Talk:Jane Percy, Duchess of Northumberland

and notable as the wife of Ralph Percy, 12th Duke of Northumberland

With the best will in the world, it is nonsense to suppose other than that Jane Isobel Richard is best known as the wife of the 12th Duke. Her position as duchess is acquired solely and entirely from her marriage, and it is the Duchess that she is best known. The Garden, the LL, the biscuits and marmalade are all secondary to the fact of her being the Duchess. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not nonsense because she is not. Please take a look at the sources used in the article. Many do not mention her husband at all. Others mention him as Jane's husband, not Jane as his wife - which is a big difference. She is not notable for holding a title. She is notable for her actions. Surtsicna (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

She is not notable for holding a title. Snort. Pretty much all of the press she gets is because she is a Duchess. Get real. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

She is one of many duchesses in the United Kingdom and one of only few who get enough press to have Wikipedia articles written about them. That strongly suggests that she is not notable merely because she is a duchess. How much press does the Duchess of St Albans get? Besides, you seem to have a strong anymosity towards this woman. I've ignored it so far, even when you inserted a statement that said she labelled the gardening establishment "bitchy". Due to your obvious bias against her, the article presently does not comply to WP:BLP and contains examples of WP:Synthesis. I will try to correct this. Get your facts straight and your POV outside main namespace. Surtsicna (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Get real part 2. You seem to have a problem with the way I treated two quotes from her: "There was only a handful of grand English lady designers, and the bitchiness I encountered was unbelievable.", and "She also recalls attending a gardening symposium in London at which, when she got up to speak, everyone walked out. 'Gardeners are quite bitchy, aren't they?'" You were undoubtedly pedantically correct to challenge my treatment ("but dismisses criticism as uninformed and bitchy"), but you are not correct in your wild assertions, above; your accusation of my supposed bias against her is unwelcome, unsupportable, and beneath contempt. I ask you, if you have a shred of moral compass, to substantiate it or withdraw it and apologise. Unfounded ad hominem attacks are not an acceptable way to conduct yourself on Wikipedia. Or anywhere in civil society.--Tagishsimon (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I did not intend to attack you (and I suppose you did not intend to attack me by implying that I was not being "real"). I have concluded that you might be biased based on your distortion of her words and insertion of false claims into the article. I apologise if you are not driven by your POV, but you have certainly left an impression of bias. Furthermore, your response to my statement was a pig sound. Is that a way to conduct oneself in a human (let alone civil) society? I'd really appreciate if you responded to my arguments (preferably not by snorting, meowing, barking, etc). Surtsicna (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

No, that does not work: you merely repeat and amplify your claims: "based on your distortion of her words and insertion of false claims", "not driven by your POV". The Duchess identified "bitchiness" amongst "a handful of grand English lady designers". I don't think it is a long stretch to paraphrase that as "dismisses criticism as uninformed and bitchy". You apparently have an objection to the work Bitchy "Bitchy"? This is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia" and see it as a "false claim". As far as I know, the only points of dispute between us are that, and whether or not the Duchess is notable because she is a Duchess. And yet you twice now accuse me of bias and of inserting "false claims" as if there's no problem whatsoever in slandering wikipedians. Put up or apologise. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it is a long stretch when it comes to a biography of a living person. You simply cannot claim that a source says something it doesn't say; it's not true, i.e. it's false. As I said, I hope you will prove that I was wrong about your being biased. Presently, you're not doing so. Anyway, I won't apologise three times. I have demonstrated that she is not notable just for being a duchess, as a number of other living duchesses are not notable. If she gets all the press just for being a duchess, as you insist, why doesn't the Duchess of St Albans get that much press (or any press at all)? Why don't you finally start addressing my arguments? Surtsicna (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Honestly speaking, right now, I'm not concerned about the St Albans element of the discussion. Suffice to say there were several years of press coverage before the Alnwiuck Garden's era. You have accused me, without providing any specifics, of bias, POV, breach of BLP and synthesis, all apparently because you have an objection to me boiling down two quotes: 1. "There was only a handful of grand English lady designers, and the bitchiness I encountered was unbelievable." and 2. "She also recalls attending a gardening symposium in London at which, when she got up to speak, everyone walked out. 'Gardeners are quite bitchy, aren't they?'" into "dismisses criticism as uninformed and bitchy". You have yet to apologise at all, much less three times. You cannot expect to make false accusations like this and slope off without explaining yourself. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You simply don't appear to understand how sources should be used. If a news article states that she is universally described as "gloriously eccentric", then you can write that such and such things "have lead to her being described as gloriously eccentric". If the source says that she dismisses criticism as bitchy and uninformed, then you can write that. However, the source does neither of the two.

