Talk:Cecily Jordan v. Greville Pooley dispute

Reasons for creating this page
It seemed to me a problem that the page titled Cicely "Reynolds" Bailey Jordan Farrar contained within its title one surname (Reynolds) not known to belong to the subject of the article, and another surname (Bailey) not proven to belong to the subject of the article. Putting those names in the actual title (even though one was in quotation marks) seemed to risk lending credence to error and assumption.

My other reason for creating this new page was to try to treat the subject more objectively, rather than chattily, and present the story of the breach-of-promise suit in the context of changing attitudes towards marriage in the early modern period. If anyone objects to what I have done, please explain. I'm ready to revert the changes if that's the consensus. Underdoor (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Cicely Jordan Farrar
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Cicely Jordan Farrar's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Dorman": From Richard Cocke: Dorman, John Frederick, Adventurers of Purse and Person, 4th ed., v1 pp926-929 From Samuel Jordan: Dorman, John Frederick, Adventurers of Purse and Person, 4th ed., v.1, p927 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Spelling
It appears that the spelling of the subject's name is Cecily throughout the body of the article, but was Cicely in the title. The title has been changed with a redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete List of ancestors
I totally agree that the list of notables for Cecily was inappopriate. It was originally on the article for Samuel Jordan,, with the addition of some names that weren't notables (probably somebody's family members) In addition Samuel Jordan had two daughters with Cecily, and there is no information at all as to whom they married, and that hasn't stopped people from trying to claim him as an ancestor. I was just going to delete the list period, but thought it might be against WP policy, so I reposted it to Cecily Jordan's article. Thanks for deleting it. I didn't agree with it's inclusion. Shame no one caught it until my editsOldperson (talk)

Thomas Bailey?
The presence of Temperance Bailey does not establish a relationship between Cecily Jordan and Thomas Bailey, and I see no document here identifying Thos Bailey's existence. You need to better document the relationships. Temperance could be a niece or even an unfortunate orphan under the care of Cecily. GeeBee60 (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I just checked the Jamestown Muster and Temperance Baley is listed in the household of William fferrar and Mrs. Jordan. There were no birth certificates in those days, and in fact such did not exist until the early 20 Century, cocommitant with the Income tax act of 1913, if I recall correctly, so relationships like Children, even marriages have to be deduced. (No marriage records either). A female of child bearing age did not last long as a single female.

Apparently it is deduced from the Muster that Temperance Baley (sic) was her child by an unknown father. Temperance was 7 by the time of the Muster, Cecily was 24, considering the hot demand for females, and their scarcity, it is even a wonder that she lasted until 16 before being snagged as a wife. Just adding historical contextOldperson (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No this is NOT historical context it is original research and has no place in Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) If no records exist - marriage, baptismal, correspondence, census details, etc., then relationship between Temperance Bailey and Cecily Jordan Farrar is speculative. Yes it is vexing the paucity of records, oh well. A marriage to Thomas Bailey seems to be irrelevant to the story. Unless at very least Cecily is recorded as a widow named Bailey at time of marriage to Jordan, suggest that Bailey section be struck.
 * 2) Jordan Pooley Farrar affair is much more relevant than this article, as Cecily's main claim is being caught in the cross-hairs because of her apparent availability.
 * GeeBee60 (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

