This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
It seemed to me a problem that the page titled Cicely "Reynolds" Bailey Jordan Farrar contained within its title one surname (Reynolds) not known to belong to the subject of the article, and another surname (Bailey) not proven to belong to the subject of the article. Putting those names in the actual title (even though one was in quotation marks) seemed to risk lending credence to error and assumption.
My other reason for creating this new page was to try to treat the subject more objectively, rather than chattily, and present the story of the breach-of-promise suit in the context of changing attitudes towards marriage in the early modern period. If anyone objects to what I have done, please explain. I'm ready to revert the changes if that's the consensus. Underdoor ( talk) 16:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Cicely Jordan Farrar's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Dorman":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
It appears that the spelling of the subject's name is Cecily throughout the body of the article, but was Cicely in the title. The title has been changed with a redirect. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Theroadislong: I totally agree that the list of notables for Cecily was inappopriate. It was originally on the article for Samuel Jordan,, with the addition of some names that weren't notables (probably somebody's family members) In addition Samuel Jordan had two daughters with Cecily, and there is no information at all as to whom they married, and that hasn't stopped people from trying to claim him as an ancestor. I was just going to delete the list period, but thought it might be against WP policy, so I reposted it to Cecily Jordan's article. Thanks for deleting it. I didn't agree with it's inclusion. Shame no one caught it until my edits Oldperson ( talk)
The presence of Temperance Bailey does not establish a relationship between Cecily Jordan and Thomas Bailey, and I see no document here identifying Thos Bailey's existence. You need to better document the relationships. Temperance could be a niece or even an unfortunate orphan under the care of Cecily. GeeBee60 ( talk) 16:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Apparently it is deduced from the Muster that Temperance Baley (sic) was her child by an unknown father. Temperance was 7 by the time of the Muster, Cecily was 24, considering the hot demand for females, and their scarcity, it is even a wonder that she lasted until 16 before being snagged as a wife. Just adding historical context Oldperson ( talk) 16:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
This article appears to be a coatrack for the dispute with Rev. Greville Pooley. I removed original research, though there is probably more, it reads more like a family history project. Theroadislong ( talk) 16:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Removed notability template after adding in lead paragraph her basis for notability. Granted it is a single but very significant episode, but that is not a limiting criteria as other notables are deemed so on the basis of a singular issue. Oldperson ( talk) 20:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Theroadislong ( talk) 21:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC) Serial Number 54129 All of the references are secondary references and none of them Primary reference per [[Wikipedia:No original research|Primary, secondary and tertiary sources}}. The sources cited speak for themselves Oldperson ( talk) 21:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC) To all. I want to AGF, but this article has sat still for 9 years, until I edited it, then it still sat still for a month or so, then there is a pile on. Makes me ask what is motivated by this sudden interest. Oldperson ( talk) 21:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
This article was created on 22 September 2011 by a user named Underdoor for the stated purpose of (Created this page to provide information about Cicely Jordan Farrar, and the breach-of-promise suit brought against her by Rev. Greville Pooley). Others piled on and tried to make it a family history project, including a spurious marriage..And there it sat, with only occasional edits, but apparently no serious admin attention. Then a spurt of interest from {{}u|Theroadislong}} and Serial Number 54129, challenging it’s notability and validity of references. I don’t believe in coincidences. I had an article in Draft:Jordan-Pooley-Farrar affair declined by Theroadislong because “This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions), so I fixed that problem with more and better sources. Then Curb Safe Charmer declined it suggesting that I incorporate the material into Cecily Jordan Farrar. I did that and artfully. Then Road puts up a template that this article isn’t notable, yet other admins thought that it was so, but Road moves the goal post. Maybe notable but not notable enough, quoting primary sources, of which there are none, but plenty of secondary sources. First the information is notable but should be included in an existing article. Suggest followed, then it again it is not notable, then it is, but not notable enough (whatever that is, I find no WP guidelines for notable enough. Then it lacks secondary sources, but when pointed out that there are indeed secondary sources aplenty. This leaves me asking just what is this really How about if the Draft: Jordan Pooley Farrar affair, were published instead. That way a significant historical and precedent setting event would have what it deserves a mention in WP. It is chock full of secondary sources Oldperson ( talk) 22:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Curb Safe Charmer, Serial Number 54129, and Theroadislong: Two questions,if I may. First who changed this from the first breach of promise suit to bigamy? This was not bigamy. They were never married. Per testimony in the Records of the Virginia Company Pooley sued her for breach of promise, not bigamy. Second:Where is this original research" There is no original research, if you think so please provide an example. Any article created requires research, one has to dig up facts and citations. I can understand original research in terms of scientific papers, where a person might want to use WP for self publication and promotion. But there is none of that here Oldperson ( talk) 16:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
