Talk:Lord Nicholas Hervey/Archive 1

Archive 1

Proposed name change

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 13:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Nicholas Hervey → Lord Nicholas Hervey – for Google relevance; too many other Nicholas Herveys come up in a general Google search

• Support (Suze1 02:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC))
• Oppose See discussion. Septentrionalis 06:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Contrary to wikistyle and unnecessary. Homey 00:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Wikipedia has a long-standing, and unresolved, debate on the use of noble styles. Please don't open it up again. (See Wikipedia:Naming conventions and its related pages for all too much more.) Septentrionalis 06:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rudeness

• Comments such as "non notable minor aristocrat who once organized a dinner party before commiting suicide" are extremely offensive, and do no credit whatsoever to the Wikipedia. They display a clear, even bitter, bias. The Oxford University Press's Dictionary of National Biography carries entries for hundreds if not thousands of people who were far less "not notable" (again, only an opinion) than Hervey. The important thing here is that he was a well-known personage, both at Yale, and in London, and played an active role in the Monarchist League, and so deserves a biographical entry. Sussexman 13:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be a major effort to discredit Nicholas Hervey, especially by the more than obvious attempts to smear him/his family with his elder half-brother's problems. It is disgraceful. Sussexman 09:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take the matter up with the Daily Telegraph?Homey 12:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You raise interesting issues relating to ancestry. No one reasonable would let the actions of the family "taint" an individual. I agree, some of the tone is off, and this is due to multiple editors and NPOV, as well as the difficulty of some of his situation (landlady's quote is disturbing, but not discrediting). But attempts to use the "Lady" and "Marquess" aristocratic titles to lend creditability (an assumption, excuse if I'm wrong), without mentioning why the Lady and Marquess are noteworthy (Playboy model, vast sums spent on drugs...), required revisions, as they did not do what Wiki is supposed to: give a reader a summary of available knowledge on the subject so that the reader can feel semi-confident s/he is up to date. (when someone's siblings are in the news, it is necessary to mention that in their bio) Suze1 00:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

My contention is that this is not a newspaper article (newspapers write sensationalist often badly informed half-stories so that they can attract attention and sell papers) and therefore it is not necessary to publish everything unfortunate in a person's life. An element of decency and balance is surely required in these Wikipedia articles? I note, for instance, the newspaper's report of the money owing to the solicitors. Of course, that is only a fraction of the entire story. Nicholas and his half-brother John went into this action on the understanding that John would meet the bill. When the action failed, John said the solicitors were "useless" and had failed them and he refused to pay them. The solicitors then turned to Nicholas. He in turn did the only thing he could do - approached his trustees for some of his inheritance, and as two of them were respondents in the very case in question they naturally refused his request.

What I do think is that if people like Homey are anti-aristocracy etc., they should stay away from pages which irritate them. I feel sure Homey would not like someone denigrating him. Sussexman 13:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a private individual. Nicholas Hervey is, evidently, prominent enough to merit a biography on wikipedia. You can't have it both ways, I'm afraid. If you think the subject is worthy of an article then you'll have to accept the good as well as the bad as part of our NPOV policy, particularly when "the bad" is a matter of public record. Homey 18:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't help pointing out: Sussexman agrees with you on that general point, as he himself posted "An account of an individual should not necessarily be all peaches and cream, as you would possibly prefer...You feel that this should be kept out of his rosy little biography which, I would argue, glosses over Pickles unpleasant side and so makes it POV anyway. Sussexman 20:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)," on his disc. page. Nonetheless, I don't think anyone here thinks anything negative exists in reporting a bankruptcy, as it only means the individual did not have the money to pay a debt. What was unusual was someone posting a bio of Nicholas Hervey that did not mention aspects of his life that merited, in my opinion, a fuller (and more sensitive) discussion and presentation than a Wikip. definition could allow, and that obviously had to be mentioned in such a bio for it to be intellectually honest (referring solely to his fine mind without mentioning his hospitalization for schizophrenia, an illness of that mind, which was no less reported in the media, is one example). I myself am working on such a broader project (which is why I would be interested in talking to Sussexman privately); it seems Robert I is working on such a project from the conservative right political angle only (which Nicholas was certainly involved with heavily), and was using a truncated definition to bolster a web presence for GLF and the IML and to offer justification for his inclusion of a chapter on NH. I would just mention, regardless of one's views of newspapers, that any political agenda work be nonetheless intellectually honest and complete, although I gather in the UK, and burgeoning now in the US, there is a tradition of one sided shouting matches where neither thinks facts should be mentioned fully and accurately unless they support their pre-conceived view. This I consider lamentable, but a saving grace, Sussexman, is that Nicholas would be very happy to be being discussed and part of life's dialogue. Suze1 00:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

