Talk:John Dawney

Speedy nominations

Article twice now nominated for speedy deletion - I have declined as being knighted is notable. Springnuts (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Same John Dawney?

See [1] - for "HRH Charles's 16-Great Grandfather. Poss. PM Churchill's 15-Great Grandfather. Lady Diana's 16-Great Grandfather". Same person? Springnuts (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Fabpedigree, by its own admission, is not a reliable source of information. See its home page for some further information. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Not a reliable source. As for the earlier question from Springnuts as to whether the Sir John Dawney of Escrick in the Fabpedigree is the same person as the subject of the article, it seems Sir John Dawney of Escrick was the nephew of the subject of the article, as both Lodge and Brydges say that the subject of the article had an elder brother, Thomas Dawney, who married Elizabeth Newton, by whom he had a son and heir, Sir John Dawney of Escrick.NinaGreen (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Citation added

Hi Dodger67, thanks for noticing that I had omitted to cite Cokayne in the article. I've fixed that. NinaGreen (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Article seems to "unfocussed"

It seems to contain as much or even more information about sundry relatives of John Dawney than about himself. If there isn't much more information available specifically about Sir John perhaps the article could be developed to cover the whole Dawney family? Roger (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't write the original article, but I've added references and in-line citations to it. There may be some further information on Sir John Dawney out there in historical works on the period. Let's see what we can find. NinaGreen (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

'Unreliable claim' vs reliable sources

Hi Agricolae,

I see you've removed the section below from the article with the statement 'remove unreliable claim':

The family is said to have formerly written the name as D'Anney, and to have been descended from Sir Paine Dawney of Dawney Castle in Normandy, who came to England with William the Conqueror.

I'm puzzled, as two reliable sources are cited for the statement, and it is prefaced by 'it is said', which clarifies that it's not being presented as a fact, but as something which a number of reliable sources state. Could you clarify why the statement should be deleted? NinaGreen (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Dawney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120413071431/http://patp.us/reading/12.aspx to http://patp.us/reading/12.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)