Lionheart0317 (talk | contribs) |
74.103.5.28 (talk) |
||
Line 171: | Line 171: | ||
{{yo|Lionheart0317}} Following on from the 'Heraldry' section above, I added a footnote to explain the ongoing dispute about Philippa's status (i.e. was she Bonville's daughter or sister?). You have removed the footnote with an edit summary that doesn't seem to be relevant. How do you propose, then, that we report the disagreement in the published sources about Philippa's status? Remember that neither [[Frederick Lewis Weis|Weis]] nor [[Douglas Richardson|Richardson]] – both respected scholars with articles here – have published retractions of their published position (that Philippa was Bonville's sister). If you're unsure of why we need to include this, please read [[WP:NPOV]] again. —[[User:Smalljim|S<small>MALL</small>]][[User talk:Smalljim#top|<small>JIM</small>]] 17:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC) |
{{yo|Lionheart0317}} Following on from the 'Heraldry' section above, I added a footnote to explain the ongoing dispute about Philippa's status (i.e. was she Bonville's daughter or sister?). You have removed the footnote with an edit summary that doesn't seem to be relevant. How do you propose, then, that we report the disagreement in the published sources about Philippa's status? Remember that neither [[Frederick Lewis Weis|Weis]] nor [[Douglas Richardson|Richardson]] – both respected scholars with articles here – have published retractions of their published position (that Philippa was Bonville's sister). If you're unsure of why we need to include this, please read [[WP:NPOV]] again. —[[User:Smalljim|S<small>MALL</small>]][[User talk:Smalljim#top|<small>JIM</small>]] 17:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC) |
||
[[User:Smalljim|S<small>MALL</small>]][[User talk:Smalljim#top|<small>JIM</small>]], I don't see it as an ongoing current dispute when you want to assign historical fact to just one author who has been proven to be in error regarding the alleged fact in question. I previously stated in the "Heraldry" section above, "When an alleged fact is published in a historical text and later scholarly research has provided sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged fact in question is actually false, it cannot be interpreted as truth any longer, no matter how respected an author is in repeating the error proven to be false with sufficient evidence." The two authors you mention were in disagreements themselves. Frederick Lewis Weis died decades ago and his line of descent containing Philippa Bonville in the 4th and 5th editions of Magna Charta Ancestry were revised with errors by Douglas Richardson. Weis' never retracted because he didn't have to. In his first, second, and third editions, Weis stated that Philippa Bonville was the daughter of William Bonville, 1st Lord Bonville {see Weis, Frederick Lewis. The Magna Charta Sureties, 1215. third ed. (1985): p. 16 [Line 22-10] (author states, "William Grenville of Biddeford, d. c. 1451; m. '''Philippa, dau. of Sir William Bonville, K.G., Lord Bonville''', of Chewton-Mendip, near Wells Somerset ... Robert Behra, El Paso, Tex., has identified the wife of Sir William, Lord Bonville, as Margaret, dau. of Reginald, 3rd Lord Grey of Ruthyn, and Margaret de Ros."}. All three of Weis' editions were published before the monumental History of Parliament biographies were written. J.S. Roskell (your fellow countryman) |
[[User:Smalljim|S<small>MALL</small>]][[User talk:Smalljim#top|<small>JIM</small>]], I don't see it as an ongoing current dispute when you want to assign historical fact to just one author who has been proven to be in error regarding the alleged fact in question. I previously stated in the "Heraldry" section above, "When an alleged fact is published in a historical text and later scholarly research has provided sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged fact in question is actually false, it cannot be interpreted as truth any longer, no matter how respected an author is in repeating the error proven to be false with sufficient evidence." The two authors you mention were in disagreements themselves. Frederick Lewis Weis died decades ago and his line of descent containing Philippa Bonville in the 4th and 5th editions of Magna Charta Ancestry were revised with errors by Douglas Richardson. Weis' never retracted because he didn't have to. In his first, second, and third editions, Weis stated that Philippa Bonville was the daughter of William Bonville, 1st Lord Bonville {see Weis, Frederick Lewis. The Magna Charta Sureties, 1215. third ed. (1985): p. 16 [Line 22-10] (author states, "William Grenville of Biddeford, d. c. 1451; m. '''Philippa, dau. of Sir William Bonville, K.G., Lord Bonville''', of Chewton-Mendip, near Wells Somerset ... Robert Behra, El Paso, Tex., has identified the wife of Sir William, Lord Bonville, as Margaret, dau. of Reginald, 3rd Lord Grey of Ruthyn, and Margaret de Ros."}. All three of Weis' editions were published before the monumental History of Parliament biographies were written. J.S. Roskell (your fellow countryman), the most highly respected medieval historian of the latter half of the 20th century, named the three daughters in his History of Parliament biography on William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville. |
||
