Talk:Thomas Prence

Ancestry

On Sarah Palin's connection:

Ancestry.com was only printing the research results of three leading genealogical authorities: Tom Brown, William Reitwiesner, and Gary Boyd Roberts. All three researchers cited birth, death and census records, as permissible by law, pointing back to accepted printed earlier genealogies.

The material was compiled by Robert Battle and Michael Hurdle, and was extracted from Mr. Battle's webpages at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~battle/palin.htm and http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~battle/heath.htm.

Extensive source documentation can be found on those webpages. --Dranster (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Married four times, not three

You can find a transcript of Thomas Prence's will in the magazine Mayflower Descendant, p. 3:203, and probably innumerable other places. In it, he clearly names his wife as Mary. Now since his second wife was Mary, it was either her, or if he did have a third wife (Apphia Quick), then it was another Mary, a fourth wife.An article in the same magazine, p. 6:230, explains why his fourth wife is identified as Mary, widow of Thomas Howes. In some ways, the evidence supporting Mary (---) Howes as his last wife is stronger than the evidence supporting Apphia Quick as a third wife, since the relationship of Thomas Prence to Apphia's son Samuel Freeman that is used to justify her inclusion, has been explained in other feasible ways by Frederick Freeman in the Freeman Genealogy, p. 351. Wjifkri (talk) 02:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Birth year

Hi, I changed the birth year in the infobox to 1600 to match what the article says. The article cites a source that has 1600, so that seemed to be the better of the two options (previously the infobox said 1599). Does anyone have a more reliable source?

--Nemilar (talk) 01:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Added two more references. Mugginsx (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

About sources

According to Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites, Find-a-grave is not to be considered reliable, and should not be used unless there are no alternatives. Since I have located at least one alternative, the links that use findagrave are redundant.

Secondly, the two references (currently numbered 1 and 3), http://www.americanancestors.org/pilgrim-families-thomas-prence/ and http://www.plimoth.org/media/pdf/prence_thomas.pdf , are nearly duplicates of each other (down to the content, text, and formatting). Citing something to both of them is redundant, and gives an incorrect impression that different sources are supporting the same assertion. Magic♪piano 18:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Find a grave has information your reference (which you mistaken thought said Coles Hill - did not read it very well apparently) that your source does not. It is used in many articles, as I have said before.

The two references that you mentioned have some of the same information but also often have additional information and always have some different contributors to the combined website.

Please do not add information to paragraphs that are not in the references I cited unless you add a reference of your own that contains that new content. I have had to remove two. If you wish to add information, please find references for them. Thanks.

Try to not violate WP:CIVILITY and WP:Assumegoodfaith when you are creating edit summaries. I am getting a bit tired of it. No one here is perfect. Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You would do well to take your own advice, if you are finding my edit summaries overly snarky. I do not claim perfection, either; I'm just trying to turn this into a better article. This means that additional writing is going to be coming. If this bothers, please remember that you do not own this article. I do not always immediately cite what I write; do try to be patient as I work through sources and chronology. (And I will add information "not in the references you gave", since I will use sources that you have not.) If this practice bothers you, you could assume good faith and give me some time to cite things appropriately.

I incorrectly linked to Cole's Hill, but have since realized that it is not in fact the same as Burial Hill. Bailey (the source that I added) calls it "Burial Hill", something you could have checked.

I welcome your identification of *one* fact that is present in one of those two sources, but not the other; just one will do. As far as I can tell, one can readily be substituted for the other.

The fact that Findagrave is used in "in many articles" (not something I've seen you say before, but that's neither here nor there) is one of the problems that WP has, and I try to stamp it out whenever I see it. It's not a reliable source (like many other user-contributed sites), and in this context does not support anything in the sentences where it is used that is not supported (or supportable) by other sources.

As far as our recent exchange of edits to the lead is concerned, you have left the final clause of the last sentence as this: "... serving as its governor of for several years." You're not helping make the article better with work like that. Magic♪piano 19:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Magicpiano, you may add as much information as you wish within my references as long as the references contains the information added. This was not the case as I stated above.

