Talk:Fortescue

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Fortescue was copied or moved into Fortescue (surname) with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Missing Fortescues.[edit]

Sir John Fortescue (judge), as well as several other John Fortescues, are missing from this list. I was looking for the judge, but had a devil of a time because I didn't know his given name and didn't see a likely suspect in this disambiguation page. Consider adding the missing men to this list. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Family mythology[edit]

There are multiple problems with the added material. First and most obviously is citation clutter. You may think using 8 references for a single sentence helps prove it, but it actually raises a red flag. In this case such a red flag is justified. The first sentence is cited to refs 1 & 2, but these have identical text. Later, refs 14, 15, 16 & 17 are used to document a particular claim, but all four of them are the exact same text. I don't see how you could have read these and not noticed that they were all reprintings of the exact identical essay, which makes me think they were cited without reading. Likewise, references 1, 2, 5, 7 & 8, are not independent - they are all reviews summarizing the same published book, not scholarly works agreeing with it. This same work is being referred to by 14, 15, 16 & 17 and several of the other references, that rather than presenting the information as fact are simply stating that the author of that same self-published work made the claim. In general it is all just an echo chamber, repeating the same family foundation myths with all the enthusiasm of the 19th century antiquarians that they are. But this isn't the 19th century any longer, and scholarly historians in the 21st century don't take this mythology at face value. (As an example, there is a short list of people that modern historians agree fought at Hastings, and no Fortescue is on that list, independent of what the Burkes and Fortescue family members claimed 150 years ago.)

Anyhow, this is a disambiguation page, so a full expose of the family's fables is unnecessary to accomplish its purpose.Agricolae (talk) 04:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]