This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
There is a discussion about the reliability of some of the sources used in this article at WP:RSN#Genealogy databases. TFD ( talk) 14:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I do not see any reason to put into a footnote that someone who shared the same name as the subject of this article received permission from the courts to trade in grain. Originally the article said they were one and the same person, but that is impossible since one of them died in 1584, while the other appeared in court in 1600. Nor can he be a descendant, since he is described as a "yeoman". Therefore I will remove it as totally irrelevant to the article.
BTW - is there any evidence that the Richard Tylman and Richard Tillman in this article are the same person?
TFD ( talk) 17:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
As these notes are about the substance of the article rather than WP policies this seems to be a better location.
The Nicholas Tylman mentioned in the Royal Society article [4] could not have been the father of Richard Tylman, since Nicholas lived from 1516-1568 [5] while the Royal Society article is about a Nicholas who died in 1577.
The Richard Tylman who was sued over a " concord" could not be Mayor Tylman because the case occured in 1484, 62 years before the future mayor's birth in 1546.
Since the Tylman family had settled in Kent since at least 1225 and several branches of the family had settled in Faversham, [6] it is not reasonable to assume that the Richard Tillman mentioned in the article as living in Faversham in 1580 was the same person as the mayor of Faversham in 1580. It is not uncommon btw for cousins to have the same christian names. In any case that is original research. We would need a source that put this together.
TFD ( talk) 05:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
— Preceding section Copied from deletion discussion by ClemRutter ( talk • contribs)
Should be in quotation marks - the usage at that time was for an amount of money and not an amount of weight AFAICT. Collect ( talk) 15:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
This is speculation but it is probably relevant that Faversham was an outlyer (limb) for Dover and thus part of the Cinque ports confederation. Ref. Jessup, Frank W. (1966). Kent History Illustrated. Kent County Council. p. 38. and at this period (very late) all the ports except Dover has silted up and were of little importance. Faversham with its wharfs at Whitstable was in a unique trading position--this is not my period and I have no useful books in my collection to help further- this background needs to be inserted some where. I have mentioned elsewhere that we have an FA on another Elizabethan- who has achieved great fame when virtually nothing is verifiable apart from the fact he died- and he is now credited with being something of a writer! It shows how to handle uncertainty. -- ClemRutter ( talk) 20:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Based on an enquiry at WP:RSN the consensus appears to be that while these sites may publish copies of reliable information, such as certificates of live birth and census records, that the original research of amateur genealogists who post to these sites is not reliable. Therefore I am removing all the unreliable information. I am listing all the sources below in case any editors wish to argue for their inclusion.
TFD ( talk) 04:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I do not think that the fact the mayor once spelled his name "Tillman" is conclusive evidence that he was the same person. There were after all several people called Richard Tylman in the genealogical databases living at the same time in Faversham and for all we know many more. Since the corn trade was a major industry in Faversham, it is not unreasonable that several of them would have been involved in the trade. BTW Faversham never had a "lord mayor". It appears to be an error in the description of the letter in the source. TFD ( talk) 02:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This edit removed information sourced to genealogical websites with the notation, "Remove information sourced to amateur postings on family tree websites". Are any of these sources reliable or should they be excluded? TFD ( talk) 15:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
The relevant sources with links are listed below.
Re: controversial edit by Middletown single purpose IP 75.5.202.21. I'm commenting here, so I won't have to "talk to the hand" in my edit summary. The refs have been discussed at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard and at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard under Archive 132 Genealogy databases. A number of editors spoke out about Ancestry.com webpage. There were no objections to using an authored piece written by a geneaology expert complete with cited references. The study by Robert Stanley Cobb posted on Ancestry.com under "Cobbes Eleventh Generation" could have been posted anywhere – considering its quality, but the author chose to use the Genealogy databases instead. This reference wasn't challenged by anybody at all at WP:RS/N which means it was basically approved as reliable. I left my own comment there at WP:RS/N. Here's what I said:
Regardless of how the genealogy search engines are built, they are also commonly used in Wikipedia for a variety of reasons including the cross-verification of data already present somewhere else. Please remember, the period in question is the Elizabethan England of the Tudor Dynasty... nobody can benefit from tampering with these records online for some abstract benefit of theirs. In this particular instance, different search engines were used expressly to confirm the bits and pieces of information about Richard Tylman (Tillman) including his family history and business dealings already mentioned in reliable third party sources, such as the PDF theses on the Faversham economic history by Paul Wilkinson, PhD, as well as the 1774 history of the town by Edward Jacob made available by the University of Wisconsin...