My only comment in response to the last posting is that unlike newspaper articles, it is not necessary to dredge up every unpleasantness and unfortunate occurrance in a person's life when the clear intention of the poster doing so is obvious. Is Wikipedia just an extension of the gutter press or is it better than that? The Dictionary of National Biography sets a good example when it comes to biographical articles. Wikipedia would accrue great credence if it followed such a quality publication. Sussexman 08:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you didn't see fit to send me a private reply. As to your "only response" (I'm sorry you don't want to share any positive memories of Nicholas--see your disc. page), I will point out that I didn't read any intention into the poster who added the sentence "He was also described as suffering from schizophrenia." As to your post, if a man lost his legs, you wouldn't put that in his biographical listing? Sometimes, the unfortunate is a big part of someone's life. You're not necessarily doing them any favors by deleting their history - and it's an especially unusual thing to do with a Hervey. That was the question I wanted to ask you - do you have a sense of Nicholas' view on the more traditionally unflattering aspects of his family history (leaving aside his parents). I don't recall his mentioning the things that I've since read, but I do remember his feeling connected to his ancestors through their portraits and our discussing that briefly. Finally, I hope you're not implying there is something shameful in schizophrenia, or that it's better off "not mentioned." I would think you'd be an advocate for the opposite, especially as you were able to visit with Nicholas after his illness manifested. Do you think he was ashamed of it? I hope not, and wish I hadn't lost touch with him (his bio doesn't reflect his failure to register for our senior year)Suze1 03:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I too am sorry that you feel offended at my simply not having the time to respond to your request. No offence was meant. I just have to work for a living. I felt the very deliberate inclusion of the bankruptcy was wrong as it was not really Nicholas at fault but his half-brother. There are people at work here with malice. Sussexman 09:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If it was suitable for an obituary (in a conservative paper no less) than it's suitable for wikipedia. I think what you interpret as "malice" is simply the fact it is not our role to protect someone's reputation from the truth, even if he was your friend. Homey 10:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

My contention was that the newspaper does not always give the whole truth and nothing but the truth. You suggest it is not your role to protect people, but is it your role to put yourself in the shoes of the gutter press and to dig up snippets of things which are not the full story and deliberately post them on the Wikipedia? Sussexman 16:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

An interesting point, but I think all Wikip does is summarize what is otherwise out there. For it to do more would probably be too much for it. Suze1 05:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC).

