Talk:Broun baronets

message: It seems some editors insist on using direct quotes from sources of unclear neutrality, and therefore I have added the appropriate tag. Please re-write the offending sections accordingly. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 00:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a quotation and the source is given. What is the problem? - Kittybrewster 01:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it doesnt state who exactly said it - also you should not remove the tags until the issue is sorted out.--Vintagekits 01:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the issue is sorted out. It is a quotation from Anderson's book. Actually I think the text would be improved without the adjective, but it is not for me to remove it. You are wrong about not removing fact tags once the issue is sorted out. - Kittybrewster 01:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue isnt "sorted". I know you said it was in that book but if you are to use a direct quote you must attribute it if requested or remove it. So who said it?--Vintagekits 01:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think the text would be improved without it then please re-write it so it's in a more neutral tone and not in the form of a direct quote, as I suggested above. One Night In Hackney303 01:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Tyreniius. - Kittybrewster 01:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So who made that qoute in the book?--Vintagekits 01:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The author of the book wrote the book. - Kittybrewster 01:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Transcript says he didn't. One Night In Hackney303 01:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: because the quote above (Alastair of Electric Scotland) is not a quote from the book quoted. In the same way that VK earlier today wrongly merged references Debrett's Peerage and Debrett's People of Today. - Kittybrewster 01:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except the website claims that it is the same. . Hence my question. IrishGuy talk 01:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: According to Electric Scotland it's a 2,250 page project in total, I'm slightly confused that rather than just type the books out verbatim he'd spend time re-writing it in his own words while removing information as well. One Night In Hackney303 01:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine he has a different edition which I don't have. - Kittybrewster 01:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted above, the website claims that it is the same. . IrishGuy talk 01:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we archive the bottom half rather than have the same debate in two sections please?  According to this there may be later editions, but I still propose the quote in question is removed and re-written without the peacock language under the circumstances, which Kittybrewster agreed would be better above. One Night In Hackney303 01:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1863 is not 1867. - Let us sleep on the merge/ archive proposal. - Kittybrewster 02:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1) Peacock terms

message: :I imagine he has a different edition which I don't have. - Kittybrewster 01:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kitty do you have a copy from 1867 or a reprint - if it a reprint which ed.?--Vintagekits 01:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted above, the website claims that it is the same. . IrishGuy talk 01:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't. The web site says 1863. Kitty's is 1867. This would explain a possible rewrite of some text. But we do need to square this. Kitty - is it taken directly from the book, or from an intermediate source, which could have introduced an amendment? Tyrenius 02:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a book which says it is a reprint. And it doesn't echo the text in the article (which obviously comes from other sources as well). - Kittybrewster 02:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Possibly the most well-known thing about this family is not their glorious history of service to Scotland, but the famous Colstoun Pear, which Hugo de Gifford of Yester (d.1267), famed for his necromantic powers, described in Marmion, was supposed to have invested with the extraordinary virtue of conferring unfailing prosperity on the family which possessed it.
If that is the case, then it was not correct to put it in quotation marks and cite the book as the source. 
Or do you meant that this is a direct quote, but the rest of the article comes from different sources?
Tyrenius 02:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The latter. - Kittybrewster 02:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 3) William Anderson - The Scottish Nation

message: *Kittybrewster gave a direct quote and cited The Scottish Nation (1867). 
*This differs from the quote online at electricscotland.com  which cites The Scottish Nation (1863). 
*However, electricscotland.com gives "Published: 1863 (various editions)". This means it was first published in 1863 and there were later editions. This is different to straight reprints of the original. An edition can be (substantially on occasion) revised. This would explain the difference in text. 
Failing any other evidence, I accept the text quoted is as printed in the 1867 edition. Print sources are perfectly acceptable. If someone want to check to disprove this, then they need to either a) prove there was no 1867 edition or b) find the 1867 edition and show it was not the text quoted. Kitty may wish to provide a scan of his copy, but that is not required at this stage.
Tyrenius 03:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 4) Summary to date

message: Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms refers to editorial writing. It is not applicable to quotes. This is quite clear from WP:NPOV:
:Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It is important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe..." formulation popular in political debates. The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name (with the clear implication that the named individual should be a recognised authority).
Quite obviously this quote is attributed to "a name" and also for that matter "a recognised authority". However, he is obviously not a contemporary authority, but a historical figure, so it is important to make this clear, as authors 140 years ago wrote in a very different style to contemporary authors. This enables the reader to make their own judgement and compensate accordingly. In fact the effect of Victorian overstatement can end up having the opposite effect on the modern reader to that which the author intended.
Even if this quote is not used, the opinion of the author can still be cited, as long as it is attributed to him. It therefore seems to me to be more economical, as well as adding some flavour to the article, to simply keep it as it now is. That's an editorial  judgement which of course others are free to differ from. 
However, regardless of that, I think this page is testimony to a very rigorous enquiry that is a credit to wikipedia. 
Tyrenius 03:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am amazed that there could have been such a major exercise over this extremely modest article which contained nothing contentious or manufactured. There was a good set of source material given for such a minor article, in fact more than I have seen on countless other articles where often there are none at all. Looking back to when I created the article observers will see that I only attributed actual quotes to two writers. I cited Anderson as my source for much of the article but I did not actually quote him (although I lifted much from him). My edition is the revised 1867 (9 volume) set. But there are many editions of this work. I have seen editions as late as the 1890s and condensed into two big volumes. A glance at ABE Books will give some idea of the number of editions available. David Lauder 15:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peacock language

message: Yes, but what happened to the pear? Where is it now? Where can I get one? What would happen if you owned the pear and were, at the same time, a member of Lloyd's of London? --Major Bonkers 15:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would undoubtedly all go pear-shaped. Tyrenius 00:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You wacky kid!--Vintagekits 00:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: That pear (again)