Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Knights of St Patrick/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 23:26, 30 December 2008 [1].

List of Knights of St Patrick

edit

I've been working on this for a few days now and feel it is ready for Featured status. I welcome any and all comments, of course. Ironholds (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • The first paragraph is taken verbatim from the first paragraph of Order of St. Patrick. This is fine, except that it hasn't been modified for its use in this list. In particular The Most Illustrious Order of Saint Patrick should not be bolded, since it is not the title of the list. Order of St. Patrick should be linked somewhere too. When used in the lead of Order of St. Patrick this paragraph did not need references, as these were contained in the body of the article. This is not the case here; the sole reference which has been copied over refers only to the motto, not the other facts in this paragraph. The phrase "one officer ... also survives" is a bit misleading in context, as it could be read as meaning "the person who held the office while appointments were being made is still alive", rather than "the office still exists so its holder is ex officio an officer of the order". Perhaps something like The position of King of Arms of the order was held by Ulster King of Arms; this office still exists, since 1943 combined with Norroy King of Arms. St Patrick is linked twice (once as Saint and once as St). The word or before Latin is not necessary. (These last couple of suggestions apply to Order of St. Patrick as well.)
  • Like other orders of chivalry, appointments are made to the order, rather than people being awarded a "Knight of St Patrick". The first sentence of the second paragraph would be more correct as something like The first appointments, of 15 Knights Founder, were made on 11 March 1783; in total there have been 130 appointments.
  • The image caption would possibly be better as Illustration of the insignia of a Knight of St Patrick, since what is shown is only a depiction and not the insignia themselves.
  • What makes http://www.leighrayment.com/orders/patrick.htm a reliable source?
  • In the table there are three or four birth/death dates with a stray parenthesis.
    Will be working on it; could you give me a poke one where these stray parentheses area? Leigh Rayment is an odd'un; he has not been published and does things like this entirely as a hobby. He is, however, extremely reliable; all of his information (and there is a shedload of it) comes from reputable sources. It has got to the point where we have a template for referencing his site (or cite, oh I am witty): Template:Rayment and 5+ spinoffs.Ironholds (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, cleared up all the concerns minus the references (because it isn't like they're important or anything) which I'll do in a bit.Ironholds (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    References done, I believe.Ironholds (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All done minus the parantheses. Ironholds (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed the parentheses and added fuller birth/death dates for some that were missing. Choess (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of my concerns above seem to have been addressed, though I notice the new sentence about Ulster King of Arms is not referenced. Regarding Rayment, I'm inclined to agree the information is correct, (though according to some deletion debates he has a deliberate error on every page to tell when his work is being plagiarised). However solely on the basis of what it says on his site, I find it difficult to justify it being a "reliable source" as described in WP:RS and WP:V (For example, how does it differ from the personal website of a fan of a tv series or someone who has collected a lot of sporting statistics?). The fact that there exist a number of templates to reference the site is a moot point, and in fact they seem to just give a link to the entire site, rather than the particular page relvant for a given article, so I'm not sure how useful that is. Presumably the information in the list could be obtained from official sources such as the London Gazette, or from books such as Debretts, or possibly even Galloway's history of the Order. Dr pda (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately I don't have acess to those sources (the gazette, yes, but the reference list would be as long as my arm). The fact remains that when stood up against other, established and respected sources, he is correct. Unfortunately I'm not really sure how to work that in :S. Ironholds (talk) 12:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "order of chivalry"-->chivalric order.
  • "since 1943 combined with Norroy King of Arms"-->since 1943 it has been combined with Norroy King of Arms...
  • "The first appointments were made on 11 March 1783 to 15 Knight Founders" How can appointments be made to someone? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

  • If sources are really a problem, this list carries through 1851, and I suspect the rest can be sourced to the London Gazette. Choess (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just come back from my local library where I checked the list against The Knights of England (worldcat entry), which goes through to 1904. I was able to find the rest in old editions of Burke's Peerage. On doing so I found 22 cases where the death date differed from that on the list (I didn't check birth dates), 4 cases where the ordinal of the peerage differed (i.e. 3rd Earl vs 5th Earl), 1 case where the forename differed, and 1 case where the date of appointment differed. I'm just on my way out again, I'll post the discrepancies later. I have also discovered that appendix 3 in Galloway does have a complete list, if anyone is easily able to get hold of that. Dr pda (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the discrepancies I found with this version of the list are

  • Wrong date of membership: The Duke of Abercorn was appointed 21 December 1922, not 21 June. This is confirmed by an entry in The Times the following day.
  • Different ordinals: In Knights of England William Pery (1892) is listed as the 5th Earl of Limerick, and Arthur Gore (1898) as the 7th Earl of Arran, rather than the 3rd and 5th respectively. This seems to be because previous creations were counted. Arthur Hill (1831) is listed as the 2nd Marquess of Downshire, and William Hare as 3rd Earl of Listowel, but these seem to be mistakes (unless I copied them down incorrectly)
  • Different forename: Knights of England gives the 4th Earl of Lucan as George Bingham, not Charles as in the list, but his name was Charles George Bingham, so maybe he preferred his middle name.
  • Different dates of death, according to Knights of England (only up to 1904):
    • William FitzGerald: 4 October 1804, not 20 October — Typo.
    • Henry de Burgh: 18 December 1795, not 8 December 1797 — All the peerage works I can find in Google Books agree on 8 December rather than 18 December. (There's a law case that says 10 May 1797 for some reason, but there's a reasonably good consensus around 8 December.)
    • Thomas Nugent: 7 September 1790, not 1792 — working on it; so far I've found 1790, 1791 and 1792
    • Murrough O'Brien: 10 February 1808, not 17 February — Typo in the original article.
    • Charles Moore: 22 December 1821, not 1822 (NB his article has a note about the death date) — I added the note recently; sources vary on this one. It looks like 1822 is the best, based on contemporary sources.
    • Thomas Taylor: 23 October 1829, not 24 October — Debrett's gives 23, Lodge's 24
    • John Loftus: 23 September 1845, not 26 September — Contemporary obituary (Gentleman's Magazine) gives 26 September, so also Lodge's Peerage. I'm inclined to think the 26th is correct.
    • Charles O'Neill: March 25 1841, not 12 February
    • Thomas Pakenham: 24 May 1835, not 28 May
    • Arthur Hill: 12 April 1845, not 12 September
    • Francis Conyngham: 17 July 1876, not 1879 — Typo in the original article.
    • Edmund Boyle: 30 June 1856, not 29 June
    • William Hare: 3 February 1856, not 4 February
    • Richard Dawson: 11 May 1897, not 12 May
    • Archibald Acheson: 22 June 1864, not 15 June — According to the Visitation of Ireland, he died 15 June and was buried 21 June.
    • Charles Brownlow: 16 January 1882, not 15 January
    • Thomas Southwell: 26 April 1878, not 26 August — Agreed.
    • Robert Carew: 8 September 1881, not 9 September
    • George Vane-Tempest: 5 November 1884, not 6 November
    • William Montagu: 21 March 1890, not 22 March
    • Luke White: 17 March 1888, not 16 March
    • Edward O'Brien: 8 April 1900, not 9 April

I didn't check death dates after 1904, or any birth dates. Given the number of discrepancies I really think another source needs to be checked for all the information in the list. As I mentioned, appendix three of Galloway has all this information, this website may also be useful.

Also

  • the text in the article should be corrected to say 146 total appointments, not 130
  • the notes column misses a couple of subsequent peerages (Frederick Hamilton-Templeton-Blackwood was later Marquess of Dufferin and Ava, Chichester Parkinson-Fortescue was later Baron Clermont)
  • it would be worthwhile to note those knights who resigned to accept membership in the Order of the Garter (2nd Earl of Mornington, 2nd Earl Talbot), and possibly those who were appointed as extra Knights (Prince Albert, Albert Prince of Wales, Prince Arthur, Alfred Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Prince Albert Victor Christian Edward, Prince William of Saxe-Weimar), as well as several others who were appointed as extra knights for various coronations and subsequently became ordinary knights.
  • Incidentally is Rayment's page the source for the birth/death dates and the notes? He is only referenced in the names column.

Dr pda (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Knights_of_St_Patrick/archive1&oldid=260990970"