Historic Grave - Yay or Nay?

Hi All,

I submitted this historic grave about a year or so ago and while it is still in the queue stage thought I'd take the opportunity to see what this community thinks.

Would it be accepted or rejected? Is it a case of TMI (TL;DR) or not enough evidence? Will reviewers see the graves (it's on a Church graveyard) and instantly mark it as location sensitive? There is a discussion on whether people treat graves within a Church as a cemetery somewhere on this forum about that. Would it be skipped because it's local history so some people feel they couldn't make an informed decision? Is the Title too wordy? Should I focus on the design of grave rather than the grave itself? Think I'm losing the essence of the nom if I do that.

Gut feeling at the moment is... it will be rejected. Had other historic graves marked as such.

The church itself is not active in terms of burials, they have a cemetery for that off site somewhere else. Someone on this forum stated they would reject it if active. Not sure how they would draw this conclusion from a supporting still photo. Short of getting a statement from the vicar / caretaker not sure how I can address that individual's concern. Everything appears to be old but maintained if that makes any sense.

Some background, I nominated this with the full knowledge it will never appear within PoGO. It's in the same cell as the Church, noticeboard and lychgate. I have no problem with that, I'm nominating it because I feel it is a genuine POI. Much like when I nominated the lychgate - I knew that would never appear (only in Ingress). I just like history.

Yes, I have 14th, 18th and 19th Earl of Derby graves covered so whatever the view on this one, I could apply it to the others. I think two of them have already been rejected (need to double check - and it will be different posts).

Anyway, thanks in advance.

Links:

Main photo - https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/CEFvX8b4FppzhhmzjNHr6biavrstemKiDjuinTrH6nRwHVBrVH6T13F16bxVjwO17E8PLuorlMOIj0zajcjPd9_-e-4=s0

Supporting photo - https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/In2j-3yZowM2-JcL-8uTVkaBcuWm7voOkHwhCzTro5EHPwQFNStFS3sKO1F7QXSPQRMtmvW84Ktur19eAcCB8DU5Ckg=s0

«1

Comments

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,313 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Is the Church already a Waypoint. It is likely any grave in the churchyard will be too close / in the same cell to appear anyway. As for this one, for me a minor public figure I would not consider "historical", so I would notve give this a high score.

  • Isitmoi-PGOIsitmoi-PGO Posts: 159 ✭✭✭
    edited April 2022

    Thanks for your reply.

    WAYSPOT

    Yep, Church is already a Wayspot but as I mentioned before, that's not a concern of mine. Not sure why this is a focus. It's the merits of the nom itself. But re-reading this, are you saying because this Church is Wayspot you would reject the grave nom as well? That can't be right... just trying to follow the logic.

    This is more about getting the template right and understanding how reviewers treat historical gravestones of famous people.

    PUBLIC FIGURE

    'A minor public figure'? Interesting feedback and viewpoint. So in your opinion what is a bar for a major public figure? You must have one. Would it only be kings, queens or presidents? Or is it more a case of only individuals making significant impact on your life? So as a rough example, say you're a woman (you could be - no idea) born here and someone nominates Emmeline Pankhurst gravestone you would instantly give her a high score and/or accept the sub because you know who she is and why she matters to you (e.g. she changed your life).

    Maybe culture, locale, age and interests matters here.

    I suppose a nom like this means nothing to say someone who was born in a different country now lives here and reviews local history submissions so this could be an issue. By the way, for clarity not talking about yourself Ninja - I mean I think I just found a possible stumble block in the reviewing process in general.

    Also feel slightly alarmed we are rating famous people wiping out all their history and achievements because we have different tastes. Elvis Presley? No, downvote. I listen to Cardi B instead, upvote. What is the point of citing sources again?

    EDIT: Typos.

  • JillJilyJabadoo-PGOJillJilyJabadoo-PGO Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭✭✭

    There will certainly be some difference of opinion on what "important historical figure" means. There have been many Earls, many Ambassadors to France, and quite a few Secretaries of State for War/Defense. Should they all qualify as "important historical figures"?

    As for this one, he was an honorary Rugby Football League president and literally gave them a cup, but I don't see any information about him innovating anything with respect to Rugby nor in any of this other positions. Unless the grave belongs to someone everyone will know from textbooks, submitters will probably have to do a lot of work to convince reviewers of importance. For me importance is about what they did, not what titles they had.

    I'd accept an informational plaque or exhibit about him, because that's educational. Just a grave, though, doesn't seem like a great place to explore.

    "Haig privately had little respect for him, writing to his wife (10 January 1918) that Derby was "like the feather pillow, bear[ing] the mark of the last person who sat on him" and remarking that he was known in London as the "genial Judas". Robertson's biographer writes that during the crisis over Robertson's removal Derby "made himself ridiculous" by asking everyone, including the King, whether or not he should resign, and then in the end not doing so, only to be removed from the War Office a few weeks later."