The current most highly respected author who has commented and written a biography on William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville is Dr. Justin Glenn. Glenn in ''The Washingtons: A Family History: Volume Three: Royal Descents of the Presidential Branch'' (2015), states that William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville and Margaret Grey had three daughters. The third daughter he names is Elizabeth Bonville. You didn't delete this citation, which befuddles me. Obviously, the other two daughters were named by J.S. Roskell. We can't categorically say that this dispute is either current or ongoing, because of one author who has printed the same error in several series of his books. Stating even a possible or probable error in a Wikipedia article for the sake of neutrality should not be included at all. Especially, when the dispute revolves around one author, whose error regarding this issue has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. You don't need a retraction by one author to not include a dispute that one author has made, when that author's alleged fact is contradicted and proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be false by other authors who are more highly respected than the author who hasn't retracted the error. That in no way hampers the spirit or intent of neutrality when the most current and highly respected author who has written a biography on William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville has obviously stated that William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville had three daughters. |
The current most highly respected author who has commented and written a biography on William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville is Dr. Justin Glenn. Glenn in ''The Washingtons: A Family History: Volume Three: Royal Descents of the Presidential Branch'' (2015), states that William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville and Margaret Grey had three daughters. The third daughter he names is Elizabeth Bonville. You didn't delete this citation, which befuddles me. Obviously, the other two daughters were named by J.S. Roskell. We can't categorically say that this dispute is either current or ongoing, because of one author who has printed the same error in several series of his books. Stating even a possible or probable error in a Wikipedia article for the sake of neutrality should not be included at all. Especially, when the dispute revolves around one author, whose error regarding this issue has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. You don't need a retraction by one author to not include a dispute that one author has made, when that author's alleged fact is contradicted and proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be false by other authors who are more highly respected than the author who hasn't retracted the error. That in no way hampers the spirit or intent of neutrality when the most current and highly respected author who has written a biography on William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville has obviously stated that William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville had three daughters. |
Revision as of 22:50, 14 May 2018
Biography C‑class | |||||||
|
Military history: Biography / British / European / Early Modern Start‑class | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reversions....
Lionheart, I can't work out what your reversions were trying to do:
- One reversion reintroduced two long section of quotes from message boards and newsgroups, none of them reliable sources, with a dollop of original research thrown in as well.
- Several reintroduced needless subsection headings for individual paragraphs.
- Another reintroduced four paragraphs of unnecessary history on William's grandmother.
- Another reintroduced needless detail on his grandchildren.
- Another broke User:Smalljim's fixes to several wikilinks. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Hchc2009,
- Contributions made to the subject profile are well-researched, applicable, appropriately sourced, and have been reviewed by respectable genealogical historians from both the U.K. and U.S.A. When you make the comment about needless detail, you are stating your opinion without backing it up with any competent authority. When editors contribute to a wikipedia page and provide content backed up by reliable sources, individuals do not have the right to automatically revise it based off of their own opinion of what the profile should read. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionheart0317 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Lionheart, the relevant community policies here are WP:RELIABLE, WP:OR, and WP:ONUS; let me know when you've read these, and let's chat further. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Hchc2009,
- I understand the community policies. I have done nor said anything to contradict them. Let me know when you've read them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionheart0317 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Changes to dates...
Lionheart0317, can you explain why you are changing the various dates? You don't use edit summaries, which makes it impossible to tell. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Today's edits
Hello again, Lionheart0317. Can we work towards a compromise that satisfies Wikipedia's constraints?
1. If you can, please provide a policy- or guideline-based reason for including ancient and incorrect references (namely Pole written in the early 17th century, and Rogers which states the wife is not known and there were only two daughters) when there is a perfectly good recent reference that gives the correct information. I don't think you will find a valid reason, and hence these older references should be removed.
2. Please explain why it is so important to this article to include such a plethora of irrelevant information in references about one of Bonville's daughters. It may be that your edit summary from yesterday: "The additional references for Philippa Bonville are necessarily given the errors associated with your patronage in 21st century publications." is intended to explain, but I don't understand it. I see the same additions have been made to Margaret Grey too - there are nine references to one short paragraph.
