the purpose of the actual RfC). It's also worth reviewing WP:OWNBEHAVIOR because the ad hominem argument and the idea of reverting without discussion since you were too busy are explicit examples given there.
 * Since we clearly have opposing views and cannot come to an agreement, please let the RfC run with additional input from other editors. — MarkH21 (talk) 06:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your apology here and on my talkpage. but the point is that this isn't working. You are misusing the rules. You had attempted to delete the article, then after failing to do so you asked for changes. While I was attempting to make those changes, you kept preventing me from doing so. This AfC is now redundant because (a) the article has changed since you created the AfC, and (b) people have stopped commenting for that reason. This article is nominated for DYK, and shortly there will be plenty of editors available and willing to check over the article and see that it is improved to DYK standard. Therefore this AfC is not only redundant; it is in a position to obstruct DYK. The DYK process has a far better chance of wholly improving the article that this AfC process does. I understand that these points give me grounds to close down the AfC myself. I really need to work on the article and improve it to WP standards now. Storye book (talk) 09:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Nowhere did I ever "misuse the rules". I also did not attempt to delete the article. I called the notability into question and had a discussion about it, after which I was not convinced but decided to drop the issue for the time being. I never prevented you from making any changes, except the contested re-reverts because you were ignoring attempts at discussion. That more people have not yet commented on the RfC is not a reason for closing the RfC - in fact it is only a reason to extend it to garner more voices. The RfC prompt has also been modified accordingly to the current status of the article - I still contest the second and third points. Your DYK nomination also is not a valid reason to close the RfC. But fine. Our discussion is clearly counterproductive.
 * However, be aware that you should not unilaterally close RfCs (or other forms of dispute resolution in the face of explicit requests to leave it open. RfCs are media to build consensus by attracting more voices to the issue. This close was poor etiquette and only invites further escalation. — MarkH21 (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm having some difficulty understanding what points are currently in dispute in this discussion, other than editor behaviour. The content of the article has changed somewhat since the discussion began. The separate "Kate Dover" nickname is gone, the "unreasonable to suppose" is gone, and the opening sentence seems clear about her conviction for the poisoning death of Mr. Skinner. I don't personally see a problem with the "artist and housekeeper" in the lead, given her background and societal involvement in artistic work. What remains disputed? I see one point below, and have entered in the discussion of that point. —BarrelProof (talk) 12:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The "complex character" point is still in dispute, as well as the "artist" bit. Having been educated in art does not mean that she was notable as an artist, that she was professionally one, or that she was significantly involved in art for more than a few years of her education. The conduct dispute was a digression. — MarkH21 (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Dover was employed by the engraver Skinner in the same capacity as her predecessor. That is, she was trained to assist in the engraving process. The beginning of that process was the creation of the initial pattern or drawing to be engraved. On its own, attendance at an art school may not make one a professional artist, but attending an art school and then being employed in a capacity which involves the use of art does so. The quality of her drawing ability drew praise from at least one news reporter. Storye book (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * No to questions 2 & 3 - name having been settled already as a 'NO'. Sorry, but the whole article seems to be a mess of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Someone is 'an artist' because they make their living or have made their notability from having produced art - and because RS describe them as thus. No amount of ingenious working of the available facts can by-pass that. Almost all artisanal trades of that time would have involved a degree of artistic sensitivity, but being assistant to a skilled craftsman whose trade involves a small degree of sensitivity, does not make one an artist. Even today, trades as diverse as 'page layout' for a physical or web publisher, through to shop-window-display work might involve some degree of 'flair' as well as practical skill, that does not make either trade 'an artist', especially when one merely assists in the execution. I'm sorry again but the whole 'complex character', and much of the content extrapolated from it is pure WP:OR. The fact that this lady does not conform to a stereotypical version of what someone in an industrial town at that time should have been - does not make her any more complex than most other members of