The last 'User' appears to be a sock-puppet, as is User:Mauls. Sussexman 08:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I was tempted to say nothing, but - what the H is Sussexman talking about? I asked to communicate via email, on a person, deceased, we both knew - how could I be a sock-puppet - but on to the issue I was previously tempted to enquire about but let go - Are you serious in your postings Sussexman, or are you a joke? You make blanket irrational paranoid statements, and link yourself to someone who unfortunately developed from what I gather full-blown paranoid schizophrenia - I actually found it touching - esp'y the GLF business (with a dashing photo posted!), b/c some aspects of this stuff really does remind me of Nicholas terribly (in a good, endearing way). But I'm tempted to think it's all a put on, or, interestingly, that Nicholas found an environment where paranoia ran rampant (which perhaps fed his problem??). Your thoughts? Suze1 22:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't really have any further thoughts on anything tonight. I needed something to keep my mind off work and thought Wikipedia sounded like a good idea but I have been proved wrong. If I have caused you any offence I sincerely apologise. As to GLF's article, really it should have been removed altogether. Yes, rather old photo I thought. It might have been better if they'd put up one from about 1990. I remember the Evening Standard had a rather good one on its front page when he was demolishing Janet Street-Porter. It all seems so long ago now. Good night. Sussexman 22:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't being sarcastic about the photo - I enjoyed it..he looked SO different from what I imagined it was startling. And easy to see him and Nicholas being friends. Odd they both had bankruptcies and intense troubles around the same time. Suze1 02:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, isn't it. Both were given poor advice by lawyers. Nicholas relied on his useless brother to pay the bill (in both names) and when he didn't they simply bankrupted him. In John's case he paid his half off - eventually. In GLF's case, he had plenty of landed assets and some money in the bank (the land-rich, cash-poor scenario) but they were all frozen by Inhibitions. I remember this saga well. It was in his interests therefore to over-ride these strictures by appointing a Trustee to wind up his estate and pay all his bills. His estate was thus protected and he got nearly all of his assets back. So not a bankruptcy in the strict sense of the word. Thats why relying on and citing a statutory notice in the Gazette is so wrong and unfair. I know they said in the newspaper that Nicholas was Schizophrenic but he always semed perfectly normal to me and I have never heard of any public bad or peculiar behaviour. Personally I am of the opinion that what he really suffered from was clinical depression. Sussexman 08:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to discuss this a little further but not in this forum. Please do email me if you can. Suze1 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Photograph

Would it be possible to put a photograph of Lord Nicholas on this article?

Thanks for the photos. The top one is good, but in the banquet one he is too small to make the photo useful, in my opinion. But I appreciate your effort, and won't take it down (but won't oppose anyone who does). BrainyBabe 17:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the photograph over dinner is very large (actual size) but I don't know how to scale them down other than using "thumb", anyone with any ideas on this could make it clearer. --Counter-revolutionary 17:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Better, but frankly it is not a clear or compelling photo of the subject.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you.

BrainyBabe 19:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've cropped the original, which I think solves the problem! --Counter-revolutionary 19:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the second photo but it is very grainy and dark; if a superior substitute were found, I'd support replacement. As to the main photo, obviously any photo will do, but why not use a photo of his youth, before eyeglasses and -quite possibly medication induced- weight gain? The personality that comes through a little in the second would be welcome in a main photo. 96.224.40.10 20:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid those are just the first ones I came across searching through my photos from years ago, there are quite a few! He was just 27 or 28 in those photos I think, but I'll see what I can find. --Counter-revolutionary 20:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The cropping helps, but the skew-wiff (sp?) wallpaper is making me dizzy! Any chance you could rotate it to vertical? BrainyBabe 22:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Warning to anonymous user

This is addressed to the person who appears under two IP addresses (96.224.169.20 and 150.108.61.243).

First of all, please set up a user account. It is much easier to deal with a name, even if the IP changes. Most Wikipedia editors choose to be pseudonymous, but you are free to use your real name if you wish. Remaining anonymous, as you have been, means among other things that this warning has to be posted here, as you have no talk page to put it on.

Secondly, please stop reverting the facts presented as background information. I added several sentences and clauses on 28 August in a series of edits; you removed the series; User:Counter-revolutionary reinserted it; you removed it; I reverted your edit on 6 Sept with the edit summary "info relevant to give context to his life, please discuss on talk page before removing any more information". You declined to take your reversions to the talk page, and have continued to remove these contributions without discussion. This is unconstructive behaviour.