— User:Poeticbent
Other experienced long-term editors also spoke out in defence of my references at WP:RS/N including My very best wishes ( talk · contribs) and Piotrus ( talk · contribs) – quoting academic reviews and content of databases used in scientific research.( [24], [25], [26]). It is not acceptable, to be ignoring their input (or anybody's input...), while waging a revert war based on misleading edit summaries. Poeticbent talk 16:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Since I've closed the RFC after its long inactivity, the page has become active again. I don't want to be involved in any squabbles here, and I really do not care about the subject of the article. As an independent and uninvolved user, I closed the RFC, making a decision on policy and the arguments themselves. The simple fact was that the sources used were improper, unverifiable and unreliable. A family tree that references nothing, but the amateur postings of its members is not reliable. I'd have said it was okay if primary sources were used or if they were backed by reputable research and not the said-so of an unknown individual. Please do not reopen the discussion again. If you have such a problem, open a new RFC or discuss it here. The other was long due for a close. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 15:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
My very best wishes, your suggestion violates at least three principles of Links normally to be avoided:
These guidelines in turn are guided by policies such as verifiability and no orginal research. If you do not like the policies and guidelines we are expected to follow, then you should endeavor to change them. Arguing for noncompliance in isolated articles is merely disruptive.
Note also, "Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them". TFD ( talk) 03:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)I agree, these links do not add any value to the article beyond mere fact that such person existed and when. However, I would never remove such links from an article of B-level or lower if this causes anyone's objections, because these links do not make anything really worse, and it is not worth anyone's time disputing such matters per WP:IAR. And I would never post an RfC about such obviously unimportant matter, unless I had something else in mind, as TFD obviously does. My very best wishes ( talk) 23:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
There is a discussion about the reliability of some of the sources used in this article at WP:RSN#Genealogy databases. TFD ( talk) 14:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I do not see any reason to put into a footnote that someone who shared the same name as the subject of this article received permission from the courts to trade in grain. Originally the article said they were one and the same person, but that is impossible since one of them died in 1584, while the other appeared in court in 1600. Nor can he be a descendant, since he is described as a "yeoman". Therefore I will remove it as totally irrelevant to the article.
BTW - is there any evidence that the Richard Tylman and Richard Tillman in this article are the same person?
TFD ( talk) 17:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
As these notes are about the substance of the article rather than WP policies this seems to be a better location.
The Nicholas Tylman mentioned in the Royal Society article [4] could not have been the father of Richard Tylman, since Nicholas lived from 1516-1568 [5] while the Royal Society article is about a Nicholas who died in 1577.
The Richard Tylman who was sued over a " concord" could not be Mayor Tylman because the case occured in 1484, 62 years before the future mayor's birth in 1546.
Since the Tylman family had settled in Kent since at least 1225 and several branches of the family had settled in Faversham, [6] it is not reasonable to assume that the Richard Tillman mentioned in the article as living in Faversham in 1580 was the same person as the mayor of Faversham in 1580. It is not uncommon btw for cousins to have the same christian names. In any case that is original research. We would need a source that put this together.
TFD ( talk) 05:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
— Preceding section Copied from deletion discussion by ClemRutter ( talk • contribs)
Should be in quotation marks - the usage at that time was for an amount of money and not an amount of weight AFAICT. Collect ( talk) 15:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
This is speculation but it is probably relevant that Faversham was an outlyer (limb) for Dover and thus part of the Cinque ports confederation. Ref. Jessup, Frank W. (1966). Kent History Illustrated. Kent County Council. p. 38. and at this period (very late) all the ports except Dover has silted up and were of little importance. Faversham with its wharfs at Whitstable was in a unique trading position--this is not my period and I have no useful books in my collection to help further- this background needs to be inserted some where. I have mentioned elsewhere that we have an FA on another Elizabethan- who has achieved great fame when virtually nothing is verifiable apart from the fact he died- and he is now credited with being something of a writer! It shows how to handle uncertainty. -- ClemRutter ( talk) 20:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Based on an enquiry at WP:RSN the consensus appears to be that while these sites may publish copies of reliable information, such as certificates of live birth and census records, that the original research of amateur genealogists who post to these sites is not reliable. Therefore I am removing all the unreliable information. I am listing all the sources below in case any editors wish to argue for their inclusion.