humanity. If sources use the term, then attributed, it can be included with the sources reasons for making the claim, not WP editors attempting to make the claim on her behalf. Pared back to the known facts, I suspect half or more of the article would go. I wonder in what sense the word 'lover' is being used, and who uses it. Modern sensibility tends to assume the word means an active sexual relationship. At those times, it might well have referred to a vague 'romantic' attachment. If I am correct, it becomes inapt to describe her as his lover in WPVOICE, and also hardly surprising that she went home at night - not a complex character, simply a conventional Victorian young woman prepared to consider/agree to marrying her - much older - employer, not unusual at that time. Flirtation with a much older man, with a possible projected marriage, is very different from her being his mistress, which is what modern sensibility assumes from the word 'lover'. A big part of the problem with the article - I suspect - is that it is highly reliant on newspapers of the time, which would have had a vested interest in 'pumpimg up' the drama of a heady, salacious 'sex and murder' scandal story. These would have been the equivalent of modern tabloids in terms of the tone of their coverage. Overall, the article needs to pare itself back to the bare facts. I find myself asking throughout as I read it, and its many conclusions and inferences, "who says?".Pincrete (talk) 10:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Re use of the word, "lover." The landlady of the local pub refers to Dover as "the Queen of Heeley and her old sweetheart". I have changed "lover" to "sweetheart" in the text. At that time, "sweetheart" could have the morally innocent meaning which it has today. However the unspoken irony is that the phrase "Queen of Heeley" as used at that time and place is loaded with certain connotations. This, the intelligent reader is left to work out, in the contemporary context of the cost of fashionable clothes, the level of Dover's income, and the attention drawn to her use of makeup. There is much material in this woman's story which is similarly loaded, but I have left it all to the reader to work out, should they wish to. However, bearing in mind that the neighbour saw Dover sitting on Skinner's lap, with him suggesting that they lie down, it would be a very naive reader who thought that they were not lovers in the modern sense. Dover was not "simply a conventional Victorian young woman prepared to consider/agree to marrying," as you put it. The letters found in the picture frame show that she had been flirting with another old man and receiving money or gifts from him, with Skinner's knowledge. Your comments about the contemporary newspapers " 'pumpimg up' the drama of a heady, salacious 'sex and murder' scandal story" are inappropriate. The court reports are sober, and the journalists report only what was said by witnesses, barristers etc. Re the use of the word, "artist", you are using a personal definition of a word whose meaning has always been controversial. However Dover fits your definition anyway, since her drawing ability was reported with some admiration twice. It was common for women at that time to expect male colleagues or relatives to take credit for their work, so in the case of women's art in Victorian England it is reasonable to expect to have to suggest what might have actually been women's work, not men's. Skinner's skill and preference in art was to paint landscapes, and occasionally buildings. His paintings did not receive good reviews. Dover's particular skill was in drawing flowers, the kind of design used on engraved cutlery at that time. It is not unreasonable to suppose that Dover's skill was potentially more appropriate than his, to draw the initial paper designs for his etched work. Storye book (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not unreasonable to suppose that her skill may have potentially been more appropriate, but it is unreasonable to suppose that it was without direct support from reliable sources. — MarkH21 (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

"Complex character"
I still don't see in the source "The Sheffield poisoning case, trial of Kate Dover" a mention about "having a complex character" and have tagged it as possible synthesis. Perhaps I missed it, but there is an analysis of her background and virtues giving a conclusion that she had a complex character? Perhaps is this referring to the account by "Mr Lockwood" that he believes that her actions were "more consistent with the manner of a woman who was going to do what he suggested..."? — MarkH21 (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I was merely stating the obvious. I have removed it, because the reader can work that out anyway. Storye book (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That's what I was referring to in all of the synthesis points in the previous discussion. We should only characterize subjects insofar as the sources do, with the reader to come to their own conclusions on the rest. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that the article talks repeatedly about her having a "complex personality" (stated four times in the current version of the article), and I find this rather questionable – especially if the phrase is not found in multiple sources. Her personality doesn't sound especially complex to me. I don't think that her education or general behaviour makes her seem very complex. Being a non-drinker who is willing to enter a pub to find someone doesn't sound especially complex. Neither does wearing fashionable clothing or being excitable or being a dutiful daughter to her parents. The article seems to say that the fact that she poisoned her employer makes her complex. Is that the only complex part of it? Excitable people sometimes do things impulsively without thinking through the full consequences of their actions, and that doesn't sound especially complex. —BarrelProof (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, "complex personality" is a non-judgemental, general layman's term (i.e. not a technical term with specific assigned meaning) for a personality which contains some complication and/or fairly strong contradictory elements which one does not normally expect to see together publicly in certain societies in certain eras. Dover's social background was respectable working class in a Victorian industrial city. The teetotal Dover did not just go in the pub to find someone. She was known to go there often to spend time in the bar with her lover. Her level of education is striking if you see the quality of her letters, yet at the same time she apparently had not discovered the effect of poisons. She was a dutiful daughter in that she went home with her mother instead of spending nights with her elderly employer, yet at the same time she was sitting on his lap in the daytime and letting him say suggestive things to her in front of the neighbour. Fashionable clothing at that time was a symbol of success and therefore decency - a shallow matter to us today, perhaps, but preferable to the feared and despised condition of poverty which prevailed in that city at that time. Such a decent appearance would at that time and place appear contradictory to her indecent or immoral behaviour (lying, and stealing property for pawning). Poisoning one's employer is not a complexity. Poisoning one's employer when contradictory elements of one's previous behaviour and personality make it difficult to judge motive is a complexity. The use of the word "complex" is there merely to bring attention to contradictory elements of personality and other complications. You are not required to understand the Sheffield cultural environment of 100+ years ago. It is reasonable, though, to admit that there are areas which are not obvious or simple. It is this very aspect which makes this biography interesting, and it is the reason why the newspapers wrote so many articles about her, which strayed beyond the actual trial. Storye book (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's how I viewed it as well, since none of the sources mention anything about her personality being particularly complex. The sources give a description of how she was a devoted, educated, fashionable, and unaware of the effects of arsenic dosage levels. Attribution of unusual complexity should not be in Wikipedia's voice unless it comes from the sources, otherwise it is the editor's own conclusion and editorializing/synthesis. — MarkH21 (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The phrase "complex character" is not an interpretation. It is a careful, non-judgemental, statement of the obvious, and is just used to sum up paragraphs. It does not include the word, "unusual." It says only that the information given about the personality is complex. Complexity in this case includes contradictory elements, and combinations of elements that we may not understand as a whole. That statement of complexity does appear to be necessary, since the above comments demonstrate that some readers do not appear to notice that some elements are contradictory, or that there are some questions which will remain unanswered. We do not need an extra citation in order to say that the combination of a number of contradictory cited facts is complex. Storye book (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Re: The phrase "complex character" is not an interpretation. It is a careful, non-judgemental, statement of the obvious, and is just used to sum up paragraphs.. If it were REALLY obvious, it would not need saying! So - unless it is explicitly stated in most WP:RS - it is an interpretation, and thus WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. If it is explicitly stated by only individual sources, it should be attributed to them.


 * I'm sorry, but this article seems to be largely WP:SYNTH, and not very good SYNTH at that. An artisanal (craftsman) background implies that one is doing manual work of a skilled nature (having served an apprenticeship of between 4 and 7 years, before being entitled to practice the skill). Therefore, on the one hand that means one is at the very top end of manual workers socially and economically, (especially as Skinner held patents) but on the other hand one remains an artisan, not an artist. Yet half the article is about the supposed complexities of being able to draw a bit, despite coming from an industrial town. How is that strange or indicative of any greater compexity than most mortals? Also, what is strange about a non-drinker buying her employer/fiance small amounts of beer daily? How is that stranger than a non-smoker buying tobacco for their employer/fiance?