In addition, you have changed the style of referencing which makes the referencing section look sloppy.

You also created three cite errors which a bot had to fix after one of your deletions. You should be more careful.

You also created an edit summary that had nothing to do with your actual edit. What you did do was something completely different.

I would remind you that there is a policy Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. You have changed and/or deletion materials which were properly referenced. I reinstated them based on that rule. You may feel that you can write "better" than other editors, it is a common belief in wikipedia and you have a right to that belief. What you do not have a right to do is to flagrantly delete material on the "assumption" that you can write it better. This is another policy Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions you might wish to read.

(edit conflict) Given that the referencing style is not entirely consistent (to identify a specific point, the use of italics in book names is not uniform), and the fact that when I recently viewed the article you had added a cite error, I suggest you avoid casting stones. (I see you have since fixed it; the bot caught mine before I could. What was that about WP:AGF?) I routinely quietly harmonize citation formats in articles I watch; I don't snark about it and demand other editors to follow style in detail. I consider it part of editing Wikipedia.

When I first copyedited the article, I made some editorial judgments about the appropriateness of certain content, which has little to do with whether or not the material is cited and more to do with whether the information in question (e.g. the statement that Prence had a £1 debt on some date) is of any sort of encyclopedic value. You disagreed and reinstated some of it. Fine. This is what WP is about. I have removed material from the article that was blatant copyright violation (and rewritten other portions for the same reason, and will be scrutinizing other parts in more detail to that end), and replaced it with something that did not necessarily contain the same content. I have not particularly objected to the content you restored; we're mostly talking now about how it's written. (And by the way, removal of cited material is not "reversion" anymore than removal of uncited material is, so the essay (not policy) you cite is at best marginally applicable.)

I'm looking to tell a more coherent story about who this man is and why he's important. There's a fair amount of context and continuity that can be added to this article that will make it richer. Please help. (Examples: what were his religious views (something that is not mentioned anywhere in the article now)? How did they compare to the population of the colony? What policies did he institute against Quakers in general (the Howland affair aside)? Did they work? Why did he move to Duxbury? Eastham? What was his role in the fur trade?) Magic♪piano 20:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Since it was you that took Plymouth Colony out of the Lead I would say that it was you, not me, that left the "of" in it.

Please examine the edit history. I simply reverted you; the version after that reversion was grammatically correct. Please do your homework before making accusations. Magic♪piano 20:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is where you added the "of". Magic♪piano 20:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

As I answered you before but I will reiterate that I added another unrelated reference to the one instance of combining those two similar references that you mentioned. It has been gone for some time.

Once again, please do your homework. From this version, both sources are used on the same sentence: Thomas Prence had three more children: Judith, Elizabeth and Sarah but it is not certain which wife was the mother.<ref name= "NEHGS"/><ref name="plimoth.org"/> Magic♪piano 20:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I also had to remove an instance where you had Thomas Prence Governor of the "Commonweath of Massachusetts" when it was still known as Plymouth Colony.

Please provide a pointer to the diff where I did so. I don't believe I've used the word "Massachusetts" in this article. Magic♪piano 20:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Finally, I had to add "New" to Plymouth Colony. Look at your own reference. It states New Plymouth Colony Mugginsx (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. It doesn't matter what the source calls it, in WP it's called "Plymouth Colony". Magic♪piano 20:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Evidently you do not follow the Talkpage guidelines either. Please put your answer below mine. You are re-factoring the talk page with your remarks and making the conversation difficult and misleading.

The two source no longer show together though I do not find a guidelines which makes me do it, I did it anyway. For the third time now, I have removed the 1 instance where it was.

Fine, someone left an "of" where it should not have been after you undid. You still should have read it after you reverted it. I might have put the "of" in after in case your "undo" would not have worked.

