Talk:Thomas Thursby (d. 1543)

References

References should not be removed without having been gone through to see that they actually supply the same information. These do not. Rather, one say that so-and-so was the father of, one say that so-and-so was the grandfather of, one explains the inheritance, etc. The full picture can only be gleaned by all of them. BeatriceCastle (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

They should if it represents original research. Agricolae (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and splicing together a picture from a full set of sources sounds a bit like WP:SYNTH, which you aren't supposed to do. Often, if you have to work that hard, you are doing something you shouldn't. Agricolae (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I notice a removal of a reference to Kate Emerson's A Who's Who of Tudor Women. This is a trustworthy reference, used by many pages on this site. It has recently been published into a book, as well. BeatriceCastle (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Citations aren't used to provide affirmation for sources - if it isn't needed, there is no reason to cite it just because you like it. Agricolae (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I think a referral to a document that has been published and is publicly available in the context of death year is appropriate. Otherwise one will just have an unverifiable mess, with lots of information, and no way to verify it, either for or against. It is much more upfront to state that this is the information, you can check it out, too BeatriceCastle (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Without context it is hard to tell what this refers to, but it seems to either reference an unpublished will (no, having images hosted on Ancestry.com is not the same as 'publishing'), or a catalogue entry from a archival repository. Neither is an aprpopriate source - if you can't reference a fact to a valid source, the fall back is not to reference it to an invalid source, it is to not include that fact. Agricolae (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

They have been published, they are accessible to all, as long as you are willing to pay a fee, same as with a book. Are you saying that if someone had taken a picture of it in a book and published it, that would have been okay, but because it is on the Internet it is not? Because a lot of books are also published or otherwise available on the Internet today. These wills are written in volumes of books, which have been published on the Internet, links to which I have provided. BeatriceCastle (talk) 09:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, you should always also be careful with so-called collections of published wills. Take for instance Testamenta Vetusta by Sir Nicholas Harris Nicolas. Without it being made clear, the author has here simply picked the parts he found interesting. There is at least one complete error in an important will. The reason for this is of course that authors wish to be read. The entirety of a lot of wills, quite frankly, often isn't all that interesting. So they pick the parts they find interesting, and hope that others will, too. (This is not a problem if it is disclosed, obviously.) And sometimes simple human error. One should always therefore always have as an habit to check the primary source. BeatriceCastle (talk) 11:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I may be getting too technical here, but I suppose you are right in the wills themselves not being published. However, photographs of them have been published. It is the same thing as that you can not publish a gravestone, but you can publish a photograph of a headstone. A photograph of a headstone is itself a primary source. I suppose therefore that I am referring to the photographs of the wills, published by Ancestry, and what may be gleaned from said photograph, rather than the actual wills themselves. But like I said, I may be getting too technical. BeatriceCastle (talk) 11:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Or is it more to be considered like the Privy purse expenses of Elizabeth of York; wardrobe accounts of Edward the fourth with a memoir of Elizabeth of York and notes? A photocopy of an original book? "This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1830." The Privy purse expenses of Elizabeth of York was originally published in 1830, and then a photocopy was published again by BiblioLife, LLC in 2012. When the blurb advertises that "Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher" I presume they are not talking about whoever originally published the book 1830. I therefore think my original supposition was correct, that the wills on Ancestry is a published photocopy of a previously unpublished book. BeatriceCastle (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

It probably doesn't matter, but the want for accuracy that brings me here compels me to add that the 2012 edition was published by RareBooksClub.com. BiblioLife, LLC published their edition in 2009. The preview of the books shows the BiblioLife 2009 edition, but the link is for the RareBooksClub.com 2012. A preview for that was not available, so the page displays a preview of the 2009 edition instead. Anyway, it just goes to show that old books can be published by new publishers. Two different publishers have here published a scanned photocopy of an old book. BeatriceCastle (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

The original publisher in 1830 was William Pickering, Chancery Lane, London. See Privy purse expenses of Elizabeth of York. "William Pickering (1796-1854), [was] a local publisher and bookseller based at 57 Chancery Lane from 1823 onwards." William Pickering and Chancery Lane BeatriceCastle (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY - this is not the place to do your own research and publish the results. Full stop. Agricolae (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I quote now from these pages:

"Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."

