Talk:William Swinden Barber/Archive 1

Portrait image

The current lead image seems to be the only one we have of Barber. I would suggest that, not only is it suitable for use in the infobox, but that it also illustrates some of his, somewhat eccentric, personality. It's also by a notable photographer, David Wilkie Wynfield. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, no. It appears to be the only indication...no, make that intimation... of his, somewhat eccentric, personality. Both the sources used and the article and itself suggest his personality was boringly normal. Anmccaff (talk) 21:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Either way, does that preclude its use as a main image, especially when we have no others to choose from? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes. You have just stated why; you claim it illustrates something not otherwise in evidence. Anmccaff (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Eh? Just because I've suggested here that it shows something not included in the article, that precludes it's use here? Regardless of its clarity, regardless of it's creation by a notable photographer, regardless of its being held in a collection by the RA: [1] and regardless of the paucity of alternative images? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The portrait of Calvin Coolidge in a warbonnet has almost as good a pedigree, but somehow others resisted using it as his main illustration. Perhaps they were on to something. 22:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

They resisted using the warbonnet portrait for Coolidge's main illustration because they already had numerous images of him in normal dress. We do not have any alternative images for Barber. Storye book (talk) 08:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

You appear to think a bad illustration is better than none. I don't. Anmccaff (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe that this corbel caricature of a long-haired architect carrying scrolled drawings (pictured, right) is a humorous representation of Barber, although I cannot prove it. It is in the tradition of medieval carvings of artisans involved in the construction of a building. It's above the fine Arts and Crafts staircase that he designed at Spring Hall. So we have only one attested image of him, and one possible caricature of him, and both show him in fancy dress. His friends were eccentric Pre-Raphaelite and Arts and Crafts artists (he belonged to Artists Rifles). As an architect of churches covered in carvings, he was an artist working in the heart of Halifax industry. His house still contains the stained glass windows that he installed. If he did have long hair and a full beard and spent his time drawing plans and welcoming artistic guests, he must have appeared eccentric to his neighbours at that time, even if that sort of lifestyle might appear "boring" to us today. In the UK, 19th century church architects were at that time artists as well as engineers, and church decoration attracted some of the finest artists of the time. So, since he may well have appeared eccentric to his neighbours who worked in heavy industry, and since we only have one attested image of him, and that makes him appear eccentric, I believe that we can safely leave his portrait in situ, without risk of misleading. Storye book (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

That's what Wiki likes to see, for good and ill, as synthesis, and worse still, synthesis based on false premises. Many of Barber's contemporaries had generous facial hair, and robing medieval-styled sculptures in medeival-styled clothing is the rule, not the exception, in gothic revival. Anmccaff (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

You have better picture to offer? Feel free to use any name to search for them. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Right here, below.

i.e., no picture is better than a bad picture. Anmccaff (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

"LMFAO" No, it isn't. And no, it's not "a bad picture". Wholly unconvinced by your blank argument. It's a waste of space. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Name.

Many sources for this architect's work show him as "Swinden Barber" or "W. Swinden Barber." I think the implications are obvious. Anmccaff (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The 20th century sources (after his death) copy each other's error. His and his family's birth, marriage and death certificates demonstrate that his surname was Barber, and that his given names are William and Swinden. He was given his mother's maiden name as one of his Christian names, as was common practice in his day. 19th century newspapers called him W.S Barber or Mr Barber.

Storye book (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not discussing 20th century secondary sources, but 19th and 20th primary ones. Barber shows up regularly in The Builder ("An illustrated weekly magazine for the architect, engineer, archaeologist, constructor, sanitary-reformer, and art-lover." that covers some ground, don't it?) and other architectural and trade periodicals. He advertized under his middle and surname. How did the article miss this, seeing how much other primary research went into it? Anmccaff (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Pevsner calls him "William Barber"? That's quite good enough for me. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

It shouldn't be. Anmccaff (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe some unknown German Z-lister is not good enough. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Several points:

First, no authority, no matter how authoritative, is an end point in research.

