This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Performing a major rewrite now. I hope not to have the inuse tag go stale, but the edit will take the better part of a day. For the changes already made, all are derived from the 2004 Dictionary of National Biography. It turns out that "Honest Tom" needs even more of a rewrite than "Philip James" (you'll see why he gets that middle name in a bit). Geogre 15:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
What about his connections with this secret society? He was one of its most ardent supporters.-- Alexvonf ( talk) 11:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
My problem with the recent additions is that they're anecdotal and yet do not offer a source. nDNB mentions the rapidity of Wharton's courtship of his second wife, his impulsiveness, etc., but it avoids the gossip of the original sources (letters and scandalous accounts). I think we should do the same. Additionally, I would argue that Wharton's historical importance is not his licentiousness or rakishness, but his political activities, and therefore I think it's very important to focus on those matters and avoid the catalog of dissipation.
So, if we can't source the "What he said when he saw her" sorts of material, we shouldn't put it in. If we can source it, we might still avoid it, as it's really more color than essence, more aspect than attribute. If we can get a neutrally flavored account, then what's probably significant is the sign of Wharton's mental decline rather than the horror of his imposing his nastiness on the poor, innocent, nunnish girl. Most of all, though, I think it would be a terrific mistake to move, downplay, or lose any of the political history. Geogre ( talk) 22:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
In freemasonry the Antient Grand Lodge of England (antients) were supposedly associated with Jacobitism, while the Premier Grand Lodge of England (moderns) were associated with Hanovarians. Yet Wharton was the Grand Master of the latter in 1723. Since he was a Jacobite this doesn't seem to make sense? - 90.215.164.30 ( talk) 01:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The article (text and title) refers to him as the 1st Duke of Wharton, but the text also notes that his titles became extinct upon his death. Doesn't that make him the only Duke of Wharton, instead of the first (which implies there was at least a second)? -- Piledhigheranddeeper ( talk) 16:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Who's the lady in the picture?-- 211.120.232.228 ( talk) 23:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Performing a major rewrite now. I hope not to have the inuse tag go stale, but the edit will take the better part of a day. For the changes already made, all are derived from the 2004 Dictionary of National Biography. It turns out that "Honest Tom" needs even more of a rewrite than "Philip James" (you'll see why he gets that middle name in a bit). Geogre 15:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
What about his connections with this secret society? He was one of its most ardent supporters.-- Alexvonf ( talk) 11:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
My problem with the recent additions is that they're anecdotal and yet do not offer a source. nDNB mentions the rapidity of Wharton's courtship of his second wife, his impulsiveness, etc., but it avoids the gossip of the original sources (letters and scandalous accounts). I think we should do the same. Additionally, I would argue that Wharton's historical importance is not his licentiousness or rakishness, but his political activities, and therefore I think it's very important to focus on those matters and avoid the catalog of dissipation.
So, if we can't source the "What he said when he saw her" sorts of material, we shouldn't put it in. If we can source it, we might still avoid it, as it's really more color than essence, more aspect than attribute. If we can get a neutrally flavored account, then what's probably significant is the sign of Wharton's mental decline rather than the horror of his imposing his nastiness on the poor, innocent, nunnish girl. Most of all, though, I think it would be a terrific mistake to move, downplay, or lose any of the political history. Geogre ( talk) 22:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
In freemasonry the Antient Grand Lodge of England (antients) were supposedly associated with Jacobitism, while the Premier Grand Lodge of England (moderns) were associated with Hanovarians. Yet Wharton was the Grand Master of the latter in 1723. Since he was a Jacobite this doesn't seem to make sense? - 90.215.164.30 ( talk) 01:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The article (text and title) refers to him as the 1st Duke of Wharton, but the text also notes that his titles became extinct upon his death. Doesn't that make him the only Duke of Wharton, instead of the first (which implies there was at least a second)? -- Piledhigheranddeeper ( talk) 16:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Who's the lady in the picture?-- 211.120.232.228 ( talk) 23:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)