 * In the lead we have "Dover was revealed to have a complex personality of both cultivated and unpredictable behaviour which bore on her sentence because a clear intent to kill could not be established." How is a supposed "complex personality" connected to an absence of evidence of intent to kill and how did her personality impact on her sentence? We are not told.


 * At the same time as this mass of - what appears to be editor speculation - basic factual info as to what evidence was offered at the trial etc. is missing. The article seems to be attempting to construct a mystery, where none really exists - some things are known, others are not, but that isn't inherently a mystery. Possibly some of the content I mention would be justified if it were attributed to the sources, but at present it reads not like a WP article, but a bit like one of the Victorian scandal-sheets it is largely sourced to.Pincrete (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to remove the phrase, "complex personality" if I thought the reader could be expected to understand the article. However you and others have made clear that you do not understand it. Poverty and deprivation was common among working class people in that town at that time, and Dover's training and ability in art, and her literary ability, were indeed unusual. The definition of "artist" as opposed to "artisan" has always been a controversial matter. Michelangelo would have been considered an artisan in his own time, but his contemporary Vasari called him an artist because both terms were then valid, and we call him an artist today. Today, the word, "artist" is used very loosely for people working in decorative or representative spheres, whether they are paid or not, but there is still no final, precise definition. Regarding the purchase of alcohol, Dover was a member of a temperance society. The matter of temperance was a very powerful and deeply held one at that time, due to the amount of poverty, suffering and death which occurred as a result of drink. It would have been no light matter for her to agree to purchase beer for her employer. This cannot be compared to purchasing tobacco, which did not at that time carry the connotations of danger and immorality which drink had. Regarding the cultivated and unpredictable behaviour mentioned in the lead, it bore on the sentence because there were so many contradictions in Dover's behaviour that the judge could not establish that there was cold-blooded planning. If anything, there was too much evidence, rather than absence of evidence, and it was the contradictory nature of this evidence which made sentencing difficult. I can certainly add more citations next week, if required. As I understand it, we are here to improve the article, not to trash the creator of it by pretending that "scandal sheets" are used as sources. If there are improvements which you would like to see, please ask for them. Storye book (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are proving my point, which is that you are determined to write an interpretation of Dover, not compile reliable info and others' interpretations (attributed). There is simply no relationship between complex personality and absence of evidence of intent - this appears to be your view. An artist is someone described thus by RS, regardless of whether you or I think the description apt. Of course RS will usually decide to call someone an artist because of their notability, or because they make their living in that way, but the key point is that they do. You are still trying to argue your interpretation, which isn't what we do here, even if I agreed with that interpretation.

My mother was a member of a Temperance society (in the 1920's) - so what? People joined such societies for all sorts of reasons and took 'the pledge' more or less seriously, women in particular joined such societies, but might well be forgiving of moderate drinking by their menfolk. But again, the important thing is not whether your or my reading of how unsurprising membership is - the point is that no one but you (AFAI can see) thinks her temperance significant, or else the article does not say who concluded this was significant and why they thought it. It simply states it as fact in WPVOICE.

I obviously meant buying tobacco NOW, but it was simply an analogy. Neither you nor I know how seriously she took her temperance nor whether he and she were sexually active together, and we should not attempt to imply either way. Maybe they were, or maybe she was just doing an 'Anne Boleyn', who 'teased' Henry VIII for years to get her way, that would equally fit the known facts. We simply don't know and, much more important than attempting to imply we do, is neutrally relating what contemporaries thought and how it impacted the trial (according to RS, rather than WP:OR).