3. As you've seen I did not remove Phillipa's 'living' date. I'm well aware of the meaning. I rephrased the paragraph so that the references would better reflect the text they are attached to. Further editing was to be done - perhaps I should have added an In use or Under construction tag: I will do so in future.
4. There may be some guidance about appending "Esq." to names, but I don't know it. It isn't, as far as I am aware, widely practised here. Please advise.
5. Thank you for providing some edit summaries. It would be a great benefit to the project if you could always explain all your edits in this way - it is accepted good practice.
I look forward to reading your responses. —SMALLJIM 13:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- 1. Pole is the earliest source in history that identifies the father of Philippa Bonville and is considered historically accurate. Including it as a reference does not violate any policy or guideline, and enhances the article. Rogers is a source that mentions and identifies the correct mother of Philippa as Margaret. Philippa's mother, Margaret, was not correctly identified until the 1980s, when she was discovered by a researcher. That was original research in the 1980s, but is now historical fact. Providing Rogers as a source shows that only the first name of Philippa's mother was known previously to 1980 in history.
- 2. The plethora of information is important given that some historical researchers have written erroneous information about the Bonville family, including the parentage of Philippa Bonville. Providing a chronological history of the sources stating her correct parentage, William Bonville, K.G., Baron Bonville and Margaret Grey, strengthens the credibility of this Wikipedia article. Which is the goal of any Wikipedia article, to make it as historically and factually accurate as possible.
- 3. Philippa Bonville is still being researched to this day to find her death date. The most accurate contemporary source that states her last known date of being alive is the 1464 Feet of Fines abstract, where she is mentioned in it with her second husband, John Almescombe, Esq.
- 4. There are historical figures in scores of Wikipedia articles using titles such as Knt. (Knight), Esq. (Esquire), Gent.(Gentleman), etc., to annotate their position or social status in that time period. In this case, there were at least two, perhaps three, William Grenvilles living in the 15th century in relatively the same area. Not all of them were knights or esquires, so including Esq., in the name of Philippa's first husband assists those unfamiliar with the family.
- 5. I only post relevant and historically accurate information (as deemed accurate from a plethora of credible sources) to any Wikipedia article. There is a lot of historical junk (historical inaccuracies) on other Wikipedia profiles in the medieval time period that I hope you will pay more attention to. I do not have the time to delve into all of them.
- I am encouraged that you will see that I only cite or add quality and credible sources to Wikipedia articles. Anything said to the contrary is simply not true!
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionheart0317 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your replies, Lionheart0317 - I've indented them with colons and signed your message for you (you should use four tildes, as I'm sure you know). Formatting talk page messages correctly shows to the editors with whom you interact that you have a degree of expertise and interest in the project. I'll reply point by point:
- 1 and 2. You've not given a policy/guideline-based reason for the general inclusion of older references when a later one exists. There isn't one, for the good reason that they would be unnecessary clutter. Wikipedia articles should be concise. Pole is not wrong, but he only includes part of the information and in a confusing fashion (e.g. "his 2 wief Phelip"). However, as you point out, it is useful sometimes to document the history of the known facts that make up an article, but we only do that when that history is central to the understanding of the main topic. That isn't the case here and so for this minor facet a couple of up-to-date references are quite sufficient. I'll remove the extraneous ones again and I trust you can accept that.
- 3. We're in agreement here. I'll rephrase the paragraph again in line with my original point, i.e. to clarify the referencing.
- 4. I can see your argument when there are similarly named people who may be confused because of the possibility that the editor omitted a 'Sir' or similar designation - though we tend to include "(died yyyy)" or similar as clarification when necessary. It doesn't explain the need to include it for John Almescombe, though, does it? However, I don't see any need to pursue this minor point.
- 5. I hope you'll start including edit summaries for your edits. They make it far easier to understand and navigate through long series of edits, such as the ones you produce – it's a courtesy to other editors (both present and future). Replying to your other point, none of us has the time to deal with everything that needs doing in Wikipedia!
- I won't edit the article yet – I'm sure you'll have some further comments! —SMALLJIM 17:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- I will reply to your responses point-by-point and one-by-one.
- 1 and 2. There isn't a violation of policy or guidelines using three or four sources, especially when the sources are relevant, reliable, and gives the reader the true history of the subject of a particular section. This is especially true when discoveries have been made and added to sources over several centuries. If an early author is only including part of the information, it is because the other information wasn't discovered until centuries later. Any historian or someone astute with the person named in this Wikipedia article can attest to that. I trust you can accept and appreciate what added benefit these sources will give readers to this Wikipedia page.