Next, some formal writing used, and still uses, formal legal names despite the fact that the subject himself did not. I don't remember where Pevsner fell on that spectrum.

item, the name used is a useful tool in research. A wikitor who insists on looking for photos of "William Barber" may be a bit like the proverbial drunk looking for his keys by the lamppost. He didn't drop them there, he knew, but the light was better....

Finally, as mentioned above, there are sources that Pevsner's name would not find at all. Anmccaff (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

In this case, the subject did use his formal legal name: for example, on his marriage certificate and in the Census and rate books his surname is Barber. Pevsner is the standard go-to authority in the UK for initial research on historical architecture; Pevsner is referred to regularly by English Heritage, for example. Barber's churches are referred to as "Barber churches", and not "Swinden Barber churches". If you google for "Swinden Barber" and hit "images", most of the top results are from the great number of my own photos (or historical images that I discovered) which I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, under Barber's full name. Serious researchers will use contemporary (i.e. 19th century) sources, and in those, he is referred to as "Mr Barber" or "W.S. Barber", as I have already said. He signed his drawings "W.S. Barber." The differentiation template at the top of the article is not about usage. It is about his formal name. In the UK, a double-barrelled name normally has a hyphen, it is formally registered on legal documents, and is used by descendants. This is not the case with Barber because his name was not double-barrelled. Storye book (talk) 08:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

It is trivially easy to find contemporaneous use of "Swinden Barber" and "W. Swinden Barber,". Anmccaff (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Next, you needn't belabor the fact that this article, and many of your other pieces, contain an unnaceptable level of original research.

The fact that someone uses a full legal name on a legal document is no indication of their usual preference elsewhere.

Finally, you are fighting a straw man. I am not suggesting that Barber, or his contemporaries, thought he had a double-barreled surname. Rather, Barber appears to have preferred his middle name to his first. Anmccaff (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think accusing another editor here about OR in "many of their other pieces" is really helping this article. Maybe that's a topic you should take to the TalK page of that particular editor? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

If it's "trivially easy" to find such examples, why not present a few of them here, for examinaton and discussion, before reverting article content currently based on consensus? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

To cover the obvious first, what "consensus?" The addition of the idea that WSB never was called "Swinden Barber" contemporaneously is less than a day old, with a "consensus" of two to one, and no authority behind it.

For some examples of contemporaneous use?

Filey and its church Cooper, Arthur Neville. Scarborough, E.T.W. Dennis, 1886. p22 "It remains only to place on record that the work has been carried out by the well-known firm of Thompson and Son, of Peterborough, under the superintendence of Mr. W. Swinden Barber, architect, of Halifax."

Ewan Christian, Architect" Charles, Elizabeth Rundle Cambridge, University Press, 1896 p84 "Mr W. Swinden Barber, of Sheffield."

Exhibition of the Royal Academy of Arts. [no.]122 London, RA, 1890 p52 "1719—St. Jude's Church, Halifax ... ... W. Swinden Barber"

Academy architecture and annual architectural review. London, Koch & English 1889 p36 " St. Jude Church, Halifax . ... W. Swinden Barber" (essentially a copy of above.)

Journal of proceedings of the Royal Institute of British Architects. 1879/80 London, RIBA, 1880 p79 "William Swinden Barber (Halifax)" Anmccaff (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

So, instead of edit warring like this, why not discuss here first and seek consensus? I've restored the source, Barber's marriage certificate, at both instances where you removed it. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Could you now please explain this edit? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure. This shows a name used by Barber at a particular point in time. It happens to be his legal name, but it does nothing to prove it. What need has the article for it, then?Anmccaff (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you think that a birth name is irrelevant in an encyclopedia article about that person? Or that there is usually a better source that "proves" a person's legal name? I would imagine that as long there is/are sufficient source/s to distinguish an individual from others of the same or similar name, that's all that's required. I fully accept that name variants can be used by others, and by the person themselves. I think we should be aiming to agree what was the name by which William was most generally known. I don't think we currently have enough evidence to change all instances of "Barber" in this article to "Swinden Barber", do you? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

You are again arguing with straw men. You gotta cut that out. No one has suggested there is any doubt about his legal name, nor has anyone suggested chang[ing] all instances of "Barber" in this article to "Swinden Barber". Anmccaff (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

So I "gotta cut that out", have I? I was attempting to understand your motivation and suggesting a sensible way ahead. What is it, exatcly, that you are now objecting to? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

To quote somone or other Is it really noteworthy that someone with the given name "William Swinden Barber" was also known as "W. S. Barber", whether during their lifetime or afterwards?. I would agree that it is not,and the initials should be removed from the lead and the article. Anmccaff (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

That was a question. But I'd be surprised to find them in the article main body, unless in a quote. In fact we can't remove them if they don't appear. But they are there in the infobox though, aren't they? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the examples from professional journals make clear that he was known in the sphere by his middle name and surname. Researching his avocations suggests a possible reason; he was in several local organizations with a different William Barber, a prominent sort, a judge, and, by the look of it, a cousin. Note I wrote "possible reason," and note I haven't placed it in the article. Anmccaff (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• i was pinged here, so looked at the content issue. It appears to me that the content issue here is this dif, in which Storye book added "sometimes erroneously called Swinden Barber by 20th century sources," is the main point of contention?

If so, that was indeed WP:OR - this kind of observation does need a source to support it. I initiated a case recently at ORN about a similar but more straightforward situation in which an editor noticed that one source had misquoted another and wanted to add that observation to WP and another editor (not me) said that was OR. You can see the result here - folks found it to be OR.

In this instance, the way in which his name is/was written seems erratic in the sources from then and now. For instance this very brief article from an architects' trade publication in 1887 reporting on work he was doing -- "Building Works Completed or in Progress". British Architect. 28 (10): 184. September 1887. -- refers to him first as "Mr. W.S. Barber" in the subtitle and then directly thereafter in the first line, as "Mr. W. Swinden Barber". I can provide a pdf to anyone who wants it.

But any content about how his name was and is written would need to be based on a source discussing how his name has been written. Jytdog (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

That seems perfectly fair. Meanwhile, do you think a reference to his birth certificate, providing the only support for his birth name, should be removed? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the issue there. I don't see a dispute that his full name was "William Swinden Barber" and per WP:LEAD sources aren't needed in the lead unless something is controverted. Has anybody been arguing that this is not his full name? If so then the citation is needed; if not, then there is no reason to have a citation there... but it doesn't hurt to have it and I wouldn't revert it. So.... I don't understand why it was added nor why it was reverted. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Additional note on this. It would be reasonable to have in the lead following his name something like: "(also W.S. Barber or W. Swinden Barber)" and cite the 1887 article above; people do alt names things like that all the time when there are different ways of naming something. Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Done.Storye book (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

In my experience, it's better to have one source than none. A birth certificate is usually quite dependable. It's usually a legal document. Someone's birth name is quite an essential fact about a person, just as much as is their date of birth. I don't see why there needs to be any "dispute" or "controverting" for a birth name source to be useful. But yes, of course, people use different forms of someone's name, of their own name, at different times, and in different circumstances. If there are other alternative names, I'd suggest that they need good sources too. Sorry if that seems in some way onerous or unreasonable. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Is it really noteworthy that someone with the given name "William Swinden Barber" was also known as "W. S. Barber", whether during their lifetime or afterwards? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

sometimes WP articles end up with stray things like this because of intense local disputes that nobody (even the participants) understands much a year later. it isn't harmful or policy-violating and if it solves things now so everybody can move on that seems to be an OK outcome. Jytdog (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Describing this in such general terms is silly. It's there because you put it there, @Jytdog:, and it really does not belong. Unlike the "Swinden Barber", which seems to have been his usual form of address, the initials seem to be a very ordinary abbreviation. They do not belong in the lead, and don't belong elsewhere outside of direct quotes, if any. Anmccaff (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. No worries. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, everybody. Storye book (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

So, what's the evidence that "'Swinden Barber' seems to have been his usual form of address"? Also, if the lead is meant to summarize the article, I'd expect to see some discussion of his name in the main body. And, if we are to have some sources that appear only in the lede, shouldn't we at least have a source for his date of birth? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

So, what's the evidence that "'Swinden Barber' seems to have been his usual form of address"? Aside from the ovewhelming majority of contemporaneous cites, you mean? On Hathitrust, "Swinden Barber" outnumbers "William Swinden Barber" nearly eight-to-one. Even the misspelling "Swindon Barber" outnumbers it. Now, there is no evidence that this was true outside of professional life; it's entirely possible his friends all called him "Bill." Anmccaff (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

His date of birth, and source, belongs in the usual "early life" section. Anmccaff (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Can we please let this alone and let it all calm down, now, please. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Where do we look to find "an ovewhelming majority of contemporaneous cites"? Does HathiTrust trump all other sources for some reason? But sorry, I fail to see the significance of "Swinden Barber" outnumbering "William Swinden Barber" by "nearly eight-to-one". His first name was William. That's just a fact. Perfectly calm, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

...And Chesterton's first name was Gilbert, yes. Grover Cleveland was Stephen, , Woodrow Wilson's was Thomas, and Calvin Coolidge's, like a good many Calvins, was John.

Where do we "an ovewhelming majority of contemporaneous cites?" From my experience, wherever we look. We see it in Parish histories, in architectural and building periodicals...examples were shown above.

Does HathiTrust trump all other sources for some reason? No one said it did. More straw. That said, It's a good source. The stuff is well curated , so you don't get the usual raft of OCR problems. It has a wide variety of publications indexed and sortable.

But sorry, I fail to see the significance of "Swinden Barber" outnumbering "William Swinden Barber" by "nearly eight-to-one". It suggests, strongly, that Barber was, at least in his professional life, a man who went by his middle name, not his first. Anmccaff (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Re: wherever we look. So do we ever look at Pevsner? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

No, not as a "contemporaneous cite," no. As an authority worth consulting, yes. Anmccaff (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

both shortened versions of his name are used. We mention that in the lead. this is entirely common. Please let go of this; it is not worth anyone's time. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Use of initials and a surname is almost universal, yet the only people an encyclopedia lists this for are those who actually use them as a byname. Anmccaff (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

again in the ref i gave above, it refers to him both ways in a single very short article, which I can send you or copy paste here. he is referred to both ways in various sources. we don't have to pick one. If somebody wants to search for more information it is useful to know that it goes both ways. this is a tiny thing and supportable, please just let it go. if on the other hand you are going to insist this must come out you are going to need an RfC which everyone is going to see as a waste of time, and just sad. please let go and move on. Jytdog (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, an RfC might be better than the OR and canvassing the discussion is now plagued with. Anmccaff (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

What would you expect to accomplish with an RfC? The compromise version is already in the article, which everyone seems fine with except you. Bradv 02:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Re: OR and canvassing the discussion is now plagued with - you have very kindly provided five instances, from professional journals, where the name used was "Swinden Barber." But unless you have a WP:RS that clearly states "Many sources for this architect's work show him as "Swinden Barber" or "W. Swinden Barber" then your contributions are also WP:OR, aren't they? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

No, although in a borderline case they clearly would be. When a person signs their work as "W. Swinden Barber", that's a horse of a different color. Anmccaff (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

In UK I think it would be a horse of a different colour. Did he always sign this way? That seems the strongest evidence yet discussed, here. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Dunno. Haven't seen enough clear examples to hazard a guess, and, of course, some people use an almost vestigial "m" after their "W", or a tiny, scribbled "eo" after their "G", but mean "William" or "George" by it. Anmccaff (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's be glad he wasn't called George, then. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Beware the Ives of March? Anmccaff (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

