Talk:Benning Wentworth

Untitled

Benning is worth a longer article, describing both the reasons why he wasn't popular and his role in securing recognition for New Hampshire as separate from the Massachusetts colony.

I also think Benington, Vermont was named for him, but can't confirm it to mu satisfaction. If anyone can verify this, please add it to the article. Lou I 19:25, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There is also Bennington, NH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrarabuildingcompany (talk • contribs) 12:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Benning Wentworth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040210050119/http://www.johnjhenderson.com:80/Notables/Biographies/benning_wentworth.htm to http://www.johnjhenderson.com/Notables/Biographies/benning_wentworth.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Family Information

My apologies. A reference on this page prompted me to dig a little deeper. After further review, I have determined Elizabeth (wife of Benjamin Underwood) to be the daughter of Gov. John Wentworth, which makes her the sister of Gov. Benning Wentworth. CCDesigner (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Benning Wentworth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 22:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll pick this one up in the next day or two. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• General:
  • Which date format is being used here? His birth and death dates are in Day-Month-Year, but the Board of Trade ruling date is Month-Day-Year. Pick one.
    • I was slightly unsure about the date matter. After pontificating (such a lovely word) on the matter for a while, I thought it would be best if the dates were changed to month-day-year, since Wentworth 'is' an American. What do you think?
      • I think so too, just makes more sense. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• Early life:
  • Any siblings for him?
    • Yes, ten, to be exact. I didn't think putting them into the article was really necessary as none of them have their own Wikipedia articles or were ever remotely as important as Benning was. Do you think they should be mentioned in the article?
      • I would, since his family does have some bearing on his political career. Don't need to even mention all their names - just "# brothers and # sisters" would be fine. If most of them ended up working in the family business, that might be worthwhile too. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
        • Added a section on his family members in the bottom-most section. Your opinion?
  • Link "pounds"?
    • Done
• Political career:
  • "During this period, Belcher and Waldron" which period? I'd assume it was the period while Wentworth was in Boston but it's not clear.
    • Correct- reworded. What do you think now?
      • Works. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • "thanks to being patronized by" most folks are going to be confused by this as "patronized" can mean (and usually does in these days) "be condescending". Suggest "thanks to his patron"
    • Done
• Governorship:
  • "members converted to Anglicanism" converted from what?
    • My sources don't say, but judging from their status as New Englanders in the 1740's, the usual suspect here is the English Dissenters. What do you think of me adding it in?
      • Hm... I'd leave it alone then, since it'd have to be something like "Most colonists were dissenters, but we don't know what church the family had been members of prior to becoming Anglican" .. which is always a mess. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
        • Okay, that sounds like a good idea.
  • "From 1748 to 1752, Wentworth sparked a constitutional crisis when his political opponents gained a majority in the assembly by unilaterally extending representation to newly-established colonial settlements which he knew politically supported him; Wentworth also vetoed the assembly's decision to nominate Waldron as speaker of the house." That's ... quite the sentence to parse. Suggest "From 1748 to 1752, Wentworth sparked a constitutional crisis by unilaterally extending representation to newly-established colonial settlements which he knew politically supported him. Wentworth also vetoed the assembly's decision to nominate Waldron as speaker of the house. He took these steps because his political opponents had gained a majority in the assembly."
    • Reworded; what do you think now?
      • It's better, still convoluted, but understandable now. It wouldn't be considered "brilliant prose" for an FAC, but it'll work for GA status. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
        • Higher praise than I ever got from any relevant father figures. I'll take it!
  • "from being dismissed in disgrace due to his relationship with the Marquess of Rockingham" who had a relationship with the marquess and ... what exactly was the nature of the relationship - if it was a political alliance, suggest rephrasing to make it clear it wasn't a personal relationship ... as "relationship" will instantly suggest to readers that it was sexual.
    • Haha, I didn't realise that! (Oops...) It 'was' a political relationship, which has now been made clear. Whaddya think?
      • Works. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
  • Great to hear.
• I did some copyediting - please make sure I didn't mangle the meaning or distort things.
  • No worries, I'm sure a Wikipedia veteran such as you is far more familiar with the MOS than I am.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ealdgyth, thank you for reviewing this article. Luckily I've got quite a bit of free time right around now, so I'll just begin addressing the issues you have raised. Just to let you know, I will be active on this article for the next hour or so if you are too then we can wrap it up before long. Regards, Dabberoni15 (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The only thing outstanding is the siblings and church issues... once those are resolved, we'll be good to go. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I think I've addressed those. Please get back to me whenever possible (circumstances permitting, obviously).Dabberoni15 (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Those look good - passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Going against MOS:OSNS

