This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government 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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). Devon Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Devon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Devon 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.DevonWikipedia:WikiProject DevonTemplate:WikiProject DevonDevon articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. England Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Middle Ages Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A good rule in writing about the past is first to read the latest academic research. A second rule is to assess one's sources according to reliability and, if using unreliable sources, to sound a warning.

Writing in October 2008 in the authoritative Oxford Dictionary of National Biography about the son John Fortescue, ^[1] the eminent historian E.W. Ives did not believe that the father John Fortescue was a soldier, let alone “Captain of Meaux”. We must conclude that he had good reasons for rejecting the often-repeated claims of previous writers.

In 1993, writing about the son John in the equally authoritative History of Parliament; ^[2] the historian Dr L.S.Woodger accepted the “Captain of Meaux”, giving as sources: CCR, 1422-9, p. 10; 1436-41, p. 418; CPR, 1422-9, p. 108; C219/11/1. All are government, legal or ecclesiastical records and therefore, as far as these things go, at the top level of reliability.

The same 1993 edition had an anonymous article about the son Henry, ^[3] which also accepts the “Captain of Meaux” and cites as sources: Vivian, Vis. Devon, 352-3; CCR, 1454-61, p. 448; CPR, 1467-76, p. 327; T. Fortescue, Ld. Clermont, Sir John Fortescue, ii. 42-45; Reg. Lacy ed. Hingeston-Randolph, i. 20; ii. 70. Into this list intrude two examples of useful sources which however contain unreliable material. One is heralds' visitations. These are notoriously inaccurate and need exhaustive cross-checking against more reliable records, if possible, to eliminate their extensive inventions and errors. Another is family histories which, unless stringently sourced to reliable and accessible documents, cannot be trusted.

Unfortunately, Eric Ives died in 2012 and we cannot know what led him to disbelieve the “Captain of Meaux” story, unless it is explained somewhere in his published writings. So two questions remain;

If it was not this John Fortescue who was appointed “Captain of Meaux”, was it another John Fortescue or someone with a similar name?

If neither, who did Henry V name as “Captain of Meaux” once he had captured the city?

The second question has proved a puzzle to me. Internet searches in English and in French for the man in charge of Meaux after the execution of the Bastard of Vaurus, whether titled Captain/Capitaine, Governor/Gouverneur, Lieutenant, Castellan, Bailiff/Bailli, Seneschal/Sénéchal, or Constable/Connétable, have drawn blank.

Any thoughts Lobsterthermidor, Smalljim, or hchc2009? Clifford Mill ( talk) 11:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply

I think you've summarised the position well, Clifford Mill. This sort of question crops up often in WP and we have to decide what to write based on the evidence that we have available at the time. It would be valid to search through Ives' other writings to see if he explained why he came to the conclusion he did, and if such is found then reconsideration of what we say would be dependent on what he wrote and the effect it has had on current thinking on the subject (if that's possible to determine!).

What we can't do here, of course, is research of our own – from primary sources – and arrive at our own conclusions. It's important to consider that the reliability of secondary sources decreases as they get older: dramatically so when new research is published and accepted; more slowly but still inexorably if not. The passage of time eventually converts secondary sources that would once have been considered reliable into primary sources that need to be attributed, e.g. we should say: "Risdon (died 1640) wrote that ..." rather than citing him directly. The same goes for Lysons, Pole, Prince, Polwhele, etc., maybe even Vivian.

In specialist fields like this, Wikipedia is often not up-to-date because of the understandable unwillingness of volunteer non-expert editors to spend time finding and assessing good secondary sources (journals, etc.).  — SMALL JIM  13:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC) (I've tweaked your references list so it stays where it should.) reply

