Talk:Hugh Walpole

message: I've read that he died as a result of over-exertion during war-work.
Do we know anything about the duties he performed in WW2? 109.157.18.114 (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death? 

message: I suspect that Walpole's medal for bravery was the Cross of St George (4th Class) - see http://www.gwpda.org/medals/russmedl/russia.html - rather than the Times's "Georgian Medal" - that's certainly what Hart-Davis says (page 139 of the 1985 reprint), though he doesn't mention which class Walpole received. According to the website above two million of these were awarded, and successive acts of bravery promoted the recipient from 4th to 3rd class, etc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Peardew (talk • contribs) 19:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If RH-D says it, then I'd go with it. I am by way of being, though I say it, an expert on the Lyttelton/Hart-Davis letters () so am very much pro RH-D. Tim riley (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've now changed this. RH-D points out that the Times obituary of Walpole (the original source for "Georgian Medal") was written by someone hostile to Walpole: p 420: "a venomous and belittling account of his life, full of subtle half-truths and suggestiones falsi, stressing his ambition, industry and sensitiveness to adverse criticism, omitting all mention of his passion for literature and his endless generosities to and encouragement of writers young and old, describing him as a "sentimental egotist" and openly claiming that he "was not popular among his fellow writers."Thomas Peardew (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The obit was a disgrace. I have a copy of the full text if you wish to see it. Tim riley (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian Medal 

message: A recent addition mucks up the referencing of this featured article. If the additional info is really wanted (v. doubtful, in my view), the referencing must follow the existing format, and all the citations to the H-D biography will need to have the year attached to them to distinguish them from the other H-D book introduced in this recent addition. I don't propose to undertake this very considerable task for an addition I feel is of minor interest, but if the editor concerned wishes to undertake it, I shall not demur. Other contributors to the article may have a view on the matter: comments welcome, naturally. Tim riley talk  07:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I reviewed the addition about the 1952 biography.  It is not of encyclopedic interest when the contract was signed, or even how long it took to write the biography.  If it had taken him 50 years to write the book, that would perhaps be of interest. It also makes little difference that, 60 years ago, the book was released some months later in the US than the UK.  Same with respect to how voluminous his research materials were.  None of this seems unusual or interesting. The biography of a famous person is likely to involve correspondence with other famous people. It strikes me as spammy whenever I read WP articles that say, so-and-so's papers are held at this library and that archive. So, in short, I don't think there is anything of encyclopedic interest here, and I agree with User:Tim riley that it should not be in the article.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Chipping in to concur: I'm not sure there's much need for the addition, but if there is, then it needs to stick with the consistent formatting. - SchroCat (talk) 12:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, colleagues, for these points. Although I concur that none of the material added is suitable for the Walpole article, I think a certain amount of it could usefully be added to Rupert Hart-Davis's own article; as I have all three of RH-D's slim volumes of memoirs on my shelves I'll look further into that. Tim riley talk  13:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hart-Davis books 

message: An editor keeps removing a quotation from Peter Hitchens from the article on the grounds that it is tainted by association with the Daily Mail. The latter is rightly proscribed as a WP:RS for factual matters or reliabilty of quotations, but printing the relevant opinions of an eminent journalist is not remotely within the scope of the WP:RS consensus on the Mail. Tim riley talk 16:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm bemused by the removal of an opinon by a journalist, as opposed to a fact or quote. There is no question of it being a misquote, or an twisted fact, so the removal is rather dubious. - SchroCat (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite so. I could add more of Hitchens's views, if wanted, but I think his gist is clear to an intelligent reader from the brief quote we have already. Tim riley talk 17:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Well, be that as it may – I have never been sure which Hitch I am less a fan of – I used to block the Mail's website from my laptop while the paper was under the Dacre régime. Unspeakable! But, to return to the point at issue, the published personal opinions of a WP:NOTABLE Mail contributor – whether published in the Mail or elsewhere, have nothing to do with our WP community decision that the Mail is not a WP:RS – "generally unreliable and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist". The editor seeking to censor the quote offered a splendidly Orwellian edit summary: "low-quality tabloid source, not a notable critic, not an opinion that seems to meet WP:UNDUE, literally a post from an opinion blog - the writer having an article does not meant that every opinion he blogs automatically meets WP:ONUS, that would need to actually be shown". Goes to show how stupid all the peer reviewers and FAC reviewers were. Tim riley talk 18:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with User:Tim riley.  The quote from the critic :Peter Hitchens is WP:NOTEWORTHY in this context, and it doesn't matter where Hitchens published it. Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