@ GeeBee60 and Theroadislong:Thank you. If I wound I apologize. Bear in mind I am not a professional, nor am I an academic accustomed and inured to the rigors of peer review. I well imagine that it is taxing on one's psyche and sensibilities having to deal with rank amateurs like myself, and worse with paid editors trying to game the system, much less vandals. An example of which seems to be whoever it was that changed the lead in on this article to a case of bigamy. I will try harder to be more understanding. But in all truth when a critique is leveled, it does help if an example is provided. Bearing in mind that not all are academics accustomed to peer review. Oldperson ( talk) 17:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
(This is an edited, shorter version of my comments. I changed the title section name too.) I think it is a shame that the editorial controversy wiped out the original, long-standing article, which described an interesting woman. I do feel that the current name is appropriate given the article's current content, but I feel it loses the central role of the woman herself, as well as placing the episode in the context of her life. Wtfiv ( talk) 17:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
TheroadislongI do not understand what you mean by the dearth of secondary sources. As I look at the article as is I see 20 secondary sources. Are they not enough? Per wtfiv's comment above. Cecily is very significant, sociologigically and historically because of her position and activity as regards the role of women in society. You might even say that hers was the first shot fired for women's rights Oldperson ( talk) 18:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Theroadislong. I think your solution is the best at this point. I do agree that the risk is that Cicely Jordan's entry can wind up looking like a stub, particularly now that her role in the case has been stripped to another entry, but I think building a draft that is strong enough to be approved would be a good solution, if it can be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtfiv ( talk • contribs) 18:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
By the way, it's great to see that she can still generate quasi-litigious debate 419 years after she was born! A powerful woman indeed! Wtfiv ( talk) 18:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Theroadislong and Serial Number 54129: The request above was in regards to the template that you put about original research and references. You never answered. So I removed it. Then Serial Number jumps in and claims weasel words. I asked on his talk page for examples of weasel words so that I can correct the situation, and no response . I am not questioning the validity of critiques, but if I don't know what the problem is, and one is not an editor of their own works, ask any publishing house, then I can't correct the weasel words. Thank you Oldperson ( talk) 19:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I can only find blogs, Wiki mirror sites and genealogy websites that say this, I am not able to view the books used in the article and the majority of the book sources don't quote page numbers for the content, the article continues to be a mess of poorly sourced original research and interpretation added by single purpose acconts. Theroadislong ( talk) 22:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
It seemed to me a problem that the page titled Cicely "Reynolds" Bailey Jordan Farrar contained within its title one surname (Reynolds) not known to belong to the subject of the article, and another surname (Bailey) not proven to belong to the subject of the article. Putting those names in the actual title (even though one was in quotation marks) seemed to risk lending credence to error and assumption.
My other reason for creating this new page was to try to treat the subject more objectively, rather than chattily, and present the story of the breach-of-promise suit in the context of changing attitudes towards marriage in the early modern period. If anyone objects to what I have done, please explain. I'm ready to revert the changes if that's the consensus. Underdoor ( talk) 16:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Cicely Jordan Farrar's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Dorman":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
It appears that the spelling of the subject's name is Cecily throughout the body of the article, but was Cicely in the title. The title has been changed with a redirect. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Theroadislong: I totally agree that the list of notables for Cecily was inappopriate. It was originally on the article for Samuel Jordan,, with the addition of some names that weren't notables (probably somebody's family members) In addition Samuel Jordan had two daughters with Cecily, and there is no information at all as to whom they married, and that hasn't stopped people from trying to claim him as an ancestor. I was just going to delete the list period, but thought it might be against WP policy, so I reposted it to Cecily Jordan's article. Thanks for deleting it. I didn't agree with it's inclusion. Shame no one caught it until my edits Oldperson ( talk)
The presence of Temperance Bailey does not establish a relationship between Cecily Jordan and Thomas Bailey, and I see no document here identifying Thos Bailey's existence. You need to better document the relationships. Temperance could be a niece or even an unfortunate orphan under the care of Cecily. GeeBee60 ( talk) 16:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Apparently it is deduced from the Muster that Temperance Baley (sic) was her child by an unknown father. Temperance was 7 by the time of the Muster, Cecily was 24, considering the hot demand for females, and their scarcity, it is even a wonder that she lasted until 16 before being snagged as a wife. Just adding historical context Oldperson ( talk) 16:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
This article appears to be a coatrack for the dispute with Rev. Greville Pooley. I removed original research, though there is probably more, it reads more like a family history project. Theroadislong ( talk) 16:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Removed notability template after adding in lead paragraph her basis for notability. Granted it is a single but very significant episode, but that is not a limiting criteria as other notables are deemed so on the basis of a singular issue. Oldperson ( talk) 20:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Theroadislong ( talk) 21:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC) Serial Number 54129 All of the references are secondary references and none of them Primary reference per [[Wikipedia:No original research|Primary, secondary and tertiary sources}}. The sources cited speak for themselves Oldperson ( talk) 21:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC) To all. I want to AGF, but this article has sat still for 9 years, until I edited it, then it still sat still for a month or so, then there is a pile on. Makes me ask what is motivated by this sudden interest. Oldperson ( talk) 21:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