I have removed that instance now, even though I ask you to find a guideline that states I had to. There is none, though I found it better to do so and hopefully avoid more arguing.

You may go over the diffs yourself. I am not going to edit war with you. If you delete again without cause, I will go to an administrator. Your editing actions and your rhetoric makes it clear that it is you that wants to "Own the article", I have sustained the few valid changes you made. Now, I am going back to good-faith editing. Mugginsx (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

My edits here were prepared while you made incremental changes to your comment; rather than rewrite my comments every time you edit, I chose to intersperse them. It would have been less confusing if you had signed each of your additions separately. Furthermore, I did not point out the errors you introduced because I expected you to fix them. I did so to point out that your complaints are not always caused by my editing, and that the faults you accuse me of are present in your own editing. Mote, meet timber. Magic♪piano 20:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, well I am an optimist so I will believe that was a nice ending remark. So let's end the disagreement here and go back to good-faith editing. If you have new material, that is fine and that is what Wikipedia is all about - collaboration. I am all for it! Mugginsx (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Pace. I'm not trying to upset the applecart, just make it shinier. Magic♪piano 21:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I am really glad to hear that. We are both veteran editors with many articles behind us that we have either created or added to. I am sure there is much more information out there about Thomas Prence without re-arranging what is already there. We can make it a larger article together.Mugginsx (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

On being overly repetitive

Since Mugginsx seems to want to have a detailed discussion about one small paragraph of text, let it be here. The sentences at issue:

In 1632 Prence moved from Plymouth to Duxbury and then in 1644 to Eastham, which he helped found. In 1663 he moved back to Plymouth.

This paragraph was claimed by Mugginsx to be an "overview and therefore not redundant". This assertion is problematic for a number of reasons:

• The paragraph was not an overview in this version, after which I added more detailed material on his residences. (In fact, these edits began with a move of this paragraph to a more chronologically useful place.)
• The paragraph does not introduce, summarize, or overview the material in the immediately following paragraph, which is on a subject having nothing to do with Prence's residences.
• Overviews are also not generally necessary; this is what WP:LEAD is for. Overviews shouldn't be needed, especially for comparatively minor items like someone's residences. With this sentence present, Prence's move to Plymouth in the 1860s is mentioned no less than three times, and his other residences twice; this is clearly redundant.

Perhaps Mugginsx can give a reasoned response why it should be retained in that specific location. I am prepared to defer to commentary and consensus from outside editors on this matter. Magic♪piano 15:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Kettle: I just cannot keep up with you. First, you are on my talk page, if I move it to the article talk page, you wiped it off. I restore it, you re-factor and re-page it. see"Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines NOW, you are starting off on my talk page and continuing the discussion here on the article talk page. What's an editor to do to keep up with you? Arguing with you is a big waste of time, perhaps you have Control Issues, or are a frustrated writer? I am a content editor. I did alot of work on this page. You tend to be a drive-by editor. Both are fine, but in your drive bys, you give no guidelines when you revert others work. I do NOT have to give a guideline when I make an original edit - YOU, on the other hand should give a guideline when you REVERT. See:wp:zero-revert policy Mugginsx (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It's very simple. This discussion is about the content of this article, while what's on your talk page is a discussion of editing behavior. Now, I actually gave some reasons here why I thought the above paragraph unnecessary. Will you substantively address them or continue to bang on policy? (And please stop misusing the word "revert". It has a specific meaning, and does not represent what happens when another editor changes "your" work.) Magic♪piano 15:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I will answer you very simply. You had no reason to revert it. You cannot Control everyone else's valid edits which is what you try to do, not only on this article but the many you drive by. Not wasting anymore time with you, if you continue to ignore Wikipedia guidelines I will go to an administrator with it all, not just the recent revert. Mugginsx (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I spent a whole paragraph giving reasons to modify "your" sentences. (And by the way, cool it with the drive by remarks. WP:APR, WP:CIVIL, etc.) If you think I'm running afoul behaviorally, please call in an administrator NOW; don't wait. Magic♪piano 15:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Listen to your reasons. They are all determined by YOU - not guidelines, not anything but what You think the article should look like and where everything should be, etc. You know nothing about collaboration. As for insults, I overlooked a bunch of yours to try to make peace. That is why I won't respond to your latest comments. Your comments are not routed in wikipedia policy but in your opinion. Mugginsx (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I said above I was prepared to listen to your reasons why the paragraph should stay where it is. You seem to have this idea that once you write the sentence, it is inviolate. This isn't true. I have an opinion (yes, it's an opinion, not a guideline, or a policy) that this paragraph is at best misplaced, and mostly unnecessary, and supported it by the idea that, just perhaps, the writing in this article would be improved by its removal. Editors do this all the time on other articles (including ones I've worked on), without nearly this much tempest. Why is this such a big deal to you? (I repeat the offer to bring in an outside copyeditor for guidance.) Magic♪piano 16:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The only editor that needs guidance here is you. I collaborated with you and you did not even notice. I put the contested information, which was fine where it was, into the Lead, as you suggested, to save my time which I consider important on Wikipedia. Now call in whomever you want. I would love to show him all of your guideline violations, your insults, included the ones you deleted, along with my information, your re-factoring, your bragging about doing "hundreds of good and featured articles" when a cursory view will show that many editors, not just you, helped to make those articles what they are. I am through with you. I do not intend to spend all of my time arguing with you. Mugginsx (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

