Talk:John Peter Grant

MP

This man cannot have been member of the House of Commons 1820 to 1826. Tostarpadius (talk) 09:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why not: there have been 13 year-old MPs prior to the 1832 Reform Act. However, since this article doesn't seem to say that he was a Member I wonder if you are confusing him with someone else? Or has my eyesight completely gone now?! - Sitush (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

There are incoming links. Tostarpadius (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you perhaps try to be a little less vague? You are asking me to do all the work here. Which incoming links? - Sitush (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary heading

Look, this won't do. Folk would be better off reading the ODNB. His father didn't just 'come from' Rothiemurchus. He was the Laird, which in the Highlands meant a great deal. One of his descendants still is - they've held the estate for over 400 years. JP Grant senior, like many Highland lairds of his time, was near enough bankrupt, and was only saved from it by the imperial machine of the Regency, (apologies - actually it was in 1827, when the Regent had become George IV) which got him a post in India. His brilliant daughter, Elizabeth, tells the story as she saw it in her Memoirs of a Highland Lady, which have never been long out of print since their first publication. We are dealing here with the Scots hereditary aristocracy as imperial governors, and JP Grant was better at it than most - he saw off a serious danger of rebellion in the Central Provinces over the policies of the indigo plantes, and as reward was pitched into the aftermath of the most serious post-emancipation convulsion in Jamaica - the so-called Port Morant rising, desperately mishandled by the previous Governor, Eyre, and did rather better than might have been expected. This man had a considerable influence for good or ill, on the history of Jamaica. Any reader of the article as it now stands, either in Scotland or Jamaica, would have to do a great deal of work after reading it to get the slightest idea of that, and they would probably not bother to. I would suggest a serious rewriteDelahays (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

What are you telling everyone else for here? Just do it where it matters, remember that WP articles are never finished and have a bit of respect for people whose interest only extends so far. - Sitush (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

If you do not understand the revisions I made then perhaps you should not be attempting to deal with this subject. The final paragraph was a quotation from Marsala, one of the three sources you listed, as I indicated when I made the revision. It's a dull book, but valuable since its main source is the jamaica press of the time of Grant's governorship, as youwill remember from having read it. Try reading Catherine Hall "Civilising Subjects" which is an investigation into the growth of the crisis of 1865, the consequences of which Grant was appointed to deal with. how JP Grant was recruited to the East India Company's service, the History of Parliament article on his father John Peter Grant, MP, is very helpful.

If you are not interested, why write about him?Delahays (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Who says I am not interested? I wrote about the bit that I'm particularly interested in and provided sources that looked useful for anyone who might have the time and inclination to pursue things further. I wasn't going to divert my time into studying Jamaican history from scratch when it is a long, long way from what I usually do and the purpose of my work on this article was simply to fill a redlinked hole.