RfC -name conventions

This is not an actual RfC but rather just continuing the argument above. See WP:RFC for instructions on how to start an actual RfC. Please also note WP:BLUDGEON
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There's an ongoing disagreement about the use of initials in a subject's name. I think they are only appropriate in the lead for a subject who normally went by initials, or often did - Chesterton, Vandeleur, Grant, etc. Thoughts? Anmccaff (talk) 02:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Okay, I'll bite. There are sources referenced in the article that use different variations of this name: William Swinden Barber, W.S. Barber, or W. Swinden Barber. All these variations are included in the lede. This is the correct approach, as it is the product of a lengthy discussion above. I strongly suggest you drop the stick. Bradv 02:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC) So, should Franklin Roosevelt have F. D. Roosevelt in the lead? Anmccaff (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC) the article is fine as it is. Jytdog (talk) 07:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC) I'm not sure we have yet found a WP:RS that clearly tells us which names Barber was known by, and the relative proportions of these, and why, over the course of his lifetime and beyond. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC) So what? If someone wished to change the article name, or radically increase the variants used in the text, this might be relevant, but this RfC is on the narrow point of whether a person who did not go by his initials -unlike e.g. G. K. Chesterton, V. S. Naipaul, J. O. E. Vandeleur- should be identified by initials in the lead at all. Anmccaff (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC) So you have a source to show us that Barber "did not go by his initials"? That seems a remarkably strange claim. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC) So many things are in the eye of the beholder. Everyone, nearly, occasionally goes by or uses their initials. This is a normal part of life. It is unremarkable, and to be expected. It requires no cite, no proof, no comment. It also requires no peculiar notation in the lead of an article. Anmccaff (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Here are four publications that specifically refer to him as W.S. Barber. That is more than enough to establish that as a common name which belongs in the lede of the article. The British Architect, Volume 37 The Architect, Volume 32 Companion to the Almanac, Volume 38 Directory of British Architects 1834-1914 I trust that is enough to resolve this. Bradv 18:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Not in the least. Some publications normally use the smallest form of the name that differentiates. As I mentioned before, there are at least 18..?... solid cites for "Swindon Barber", perhaps we should add the misspelling to the lead, too? Anmccaff (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC) So now we move from The Straw Man to the Trojan Horse? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Okay, this is beyond ridiculous. Three-fourths of this talk page is devoted to Anmccaff's personal vendetta against initials. How about we focus on the rest of the article, and give this up? Bradv 20:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict):::::::::Well, if you are giving things up -I hadn't thought it was Lent, how about you drop the tag-team hounding, and let either involved persons, or genuinely uninvolved persons, actually discuss the topic. This is an RfC section about a specific question, not the place to "focus on the rest of the article". Anmccaff (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Personally, I like to see some big initials. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Don't be base Anmccaff (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Gregory suggests that....

and Gregory suggests that he may have been serving his country during the early 1860s.

I was wondering if you could provide an excerpt; "Gregory suggests" is ambiguous, it can mean either "Gregory explicitly states this is a possibility" or it can mean "the information Gregory provides might lead a reader to conclude this." Given that the time in question was just on the heels of a bankruptcy, there are other obvious reasons why Barber might not have been around, Anmccaff (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

PS: I have access to two search engines for this source, neither lists -any- variant of Barber's name.

References

*Gregory, Barry (2006). A History of The Artists Rifles 1859–1947. Barnsley: Pen & Sword Books. ISBN 9781844155033. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

I agree that this looks dubious. My library has this book - will get it and check. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Will you please let go of the stick Anmccaff and stop bullying me. I have undone my edit "Gregory suggests" due only to your repeated bullying in respect of this article and its talk page. This is not how Wikipedia should be. This continued pestering regarding this article may be just a diversion for you, but it is causing me severe stress. I have worked very hard on Wikipedia for a lot of years and you are making it very difficult for me to continue. There is no reason for you to keep picking and picking like this. Go away and stop bullying. Storye book (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Pointing out issues with the article is not "bullying." You appear to have inserted your own judgement here, yet are ascribing it to an outside source. Is there anything in Gregory that gives a date for Barber joining the Artists', that lists a relevant time when extended numbers were on active duty , etc? If not, then it is but one of several possibilities, and winding up the practice -or hiding from the bailiff - seems more likely. Anmccaff (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not going to enter into a discussion with you. Go away and drop the stick. Storye book (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