I have done all my explaining and apologising - which is much more apologising than deserved by someone who snorted at me. As you obviously have no response to my arguments, this discussion is over. Surtsicna (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You have done exactly no apologising and have provided no justification for your accusations. That is the behaviour of a sociopath: really despicable, self-indulgent and self-deluded. I noted in my lest response that "I'm not concerned about the St Albans element of the discussion. Suffice to say there were several years of press coverage before the Alnwick Garden's era." I'm happy to continue that leg of the discussion after you have had the courtesy to detail the supposed bias, etc. Your failure to do so, or even to care, says much about you. As to "have lead to her being described as gloriously eccentric", that is exactly what is in the source [1]. The fact that she introduced cage boxing led to her being described as '"gloriously eccentric". QED. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, that was yesterday, and the weather could be better today. It may be rash to speak up when there is a duel afoot, but, as a novice to Wikipedia editing, it is, I believe, permissible. Edits were improving this article nicely until Jane Percy's notability otherwise than for her marriage to Ralph Percy, 12th Duke of Northumberland was questioned. The duke may be thought notable for little more than his inheritance, as mentioned at Talk:Ralph Percy, 12th Duke of Northumberland, but there now seems to be some contest about whether the development of the Alnwick estate is mainly due to his entrepreneurship or to hers (or both jointly). Is that a private family or business partnership matter, about which Wikipedia may remain silent, but certainly ought to be non-partisan? And if publicly known let it be simply and neutrally mentioned and duly sourced in both articles. Or is it nothing but a question between Wikipedia editors of these articles? Jane Percy would have some claim to notability for her publicly acknowledged "entrepreneurship" at Alnwick and as Lord Liuetenant. While a single article might suffice in the case of some dukes and their duchesses, here there is enough to say about the duchess to merit separate articles, especially in that some readers are likely to be more interested in the duchess than the duke, and perhaps not interested in the duke at all. Both happen to be of interest to....Qexigator (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio removal

I've removed the sentence "As a child, she helped her mother maintain the family garden called Kailzie at the Scottish border and learned from her how to make a garden pay." as being too close to the source [2]: "...Jane remembers helping in the garden as a small child. She also learnt from her mother about making a garden pay", over repeated protests from Surtsicna, but per Wikipedia:Text_Copyright Violations 101#Partial infringement. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you an admin? If not, why are you referring to the Are you an admin? Here's how you can handle it section? Anyway, you're misrepresenting the source again. Is that a hobby of yours? The source says:

"But it's odd that she claims not to understand the old-school attitude to gardening, because she grew up with it - her mother has a famous garden called Kailzie on the Scottish borders, which is open to the public, and Jane remembers helping in the garden as a small child. She also learnt from her mother about making a garden pay."

The article says:

"As a child, she helped her mother maintain the family garden called Kailzie at the Scottish border and learned from her how to make a garden pay."

That's as different from the source as possible, while retaining the same meaning. If you can rephrase it better, please feel free to do so. However, I don't think you'll ever try to rephrase it because I cannot assume good faith anymore. You're clearly doing this just to spite me and quite possibly in order to damage the article. After all, you've recently called me a sociopath, "despicable, self-indulgent and self-deluded", demonstrating that you've got serious issues and losing all credibility you may have had. If you want to take this further at the risk of being blocked for disruptive editing, do so on an appropriate noticeboard. Surtsicna (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The "make it pay" business is a distinct phrase used by Barber and plagiarised by you. Try and rise above your embittered feelings and see that. As for the rest: you - as you admit - are not seeing good faith; are accusing me of bias without providing any evidence whatsoever, and you make claims demonstrably false that you've apologised three times. It's open to you to substantiate any of your claims, but you have entirely failed to do so. However you look at it, making scurrilous allegations without a shred of evidence and thinking that you've apoligsed when you've merely repeated the allegations is the action of a sociopath. However you have my assurance that this is distinct from your casual and uncaring plagiarism. Most of all, the correct action to take when challenged on a copyvio is to fix it, not to shoot the messenger. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Why didn't you fix it yourself? Isn't it because there's nothing to fix and you're only removing it because you want to spite me? I'm not seeing good faith because you're not showing any. I have explained why I found you biased. I have also said "I am sorry if I am wrong" twice. However, you've only been proving me right since. You seem to enjoy distorting facts and other people's statements (even when it's ridiculously easy to see that, such as citing articles) and I'm not even offended by that anymore. Furthermore, I don't mind being called a sociopath when it's coming from a person who had recently vocalised as a pig in response to an argument. Such insults don't hold much weight. Surtsicna (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me see if I can get any recognition from you of your self delusion. You say in your most recent post I have also said "I am sorry if I am wrong" twice. I've done a search for the word "sorry" and guess what? I do not see it anywhere; nor anything approximating it. So where exactly have you said sorry, other than in your benighted imagination?