- 3. You don't have to agree with me on anything. Sources I've cited and dates I've annotated are considered historical fact by a multitude of historical experts on this person and time period in history. I don't see why you have the obsession to continuously quibble with me over facts cited about the person who is the subject of this article. You have already made erroneous statements about me and levied false charges against me concerning another Wikipedia page, which I had nothing to do with. That is unacceptable and inexcusable, regardless if you previously apologized. I have no obligation to respond to your points and quite frankly I don't take kindly to someone falsely accusing me, not even once.
- 4. I understand what (died yyyy) means. I already relayed to you that current research (you can call it original research if you like) is working on discovering her death date. All we know from historical records is that she was last living in 1464 and should be left exactly as is!!
- 5. I am not disagreeing that sometimes remarks do assist an editor, especially when a revision is not completely understood. However, not all editors on Wikipedia include remarks to every single revision they make.
- 6. A heraldry section should be added which includes the Bonville coat of arms, which is relevant to this time period of history and as it pertains to one of Bonville's daughters. Only sources stating the factual existence and what the coat or arms display will be included in a citation. It would not be considered original research to state that a family's coat of arms was impaling another family's when the actual physical item truly exists.
- Lionheart0317 (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- 1 and 2. OK, you say three or four references are acceptable – I suggested that two was sufficient, so let's compromise on three. There are six there now, so I'm happy for you to choose the three that you think are most appropriate (but please don't include Pole!).
- 3. I don't know why you're getting angry with me when I'm agreeing with you. Try reading the above exchange again. For reference your two edits that prompted my initial point 3 were these. You're effectively arguing against the replacement of "(living 1464)" with "and was still living in 1464" – a change intended simply to allow the references to more accurately reflect the text they refer to.
- 3a. Your outburst accusing me of erroneous statements and false charges is misplaced. You must be referring to User_talk:Smalljim#John Fortescue (Captain of Meaux). Please re-read that section. An apology would be welcome.
- 4. You seem to be confusing this with the above point. This is about including "Esq." etc. Although I said I didn't think this was important, Clifford Mill evidently does (see next section).
- 5. Fine, but remember that the edit summary is also visible in the Revision History page and in a user's Watchlist too, whereas the content of the edit isn't. So it's a great aid to let others see at a glance what you've been working on, and I'm sure I'm not the only one to find that it helps when I need to review my own edits too. It takes but a moment to type a helpful note in the box!
- 6. A proportionate heraldry section – centred on the subject of the article - would be fine, as long as it didn't stray into WP:OR as did the content that I removed.
- Thanks for getting to grips with the somewhat arcane talk page conventions – it's much appreciated. —SMALLJIM 20:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- 1 and 2. OK, I'll remove Pole and the Feet of Fines abstract. It's easy to find the source stating she was living in 1464 on other sites, however, the year remains in the entry. So with those concessions, let's agree on just four. Some references rely on the information of the previous reference, especially with regard to the discovery of the surname of Bonville's first wife, Margaret.
- 6. The heraldry section will only state the location of the coat of arms, what symbols are on it, the time period, and citations explaining heraldry in the 15th century.
- Lionheart0317 (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Removal of Heraldry section
You seem to be under the opinion that including a 15th century heraldic shield associated with William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville, who is the subject of this Wikipedia article, in an English church represents original research. If it hadn't occurred to you, the coats of arms in this very church are mentioned in other Wikipedia articles that you seem to be reluctant to acknowledge and are cited as being Bonville and Grenville arms. Yet, you have an obsession with not including a heraldry section about those arms in this particular article on William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville. The Bonville coat of arms image (see caption = Arms of Bonville: Sable, six mullets argent pierced gules [ref]Burke's General Armory 1884, p. 99) has been a part of this article for years. The coat of arms in the Devonshire church belongs to the Bonville family. It isn't original research to state that the impaled coats of arms belong to the Bonville and Grenville families. The arms belong specifically to Philippa Bonville. The identification of the coats of arms was made in the late 19th century. British authors and experts have commented about these coats of arms specifically in 1972 and 1992. It was possibly original research over a century ago, but that discovery isn't any kind of 20th or 21st century "original research"! You do not provide a sufficient argument supporting your opinion that the coats of arms are original research, and thus should not be included in this article! Repeatedly stating, "It's OR!" It's OR!" does not cut it. Please make your case that it's original research to state that the coats of arms in question are (1) Bonville arms, (2) Philippa Bonville was the daughter of Lord Bonville and represented the peerage, and (3) William Grenville was a member of the landed gentry. All these facts have been in print for well over a century!!!