We aren't going to agree I think, and I'm only here for the RfC, but this article is a mess of speculation. Personally I think the content would be hugely improved if all the speculative interpretation was removed and possibly, the shell facts left were then incorporated into the 'trial' article. Dover simply isn't notable enough IMO, nor is there enough reliable 3rd party info, to have an independent article about her, outside of the single event for which she is known - the crime. Pincrete (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Ah, I had wondered if this was where it was going. This article has gone through DYK with quite a few admins checking it out, and none suggested deletion or accused me of OR. Please do not make assumptions of absence of evidence before I have put in the citations, and as I have said, I intend to do that next week. I need time to do this properly and carefully, and not under duress caused by your repeated accusations and talk of deletion. Skinner's drinking was not moderate. There is a citation for that, which I also can include - complete with quotation. As for temperance, we are talking about Sheffield 1882, not US 1920s which rolled out in a different way. I have not attempted to imply anything about Dover's sexual behaviour in the article, as you well know. I only wrote the above explanation because you appear not to have read all the sources. There are citations for all that I have said about events and witness statements regarding Kate Dover. So long as you are attempting to make allegations of OR, "scandal sheets" etc., before I have had a chance to improve the article, your comments look offensive and vexatious from where I stand. I think you should apologise for the "scandal sheet" comment which is without foundation. I do not create articles on the basis of scandal sheets and you know it. I would thank you now to behave peacefully and allow me to improve the article, taking into consideration what you have said about OR and so on. So far I have cooperated as far as possible with constructive comments made on this page, and I am happy to continue to do so. However it is never advisable to edit in response to vexatious behaviour because it is always impossible to please someone who just wants to see the article deleted and says so. Storye book (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The issue is that a large portion of the article, in its current state is not directly supported by the sources and is original research. If you can remedy some of that by providing the appropriate sources later, then please do so. However, it is reasonable to remove the material now. Should you be able to find such sources in the future, then add them at that time. The consensus here is fairly clear that the attributions of having a complex character and related impacts (e.g. ... bore on her sentence ...) are currently not directly supported.Pincrete's point was that after removing those parts of the article, the remaining bits may not suggest sufficient standalone notability separate from the trial. The description of "someone who just wants to see the article deleted" is inaccurate. The point of this discussion has never been to put anyone "under duress", but to evaluate the current state of the article.Finally, the absence of someone providing a specific observation does not mean that the observation is invalid. — MarkH21 (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Admin status is also irrelevant. Pinging the mentioned editors in case they may wish to provide input. (only the last of whom is actually an admin anyways). — MarkH21 (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have removed "complex" from the article. There is a great deal more to do and to add, and this requires time to do it properly. Please be patient; for the nth time, I shall do it next week. I cannot do it today, that would be irresponsible because I have been up for many hours and am very tired indeed. Whether or not you both have put me under duress to edit quickly may not be obvious to you, but you need to accept that that is how it feels from where I stand. Please stop talking about deletion before I have done this major edit. It is interesting that still nobody has apologised for accusing me of creating the article out of "scandal sheets." Storye book (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly within your right to feel that way, but not to suggest that my (or any other editor's) purpose here is to delete the article or that we are following you around. I am not asking that you edit it quickly, just that there is material there now (or at the time of comment) that is inappropriate and should be removed until the sources are added. I also never mentioned "scandal sheets". — MarkH21 (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't. It was Pincrete who said, "a bit like one of the Victorian scandal-sheets it is largely sourced to." There are no scandal sheets in the citations, and never have been in this article. Storye book (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As I haven't read most of them, I probably shouldn't have referred to the local papers used as 'scandal sheets'. However, as today, so then, a degree of scepticism about local newspaper coverage of a tale with many 'juicy' elements (younger woman/older man who has money ... some 'hanky-panky' between them implied but never stated ... poisoning) is probably appropriate.
 * Additionally, so much of the text should be framed as "prosecution claimed that", "witness X said that", or "Leeds Echo wrote that", or, where in multiple sources, "contemporary news coverage said". Even in 2019 we would be sceptical about turning provincial news coverage of a puzzling, but also slightly salacious trial into WP:VOICE - even more so of weighing the evidence ourselves - which does appear to be what is being done with the "were they lovers?" question and some others.Pincrete (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think implementing the suggestion in the second paragraph above would be extremely helpful here. Precise attribution here would probably resolve most of these issues. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)