Talk:Anthony Hungerford (Roundhead)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Orphan article January 2010[edit]

Moved Orphan template from article space to here This template tells a reader nothing that he or she will find useful and improvements to the article should be discussed on the talk page not in article space: {{Orphan}} --PBS (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some more primary sources[edit]

-- PBS (talk) 06:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010[edit]

The above was based predominantly on primary sources, but there is information which may be useful for integration into the rewritten article based on a copy of the DNB with some additions from the ODNB.

It is not clear to me what "Egmont MSS. 1 1573 - 1661 Page 445" means and a fuller description of the source would help.

I found a copy of the collapsed text at www.multiwords.de/genealogy/grey05.htm which attributed this article page. -- PBS (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article improvements[edit]

I contacted User:Coningbmw by email. User:Coningbmw made several comments along the lines that I have removed information from the article.

I left a message on your talk page, and if you had responded I'd have discussed the changes before making them.
I am more than happy to include into the article information from other secondary sources, but we can not use unpublished primary sources, as that is original research and there is a policy against using such research in a Wikipedia article (see WP:OR). The reason why I did not include Bernard Burke's information was that you did not provide a page number and I couldn't not find it. I only found it yesterday, just before I found your email address :-)
I suspect that several other sources are also usable in this article, but I don't think you have provided enough information, so that an educated but non specialist reader of the article could find and verify that the cited source is correct. For example if I take the first three sources you gave:
  • C.S.P. Dom. Chas. l, 18 March 1646/7 -- What does C. S. P. mean and who published it?
  • Dictionary Nat. Biog. -- There is no, volume number, page number, or article name.
  • Egmont MSS. 1 1573 - 1661 Page 445 -- What does "Egmont MSS" stand for and who published it?
The reason for explaining the different sources (as in DNB and the ONDB), is that when they differ on a fact or opinion about a fact, what we should do as Wikipeda editors is report the differences (part of the neutral point of view policy).
--PBS (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to changes on Wikipedia article from coningbmw
I feel that there was nothing wrong with the original comprehensive article on my ancestor Colonel Anthony Hungerford, and I feel that any serious enquirers had enough information provided to further their researches. Adding information is one thing, improving the layout? Yes by all means, but my original page was removed! The page is not added to, it is completely changed!
I have no problem with inquiries about my sources, or challenges to facts. However the quoting of speculation by William Hardy [Dictionary of National Biography] and Stephen Wright [Oxford Dictionary of Biography] to replace my sourced information is a bit rich! One might just as well say read the DNB or ODB!
It may interest you to know that I wrote to Stephen Wright via ODB, when the new update was in the planning stage- with all of my information. I also submitted my information to Dr. Peter Sherlock of the Hungerford Society, who confirmed my information.
With regard to the editor’s three specific criticisms about not understanding the three specific sources quoted, I feel that any ‘educated but non specialist reader’ could Google search my reference should they need clarification.
Surely this is preferably than to replacing my source reference with another reference to the OBDN or DNB which a Wikipedia reader, wanting to follow up the source, would have to go to the trouble of obtaining a copy of this work. They would then only find the very same source reference that I had used originally, and which had been replaced!
The editor asks about abbreviated source references-
  • C.S.P. Dom. Chas. l, 18 March 1646/7 -- What does C. S. P. mean and who published it? [Calendar of State Papers Domestic King Charles I ]
  • Dictionary Nat. Biog. -- There is no, volume number, page number, or article name.[Surely a Wikipedia reader interested in Colonel Anthony Hungerford, and seeing the ‘basic’ reference Dictionary of Nat. Biog-would look for an article in that publication on Anthony Hungerford? If the information on my original page had come from this same publication, but under another person’s biography-Then I would have stated this]
  • Egmont MSS. 1 1573 - 1661 Page 445 -- What does "Egmont MSS" stand for and who published it? [Once again a simple search on Google would have clarified this source for any Wikipedia reader. However I must point out that this was one of the last source references which I added to this page. While I was aware of the fact that Colonel Hungerford had been ‘shot in the head’, I obtained the further information about his being ‘shot in the mouth’ from the Wikipedia entry for the Battle of Dungan’s Hill-where the reference used is - Egmont MSS. 1 1573 - 1661 Page 445. The full reference being Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons . Historical Manuscripts Commission. Report on the manuscripts of the Earl of Egmont. Vol. I. Part II [electronic resource]. Cambridge [eng.] : Proquest LLC, 2007.(REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS) - Transcribed from: Historical Manuscripts Commission. Report on the manuscripts of the Earl of Egmont. Vol. I. Part II. 1905 [Cd. 2570]
The editor has also removed the information about Colonel Hungerford’s family! Why? Is this not of interest to Wikipedia readers? Coningbmw (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The editor has a user ID! it is: PBS (talk). Why the hostility? I contacted you both on your user page and waited a number of days before editing the article. You have not enabled your email so it was not possible to email you, and when by chance I had found your user ID as an email on another website, I emailed you to notify you that changes were being made to the page. This is not the actions of a person that you need to fight with.
The reason I removed the information on the family connections is because they were not sourced from a secondary source. Primary sources for such information can only be used if the primary source has been published, See the lead to WP:OR.
Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources.
No source was given for the children. The ODNB does include "The army officer is known to have married a wife named Chrisagon and it was quite possibly the same man who baptized a daughter of that name at Pershore, Worcestershire, on 13 February 1641." You included two daughters "24 October 1639: Katherine Hungerford, daughter of Anthony Hungerford" and "23 February 1642: Chrysogon Hungerford, daughter of Anthony Hungerford" but I made an editorial decision not to include it because the date you gave was "23 February 1642" Not 13 February 1641 now that may be due to a Julian Calendar not adjusted to the start of year of January 1st and a full conversion to the Georgian Calendar (see Old Style and New Style dates). It is one of the things I wanted to discuss before making a decision about whether to include this information or not. In the mean time I decided not to include it as it is better not to include information than to include wrong information. -- PBS (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the register says 13 Feb 1641, the date should ideally be expressed as 13 Feb 1642 or 1641/2. No attempt should be made to adjust British dates to the Gregorian Calendar before 1751. The form 13/23 February would only be appropriate if dealing with correspondence between countries one using NS (Gregorian) and the other OS (Julian). However, I think we are dealing with a misreading or a typo here. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Improvements continued.[edit]

