Talk:Temperance Flowerdew
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Biography Start‑class | ||||||
|
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Virginia Start‑class | |||||||||
|
Untitled
I added a number of external web pages as links to provide supporting proof that Temperance Flowerdew deserves a page in Wikipedia. When I was researching her online, I found quite a bit of fascinating information about her and was surprised that there was no entry for her in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bskaat (talk • contribs)
Notability
As the article stands at present TF is just another woman. The article absolutely needs to state here importance, which, in my view, it does not. All I know from the article itself is that she lived a fair while ago, survived a sea voyage and married reasonably well. The article needs more than that. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Response
In reading the information regarding Wikipedia's definition of "Notability", I believe that Temperance Flowerdew is most definitely notable.
Although I recognize that there is not much information regarding Temperance Flowerdew, her life was remarkable nonetheless. Few women were mentioned at all in records of those days, and the fact that she was mentioned as often as she was indicates that she was significant to the time. The only woman mentioned extensively in the region at that time was Pocahontas.
There are some important records which include her. She was witness to John Rolfe's last will (John Rolfe being the husband of Pocahontas). She also was witness to the sale of Yeardley's two plantations, thereby giving support to the oldest recorded deed in the United States.
I believe that the article is useful in describing Lady Yeardley's remarkable life. Although I agree that she, as a woman, lived on the periphery of significant events, it is only due to her sex that her accomplishments were not more fully recorded.
It is worthwhile to allow this article to stand and to be expanded upon by additional researchers interested in this fascinating woman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bskaat (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Neutrality
We require a neutral tone in the encyclpaedia. The hard work is appreciated, but the tone has altered to reportage to a great extent, or an essay style. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Response regarding Neutrality
Fiddle Faddle, could you clarify what you found to be biased, or non-neutral in this article? I would be happy to amend any NPOV issues, but I do not know what it is that you specifically find objectionable. Bskaat (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not objectionable, but inappropriate here. "It is interesting..." and similar lines have no place here, I'm afraid. It may be interesting, but that is for the reader to judge, not the writer. Somewhere in the Manual of Style you will find this type of thing. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the phrase "It is interesting to note" from the article. I was under the impression that there was an issue with Neutral Point of View rather than writing style. Please let me know if there is anything else you find objectionable. Bskaat (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, I meant to say "anything else you object to." Bskaat (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
My use of {{Lead rewrite}}
I see an article that is well referenced and is an essay about a woman who married some people. What I do not see is any assertion of her notability. That she lived some time ago in a brutal time does not make her notable. We are all descendants of such people. So far she has inherited her notability form her husbands.
It's an interesting article, but it is not, currently, an article about a notable person, certainly the way it is written. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Made some changes -- feel free to reverse them if you prefer
I felt that the article as written seemed to focus too much on other people rather than on Temperance Flowerdew. If she is notable enough to have her own Wikipedia entry, I would say it's not because of who she married (since both of them are covered elsewhere) but because of who she was. She came from prominent English gentry, and several of her relations were active in the settlement of Jamestown. Yeardley's rise to the position of Governor, and a knighthood, might have been in part due to his marriage to Temperance. Such backstories cast useful light on the history of the settlement, in my opinion. Applephile (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Decided after reading the discussions on this page and at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EAR to back out and leave it to others. Applephile (talk) 11:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Edits to tone
The article as currently written reads more like a documentary narrative than an encyclopedia article. It also contains a good deal of collateral information which, while interesting, hasn't got much to do with the subject at hand. I'm working though it to trim off some of the excess and give the article more of a Wikipedian tone. JohnInDC (talk) 12:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- As I noted in my edit summaries, the article was mostly about Yeardley, the colony and things that were happening around that time - little or none of the article discussed Flowerdew, what she was doing during this period, or why is might be notable. I've taken out a good bit of extraneous information (e.g. Pocahontas is really beside the point unless Flowerdew had some relationship with her) to make it easier for the reader to extract the biographical nuggets relating to Flowerdew herself, and, as I also noted, tempered the tone a bit to make it more matter of fact and less dramatic. I think the article could be, should be, shorter still but I'll let things rest for a bit to see how the edits sit. JohnInDC (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think with a lot of the excess removed, the notability claim is much clearer now. She was one of but 60 survivors of the Starving Time - which is almost notable in itself; was married to two governors, wound up very wealthy, and may had a plantation, still existing today, named for her. All the other material - the stuff I took out - seems to diminish her rather than enhance the story of her life. The article is better, and more likely to survive a notability challenge, without it. JohnInDC (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Temperance Flowerdew's association with Pocahontas
There is very little solid information regarding Temperance Flowerdew on record. Overall, there is very little information regarding ANY women during that time period. Therefore, I was surprised to find that the fact that she was a legal witness to Pocahontas's marriage had been removed from this article. Can you provide any further rationale for removing it? I am trying to understand the logic behind the decision.
Overall, I think that the edits were effective and made the article much stronger. Bskaat (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Temperance Yeardley was one of four witnesses to John Rolfe's will in 1622, but I've never seen her name mentioned in connection with Rolfe's marriage to Pocahontas in 1614. Any evidence? 88.97.48.91 (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Date of birth
Is there any documentation on this? 1567 seems preposterous on its face. It would mean that she waited until her forties to marry and that, after surviving the Starving Time, she had three children at an advanced age, including a son, Francis Yeardley, in her mid-fifties.
The first draft of this article included this date, but put the article in the category 1587 births. The category has since been removed, but this date stayed. I strongly suspect a typo that was never fixed, but am curious if there are reliable sources. Rklear (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that 1567 is clearly wrong. Even 1587 seems to be only someone's estimate. I've edited the article to show her year of birth as unknown, until/unless documented evidence is found. Underdoor (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)