text: You misrepresent the discussion and decisions. Please show me anywhere in any of those discussions that says that, e.g. theatre reviews by Bernard Levin in the Mail cannot be quoted but reviews by him in The Observer and The Times are perfectly OK. There is scope for common sense here, if you can find it within you. Best wishes, Tim riley talk 23:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: . You seem to be assuming that exceptions exist, therefore your desired exception must be one - David Gerard (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You are entitled to your interpretation and if you can get a consensus here that the passage of literary criticism quoted here is prohibited under the WP decisions about the Mail as a WP:RS I shall, of course, abide by it. What do other editors think of the two different interpretations of the rule here? Tim riley talk 13:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You're still trying to carve out a claimed exception that isn't in the two broad general RFCs deprecating the source. If you want to carve out an exception, you would need RFC-level consensus at WP:RSN. If you don't bother taking it there, and instead keep trying to assert a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, then it's hard to treat your claim as being serious. If you want me to take your claim seriously, you first have to show you take your claim seriously - David Gerard (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You have made your views ultra clear; let us see what other editors think. Tim riley talk 14:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean other editors at a central venue for a broad general RFC - such at WP:RSN, WP:VPR or similar - then you need to start such an RFC. If you mean a local consensus on this talk page, then per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, that cannot overcome a broad general consensus, as noted. You can't claim a local consensus to ignore WP:LOCALCONSENSUS either - David Gerard (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

text: Also, you do realise that unreliable sourcing is grounds for defeaturing - David Gerard (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As to FA I don't greatly care. So disillusioned am I with the bullying and point-pushing at FAC that I, in common with two other editors with a large tally of FAs, have given up on FAC. We write (or in one case, alas, wrote) to FA standard as best we can and leave it at that. As to your litany of abbreviations most of them are completely unfamiliar to me (I have never been interested in Wikilawyering) but I am aware of RFC, and if you wish to take your desire to remove this quote to RFC by all means do so. I hope you will be courteous enough to let me know if you do so, and where I can see it, so that I can explain why I think you are misinterpreting the past decisions about the reliability of the Mail as a source. Best wishes. Tim riley talk 15:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , Ah, Mr Gerard and his alt-left crusade to dismiss any newspaper that is slightly right-of-thinking as unreliable tittle-tattle.  Although the source isn't great, it's an opinion piece and so reflects the thoughts of the author, who is reliable, rather than the source, which is also reliable, in my book, but one that doesn't fit in with Wikipedia's leftist agenda.  I would be interested to see Mr Gerard's reaction if someone were to use the Mail to reference the fact that "Monday is the day after Sunday".  Unreliable, Mr Gerard? CassiantoTalk 16:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Cassianto, my splendid colleague and friend, it happens that I am, as you know, a woolly liberal, as anti-Mail as anyone, and I agree effortlessly with the ruling that it mustn't be treated as a reliable source for fact, but I still think Mr. Gerard is misinterpreting the agreed WP line thereon. Let us see what one of those RFCs comes up with. Tim riley talk 16:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