Absolutely everything I have written has been backed up by a source. You keep removing them. BeatriceCastle (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources."

That describes everything I have written to a T. BeatriceCastle (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

"*Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source for the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources.

*:Policy: Unless restricted by another policy,

*:# primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.

*:# Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.

*:# A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

*:# Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

*:# Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.

*:# Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:Biographies of living persons § Avoid misuse of primary sources, which is policy."

This is precisely how I have used them. Apart from the wills, everything is even secondary sources, I think. What precisely then is the problem? BeatriceCastle (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I have responded elsewhere. Agricolae (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Legacy

I think the mention of the descendants of Edmund and Ursula is interesting, as this goes to show the legacy of Thomas Thursby (d.1543) and the continued presence of his family in the region. BeatriceCastle (talk) 10:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

What one individual editor finds interesting is not a criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia pages. What is relevant is what secondary sources when giving an account of the subject find interesting - that is the governing factor. Agricolae (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Clearly the secondary sources do fint it interesting, otherwise I hardly think they would have mentioned it. Legacy is objectively interesting. BeatriceCastle (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

'It has appeared in print so it must be interesting to someone' is not really a valid argument when deprived of context. As to "Legacy is objectively interesting", you left out the words "to me" at the end. Most biographical accounts of people living at this time, such as those appearing in ODNB and HOP, do not incessantly trace descendants for multiple generations. Agricolae (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

No, but many other secondary sources that people rely on do. It is because it is illuminating. I do not think including his grandchildren is excessive at all. Family back then, and now for that matter, but even moreso then, often decided your entire destiny. Precisely because ODNB and HOP do not contain this sort of information a lot of links of importance between people over the years have been missed. I also think that it is objectively interesting that in only a few generations these Thursbys were gone from the area. For all his mistreatment of the little folks he did not build a legacy that lasted. BeatriceCastle (talk) 09:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Including grandchildren . . . why? 'Just because we can' is pointless, gratuitous genealogy. The last is a pretty clear WP:SOAPBOX argument - if he did not bui,ld a legacy, that is precisely the reaason not to dedicate space to such triviality. And again, when you said it is "objectively interesting" you left out the end part, "to me" - simply declaring your subjective judgment as objective does not make it so. Agricolae (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The family was present in the area for about a century after his death. But his final legacy is that he did not build a lasting legacy. The debts he left his son appears to have crippled the family economics. I dare say that both of those facts are objectively interesting. BeatriceCastle (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

You can dare say whatever you want, but simply adding the word 'objectively' to an expression of personal interest isn't really establishing a fundamental truth. The problem with editing based on personal whim is that when you say 'X is inherently interesting' and I say 'no it's not, it's trivial', both expressions of personal perspective, the only possible discussion that can take place basically amounts to 'is not, is too, is not, is too, is not . . . .' That is why Wikipedia editors are supposed to use similar biographies in secondary sources, rather than their own personal whims, as guide. Agricolae (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The biographies in all the secondary sources that exist about the object of this article all mention his family and descendants. BeatriceCastle (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

That is a misleading claim, with a broad generality used to mask a lot of important distinctions. Agricolae (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Visitations mentions his descendants, obviously. Blomefield mentions them. Miscellanea genealogica et heraldica mentions them. K.J. Allison mentions his family. E.M. Yates mentions his distant relative Thomas Thursby, the ward of Beaupre. George Eller mentions all that he knows of his family and descendants in Memorials: Archaeological and Ecclesiastical of the West Winch Manors from the Earliest Ages to the Present Period. Pray tell, what is misleading? BeatriceCastle (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Here is what is misleading - you claimed as source "biographies", but of the four sources you now cite, none of which are biographies (one is a pedigree, one is a family history, and two are manorial histories). Likewise, "his family and descendants" is a misleading generatlization, when you have different relatives being named by different sources for different purposes. If you want to name someone specific, make an argument for naming that specific person, rather than what is implcit here - the the appearance of any relative in any source compiled for any reason justifies naming any relative one wants in this biography. Agricolae (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, quite frankly, it could be because ODNB and HOP simply do not have the skill set. At least ODNB articles are usually credited to one person. It would be a bit much to expect them to be an expert on everything. In order to find this information you do have to know what you are doing, where to look, and luck to boot. BeatriceCastle (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, right - all of those professional historians don't really know what they are doing, only you. Agricolae (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Not everybody can be equally good at everything. It's simply a fact of life. Some people will find something, other people will find other things. If you read several books on the same historical person, each book will be different. And often a new book will contain something that has not been discovered before, even though the person in question has been famous for 500+ years. BeatriceCastle (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't even know where you are going with this. Wikipedia is not the place to report new discoveries. Agricolae (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