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,313 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'm saying I would not bother to nominate a Waypoint that may have trouble getting accepted if I knew there was an existing Waypoint close enough to impact it should it get through. It seems like a waste of effort and a waste of a submission, though because Niantic allow so many now one can afford to take a chance with borderline Waypoints.

  • JillJilyJabadoo-PGOJillJilyJabadoo-PGO Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Since this is the Nomination Improvment section, I would say add more information about the Rugby cup and what its importance is to the sport. Since his time in public service seems pretty unremarkable, that's probably your better chance.

  • X0bai-PGOX0bai-PGO Posts: 1,667 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2022

    When there’s a viable and immediate rejection reason available, you should expect reviewers to use it. 1* - location sensitive is the most likely result.

    Personally, I generally find the idea of playing video games in a cemetery to be… distasteful. I have done it, and I tried to be respectful and unobtrusive about my presence there, but I have also watched others play in the same areas with little regard for those around them, and IMO it’s not worth the minor game advantages to make graveyard POIs at all.

  • VladDraco-PGOVladDraco-PGO Posts: 560 ✭✭✭✭

    @X0bai-PGO Perfect resume of what I think about playing in a cemetery too.

    And @Isitmoi-PGO about minor/important, I don't think it's a matter of opinions but more of facts.

    Does alien people, like any of us here, if we visit this place and learn it exists, did we already come to this cemetery to see this grave or not ?

    If no strangers come to visit, it's a minor place, if it's already a visited cemetery and a visited grave, this tomb deserve to be a Waypoint too.


    In a little french village, I visited recently, I was surprised to discover the grave of the worldwide known philosopher Michel Foucault. When American people visit the near city of Poitiers, they made a detour to come to see this grave. The way to this specific grave is indicated at the entrance of the cemetery, so I think this grave deserve to be nominated, as it is already a place visited.

  • VladDraco-PGOVladDraco-PGO Posts: 560 ✭✭✭✭

    (One of?) The last update on the topic was :

    Nov 2020 ama

    Non-grave memorials and buildings in cemeteries: Eligible or not eligible?

    Private places of mourning such as individual gravestones or mausoleums are generally too sensitive to be eligible. However, any locations in cemeteries that have become public attractions are eligible. This would include memorials for famous individuals, historical chapels, and government historical markers.



    Is this poor Earl of Derby grave a "Public attraction" ? I doubt it. ^^

  • Isitmoi-PGOIsitmoi-PGO Posts: 159 ✭✭✭

    Thanks for your reply.

    Firstly, a couple of things stood out back then (when posting the original nom). You only had a very limited amount of space in both the description and supporting information textboxes in-app so it was hard to pick something instantly more known for. Sometimes it's the wrong thing to focus on or you leave a placeholder. And the other was, pretty sure, you had no control over when something went from 'in queue' to 'in voting' so there are a panic to pick something before you lost the nom (used to be when you got back from a walk it was already uneditable, it was that fast a turnaround so you had to withdraw it). The former is still true but the latter just seems to hang around in queue stage for over a year or so. I remember thinking what is the most relevant thing to mention so easier to point to a source and let the reviewer cherry pick something from their bio.

    Anyway, to your post.

    > For me importance is about what they did, not what titles they had.

    Yep, do I agree with what you said about what they did. But I also feel it's about the journey they take in their life and the impact on society (lessons learnt and all that). Also, their - and I use this term loosely - achievements, good and bad.

    > I'd accept an informational plaque or exhibit about him, because that's educational. Just a grave, though, doesn't seem like a great place to explore.

    From a historian point of view or even a designer / architect do you not find the grave design fascinating? You don't see that everyday. Or do you? Dunno.

    > "Haig privately had little respect for him, writing to his wife (10 January 1918) that Derby was "like the feather pillow, bear[ing] the mark of the last person who sat on him" and remarking that he was known in London as the "genial Judas". Robertson's biographer writes that during the crisis over Robertson's removal Derby "made himself ridiculous" by asking everyone, including the King, whether or not he should resign, and then in the end not doing so, only to be removed from the War Office a few weeks later."

    And yet, Haig founded the British Legion with him a couple of years later. Go figure.

    See, here's the biggest problem with your quote. It's from one viewpoint. Someone equally relevant might have a different take. What if the King had different interpretation of Derby in his bio. Plus important note, times change. Give you a classic example of this. Picasso. The critics at the time absolutely slaughtered him and his works, I mean they were vicious - his paintings were 'diseased' and 'degenerate'. He was mocked. So much so it had a profound and negative impact on his life. These days, he's a genius. His works celebrated. His paintings are must-haves and they fetch for ten of millions. So in this context, using your example and logic, were his critics right? They must be.

    What's that famous saying? One man's marmite is another man's poison. Think that's apt in this case.

