Talk:HMS Monmouth (1796)

OR?

I am concerned that a wee bit of original research is creeping in here in the discussion of the origins of the name. Yes, the ship was probably named with the town in mind, but we can't say for certain that there was a connection. Currently there is a little synthesis going on in stating the existence of the town and castle, and thus leading the reader to a connection that is not supported by any sources. The name Monmouth may originate from one of the noble titles connected with Monmouth, such as the Duke of Monmouth or the Earl of Monmouth. There were previous Monmouths in the navy, perhaps the continuation of the name was uppermost in whoever selected it for the ship. The bottom line is that in the absence of a definite statement in a source, we cannot be sure. I am therefore extremely uneasy in stating, even equivocally, that there is a connection between the place, and the ship, beyond sharing the same name. But I will post this here to give time for comment, after which I think it should be removed. Benea (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I hazard a guess that the Duke of Monmouth was named for the town which was named for the castle: -). The earliest reference I can find to the term Monmouth is in Domesday. You may argue its synthesised but I wood argue that the London Bridge's name probably probably derives from the big town. I wouldnt need a reference for this. I'd see it as obvious rather than OR.

The Derby Horse Race is named for the Earl of Derby. Derby was first mentioned in Domesday. Pleased you havnt held DYK up for this. Victuallers (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't really think any hazarded guesses are warranted here. Nor is it obvious. If there is a direct connection to the town that can be proven, it can be added, suitably cited and referenced. If there is no direct connection beyond an ultimate namesake potentially several connections removed, then it is not relevant to the article, especially since it cannot apparently be proven. And this edit added detail in the paragraph and did not cite it. It must have come from somewhere. What's the source? Benea (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you agreed that you were unhappy to do anything above apart from acknowledging that they "shared the same name" - and I see you are unhappy to acknowledge that in the article. I think you are just trying to win - which is a pity as there were several more Monmouth ship articles that were thought to bear some relation to Monmouth. I think that after proposing that there was "a wee problem" then I'm surprised that the changes made failed to satisfy. Meanwhile I see this article is much improved so the larger project benefitted from its erroneous nomination. Victuallers (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by trying to win, or an erroneous nomination. If you mean the DYK nomination then I am happy to pass this now, though I would like to point out one of the hooks should be altered slightly. I don't see any reason to stress a relation to a possible but unconfirmed namesake, and I assure you, I work in this field quite a lot, and understand how difficult it is to develop definite links like this. I am more than mildly surprised that you don't see how this is an example of synth. The fact that you make reference to the Domesday Book of all things is one fairly clear tell. I am now becoming aware of the laudable work of Wikipedia:GLAM/MonmouthpediA, and while I wish you every success, and would be very happy to add to articles on other HMS Monmouths, I don't see why a connection should be stressed in this instance. The project has, I think quite correctly, not tagged or attempted to make any links between the town and James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth or Monmouth Rebellion, for example. The other HMS Monmouths share the same name, and if it can be shown that they actually bear some relation to Monmouth, instead of just being thought to bear, then lets look at the sources and see how those articles can be improved. Benea (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)