Talk:Constable of Chester

Referencing
Apart from the issue of The Complete Peerage, currently under discussion here, the overall formatting of the references in this article is poor. WP:DUPCITES is best practice and ought to be in use by all experienced editors.

In the current version of the article: Most of these are easily fixed and with a little more time and care taken by the original editor, the Wikignomes wouldn't have to spend so much time tidying up. —S MALL JIM   23:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There are eight citations to Sanders (1960), of which three include the full name of the book and five only "Sanders" and the page number. Of them all three are to page 103, and three to page 138. ✅
 * What is "Baggs, VCH Cheshire" (ref 10)? Is it the same work as ref 8?
 * Ref 12 is "by right of his first wife", which is a footnote, not a reference.
 * There's still a "GEC" at ref 30 (easily fixed) ✅
 * The last Complete Peerage ref (33) cites "vol 4", incompatible with the others which use Roman numerals (as do the books) ✅
 * The four refs to Vol XII need to state which part: I or II
 * I've marked the ones I've fixed. —S MALL JIM   00:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Should we wikilink The Complete Peerage each time it's used in the references, or just the first time? —S MALL  JIM   00:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC) I'm not expressing any opinion whether we should use The Complete Peerage or just Complete Peerage.
 * WP:DUPCITES states "Do NOT discourage editors ... from adding duplicate citations when the use of the source is appropriate, because a duplicate is better than no citation. But any editor should feel free to combine them, and doing so is the best practice on Wikipedia". It appears that your comment above was not appropriate. I'm not quite sure why you felt the need to link it to an edit of mine entirely unrelated which is in dispute elsewhere. Now resolved I think. It might seem from your link as if you were attempting to link it as a censure, or re-inforcement against my favour, to an entirely unrelated issue I am currently discussing elsewhere. I will however now try to improve in this regard, I "feel free" to do so, but it's important to note DUPCITES is NOT a disciplinary issue, it might appear as if you had presented it as such above. If you are trying to raise my level from "fine/perfectly acceptable/following the guidelines" to "best practice" that is something I appreciate, but it's something that needs to be done voluntarily on my part, when I feel I am ready to move forward, not by what might appear as coercion, bullying and constant harassment. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * S MALL JIM, it is probably not necessary to do so, but the general mood I see is that footnotes get a pass on the 'only link once' rule.  On one side you get redundancy, on the other risk - if someone happens to replace that one linked citation, then you end up with no link at all.  I would say that if the page has a proper bibliography/sources section, then you only would need to link there where there would be a single listing, and the citation footnotes don't need a link at all. That said, I have seen 'better' pages done all kinds of ways (every time, only first time, citations or only sources). Agricolae (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Speccot
In the current version of the article, the List of Constables section contains this text:

Here's the relevant text from the source:

It is averred by some, that the Speccots' ancient name is Fitz-Barnard, and that they took name of their house so called. Indeed, from the conquest unto the time of king Edward the first, the addition of Fitz was so frequent with the Normans, that to avoid confusion in that kind, men were commanded to assume unto themselves local names; and sir Baldwin Speccot, knight, by Maude, one of the co-heirs of sir Baldwin Belston, relinquishing his own name, was called Belston, after his mother...

Is this not a really poor choice for a reference?
 * 1) It was written 400 years ago: it cannot be considered to be a reliable source.
 * 2) It says nothing about "those who were late".
 * 3) It does not say that men were commanded during the reign of King Edward, it says "from the conquest unto the time...", which could be interpreted to mean up to King Edward's reign.
 * 4) The interpretations of what the source means amounts to original research.

In addition, the citation appears to apply to the whole paragraph, whereas it says nothing at all about the first sentence.

I'm pointing this out as another example of poor referencing. It looks impressive, but falls apart on examination. Lobsterthermidor has used this snippet many times in the past. A few examples:, , , ... —S MALL JIM   23:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I just saw that same thing yesterday on the page Fitz, and concluded it was problematic but didn't have the time to deal with it. If this royal dictat is real, a modern scholar would have commented upon it, so we shouldn't be citing Risdon for it (or for much at all about anything - his work is rife with Stuart-era antiquarian fantasies, such that nothing he says about anything before about 1450 should be viewed as reliable). I think this specific claim needs to be removed everywhere it appears, rather than flagged, because of the problematic nature of the source and the fact that we are generalizing from a comment made about one specific family.  With regard to this specific page, I don't see why we are telling the reader that they should be confused about Anglo-Norman onomastic practice, just so we can pat them on the hand and tell them why it isn't as confusing as we just told them it was. Leave the absence of consistent surname usage to be self-evident from the list of names and relationships, rather than trying to present a framework for understanding of Anglo-Norman surname practice in an article about a feudal office. Agricolae (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with all that, and I have been removing this snippet whenever I spot it (probably twenty or so times by now). I thought it was time to bring it to the fore, since edit summaries have not had any effect. Would you care to leave a note to Lobsterthermidor to request that he stops adding it now? He's muted me, so my pinging him is no use, and I don't want to annoy him by unnecessarily posting on his talk page. (sigh). —S MALL  JIM   00:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I bit the bullet and put a note on his talk page. —S MALL  JIM   10:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the first sentence "The names of the first few holders of the first two dynasties until about 1200 are somewhat confusing as they all use the Norman prefix fitz with the first name of their father, before eventually adopting the surname "de Lacy" due to an important inheritance from a female line" is absolutely fine as it is just an introductory paragraph to the list. It is an introduction, not original research, a broad summary of the list that follows. What's wrong with that? Are introductory paragraphs banned before lists? Look at any of our peerage articles, all have a lengthy discussion of the title, the family, the origins, before giving the list. Is that original research? Look at Duke of Chandos, the discussion wanders from descent to how some were Members of Parliament, built an exceptionally grand country house, Handel was the resident composer, Cannons is now occupied by North London Collegiate School, etc, all side-topics bearing some relation to the main subject. That is the purpose of an introduction. This family is very unusual that it did not drop the fitz prefix until very late, it requires some mention or comment. That's not original research.


