Talk:Robert Dover (Cotswold Games)

Redirect
I have reverted the redirect, which had not been disussed here. It seems to me that Robert Dover is sufficiently notable to merit his own article. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * He clearly isn't, as very little is known about him other than that he presided over the Cotswold Olimpick Games. Just take a look at his five-paragraph ODNB entry for instance. Only one is about Dover, the rest are about the Games. Just look at this article. What percentage of it is about Dover rather than the Games? The Games article already contains a biography of Robert Dover. Malleus Fatuorum 18:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A few minutes enabled me to find one reference to his career, which I have added to the article. Being in the DNB is prima facie evidence of notability.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * He's only notable for one thing, and that's the games. The games article is now significantly expanded and is being aimed at FAC - there's no need for a separate article on Dover when everything we already know about him will be (or already is) in the games article.  See Myra Hindley or Ian Brady, for instance. Parrot of Doom 19:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The ODNB article has to be on Dover, because it's a biography, but if you read the article you'll see that it's actually about the Games, which is what Dover is notable for. People who are notable for one event do not have their own article separate from that event on wikipedia. Just as a notable murder victim, like Keith Bennett, does not have his own article. Malleus Fatuorum 19:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You're barking up the wrong tree. This isn't an issue of notability, and nobody has disputed Dover's notability. The point you're missing is that Dover already has an article, a far better one than this miserable effort will ever be. It just happens to be called Cotswold Olimpick Games. Malleus Fatuorum 20:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The question is not really if he is notable or not, because he most likely is, but a question of editorial judgement. Does it make more sense for the reader to be sent to the Games article or to end up here? It is an often used fallacy on Wikipedia that just because a subject is notable the article should exist. --Harthacnut (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd add that this article is 171 words of readable prose, about 79% of which are about the Games, not about Dover. The Cotswold Olimpick Games article already has a far better biography of Dover than this article ever can, because it's impossible to discuss Dover without examining his role in the Games. Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Quite so, and it is equally fallacious to argue that material should be deleted simply because it is capable of being improved. If the 110 words or so on Dover were integrated here then we'ld have a perfectly good article on Dover of which less than half would be about the games.  Cotswold Olimpick Games is not an article about Dover, as the games have a 400-year history of which Dover is not the largest part.  To extract the life of Dover from that article is not completely convenient.    Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Silly to have this argument here. I'm going to nominate it for deletion. Parrot of Doom 21:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no question of "deleting material" Kenilworth Terrace, simply of putting that material in the right place. Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Glad to have your assurance on that. The article now contains the material about Dover from Cotswold Olimpick Games which in my opinion would look better without a digression in the minutiae about Dover's life before he started the games.  Galligan mentions the possibility that Dover was influenced by the Gog-Magog games in Cambridge, by the way, but that's probably for the COG article, which I don't propose to work on.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand me. I still want this article to be deleted/redirected, as it contains no material not already covered better in the Games article. The Galligan book can hardly be considered a reliable source IMO. Malleus Fatuorum 17:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Soldier
The lead claims that Dover was a soldier. Who says that he was a soldier? Malleus Fatuorum 17:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Gog Magog
"it is possible that while at Cambridge Dover came into contact with the "Gog Magog" games,[1] held on the Gog Magog Hills outside Cambridge."

This appears to be original research. Page 59 of Galligan says no such thing, only that those games may have been known as such while Dover was at Cambridge. A quick search through Porter's book doesn't even show one result for "Dover". Parrot of Doom 17:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd add that Dover was apparently only 13 when he left Cambridge, and he wasn't there for very long anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 18:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a clear summary of what Galligan says: "The common link between the Gog Magog Olimpick Games and Robert Dover's Cotswold Games is Cambridge University" and "[the Gog Magog games] may have been known by that name as early as 1595 when Robert Dover was at Cambridge". Porter's book is a reference for the Gog Magog games being held at Cambridge, since there is, sadly, no Wikipedia article on the subject to link to.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * None of that says or even implies that Dover knew of the Gog Magog games, and I suggest that this is original research, and should be tagged as such, or removed. Parrot of Doom 19:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It is the clear and natural interpretation of the source. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a clear and blatant distortion of the facts. Malleus Fatuorum 19:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Your interpretation may disgree with mine, or anyone else's. That doesn't make yours, or mine, or anyone else's, a "distortion".  What do you think Galligan is saying here?  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

He's saying two quite unrelated things, from which you're drawing an unwarranted inference:
 * 1) The Gog Magog Games took place outside Cambridge.
 * 2) Robert Dover spent a short time at one of the colleges of Cambridge University.

You are deducing from that that Dover may have "come into contact" with the Gog Magog Games, but an equally valid assumption (for that's all it is) would be that he may not have done. Malleus Fatuorum 19:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you see me quote "The common link between the Gog Magog Olimpick Games and Robert Dover's Cotswold Games is Cambridge University"? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw you write "it is possible that while at Cambridge Dover came into contact with the "Gog Magog" games", and I saw you attribute that conclusion to Galligan. Do you need someone to draw you a picture? Malleus Fatuorum 19:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What I need is beside the point. What this talk page needs is for editors to comment on content, not the contributor.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * its original research. End of discussion. Parrot of Doom 23:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Burial date
There's inconsistency among the sources, which confused me yesterday. Candidate dates are 6 June 1641 (Notes and Queries 1959, DNB Stephen ed) and 24 July 1652 (Whitfield 1958, Powell 1930). Is there a reliable source that can resolve this? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 11:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a paper in the 1913 British Medical Journal which specifically corrects the Stephens DNB date of 1641 and cites the 1652 from the Barton register.  I suggest we go with that.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)