coatrack
This article appears to be a coatrack for the dispute with Rev. Greville Pooley. I removed original research, though there is probably more, it reads more like a family history project. Theroadislong (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I heartily agree. I suggest moving it to Jordan-Pooley-Farrar affair (or something) ASAP. In any case, the sourcing is phenomenally poor—with the exception of Stone and Spruill, there isn't a source more recent than 1907. And much of them are primary. Further, the single most important piece of modern scholarship that actually addresses these individuals in some detail—in fact, the best single source going—is not used as a source at all, but as "Further reading". ——  SerialNumber  54129  16:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging as recent editors/commentators.  ——  SerialNumber  54129  16:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging There is a Draft:Jordan-Pooley-Farrar affair which includes the Jennifer Potter article as a citation and many more. it was initially declined by Theroadislong then by  with the suggestion:" Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Cecily Jordan Farrar instead.", Which was accomplished, and now it is being discussed as a Coatrack for the Dispute article. What is going on here? What accounts for this sudden attention to a very old articleOldperson (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I set about reviewing the draft, improving it as I went along, addressing the concerns of the previous reviewer. I had no doubt of the notability of the incident, having checked the refs, e.g. this. I came to the opinion that Cecily was notable only for this law suit, and that to have an article on the law suit in addition to the existing one about her was a duplication. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I had prepared the following answer then ran into an edit conflict, Checking back I noticed that you changed your answer, however I totally agree and thus moved the information. The dispute is historically significant. Not only is it the first Breach of Promise suit on this continent, but it is the first when the defendant was a female. Previous suits were by females as complainants and men as defendants. The orginal info, which was moved had many, many references and current ones at that, but the edditing of and others removed those references resulting in the comment by  that the best single source is not included. It was originally until edited out. In fact there are a lot of good and current citations that have been lost by current edits. There are many many historical persons who are notable for only one instance. They are called precedence setters. ot lone wolfs or...Oldperson (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Removed notability template after adding in lead paragraph her basis for notability. Granted it is a single but very significant episode, but that is not a limiting criteria as other notables are deemed so on the basis of a singular issue.Oldperson (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I don't see how this makes her notable? Theroadislong (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So you don't think that the first ever suit brought against a woman is notable, nor the first Breach of Promise suit in America is notable?. What then is notable.Yes it is a singular event, but notable event isn't. I know it is a judgement callOldperson (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The suit might be notable, but that doesn't make her notable by association.
 * The suit is definitely notable, but one can't extract the principle from the suit, especially since it begs explanation as regards background and aftermath. The problem was solved with the Draft:Jordan Pooley Farrar affair, however that ran into opposition and it was suggest to fold it into the Cecily Jordan Farrar article, which I did, and then you deleted much of it. Conflicting opinions from admins is not at all helpful. This article is worthy of WP because it is historic and precedence setting, but you can't extract the principle from the article. There were some irrelevant mentions, like a list of descendants ancestors, that did distract from the article. As is written the article is less about her, and more about the lawsuit.Oldperson (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Theroadislong (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC) All of the references are secondary references and none of them Primary reference per Primary, secondary and tertiary sources}}. The sources cited speak for themselves[[User:Oldperson|Oldperson (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC) To all. I want to AGF, but this article has sat still for 9 years, until I edited it, then it still sat still for a month or so, then there is a pile on. Makes me ask what is motivated by this sudden interest.Oldperson (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