In this edit Dabberoni15 reverted my addion of the OldStyleDate template. MOS:OSNS contains the following guideline:

If an article contains Julian calendar dates after 4 October 1582 (as in the October Revolution), or if a start-of-year date other than 1 January was in force in the place being discussed, or both, a footnote should be provided on the first usage, explaining the calendar usage adopted for the article. The calendar usage should be compatible with this guideline.

I feel the use of the {{OldStyleDate}} template serves the same purpose as a footnote. In any case, I believe it is not a good idea to totally remove any mention that the article contains Julian dates later than 4 October 1582.

The same editor has made similar changes to Thomas Penn which I do not agree with. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jc3s5h, I'm glad you've taken to the talk page to resolve this dispute. Personally, after revisiting your additions I feel as if the implentation of old style dates would be better done as a footnote to avoid cluttering the lede. I've done so- please let me know if you have any thoughts on the changes. Regards, Dabberoni15 (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The changes made by Dabberoni15 are not true. The 18:47, 11 October 2022 UTC version of the article claims in the footnote

In Old Style dates, Wentworth was born on August 3, 1696 and died on 25 October, 1770.

In the case of Benning Wentworth, he died on October 25, 1770 new style, also known as the Gregorian calendar. Because new style dates went into force in the UK and it's colonies, including what would become the United States, on 14 September 1752, it would be startling if any source stated Wentworth's death date in the old style (that is, the Julian calendar).

Wentworth's birth date is generally given as July 24, 1696. Usually reference works and historians would use the old style for such dates, because the birth occurred in the colony of New Hampshire, and the Julian calendar was in force at that time. We can confirm this by searching in American National Biography. I can't find any mention of their date policy in the online version, but the print version in the Calvin Coolidge Library at Castleton University states that the dates follow the calendar in force at the place of an event.

The new style (Gregorian calendar) date that corresponds to July 24, 1696 is August 3, 1696.

These concerns also apply to Thomas Penn, except that both the birth and death of Penn occurred while the old style was in force in the UK and American colonies. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. That seems like quite a pickle. I would like to note for the sources used for both the Wentworth and Penn articles, all of them unfailingly utilise the dates as they were before this discussion, which is why I didn't include any other dates in the articles in question. What do you recommend? If you'd argue for putting certain dates in the lede, I'd like to draw your attention to my previous concerns about potentially "cluttering the lede". Thoughts? (Also, the illeist approach is unconventional, if you don't mind me saying so.) Dabberoni15 (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

There is a good footnote in the lead of George II; the situation is similar for him. The editors of that article chose to put the Gregorian birth date in the lead and the Julian birth date in the footnote. I have no objection to doing the reverse in the Benning Wentworth article. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the dates for the Wentworth and Penn articles have been modified to suit what you have suggested. Please feel free to correct them yourself if they are still incorrect. Regards, Dabberoni15 (talk) 12:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I have made changes to reflect that the calendar change occurred during both men's lifetimes, so their birth dates might be stated in either calendar, but their death dates would always be stated in Gregorian. Because Penn's article contains dates in the 1st quarter of various years, I mentioned in the footnote that 1 January is always treated as the beginning of the year, even though March 25 was treated as the beginning of the year in the British colonies, England, Ireland, and Whales before 1753. In Scotland the beginning of the year was changed to 1 January in 1700. MOS:OSNS calls for Wikipedia articles to always use 1 January as the beginning of the year. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)