Talk:Lord Nicholas Hervey

message: Cite for "industrious boy..." is House of Hervey, one of several general source cites below article text.  I believe citation required cite can therefore be removed? 96.224.40.10 03:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The citation tag stays until a precise citation is given inline.  See WP:REF for a good explanation of policy and technique.  It states: "inline citations, that is, references within the text, which provide source information for specific statements" are necessary for direct quotations.  If you have a copy of the book to hand, could you add it?  Thanks. BrainyBabe 20:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really know how to do footnotes, but see that other quotes cite generally "Daily Telegraph", eg. w/no dates or pages.  So a simple "House of Hervey" may do.  Perhaps the one who added that section (CR?) can add the note?  If not, I can try to find a page cite. 71.190.70.203 22:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:REF, or to give it its full title, Wikipedia:Citing sources, will show you how to do inline references (which then automatically appear as footnotes).  Or, if you prefer, read Wikipedia:Footnotes.  Those existing references that are vague could do with more precision; it would be a valuable contribution for you to amend them, if you have the sources to hand.BrainyBabe 23:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe removing the quotations is sufficient for now unless whoever posted the cite or you or another wish to put in the fn; ie, if the quotes are added, a citation should be added, otherwise it's just like every other summary isn't it?  If needed, the general source House of Hervey can be inserted as cite, as was suggested to you earlier.71.190.74.155 03:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A book cannot be given to support a specific citation, as all the policy documents (note: not guidelines) referred to above make plain.  A page number is needed. BrainyBabe 23:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: what i mean is w/o the quote it's not a cite, is it - otherwise every item and phrase would need a fn.  I understand you have frequent difficulty understanding me, but believe re-reading my prior post should be sufficient (I won't resort to your frequent re-quoting of yourself).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.74.155 (talk) 03:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation requirement