Lionheart0317 (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- Lionheart0317, I've just spent a while reading what I can find on the internet. You know the following, but for anyone else reading who may not, the parentage of Philippa Bonville has been extensively discussed over the last few years on genealogy forums. Some at least of the interest derives from the fact that if Philippa was a daughter of Margaret Grey (the wife of our William Bonville) then she would apparently be descended from Edward I (see first post to this thread on soc.genealogy.medieval), and so would her descendants, some of whom, one assumes, are alive today. However, if she was William's sister, which is the other main possibility, then that Royal descent is not there.
- There are numerous threads on soc.genealogy.medieval and also on WikiTree - the 'Best answer' to this question there provides a few useful links. As is often the case, the paucity of evidence and disagreements between the extant sources frequently makes it impossible to be certain of the truth. For instance one person will claim that Pole is most reliable (he says 'daughter'), another will claim that the Heraldic visitations are more accurate (the relevant one says 'sister'). It is not settled to the satisfaction of all, and won't be unless more evidence comes to light.
- However, we can't cite any of these discussions in our articles because we rightly don't consider messages on discussion groups to be reliable. We have to wait until something is published in a reliable source (RS). There is a summary on WikiTree, by Joe Cochoit here, which seems to be a useful summary with plenty of references, but I'm not sure whether it would pass as a RS for us.
- So that's a summary of the position as I see it. If there is dispute about a topic, we report that dispute, we don't take sides. And that – I've finally got there – is why, Lionheart0317, your Heraldry section is completely unacceptable. It takes sides. It's based on disputed evidence, not reliable sources. It draws inferences from primary sources. It's original research. Someone posting as 'anonymous' on WikiTree has made the exact same arguments arguing strongly in favour of the 'daughter' option, here. I suggest that discussion groups are the right place to pursue your theories: a summary can be included in Wikipedia when a reliable source has written about it. Much of your evidence hangs on a coat of arms shown in a stained-glass window in Petrockstowe church which has apparently been reversed. This might be good evidence of Philippa's greater honour, but neither you nor 'anonymous' on WikiTree are in a position to have this theory included on Wikipedia.
- Lastly, in addition all the above there is the question of balancing aspects. This article is about William Bonville and his interesting life and death; to include an entire section, four images and nine references (in your original version) about his (possible) daughter's parentage would not be appropriate even if it was all verified information. If there are enough reliable sources about her, she could have her own article. —SMALLJIM 13:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- SMALLJIM,
- SmallJim, a truly neutral position to this article would be to not include any children of William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville, except his only son, William Bonville, Esq., who is essentially the only undisputed child of William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville and Margaret Grey. How you or anyone else defines a reliable source, which could provide a dispute on a descent, becomes more of an opinion than one of fact. Disputed evidence can be found in reliable sources, no matter how someone defines a reliable source. I never stated that internet forums and discussion groups were reliable sources. You obviously have deliberately misstated my position. I stated previously that the most recent reliable source is Justin Glenn's The Washingtons: A Family History: Volume Three: Royal Descents of the Presidential Branch (2015), which states that William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville and Margaret Grey had "one son and three daughters." Other sources actually name the son and all three daughters. That is the only “position” I have actually stated. I know who and what this article is about! There are at least a dozen other Wikipedia articles I can name right now where children and marriages are listed for the subject of the article using so-called reliable sources. The listed wives and children of these other Wikipedia articles are disputed in various “reliable sources.” One possible solution to this article would be the creation of separate Wikipedia articles for each daughter of William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville and Margaret Grey. Reliable sources can then be added to the articles for each daughter. It is most probable that as future reliable sources on this family are published, someone (not particularly myself) will add them to the Wikipedia articles about these Bonville family members.
- Lionheart0317 (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think you agree, then, that the significance, if any, of the CoA in the Petrockstowe window should stay out of the article until it gets reliably published.
- Regarding Philippa's relationship to William Bonville, looking at what reliable sources have said, we have something like this:
- 1. Daughter: mother was Margaret Grey
- 2. Sister: mother was Elizabeth FitzRoger
- Visitations (early), as reported by Vivian (1874)
- Worthy (1884)
- Fitch-Northen (1979)
- Weis MCS 4th ed.
- Richardson (2011 and 2013)
- 3. Uncertain, or no comment
- Granville (1895) "sister?"
