Talk:Ascension Parish Burial Ground

List

- Moved to talk:Ascension Parish Burial Ground/Lists. This was removed from the article as it should be only necessary to have ONE list, with references. Breaking it down into knights, or Members of the Order of Merit, FRS, FBA, etc. is not helpful as the categories are not mutually exclusive with the consequence that individuals appear in several lists. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

And there should be ONE list of NOTABLE people. At present the main notability criterion that I am using is if they have a Wikipedia article. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The second point is that wives of dubious importance should not be unnecessarily WP:REDLINKed. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Cambridge Apostles

This is an essential addition to the article; perhaps a certain Dutch 'editor' in Ireland should consider improving the Cambridge Apostles instead of damaging this one, please?

Ten former members of the Apostles are all buried in the Parish of the Ascension Burial Ground in Cambridge : Henry Jackson, classicist (1863); Sir Richard Claverhouse Jebb, classicist (1859); Desmond MacCarthy, newspaper critic (1896); Sir Donald MacAlister, physician (1876); Norman McLean, Orientalist (1888), G. E. Moore, philosopher (1894); Frank P. Ramsey, philosopher (1921); Vincent Henry Stanton, Professor of Divinty (1872), Arthur Woollgar Verrall, Classicist (1871), and Ludwig Wittgenstein, philosopher (1912). These ten members were from Christ's, King's, St. Johns College and Trinity colleges.

2.27.132.201 (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

For your information: This is a page about the Ascension Parish Burial Ground. Not about the Cambridge Apostles. The Banner talk 00:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It does perhaps help slightly if we at least try to stay rather vaguely on topic. Barney the barney barney (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I have reviewed this and looked into the Cambridge Apostles. It seems that there must have been a great many members over the years. I am not sure that having twelve members buried here is particularly significant - there are lots of other criteria such as Fellowships of the Royal Society that could equally well be worth documenting - but in all cases only if this can be supported by a direct reference to establish the criteria are WP:NOTABLE. For this article, I think we need to be mindful of WP:PROPORTION and WP:NOR. The Parson's Cat (talk) 11:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

ROBERT HEATH LOCK

Can someone re-instate his missing article as there is an ODNB biography being written? Martin.

• Robert H. Lock Fellow of Gonville and Caius College and Assistant Director of the Peradeniya Botanical Gardens;

2.30.189.118 (talk) 07:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Can we identify a reliable source indicating that Lock is buried here? The Parson's Cat (talk) 11:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Darwin family

Is it possible to explain why the burials of the Darwin family are important enough to be in the lead of this article? To my opinion, it is trivia. The Banner talk 09:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

They now have their own plot at the bottom of the article. But it is still content duplication? (see new thread below). Martinevans123 (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

multiple issues

{{The Banner does nothing to improve this article, other than to criticise it!|date=April 2014}}

It has been suggested before that he puts his time and effort into Cambridge Apostles? 2.30.189.118 (talk) 09:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Sir, this is an encyclopaedia. This is not a private website about the Ascension Parish Burial Ground. So the information at this page should be sourced, neutral and relevant. It is common practise that long list only contain notable people what usually means: have their own article. You are giving the Darwin family and that dining society undue weight by putting that info in the lead, without giving proper reasons why it is important enough to mention it just there. Pointing at shortcoming of an article is also a way of getting the article improved. But I know that when I do thing, you will revert me straight away. The tags I put on the article is a way to get more editors in to review and improve the article. The Banner talk 20:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It has been suggested before that you put all your time and effort into Cambridge Apostles; that is an article that really deserves some serious attention by an expert editor/contributor!

[The Ascension Parish Burial Ground is now well known for having so many of them buried there: 10]

2.30.188.93 (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, my friend. I am unwilling to clean up your stuff. If you want articles, write them yourself. Don't expect others to do that. The Banner talk 21:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

This article is being routinely 'vandalised' by a Dutch editor living in Eire, who has been reported; the above so-called 'issues' illustrate his apparent obsession with this good article; he should cease and desist immediately.

