This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eustace fitz John article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
A fact from Eustace fitz John appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 January 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Several sources including the visitation of Chester in 1580 indicate another son, Geoffrey, Prior of Norton and I have seen another claim of a further son John, who settled in Ireland (ancestor of Viscount Baltinglass) who arrived in Ireland with Hugh de Lacy in 1180. Is there any other sources which could confirm or disprove? Regards Newm30 (talk) 09:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
If secondary sources from the current time do not mention them, we shouldn't either. Visitations are notoriously unreliable for information much earlier than the date of the visitation, not to mention they are primary sources and we base our articles on secondary sources. The very lack of mention of the supposed son is disproof of the possibility. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