- Grant (1992)
- Yeo Society website (2006)
- The important thing here isn't whether I've missed out any sources, or which side has the most votes, or what the arguments are, etc., but simply that for over a hundred years there has been scholarly dispute about this question, and it continues today. Maybe, when it's published, the Petrockstowe CoA will close the matter, or maybe it won't. Here and now, it's clear that Wikipedia shouldn't state definitively that Philippa was Bonville and Grey's daughter because that would be misrepresenting the current state of knowledge. We need to express that there is doubt, without going into the arguments (because it's not particularly important to this article).
- As you point out, apart from son William, there may be significant doubts about the other children too. I haven't come across any debates about them (though I haven't looked beyond what I've reported above), but if you know of any, then we should consider reporting those doubts too.
- What's particularly concerning, of course, is that although you must be familiar with the 'sister' opinion, you have chosen to totally ignore it and use Wikipedia to further your favoured point of view. You must not do this! —SMALLJIM 21:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- Mr. SmallJim, time and again, you have stated what you THINK I believe, said, or feel. Making such false statements does not further your cause or credibility on Wikipedia or your editorial actions. That is what's considered "most concerning," is your repeated false accusations and false statements while acting as a Wikipedia editor. It has happened more than once, Mr. SmallJim, where you have leveled unsupported and false accusations to garner support for your editorial bias. You must not and cannot do this!!! Recent scholarship, some of which you have read and certainly not my scholarship, confirms the conclusion that Philippa Bonville was the daughter of William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville and Margaret Grey. The most important thing to mention about our entire exchange here on this talk page is that this recent scholarship has not reached the printing presses yet in a publication or what you call a reliable source. I have never stated that Philippa wasn’t ever mentioned in print as being the sister of Lord Bonville. This is evident in the 1620 Visitation of Cornwall Grenville pedigree. With that said, you should know after your extensive reading on the subject in the last week, that this particular Grenville pedigree has been proven to contain errors in numerous generations. Again, recent (2018) scholarship, not mine, and please don’t level any more false accusations that it’s my research on this talk page, concludes that Philippa was the daughter of Lord Bonville and Margaret Grey. My only concession is that I said a future publication covering the heraldic proof in the Petrockstowe church would be needed to completely validate a heraldry section for this article.
- Looking at all the publications or sources that have stated the relationship of Philippa to William Bonville, you should know that all authors supporting Sir William Pole’s (died c. 1630) Grenville pedigree, have stated that Philippa was the daughter of Lord Bonville. Likewise, all authors supporting the 1620 Visitation of Cornwall Grenville pedigree have followed the entry that stated Philippa was sister to Lord Bonville. As you should know from all your readings on the subject, many historical and genealogical experts have commented on the many errors found in this 1620 Visitation of Cornwall Grenville pedigree. When an earlier source is proven to be in error beyond a reasonable doubt by current scholarship [see WikiTree which acknowledges this current scholarship, "The Grenville pedigree in the 1620 Cornwall Visitation is the only known document that actually identifies Philippa as a Bonville. However, this pedigree contains several errors, including misidentifying Philippa as the sister (not daughter) of William Bonville."], as is the case with the 1620 Visitation of Cornwall Grenville pedigree where it states that Philippa was the sister of Lord Bonville, it renders all subsequent publications or sources [Visitations (early), as reported by Vivian (1874); Worthy (1884); Fitch-Northen (1979); Weis MCS 4th ed.; and Richardson (2011 and 2013)] referencing that earlier source as "unreliable sources."
- Additionally, you seem to be in error with your last section mentioning those publications or sources that are *uncertain or no comment!* Roger Granville (1895) stated that Philippa was the daughter of Lord Bonville in his genealogical chart titled “A Pedigree of the Granville family.” If he were completely uncertain, he wouldn’t have stated that in the pedigree published in his History of the Granville family book. He merely stated (sister ?) to highlight what readers familiar with the family already knew from the 1620 Visitation of Cornwall Grenville pedigree. You also appear to be in error concerning the Yeo Society. The Yeo Society has several genealogical charts and statements which read: (1) “Ellen's mother was Phillipa Bonville, daughter of Lord William Bonville.” (2) “Phillipa 's father, Lord Bonville was one of the wealthiest men in Devon, having inherited massive estates in Devon, Somerset & Dorset. He married. Margaret Grey, the daughter of Lord Grey of Ruthin.” And (3) “Phillipa had seen her brother and nephew killed at the Battle of Wakefield and her father beheaded and around 1465 she placed a stained glass window in Petrockstowe Church, (which can now be viewed in the vestry of Petrockstowe Church), celebrating the marriage of her daughter to William Yeo, which includes the Yeo, Grenville, Bonville & Jeue coat of arms.” If the Yeo Society is in doubt about whether Philippa was the daughter or sister of Lord Bonville, then this sampling of quotes would surely inform the reader of what they believe the research and evidence supported. I think this closes the matter for now, Mr. SmallJim.