2.27.125.97 (talk) 10:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

We have a policy here with the name No Personal Attacks. Unfortunately, that seems the only thing you are able to do. So I have requested page protection against IPs. Your disruptive behaviour. If you continue in this disruptive, insulting way, I report each and every IP you use for a block. The Banner talk 12:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Ludwig Wittgenstein

The gravestone of Ludwig Wittgenstein.

This old image is now out-of-date as the ledger gravestone has recently been refurbished by the British Wittgenstein Society; a new image is available on the Find-a-Grave entry for this famous philosopher. It needs to be updated as soon as possible! (His grave is regularly visited by many foreign visitors to Cambridge.)

• Ascension Parish Burial Ground at Find a Grave

2.30.189.1 (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I have updated that image with this one taken yesterday, although I'm not sure that the image in the article need be a recent one.----Pontificalibus 12:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation?

I noticed a lot of people seemed to be referenced only to Find-A-Grave. It seems like the a list has been transcribed directly from that web site. You can see evidence strongly suggestive of this in the revision history, starting in summer 2012.

I imagine that an apparent direct transcription of content from Find-A-Grave would constitute a copyright violation? To be on the safe side, I'll flag this up and we can get one of Wikipedia's expects to check. Expect content to temporarily vanish during this time - if the experts are happy, they will reinstate it and make a note of it here so we don't flag it up again. Apologies if this makes anyone unhappy - not deliberate. The Parson's Cat (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the plot location data from the individual listing. Such data is not encyclopedic, and individual grave hunters can actually find the plots via the FAG entries or by wandering the grounds. (Will this action resolve the COPYVIO concern?") In the past there's been debate about FAG as RS. As I recall, the determination was made that FAG is RS when the entry contains an image of the gravestone. Also, FAG may be RS when the "famous person's" FAG entry is "maintained" by FAG. But this concern is usually moot because other sources usually V the bio data. – S. Rich (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

That may have been the case - I disagree that it was. The issue is Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. It is clear now that the inclusion criteria are Wikipedia's alone, the Wikipedia list contains far more items than the FAG list which has not been expanded. I'm closing the report. MER-C 16:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@MER-C and Ajpolino: I think that someone has accidentally pointed us at a misleading list - see [1] for a much fuller one. If you go go back through the history of this page, you can see where a record by record entry in alphabetical order has been made by IP users, all referenced to FAG. It looks like a record by record transcription to me, which would violate FAG's terms and conditions of use. Without evidence of another source being used, I think we have to conclude that on balance of probability, records were transcribed from FAG.

Would you be willing to take a second look at this please? The Parson's Cat (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Just remove all the items that don't have an article, are sourced to Find a Grave only and all the FAG references. Regardless of whether it's a copyvio, that content is not backed by a reliable source. MER-C 12:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@MER-C: Thanks - though there's been a lot of edit warring on this page, so I wonder if it would be possible to get the copyvio issue formally considered in light of the latest discussions, please? I appreciate it was closed in good faith, but I think there's now more clarity about the nature of the problem. The Parson's Cat (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Really? The copyvio aspect is sufficiently trivial, if there is one, that it isn't worth my time to consider it any further. You have a valid editorial argument to make, use it. MER-C 13:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@MER-C: I am sorry you feel that, and thank you for your time. Can you guide me as to the process of getting this independently reviewed, please? The Parson's Cat (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

What’s the problem here? No copyright issues can stop us listing everyone buried there who has a Wikipedia article, and as long as we reference each entry to a reliable source what is the problem? I will obtain a further source later today listing burials there, so once I have this I intend to restore the removed content, stripping out items that can only be sourced to Find a Grave as I go. --Pontificalibus 14:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

"I imagine that an apparent direct transcription of content from Find-A-Grave would constitute a copyright violation?" Yes, maybe. But one would first also have to imagine that it was a direct transcription. I'm really not sure what evidence could be presented to decide ether way. One may have simply walked around the grounds with a clip board and a pen? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced and unreliably-sourced entries

Following the discussion above, I am following MER-C's advice and deleted the entries that appear from the edit history to have been transcribed from Find a Grave. The reason I have done this is that I am concerned that such a transcription may violate Find a Grave's terms of service. At the same time, I have also removed unsourced entries.