TFD ( talk) 04:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I do not think that the fact the mayor once spelled his name "Tillman" is conclusive evidence that he was the same person. There were after all several people called Richard Tylman in the genealogical databases living at the same time in Faversham and for all we know many more. Since the corn trade was a major industry in Faversham, it is not unreasonable that several of them would have been involved in the trade. BTW Faversham never had a "lord mayor". It appears to be an error in the description of the letter in the source. TFD ( talk) 02:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This edit removed information sourced to genealogical websites with the notation, "Remove information sourced to amateur postings on family tree websites". Are any of these sources reliable or should they be excluded? TFD ( talk) 15:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
The relevant sources with links are listed below.
Re: controversial edit by Middletown single purpose IP 75.5.202.21. I'm commenting here, so I won't have to "talk to the hand" in my edit summary. The refs have been discussed at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard and at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard under Archive 132 Genealogy databases. A number of editors spoke out about Ancestry.com webpage. There were no objections to using an authored piece written by a geneaology expert complete with cited references. The study by Robert Stanley Cobb posted on Ancestry.com under "Cobbes Eleventh Generation" could have been posted anywhere – considering its quality, but the author chose to use the Genealogy databases instead. This reference wasn't challenged by anybody at all at WP:RS/N which means it was basically approved as reliable. I left my own comment there at WP:RS/N. Here's what I said:
Regardless of how the genealogy search engines are built, they are also commonly used in Wikipedia for a variety of reasons including the cross-verification of data already present somewhere else. Please remember, the period in question is the Elizabethan England of the Tudor Dynasty... nobody can benefit from tampering with these records online for some abstract benefit of theirs. In this particular instance, different search engines were used expressly to confirm the bits and pieces of information about Richard Tylman (Tillman) including his family history and business dealings already mentioned in reliable third party sources, such as the PDF theses on the Faversham economic history by Paul Wilkinson, PhD, as well as the 1774 history of the town by Edward Jacob made available by the University of Wisconsin...
— User:Poeticbent
Other experienced long-term editors also spoke out in defence of my references at WP:RS/N including My very best wishes ( talk · contribs) and Piotrus ( talk · contribs) – quoting academic reviews and content of databases used in scientific research.( [24], [25], [26]). It is not acceptable, to be ignoring their input (or anybody's input...), while waging a revert war based on misleading edit summaries. Poeticbent talk 16:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Since I've closed the RFC after its long inactivity, the page has become active again. I don't want to be involved in any squabbles here, and I really do not care about the subject of the article. As an independent and uninvolved user, I closed the RFC, making a decision on policy and the arguments themselves. The simple fact was that the sources used were improper, unverifiable and unreliable. A family tree that references nothing, but the amateur postings of its members is not reliable. I'd have said it was okay if primary sources were used or if they were backed by reputable research and not the said-so of an unknown individual. Please do not reopen the discussion again. If you have such a problem, open a new RFC or discuss it here. The other was long due for a close. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 15:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
My very best wishes, your suggestion violates at least three principles of Links normally to be avoided:
These guidelines in turn are guided by policies such as verifiability and no orginal research. If you do not like the policies and guidelines we are expected to follow, then you should endeavor to change them. Arguing for noncompliance in isolated articles is merely disruptive.
Note also, "Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them". TFD ( talk) 03:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)I agree, these links do not add any value to the article beyond mere fact that such person existed and when. However, I would never remove such links from an article of B-level or lower if this causes anyone's objections, because these links do not make anything really worse, and it is not worth anyone's time disputing such matters per WP:IAR. And I would never post an RfC about such obviously unimportant matter, unless I had something else in mind, as TFD obviously does. My very best wishes ( talk) 23:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)