An entry in Heraldic Visitations or Blomefield is not a new discovery. It can however easily be connected to the same person who somebody else has written something else about. Like H. Historian has written: "I.M. Portant Politician did important stuff." Then it can be added that I.M. Portant Politician was married to the sister of O.T. Her Politician through consulting the other aforementioned sources. BeatriceCastle (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Blomefield is dated and needs to be used with care, but yes, it is a valid source. As to heraldic visitations, they are seriously problematic as sources, as any competent historian of the period is well aware, and all the more so for the Harleian Society editions that aren't even based on the actual visitations. They are not WP:RS, not the way you seem to think. Agricolae (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Blomefield is usually reliable, but I agree that it is dated, or more accurately needs to be fact-checked. Which I did. It's why I originally went for the original sources. Heraldic Visitations absolutely need to be fact-checked, too, as far as it is possible. (Sometimes other sources are sadly lacking.) It is my understanding that all of the versions are based on old mss, because the College of Arms was very restrictive about access to their records. In addition, the authors of the different versions seem to have added information from other different sources, such as wills, church records etc. The Norfolk Archaeology version(s) is more upfront about this than others, but even they do not reference every source. For the others I have often come over the material referenced in wills and the like, without it ever being referenced in the book itself. Visitations do to a certain degree need to be approached with extreme caution, but I have found that a lot of the content is actually amazingly accurate. (I was initially very sceptic.) But like I said, it needs to be fact-checked, if possible, with other sources. BeatriceCastle (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

If it needs fact checked (and it takes special expertise to do that, which it does), it is not a reliable source. Agricolae (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Every secondary source needs fact checking. BeatriceCastle (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

That is not how WIkipedia works, with Wikipedia editors doing this kind of evaluation. If a primary source has a reputation for inaccuratcy, as is the case for visitations, then that is two reasons not to use it, because it is a primary source and because it is not a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia. That is why Wikipeida editors don't do original research - because it requires such interpretation, which is not something theyare allowed to do. I have tried to explain the situatiion. If you choose to ignore this because it is inconvenient to your online publishing project, you will continue wasting your time and mine. Agricolae (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Visitiations is not a primary resource. It is a secondary source. A researched secondary source put together by many primary sources, as I have written above. It does not have a reputation for inaccuracy. I have not met a single historian who knows about the heraldic visitations and how to use them who does not do so. The heraldic visitations do have the occasional inaccuracy, but so does every secondary source in existence. That is why you must check, check, check every source there is. Every historian knows this. It is one the first, if not the first thing that is taught. Question everything you think you know, question everything everybody else claims to know, go to the sources. As to your wish that everything can be sourced back to a single source, I have seen many articles were editors have written that the article needs more sources, precisely because only one single book has been used as a reference for the entire article. Likewise, that unpublished wills cannot be used (as you have claimed multiple times) is not stated anywhere in the links you provided. Unless it is stated somewhere else, it does not appear to be a Wikipedia rule at all. You also write "Bear in mind though that a Wikipedia article is not just a collection of every passing mmention you find." Wikipedia encourages the use of many sources, and and a great variety of them, as I have done. As the matter stands, it seems that you are making up your own rules about how you would like for Wikipedia to work, rather than quoting rules Wikipedia actually has. I am not the one deleting perfectly good sources, making up rules and letting inferior versions of the articles stand for months on end, depriving readers of information they ought to have just because. The one who is wasting everybody's time here is you. BeatriceCastle (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

You don't have to write a thousand characters of wikilawyering, strawman arguments, mischaracterizations, patronizing lecturing and self-righteousness to simply say 'how dare you not let me have my own way'. Please stop being a timesink. Agricolae (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Strange, since I am not the one who keeps making up my own rules to have my own way. BeatriceCastle (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Whatever. Agricolae (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)