You are not speaking someone who lacks commitment or just drops in to Wikipedia once every few weeks or months. There is, of course, nothing wrong with people who do contribute sporadically but you are being silly here. I suggest that if the present state of the article bothers you so much then you "put up" instead of berating others with "look, this won't do" etc. In the time it took you to compose your initial message, you could doubtless have added a couple of useful, sourced sentences to the article. - Sitush (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a Governor of Jamaica, and an important one,in the view of many. "I wasn't going to divert my time into studying Jamaican history"- your words, not mine - isn't exactly the ideal frame of mind in which to approach writing about - of all people - John Peter Grant,- or for that matter, jamaica - wouldn't you say? If you write for Wikipedia, you are not writing for yourself. And your remarks about 13 year old MPs may have been fun, but they indicate that even writing about - presumably - his role in India, you didn't check to find out whether a John Peter Grant HAD been an MP. If you had, you would have found that the "similarly named" father you refer to HAD been just that - twice, for Great Grimsby, a borough which was notoriously corrupt and where votes had to be bought - and he did, selling the Hertfordshire estate that he had acquired with his wife, but reatining the seat drove him further into debt, and for Tavistock, a pocket borough of the Duke of Bedford, who gave priority at elections for members of his family. between 1818 and 1827. When the Duke announced his next candidate in 1827 would be Lord William Russell, his son, Grant was left without immunity from arrest for debt, and he owed £60,000. His whig friends got him a judicial appointment in Bombay, and he had to be smuggled aboard the ship in 1827, according to his daughter, though there was apparently an agreement with his Scottish creditors about the estate. The date of the father's India appointment possibly raises an issue with your text in another way. You say that John Peter Grant was at Haileybury for a year in 1827, but the old DNB puts this at 1825. If they are right, the session ( year) at Edinburgh would probably have been in 1824, when he was 16-17, the usual age for a first year student at Edinburgh. My recollection is that you were at Haileybury for more than a year before the HEIC would take you. As a younger son, whatever his father's debts, he would probably have followed some such career - his father, before advancing into English politics, had a great deal of Highland EIC patronage at his beck and call The National Archive index lists an appointment to India for a John Peter Grant in 1827, but doesn't say which. (The father wasn't exactly seen in India as the sort of judge you could leave alone to get on with it. That's one of the reasons he moved to Calcutta) One of the things I shall try to check before doing some sort of rewrite. On that point at least, you can't really be criticised. Delahays (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather that you edit the article than continue this sort-of trolling? You obviously have fuck all in the way of good faith in your system. Instead of adding still more whimsy to this talk page, go find the sources for whatever points you think can be improved and then just do it. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Apologies if you think I'm trolling. I'm actually more of a wikipedia user, and I came to this article originally to try to check a point. I have to confess I was shocked, even so, and even more so by your reaction but I think you've explained enough for me to understand how that came about. I hope you see why. No point in trying to continue the discussion.Delahays (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:3O

I saw that this page was listed as requesting a third opinion on a content dispute between two editors. However I don't see any content dispute here - only a general complaint about the state of the article from one editor, followed by an invitation from another editor to be bold and fix whatever issues he might have. I don't see any edit warring over the article content itself. I also don't see evidence of any extensive attempt to resolve any content dispute -- whatever that might be -- here. So I have removed the request from WP:3O as inappropriate for the venue. If I've somehow missed something here, and there is a dispute over some discrete piece of content that I just am failing to see, let me know. Good luck. — e. ripley\^talk 19:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

OK - but since neither editor, including me, seems to be particularly bold other than in defending their own position your advice may be misunderstood. If I am guilty in that regard I apologise in advance. It was my fellow editor who raised the issue of good faith.

However, for the record, the point I made, whether whimsy or not, about the date of John Peter Grant (future Governor of Jamaica)'s appointment to the EIC civil service can, it turns out, be checked in the EIC civil and military list for 1845, which is online. It's given there as 1825. If that is, as I suspect it might be, the date of his admission to Haileybury, which had to be at not less than the age of 18 nor after the age of 20 (if the regulations as given applied in 1825) - he would have been 18 in 1825, he must have been at Edinburgh, as I suggested, in 1823-4. Possibly only 4 years at Eton. The fees at Haileybury had to be backed by a £1000 bond, which wouldn't have helped his father's debts. Eton can't quote their fees for 1819, but it's possible they were less expensive. The date of 1827 in the National Archives will in all probability therefore refer to his father's appointment. Once I've been able to check that it does, I'll alter that at least. The rest will take a little longer. If you can't be bold, you have to be carefulDelahays (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Edward Irving Carlyle in DNB01 seems to have got it right - he places JP Grant's entry to the Bengal Civil service in 1828, which would just about fit the Edinburgh -Haileybury chronology.Delahays (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Just so you know, I've added some nesting to your comments. When you reply to a comment, if you begin with a colon, it will indent slightly and makes it easier to follow the thread of the conversation. To reply to a comment that's already been indented, you just add another colon (So, for this reply, I've used two colons). To the rest, I still don't see a content dispute here, but perhaps someone will respond here and prove me wrong. You've asserted some information, discussed checking it, and that's great. But I don't see anyone disputing it in any way that would need a third party's opinion. There have been some frustrated discussions, and it would be my hope that those would cool down regardless of how the rest of the article (and this talk page) develop. But adjudicating a dispute over conduct is really beyond the scope of anything that I can do, beyond observing that we should all be civil and assume good faith; the third opinion noticeboard is to request assistance with a dispute about content between two editors. I see that you are working toward sourcing his date of appointment, but I don't see anyone disputing any of it (yet). — e. ripley\^talk 20:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not a 3O matter. As you say, there was no dispute. Now, moving on ...