As you have no user account, I will assume that you are new to Wikipedia, so consider this a first warning.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

BrainyBabe 16:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

See comments on Sept. 1 and 2 which outline cause for deletion and request bringing it to the talk page (b/t/w I believe counter-Rev originally reverted you). Note that you have no right to tell or Warn another user/s to use an account; in fact there is zero reason for a response to an edit to be placed on a user talk page when it was an invitation (on Sept. 1 and subsequent) to discuss the issue on relevant subject page.

Why do you think a man's half-brother, 7 years senior, going to Harrow when he later goes to Eton is relevant? If there is a relevancy, can you spell it out? The wording re "the plane crash" presumes knowledge and my comment was it belongs on family page. There are links to further family background already (marquess of bristol, fitzwilliam pages). As to the issue of length, see comment Sept. 1, 2,etc. in history of main page. We don't need to move into Gregory Lauder-Frost territory again. Keep in mind his older brother was much better known than him and has a shorter page. [I wouldn't be so peevish except you ignored the first and subsequent requests to discuss, merely reverting instead, then blamed me for not discussing! Using a threatening warning label, for behavior you yourself instigated, is not helpful; I also note you are still anonymous, albeit pseudonymous. You can call me Charles, if you wish. 96.224.40.10 05:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: the unsigned request for a photograph, above, was by Counter-Revolutionary, as the history page confirms. Brainy Babe, can you re-vert your change to the top of this page, I'm having trouble doing so; the final result was not no consensus but retention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.40.10 (talk) 06:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I hardly know where to start.

1.It would help if you followed the WP convention of indenting your response, to ease the visual tracking of who said what. This is especially the case as you decline to create an account. See Wikipedia:Guide to good indentation and Wikipedia:Talk page, which says that "proper or at least consistent formatting is essential to maintaining readable talk pages. The reference of a comment is determined by the number of colons (':') in front of it. If a reply is made to a statement, you should add a colon to the number of colons used in the statement being replied to. This style of conversation is easy to read."

2. Please refrain from amending comments (even your own) without explanation. Your comment was automatically signed and dated by Sinebot. Ten minutes later you added another sentence, rather than creating a new comment; this misleadingly is included under the same datestamp. This is another good reason to create an account, to allow easy verification of who said what when, rather than having to go back to the edit history.

3. Wikipedia encourages you to use edit summaries. This is especially desirable when amending existing talk comments (e.g. "typo").

4. You say I "have no right to tell or Warn another user/s to use an account". I did not do so. I requested you to create one, and I repeat that request, for the reasons above. See Wikipedia:Why create an account?, which explains that "It is also easier for veteran users to assume good faith from new users who take the effort to create an account <snip>. You may well be afforded a great deal less leeway if you do not go to the trouble of making up a username."

5. You say "there is zero reason for a response to an edit to be placed on a user talk page". That is not so. Often an edit can be responded to on the article talk page, and the issue discussed, but a parallel response placed on the user talk page, for one of several reasons. One does not exclude the other. The article talk pages are meant to focus on the article, not the behaviour or beliefs of the editors. This is yet another reason for my request for you to create a user account (which, by the way, gives you more anonymity than revealing your IP address indiscriminately).

6. I added the material on 28 August. You say “b/t/w I believe counter-Rev originally reverted you “. That is not the case. User:Counter-revolutionary added to and clarified my information, as a look at the diff will show.

7. On Sept 1 in [|this edit] you removed the text, with the edit summary “additional info re mother, brother, etc. belong in links, not this page, which should be concise and focused”. That is not the “invitation (on Sept. 1 and subsequent) to discuss the issue on relevant subject page” you asserted you made.

8. In any case, the onus is, in most cases, on the editor removing text. (There are obvious exceptions, such as libel and outright falsehoods, but these do not apply here.) From Wikipedia:Editing policy: “If you make deletions, you should try to explain why you delete their contributions in the article talk page. This could reduce the possibility of reverting wars and unnecessary arguments.”

9. You state “We don't need to move into Gregory Lauder-Frost territory again.” I have never heard of this gentleman; if you wish to explain your allusion, please do so.