This article was created on 22 September 2011 by a user named Underdoor for the stated purpose of (Created this page to provide information about Cicely Jordan Farrar, and the breach-of-promise suit brought against her by Rev. Greville Pooley). Others piled on and tried to make it a family history project, including a spurious marriage..And there it sat, with only occasional edits, but apparently no serious admin attention. Then a spurt of interest from {{}u|Theroadislong}} and Serial Number 54129, challenging it’s notability and validity of references. I don’t believe in coincidences. I had an article in Draft:Jordan-Pooley-Farrar affair declined by Theroadislong because “This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions), so I fixed that problem with more and better sources. Then Curb Safe Charmer declined it suggesting that I incorporate the material into Cecily Jordan Farrar. I did that and artfully. Then Road puts up a template that this article isn’t notable, yet other admins thought that it was so, but Road moves the goal post. Maybe notable but not notable enough, quoting primary sources, of which there are none, but plenty of secondary sources. First the information is notable but should be included in an existing article. Suggest followed, then it again it is not notable, then it is, but not notable enough (whatever that is, I find no WP guidelines for notable enough. Then it lacks secondary sources, but when pointed out that there are indeed secondary sources aplenty. This leaves me asking just what is this really How about if the Draft: Jordan Pooley Farrar affair, were published instead. That way a significant historical and precedent setting event would have what it deserves a mention in WP. It is chock full of secondary sources Oldperson ( talk) 22:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Curb Safe Charmer, Serial Number 54129, and Theroadislong: Two questions,if I may. First who changed this from the first breach of promise suit to bigamy? This was not bigamy. They were never married. Per testimony in the Records of the Virginia Company Pooley sued her for breach of promise, not bigamy. Second:Where is this original research" There is no original research, if you think so please provide an example. Any article created requires research, one has to dig up facts and citations. I can understand original research in terms of scientific papers, where a person might want to use WP for self publication and promotion. But there is none of that here Oldperson ( talk) 16:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
@ GeeBee60 and Theroadislong:Thank you. If I wound I apologize. Bear in mind I am not a professional, nor am I an academic accustomed and inured to the rigors of peer review. I well imagine that it is taxing on one's psyche and sensibilities having to deal with rank amateurs like myself, and worse with paid editors trying to game the system, much less vandals. An example of which seems to be whoever it was that changed the lead in on this article to a case of bigamy. I will try harder to be more understanding. But in all truth when a critique is leveled, it does help if an example is provided. Bearing in mind that not all are academics accustomed to peer review. Oldperson ( talk) 17:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
(This is an edited, shorter version of my comments. I changed the title section name too.) I think it is a shame that the editorial controversy wiped out the original, long-standing article, which described an interesting woman. I do feel that the current name is appropriate given the article's current content, but I feel it loses the central role of the woman herself, as well as placing the episode in the context of her life. Wtfiv ( talk) 17:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
TheroadislongI do not understand what you mean by the dearth of secondary sources. As I look at the article as is I see 20 secondary sources. Are they not enough? Per wtfiv's comment above. Cecily is very significant, sociologigically and historically because of her position and activity as regards the role of women in society. You might even say that hers was the first shot fired for women's rights Oldperson ( talk) 18:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Theroadislong. I think your solution is the best at this point. I do agree that the risk is that Cicely Jordan's entry can wind up looking like a stub, particularly now that her role in the case has been stripped to another entry, but I think building a draft that is strong enough to be approved would be a good solution, if it can be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtfiv ( talk • contribs) 18:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
By the way, it's great to see that she can still generate quasi-litigious debate 419 years after she was born! A powerful woman indeed! Wtfiv ( talk) 18:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Theroadislong and Serial Number 54129: The request above was in regards to the template that you put about original research and references. You never answered. So I removed it. Then Serial Number jumps in and claims weasel words. I asked on his talk page for examples of weasel words so that I can correct the situation, and no response . I am not questioning the validity of critiques, but if I don't know what the problem is, and one is not an editor of their own works, ask any publishing house, then I can't correct the weasel words. Thank you Oldperson ( talk) 19:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I can only find blogs, Wiki mirror sites and genealogy websites that say this, I am not able to view the books used in the article and the majority of the book sources don't quote page numbers for the content, the article continues to be a mess of poorly sourced original research and interpretation added by single purpose acconts. Theroadislong ( talk) 22:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)