  • Isitmoi-PGOIsitmoi-PGO Posts: 159 ✭✭✭
  • Isitmoi-PGOIsitmoi-PGO Posts: 159 ✭✭✭

    Thanks, good feedback - that might resonate more with sports fans. 👍️

  • JillJilyJabadoo-PGOJillJilyJabadoo-PGO Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Yeah. I just included that because I thought it was a funny quote. There are actually two different people's opinions there because the second part was from a different source. Anyway, the point being that someone checking the Wikipedia page is probably going to come away with the impression he did not have an illustrious career and was maybe even a bit of a buffoon. If you have sources that argue otherwise, you'd be better off including them. Overall, though, rugby may be the better angle. I know nothing about the history of rugby so if this cup is of equivalent importance to the Stanley Cup in the NHL, you might be able to persuade some people there.

  • Isitmoi-PGOIsitmoi-PGO Posts: 159 ✭✭✭

    Thanks for your reply.

    Yeah, I thought this might be the case with some people, I started a separate discussion about this very subject somewhere on the forum. People see graves - photo, title or description - and it's an immediate rejection. As you say location sensitive.

    It's a tough one.

    Hmm...

    I travel. And when I go for my fitbit walks I do turn on PoGO. Have I found some hidden gems in-game and explored the area? Yes. Am I respectful? Absolutely. Do I feel enriched and learnt something, almost all the time.

    Now, looking at some of the failed gravestone / cemetery noms on here and Reddit, the cemeteries don't look like anything like the places I've been to or would normally associate with. Yes, most of them are aboard somewhere (different culture) but the public cemeteries in the cities I visit (I'm based in the UK) they are more like modern gardens. It's hard to explain.

    There are three cities (with Churches and cemeteries) I am very familiar with. Those cemeteries are full joggers, dog walkers, school shortcutters and peace of mind walkers. You can tell they are respectful, it feels more like a community cemetery - people knows everyone (read: gossipers 😀), including myself - than a public cemetery if that makes any sense. It is safe and secure.

    You are absolutely right about having no control over others. I've visited friends / work in some places and let's say the surrounding area I wouldn't venture out. Definitely, stay away from Churches and graveyards never mind ever nominating something in. I wouldn't add to the chaos. They are d-o-d-g-y.

    However saying that, the noms that I do do (duty 😂) won't appear in PoGO and might only in Ingress. So... the player base for Ingress are more mature than PoGO...? After all, PoGO was / is originally aimed at kids...? Therefore this is a nothing burger?

  • Isitmoi-PGOIsitmoi-PGO Posts: 159 ✭✭✭

    Thanks for your reply.

    RESPECT

    Yeah, starting to think our definitions / experiences of cemeteries are different. But in general I do agree with you. We can't control others so if the opportunity is there... there is always a risk of disrespect, damage and theft.

    FACTS

    It's a good point. I think - well, from my understanding, - most prominent and worthy wayspots (and questionable ones for that matter) have been grandfathered in and at large venues. But there are still some hidden gem like the philosopher you mentioned. Actually, it's an excellent point. And this place has heritage tours so the council deems it worthy. Ooo... just thought of something worth following up on. Thanks for that. 👍️

  • Isitmoi-PGOIsitmoi-PGO Posts: 159 ✭✭✭

    No, no - you're right.

    Funny you should say that. And it was his father.. Frederick Stanley (16th Earl of Derby) who gave the Stanley Cup to NHL. Strong connection to Canada. In fact; Stanley Park in Liverpool & Vancouver, Port Stanley in Ontario, other prominent places in Australia and Hong Kong are all attributed to him.

    Out of interest, if you were a tourist visiting a new place - as one example - would you ever look up local famous people? And if so, anything pique your interest in particular?

  • Isitmoi-PGOIsitmoi-PGO Posts: 159 ✭✭✭

    Who said public attraction? Did I say that? Didn't mean to, let me check my nom from a couple of years ago. Doesn't feel like it's something I would say. Heritage walks - yes. In all honesty, almost two years ago it was probably wrong and a rushed job.

    Btw, not a private place. Public Church. Think I already mentioned, there was a movie / TV show being filmed here not that long ago - still need to find out what that was. And if they come back for a second season / sequel, I will be there with my 'Hi Mom!' sign for sure.

  • VladDraco-PGOVladDraco-PGO Posts: 560 ✭✭✭✭

    No you didn't, I do. ^^

    And if this place is visited as part of heritage tours or walks, so it can truly be part of a public attraction.

    If you have links to that, it can worth put this information on top of your supplementary infos instead of the end. As the first four lines aren't really useful, in my opinion. But I can be wrong.