Dear Philip- You will see from my various Correspondence with regard to the recent editing of the Anthony Hungerford Roundhead site that I am on a steep learning curve- Please bare with me.

With regard to the children of Col. Hungerford, I personally obtained the details from the parish registers at Worcestershire Record Office. From what you have said, this information cannot be used on the site unless it has been published by some Record Society or other. Likewise the Will of Col.Hungerford's mother in Law, I obtained from the National Archives [Will of Cicely French, Widow of Pershore, Worcestershire 24 May 1653 PROB 11/229 Records of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury Prerogative Court of Canterbury and related Probate Jurisdictions: Will Registers Name of Register: Brent Quire Numbers: 218 - 268] So I do not think that this is allowed by Wiki rules is it? [I did of course cross reference this information with various other Wills of family members for confirmation]

My final query refers back to the Calendars of State Papers. As these seem to be published in books, surely I can quote them as seconary sources? i.e. Calendar of state papers, domestic series, of the reign of Mary I, 1553-1558 : preserved in the Public Record Office / edited by C. S. Knighton.London : Public Record Office, 1998 ISBN 1873162367 when these are not quoted in either DNB or ODNB ? Coningbmw (talk)

[There is no need to start a new section each time, instead use colons to indent you comments below the previous one. -- PBS (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC) ][reply]
Two points:
  • the first is on the date of birth of the daughter Chrysogon Hungerford, can you explain the discrepancy between your researched date of birth and the ODNB entry?
  • The second one is that I think that the published records such as the "Calendars of State Papers". Should be OK without a secondary source quoting them, but I want to ask another editor who I know has done OR, had it published and edits articles on Wikipedia, what his opinion is as he knows more about this than I do.
-- PBS (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The date of birth [it will actually be a Baptism date] is the one I have always had. Even my old typewritten notes say this date. So if I have made a Typographical error, I have just continued to copy it.

I will say this about the year though, on my Rootsweb page [Family Trees under the database named coningesby] I have it written 1640/41

HUNGERFORD, Chrysogon b: 23 FEB 1640/41 d: 15 APR 1670 in Pershore, Worcestershire.

I will try to clarify the situation. 212.140.128.142 (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Coningbmw (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

I came here because PBS asked me to. As far as I can see the contentious sources are calendars describing primary sources. These are wholly legitimate for editors to use. Strictly they are secondary sources.