What is this really about?
This article was created on 22 September 2011 by a user named Underdoor for the stated purpose of (Created this page to provide information about Cicely Jordan Farrar, and the breach-of-promise suit brought against her by Rev. Greville Pooley). Others piled on and tried to make it a family history project, including a spurious marriage..And there it sat, with only occasional edits, but apparently no serious admin attention. Then a spurt of interest from {{}u|Theroadislong}} and, challenging it’s notability and validity of references. I don’t believe in coincidences. I had an article in Draft:Jordan-Pooley-Farrar affair declined by Theroadislong because  “This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions), so I fixed that problem with more and better sources. Then declined it suggesting that I incorporate the material into Cecily Jordan Farrar. I did that and artfully. Then Road puts up a template that this article isn’t notable, yet other admins thought that it was so, but Road moves the goal post. Maybe notable but not notable enough, quoting primary sources, of which there are none, but plenty of secondary sources. First the information is notable but should be included in an existing article. Suggest followed, then it again it is not notable, then it is, but not notable enough (whatever that is, I find no WP guidelines for notable enough. Then it lacks secondary sources, but when pointed out that there are indeed secondary sources aplenty. This leaves me asking just what is this really How about if the Draft:  Jordan Pooley Farrar affair, were published instead. That way a significant historical and precedent setting event would have what it deserves a mention in WP. It is chock full of secondary sourcesOldperson (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. If you check the article again, you will notice that I deleted the Family History stuff. As regards this hypothetical Thomas Bailey(Baley or Bayley) I checked the passenger. lists of the vessels that embarked for Jamestown between 1606 and 1610 and the only name I could find was a William Bayley (Bailey). I think that his existence is a creation. He is irrelevant to the story, as is her descendants. But on that subject, I notice when viewing other biographies that descendants and ancestors are often noted. Granted some are. I agree that the other article Draft:Jordan-Pooley-Farrar affair is more relevant and worthy of an article. I worked hard to clean it up and to meet WP standards. But there was a reluctance to approve it, and one decliner suggested that the information be moved to this article.  This article was created 8 years before I started editing, and sat here without any comments or serious templates, until I started to edit it again, then there was a pile on. Suspicious to say the least. The original article, much of which remains, is heavy with direct quotes in old English. My article is in clear modern English with quoted information summarized or paraphrased it is also replete with good secondary sources, as required.. So what to do now. Wait till everything is speedy deleted? Any human action or activity can be rationalized and justified, especially when one has long practice.On the other hand Cecily herself is such a notable and interesting person, having come over in 1610, survived the massacre, prospered and getting involved in the first real "scandal" in America, that she really does deserve her own article. Just too bad there isn't more to be said for herOldperson (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * please, rest you assured, theer is not a conspiracy—it's quite a logical train of events, as far as myself and is concerned, and as for the others, I merely pinged those that had previously edited this page. For myself, you first came to my notice because in my capacity as a userpage spam patroller, your then username drew attention. You were, of course, then watchlisted. As for longroad, he is one of our most prolific AfC patrollers, and, of course, you've been submitting articles there from the start, so, again, there is a certain inevitability to drawing their attention! Again, you would have been watchlisted. Once watchlisted, much of your editing is automatically drawn to the watcher's attention. So here we are  :) all innocent and above board...What should happen, Oldperson, is that material from your draft be merged into this article—as the oldest—and then moved to the collective, rather than individual page title. Hope you are keeping well!  ——  SerialNumber  54129  12:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the thoughtful and considerate reply. I don't understand how I drew attention for SPAM control as Alvanhholmes. I was really new, still am, and not SPAM anything, just trying to work out how to create an acceptable article. For a newby who has good intentions and not some kid, vandal, or paid user, the attention I was getting was not really constructive, and a real put off. I almost gave up and went away, which I thought was the the end game by admins and more experienced users. There does seem to be some kind of exclusionism. Whether there is or not, it looks that way. Out of curiosity I checked the Roads contributions and everything I see is negative, my only experience with him has been negative. On the other hand 's edits and comments have been positive and you have no idea how uplifting that is. Generally yours as well. I respect and appreciate positive and constructive criticisms and edits and I thank those who do so. I have taken GeeBee and your advice to heart. I have replaced the material contained in this article with the material in the Jordan-Pooley-Farrar article. Apparently the original article here is very old, before the current standards for WP evolved. I've noticed that on many older articles. Lots of long quotes, and a dearth of references.
 * I try very heard to uphold WP standards and MOS, best as I know how.. Thank you for your considerationOldperson (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * SUPPORT MOVE to Draft:Jordan-Pooley-Farrar affair. Disagree w/ some curmudgeonly nay-sayers except that Wikipedia is not a genealogy tabloid.
 * PS I found this article by string of coincidences. It seems that a number of us were invited into the fray. GeeBee60 (talk) 07:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm awfully sorry, but I've overwritten your last few edits. No edit conflict either? If you give me a few minutes I'll reinstate them for you. ——  SerialNumber  54129  13:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Two questions,if I may. First who changed this from the first breach of promise suit to bigamy? This was not bigamy. They were never married. Per testimony in the Records of the Virginia Company Pooley sued her for breach of promise, not bigamy. Second:Where is this original research" There is no original research, if you think so please provide an example. Any article created requires research, one has to dig up facts and citations. I can understand original research in terms of scientific papers, where a person might want to use WP for self publication and promotion. But there is none of that here Oldperson (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly I am saddened that you consider my contributions to be negative, but sometimes "less is more" and the article is now in much better shape and on topic. Regarding original research I have already removed that, as you can see if you look in the article's history. Theroadislong (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * NOR standards seem to vary depending on topic. My version: Don't publish on WP. Instead, summarize what someone else published somewhere else. GeeBee60 (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. If I wound I apologize. Bear in mind I am not a professional, nor am I an academic accustomed and inured to the rigors of peer review. I well imagine that it is taxing on one's psyche and sensibilities having to deal with rank amateurs like myself, and worse with paid editors trying to game the system, much less vandals. An example of which seems to be whoever it was that changed the lead in on this article to a case of bigamy. I will try harder to be more understanding. But in all truth when a critique is leveled, it does help if an example is provided. Bearing in mind that not all are academics accustomed to peer review.Oldperson (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't know about others, but my academics stopped a few classes past getting a B.A. in environmental science. My main peer reviews comes from being a Quaker. GeeBee60 (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment on Moving the Article from Cicely Jordan Farrar to the Jordan-Pooley-Farrar affair
(This is an edited, shorter version of my comments. I changed the title section name too.) I think it is a shame that the editorial controversy wiped out the original, long-standing article, which described an interesting woman. I do feel that the current name is appropriate given the article's current content, but I feel it loses the central role of the woman herself, as well as placing the episode in the context of her life. Wtfiv (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to start a draft at Draft:Cicely Jordan Farrar but the dearth of secondary sources is problematic. Theroadislong (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean by the dearth of secondary sources. As I look at the article as is I see 20 secondary sources. Are they not enough? Per wtfiv's comment above. Cecily is very significant, sociologigically and historically because of her position and activity as regards the role of women in society. You might even say that hers was the first shot fired for women's rightsOldperson (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Theroadislong. I think your solution is the best at this point. I do agree that the risk is that Cicely Jordan's entry can wind up looking like a stub, particularly now that her role in the case has been stripped to another entry, but I think building a draft that is strong enough to be approved would be a good solution, if it can be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtfiv (talk • contribs) 18:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