On vagueness

Perhaps Mugginsx would like to explain what is "vague" about my writing on the 1845 petition, and describe how it might be made less vague. Magic♪piano 19:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Very well, I am busy with other things today but one of your edit summaries this day says I removed the material that was yours. What actually happened was that you re-wrote MY material using MY references because you WP:IDON'TLIKEIT did not like it. You did not have a valid reason to revert according to Wp:Guidelines Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary zero revert rule. I have seen you do this on many articles which I am not involved with. I believe that it can be construed as being intellectually dishonest to re-phrase a paragraph, using an edit summary that is not accurate, use the original editor's references (which they attained through their hard research), and then call it your own.

I did not revert your paragraph, I restored my paragraph that was previously there, and, since you never changed the references which were mine to begin with, I kept my own references. I assume we are looking at the same paragraphs. Mugginsx (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I added material to the paragraph which is the product of my research. You removed it. This is the material at issue. You do not own paragraphs (or even sentences) in WP. Magic♪piano 20:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I see no new research in any on your re-phrasing of my paragraphs so you will excuse me if I find that statement somewhat disingenuous. I followed you edits very closely and did not find what you are saying to be your actual practice. Should you wish to add to something that is, of course, fine, but to do so it is not necessary to re-word my or any other editors work, especially when, in the case of this article, you did not add any new references. Again, I will direct you to the same WP guidlines WP:IDONTLIKEIT and Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary zero revert rule. It is good faith editing and at the core of Wikipedia editing policies. Mugginsx (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I added material that is not present in Stratton (or other sources mentioned in the paragraph), and is present in a book that you do not seem to have access to. How can that be "no new research"? (By the way, I note that you have not answered my initial question about vagueness, which you cited as a "reason" for removal.) Magic♪piano 21:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems we are at crossed purposes. I have been complaining to you repeatedly on this article about re-phrasing other persons valid edits which is against WP:Guidelines. You have done this numerous times in this and other articles. I am not going to spend the day away from my editing to look for an indivudal edit summary when, in fact, it is your conduct at issue here. If you continue to do it on this article, I will have to consider reporting you to an administrator to show you are in violation of the guidelines. I am not going to spend hours on a talkpage trying to defend anything I am doing. As I said, if you have any original material to enter into this article, fine, it is welcome of course. Do the research and collaborate.Mugginsx (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

"Rephrasing other persons valid edits" is not in violation of guidelines, other people do it all the time. If you really think so, please report me now. Otherwise, can it with the blustering threats. Magic♪piano 23:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Be certain that I will. You have mistated the facts on this entire discussion. This was the edit summary:

(cur | prev) 15:37, 15 April 2013‎ Mugginsx(talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,946 bytes) (-335)‎ . .(→‎Prence as Plymouth Governor: restored my paragraph which was NOT copyvio and to which vague information was added by another editor with a 1945 author/source since updated as new information was found.) (undo).