I note also that what's left seems to have an heavy dependence on Mark Goldie's list, which may also be a copyright issue - he hasn't listed indiscriminately so this may well fall foul of WP:Copyright in lists. How should we proceed here? The Parson's Cat (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Suggest creation of a new article - List of burials at Ascension Parish Burial Ground

How would people feel if we created a new article, along the lines of List of burials at Père Lachaise Cemetery, and part of Category:Lists of burials by location?

These list articles don't seem to run into any copyright issues, and most don't seem to cite any source references for individuals in the list. (Many listed individuals have no indication in their main articles to confirm that they are buried in the specified graveyard). I understand the copyright concerns here, and the over-reliance on a few copyrighted sources. However it seems a shame if we can't bring together a list of notable names (with their own wikipages) where the facts about the location of their graves are clear and straightforward. We would then be able to have the 'non-list' elements of the existing article restored and de-flagged. Any thoughts appreciated -

Gilgamesh4 (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. I suspect you'd need to start with one or more lists that were both WP:RS and not protected by copyright to do this within Wikipedia guidelines. The Parson's Cat (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you have an alternative suggested way forward for the existing page? (I'm not sure if there are other works-in-progress to resolve the copyright problem?) - Thanks - Gilgamesh4 (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't plan to work on it myself, but someone could see if they can find some WP:RS reliable sources for information about the Burial Ground. I am sure they are out there. The problem with much of the recent text was that it seemed to have been copied word-for-word from other web sites, e.g. the parish burial ground's own one. I think there may have been some earlier text on this article that was OK, but I haven't had - and won't soon have - time to go back through. The Parson's Cat (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Removed text matching sources exactly

I found a couple of pieces of text that appeared to be word-for-word identical to the sources cited by this article - I haven't had the time to go through the history and work out exactly when they were introduced or to revert to the previous wording of the article, but I wanted to make sure we aren't at risk of falling foul of WP:COPYVIO so I removed them for now.

There doesn't seem all that much of an article left.

The Parson's Cat (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Resolved copyright issue, and left some Find-a-Grave references

I've resolved the supposed copyright problem referred to above, that the list is a copy of a published selective list. That is no longer the case if it ever was. Multiple sources are now used and the lists are substantially different. I note that the admin MER-C stated in the conversation above the issue had already been resolved due to the dissimilarity of the lists, yet the article has been subject to a Copyvio blanking template for nine months with no attempt to remove it. I'm now boldly removing that template as I can't see any conceivable copyright issue with the revised article.

Some entries are still referenced only to Find-a-Grave which is an unreliable source, and some are tagged as "citation needed" - this doesn't mean I've looked for sources and not found any - I haven't even checked yet. In some cases a suitable source may be found in the Wikilinked article, or easily elsewhere. I will work through these gradually as others are welcome to, so please don't delete these entries yet.

I will now work on prose for the History section etc.----Pontificalibus 10:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Darwin family again

Does this content duplication matter? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, no need for a separate section. However, although essentially triva, there's no harm in using an anecdote such as this to make the lead more interesting, so it could merit a mention there (I know we don't technically have a lead section yet).--Pontificalibus 17:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Primary sources

I can source every unsourced entry to the official listing in the Records Office of the City Council. Primary sources aren't ideal but my reading of WP:PRIMARY suggests this is acceptable, as points 1-6 are met (and WP:PUBLISH indicates this list satisfies #1). Sourcing these entries thusly seems preferable to deleting them if no better sources are found. Thoughts? ----Pontificalibus 17:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Title

Is the title phrased correctly? A site by the University of Cambridge cites Parish of the Ascension Burial Ground [2] and there is even a society called Friends of the Parish of the Ascension Burial Ground.[3] --TadejM ^{my talk} 14:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)