That's a great shame you feel like that, Storye book. It seems that some editors prefer to adopt a "robust" approach to discussion, even if they've made 7 edits to an article compared with another person's 369. I'm sure that Gregory is a perfectly good source for that claim/ suggestion/ conclusion, and I'm really not sure if it matters too much if he is explicitly named there or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Storye book:, please don't give up. You've put almost three years into this article, and are responsible for almost all of the content. Keep your chin up. Wikipedia needs more editors like you. Bradv 21:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Martinevans123 and Bradv. Much appreciated. I guess most people don't realise what goes into extensive research on arts subjects. Last week I was on a scaffold in safety gear on top of a building in Leeds, photographing carving, and also up a ladder in a medieval tower in the pitch dark, flash-photographing with one hand until I could hold on no longer. Leeds Library is much burdened with me asking them to bring out all their heavy Crockford tomes in one go. Purchase of antique images to be uploaded to WP then donated to museums, and travel, and bmd certificates and some types of research are not free. Long hours poring over British Library online newspapers etc. are damaging to the eyes eventually. I can barely see to write this. There are rewards - one reward was being told by the Church of England demolition-ball dept that they need their buildings to be listed so that their bosses can't make them break up and bury so many neo-gothic and Arts and Crafts fonts, or flatten so many glittering little otherworlds to make way for car parks. And English Heritage have told me that they used two articles that I created as a first-stop info source to save two buildings from just that. WP is worth working hard for, and I'm sure that there are loads of people out there like me - but if people push them too far by bullying, they just don't have the time or energy left to waste on maintaining pages under pressure. Storye book (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• User:Storye book thanks for your work getting pictures. Crafting text content is very different - content must be supported by the source provided. So please answer - is the supposition that Barber "may have been serving his country during the early 1860s" in the Artists Rifles supported by Gregory or is that your WP:OR? This is important - please respond. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• I have removed the sentence concerned, with reference, in its entirety. For your information, I no longer have the book, although I do remember the information being in there. That would, of course, be the case for many of the offline book references on WP, and for the researchers who wrote them there, because like me they borrowed the book from the county library system which due to depleted resources has now sold or given away or dumped most of their books, and sold their library buildings or converted them to internet resource rooms with children's library attached. But I have had enough of this. Storye book (talk) 09:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Makes sense, and saves me a trip to the library. can always be re-added later if confirmed. Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

There is still dubious material supposedly based on this source in the article; I'll be ILL'ing it. Anmccaff (talk) 06:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

do Initials belong in the lead?

Since Bradv appears to have issues with the current RfC, perhaps we could open a separate discussion here, and leave the (reopened) RfC to outside commentators. Anmccaff (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

If you intend to keep arguing this, please open an actual RfC. If you don't know how to do that, see WP:RFC. I will not respond further to this topic here per WP:SHUN and I reckon the same is true for others. Jytdog (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Despite your tagteam Canvasback buddy's assertion, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the RfC. Properly templated, fairly neutral description of the questio. Now, if you wanna argue that it should have been left alone a little more for outside comment, I'd agree. Anmccaff (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

My error, the {{rfc:style}} seems to have vanished before actually posting. Anmccaff (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Barber Signature

Here's a clear jpg of Barber's signature. This is consistent with all the others I've seen. Rather clearly shows a cursive W Swinden Barber. I'm curious, @Storye book: is this what you took to be "W. S. Barber"? That seems a great deal of a stretch. Anmccaff (talk) 06:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The article has already been amended in the lead para to accommodate that. This discussion is over. Please go away and drop the stick. Storye book (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion is over when the article accurately reflects the sources, not when you, or anyone else, proclaims it to be. Anmccaff (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Is this a discussion about Barber's Signature or (yet again) about the use of Barber's initials in this article? [2]? Martinevans123 (talk)