Delahays, it might be worth your while reading a few policies and guidelines. WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYNTH come to mind. We also usually place more reliance on a modern source than on an old one except in situations where, for example, it is a blatant misprint. Furthermore, when there is any doubt and the sources are in disagreement, we show them all - that's covered by WP:NPOV. - Sitush (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

At present the issue is whether an identified source is the relevant original source, and whether, in subsequent secondary uses, it has been properly interpreted or even properly transcribed. I don't know of any Wikipedia policy which supersedes these basic considerations of historical method. But in respect of the dates given for the commencement of service in India of John Peter Grant father and John Peter Grant son I'm still not completely happy. But I might be getting there. You will be the first to know when I think I've arrived. You mention Professor Marsala's book, I think. It wasn't particularly well reviewed in the Jamaica Journal by Douglas Hall when it came out in the 1970s and there's only one currently obtainable copy in the UK but he does acknowledge the difficulties. Even Karr quotes only one of Grant's Jamaica minutes, but I do know that source a bit. I read it in around 2000, in Aviemore, next door to Rothiemurchus. And even Karr (and many modern writers) suggests that the Morant Bay rising (to which some writers, not as far as I know including Grant himself, referred as a "mutiny", and its aftermath, determined much of what Grant did as Governor, though it may well be that his experiences in India played a part in his dealing with infrastructural problems in Jamaica (one of which was that the Assembly had a habit of voting public money for the roads in such a way that it went into the pockets of the estate owners along them, who supplied the contract labour to tip waste earth on the surfaces instead of properly founding and paving them, -they kept the difference (he says so himself)) - and also the tectonic shift in racial attitudes the rising brought to light. The document quoted by Karr indicates that he felt he could not revise the blatantly excessive sentences passed on the alleged perpetrators of the rising by the judiciary and magistracy he reformed until "the tone" of the island improved. That's less Eton than Thomas Arnold of Rugby!Delahays (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but, no, that is not the issue. It is not for us to question what a reliable secondary source says. To do so would amount to original research. This can be frustrating, I know, but Wikipedia is not actually about "truth" but rather about what is "verifiable" (there is an essay about it somewhere on the site). - Sitush (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Sitush is right. The standard for Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. In instances where reliable sources disagree about something, as Wikipedia editors we would summarize the disagreement -- we don't pronounce source one to be true and source two to be false, though of course we can debate whether the sources in question are in fact reliable, and issues of undue weight.

Most articles on Wikipedia rely on secondary sources. Primary sources can be used, but only under certain strictures, and with careful adherence to policy. Here is the primary sourcing policy. I would draw your attention to this specific piece: Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. — e. ripley\^talk 21:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I think at least three entries have gone missing - I suspect eripley's pages which I can't find. My last entry of the talk page has disappeared. It's the only one of my missing contributions which says anything editorial. What it did was to refer in full to a National archives catalogue entry which because it is not the original itself is a secondary source and a "reliable one' mentioning John Peter Grant in a Haileybury file of 1827. Against it I had John Peter Grant's sister's account of him going off to Haleybury in the autumn of 1825 to take up a writership which she says was arranged by Robert Grant. I gave notice I would sleep on it and amend after I had found a proper page reference, assuming that the 1827 file showed him leaving Haileybury. As a final check I rang the British Library, which holds the file. They have made it avaiulable on Find My Past, which is not a good place, but they will be more detailed by Monday. However it would appear that it is a petition to the Company indicating the support, not of Robert Grant, but his brother Charles Grant, later Lord Glenelg and MIGHT indicate that John Peter was fast-tracked having been entered in 1827. So the 1827 date MIGHT be right, if this is the source for it. It could therefore be that no amendment is needed. This, with respect, is in the end ALL ABOUT ORIGINAL SOURCES. Even the secondary sources which it is required to respect depend on the originals they use or abuse. And historians have got things wrong using both since Herodotus. I simply thought would like to know.Delahays (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It's getting even more Kafka-esque. What the British Library say is available on Find my Past, isn't, according to Find My Past. The poor lassie at the BL who is checking what the document actually says will not be able to do it online. I will have to try and do it myself at the BL when I can get to London. But I still suspect that John Peter Grant started at Haileybury in 1825, which is the only date which fits the way the system seems to have worked. Meanwhile I'll try to fill in something about JamaicaDelahays (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Delahays, I don't think it is sinking in. There is no point in tracking this thing down for the sake of this article because we will not be able to use it. Now, if you wanted to sort out the issue in order to write a book or a paper, then get that published and then wait for a Wikipedian to cite it here then that is fine because your work becomes a peer-reviewed secondary source. Please could you read WP:OR (or re-read it, if you've looked already). - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Delahays, all of my comments are represented here on the talk page. I don't see anything in the history of the page that would suggest your comments have been erased by another editor, so I'm not quite sure what you're experiencing. Sometimes, when you edit a page, someone else may be editing the same page at the same time. And when you try to save it, there's what is called an "edit conflict." And your work simply won't save. You have to cut and paste your comment, reopen the page, and post it again. Maybe that's what's happening to you? In any case, to your point - certainly, secondary sources can be based on primary sources. But that's exactly why we almost exclusively prefer secondary sources. Because if those secondary sources are reliable, then we can comfortably cite their interpretation, since we for the most part are generalists as editors, of no particular scholarly note on any certain topic. In your case, with all due respect, nobody has any way of knowing whether your interpretation is adequate or accurate; in essence you'd be asking readers to just "trust you on it." That is why we must rely on secondary sources for things other than bare facts. — e. ripley\^talk 21:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Screwed up

@Delahays: not sure what is going on but the article is now very screwed up. We've got unsourced paragraphs, used of an old version of the ODNB, and at least one paragraph that ends nonsensically (something to do with being the "architect of Jamaica"). Are you planning to return? - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I have reverted you for now. There are too many problems, including misrepresentation of the sources. - Sitush (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

f you do not understand the revisions I made then perhaps you should not be attempting to deal with this subject. The final paragraph was a quotation from Marsala, one of the three sources you listed, as I indicated when I made the revision. It's a dull book, but valuable since its main source is the jamaica press of the time of Grant's governorship, as youwill remember from having read it. Try reading Catherine Hall "Civilising Subjects" which is an investigation into the growth of the crisis of 1865, the consequences of which Grant was appointed to deal with. how JP Grant was recruited to the East India Company's service, the History of Parliament article on his father John Peter Grant, MP, is very helpful. I note that in two years and more you have not bothered to revise this article.212.140.119.4 (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Except to shorten it further, of course. It would be relevant and fairly important to have some informatipon about his work as lieutenant governor of Bengal, surely - not just a single mention.Delahays (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

It is pointless getting nasty with me again. Recognise your own failings, which are probably mostly down to carelessness and lack of experience here rather than some sort of innate desire to subvert Wikipedia. You mean well but are misguided.

• You should provide sources for all your statements in the article (you did not)
• You should not misrepresent what a source says (you did)
• Statements such as The American scholar, Vincent J Marsala, concluded 'Through his far-sighted programs of reform.....his policies reconciled classes and colors, and made the government respected by most of the people', and (writing in 1972), proposes him as 'The Architect of Modern Jamaica'  ; are not, in fact, sentences, even if they did follow the guidelines of our Manual of Style, which they do not.

If you can't approach contributing to this article in a collegial manner then please don't bother. And don't think that the two-year thing matters: in the same two years you have contributed very little anywhere on Wikipedia whereas I have made tens of thousands of edits ... and the difference shows (it's the experience thing I mentioned). Work with me and I can help you but if you set out battle-lines then don't expect much from me. - Sitush (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)