You do know WP guidelines and have gotten away with breaking them for a long time. You misrepresent things, as you did this edit summary which you state that I only mentioned that your information was vague when that was not what the edit summary was about at all. You misrepresented what I said in this edit summary so I put it here for all to see, you rephrase my edits so that you can re-edit them and you know that it is against WP:guidelines. That you got away with it is quite beside the point. You bragged here about so many featured articles and took credit for them like you were the only editor. There were many editors who researched and edited on those articles and in fact, in some cases, originally found the material that you re-phrased as if they were your own research. After bragging about "your featured articles" here, you then removed the bragging conversation when you realized how it sounded. The removal of that material you stated was also forbidden according to WP:Guidelines. That is not good-faith editing and do not think that because you have gotten away with it thus far that your luck will last. You have gotten over-confident as I have seen other editors get over-confident before you and if you are not careful, you will wind up just like they did. Mugginsx (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

For someone who is "busy with other things" you've got an awful lot of time to write screeds that don't answer my initial question: what was "vague" about what I wrote? If you'd focused on that, you wouldn't have had to spend time writing all of the above. Magic♪piano 00:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Your edit summaries and some outdated sources

It is very unprofessional to write nasty edit summaries just because you were reading an 1895 book which may not explain there were two wives named Mary. These books are not advisable as sources for refereces, especially when records were not standardized, when there are many books available with the most recent scholarship. Could we please work together in a more friendly environment? As you said previously, no one WP:Owns the article. Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The observation that Mary Burr was Prence's fourth and final wife is documented in the NEHGS source, which is why it is attached to that sentence. I am not unjustified in wondering if you bothered to read any of the two sources cited, and the rest of the article, before removing that bit, especially after I tagged something you contributed for failed verification. If you find a more recent reliable source (i.e. not a user-contributed website like Find-a-grave) that documents her burial location, feel free to replace the reference. (This is equally true of the material concerning Samuel Gorton, by the way.)

As far as the use of older sources is concerned: old sources are not necessarily wrong, and sometimes contain information not presented in more recent works. The older a work is, the more carefully it needs to be handled, but this does not automatically invalidate its use. (I personally try to avoid the use of older works for material that strays significantly from its primary subject matter, especially if it may be of controversy.) If you find substantially the same content in works more recent than those I use, feel free to replace the references. But, please please please, ACTUALLY READ THEM.

We can work in a more friendly environment when you stop getting all upset that I copyedit "your" sentences. You're the first editor who's ever given me such grief over such changes. Magic♪piano 17:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You have misrepresented on this talk page and on the edit summaries everything that happened. I give up trying to be friendly to you and yes, I do read the sources as you can see if you look at my history. In one case I removed an obvious mistake of yours and tried to explain to you, in a polite way, that, especially birth and marital records are often wrong in the older books especially when there are similar names, such as in the case of a man having two wives names Mary, which happened here and elsewhere with these early colonists. I did not get defensive and accuse you of being too lazy to go to the library for the more recent scholarship. This is only one of many examples. In the past, I too have used old sources available on the net. They are easy to find and use because they are out of copyright and I too have been occasionally burnt by them. Unlike you however, I am able to see my mistakes for what they are and learn by them. It is nearly impossible to collaborate with you because you simply will not ever admit to making a mistake and because of your misleading and insulting edit summaries. How would you like me to insult you everytime you have made a mistake here? What are you trying to prove? No need to answer. Mugginsx (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Two specific examples of "error acknowledgement" relative to this article: I acknowledged error in confusing Cole's Hill and Burial Hill, and acknowledged that I made a typo (substituting 1838 for 1638). Have you (explicitly) acknowledged that you made an error in this instance?

