Talk:Richard Ellis (mayor)

Dates and anachronisms

 * Re the removal of parental dates: giving the lifespan of a biography subject's parents and spouse 1. identifies them from others of the same name, 2. shows whether they died before the biography subject, that aspect being an important part of their lives.
 * Re "West Riding of Yorkshire". Please do not change that to "West Yorkshire" which did not exist in the era of this biography.
 * Please do not confuse obituaries with legacy, and please do not remove swathes of content without discussion. Storye book (talk) 10:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have a suggestion as to how else that section could be reworked into encyclopedic content? Simple lists of quotations unfortunately are not. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I repeat, please discuss before removing content. There is a reason for the quotations. Please do not tag this article, asking people to remove content, before discussing your reasons. Ellis's wife is part of the story. In England in the 19th century, wives of men in certain positions, e.g. clergy and mayors, did half the work for no pay. They had to work full time, and such men would have had real difficulty in carrying out their work without a partner to take half of the load. The quotations about Mrs Ellis are of course patronising, as if she were some sort of arm-candy (that goes with the era), but in fact she was a hard worker. She is part of Ellis's story, even though those quotes do not detail all that she really did, as they might in today's media. She was there alongside everything he did, joining in with the work, which is why, when an expensive marble bust was made of Ellis, a similar bust was made of Mrs Ellis at the same time (The bust is hidden in the Mercer Gallery archive, I'm still trying to get access to it to photograph it). Please do not dismiss clergy wives and mayoresses of that era as if women did not matter. We know better than that, today. Storye book (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree sources of that time did not detail the work done by wives; that does not mean that we should substitute the quotes that you agree are patronising. That does nothing to demonstrate that women matter.
 * As to the tagging, as already noted elsewhere, discussion is not a requirement before tagging, and tags should not be removed without addressing the issues flagged. Extensive use of quotes, and particularly sections consisting entirely of quotes, are incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please stop edit warring. It is better to discuss here, than to repeatedly add inappropriate tags to the article, which contains no crimes. The quotations are appropriate, as they demonstrate the context of the biography subject. Those mentions of his wife are just about all we have on the subject of her contribution. The quotes do at least demonstrate how much Mrs Ellis was liked and appreciated, even though their way of saying it is not compatible with ours. Discussion is certainly appripriate before inappropriate tagging, where the tagging indicates crimes which are not there, and which eggs on editors to remove necessary content from the article. The 19th century in England was not like Canada of today. It has to be shown in its true context. All the 19th-century quotations are from public domain sources, and all the quotations are correctly cited and referenced. No crimes have been committed in this article. Storye book (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You are of the opinion that the tags are inappropriate, but you have not established consensus for that viewpoint, nor is your assertion that discussion should precede tagging backed up by Wikipedia policy or practice. Between edit-warring to remove tags and requiring discussion to make changes that would otherwise address the tagged issues, it seems that there is indeed an issue with your approach.
 * The issue with the quotations is not copyright, but rather that overquoting and sections consisting entirely of quotations are incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style. Our role here is to summarize sources, not reproduce them. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no overquoting here. I have already explained my reasons, here and on several other article talkpages where you have been attempting to remove sections from articles, and then tag them inappropriately asking other editors to do the same, and then edit-war about it. If this were a very short article, with little readable prose, then your comments about length of quotes might make sense. But this is a long article, with many sources summarised and unquoted, and the quotations given in the article are well in proportion with that. I have told you repeatedly, here and elsewhere, that some quotations cannot be summarized in modern language, without compromising their historical content. A historical quotation performs the same function of a contemporary photograph or painting of an incident, object or scene mentioned in the article. It puts the historical subject of the article into their historical context. That is a necessary process, and we are lucky to have such quotations available to us. Storye book (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A section consisting entirely of quotations would be inappropriate regardless of the length of the article. Beyond that many of the given quotations could easily be summarized/paraphrased appropriately. To not do so is poor style. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree that historical quotations, which are intended to put the subject in historical context by their very nature, are inappropriate. That would be nonsense. And it is nonsense to say that you could paraphrase them all. That would not work, as I have explained to you several times. It is what works that counts, and appropriate quotations work. I think that it is now time that you stopped goading me. I have had enough. The quotations are of themselves public domain. They are cited and referenced correctly. Each quotation follows WP rules in that respect. They have a function, as I have explained, in the article. I suggest that you now back off. I have had enough of your constant messages and goading. You have done this before. Storye book (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)