text: This appears to be surmise on your part. What parts of the RFC conclusions say that? - David Gerard (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "This appears to be surmise" – if a source is considered "generally" unreliable that implies there are rare exceptions. I think it's pretty clear that that would include something like a journalist publishing opinion piece, otherwise, what could it include? Let's think about this logically, there's no such thing as an "unreliable" opinion, otherwise it wouldn't be an opinion... the article clearly states it as an opinion by introducing Peter Hitchens by name, and it in no way appears as some sort of fact. I don't see what the issue here is. Aza24 (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean, "exceptions exist so I'm going to claim this is one"? What parts of the RFC conclusions support your particular exception? - David Gerard (talk) 08:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

text: As you are the only one here to hold your view, I suggest, again, that you raise your concern at an RFC. If it turns out that everyone else on this page is wrong and you are right I am sure we will all cheerfully abide by the RFC's decision on this case. Do please remember to notify everyone here when you table the request. Best wishes, Tim riley talk 08:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good to hear that. Removing per RFC - David Gerard (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

text: I have now followed that link (nice of you to keep it secret here until now) and see no evidence to support your assertion. Am I missing something? Tim riley talk 14:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You were waiting on the deprecation of the Mail on Sunday, it's in your words that are still on this page. That is literally the deprecation decision. The Mail on Sunday is not a source for anything, except in truly remarkable circumstances, WP:ABOUTSELF, etc - as a deprecated source, it isn't a source for WP:RSOPINION. As a deprecated source, the presumption is that it is bad, unless there is a specific exception in policy or strong guidelines. Reading that RFC conclusion, I'm not seeing a carveout. ("But I really like Peter Hitchens" wouldn't be one, for instance.) - David Gerard (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Insofar as I could make out what you were trying to say in the immediately preceeding comment, I found nothing to suggest that the RFC agreed to ban such a quotation as in this article. If it did, perhaps you'd point it out in plain words, avoiding Wikilawyerspeak. Tim riley talk 14:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Given this is literally a discussion of Wikipedia consensus, guidelines and policies, even if you don't seem to understand the words they all mean particular things in this context, and so you may wish to avail yourself of the links to learn what they mean, so as to understand the issue at hand. The RFC says: "Given the substantial participation, and the permissible basis for supporting deprecation, there is a clear and substantial consensus that the source is generally unreliable, and a slightly narrower consensus that the source should be deprecated." Deprecation is explained at WP:DEPS: "Deprecated sources are highly questionable sources that editors are discouraged from citing in articles, because they fail the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances." There's more detail at each, outlining the exceptions. It should all be reasonably comprehensible to an experienced Wikipedia editor, without dismissing the very concept of discussing the issue as "Wikilawyerspeak" or affecting to require quite basic things about Wikipedia sourcing policy to be explained from first principles. That you claim not to understand the issue does not make it not exist - David Gerard (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

text: If the above quotes aren't sufficiently clear, you may not meet the requirements of WP:CIR - David Gerard (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Another nasty swipe, and an own-goal I suspect. Tim riley talk 16:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

text: A spurious argument and a misrepresentation of WP policy. Nobody denies that Peter Hitchens wrote those words, and that he wrote them in the Mail is a demonstrable fact, and nothing in RFC decisions so far says we cannot quote him or other legitimate lit or music critic who happened to write in the Mail. You'll have to do better than that to justify your obsessional activity. You repeatedly chicken out of putting the matter directly to an RFC. If you do that, we will all, even you, I hope, abide by the decision. Tim riley talk 16:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The matter was literally just put to a long-running general RFC in the place for such; you insist on edit-warring against the consensus on the Mail on Sunday. I've noted the issue at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#more_Mail_On_Sunday - David Gerard (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

text: Hitchens is mostly known as a political pundit rather than a literary critic. Regardless of which news outlet he published it with, I would still say it's probably UNDUE. (t · c) buidhe 01:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