- Lionheart0317 (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- There's so much that I ought to say in response to that, but I'll just repeat the important bit – hopefully to close this discussion. Basically, see our neutral point of view policy. When there's a dispute about facts, as there is in the 'daughter' vs 'sister' debate, we describe the dispute in the article (probably very briefly here as it's not central to the topic, which is William, not Philippa). We don't take sides and we shouldn't waste time arguing why one side is better than another – that's what forums (WikiTree etc.) are for. It's an ongoing dispute with respected proponents on each side, so our job is just to describe it. Maybe you didn't understand this; if that's the case, then I apologise for assuming that you did. It's one of WP's fundamental policies. —SMALLJIM 10:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- There is so much more I should say on this topic and to your responses, but you would continue to respond in kind. You speak as if you are the sole and ultimate authority on Wikipedia. That is not the case. When you are speaking, you are doing it from your opinion and point of view, and then you so happen to reference Wikipedia stated policy. I have done the same, but I am not an ultimate authority on Wikipedia, nor are you. With that said and in the interest of closing out this discussion, the heraldry section will not be included in this article until recent scholarship has been published in a reliable source. When you say the "dispute about facts, as there is in the 'daughter' vs 'sister' debate," you can't have two sets of facts to the same issue. By WP definition, "A fact is a statement that is consistent with reality or can be proven with evidence." Either one is true and the other is false or both are false. Both cannot be true, especially in the case of Lord Bonville being either the father or brother of Philippa. One central theme you are trying to say, is that there are two separate facts that are in dispute. A true fact is true, a false fact is false. You cannot say that two facts (as you label them as true) about Philippa's parentage are true. Philippa was not daughter and sister of Lord Bonville at the same time. This is not consistent with reality! One is a true fact and the other is a false fact. When an alleged fact is published in a historical text and later scholarly research has provided sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged fact in question is actually false, it cannot be interpreted as truth any longer, no matter how respected an author is in repeating the error proven to be false with sufficient evidence.
- We at Wikipedia understand the neutrality policy. A neutral point of view as stated per WP is that "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The pivotal words in that WP definition are "reliable sources!" I explained why some sources you listed previously are not considered reliable sources based solely on their referencing of an earlier source with an alleged fact now considered to be false and in error, thus making it an "unreliable source!" A point of view published in an unreliable source does not pertain by definition to the Wikipedia neutrality policy. When someone willfully edits a Wikipedia article with information they consider to be factual, but has been determined to be false and an error by sufficient evidence and scholarly research, we hope editors will bring attention to that false fact and proper true facts can be entered into Wikipedia articles. A neutral point of view is relevant and not an archaic practice at WP, however, Wikipedia editors should know that there can never be two sets of facts to a specific issue in question, there are false facts and true facts. In this instance, Lord Bonville was not both Philippa's father and also her brother at the same time. He could not have been both. I'm not here to continue to debate you on one Wikipedia article about what is fact vs. non-fact, what is true vs. false, or what is a reliable source vs. an unreliable source. The most important point that needs to be mentioned is that there are numerous other WP articles that contain false facts and errors being neglected by Wikipedia editors. Those articles deserve just as much time, attention, and awareness to improve their quality for Wikipedia readers!
- Lionheart0317 (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- By what authority do you arbitrarily just pick and choose those sources you want to include in an article? This article was fine as is without the heraldry section and an additional notes section. Yet, you feel compelled to add a notes section? The one citation you and you alone chose to include for Philippa's entry mentions the 1620 Visitation of Cornwall Grenville pedigree and Pole's Grenville pedigree. You do not need a notes section when the Granville (1895) citation covers what you mentioned in your newly created notes section. It doesn't matter what I find disturbing, your opinions are not facts. They may be facts to you, but not to other editors. What is disturbing, is your obsession with this article. You have been told what current scholarly research says by experts in the field, including what these experts consider the true facts to be regarding the parentage of Philippa Bonville. If I concede to just one citation for Philippa and no heraldry section, you can concede to excluding a notes section. I will find it disturbing if you do not feel that is appropriate for this article.
- Lionheart0317 (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Terminology adrift?
