Talk:Richard Basset

Reversion...
The proper thing to do when you are reverted is to take the discussion to the talk page, not to revert again. I removed all the references to the 1823 reference because they were unneeded and the work is old and not up to scholarly standards of this day. There is no need for references in the lead paragraph when the article text already supports the information in the lead. Per WP:CITEVAR, when an article already has an established citation style, you should not add citations in a different style or change the style. This is a Good article - the citation style was already consistent, so it's not a good idea to add citations in a totally different style. And the use of a bulleted list for the offspring is jarring. We are an encyclopedia and it's better to use prose. Only in large articles or where the list of offspring is quite extensive should lists be used. And the breaking of that also removed the citation from the sentence "Basset witnessed a royal charter in 1135 but was dead by 1144, when his lands were granted by the Empress Matilda and her son Henry to his eldest son.". Please self-revert and discuss the changes rather than reverting with out any discussion at all. Also - please use informative edit summaries to describe what you're doing when you do things - I very carefully gave explanations with each edit I made. Edit summaries are good editing practice. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikilawyering! I shall reply in detail tomorrow. Sliven2000 (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll admit that I'd share Ealdgyth's concerns about using an 18th-century work for 12th-century biographical history, unless there's a strong reason to believe it contains reliable detail missing in modern sources. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Me too. Johnbod (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Apologies make that tomorrow. Real life intervenes. Sliven2000 (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)