This is about 5 things. The first is laying to rest the claim not-so-far above that He signed his drawings "W.S. Barber.". This appears to be a falsehood, based on all the evidence to be seen here.This raises question about the accuracy of other judgements the writer may have made. Next, we have the usual, already mentioned, question about where to look for sources...what I'll call the streetlight effect. Far from representing 20th century sources (after his death) copy[ing] each other's error, "W Swinden Barber" represents fidelity to the original source...or, at least, to some of them. There may be other signatures out there, but this is the one actually in evidence. Next, we have the fact that, unlike the goofy photo, this is the sole, single reflection of Barber's personality we have here. The article is nominally about Barber, but it is actually about his ancestry and his work. It really should be two separate articles; one on Barber genealogy, and one on Barber's buildings; the stuff about Barber the man is barely a stublet. And finaly, yes, it's a data point in what he should be called in the lead. The only meaningful argument for including him by initials was the dubious claim that he signed his drawings that way. Anmccaff (talk) 06:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Beyond all of this, this is also about protecting the article from wiki-based circular reintroduction of debunked ideas. Anmccaff (talk) 06:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

(1) Signature on drawing. I repeat. The article header is already amended to accommodate that. Continued comment about "falsehoods", "question about the accuracy of other judgements", "goofy photo" and "circular reintroduction of debunked ideas" amounts to insult, harrassment and vendetta and if this happens again I shall raise a formal complaint about you.

(2) There have been no falsehoods. I felt that I was being bullied by you, Anmccaff, as I have said above, and much of what I have written here has been written in distress in response to that. The amendments I have since made to the article have all been in response to the pressure of the bullying, and at the same time those edits were an honest attempt to accommodate what I understood to be appropriate advice from Jytdog, and other information which came to light. Responsible editing, for me, has always been doing the job properly in peace after careful checking and consideration of sources, just as it is for other serious and long-term contributors here. You cannot expect proper, considered, reflection of sources from people who feel that they are under pressure to satisty a harrasser who is just going to come back with yet another question, complaint or accusation, whatever the original contributer now adds to or removes from the article. Consultation of sources takes time, thought, and double-checking with other sources. These sources were consulted some time ago, additional information has become available, and a full re-appraisal cannot be done in minutes, under psychological (as opposed to academic) pressure. If you suddenly start to kick a long-serving and steady working-dog enough times, it will start to walk unsteadily and limp, but that damaged gait will be a result of the kicking, and will not be a reflection of its quality of work before you started kicking.

(3) The bit about copying errors was added under duress as described above, and was removed some time ago anyway. So stop harrassing me about stuff that is no longer in the article, and was removed by me anyway.

(4) The public usage of Barber's name in different forms, as opposed to his given family name, is evidenced during his working life (note his approx retirement date in the article) in newspaper reports, especially those written about the consecration of churches and opening of secular buildings, besides those on the planning and cornerstone-laying of the same buildings. It would take me several months to track down and link what amounts to well over a hundred 19th century news reports to the article, if that is what you want. I have only recently paid to access the linking facility for the newspapers on sites where the search-facility is sufficiently comprehensive, and most of those sites would be pay-per-view for readers, but there will be UK WP contributors who have paid and can check that. Users of the British Library and holders of certain UK library cards (where the library has subscribed online) can see many of those newspapers for free, but with varying qualities of search facilities, so they will need my references to find all of them (if they really want to read 100+ news articles just to check his name?). I am currently working on another research project, so you will have to wait until next year for me to do the job comprehensively and to standard. However, from what I can remember, newspapers usually referred to him as "Mr Barber" or "W.S. Barber". Note: the following comment on class and name usage might be OR to certain non-UK readers, but will be obvious to most older Brits, and it is not in the article: Class and appearance of class in the 19th century working environment counted for a great deal. The pretension of a double-barrelled name in those days could give a false aura of aristocracy to the name of the descendant of minor mill-owners. It could potentially increase chance of employment to a freelance professional, and it could potentially affect the size of his fee. This is the reason why the proportion of usage of "Swinden Barber" as opposed to "Barber" in British newspapers counts in an article about a British architect working in Britain, because in effect that was a main source of general publicity, outside local personal recommendation, and presentation mattered. However the local newspapers knew his background, and and it matters whether or not they chose to collaborate in anything that could be perceived as pretension. In the UK, social pretension was mocked in the 19th century, e.g. in Dickens' novels, and all classes were aware of it. Please note that I have written this comment here on the talk page for general information about name-usage context only, because the class aspect has not been raised in the discussion, and because I thought that maybe non-UK readers may not know that the class context of names would have affected Barber. I have no intention of adding it to the article unless requested to. I guess there will be a citation for it, in general terms, somewhere.