10. You state “the unsigned request for a photograph, above, was by Counter-Revolutionary, as the history page confirms.” The template that appears at the top of the page is, by its nature, unsigned and unsignable. It is a standard request for biographical pages that lack a picture.

11. You request me to “re-vert your change to the top of this page, I'm having trouble doing so; the final result was not no consensus but retention.” I made a few structural changes and am not sure which one you refer to. The final result, as stated on the archive of the discussion about deletion was “no consensus; keep” which defaults to keep. (For the record, there were four votes for deletion, one question, three keeps and one weak keep.)

12. Finally, to the substantive issues. You ask “Why do you think a man's half-brother, 7 years senior, going to Harrow when he later goes to Eton is relevant?” There is a strong presumption that all members of a family go to one school; this is common even between generations (i.e. if the father went to Harrow, it is common for his sons to as well), and it is uncommon, and worthy of remark, if an elder brother goes to one and a younger does not. Had the family lost its fortune? Not in this case, but such cases are known, and have their impact on family dynamics and the psychology of the younger child and thus sibling rivalry etc. Did the elder brother misbehave and cause the school to sever its connection with the family? (Sherborne School decided not to accept Evelyn Waugh, despite having educated his father and elder brother, because the latter wrote a controversial novel about his time there; Evelyn was painfully marked by this exclusion.) In the context of the misbehaviour of Nicholas’s elder brother this seems likely. To state that it is so would be speculation, but to provide the factual basis on which the readers can make their own deductions is entirely justified.

13. You state “The wording re "the plane crash" presumes knowledge and my comment was it belongs on family page. There are links to further family background already (marquess of bristol, fitzwilliam pages).” I do not see that the current wording presumes knowledge, but if you believe it does, I am open to other phraseology. More detail about the plane crash appears on the pages of the people who died in it, as is right and proper. This page provides only a brief glimpse into the world from which this man emerged. It was a privileged and wealthy but tragic background which shaped him, and that deserves to be documented on his article page. The links provide more information, but the basic information to understand the subject of the article needs to be on his page, and I would argue that that includes the unhappy circumstances of his parents’ marriages.

I hope this answers your concerns. BrainyBabe 11:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It took me a bit to digest your response; I was unaware of indent codes, but have learned now; Nicholas' father went to Eton, as he did, thus the elder half-bros going to Harrow is of more relevance to his own page (I'd consider tuition similar, but don't know 1960's situation)(both are certainly highly selective); I read your "warning" as a warning, but I gather that it was not, glad to hear; if you look at the page, the talk request for a photo is in the text, which is retrievable at history and signed by Counter-Rev - you are confusing it w/the box header subsequently put up; my error, I confused move vote results w/keep/delete vote results; GLF is/was a link in this article, w/a long and tortuous history; I agree the parents' marriages are relevant, no argument there. Will try to work on crash wording at a later date; thanks for your input here. ["Charles" to "BrainyBabe"] 96.224.40.10 00:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

1.Thank you for your 156-word sentence. I notice you are now appearing under a third IP address. It is using up some of my good will just to a) believe you are the same editor logging in from so many different places, and b) deal with your abbreviated prose. I will exert myself.

2. I am glad you found my wiki-instruction re indentation useful. My detailed and (I hope helpfully) linked replies are not constructed quickly. Wikipedia provides a lot of help for editors, e.g. Help:Contents/Policies and guidelines. I recommend these pages; they may help you step on fewer toes.

3. I fail to see why it matters who requested a photograph, whether by template or a separate item on the talkpage. All biographical articles would be better with an illustration.

4. The warning, just to clarify, was not in asking you to create an account; that was a request. I warned you (with the lowest possible level of template) not to delete material repeatedly without discussion. We are now discussing it. That is a step forward.

5. I accept your unstated apology over your confusion betweeen the different vote results, and the request you made of me, which then caused me to contact other Wiki editors for structural help with the format (see here).

