Talk:John Arscott

Reverted vexatious excessively pedantic revert

The originator of this article, Lobsterthermidor, has been involved in a two year vexatious edit war with Smalljim, who has developed a creepy habit of following him around WP and stamping his own mark, no matter how small, insignificant or unwarranted, on LT's articles. This is somewhat creepy, and must cease. The two edits made were classic examples of the sort of vexatious behaviour Smalljim has been exhibiting. The original text was fully supported by the sources to the satisfaction of a normal reasonable reader and have thus been re-instated. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC))

Lobsterthermidor, regarding these two changes (in isolation from other current matters) and ignoring your inappropriate allegations and use of language (yet again), I must point out that making bland assertions that you are right is not discussion. You need to convince me by reasoned argument that I am wrong. Can you do that?  —SMALLJIM  20:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You are edit warring with me on articles I contribute. After your 2 month wiki-break your first two days back were spent almost exclusively in stamping your mark on brand-new articles I had created. In view of this state of affairs, which has been continuing for 2 years as you know, I suggest in order to avoid further warring you reach consensus with myself, on the talk page, before you make any drastic changes to my contributions, which as I think you know full well will appear to be a continuance of your edit-warring. I don't think I have ever made any contribution or edit to any of your newly contributed articles, but if ever I do, and am aware it's your work, I will be equally civil in order to avoid any suspicion of edit-warring. I think you are aware that your actions in continually and systemmatically stamping your mark on text I have contributed is going to be viewed by myself as disruptive. Does that seem reasonable? Also, please don't confuse your role as interested editor with admin. and issue threats in furtherance of my non-acceptance of your radical alterations and impositions, entirely undiscussed on talk, of text contributed by me. I think it's sensible in an edit warring situation not to trample all over the other person's new articles, which is likely to inflame matters. Does that make sense? Thanks. If we can find a civil way forward to edit together that would be great. Please therefore in order to reduce the chances of further edit-warring discuss your proposed alterations to new articles contributed by me on talk before making dramatic changes. Also, the normal way to challenge a source is to add a cn tag (not vexatiously please) which can then be dealt with civilly. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC))

Oh stop moaning all over the place [1], unless you raise a proper DR process. Read WP:OWN and try some reasoned discussion! Just to pass the time I wrote the following before you added the above chunk of misery.

1. To help clarify this issue, and to assist anyone without the book who's interested, the full text of Hoskins' entry for Tetcott is online at http://www.devon.gov.uk/historictetcott. As anyone can see, from "Tetcott is altogether an atmospheric place..." onwards, Hoskins takes a flight into romantic imagery, writing in a quite different way to his normal prosaic style (this is something he rarely does). He is talking about the magical effects conjured up in the mind by the phrase "Arscott of Tetcott" (note that he specifically states "the very words...") and contrary to Lobsterthermidor (Lt)'s interpretation that

The Arscott family was considered by the Devon historian Hoskins to "epitomise all the ancient Devonshire squires"

Hoskins says nothing about the entire Arscott family which occupied several other places as well as Tetcott. It's pretty sad to have to go into such depth to explain something that would seem to me to be obvious, but necessary, yet again, to avoid Wikipedia being the primary source for this alleged fact which Hoskins does not make. I suppose that instead of removing the sentence, I could have changed it to something closer to what Hoskins wrote, but based on Lt's previous behaviour, I doubt that it would have made any difference to the outcome.

2. Regarding the other issue, I'll just list what Hoskins wrote, Lt's version, and my correction:

• Hoskins, p.411, in the section on Holsworthy:

Arscott (now called South Arscott) was the original home of the Arscotts, who began here in Henry III's time...

• Lobsterthermidor:

The Arscotts had originated at the estate of Arscott (today South Arscott Farm) in the parish of Ashwater, near Holsworthy.<ref>Hoskins, p.411, but incorrectly lists Arscott under parish of Holsworthy</ref>

• Smalljim:

The Arscotts had originated at the estate of Arscott near Holsworthy.<ref>Hoskins, p.411. Hoskins says the place is "now called South Arscott"</ref>

In addition I couldn't find any other source to back up Lt's assertion that it's now called South Arscott Farm and is in Ashwater parish (which is south-east of Holsworthy [2]); in fact there's a South Arscott on the A388 about a mile north of Holsworthy, in Holsworthy Hamlets parish, but without further research, I don't know if it's the right place.