message: "Nicholas Hervey was a descendent of William the Conqueror on both his mother's and father's side, and has one common descendant." What does the last bit mean?  How can a man who died childless have any descendants at all? BrainyBabe 23:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume it means that all his ancestors go back to one person (couple!), indeed obscure, as everyone has the same claim! --Counter-revolutionary 23:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mitochondrial Eve perhaps?! BrainyBabe 23:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or just Adam and Eve but, yes, that sort of thing! --Counter-revolutionary 23:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you mean Y-chromosomal Adam....But on a separate note, I have just seen alternate spellings of the same word in one sentence.  Sloppy indeed!  I'll wait a day or two and see if anyone wants to justify it.BrainyBabe 00:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The jist is that he is slightly inbred, which everyone is not necessarily, at least recorded so.  Burke's gives this info and it refers to an ancestor on his mother's line breeding with an ancestor on his father's line and having a child (named Nicholas and for whom he can be presumed named).  Certainly the wording can be improved and I agree inbred is more easily understood.71.190.74.155 05:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If everybody in the world is inbred, in the sense that our mothers and fathers share a common ancestor, then it is hardly an encyclopedic fact.  Unless his parents were recognisably, if distant, cousins who married, it is not worth mentioning.  NH may not be named after that Nicholas mentioned in Burke's -- there may well be others nearer on his mother's side -- we don't know and shouldn't speculate. Recommendation: delete the phrase "and has one common descendant". BrainyBabe 08:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you review Burke's - it has a special inbreeding listing you can access - we are not all inbred in that sense, and many, many people on Burke's have a 0% inbreeding number.  The Nicholas referred to in Burke's are 2: it is under Nicholas Hervey, the subject of this page, and the inbreeding index refers to a prior Nicholas Hervey, who is in fact on both his mother's and father's side.71.190.74.155 03:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will do so when I have a chance, which may not be for awhile.71.190.74.155 03:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You incorrectly made a link of consanguinity index in the article; like your note above, putting double brackets around a word should, I believe, only be done if there is a page for that link that you are linking to. (BrainyBabe is the expert so maybe she'll fill us in on that).  There is a page for consanguinity that you may find helpful, as it has several sections, including one on nobility using consanguinity to get out of arranged marriages they don't want.  I didn't link the page because it is tagged as needing extra work.  Googling consanguinity index may be helpful to you; it shows up in a range of work.  Inbreeding is the more common term, as in, here, he is slightly inbred.  It is prominently mentioned in Burke's, so mentioned here.71.190.74.155 19:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Similarly, inbreeding listing which you've bracketed to make a link is not a page or link, but inbreeding is, albeit also tagged as in need of work.  It has links and resources, though, and refers to and links "coefficient of relationship", which is also a non-existent link.  Googling helps.  CofR brings up many items, I just looked at one [it happens to be a dog breeding page, but breeding is breeding], maybe you will find it helpful (I note that Wiki does not have to define every term - the goal may well be links for everything, but sometimes you have to do your own research, and not everything is on the web). "The standard definition of inbreeding is that it is any scheme which results in the sire and the dam having common ancestors. Many breeders use the term "inbreeding" for close relatives and "linebreeding" for more distantly related individuals, but there is no fundamental difference. The parameter used to express this common heritage is called the inbreeding coefficient and was first proposed by Sewell Wright in 1922. Designated F by Wright (but more commonly IC or COI by breeders), it...indicates the probability that the two alleles for any gene are identical by descent...The inbreeding coefficient is a function of the number and location of the common ancestors in a pedigree. It is not a function, except indirectly, of the inbreeding of the parents." 71.190.74.155 19:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kitty, I looked up your userpage and was surprised with your genealogy awards and background you haven't heard of consanguinity or inbreeding listings.  So I connected to your Arbuthnot Peerage link on your userpage and see that for the Arbuthnots there (possibly due to the work not being done) no consanguinity index.  However, on Peerage.com (Burke's) which you link to for this, I clicked FAQ and this may explain to all: 
"Consanguinity Index (Cumulative Inbreeding Coefficient)
Throughout the database, I show a Consanguinity Index (more correctly referred to as Wright’s Equation or a Cumulative Inbreeding Coefficient) for individuals where this is greater than zero.  This is a measure of how much the parents of the individual are related to each other, and therefore how inbred that individual is.  In theory this index ranges from zero (completely unrelated) to close to one (parents are the same person).  In practice this measure is maxed out at around 0.28 where an individual’s parents were uncle and niece (evidently a common practice among the medieval Spanish royalty).
For a more complete discussion of consanguinity, and its associated calculations, see:
Calculation and related exercises:
http://www.infobiogen.fr/services/chromcancer/IntroItems/ConsangGenealEng.html
Wright’s coefficient and alternative: 
    http://www.highflyer.supanet.com/coefficient.htm
Genetics and Inbreeding Information:
    http://www.tenset.co.uk/links.html"
I do note your Arbuthnot connection, as it were, and wonder if you could comment on the Arbuthnot Hervey connection (I recall it may have been evidenced through Alexander Pope's poetry?).  Was Arbuthnot supposed to be Hervey in that poem, or he was just referred to.  (Isn't that the butterfly/wheel lines?).  I may be confusing lines, but do recall Arbuthnot as a Hervey connection.  [You tap my mind I'll tap yours!]71.190.74.155 20:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  obscure sentence 

message: The article has for some time listed Lord Nicholas' death as 26 January 1998. This is consistent with the Times news piece I added, dated Thursday 29 January which says, verbatim "Lord Nicholas Hervey .... was found hanged in his Chelsea flat on Monday". The archived Telegraph piece from the same date, added some time back, also says this. But Burke's Peerage states he died the day before, the 25th, and it's perfectly possible for somebody to be found dead over 24 hours after they actually were, particularly in cases like this. I don't want to labour the point too much as, from what I can tell, this Hervey was a nice guy and his death is rather sad, but we should at least make sure we get the facts right. (Also ping ,  who tend to be on the ball with these things). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've searched everywhere I can think of and all I'm finding is "found dead on 26 January 1998" except for that Burke's Peerage entry. From what I can see on the snippet view I can access of De-la-Noy's book, that just has "in January 1998" without specifying the actual date. I'd be inclined to stick to found on 26 January and, as Dr. B suggests, add a footnote about the date discrepancy; after all, it could even be a simple typo in Burke's. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pinging me, but I have no special information nor any particular view on this. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Death