  • JillJilyJabadoo-PGOJillJilyJabadoo-PGO Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Would I look up the people? Yes. Would I visit their grave? Doubtful. Usually those aren't tourist attractions. I would definitely visit the manor of the Earls or Derby or go to a museum about them, assuming they were notable enough for those types of attractions to exist. Most grave sites aren't set up to be educational so unless the guidebook was like "the grave is a must see!", I wouldn't think to visit.

  • Isitmoi-PGOIsitmoi-PGO Posts: 159 ✭✭✭

    Fair enough.

    *rings contacts at Local Council* (Guys, we need a guidebook! And something on Tripadvisor. Oh, we need to specifically target people called JillJillyBooJabadoo in the marketing materials - great stuff!)

  • JillJilyJabadoo-PGOJillJilyJabadoo-PGO Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭✭✭

    That seems to be a little off-track, though. The standard for graves isn't the same as the other "great place to explore" submissions. For most things, an entry in the local guidebook would be good enough. For graves in cemeteries, it doesn't matter if I, or any other random tourist, would stop by after seeing a TripAdvisor post. The standard for graves is "associated with a significant/historical figure". What "significant" and "historical" means will vary by reviewer, but I expect for most people it is a fairly high bar. Maybe a first pass is how many people in the UK could tell you anything he did off the top of their head just by hearing his name.

  • Isitmoi-PGOIsitmoi-PGO Posts: 159 ✭✭✭

    Sorry.

    Last reply was more humour related and a bit of banter. It didn't translate well especially to different cultures and online without the emojis and stuff. Ignore it, it was a bit of fun.

  • Isitmoi-PGOIsitmoi-PGO Posts: 159 ✭✭✭

    What I will add is the definition of the subject matter - and cemeteries - will differ based on locale, experience and, to some degree, education.

    So for example, if the reviewers of my nom are all UK based and fairly local to the area (read: county) then the nomination would have a higher chance of success. Coupled with if they know their history from school, have history as a hobby, use history as part of their job. Then if the reviewers were say royalists / patriots at heart so understand British peerages. Even if they worked in design and so the whole coat of arms and family crest is something they would have studied would be a benefit. All that would lead to a much higher level of scoring.

    But you make a good point, if the reviewer pool and users on this forum replying to my post are all - I don't know - for sake of argument from the US and their life journeys never even touched on British culture then chances of passing are unlikely.

    Say, you're a 20 year old Tik Toker / YouTuber (gender doesn't matter in this case) from the US who plays PoGO then reviews a historical gravestone (someone from 18th century) then the nom is meaningless or will be scored negatively regardless of how much write-up and evidence you provide. The reverse is probably true. Would someone from the UK instantly know who Maria Stewart is? Probably not.

  • exculcator-INGexculcator-ING Posts: 67 ✭✭✭

    "There have been many Earls, many Ambassadors to France, and quite a few Secretaries of State for War/Defense. Should they all qualify as "important historical figures"?

    Each and every former Secretary of State should so obviously qualify as an important historical figure I have to wonder if this is a troll post.

    Either that or you have no idea what the words "important" and "historical" mean.

  • JillJilyJabadoo-PGOJillJilyJabadoo-PGO Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I disagree. There are people with such titles or higher that served too briefly to make an impact or were ineffectual. I'm not impressed by titles. Show me what someone actually did that had a significant impact on their society.

  • JillJilyJabadoo-PGOJillJilyJabadoo-PGO Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If you consider Marth Stewart a "significant/historical" figure, then I see we're much too far apart on the meaning of those words to ever approach agreement. :-) Although, the same appears to go for this Earl. I take "significant/historical" to be someone who changed the society or culture they were a part of. It seems to me you take it to be well-known or high ranking.

  • Isitmoi-PGOIsitmoi-PGO Posts: 159 ✭✭✭
  • JillJilyJabadoo-PGOJillJilyJabadoo-PGO Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Lol. Those weren't my words. I said we had a different meaning of "significant/historical". "Doing something that means something to someone." appears to be your definition. As I've stated earlier, my definition is "changjng society or culture". Long-term, wide-ranging cultural impact. And no, I don't think in 50 years anything she's done will still be having an impact on society.

  • Isitmoi-PGOIsitmoi-PGO Posts: 159 ✭✭✭

    As I've stated earlier, my definition is "changjng society or culture"

    yes, your words. And you still don't think she has? You can't even agree with your own standards!

  • JillJilyJabadoo-PGOJillJilyJabadoo-PGO Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It's not disagreeing my definition. :-) Immediately afterwards: "And no, I don't think in 50 years anything she's done will still be having an impact on society." You may disagree with that assessment, but it doesn't disagree with my definition.

  • JillJilyJabadoo-PGOJillJilyJabadoo-PGO Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Anyway, as I said several posts ago, our definitions are too far apart to do anything but go around in circles. I thought mine had been sufficiently clarified before, but now it surely is, so I don't see anything else for me to add about this topic.

Sign In or Register to comment.