6a. I am trying to interpret this: "Nicholas' father went to Eton, as he did, thus the elder half-bros going to Harrow is of more relevance to his own page (I'd consider tuition similar, but don't know 1960's situation)(both are certainly highly selective)".

6b. There is only one elder half-brother that I know of, so I'll take it the S is a typo; no big deal. By all means mention the fact that the father chose to send his first son to a school other than the one he attended, on both the pages of the father and of that son, if you wish. My concern is with this page at the moment.

6c. I do not see the relevance of tuition. Home schooling? Governess and bear-leader perhaps? And why do you mention Harrow and Eton are highly selective -- do you think that needs to be stated in the article? I would have thought that much at least could be assumed. I got tangled in your parentheses. As I am not sure what you mean by the reference to tuition, I cannot be certain you did not intend it to be included in the reference to selection, although that makes little sense.

7. Thank you for agreeing the marriages are relevant, for alerting me to the contentiousness of Gregory Lauder-Frost, and indeed for contributing here.BrainyBabe 17:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something? What has Gregory got to do with any of this?--Counter-revolutionary 17:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I did the indentation as a courtesy to your long post; you see it is on no previous entries on this page and I frankly don't like it, so will refrain unless consensus is otherwise (I think it makes the pages too long and the heading chapters are sufficient "breakage". I reference tuition only b/c you did ("did the family lose its fortune", etc.), ditto all the other pts I made re Harrow. Your warning was ill placed imho and all this effort you didn't reply to my early 2 pts (and cause for reversion you refer to as delete)- that an older bro. went to Harrow doesn't belong here, etc. You still haven't replied to it, nor has anyone weighed in. You mentioned the photo: I was just replying to your reply; unfortunately you have let the heart of things go (where the GLF cite arises in one part: obfuscatory editors' replies and edits). I suggest just dealing w/the proposed edits, to the point. (Counting another's words is not helpful and I won't bother counting yours; they are long, I try to be concise; I prefer my way, you prefer yours; live and let live - an old Hervey expression I believe). CRev: I was just referring to the tortured history of the GLF site which I followed from afar, not the man himself. That was something, you must admit. 96.224.40.10 05:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Indentation. It is not a question of what you like. The Wikipedia consensus is that indentation is necessary, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, which states a guideline "generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow." It specifically states:" Thread your post: Use indentation to clearly indicate who you are replying to, as with usual threaded discussions. Normally colons are used <snip>" By the way, the divisions are known as "sections", not "chapters".

2. Your attempt at concision is admirable, but unfortunately leads to loss of clarity. You may not think so, but again I refer you to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, which states "Separate multiple points with whitespace: If a single post has several points, it makes it clearer to separate them with a paragraph break (i.e. a blank line)."

3. Please do not put words into my mouth, as in "I reference tuition only b/c you did". You were the first to mention tuition; I did not mention it. I was giving examples of reasons why a younger son might not follow an elder one to an expensive school. You wrote " (I'd consider tuition similar, but don't know 1960's situation)". I had, and still have, no idea of the relevance of that remark.

4. "ditto all the other pts I made re Harrow". Please be specific, and I will attempt to address them.

5. I agree my warning to you was ill-placed. I would much rather have put it on your userpage, but you still decline to create an account.

6. "you didn't reply to my early 2 pts". I did attempt to discuss the impact of sending one child to a different school than another at 12, 19 Sept above. You wrote something I found confusing and I asked for your help in understanding, see 6a, 21 Sept above.

7. You were the first to mention the photo here: "Note: the unsigned request for a photograph, above, was by Counter-Revolutionary, as the history page confirms." I don't care who asked for it, and don't know why you care.