(5) Genealogy counts in the context of an artist's and architect's work, because in those days such skills usually had to come from somewhere in that person's background. Family environment was powerful, and apprenticeship typically took seven years and someone had to pay for it. It makes a difference in one's understanding or appreciation of an architect if we know that the skill came from a family professional tradition within dynasty of architects, as for Giles Gilbert Scott, or appeared as if out of nowhere in the son of a minor mill-owner in a village outside a manufacturing town far away from the cultural hub that was London. I suspect that there is some patron who is unknown to us so far, and it is to be hoped that the genealogy section might inspire another researcher to dig further. So that is why the genealogy and the professional work are in the same article. I should add that during a prolific artist's working life at least in the 19th century, he and his art tended to be indivisible. So the personal information makes sense of the work information. For example, many of Barber's buildings are located within a day's travel from where he was born and lived. It also reflects on his working life to know that when he retired, he almost immediately moved far away from the industrial smoke. Note that this is the talk, page, not the article, and I'm just explaining the structure of the article.

Barber as a person As far as I am aware, nothing is known about Barber as a person, beyond what is in the article. Storye book (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

If you feel that being asked to defend your own words constitutes insult, harrassment and vendetta then by all means take it to ANI, and see if they agree with you. Anmccaff (talk) 06:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Chimneys and blackened streets

Hi Storye book. While I wholly agree with your reasoning about chimneys and blackened streets, I can understand why another editor might remove it, as it does look very much like WP:OR, lacking any WP:RS. It's rather novel to include an image in a citation to explain one's point. I wonder could we find a good prose history source anywhere? By the way, I'd urge you to add that wonderful image of St John the Divine (which is very much still there and thriving, although sadly not listed) at the Rastrick article. What do you think? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no other "good prose history" source for Barber. This article is it: the result of some years of research and photography, all my expenses paid for by me. There are many other articles on WP created in the same way: a foundation consisting of a bunch of citations discovered after many hours of work, travel and expense, interpreted by a bunch of prose which basically says what is in the citations. I hope that some day, someone will use these citations as an inspiration or basis for the "good prose history" that you are looking for. Meanwhile I have added the image of John the Divine Rastrick to the Rastrick article as you requested, although of course Barber did not design it (he was dead by 1913). Storye book (talk) 10:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and I sincerely hope you have enjoyed your years of research and photography. You should be proud of all the good work you have put into this article and readers should be very grateful to you for doing so. I guess Wikipedia will always be tied to demonstrably reliable published sources. I was thinking more of a "good prose history" that Rastrick was full of chimneys and smoke at that time. Although even then, going on to assert that this was the reason that Barber moved to Southsea would be WP:SYNTH? I am guessing the editor who removed your note is unhappy with using an image from about 1915 to support a proposition about Barber who had died 7 years previously. By the way, I can't find any source for the designer of St John the Divine. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I have added the architect of St John the Divine to the Rastrick article in response to your comment. Let me know if you need any more Victorian/early C20 architects found. Storye book (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, Storye book. Quite notable designers. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. If anyone wants to get the building listed, that info should help. Storye book (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)