You have not in any way substantaited your 'bias' rants. You've merely thrown mud and ducked when asked why. You continue to duck a substantive discussion which would involve you specifying unambiguously this supposed bias, and/or responding to what seem to me to be reasonable explanations for the content inserted (normally along the lines of "the sources back up the assertion"). Why it is you feel okay about making assertions damaging to another wikipedian's reputation, and okay not to substantiate those accusations, is beyond me.

I see you have amended the wording so as to lose the distinctive phrase I objected to; thank you for that. However the source does not support the assertion you are now making - it says nothing about "learning how to earning a living by gardening." And so I'll remove the sentence once again. If you can get something that is a) not plagiarism and b) supported by the source, then the problem will be over. I note that you had no compunction about removing content I added, but you squeal (like a pig?) when I do the same thing to your content additions. I did not re-add the content you remove. You insist on readding the content I remove. Do you see the disparity there? Is any of this getting through to you? --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Do pigs snort? Do humans not snort then they read bullshit? Who knows. Hanging your entire thesis on a snort seems like another sad attempt at misdirection, but if it makes you happy, that's fine. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you assumed those quotation marks meant that I actually used the word "sorry"? I thought a quote could be entirely different than the original statement, based on your "quoting" in the beginning of this topic... Anyway, someone who's been desperately begging for an apology over and over again and ranting about being unbiased while admittedly refusing to respond to actual arguments should think twice before mentioning attempts at misdirection. Your 'discussion tactics' (I've-got-nothing-to-say-so-I'll-pretend-to-be-offended) are despicable and I doubt anyone would be fooled by them. I'm done here. Ciao, Surtsicna (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I would be very glad to discuss in detail your assertions; it is you who will neither put up nor shut up. You're very quick to make sweeping accusations; very slow to back those up with any evidence whatsoever. If you read back, you'll see that I've copied into this discussion exactly what I posted, what the sources said, and invited you to agree, or disagree, that the source supported the entry. You have not done this. Instead you persist in a fantasy that you have provided evidence and its me that refuses to discuss it. You only need to read this page to ascertain unambiguously that your view is wrong. I expect you to apologise because you have made false assertions and have been called on them. (Personal attack removed). Still. Thanks for fixing the copyvio. Wouldn't it have been easier to do that last night without the drama? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

From the castle archive

While the purpose of articles about living persons is not generally for promoting their commercial operations, it may be acceptable to add something about the archival material which will be of interest to some professional and amateur historians, and about topics which will be of interest to other sections of the reading public as well. Qexigator (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the additional sentence was to mitigate the commercial flavour of the paragraph.Qexigator (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I explained the removal, but in the next edit summary.[3] I accidentally hit enter before finishing the original edit summary. Anyway, how about removing some detail? For example, do we need to say that she's going to write about "farming and shooting, entertaining, etiquette, cookery and gardening"? She's not exactly an expert in those fields. How about cutting it to "To follow there are to be more titles based on the Alnwick Castle archive covering other aspects of the life and history of the Percy family estate"? If nothing else, it would sound less as an advertisement. Surtsicna (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Please observe, the concern is the other way about: not with "detail" in that sentence (which, given the context, is informative and unobjectionable for the reasons mentioned above), but with the unmitigated commercialism of the paragraph to which it has been added and which stems from Surtsicna 16:04, 6 November 2012. [[4]] --Qexigator (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure if I understood your point, but if I did, I agree with it. There is indeed too much commercial flavour in the paragraph. I'll see if I can do something about it. Surtsicna (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

How about this? Please let me know what you think. Surtsicna (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Propose instead:

In 2012 the Duchess announced her plan to finish reconstruction of The Alnwick Garden by May 2015. She has made arrangements enabling her then to step down from managing it and for management of the visitor attraction to be taken on by an external management company.[16] She has also arranged for a series of books and titles to be brought out based on the Alnwick Castle archive covering aspects of the life and history of the Percy family estate. Qexigator (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! I've implemented it. Surtsicna (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jane Percy, Duchess of Northumberland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090706064025/http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page19266 to http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page19266

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jane Percy, Duchess of Northumberland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111116182556/http://www.cluffgeothermal.com/the-team/george-percy to http://www.cluffgeothermal.com/the-team/george-percy

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)