Talk:Theophilus Hastings, 7th Earl of Huntingdon

message: Please do not cite your own work in articles.  Per our Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle the discussion should happen on the article's talk page, not via edit summaries.  Further, if your argument regarding your edits is that you're an expert and we're not, I would remind you that Wikipedia belongs to dilettantes. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  However, another historian, Alan Hobson, has argued that... 

message: Robin - I don't find it very 'civil' for someone to delete/undo my entire contribution to an article, so it is a bit puzzling that you are seeking to lecture me on civility, to be honest. I have been a registered editor for six years (and an unofficial one for longer than that!) and I have never once deleted/undone an editor's entire contribution to an article.
There are several weaknesses in your article (I assume that you are the author of the bulk of it), which my additions improved upon, including providing balance, so one might have hoped that you would have welcomed them. Indeed, with one exception, I didn't even delete the several dodgy bits, as I hate deleting other editors' works - nearly all my edits are additions to articles.
There is a very good reason that my published article/booklet on Huntingdon does not appear widely on Wiki - it is a specialised article, on one man. Obviously its main use is going to be on the Wiki article on Huntingdon himself. However, outside the world of Wiki, it is used by others. For example, recently a Scottish academic wrote to me saying that he had used it (i.e. positively, not critically) in one of his articles. A while ago, another academic (with whom I don't always get on, so it was all the more of a compliment) wrote to me an unsolicited email giving my Huntingdon article/booklet strong praise. 
I can't 'send' you a copy of the article/booklet for the very good reason that it is not available online - it was published in 2005 by the Royal Stuart Society, and they do not have online copies. However, they sell copies of their Papers (including my two), for just a few pounds each, so you could order one from them. Alternatively, several libraries such as the BL and the London Library have copies, though I guess these are more likely to be reference only than in the lending section.
In any event, for one important aspect we disagree on, you don't need to have read my booklet. If you look at the House of Lords journals from the 1670s to 1701, Huntingdon was repeatedly appointed to committees and other positions of responsibility by his fellow peers, so they clearly had high regard for him. They are considerably more likely to know about him and his reputation than, say, JR Western does, given they were Huntingdon's contemporaries and colleagues.
If you delete my contribution again, I shall revert it and - given that we are not allowed to enter into an edit war - appeal for third party arbitration, unless you have a better idea. I am letting you know now, as we are required to do. I am unfamiliar with the process, as over 98% of my previous edits have been accepted (I once checked back and counted up!), so I have never had to use the arbitration process before. As I say, if you have a better idea, let me know.
::Response
:Thank you for your response, which I read with interest.
:Wikipedia is a collaborative environment and I welcome any input that corrects 'dodgy bits' in the original article. I always try to be positive and even when I disagree, it helps because it makes me look at the article in a more critical manner (as you may have noticed). I think its fair to ask you to provide sources; I've used 20 separate ones, so that's not unreasonable. 
:I am extremely interested in the claim he was appointed to committees and other positions of responsibility by his fellow peers, so they clearly had high regard for him. Since it differs from other sources, that would be really useful; please let me know if I can help.
:My concern (clearly stated in my original response) was not the point per se but the reference provided to back it up; for obvious reasons, Wikipedia does not permit use of your own research. I'm not sure why that's controversial for someone with a PHD and First Class degree in history.
:Your second edit expanded on the original, and added 'The historian Alan Hobson;' unfortunately, the same issue arises. Presumably you wouldn't support me altering your articles, then writing 'Robin van Persie, celebrated 17th century historian', as rationalisation. 
:If I can summarise your explanation (please feel free to correct me if wrong), you can't provide a copy of the article. That's a shame, but does cause a problem when using it as a reference. Peter Walker also wrote an article just on Hastings and I can find that online no problem, so I don't entirely follow why yours is different.
:Have you changed your name recently? So far, the only entries I can find listed under the one name are similar interventions (for example, the 1701 Act of Settlement), which unfortunately suffer from the same issue. Apparently, I'm not the first person to have issues over your use (or otherwise) of Sources.
:You are welcome to submit this issue to arbitration; let me know what I can do to help this process.
Robinvp11 (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  For completeness.... 

message: This is what I am wanting to send to arbitration, although I gather I need to list it on here first:
I am writing to ask for arbitration on the following matter. 
1)	I am a Wikipedia editor with around 875 edits (although I know that is small fry compared with some editors!). I came across an article, Theophilus Hastings, seventh earl of Huntingdon, which although good in some ways, was flawed, both because there are one or two errors in it, and more importantly, because it misrepresented the view of an author (Peter Walker) who did an article on Huntingdon in 1977 (which I read whilst doing my own article on Huntingdon, in 2005).
2)	I therefore added in sections to improve the article. I was pleased that I was able to do this tactfully and skilfully, deleting hardly any of the existing text – because I hate deleting other editors’ work – and concentrating almost entirely on making additions.
3)	Despite this, the author of the article, robinvp11, deleted my entire contribution to the article. I found this aggressive and unnecessary. I have been a Wikipedia editor for six years, and I have never once deleted anyone’s entire contribution to any article.
4)	Moreover, robinvp11, rather than using the talkpage as we are told to, argued their justification for doing this on the edit summary.
5)	The reasons for my changes are as follows. Peter Walker ended his article by agreeing that Huntingdon did have genuine principles and genuine Jacobite views, as this quote – which forms the climactic, last part of the article, makes clear: 
'His continued loyalty to James in his last years suggests that Huntingdon was not a man bereft of principle. Like so many of King James's supporters, he has suffered the opprobrium of posterity merely for being on the losing side’
Despite this rather explicit statement, robinvp11 ended his article by claiming that Walker argues that Huntingdon was unprincipled and just out for his personal gain. So I added this:
that this does not explain Huntingdon's continued adherence to the Stuart cause post-1688. He could easily have transferred his allegiance to William, as some other former Stuart loyalists did. However, apart from the one wobble, in early 1689, he did not do so. His continuing loyalty to James during both the 1688 Revolution and William's subsequent reign cost him dear; he and his family lost permanently their political power and status in Leicestershire. Hobson, Alan (2005) 'From Whig to Jacobite: Theophilus Hastings, seventh Earl of Huntingdon (1650-1701)', Royal Stuart Papers LXVII, p.14. Clearly there was considerably more to his motives than just a desire for self-advancement. Indeed, even Walker admits that 'His continued loyalty to James in his last years suggests that Huntingdon was not a man bereft of principle. Like so many of King James's supporters, he has suffered the opprobrium of posterity merely for being on the losing side.' Walker, Peter (1977). "The political career of Theophilus Hastings (1650-1701), 7th Earl of Huntingdon" (PDF). Transactions of the Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society (71), p.71. Retrieved 2 October 2019. robinvp11 promptly deleted the whole lot, before grudgingly later restoring half a line of it. They also, as I say, deleted my other contributions to the article as well. 
6) One of the errors, which is pretty much the only thing I deleted, is where robinvp11 says that ‘ rare appearances in the historical record’. This is daft. It is untrue to say that Huntingdon is 'rarely' mentioned in sources. I trawled through hundreds of sources for my PhD, and Huntingdon was mentioned both in most of the primary sources and most of the secondary sources (mainly because he was one of the main Whig lords in the Exclusion Crisis). That, therefore, is not 'rare' - that is often. Yet when I deleted 'rare' - virtually the only word of robinvp11’s I deleted, as, unlike them, I hate deleting other editors' words; I much prefer adding things - he promptly put it back in!
7)	At the request of an editor, I switched the discussion to talkpages. Initially this was on the article talkpage, but robinvp11  did not reply, so I switched it to robinvp11 ‘s talkpage. robinvp11 replied, but in his second reply, in quite an offhand and passive-aggressive way (or at least, that is how it came across to me). I spent over an hour answering all their points, when I had planned to go out to visit friends, and robinvp11 just replied with three curt sentences, ignoring nearly all of the points I made, and ending with ‘I look forward to hearing from the Arbitration team.’ So I feel I have no choice but to take it to arbitration.
8)	robinvp11 kept repeatedly saying that I musn’t use my own published article as a source, but another editor (unsolicited by me) pointed out to them that ‘Robin, I fear you have misunderstood Wikipedia:No original research. Whether a user has himself written a source is immaterial, provided that the source is reliable and not self-published. So if in this case the user is not himself the Royal Stuart Society, he may use his article as a source without violating the OR policy.--MWAK (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Response to third opinion request:
I have taken a third opinion request for this page and am currently reviewing the issues. I shall replace this text shortly with my reply. I have made no previous edits on Theophilus Hastings, 7th Earl of Huntingdon and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. creffett (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Sending to Arbitration