User talk:Agricolae

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Ostoja Clan[edit]

It is common to discuss changes before doing them. This is standard procedure on Wiki. It is not polite to change as you wish, its is not acceptable that you change according what you thing. Wiki is not your own playground and its pretty rude to change the way you do. Next time I see such behaviour, I will report you. Either you apply Wiki rules and start to behave or I will consider your input as vandalism. You are welcome to discuss changes with me and solve this matter in normal, polite way. camdan (talk) 09:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution Agricolae some of which are valid contributions. But can you please specify which is original research? If you are referring to Godfrey the Chamberlain then this is no longer original research as the work has been published on the Paradox of Medieval Scotland Database therefore I am citing a reliable, published source. Roger De Liston 1163 is mentioned in the book on the Scottish Listons so is also not original. All I am doing is pulling the information together from existing published sources. Please do not change where I have referenced a published source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markalliston (talkcontribs) 20:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Pigot mythology[edit]

I have again undone your continued interruption to the article concerning Francis Pigott Stainsby Conant. There are two references to the lineage of the family from Picot, Baron of Boorne, Normandy. The reference come from Burke's A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Landed Gentry - 1838. The lineage of the name is fundamental to the article as the subject was descended from a long established line of the English nobility. Your reasons for altering the page would not appear to be viable, simply stating that it is not reliable, when of course the reference proves the opposite. As the major contributor to the page, someone who has undertaken considerable research into the subject, may I request that the page is kept as per revision 792112186 - unless of course you have additional information to offer. Harvey Milligan (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2017. (UTC)

800 hundred year - EIGHT HUNDRED YEARS! As the major contributor to the page, perhaps you are too close, perhaps you think you WP:OWN it. What I have to offer is WP:NOTGENEALOGY, which states, "Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic" and one learns nothing about a 19th century man to include fiction about the 11th century in his article. If you want to give the family some context, give relevant, proximate context, not distant mythology. Agricolae (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Any source that claims there was a Norman title of "Baron of Boorne" needs to be taken with a large grain of salt. Baron is not a title used in Normandy, it's strictly a title used in the British Isles. In Normandy, the title would have been "Lord of Boorne" (or however they spelled it). This leaves aside the whole issue of taking Burke's genealogical works from the early 1800s as at all accurate. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
In fairness, Burke does not phrase it this way. When the Manx newspaper (?) was objected to, Burke was simply substituted as source to support the same sentence, even though, as I said on the Talk page, Burke (p. 192, not 792 as editor keeps saying) only speaks of them as being a noble family in Normandy before the conquest, not anything about specifically Picot/Pigot. Of the Conqueror, it only says that he was Viscount Hereditary (sic) of Cambridge Sheer and Baron of Boorne under William. Of course, he then goes on to talk about "The other family of the Pigots" in England at the time and talks of Pigot de Say, a nobleman of Normandy during Henry I's reign, and goes on to indicate that this is the origin of the family in question (and not Picot of Boorne), so it makes no sense whatsoever to fight for the inclusion of detail about a man who the source itself doesn't even think is an ancestor. Agricolae (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't actually have access to a copy of any of the early Burke's .. (for that matter, I probably don't have access to a recent copy either - I don't generally consult them, quite honestly). I do have the Complete Peerage and Sanders' work on feudal baronies. Sanders gives it as "Bourn" and has the barony being forfeited in Henry I's reign with it being regranted to Pain Peverel, who died d.s.p. and the barony then descended in a welter of nephews, sisters, etc. through a pile of different lines and partible inheritances of the barony. I just may have to go digging through the various "Picot"s that Keats-Rohan lists in Domesday Descendants - she gives five different ones. I am sure you did not object to me removing the contested information again. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
No objection here - I was up against my 3RR limit, so I had to leave off even though the other had exceeded their limit. For Burke, see here [1]. He also has Picot's lands forfeited by his son and regranted to Pain Peverel. I suspect the entire thing is just typical Tudor-era antiquarian 'name's-the-same' fantasizing - it is a patronymic, so the ancestor could have been anyone named Picot, including someone lowly enough as to escape notice in surviving records, but the standard operating procedure among the 16th century heralds was to find anyone with a remotely similar name in Domesday, the more prominent the better, throw them back to Hastings with the stroke of a pen, and then build a fraudulent pedigree around it. Agricolae (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Banu Gómez[edit]


I see this article, but don't see any citations. Do you have sources for the content? Or, did you write this yourself without referring to sources?

If I can help, please let me know.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

It is only fitting that you didn't see any sources, since none have been added yet. Did you also see the tag at the top saying it is under construction? Maybe, just maybe, I put it there for a reason. Agricolae (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)