I'd generally agree with Smalljim's description here. Hchc2009 ( talk) 15:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Reply to Clifford Mill's request for comment above: "Ives didn't believe it", fine, so let's say so in the article, which has been done. But his unexplained "non-belief" can hardly be grounds for trashing the highly authoritative History of Parliament biog, which deemed acceptable the family tradition recorded, amongst other places, on the 17th century Fortescue monument in Weare Giffard Church (such monuments being specified as perfectly acceptable primary sources for Wikipedia, see relevant policy guideline on sources) (hence why I quoted the Latin text and translated it, such an important source) and by the family's historian Lord Clermont, who as far as I know was not aware of this text, he certainly does not quote it in his book. I don't know what his source was. Attempting to delve into the reason for Ives' disbelief would clearly be OR, so impossible. We just have to note it, but not give it undue prominence. To distrust a well-researched family history written by a highly educated Victorian peer of the realm (Lord Clermont) is somewhat over-egging healthy scepticism. I can't see what is implausible? He was a prominent member of the gentry, who were generally expected to serve in the royal army, often as terms of their feudal tenure (knight's service). On the contrary it would be extraordinary if he were not engaged in military service. The position of Captain of Meux was hardly a very significant position, so there's nothing at all extraordinary here. On the wider point, the subject of history is not nearly so dependant on "up-to-date research" as are subjects in science. Once you have a reliable ancient written source, that's pretty much as good as it's going to get, especially on such an obscure topic. No new contemporary sources are likely to be discovered. The "modern" definitive history of the Fortescue family has already been written, and no academic is likely ever to re-write it, it's just not a fashionable topic nowadays, the Victorians pretty much exhausted the primary sources, and were much better at reading old Latin scripts than 99.9% of today's academics. There is no rational reason why the Weare Giffard monument should not be deemed reliable, certainly for WP purposes. The Fortescue family by then was already very rich and powerful, so would have had no obvious motive for making up a story about such an insignificant and frankly obscure post. This is clearly not a case of self-aggrandisement, so the source should be accepted at face value. I could probably find 20 acceptable sources which are perfectly happy to accept the Captain of Meaux status, as opposed to one who was dubious about it. There's always one person who disagrees even with black and white facts, so that's to be expected. Some say the US astronauts never walked on the moon, or that 9/11 was done by the CIA. Let's get real. If it's acceptable for the HoP (in the absence of a glaring error, which sometimes happens, see the howler made regarding the ancestry of 1st Earl of Bedford in the bang-up-to-date DNB) its surely acceptable for us. Lobsterthermidor ( talk) 18:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Many thanks for all your thoughts, on which I don't intend to say any more except to note an accidental omission on my part. While being rude about visitation pedigrees, I meant to add that those in Vivian's editions, though by no means infallible, are often well checked against other sources. Clifford Mill ( talk) 18:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply

I must note a misinterpretation on my part too, Clifford Mill. In the ODNB article Ives doesn't say anything about Fortescue not being Captain of Meaux, just that he "was not a soldier, as historians of the family have claimed". You have interpreted that to mean that he couldn't have been CoM - and led me into believing that Ives actually wrote that. Shame on you! Shame on me for not re-checking the source! I'll adjust the article.  — SMALL JIM  20:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply

I should refute a few of Lobsterthermidor's claims:

Attempting to delve into the reason for Ives' disbelief would clearly be OR, so impossible. Uh? Looking for a publication by Ives where he expands on his statement in ODNB is exactly what a dedicated WP editor should do. I've tried a Google Scholar search but drawn a blank.

To distrust a well-researched family history written by a highly educated Victorian peer of the realm (Lord Clermont) is somewhat over-egging healthy scepticism. No. Apart from its age, getting on for 150 years, as a member of the family that he's writing about, his history cannot be considered to be a fully reliable source.

There's always one person who disagrees even with black and white facts, so that's to be expected. Some say the US astronauts never walked on the moon, or that 9/11 was done by the CIA. Let's get real. You're saying that Eric Ives was a crank?

On the wider point, the subject of history is not nearly so dependant on "up-to-date research" as are subjects in science. Once you have a reliable ancient written source, that's pretty much as good as it's going to get, especially on such an obscure topic. No! We have computers, the internet, forensic techniques, DNA analysis, and people digging up car-parks and sorting through long-forgotten boxes of documents – all of which have opened completely new avenues of research. And it continues to be published: see any volume of the Transactions of the Devonshire Association, for example. As the authors of a modern encyclopedia, we should be searching for recent sources for our articles, and if none are found we should make only very limited use of old unverified sources and make it clear to the readers that that is what we're basing our statements on. Or ...

... a final thought: if a topic has not been written about, other than in passing, for a hundred years or so, should we have an article on it at all? Is it "worthy of notice", per WP:N? WP:SUSTAINED seem to have some relevance here, and WP:BIO1E may apply to this article too.

 — SMALL JIM  23:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply