Talk:Elizabeth Willoughby, 3rd Baroness Willoughby de Broke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Women's History (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Biography / Peerage and Baronetage / Royalty and Nobility (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Wife of Sir Edward Greville - Elizabeth Grey, or Jane Grey?[edit]

Hi Parsica,

I've restored the original paragraph on Sir Edward Greville's marriage, as those are the details stated in Richardson, which is a reliable source. I've put your version in a note, as I understand that's the accepted practice on Wikipedia when reliable sources state different facts. I did try to check your source, but the link goes to a message which states that the page is unavailable for viewing, and it appears that it's a self-published source, although I could be wrong about that. Is there any way of getting the link to your source to work?

Version which I'm restoring, sourced to Richardson:

  • Sir Edward Greville, who married Elizabeth Grey (d.1619), the widow of Henry Denny (d. 24 March 1574), esquire, and daughter of Sir John Grey of Pirgo by Mary Browne, daughter of Sir Anthony Browne of Cowdray Park, Sussex.

Your version, which goes to a link which doesn't allow one to view the page:

NinaGreen (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's another reliable source,[1] which states that Sir Edward Greville's wife was Elizabeth (not Jane) Grey, as well as a link to the first edition of Magna Carta Ancestry.[2] These reliable sources could be wrong, but on the face of it there seems no reason to doubt them. NinaGreen (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Magna Carta Ancestry[edit]

Hi Bearpatch,

I notice you've put 'self published source' beside citations in this article of the 2nd edition (2011) of Douglas Richardson's four volume Magna Carta Ancestry. Magna Carta Ancestry and its predecessor, the first edition, as well as the companion volumes Plantagenet Ancestry (first and second editions) have been used as references in countless articles on Wikipedia. I don't know whether you've had a look at these volumes, but they cite literally thousands of published reliable sources. The second editions of both volumes are self-published, but they merely update the first editions, which were not self-published. NinaGreen (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You ask a good question and yes I have reviewed several of his books in detail and they do cite thousands of print sources. The books are based on earlier published works by David Faris, Frederick Lewis Weis and others. As far as the information from these books, which undoubtedly Richardson acquired the rights to, these have proved to be good sources which cite other reliable sources. In most cases their information is verifiable in other reliable sources. But when enriched with the newer research by Richardson some questionable patterns emerge. Some of the cited sources in the newer information are considerably more difficult to locate, some fail verification, while others do not seem to fully support the statements they’re intended to. My concern is they do not meet WP policies, guidelines and recommendations. I’ve only seen them used in a few cases in articles and have tagged them as I did here. I’ve seen other editors simply remove them. Your point that the second editions of both volumes are self-published, but they merely updated the first (published by GPC) editions alludes to the exception in WP: SPS, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." First, it would need to be established they are expert sources; that Mr. Richardson is an established expert, and that Genealogical Publishing Company qualifies as a reliable third-party publisher. The reputation he’s established over the last decade or so at Soc.Genealogy.Medieval, where he’s tested many of his theories and new finds, might help answer some of those questions. The note to the above exclusion in WP:SPS, footnote 6 adds: "Please do note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources". So, if these cited passages have other reliable sources that can verify them, then Richardson can easily be replaced. If Richardson is the only source then you have the specific situation outlined in WP:EXCEPTIONAL. The sentence following the above quoted exception in SPS makes the practical suggestion that if the information is worth quoting it will be found in other sources. The intent in tagging these references was to simply to encourage editors to find better less controversial sources. Bearpatch (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. My experience has been that when I check a specific statement by Richardson against the specific published reliable sources he cites for it, the statement checks out. If you've had a different experience, perhaps you could supply a few examples of statements he makes in the second edition of Magna Carta Ancestry or Plantagenet Ancestry which don't check out against the specific published reliable sources he cites. NinaGreen (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I can understand that being your experience. As I just mentioned, the core of these works is based on earlier works by Faris, Weis, Sheppard, et al., who DR worked under. So if your research turned up citations that appeared in one of these earlier works then I can understand that being your experience—especially given they’re not credited by citation. So without comparing specific statements and their citations to the earlier work you wouldn't be able to tell who the original author was. In all fairness I've found a considerable amount of the work I studied was based on reliable sources. But I wasn't talking about whatever percentage of the information was correct and was correctly cited from sources that meet WP:RS, I was talking about the existence of data that does not. The average reader or editor might not be aware of the presence of these problem areas which is why I tagged them—suggesting that better or less controversial sources be used.
As to your request, I don’t have my research notes or correspondence with others I’ve worked with in order by the books they appeared in, these are archived in chronological order. And I’m not certain I kept everything once I had researched a particular question for someone in which one or more of his books were involved. It would take a considerable amount of time on my part to locate these as they’re among a great deal of other similar work that spanned, well, a number of years. Let me ask you to review SGM archives which are much easier to locate. The contributors address the same issues and if you read enough you’ll get more than a good idea of why these tags were placed. I’ll give you a start in your reading with some links and ask you to not only read the linked comments, but also read the thread they’re contained in. Then do a few searches of your own and read these into context. This is merely the tip of the iceberg as the author and his books were discussed at great lengths over a long period of time. Ignore the tone but concentrate on the information contained in these discussions. Keep in mind that these questions (and most of what was discussed) directly concern the books because, as you will see, much of his work was either tested here prior to publication or it came from other contributors at SGM. This was the genesis of the works in question.
Lastly, these latest versions are self-published and WP cautions against their use with good reason. I raised question as to whether these volumes met the exceptions in WP:SPS which you did not address. I wondered what your thoughts were on this subject. Thanks. Bearpatch (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I regret that I don't have time to go through the lengthy discussions on all the blogs you've mentioned above. I've cited Richardson's 2nd edition of Magna Carta Ancestry for specific statements of fact, and so far as I'm aware, the statements of fact I've cited him for are accurate, and are supported by the published reliable sources Richardson himself cites for those facts (in many instances, I cite other sources for the same facts as well, and those sources, such as The Complete Peerage and the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography agree with Richardson). Thus, unless it can be demonstrated that there are specific instances in which I've cited Richardson for something which is actually factually inaccurate, I don't think my citations from Richardson should have tags attached to them stating that better sources need to be found. If in the particular instance for which I've cited Richardson the statement is already factually accurate, and supported by the reliable published sources cited for that statement by Richardson himself, what would be the point of other editors looking for a 'better source' for that statement? NinaGreen (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────So far as I'm aware, in these particular citations in MCA might be completely accurate. But, that isn't the point. I didn't use the tag {failed verification} which would have shown I did check and they didn't verify. I used the tags {self-published source}, which it is, and {better source needed} due in part to it being self-published, in part due to its reputation at SGM, and in part that I have personally found anomalies. When given a choice between using one of two sources, one that fits into the category of being recommended against using by the community and one that has no such problems, I can't understand why anyone would choose the one that the community categorized as shouldn’t be used? Then, in cases where you have no choice and one or more of the works in question provide the only information on this subject, then there is even more reason not to use it. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources (WP:REDFLAG). If mainstream reliable sources do not report something, and it is supported only by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest, then it should not be used.