8. obfuscatory: "To be evasive, unclear, or confusing". I find your evading of the policies of Wikipedia confusing. I want to engage positively and would request that you follow the Wikipedia guidelines that will help resolve this tedious matter. BrainyBabe 12:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Having sought out advice and having been told the correct procedure, I have re-posted the vandalism warning here, in effect creating a user page for you. I mention it here only as a matter of courtesy. Please make any comments about it there, and leave this talk page for improving the article. BrainyBabe 18:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• My thoughts, with out entering into a huge examination of all that is said are as follows;

The Harrow fact does not detract from the article, nor does it add to it very much. I am neutral to its inclusion.

The fact that his grandfather died in (quite a high profile) 'plane crash is relevant and ought to be included.

His mother's wealth is relevant.

--Counter-revolutionary 20:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

As to the 2 simple points my original edits and request for commentary were about (thank you C.R. for your response):

Since Nicholas went to Eton as did his father I don't think his elder half bro. going to Harrow, unless there is an explanation for its relevance on this page, is relevant. It can certainly be placed on his own page and BrainyBabe (I hate your tag!!nothing personal) I see no reason for your not putting the efforts into extending his page w/that info.

While only relevant to posts here, I do note that tuition and any other specific of Harrow was only brought up by me to respond to your speculated reasons/justification for schools attended (and use of the word expensive and fall in family fortunes - I find it hard to believe you forgot your own post or missed its references to finance, but will assume gd faith ntl); I only stated his brother's school is not so relevant here; I repeat my general sentiment that this is not (again the GLF reference) to be a 10 page profile but a concise summary (of someone who hasn't even attained genuine note in any sense at all).

You have convinced me CR re plane crash but wording needs to be fleshed imo; I will attempt later (ie, affair/relationship w/Kennedy needs to addressed then).

No one is suggesting mother's wealth not relevant; may in fact be relevant to stress Times' estimate a gross understatement and unchanged for decades (1940's figure w/no inflation/appreciation built in; actual net worth much greater presumably).

It's easy to get bogged down in details, but I figure it's like stitching an intellectual sampler - thanks for your wikiprocedure efforts BB. "charles" [I am not every anonymous poster and didn't expect to generate such a long exchange; otherwise I see an acct would be helpful for such back-forths] 96.224.40.10 23:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Thank you for writing in fuller sentences, which I find easier to understand, in the main. I see you have made an effort at indenting, which I commend, but the guidelines -- and my eyes -- request one further level of indent for each response; I have previously pointed you to Wikipedia:Guide to good indentation and Wikipedia:Talkpage#Formatting. "Stitching an intellectual sampler" is an interesting metaphor. But weren't samplers traditionally created by one person to show off her expertise? That would tip into ownership of a page. A closer analogy for Wikipedia would be quilting bees, or perhaps tapestries of the Bayeux sort.

2. I appreciate your amendments to the "crash" paragraph. Any more information about the mother's wealth would also be welcome.

3. Thank you for acknowledging my efforts to educate you in Wikiprocedure. I have put some effort into pointing out the most useful resources for new editors. There is a lot of help available for those who are willing to use it and learn. On that level, "BrainyBabe" is my username; a "tag" is a template used to flag up, e.g., a request for sources. I am glad that you acknowledge that an account would be helpful. Then all this could go on your userpage.

4. I note that you made your changes without a)having achieved consensus here, and b)using an edit summary. The former is against the spirit of WP, the latter, the letter. Spirit: I think an item has value, you do not, User:Counter-revolutionary is neutral; that is not a consensus to delete it, as this discussion has not closed; unwarranted deletion is now noted on the userpage I created for you. Letter: I have asked you to use edit summaries before (item 3, 19 Sept) and will post a warning about that too.

5. I think it best to repost my comments from item 12, 19 Sept. as to why I believe the comment about his elder brother stands. "it is uncommon, and worthy of remark, if an elder brother goes to one and a younger does not. Had the family lost its fortune? Not in this case, but such cases are known, and have their impact on family dynamics and the psychology of the younger child and thus sibling rivalry etc. Did the elder brother misbehave and cause the school to sever its connection with the family? (Sherborne School decided not to accept Evelyn Waugh, despite having educated his father and elder brother, because the latter wrote a controversial novel about his time there; Evelyn was painfully marked by this exclusion.) In the context of the misbehaviour of Nicholas’s elder brother this seems likely. To state that it is so would be speculation, but to provide the factual basis on which the readers can make their own deductions is entirely justified."

