Talk:Thomas Thursby

Original Research

I have attached a tag because this article, as it currently stands, is a clear violation of WP:No Original Research, a core policy. Relying on unpublished wills and citing entries to historical documents in archive catalogues are inappropriate. Agricolae (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

As there had been no attempt to address these issues in the intervening months, I have given the article a major trim, removing editor-derived discussion and argument and the citations of unpublished primary sources. Wikipedia was never intended to be a venue to publish one's own research and conclusions. Agricolae (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The secondary sources clearly state that Elizabeth had three husbands. Frances Blomefield in City of Norwich, chapter 42: Middle Wimer ward". An Essay Towards A Topographical History of the County of Norfolk: Volume 4. British History Online. 1806. Retrieved 2020-09-21 clearly writes that Orate pro bono statu Thome Thirsby, et Eliz. Ur. et pro aiab: Johis: et Rob. Aylmer quondam maiorum Civitatis Norwici. Elizabeth was the widow of Thomas Thursby, John Aylmer and Robert Aylmer, both Mayors of Norwich. BeatriceCastle (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Plus as the article stands, the sentence: “There were four Thomas Thursbys in the same geographical area in the same time period, making unambiguous identification challenging. Both Bruce Bannerman[1] and E.M. Yates[3] identify him as the son of Thomas Thursby (d.1510), Mayor of King's Lynn” makes no sense. I suggest then that you change it to something that does actually make sense. I was happy with the article in its former incarnation (your edit of 15:19, 6 October 2020‎ Agricolae – with the minor edits from others afterwards), as I actually thought that this was an improvement, but as it is now it does not make any sense. BeatriceCastle (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I also think that when one mentions that there were four Thomas Thursbys there should be some mention of who they were. Secondary sources show that one of the Thomas Thursbys married Elizabeth Burgoyne and that she was alive in 1528. This means that she could not have married either the object of this article or his son (who was marrying another woman who lived until at least 1543/4 in 1527). This makes the grandnephew a reasonable assumption. He in turn is mentioned in Miscellanea genealogica et heraldica. I am happy to leave room for doubt, and indeed did so in my first edit. BeatriceCastle (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Burke mentions that Thomas Thoresby was the grandson of Henry Thoresby of this family, and the father of Edward Thoresby of Doreward's Hall in the county of Essex. BeatriceCastle (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

On page 283 and 284 of Rye, Walter; Hervey, William; Cooke, Clarenceux; Raven, John. The visitacion [i.e., visitation] of Norfolk, made and taken by William Hervey, Clarencieux King of Arms, anno 1563, enlarged with another visitacion [sic] made by Clarenceux Cook : with many other descents, and also the vissitation [sic] made. Family History Library it clearly says that Henry Thursbye was married to Hellen da. & coh. of Tho. Fedringhey, and that they had Thomas Thursbye of Bocking, the father of Thomas Thursbye, who in turn was the father of Edward Thursbye. BeatriceCastle (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I also think that a mention that some sources do identify him as the notorious land-encloser with some evidence for and against is appropriate, as that is a very serious matter. BeatriceCastle (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Found more references to Elizabeth in Blomefield: 1518, Eliz. Thursby, widow, some time wife of Rob. Aylmer, gave 5 marks to repair the church, a vestment of 20s. and her next best chalice. BeatriceCastle (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The following persons were buried in the church, whose memorials were most of them lost when the church was rebuilt. [...] 1518, Eliz. Thursby, widow, buried in the church by alderman Rob. Aylmere, her late husband, and gave 10 marks towards finishing the church, and her best gilt chalice. BeatriceCastle (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

See . BeatriceCastle (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

This information is taken from her will. The full quote regarding these bequests is: It[e]m I bequethe to the sayd churche of Sancte andrew my best wreten masse bok and my best chales gylte It[e]m I bequethe to the hey altar of the churche of Sancte Laurance in norwiche xxs [20 shillings] and to the Reparacon of the same churche v marcs A vestment to the value of xxs [20 shillings] and my nexte best chales gilte. BeatriceCastle (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

This is the other relevant part: and my body for to be burid in the churche of Sancte Andrew in norwiche by the sepultcre of Robert Aylmer late my husband whos hey altar ther I bequethe xxs [20 shillings] I bequethe to the Reparacons and admedment[? amendment?] of the sayd churche x marcs BeatriceCastle (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

As there had been no attempt to address these issues in the intervening months, I have restored the article back to where it at least makes sense. BeatriceCastle (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't address it because you just listing random places where you found the people mentioned made no coherent point that could be responded to. Original research is prohibited on Wikipedia - if the article doesn't make sense when the Original Research is removed, then it needs to be rewritten, not have the Original Research restored. Using unpublished original documents (e.g. wills) is forbidden, drawing your own conclusions or making your own speculation is forbidden. Spicing together a narrative from disjointed passing mentions is highly problematical. As an editor of a Wikipedia article, you should be summarizing what secondary sources have to say about the subject, not treating Wikipedia as a web host for your personal genealogy research. Also, it would be helpful if you cited things properly - the library where a book is found is not relevant information; when the text of a book is hosted on a web site (e.g. British History Online) one should cite the book, not the web host; and citations are not just places to stash research notes such as full source quotes. Agricolae (talk)

I refer you again to the sources listed above. BeatriceCastle (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

And I again refer you to the relevant policies - WP:NOR, WP:NOTGENEALOGY, WP:PRIMARY, WP:SYNTH, etc.Agricolae (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