Calendar of State Papers, Domestic is a series of volumes publishing summaries of documents in The National Archives (as it now is), publihsed by HMSO for Public Record Office (as it was). Theoretically these are finding aids for the original archives in TNA, SP classes. In practice histroians often use then as a citable source in their own right. Many of the volumes are available on British History on-line which is certainly WP:RS. I would recommend citation by publihsed volume - Series, reign, years covered, page (if possible) with a link to that website.
Egmont MSS probably refers to a series of volumes published by Historical Manuscripts Commission. These are calendarts of private archives surveyed by HMC. They have similar status to CSPD. I would suggest that they be cited as if HMC were the author; strictly the "author" should be the individual editor, but that is to be over-nice.
WP:OR as used in WP generally means somethign invented by the editor, for which there are no WP:RS, nor can be. WP has gone a long way, and (in my opinion) it is sometimes appropriate to cite original archives (and I have done so myself), but this should be done sparingly and where there are no secondary sources or where the secondary ones are explicitly wrong.
An original will (from TNA documents on-line) is an image of an origianl archival source. In my view, there is no reason not to use it, but if the same information is available in a publihsed source, it will be better to use that (ot to cite it as well), possibly as "(published source) from (primary source)". This can be useful as some old citations of archival sources are no longer valid due to the arrangement or relocation of the archives. A citation of e.g. PCC, 248 Brent (which narrows it to 16 pages) is in fact using an obsolete system. TNA, PROB 11/229 will be the modern reference for Brent, which should ideally be accomopanied by the quire 248 (which appears at the top right of the first page of the 16, and ideally the folio (rubber stampped on to the page). The on-line image numbers appear to be unrelated to these, but are also unique.
It would be ridiculous to demand that an editor express a birth as c.1615 becasue that is all he can find in print, when he knows that the baptism actually took place on 15 Feb. 1617/8. It may be on some of the genealogical websites, but they are of somewhat mixed reliability. My view (and it may not be WP's) is that the citation of a precise parish register is as good as a citation from familysearch, and perhaps better, particuilarly if the date on a genealogical website is in fact vague. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peter and I agree on all but the last point. I don't think that genealogical websites are reliable sources (but can be used if they cite reliable sources). I also disagree that "It would be ridiculous to demand that an editor express a birth as c.1615 because that is all he can find in print" because that is the whole point of the protection of OR. The reason for this is because --as is shown with this man -- it can be very difficult to assess that the information is about the specific person that the biography is about particularly if the family had several branches all of whom had a tendency to use set of Christian similar names. This is the reason for relying on reliable sources.
Have you got any further in determining the Date of Baptism?
-- PBS (talk) 12:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peter-thanks for all of your information/comments.

With regard to verification on the Egmont MSS, the full reference is-Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons . Historical Manuscripts Commission. Report on the manuscripts of the Earl of Egmont. Vol. I. Part II [electronic resource]. Cambridge [eng.] : Proquest LLC, 2007.(REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS) - Transcribed from: Historical Manuscripts Commission. Report on the manuscripts of the Earl of Egmont. Vol. I. Part II. 1905 [Cd. 2570] [Sorry I do not know how to edit the 'verification needed' on note 3]

Philip-No luck on the confirmation of Chrysogon's baptism date yet. I did come across a note I post on the internet at the beginning of my Hungerford search back in 2001 Barry M. Watson (View posts) Posted: 29 Jan 2001 2:42AM GMT Classification: Surnames: Colonel Hungerford was an officer in the commonwealth army during the civil war in england.he died 1657. he was married to Chrysogon ?was this the same man who had children baptized at Pershore, ENGLAND around 1639? rwhungerford (View posts) Posted: 29 Jan 2001 2:48PM GMT Classification: Surnames: Barry:

Yes. The Colonel is the father of Katherine, bapt. 24 Oct 1639 & Chrysogan, bapt. 23 Feb 1641 at Pershore per the Rev. Jackson's Papers. But of course that is not proof yet CONINGBMW

There is way to include the content of a "template (page)". it is done by enclosing a page in {{template name}}. There is one called {{citation needed}}. If you click on {{citation needed}} you will see towards the bottom a list of other templates used to add a comment to citations including {{verify source}}. To remove one simply removes the {{and the text between them}}.
With the additional information you have given I have been able to find the citation on line p. 445 of Report on the manuscripts of the Earl of Egmont (1905). It is in a letter by Valentine Savage to Sir Philip Percivall dated 9 August 1647 So I'll make the edit. -- PBS (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genealogical websites[edit]

I agree that genealogical websites are commonly not WP:RS. However, often it will be possible for an editor to make his own assessment of reliability. If a baptimsal date is given precisely and with the parish (particularly if it is not the obvious one), it is likely that the compiler is in fact citing the best original source, namely the parish register recording it. I appreciate that this is technically WP:OR, but it certainly meets WP:V. Dates of birth are frequently irrecoverable, and it is commonly necessary to use baptismal dates as a surrogate. With the prevalence of infant mortality, baptism was usually undertaken when a baby was only a few days old, so that the use of a baptismal date is not a bad approximation. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anthony_Hungerford_(Roundhead)&oldid=1207669655"