By the way, it's great to see that she can still generate quasi-litigious debate 419 years after she was born! A powerful woman indeed! Wtfiv (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Any objections to removing the template. If so then what are they? This is not original research, every statement is properly cited. And the tone and style are neutral and definitely fit within the parameters of wp. If your judgement differs, then please cite an example and I will correctOldperson (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Serial Number 54129 added the template with this edit so it would be polite to ask him not me. Theroadislong (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The request above was in regards to the template that you put about original research and references. You never answered. So I removed it. Then Serial Number jumps in and claims weasel words. I asked on his talk page for examples of weasel words so that I can correct the situation, and no response. I am not questioning the validity of critiques, but if I don't know what the problem is, and one is not an editor of their own works, ask any publishing house, then I can't correct the weasel words. Thank youOldperson (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Your message was replied to :)🔜 —— SerialNumber  54129  20:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Original research includes but is not limited to... "Her presumed first marriage was to a man named Baley(sic)" Does the source actually say this? Or is this an interpretation of the names in a list? Theroadislong (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the answer. I understand now. Temperance Baley is listed in the household of William Farrar and Mrs Jordan in the Jamestown Muster, there is also a land patent, adjoining Jordan's Journey to a Thomas Baley. Apparently the two events have led to the conclusion that Temperance Baley was the daughter of Thomas Baley and Cecily (Unknown) her maiden name is a mystery. There is no record of such a marriage. I wouldn't call it original research, but a logical conclusion. However, this "fact" is not germane to the article and can be eliminated. What other original reseacch "weasel words" have you noticed in the article? And by the way your comment above 22:50 19 January 2019 is not in my watch list. How does that happen?Oldperson (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It may well be a "logical conclusion" but here on Wikipedia it is called original research and is not allowed, we only report on what reliable sources say we don't interpret them at all. Your watch list only records the most recent edit on any page. Theroadislong (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Even more to the point, WHO is drawing the logical conclusion? Family history is notorious for researchers jumping to conclusions based on scant evidence. Did you conclude the relationship, or did others? If several credentialed historians independently agree, o.k. But I can think of a whole number of reasons why Temperance resided with Cecily, and mother-daughter is not the top of my list. Using ambiguous language is tricky and weasel words can have value when there is no consensus, but it is important to be as precise as possible.
 * I think you have some supporting info about Cecily's family, such as she wed Jordan when age 24 and by him had two daughters that you did not need to omit. On the other hand, are there documents that this is her second marriage or are you still holding on tight to the supposition that Thomas Bailey might have been a husband because of Temperance. GeeBee60 (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

What reliable sources do we have for it being the first case in the USA?
I can only find blogs, Wiki mirror sites and genealogy websites that say this, I am not able to view the books used in the article and the majority of the book sources don't quote page numbers for the content, the article continues to be a mess of poorly sourced original research and interpretation added by single purpose acconts. Theroadislong (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * What is and is not a reliable source is a matter of opinion. And books are an acceptable and reliable source per WP, and of course you can't read the pages in books as all books are not on line. I asked this question on Teahouse once before, and was assured that books were a reliable legitimate source. Alas if one wants to read the book they have to go to the libarary or buy it..inconvenient but lets AGF here. I am trying and have been trying my best to produce a quality articles and edits, but it certainly appears to me that you are obsessed with me. As I scour articles on WP I see literally thousands that are less source and even unsourced than the ones I produce. And in that vein, I can't help but notice that you went out of your way to revert an edit on Breach of Promise, just more evidence that you APPEAR to be obsessed, "how dare I", I really am not confrontial by nature, but I very much resent being bullied, and this obsession with me appears to be just that. As regards Cecily's first of it's kind BoP suit. I have seen very good references about the subject, but will spend the rest of my life chasing them down if necessary to satisfy you. Or is simply putting the article up for speedy deletion the end game. I was in the process of satisfying all of the other cn's that you inserted, and I can, But I keep getting a old version current version conflict, because of this first breach of promise suit. And yes, can anyone point out a Breach of promise suit that took  place in America before 1623, much less where the woman was a defendant. Honestly the reputation of WP is not hinging on this article and statement, especially when so many articles have so many glaring deficiencies.
 * Finally, I have yet to run across an article with a template. This seems to be an "honor" reserved especially for me.Oldperson (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources are not a matter of opinion, Wikipedia has clear guidelines about them, how do you know that the books contain the content you suggest and yet not know the page numbers? I am happy to look at other articles that have glaring deficiencies too, if you tell me what they are. All I am asking is that your content is reliably sourced and verifiable which it plainly isn't in parts.Theroadislong (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * After a hard days work, and no lunch. I do believe that I have eliminated any original research and weasel words, and have found reliable secondary source citations for all of the previous cn notices, and finally found a reliable secondary source as regards first Breach of Promise suit in America. Now would it be OK to remove the template. (I've haven't yet seen such on any other article. And I would like to revert Theroadislong's revert on Breach of Promise, in as much as I now have a solid citation. Thank you for your attention to this matterOldperson (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)