And I have shown you that Francis Blomefield writes the same thing in books that have been published for hundreds of years. Besides, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_firm_rules BeatriceCastle (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't even know what specifically you are talking about, but if Blomefiled includes the information, and IF that information is appropriate for a well written encyclopedia article on Thomas Thursby, then there is not reason not to include it while citing (not quoting) Blomefield. Bear in mind though that a Wikipedia article is not just a collection of every passing mmention you find. Some material is excessive, tangential, not helpful or no longer viewed by modern historians as particularly pertinent. Just guessing that you are complaining about the removal of the quote from the church window, what exactly does it add to the article? It is in an abbreviated Latin incomprehensible to the average reader of English Wikipedia - that means the burden for including that quote is particularly high, given that it provides no information uniquely useful to the article that cannot be rendered in simple English prose. We do not include quotes just because they look exotic. Agricolae (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and as to Wikipedia:No firm rules, you missed the part where it says "'Ignore all rules' does not mean that every action is justifiable." Agricolae (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I suppose that is the crux of the matter, that I do think it is justifiable. I did include the church window as a citation the first time around, but as you did not find the information clear, and its importance was missed by you, I thought that now I would draw attention to its existence and make clearer its importance by including it in the text itself. I usually do think an epitaph adds something. A working knowledge of Latin is a great advantage when working with this time period, since it was what many people wrote in, and which was then quoted by others without providing a translation. I myself could have provided a translation if asked. Since I did not myself originally include the commemorative window, I will not argue the point in this particular instance. If, however, your goal is to erase any reference to Latin in England during this period and the following centuries, then good luck to you. BeatriceCastle (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

"Bear in mind though that a Wikipedia article is not just a collection of every passing mmention you find. Some material is excessive, tangential, not helpful or no longer viewed by modern historians as particularly pertinent." That makes it nearly impossible to expand any article beyond the point of a stub. Remember that mentions of most people living in this particular time period are not exactly thick on the ground in the first place. Of course good sense and judgement must be applied, but usually "every passing mention" is often relevant because that is all we have. BeatriceCastle (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, I don't know if you are familiar with the Cyclical Theory of History (slightly dubious source, but it explains the theory well. The last time I checked the theory itself had not been discredited), but what historians find interesting is largely cyclical, largely due to prestige. Everyone wants to reinvent the wheel. What does not change, however, is almost never the truth and never facts. BeatriceCastle (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The other thing that doesn't change is that editors are not allowed to reinvent the wheel on Wikipedia. Believe it or not, 'Because I want to' is insufficient justification for breaking the rules here. Agricolae (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The only one who keeps breaking the rules here are you, through vandalism and by your own admission not following procedure. BeatriceCastle (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY. BeatriceCastle (talk) 18:49, 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) 18:49, 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) 18:49, 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) 18:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

'Apart from the wills . . . .' Ding! Ding! Ding! Got it in one. Oh, and the Discovery Catalogue entries, and your interpretation of primary sources that constitutes WP:SYNTH, as well as bloating the article with any old trivia on the family you personally happen to think is interesting. Also you need to educate yourself on what constitutes vandalism on Wikipedia. That said, please use the Talk page to actually discuss specific changes to the page, rather than these walls of text that apparently are intended as self-justification for doing whatever you want. Clear, concise, and addressing a specific edit is the way to go. Agricolae (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I quote WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY again: "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". I had forgotten about the Discovery Catalogue entries, as it has been a year, but that too falls under the part I quoted. Deleting everything that you personally don't find interesting in an article, declaring that this talk page is pointless (see my talk page) and that you have not bothered to read it (see my talk palk again) and do not care about procedure (see my talk page yet again) is vandalism, yes. BeatriceCastle (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

No, what you describe would NOT be vandalism, even if it weren't an absurd caricature of reality. And no, all the wikilawyering in the world doesn't make a catalog description of a document a reliable primary source. Get it through your head - Wikipedia is not the place to publish your personal research. Full stop. If you want to discuss the page, get on with it - I am not obligated to repeatedly respond to your dubious self-rationalizations. Agricolae (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course it is a reliable primary source. As it is a summary, it can also be seen as reliable a secondary source, as it has been transcribed/summarised by trained archivars, depending on one's definition. A reliable and highly admired secondary source, A Who's Who of Tudor Women by Kathy Lynn Emerson uses one of the precisely same catalogue description as I do in the entry for Thomas Thursby (d.1543), for instance. As to misrepresentations, anyone is free to go to look at my talk page and see. Like I said, I always source my observations. Look, I am not saying that the original article was without flaw or that nothing I wrote could do with improvement. You are a talented editor, I am not arguing that. I simply think that the way you have handled this has been beyond the pale. I tried discussing this out here, in a calm, civil manner, the things I thought still belonged in the article, while willing to forgo of others. When instead of discussing things or behaving with any form of civility or following the procedure laid out by Wikipedia (which you freely admitted), you went ahead and did what you wanted anyway, I think that was wrong and badly done of you. Perhaps you should yourself examine different kinds of sources and what may be learned from them, and examine your biases, because that is what is taught by real historians. BeatriceCastle (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Whatever. Let me know if you ever want to actually discuss the page rather than just have me enable your self-rationalizations. Agricolae (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

You brought these subjects up. Once you have learned to have a discussion, you might not find the talk pages pointless any more. BeatriceCastle (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Whatever. Agricolae (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

References