Misrepresentation (or, more charitably, misunderstanding) works both ways. The whole "two wives named Mary" problem is an artifact of your own construction. The sentence cites two sources: one (the NEHGS web site, accessible to you) which establishes the second Mary (Burr Howes) as his last wife, and the other (the Howes genealogy, also accessible to you), which establishes her burial site (and is unambiguous about who she was: once wife to Thomas Howes, a fact confirmed on the NEHGS page). There is no way, in my opinion, she would be confused with Mary Collier by anyone reading either source.

I will try to temper my edit summaries in the future, but realize that I feel like I'm pulling teeth to get you to understand something I think is fairly basic. Magic♪piano 18:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

How very kind of you. I will try to do the same with you. Mugginsx (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Dividing governor section?

I'd like your opinion on dividing the governor section. I want to add material that is fairly specific to Prence's term from 1657: more detailed treatments of the Quaker controversy (which encompasses much more than the dealings with the Howlands), the 1661 witch trial, and relations with the Wampanoags after the death of Massassoit. These will, in my opinion, make the existing section somewhat overlong. What do you think of having the material between 1634 and 1656 under a heading something like "Colonial leadership"? Magic♪piano 19:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It sounds fine and more information would be good for the article. Go for it! Mugginsx (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that the article will be overlong. Have you looked lately at the size of some of the articles? . Mugginsx (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

There's no danger of this article running into WP:SIZE limits. But I find sections longer than about two screens to be not very user-friendly. Magic♪piano 21:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps in advertising literature but not at Wikipedia. I think sometimes these kinds of observations are very subjective. If an article is interesting to the person reading it, its sections need no shortening. If it does then perhaps they would be better off reading the subject on Simple Wikipedia. Mugginsx (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I've added the material on Quakers, which turned out to be a bit longer than I first thought it might be. I merged all of the material having to do with Arthur Howland into it because it seems to fit best there. There is also some uncertainty about the timing of things to do with Arthur Jr's romance: all of the sources I've read (including Stratton) are a bit vague about whether events might have occurred in that matter before 1666/7. Magic♪piano 14:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I will check it out with Stratton but it was referenced. Presuming you kept my references in there when you "redesigned and added your material", I will be able to find it. In your re-design of the article, please maintain sources and information properly sourced by other editors. Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not criticizing the Howland material for the lack of (or quality of) references. The issue for me was that Stratton, in his juxtaposition of materials (pp 93-4), can leave an impression that the Howland-Prence romance was an issue around the time of the 1659 arrest incident. Willison, without giving dates, suggests that it was a matter at the time, but he also may have confused something with the later fining incident.

I did take out the bit on the attempted arrest of Howland, but I actually think it ought to be kept. I just haven't figured out the best way to incorporate it. Magic♪piano 15:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not up to you to incorporate or unicorporate any information that was in this article and correctly sourced and without error. I am reentering it and please do not touch it again without a wp:Guideline to explain what you are doing. In addition, the dates are correct and in Stratton and on page 94 as I referenced it. I do not know what edition of Stratton, if any, you are using.

