Talk:Frederick Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood, 1st Marquess of Dufferin and Ava

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Frederick Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood, 1st Marquess of Dufferin and Ava is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Article Milestones Date Process Result March 16, 2005 Peer review Reviewed March 23, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
	This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage.

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

the page as it is now is rather focused on his term in Canada. Does anyone know anything about his time as Indian viceroy, which would likely have been as important, if not more so? john 23:50, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Added quite a bit of India info as well as other details over the last few weeks, article is not nearly so Canada-centric now. Worldtraveller 13:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Coming along nicely 2 Potential Copyvio Concerns 3 naming 4 Background 5 Almost ready for FAC 6 Dufferin's Trip to BC 7 Right Honourable?? 8 Use of and Þingvellir vs Thingvellir

[edit] Coming along nicely

Worldtraveller, the article is in pretty good shape, but still suffers from some blind spots that keep it from being comprehensive. What about Dufferin's period in Russia? He was also ambassador to Turkey, and intrigued in the events leading up to the British invasion of Egypt. Fawcett5 19:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the ideas - I've found an excellent page (the NI records office link I added to the references earlier today) which has information about his time in Russia and Turkey as well as Syria which is currently not mentioned either. I'll be working on writing about this over the next couple of days.

Just a question, you rearranged the former references, external links and further reading sections so that all the books are references and all the links are under external links. The two that were in further reading, I didn't actually use for the article because I don't possess them, and some of the links I used as references and others I didn't. So I'm not sure if the way it's done now is correct according to the guidelines. Worldtraveller 19:26, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I much prefer to see an article distinguish between primary sources and derivative sources. Web sites are virtually all derivative (yes, I know that nitpickers will say that only the original documents used to research a book are the primary material, but you know what I mean), and are a bit dodgy to cite as a reference. If you were diligent in going to the primary literature, it should be OK that you originally found some of the facts on websites, since the books should have the same information in even more detail. If some of the books were not actually used for researching the article, I would suggest deleting them for now. Other people would suggest that you retain them, as there is surely much overlapping material in them with the references you did use. But Wikipedia is not really intended to provide a comprehensive review of all available literature on a subject. Finally, "Further reading" is not a section that seems to be frequently used, although I am not sure what the technical guidlines suggest. Fawcett5 20:24, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Potential Copyvio Concerns

Hi Worldtraveller, I've noticed a potential problem with the article that would disqualify it out of hand for FAC. The original entry was pretty much lifted from The Govenor General's Official website. Unfortunately, that article is covered by CanadaCopyright, which is not entirely GFDL compatible. While there have been many revisions since then, it appears that there are still large chunks of the text that are obviously derived from that source. This will need to be remediated immediately. Some of the stuff is kind of wonky anyway - Dome hall, etc. Fawcett5 20:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, well spotted. That text was already there when I found the article, and I just presumed it was public domain or under a compatible licence. I'll set to work on re-writing that section! Worldtraveller 14:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Er...yikes...I copied a bunch of Governor General articles way back in 2003, when I was new and stupid and assumed Crown Copyright was something like whatever the US government has that allows us to copy their info. And then I kind of forgot about it. Well there are probably another 10 GG articles copied from the official site...so I guess they are all copyvios. Sorry...Adam Bishop 06:37, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, in this case the article has evolved significantly and there is not too much left, but enough that it is now anyway stylistically distinct from the rest of the article. It shouldn't be too hard to modify the offending sections sufficiently to ease any concerns. But it should be done soon. I'm going to do myself a favour and not look at any other GG articles for awhile! Fawcett5 07:25, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, Worldtraveller's last round of rewrites have largely gotten rid of any copyvio concerns. Fawcett5 21:40, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] naming

Is it worth mentioning he was born Frederick Temple Blackwood; took the name Hamilton by royal licence 9 Sep. 1862, and added the name of Temple on 13 Nov 1872? - Nunh-huh 01:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Certainly. john k 02:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

done! - Nunh-huh 03:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Any idea why he decided to take these extra surnames? Worldtraveller 09:42, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ideas, yes, but they are guesses. Hamilton was done just before his wedding to Harriet Rowan-Hamilton, and presumably to emphasize not only her heritage but his own: it was by a marriage of Dorcas Stevenson, a Hamilton descendant, to Sir John Blackwood that Killyleagh Castle came into the Blackwood family. The name Temple is another ancestral name. - Nunh-huh 03:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Background

On rereading this, I realised there is not much on his background. Being born into privilige seems an important part of his story. What were his parents noted for? What is the story behind his birth in Italy? Fawcett5 06:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Very good point. I've made a start on this aspect with a bit in the 'Early life' section about his background. What I can't find out at the moment is how he came to be born in Italy - I'll do some reading around for that. Worldtraveller 09:42, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

According to the ODNB article on his mother, his father's parents opposed his father's marriage, since the bride was not terribly wealthy, so the young couple went to live in Florence. They apparently returned within a few years. john k 04:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Almost ready for FAC

Hi all - with the resolution of the copyvio concerns discussed above, it seems like the article is very close to suitability for FAC status. I actually thought it was ready already, but a final readthrough convinces me that there are three more tiny things that should be addressed. These all stem from the fact that Dufferins career was very long.