I can see no valid reason for Lt to revert such minor, obvious, and uncontroversial corrections. —SMALLJIM  00:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hoist by your own petard: yet more endless paragraphs arguing about immaterial pedantry. That's your modus operandi of your edit-war with me of 2 years. I am advised by WP guidelines "not to feed the trolls", so won't be wasting my time by playing your game and arguing about immaterial issues, finessing sources, and wikilawyering. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC))

Partly resolved

The above discussion continued elsewhere and regarding the first point Lt pointed out another mention of the Arscott family on p.79 of Hoskins, which we agree is the real description of the family: it points up the distinction between the "ancient freeholders" (of which the Arscotts were an example) and the "old squirearchy" (such as the Kellys, Fortescues, etc. (see p.77)), whose estates were eventually rivalled by those of the freeholders. Apart from the other considerations in point 1 above, referencing p.79 also avoids potential confusion over the term "ancient Devonshire squires".

I'd suggest something along the lines of

According to Hoskins the Arscott family exemplified the ancient freeholders who rose to the ranks of the squirearchy over a period of 300 years or so by the steady accumulation of property, mostly through marriage.

as a reasonable (though perhaps too long?) summary of what Hoskins says. I'll replace the current article text in a day or two if there are no objections.

That's the easy one – I'll comment on the second point in a while.  —SMALLJIM  15:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

South Arscott

Regarding point 2 above, this is about Arscott, the original home of the Arscott family, and whether it is at a place in Holsworthy parish now called South Arscott as W. G. Hoskins stated in his book Devon, or whether (as Lobsterthermidor claims) Hoskins made an error and it is at a listed farmhouse in Ashwater parish.

I've now found beyond reasonable doubt that Arscott is indeed now called South Arscott, it is in Holsworthy parish, and it most likely can be identified with the farm on the A388 north of Holsworthy town. I was very nearly persuaded by Lt's forceful arguments at AN/I, such as this, but fortunately decided to do some more research which has shown that nothing that he has claimed about the original home of the Arscotts being in Ashwater parish is verifiable.

In summary,

• I've found no evidence to support Lt's contentions (see above diff) that the listed farmhouse in Ashwater parish is or ever has been called South Arscott, or that the property just to its north (now The Alpaca Park) has ever been called North Arscott (if anything it's called Hope Farm).
• There's no direct evidence that this listed farmhouse was the original home of the Arscotts: the listed building record does not say so.
• There's good evidence, from Kelly's directories, that the place in Holsworthy parish changed its name from "Arscott" to "South Arscott" as Hoskins stated, some time between 1902 and 1910, while Joram Littlejohn was farmer there.
• Contrary to Lt's assertion that Hoskins made an error in locating Arscott in Holsworthy parish, there is plenty of evidence that he was following earlier sources (Baring Gould, W. I. Leeson Day, even Lysons).

I'll provide full refs for the above if anyone is interested enough, but the clincher is W. I. Leeson Day's Holsworthy (1934), which must be considered authoritative and is now cited in the article, where the map facing page 2 shows "South Arscott" in caps in just the right place north of Holsworthy and page 29 states:

Arscott (now known as South Arscott). This was not a Domesday manor. The earliest mention of it that I can find is "Essecote" in 1238. In 1385 one "Will. Arescote" was ordained at Holsworthy...

I've amended the relevant paragraph to take account of both these corrections, and rewritten it into a more logical format. It would be nice if Lobsterthermidor takes note of this and doesn't dismiss further corrections to his text with quite so much vehemence!  —SMALLJIM  00:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Just a couple of updates: the site is actually in Holsworthy Hamlets civil parish which was formed when the ecclesiastical parish was split in two in 1900 (W. I. Leeson Day, p.35). And to remove doubt that South Arscott has ancient origins, here's an old map from a 1970s planning application - it says "South Arscott | on Site of | Mansion".  —SMALLJIM  11:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)