Hchc2009, SMALLJIM, Lionheart0317 People in this article are not named consistently, or in line with modern practice. Surely, all the redundant additions of 'Esq.' should be deleted? Shouldn't the man himself be called either 'Bonville' or 'he'? And couldn't we replace the pompous Latin phrases beloved of antiquarians with 21st-century English? Or, when they add little or nothing to the biography, just delete them? Clifford Mill (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- Despite my remarks above, I certainly wouldn't object if anyone updated the language in this or any other article. —SMALLJIM 20:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Removal of footnote
@Lionheart0317: Following on from the 'Heraldry' section above, I added a footnote to explain the ongoing dispute about Philippa's status (i.e. was she Bonville's daughter or sister?). You have removed the footnote with an edit summary that doesn't seem to be relevant. How do you propose, then, that we report the disagreement in the published sources about Philippa's status? Remember that neither Weis nor Richardson – both respected scholars with articles here – have published retractions of their published position (that Philippa was Bonville's sister). If you're unsure of why we need to include this, please read WP:NPOV again. —SMALLJIM 17:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
SMALLJIM, I don't see it as an ongoing current dispute when you want to assign historical fact to just one author who has been proven to be in error regarding the alleged fact in question. I previously stated in the "Heraldry" section above, "When an alleged fact is published in a historical text and later scholarly research has provided sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged fact in question is actually false, it cannot be interpreted as truth any longer, no matter how respected an author is in repeating the error proven to be false with sufficient evidence." The two authors you mention were in disagreements themselves. Frederick Lewis Weis died decades ago and his line of descent containing Philippa Bonville in the 4th and 5th editions of Magna Charta Ancestry were revised with errors by Douglas Richardson. Weis' never retracted because he didn't have to. In his first, second, and third editions, Weis stated that Philippa Bonville was the daughter of William Bonville, 1st Lord Bonville {see Weis, Frederick Lewis. The Magna Charta Sureties, 1215. third ed. (1985): p. 16 [Line 22-10] (author states, "William Grenville of Biddeford, d. c. 1451; m. Philippa, dau. of Sir William Bonville, K.G., Lord Bonville, of Chewton-Mendip, near Wells Somerset ... Robert Behra, El Paso, Tex., has identified the wife of Sir William, Lord Bonville, as Margaret, dau. of Reginald, 3rd Lord Grey of Ruthyn, and Margaret de Ros."}. All three of Weis' editions were published before the monumental History of Parliament biographies were written. J.S. Roskell (your fellow countryman), the most highly respected medieval historian of the latter half of the 20th century, named the three daughters in his History of Parliament biography on William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville.
The current most highly respected author who has commented and written a biography on William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville is Dr. Justin Glenn. Glenn in The Washingtons: A Family History: Volume Three: Royal Descents of the Presidential Branch (2015), states that William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville and Margaret Grey had three daughters. The third daughter he names is Elizabeth Bonville. You didn't delete this citation, which befuddles me. Obviously, the other two daughters were named by J.S. Roskell. We can't categorically say that this dispute is either current or ongoing, because of one author who has printed the same error in several series of his books. Stating even a possible or probable error in a Wikipedia article for the sake of neutrality should not be included at all. Especially, when the dispute revolves around one author, whose error regarding this issue has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. You don't need a retraction by one author to not include a dispute that one author has made, when that author's alleged fact is contradicted and proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be false by other authors who are more highly respected than the author who hasn't retracted the error. That in no way hampers the spirit or intent of neutrality when the most current and highly respected author who has written a biography on William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville has obviously stated that William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville had three daughters.
When a source such as Richardson, whether it be his Bonville lines of descent found in Magna Charta Sureties 5th Edition (1999), Magna Carta Ancestry (2011), Plantagenet Ancestry (2011), and Royal Ancestry (2013), repeats an error that current scholarship has provided sufficient evidence to prove it was an error, those sources become "unreliable sources," and thus invalidates a neutrality argument. Again, as I have previously stated, a neutral point of view as stated per WP is that "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The pivotal words in that WP definition are "reliable sources!" These Richardson books are not considered "reliable sources" after repeating an error that is contradicted by a plethora of highly respected authors and by current scholarship. As such, these Richardson works do not apply to the neutrality policy because they are not "reliable sources" on the topic! I have provided more than enough evidence and facts as to why Richardson's assignment of parentage for Philippa Bonville is an error and why his works containing the Bonville lineage are not by definition a "reliable source!" It wouldn't be relevant in the interest of neutrality, historical accuracy, genealogical accuracy, or current scholarship to imply, confirm, or state that there is a current dispute. ---Lionheart0317 (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)