Talk:Richard Kane

Deletion of references
I was at a loss as to why a reference to the respected ODNB has been deleted, leaving a statement unreferenced, so I replaced it. Using the standard WP:CITET form throughout, for consistency. Using the British Library catalogue information for one work cited (cumbersome though it is), but a shortened form wouldn't be outrageous provided the salient features, such as the publication date, are retained. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Your reference was to Bruce Laurie book, which was not the source of the statement. Apparently you are not familiar with the Sloss biography (still in print). As Janet Sloss actually wrote the words referenced, it is not appropriate to cite another book or author as reference. The other reference, to "discipline", is not so much a reference as a link to the actual text, available for free on the Bonaventura Press website. This text has been transcribed from the original publication, now long out of copyright, NOT from the more recent republished book that you cite. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 12:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK: I've now included the URL of the Bonaventura Press online text: it's clickable from within the footnote. The other reference I've added isn't from the "Bruce Laurie book" (presumably you mean The life of Richard Kane : Britain's first lieutenant-governor of Minorca ISBN 0838635016), which I haven't read, but the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. You will see from the quote that it supports the text completely, which is the point. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You will want to revisit your latest reference, which is garbled in some way. The Bonaventura link to "A New System of Military Discipline for a Battalion of Foot on Action" has nothing to do with "London: J. Milan. OCLC 220661928" nor with "Campaigns of King William and Queen Anne : from 1689, to 1712". I suggest you separate the two references rather than confuse them. MY point on your reference to Bruce Laurie (ok, not his book on Kane, but an article he wrote?) is that you are citing an author who did not write the passage instead of the author who did. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Done: now linking to an online facsimile from Google Books, rather than the transcription of the text used previously. "The author who wrote the passage" hadn't been linked in the footnotes—as you say an important point on Wikipedia. The unreferenced passage was an opinion and as such couldn't be left as it was, without a reliable source to justify it. As the passage isn't marked as a quotation, and as the old source seems to be a self-published work, deprecated in WP:SPS, I think the new reference that says exactly the same thing is justifiable.  I hope that all helps. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Bruce Laurie a reliable source? His book on Kane (and I imagine the article too) was produced from a mass of research material he inherited from another man who had actually done the research (and who was not even acknowledged for it in the first edition). When I say "the author who wrote the passage" was Sloss, I know because she wrote the text for this Wikipedia section, at my suggestion, and I uploaded it. It has stood almost unaltered for several years. Of course authors do not own wikipedia entries and are not acknowledged, but to attribute her words to another is offensive as well as inaccurate, and you have now been informed three times that the words are hers. The idea that self-publication should be deprecated by wikipedia is itself risible (not that I doubt it). I am inserting a separate reference to the "discipline" text, which is in word format and hence more useful to some researchers than a facsimile. I do not believe you are trying to be helpful.TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 09:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion that I am not trying to be helpful is wrong; I have altered the reference twice because I believed it was what you wanted. Please WP:AGF and avoid personal attacks. Please don't include material in the article because you know the author, as it's WP:NOR and not allowed. Please respect WP:BLP regarding your assessment of rival authors and their reliance on the contributions of others. Whatever the merits of that allegation I am content to continue to cite the authoritative ODNB for this article. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It is clear to me that you know very well that your alterations have been the opposite of what I want, hence my calling you on your "helpful" comment. I have not included material "because I know the author", but persuaded an authoritative source to write this section at a time when there was no section on Richard Kane. I mentioned it only to explain how I know the words you insist on referencing to Laurie are actually those of another author. Your accusation re: WP:NOR is baseless, and I believe you have made it knowing it is baseless. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 10:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)