6. In other words, there are reasons why one brother does not follow another; it is not an arbitrary decision. I think the Waugh case is an interesting parallel. We cannot be certain about the Hervey reasons, but we can mention the facts and let the readers make up their own minds. I do not wish the article to speculate about causes; I want it merely to state the fact.

I hope this is clear. BrainyBabe 08:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I won't repost my reply/ies to your original Harrow discussion; that was why I made the change, b/c I felt you weren't adding to the debate and I - perhaps unfairly - took CR to be on my side, ie not opposing deletion. I was frustrated w/what I saw as your failure to constructively engage and respond to my response (originally posted on the edit summary and then my request for discussion). I won't keep repeating it, I already have once. In sum, Nicholas went to the same school as his father, a prestigious one. Why is his brother's glitch, as you note it in substance, be noted on his page - isn't that too removed and belongs instead on the brother's page (b/t/w he has two half brothers and the younger went to eton as well - I think all that unnecessarily bloats the page and is beyond Wikip. Look at the pages of noted people (actors, statesmen, scientists; those I have seen are not this long and filled w/what some could argue inconsequential trivia.

I'm not saying make the page three lines long; there's no cost, but the purpose of wikipedia seems to be concise summaries of items of public interest and adding more and more minutaie is unhelpful in my view and I don't feel your response addresses factors relevant to Herveys, unless you can spell it out (ie, it's not likely Nicholas got denied entry to Harrow based on his brother's behavior, unless you have special knowledge I don't; if anything the question is why the brother didn't get into or sent to the more prestigious eton; perhaps you are suggesting his father's criminal background prevented admission for the first born and the wife's influence and background got eton to accept her son. This would need to be spelled out more I think to have the info included. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.40.10 (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your much more readable comments; I really didn't understand some of the compressed and abbreviated ones previously. I have absolutely no view on the relative prestige of Eton and Harrow; in the eyes of the average reader (for whom we are, in theory, writing), they are equal. I had not thought of the father's criminality and mother's influence at all, or not in this context! (Again, please don't put words into my mouth, even tentatively: "perhaps you are suggesting...")

But what do you think of the Waugh case and the undertones of sibling rivalry that poisoned that family's relationships? I am not suggesting that case is mentioned on the article page, just that it gives a reason why the fact should be mentioned.

By all means put whatever seems relevant on the family's other pages if you wish; each article is treated separately and on its own merits.

Yes, it is unfair to assume that not opposing deletion is synonymous with assenting to it. I am confident that my constructive engagement is apparent in the time and effort I have put in to help guide you around Wikipedia. It is a learning process. I recommend the Wikipedia:Tutorial. BrainyBabe 22:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel the Waugh case is analogous. There has been no published reference to any poisoned relationship b/t the brothers; in fact articles quote and reference them in touch their whole lives; one even references Nicholas meeting his brother on his release from a gaol term (and getting accidentally re-arrested w/him!). Published sources do note a difference in their father's affections, and that is referenced on John's page adequately. Any speculation re the brother's relationship would be just that, not reporting on news items. For this reason, I see no justification for the otherwise interesting factual tidbit. (In fact, I'd be more inclined to include the fact he killed himself two days after his mother's birthday, but since that is not highlighted in news sources would be disinclined to do so.)96.224.40.10 01:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I would settle for a mention of the father's differential treatment, with a citation. I still maintain that it is possible to include the "interesting factual tidbit" without speculation (just the facts, ma'am, and let the judge make up his own mind) but will drop it if you can come up with a differential affections or relationship sentence or clause. BrainyBabe 21:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)