text: Jprw added a quote of Peter Hitchens on 8 August 2011, David Gerard effectively reverted on 15 June 2020 and several times thereafter, including today 18 November 2020. As far as I can tell from this thread, buidhe and perhaps SilkTork agree with David Gerard, Tim Riley + SchroCat + Cassianto + Ssilvers + Aza24 do not -- and neither do I. David Gerard's claims about Daily Mail / Mail on Sunday RfCs are incorrect since we know that the closers of the Daily Mail RfC stated that  there was no intention to exclude opinions. David Gerard's claims about WP:BURDEN are incorrect since we know that WP:RS says "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process" (his WP:CIR remark is what I suppose passes for "editorial judgment" by his lights but WP:CIR is essay-class while WP:CIVILITY is policy). David Gerard's claims about WP:DUE are a bit strange -- why bring it up on WP:RSN when WP:DUE is a WP:NPOVN matter? -- but "more Mail on Sunday" WP:RSN discussion appears so far to have attracted net 2 more editors who agree with him. Thus, if the subject is Hugh Walpole, then David Gerard is at least violating WP:NOCONSENSUS because there was long-established status quo before his multiple bold edits, but if he claims that the subject is Peter Hitchens (who is alive) then we need a consensus to override him, and we only have a majority. Unless other onlookers would care to wade into this now? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably need to post the above at WP:RSN. Per a broad general RFC, the MoS was firmly deprecated. A WP:LOCALCONSENSUS here can't override that broad general consensus. The WP:ONUS is on any editor wishing to add the MoS, and that onus has a high bar indeed The editor re-adding it has not only put in zero effort to meet this onus, but has reacted with personal attacks to being asked to do so (violating WP:CIVILITY) - David Gerard (talk) 08:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlike the saintly editor who does not scruple at accusations of lying and incompetence, above. The Mail has no monopoly of bullying and distortions of the truth. Tim riley talk 09:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

text: I tend to think that the Peter Hitchens quote should be removed, not because it was published in the Daily Mail, something which is largely irrelevant as it is opinion and not fact, nor because it is wrong - I think it is largely a correct assessment of Walpole's current status - but simply because Hitchens has no particular expertise in this area. His list of journalism and publications centres on society and politics, not literary figures such as Walpole - and Walpole did not even write about political and social issues except tangentially. So it is not clear why this quote is adding much. Sbishop (talk) 11:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

text: The Hitchens quote is a mixture of opinion and fact. PH is making factual claims about the views of James, Buchan, Eliot etc on Walpole. The depracation of MoS is due to its poor record with the facts, so we cannot be confident that one of their contributors is correct in their factual claims. There might be a case, as  above that if the contributor was an expert on the topic this might give us that missing confidence. However, clearly PH is not such an expert. He was a foreign news correspondent up until 1995 and since then has made a living sharing his contrarian opinions on whatever topic he is interested in that week (climate change, drugs, conservatism...). Google indicates that he has mentioned Walpole in one article ever, in 2011, in a round-up of his holiday reading in his MoS blog. And, given that this is a passing mention by a non-expert, as per  its opinion content would not meet any criteria of noteworthiness either even if it had extraordinary features that outgunned the deprecation of the source. There is no reason for it to be in the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: . For clarity, policy does not agree with David Gerard that opinions by reliable experts should be removed from Wikipedia if they appear in The Daily Mail. This is not me agreeing or disagreeing on that point. This is just me citing policy on that point. The real question here is if Peter Hitchens can be considered a reliable expert on Hugh Walpole. I passed no opinion on that as I know very little about Hitchens, though I did have a quick look, and it appeared to me that Hitchens is not an expert on Walpope, so therefore wouldn't be acceptable. But I didn't feel it necessary to comment on that, as I assumed people with some knowledge of Walpope and Hitchens would be able to take it from there themselves. SilkTork (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: When an editor repeatedly asserts a wrong story while making a huge number of edits, that should not be supported. For dueness I support the judgment of another editor who has worked on this article for years. You don't have to, and thank you for being civil about it, and I accept that currently there aren't enough supporters on this talk page for keeping the reference. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that contribution, . It is reassuring to see such civilised and thoughtful views on the matter. Tim riley talk 20:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of deprecated source