Talk:Margery Jackson

A small suggestion
@Storye book Happened to come across this nicely written new article.

While reading the lead of the article, I had a feeling that First 2 sentences should preferably like; "Margery Jackson (1722–1812) of Carlisle, Cumberland, England, was a litigator, landlady and miser. Jackson has been remembered in English literature, a musical and Tullie House Museum displays, for her eccentric behaviour, and for the size of her fortune." Since Jackson place in popular literature and culture seems to be of core importance for her encyclopedic notability.

IMHO, the information ".. Jackson has been remembered in English literature, a musical and Tullie House Museum displays, for her eccentric behaviour, and for the size of her fortune. .." preferably should follow first intro sentence "Margery Jackson (1722–1812) of Carlisle, Cumberland, England, was a litigator, landlady and miser. ..". &#32;Bookku   (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your small suggestion. If I were writing the article at any time before the middle of the 20th century, I would probably agree with you. But Jackson the caricatured miser with the grasping hands, box of gold and caricatured beard, has now been reassessed. She is now seen as an independent woman whose achievements as a litigator and businesswoman, in the impossibly corrupt Chancery courts of the 18th/19th century, and and in an institutionally misogynistic world, is the way she is seen in today's more enlightened view. Her litigation and business acumen was her real achievement, not her vulnerability to caricature.
 * It took me several years to create this article, because initially my main sources were written long, long ago, and I was waiting to get hold of the modern assessment of her, to balance the article. The material that you have asked to see is still in the article; it is just not what the reader of today should be setting their eyes on first. We still have a long way to go, in this world. We still mock our seniors by featuring ugly witches at Halloween and in Shakespeare's Macbeth (I have long believed that the witches in Macbeth should be men in the prime of life acting as men - but that's another story). Storye book (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC).
 * @Storye book I got your point and I appreciate. I made suggestion since it took me some time to understand the notability.
 * Still I do have a feeling that lead deserves some restructuring. I am not sure word miser is needed in introductory sentence. IMO other than first introductory sentence, rest of sentences of first para and second para in the lead can very well be accommodated in first section of the article under simple section heading 'Background'.
 * Of course these are just suggestions and nothing more. Happy editing &#32;Bookku   (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for your suggestions, . However, on WP the lead is a summary of the article. Thus the reader in a hurry can read the lead and have a general idea of what is in the article. In this case, the lead is in three sections. The first tells us who she was and what she achieved. The second paragraph tells us the reason for her notoriety as a miser, which was known for over 200 years after her death. The third paragraph tells us how she was remembered, and - very important - the change in attitude to her as a woman. If we leave any of that material out, we are not summarising the article in a balanced and neutral manner. Storye book (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Please do not remove content from article without discussion

