Talk:Henry Williams (alias Cromwell)

Merge in Henry Cromwell, the Golden Knight

Merge in Henry Cromwell, the Golden Knight yes. But only if the information carries inline citations, something it does not do at the moment.

user:LoveActresses why do you write a new article (30/10/2010) without using inline citations as required by WP:V? If you had included inline citaions in your duplicate article called Henry Cromwell, the Golden Knight then it would be easy to merge the information, without them it is not possible for anyone but the author (you) to do it.-- PBS (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

user:LoveActresses http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=rohlspur&id=I69853 is not a reliable source. user:LoveActresses you have been adding information to the article without citing sources. user:LoveActresses Why add a section called Sources and duplicate one of the citations given in the References section. -- PBS (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

User:LoveActresses See WP:V

• http://www.geneall.net/U/per_page.php?id=537495 is NOT a reliable source.
• http://thepeerage.com/p13112.htm#i131119 is not a reliable source but it cites reliable sources (see WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. But in the case of DOB he cites an email that is not a reliable source. In the case of DOD he gives the same date as that already in the article 1604.

Again with the envious attacks on geneall!... The rest I knew it already, but it's better to mention both the site and the sources, just for practical reasons. LoveActresses (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with attacks on anything, it is better to have no information than wrong information. If you noticed before I merged the article Henry Cromwell, the Golden Knight you had written, I went through it and added in-line citations and where the citation was to thepeerage.com I cited his sources. It was only because I recognised some of the sources you had included in the article as coming from thepeerage.com, that I could find the web site because you had not said where you had got the information.

Where I could check his source directly I did so. If when you wrote the article you had carried out the exercise that I did, then other people who read it could have greater confidence that the information presented is accurate. It also makes it easier to judge which explanation is more likely to be accurate, when sources contradict each other. For example now I have found more modern source from reliable sources I have included Katherine, Thomas Cromwell's sister as the mother of this man, and removed Mark Noble's rejection on this point. If I had come across modern sources that supported Noble then I would have mentioned both POVs, but unreliable sources can not be used to make such judgements because we can not know that what they say is accurate.

The rule here is simple cite your reliable sources using in-line citations. If you do not have a reliable source then mention it on the talk page and ask other editors if they have one. Most people are here because they want to build a encyclopaedia and are usually keen to include relevant accurate well sourced information. I often find that information on unreliable websites can be used to do string searches in Google Books that verifies the information, but if I can not find it in a reliable source, I do not usually add it. --PBS (talk)

If the man is not a baronet the Sir should not be included in bold at the start or in the links to articles of knights. This is a convention that many follow on Wikipedia but not all however, if you make a change from "Sir Richard Williams" to "Sir Richard Williams" and it is reversed to redo the edit is a breach of policy (an arbcom decision) see Wikipedia:MOS#Stability of articles. The same goes for the capitalisation of County in front of "county of Huntingdonshire": county is a descriptive word not part of a title.

I didn't know that. As if we didn't have enough rules yet they created another by arbitration decision... I use capital letters even for things like a County, because of its importance (as a political center, so to say). LoveActresses (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The shire at the end of the name of Huntingdonshire give the same information so I have removed county as it was superfluous. PBS (talk)

User:LoveActresses You have re-added "and wife Frances Murfyn." See WP:PROVIT who says QE was returning from a visit to see Frances Murfyn?

I must have added the reference to the man's wife on the wrong place. I didn't want to say he was visiting her, but that Cromwell's wife or something was the daughter of so and Frances Murfyn. The text was too long and I didn't have the time nor the will to read it all. LoveActresses (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to post script Joan with "Warren" that is derived in the sentence from Joan daughter of Sir Ralph Warren, and is a repetition that is not needed.

It's her name. In a more perfected and formal publication surnames get repeated all the time. And what about the dates? LoveActresses (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It was her maiden name, not her married name. Using "daughter of" usually conveys the same information, and unless for some reason a woman had a different surname from her father, her surname is is superfluous in such sentences. As for the dates cite a reliable source. -- PBS (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the two sources at the bottom of the article that you added. One is not cited and the other is already included in the list of references.

Are you sure the not cited one wasn't mentioned on thepeerage.com? The other I missed it in the middle of all the text. LoveActresses (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That is two things you have said you missed through not reading the text "And please read the article properly:"![1]. I know the second one is not cited by the thepeerage.com and it is not used as an in-line citation in this article, so why include it? -- PBS (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure why you want to emphasise "golden knight" as it is mentioned in the text but there is no indication that it was a common moniker for him. What is your source that justified placing it in the first paragraph?

As I said, I use capital letters for many things. Kings' and others' cognomen are generally mentioned with capital letters. LoveActresses (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no preferences for "golden knight" over "Golden Knight" in the body of the article. My question was why include it in the lead as it does not seem to me to be a particularly notable piece of information that needs emphasising. -- PBS (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

-- PBS (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

But mentioning Joan Tudor means that there is such a claim, and for that reason it should be taken in account. When we work for too long with genealogies, we just keep the information and don't recall again where we saw it, perhaps it's easy to find. Despite not being reliable it can be mentioned on both pages. Also, and specially when it's a well known lineage, people don't even consider that someone else will challenge the information, let alone deny it. When it's a general knowledge content, that people in these areas must know of, no one will contest it. It's like denying the five sons of Henry IV, it doesn't come up. If it appears somewhere means it's accepted. If there is any challenge, then it's by some authors who like to bash people's ancestries because of their own political bias. LoveActresses (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

See WP:NOT this is an encyclopaedia not a genealogical database, all the information on a page much come from a reliable source. See the footnote on WP:PROVIT "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." by JW, but something that most editors agree with. If as you say it is general knowledge then it will be easy to find first class sources to cite and support the text. -- PBS (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

One other point on the source "The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland..." do you have access to the 2000 because if you look in "Further reading" I have used an earlier edition freely available at the Internet Archive and I can not find the information it is supposed to contain. Of course the page numbers can change between editions, but searching the all of volume 3 of the online edition AFAICT turned up none of the information for which peerage.com use it as a source. It is possible that the information was added later, but it is something that need further checking. -- PBS (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

More sources

• Burke, John (1847). Burke's genealogical and heraldic history of the landed gentry. Vol. 1. H. Colburn. p. 289. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

The above will be useful for the children of Henry Williams.

• George Edward Cokayne, editor, The Complete Baronetage, 5 volumes (no date (c. 1900); reprint, Gloucester, U.K.: Alan Sutton Publishing, 1983), volume I, pages 16 and 28.

LoveActresses you presented the above as a possible source.[2] I have the same in my rough and ready library as

• Cokayne, George Edward, ed. (1900). Complete Baronetage 1611–1625. Vol. 1. Exeter: William Pollard and Co. p. 16 p. 28

I don't see that those two pages are directly relevant to this article. -- PBS (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)