1. The success of Dufferin's appointment to Syria was what laid the groundwork for the rest of his diplomatic career, so there should be perhaps a three sentence mention of his signal accomplishments there and how this led to his rise to prominence.
2. I don't know much about the Russian period, but just one sentence describing his chief accomplishment there would be appropriate.
3. He was actually appointed special commissioner to Egypt, but this chronology is not exactly clear from the Russia-Turkey section as it stands now.

Once these are addressed, I'm willing to do the nomination for FAC, but I would like to get consensus from Worldtraveller and others before doing so. Doing it this way will improve the chances for FA status, since I only came along during the peer review and have mostly just suggested changes and made relatively minor copyedits - it won't be a self-nom. Opinions? Fawcett5 21:40, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it should really make a difference whether it's self nomination or not, but I am more than happy for you to nominate it if you think it's ready. I'd probably like to see if anyone comments further on the peer review page, but all the comments and edits since I put it up there have been extremely helpful and I think the article has improved enormously. Worldtraveller 15:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, forgot to say - I hope I've now addressed your three points above, with a section about Syria, a clarification of the Egypt thing, and a line to the effect that he really didn't do very much of note in Russia - seems like the only place he went where he didn't get involved in any really high level stuff, though by all accounts he enjoyed St Petersburg social life a lot. Worldtraveller 16:00, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and nominate for FAC -- peer review doesn't get nearly the attention that FAC does - it's been there awhile, and its mostly me and one or two others. FAC will get more eyeballs - and anyway I think it will sail through now.. Fawcett5 22:21, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

DUFFERIN AND THE INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS

Should be Indian National Congress; it was not yet a "party" in 1885. Also Dufferin cannot be said to have "presided" over its founding. If anything, he tolerated its founding, nothing more.

The wide-spread but entirely false myth that Dufferin "founded" the Indian National Congress has been spread by extremists on the Indian Left and Right who opposed Congress for years. Curiously, pro-British authors echo the same falsehood, presumably on the basis that Indians could never get something so successful off the ground without support from the British.

The myth of Dufferin's "founding" of Congress was thoroughly explored and exploded by Bipan Chandra in "India's Struggle for Independence" (1988: Penguin Book India).

No one denies the role of A.O. Hume in the founding of Congress, least of all the Indians themselves, but at this point (1885) he was an ex-British official, pressured to retire early, who was opposed in his support for Indian home rule every step of the way by is former colleagues.

[edit] Dufferin's Trip to BC

I guess I better ask this here - there's a whole episode to his career as GG of Canada involving a trip to the Cariboo goldfields by special stagecoach and the couple's delight with the place, and more than one story to go with it; I think he had to come around via San Francisco, or maybe Portland I'm not sure, as there was no way across the Rockies then. But capping it all was the Dufferin Affair - or "Dufferin something-else", when the G-G pronounced on the rights of the First Nations and pressured the provincial government to do something about it, and on the federal government to put pressure on the provinces. It's very political, and also at the foundation of the native-claims/no-treaty impasse in BC for the next 125 years and more. I'd expected that to be here; I don't write in the style of the page but if someone would like the ref materials I can assemble some sources so it "fits" here; as evidently there's been a lot of useful, careful work here I don't want to go in sloshing away in someone else' mudpuddle.Skookum1 05:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Right Honourable??

I have noticed that he does not have the title of Right Honourable before his name, however, he is stated as a member of the UK's Privy Council. Is this just because it was forgotten? user:Ctjj.stevenson

Yes. (Except he's Most Honourable as a Marquess, which takes precedence.) Proteus (Talk) 22:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Use of and Þingvellir vs Thingvellir

Rather than pingpong this back and forth to the usual spelling of Thingvellir IN ENGLISH by changing back the Þ-spelling that I'd previously corrected. I suspect that the arbitration of this issue will put it to where I think it should be - with "th" instead of "Þ", which is not a letter used in English and is unfamiliar to 95% or more of English speakers, native and otherwise. It doesn't matter if Þingvellir is the correct spelling in Icelandic or not; it's whether or not it's acceptable in written English. It's not.Skookum1 05:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's a vexed issue for sure. My own feeling is that there are many languages which use variants of the latin alphabet, and while characters such as ß, ç and ñ are not used in english I would be very disappointed if an encyclopaedia simply replaced them all with ss, c and n. Non-latin alphabets clearly need transcribing into latin to be understood, but I don't see why variants of latin need to be simplified. Certainly, a reader might not know what the Þ means, but if they click on the link they will (I hope!) find an article that tells them how to pronounce it and will probably link to an article about the icelandic language where they can find out lots more. In this way, an encyclopaedia educates. Worldtraveller 19:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)