Also, your constant use of a 1945 and 1908 book is causing your confusion and problems with dates because some of the work is updated by Stratton and others. It is required by Wikipedia that, when possible, you are to use the most recent scholarhip. That could explain your confusion over dates. Please Read Wp:Reliable Sources - Most recent scholarship Some types of sources Mugginsx (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not confused because the book is old: I'm confused because the writing is ambiguous, a problem that does not know temporal boundaries. Stratton's book does not superceded Willison's, because they each present different details on the subject matter. Magic♪piano 15:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, One of your sources are from a book written in 1908 and 1945 - those are OLD on Wikipedia and superceded by more recent scholarship - the Wiki guidelines is given above in my last answer to you. Insofar as your personal opinion that some of the writing is ambiguous, this is WP:IDON'T LIKEIT, i.e., your opinion only. Once again, insofar as the dates that your question above, your 1908 and 1945 book are out of date. Historical dates are often incorrect in material which is so old. Also, reading a sneak preview of a book at Google, if that is what you are doing, does not provide a picture which makes for easy understanding. A full read of the Stratton book and the others I have referenced might clear up your confusion. Mugginsx (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Considering that WP:RS says nothing about the age of sources, you're the one who "doesn't like it". Feel free to refute by copying text here from WP:RS (or any other relevant policy) supporting your assertion. (By the way, both Willison and Stratton books are made from dead trees, and sit next to me.) Magic♪piano 16:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Every experienced Wikipedia editor knows that you always use the most recent scholarship. It would be disingenuous to say anything different. A guideline you should really read is this one: Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary Mugginsx (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

So do you agree that WP:RS does not say what you claim it says? Magic♪piano 17:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you desperate to talk? Yes, I linked to the wrong page - sue me. It is the ABCs of Wikipedia that in referencing, to always use most recent scholarship. Do you agree? Mugginsx (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not desperate to talk, I'm trying to understand your objection to my sources. Like you, I'd just as soon be making more substantive contributions, but you keep objecting to my practices by throwing policies at me that don't say what you think they say. (Do you understand now why I sometimes wonder that you don't read things?)

Now, if your objection to my sources is not WP:RS, which policy or guideline is it? (No, I don't agree that "It is the ABCs of Wikipedia that in referencing, to always use most recent scholarship." You like to cite policy as a requirement for things, please do so now.) Magic♪piano 17:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You live in your own world, break rules, take credit for things that were a group effort and think you are so clever you can say anything and other editors will believe you. I hope I am wrong but I worry that someday you will step over the line and some smart administrator will put you in your place as they have done to many others that came before you. I will leave you with a guideline to remember wp:Harass, quit harassing me. Mugginsx (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll take that as an acknowledgment that you "don't like it", and don't stand on policy or guidelines when formulating objections to substantive contributions. (As for harassment, this is not your article, and you're the one who keeps raising bogus objections to my work. It's not like I'm stalking you.) Magic♪piano 12:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I have come across items that you included in my references, that upon my checking I find out that, in fact, they are NOT in my references. As the primary editor on this article - please check edit history - I find it a bit odd that you would imply that I am stalking you. I have a reputation for excellent referencing and would like to keep it that way, but it is hard when I have to constantly check new information added into paragraphs that, upon checking, is not, in fact, in the references I gave. The latest is Burr the name found to be false by most recently scholarship, that you keep adding into the article. This is why old books are not the best to use. As I told you before, I have be burnt in the past for using them as well, and that is why I check them. This is the third instance where you have added information into my references that, upon checking, are not present in the source. I am betting that Stratton pp. 58, 70 is another but will check it before I say for certain.

Also you have just reinstated information about the fourth wife and the place of her burial, Mary Burr, with an 1896 and an 1892 reference and added a reference, American Ancestors, a year 2000+ reference that does NOT state Burr as the last name. None of the recent scholarship will show Burr as the last name. Please check the reference you gave: http://www.americanancestors.org/pilgrim-families-thomas-prence/ does NOT state the name Burr, nor do any of the most recent sources such as A genealogical profile of Thomas Prence at plimoth.org, another reference that I had to recently remove. Mugginsx (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

As a random Wikipedia editor, I find it a bit odd that you would think that I was implying that you were stalking me. Please stop making assumptions (and throwing around fatuous accusations of harassment).

As far as "Burr" is concerned: this was only added after you objected that there was some sort of ambiguity over which Mary was the subject of the sentence. I am happy to remove it. I also restored the citation you removed, which was necessary to establish that she was indeed his last wife, something not mentioned in the Howes genealogy. Not all of the facts in a given sentence are going to be supported in every citation; it is sufficient that one does. Magic♪piano 13:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)