 * "This difficult lady" is both an echo of the description above (drinking, swearing, etc.) and an indication of the self-sacrifice of Bowman for taking her into his house, where she behaved appallingly. All cited in article. Jackson was, in the terms of her era, a "lady", in that her family was gentry. Note that this is British English, which then and now contains meaningful class terms, whether or not you may like them.
 * The description above is sufficient without editorializing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The phrase paraphrases the description above, so it is not editorialising. Storye book (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It imposes a value judgment as opposed to simply describing behaviours, and even if that were not the case, it's still unnecessary. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not a value judgment, because 1. it echoes the material above and below it, and  2. it is an understatement of that material.  I think you need to let go of this. Your repetitions of a complaint which has already been explained away are vexatious. Storye book (talk) 09:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * "and their legacies to their offspring were to affect those four children's lives - especially that of Margery". This is borne out by the article's following text and by citations therein. That wording is there to paraphrase the following complex text, to make it easier to understand.
 * If the following text is somehow too complex to understand, it should be edited, rather than editorializing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Paraphrasing text which follows the paraphrase is not editorialising. The text in question is already clearly written. By "make it easier to understand" I meant that the reader can understand a long text more easily if its contents are indicated at the beginning. It is doing the same job as the lead is doing for the entire article, i.e. a summary which serves as an introduction. Storye book (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not the purpose of a preceding section to summarize the following section; it's not the lead. This "paraphrase" is not appropriate to this section. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You are only repeating an opinion here, and there are no WP guidelines to support your opinion. I think you should let this go, because your repetition appears vexatious. Storye book (talk) 09:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What WP guidelines do you believe support your opinion? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * "and was educated". We need the "and", because it connects the education to the Jameses. Without the "and", the reader could assume that she was educated by her brother or someone else. It matters because the effect of the Jameses on Jackson is used by both main sources (Blair and Hallaway) to at least partially explain Jackson's behaviour and character.
 * The reader could assume either way, since neither construction explicitly states she was educated by the Jameses. If that is the case, it should be stated explicitly, rather than relying on extending the sentence to the breaking point to suggest it. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The sentence is not extended to the breaking point. It might be considered so if this were Simple Wikipedia, but it is not Simple Wikipedia. Although it seems obvious to me that since Jackson was in the James' care during her youth, her education would have been under their control, I have added "on their instructions" into the text to clarify. Storye book (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed this is not Simple Wikipedia, but that's not a reason to create unnecessarily complex constructions, particularly now that the intended meaning has been properly provided. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Just because sophisticated British English may be beyond you, it is not beyond others. This is a platform for adults. If you do not understand sentences with clauses, then please accept that other people do understand them. Your repeated complaints are now appearing vexatious. I think you should let this go. Storye book (talk) 09:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As per WP:AUDIENCE, articles should be "accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible". That's not limited to "sophisticated" readers, or even adults. If your only rationale for not simplifying is that some readers may be able to understand phrasings no matter how convoluted, it's you who should let this go. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You are just repeating your own opinion here, The sentence is perfectly accessible and understandable. I have rephrased it, simply to stop this pointless conversation. Storye book (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * " (died 1831)". This is to differentiate Bowman from others of the same name, or to otherwise identify him. It also shows that he outlived Jackson, which matters, because it means that he was there to look after her until she died.
 * That he outlived her is already clear, and the rest is not the point of this article. See MOS:BIRTHDATE and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not about genealogy. The death date is a confirmation that he outlived her, and it also indicates how much time he had left to enjoy his huge legacy. Identifying characters in the article who have no WP articles is quickly and simply done, or partially done, by providing their dates. Storye book (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Identifying characters who have no articles is not the point of this article. How much he did or did not enjoy his legacy is also not relevant to this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * All articles include subsidiary material which is not in itself the titular "point of the article". For example, if an event occurs in a particular town, and that town is one of several with the same name, we link the town, and sometimes for the reader's convenience we add the context of the town (i.e. county/state/country). Also, the fact of identification and the subject of enjoying a legacy is not mentioned or dealt with in the article. That was part of my explanation to you, but you are arguing as if those elements were actually in the article. You are just repeating a complaint about something which has already been explained to you. Your repetitions are now appearing vexatious. Please refrain from this, and let it go. Storye book (talk) 09:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * "Safety was a necessity". This introduces a new, explanatory sentence. The preceding sentence would be too long without starting a new sentence at this point, and the new sentence needs that phrase to explain the connection between the action of the naughty boys, and Jackson's expected response.
 * "and she was judged accordingly". This is one of the most important matters in the article. It is in the section which describes the mockery, hatred, caricature and judgement which Jackson had to endure, and it is there to echo Hallaway's (cited) criticism of Blair's view of Jackson, and of the way Jackson's story was treated until 1991.
 * What specific source and page do you believe ties the mockery hatred etc to a judgement of sinfulness? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have now clarified that text, with citations. Storye book (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You've added a citation regarding perspectives from hundreds of years before the events of this article. Linking that to views of the subject is pretty textbook original research and has no place here. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the new text goes in a different direction. There is no original research here; the citations which follow that phrase are 2000 and 1991 in date, and both are authoritative, published secondary sources. Your repeated complaint about something which is now changed, appears vexatious. Please stop this and let go. Storye book (talk) 09:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The two changes made both worsened the situation. The citation on the phrase "Traditionally, miserliness was characterised as the sin of withholding charity. and misers were judged accordingly" does not speak to views of the subject, or even views contemporaneous to the subject; thus, linking this claim to views of the subject is absolutely OR and not appropriate. Your assertions here do not address that fundamental issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You are again repeating your own opinion here. The statements in the article are supported by citations and a quotation. Storye book (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * "was prepared to make allowances, but she also judged Jackson". This is a partial summary of Blair's attitude to Jackson, and it needs to be said, because the article has to be balanced and neutral to Blair, where possible. Without that wording, we would be trying to make out that Blair was entirely a wicked witch in the terms of today, and that would make us as judgmental as Blair was towards Jackson. In fact, Blair's character-assassination of Jackson was normal and expected in her era for those writing about misers, and Blair deserves credit for trying to explain how Jackson was not treated lovingly by the Jameses or by her brother. Storye book (talk) 09:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not in any way a balanced or neutral summary to make without secondary sourcing, and it's not up to us to define how readers should see Blair. See WP:NPOV. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The neutral point of view, as I have explained above, is the very reason why I included that text. I have now expanded the section. Storye book (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Your expansion has not addressed the problematic wording. Neutrality does not mean making apologies for or crediting Blair, when we don't have secondary sourcing supporting that. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You need to look at the text in the article. The structure has now been changed. Your repeated complaints about something which no longer exists is vexatious, in my opinion. Please let go of this, now. Storye book (talk) 09:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * You have again attempted to remove content from this article without discussion. That is not the way we do it here. The material is not against guidelines, and it is not illegal. If you cannot discuss and come to an agreement before removing material, then I shall have to continue to revert your unilateral and undiscussed attempts to remove material. Your behaviour has become vexatious here. Please refrain, and let go. Discussions on article talk pages are about improving the article. They are not about winning just for the sake of it. Please refrain from repeating complaints or making up new complaints after the situation has been explained to you. Storye book (talk) 09:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That is indeed the way we do it here: you don't own the content you contribute, anything you add can and will be edited by others, and you cannot just declare you're going to revert anything you don't agree with. Contrary to your assertions, there is material here that is indeed against guidelines, as discussed above, and improvements needed that you are actively preventing. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I fear that you are weaponising the guidelines here, to support your opinion in a forceful manner. There is nothing wrong with the article. I have not declared that I would revert material on the basis of just not agreeing with it. That is not what I said at all. I said "I shall have to continue to revert your unilateral and undiscussed attempts to remove material." You have been removing content before discussing it, and then you have been unable to prove that there is anything wrong with the material. As you have done a number of times before on talkpages of articles that I have created, you are causing me extreme distress by your actions. Every day I wake up to more unfounded accusations from you, and every day you will not let go. The article history shows that I have made changes to the article in response to this discussion, in genuine attempts to resolve your personal worries. At no point have you acknowledged that, but have always responded with an unjustified attempt at reprimand. As has happened before when you have behaved like this, I have made repeated and extended attempts to explain the construction of the article and its contents to you, and you have ignored my explanations and repeated your opinion again and again. I am certainly not "owning" the article. I have been attempting to explain it. I repeat, your repetitive daily behaviour in this discussion is causing me severe distress. I am an ordinary article editor who does their best for WP, and does not commit crimes in articles. I strongly suggest that you STOP THIS NOW and STEP AWAY, Nikkimaria. Storye book (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And I strongly suggest you rein in your ownership of this article. Having just now read through the thread, and as an uninvolved editor, I agree in every particular with Nikkimaria's comments above.  Wikipedia is a factual encyclopedia, not a speculative biography where its author can editorialize and indulge in flowery language to his or her heart's content.  "Difficult" (for instance) is a value judgment, and if the source material uses that turn of phrase, it must be made explicit that such is the opinion of the author of the source. Beyond that, you are badly mistaken if you believe that any editor is required to secure your prior approval before removing material from any article on Wikipedia -- or that such removal is contingent on your subsequent blessing upon it -- whether or not you created it.  A talk page discussion is called for when the inclusion or removal of material is in dispute, upon which consensus determines the result, and a RfC may be called for if consensus cannot be reached. Ultimately, if you want complete editorial control over your prose, then I suggest writing a scholarly book or monograph.  Wikipedia, by contrast, affords no such control.   Ravenswing      14:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * . I have removed "this difficult lady" from the article text. But there is no flowery language here. Also, please re-read my comment above. I did not say anything to the effect: "any editor is required to secure your prior approval before removing material from any article on Wikipedia -- or that such removal is contingent on your subsequent blessing upon it -- whether or not you created it". I said, "If you cannot discuss and come to an agreement before removing material, then I shall have to continue to revert your unilateral and undiscussed attempts to remove material". This was because the alternative might have been an edit war, and I was anxious to avoid that. In that context, I was not talking about just any material. I was talking about the material listed above, in my original post in this section. This was specific material which had been removed by Nikkimaria, and which I felt needed to be explained in the hope of greater understanding and of dealing with it in a civilised manner. If you care to check the other discussion in which you took part, you'll see that I am not the "owning" type, and that I always cooperate with other editors who behave normally. Storye book (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I also agree with all of the changes Nikkimaria implemented - they were all improvements, in my view, and should be reinstated. Girth Summit  (blether)  15:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My complaint was never about whether to change or correct the content. It was about explaining it, and then working out how to change it and why. By the time you wrote your last comment here, all the above quoted phrases/sentences had been changed or corrected, except two. I have just changed/corrected the final two.
 * You know, it takes some editors (especially me) a while to deal with questions which change the face of an article. I need to think about it, and make sure that it is the right thing. Hounding does not help, it just makes things worse. Due to sight deterioration, I now have to touch-bype blind, then check for typos 2 inches from the screen with one good eye. This means a lot of checks because I miss a lot of the typos. Short term memory loss is also a difficulty, because I have to read and re-read, the above, respond to it, then read and re-read it again because I have forgotten it. I am very exacting and like to be precise and get things right, which is why it takes so long.
 * I daresay there are many other editors here who have similar or worse problems with editing text and constructing articles. I do try to respond immediately, but writing a paragraph like this takes ages. Please be patient, and try to have good faith that every effort is being made to provide best quality work.
 * And on another tack (in general terms, not about the above), you know, when I first came on here and created articles, if editors were abrupt or bullying, I just tolerated it politely, because that is my natural way. But it became clear in due course that if I do not robustly defend what I understand to be right, they can and do introduce all sorts of erros into articles, such that the text no longer matches offline sources. I have found that if I respond robustly, and give them that information, in most cases they will allow me to get the text to match the sources again. However in some cases they do not allow that, and I just have to give up on that article. Surely it cannot be right that I cannot correct articles which now contain lies. Sometimes, just sometimes, the editor of an article which contains offline sources, knows more than an incoming editor who introduces "facts" which make sense in their country today, but do not make sense in certain historical subjects in the UK. I have told you this, not to go off on another subject, but to explain why I have responded so robustly in the conversation above. Storye book (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You do not need to defend your prose robustly, or at all, from editors like Nikkimaria. I'm quite serious about this - she is one of the most experienced and talented content writers active on this project. If she were to take the time to review one of my articles, and she made some changes to it, I would not be trying to defend my text - I would be thanking her for her input, and if I didn't understand some of the changes she made, I'd be asking her to expand on her reasoning so I could learn from it. Seriously, working with editors like her, who are exacting and frank, but also deeply knowledgeable and generous with their time, is a terrific learning process.
 * I am familiar with writing about historical subjects in the UK, and frequently (mostly, in fact) work with offline sources - see my userpage for more on the type of work I do. This isn't the place to discuss other articles, but if there are times when you have felt bullied away from a particular article, and if you know it contains inaccuracies, feel free to drop by my talk page and I can potentially help with that. Girth Summit  (blether)  17:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