I looked to see what MCA was supporting in this article. First, if I can ask, why are there four generations mentioned when typically two or occasionally three are the norm? I can see why MCA was attractive here in that few if any other single sources would support four generations. Then why is her grandfather’s second family listed? They're not in her direct line and are already in his article. Also, why are her children not in the Family section, but listed at the end of the Life section? That’s a choice, certainly, but it’s more conventional to find her children in her family section as they are her family. Could I suggest that her parents and grandparents be listed at the beginning of the Life section, that her own family be listed in the family section, and that perhaps a Ancestry section be added with an Ahnentafel Table (five generations or four) be used in a show/hide box. In the family section such extensive ancestry is often seen as trivia whereas in an Ancestry section it would be perfectly appropriate (and in tree format should not require source citing as long as their connections are cited in other articles). See a finished example at Matilda of Flanders. This would reduce the dependency on MCA making it easier to find reliable sources to replace existing citations.

Lastly, in looking more closely at the source citations I noted some web sources and two dead links. The two web sources are not up to par in any sense of the word. Tags simply identify problems and makes it easier for editors who have the expertise to fix a problem whenever they can. They're not a critique of the article, only a way to make it better. Bearpatch (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't create this article. When I first came across it there was a tag on it from January 2011 stating that it lacked citations, so I added what I could in the time I then had available. As you say, the article could no doubt benefit from further improvements, but I didn't have time to do more then, and I regret that I don't have time now. NinaGreen (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I looked and there are actually several well-known sources that do not have the difficulty that the main source here does. I would be glad provide you with sources you might not have access to and/or build the pedigree table and box for you if it would help. Alternatively, if you do not have the time I could replace these sources with Cokayne, Faris, Burke, et al. I noted the style in use prior to your adding source citations and while you did a very good job of bringing this along, I would be willing to take the time to make the changes mentioned. But given our discussions I think it appropriate to ask what you think. Thanks Bearpatch (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Of course, please go ahead. The article definitely needs further work. Best, NinaGreen (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Saving earlier material[edit]

Hi Bearpatch, When you said earlier on this Talk page that you were going to add citations from other reliable sources, you made no mention of deleting a large section of the article. I'm saving the earlier version here, as I think it's useful, particularly as it contains links to a number of other Wikipedia articles, and it's ever decided to restore the material to the article, it won't be necessary to redo the work:

Elizabeth Willoughby, born about 1512, was the eldest daughter of Edward Willoughby of Alcester, Warwickshire, and Powick, Worcestershire, son of Robert Willoughby, 2nd Baron Willoughby de Broke (d. 10 or 11 November 1521), by his first wife, Elizabeth Beauchamp (d. 10 August 1503), eldest daughter and coheir of Richard Beauchamp, 2nd Baron Beauchamp of Powick. After the death of Elizabeth Beauchamp, Elizabeth's grandfather, the 2nd Baron, married Dorothy Grey, daughter of Thomas Grey, 1st Marquess of Dorset, by his second wife, Cecily Bonville, by whom he had two sons and two daughters:[2]

Elizabeth Willoughby's mother was Margaret Neville (born 9 March 1495), the eldest daughter of Richard Neville, 2nd Baron Latimer, by Anne Stafford, the daughter of Sir Humphrey Stafford of Grafton, Worcestershire.[3] Elizabeth Willoughby had two sisters, Anne, and Blanche.[4]<blockquote?>

I'm not sure why you deleted all but the opening lines of this section. Perhaps you could clarify. NinaGreen (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Some of this was made redundant by the addition of her pedigree so it’s now found there. Her estimated dob is not verified in other sources so I need to run down Richardson’s (indirect) references to see if any provided this date. The Family section as it was previously was her grandfather’s second family, which would not fit into her own direct ancestry. That information I believe is already in his article. I moved this section down the article and add her husband and children (generally following MOS WP:ORDER). It still needs to be gone over and use replacement sources. So the article is in progress and it fits the general outline I suggested previously. Bearpatch (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)