British English
Please note that this article is written in British English. In British English, "pile of gold" can mean a pile of gold of any size, including a tiny pile To make "pile of gold" mean an impressively large pile of gold, it is common in British English to qualify the term, e.g. "great pile of gold".

I would guess that in American English, "pile" in common usage normally means an enormous heap, but it is not normally taken to mean that in British English. I have changed "pile" to "box" in the article, because I had not previously considered that Americans might not understand the British English meaning. I hope that helps. Storye book (talk) 09:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * For WP:LEAD purposes/clarity, how about something like "Jackson accrued thousands of pounds in gold in rent from her properties, which she kept until she died." I'd like to change "accrued" to something more common, but the word certainly fits. Telling British and American English apart is not a strong talent of mine. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Re today's edits:

Wikipedia has rules about conflict of interest. One obvious reason for that is that is that (for example) businesses and politicians could otherwise pay staff to whitewash articles about them, or turn those articles into advertisements, for the purposes of making more money or winning more votes. To help prevent that kind of possibility, we need to define conflict of interest. See Conflict of interest for more information.

If this applies to you, please suggest your projected edits here for discussion. Meanwhile, I have removed the uncited edits and the edits which do not exactly match the pre-existing source. I have updated the YouTube link to the musical. Storye book (talk) 07:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)