 * As for the second sentence clearly "Indeed, from the conquest unto the time of king Edward the first, the addition of Fitz was so frequent with the Normans, that to avoid confusion in that kind, men were commanded to assume unto themselves local names;" is a very broad comment by Risdon, it definitely does not relate only to the Speccot family; "men were commanded" refers to men of England in general. It is entirely relevant to this list, by way of an introduction. Whether Risdon is a reliable source is another question, he is certainly quoted in much modern academic work as an original source. Please show me where in the WP guideline on sources such a source is disallowed. If we are to deprecate Risdon as a source, then surely we should also deprecate every other early English county historian, of which there are possibly approaching one hundred, the foundations of much of recorded British history. That would forbid the quoting of others like William Dugdale, Elias Ashmole, John Collinson (historian) and dozens of other early historians. If you want to ban those from circa the 17th/18th century, you will surely have to ban all quotes from earlier historians. Wp:Sources states "With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors". Risdon was reporting on a royal decree which was known to him at the time. Probably 90% of historical deeds, charters, decrees have now been lost. All we can rely on is the report of such old historians who saw the documents and mention them. That surely is how much of history works. What would be the cut-off date where a source becomes useable in your opinion? I think this is a very poorly thought out criticism, and I don't think it follows the wikipedia guidelines for acceptable sources. I do not accept that my text was original reasearch, it was a relevant quote from an allowable source. I would like this matter taken to Requests for comment.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Before I start the RfC process, I would welcome any comments here as to why Tristram Risdon is not an acceptable source and why it is not allowed to quote from him. I have just re-read the relevant guidelines carefully and cannot see any part which would disallow Risdon - even if he is deemed to be a primary source. Nor does my text synthesise what he said, it just Close paraphrasing ("Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words") "says it in your own words", paraphrase, as it is in antiquated language.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Because he is neither anywhere close to contemporary with the events he is describing, being centuries too late, while nonetheless at the same time being way too early, by centuries, for his work to be a product of modern scholarly standards. If this dictat of Edward I is real, there will be a modern scholar who has written about it. Anyhow, its use here is over-explaining.  We tell them the names of each holder, why they had the names they did has nothing to do with the constableship of Chester. Agricolae (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * and further, Roger de Lacy, who died in 1211, had no knowledge of what Edward I was supposedly going to mandate almost a century later, completely depriving the quote of any relevance whatsoever. Agricolae (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I second pretty much everything that Agricolae has said. The problem with these early scholars is that they lacked the critical faculty and access to resources that modern scholars have. They may have made major leaps in terms of topographical history and the genesis of modern historical studies, but they were very much operating, as Agricolae says, in a different scholarly framework. They also may have preserved records or information which have otherwise been lost to history, but because they lacked the kind of critical apparatus expected of modern scholarship, it is not appropriate for them to be used as sources of fact on Wikipedia. Even where Risdon was actually reciting or summarising a medieval charter, how do we know that this document was not a forgery? There are plenty of examples of Dugdale being caught out by forgeries or drawing conclusions which have been refuted by more recent findings and analysis. I have no idea whether Risdon fell foul of such situations, but that's more the point: we shouldn't have to be applying critical historical skills when we cite scholars or primary sources. We should just be able to rely on them, which is why we must only use the kind of sources which have been written by modern experts with access to the latest learning and knowledge, been through modern peer-review and editorial processes and which have done all the weighing up and critical analysis for us. These are called secondary sources and Wikipedia takes them and summarises them neutrally, verifiably and without introducing our own critical understanding, biases, points of view or secondary research; this is what makes Wikipedia a tertiary source and is an absolutely fundamental part of what this encyclopaedia is. It's really imperative that you grasp this purpose; it's something that is enshrined in our core policies and has been established for the best part of two decades. If you wish to write your own histories of these offices, fees and manors, and weigh up for yourself the evidence presented in Risdon and others, then that's fine: you can do that on a blog, in an article or a book, at a genealogy newsgroup or in some other venue. But all we ask is that you don't do that here, because that's not what we're for. I don't wish to be drawn into a long debate and back and forth about this; you've asked for opinions and I've given mine. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC).
 * Wikipedia allows the use of and quotation of original sources. That's clear. I was not using Risdon's statement as a "source of fact" on Wikipedia, as you assert. I quoted a statement in quotation marks - "men were commanded to assume unto themselves local names". Perhaps it would have been better if I had written: "Risdon (d.1640) stated that "men were commanded to assume unto themselves local names", and for that omission I apologise.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * . My response was to your more general invitation for comment about the suitability of Ridson and other 17th-century sources. What I've written is my opinion on that matter. To respond quickly to your reply: Wikipedia does allow for us to quote from primary sources, but I'm looking at your original wording here. In that instance, it read: There are several issues with this, but the main one as it pertains to the general discussion about Risdon is that, while you are quoting him, you are doing it in a way which represents his words as Wikipedia's neutral "voice"; it reads like a statement of fact. As I have outlined above, I don't believe that this is appropriate because Risdon is not necessarily a reliable source for factual information. If you were to quote him, you would be better to say something like  However, I still don't think Risdon is a sensible source for this sort of fact at all. There must be better sources for Anglo-Norman onomastics and, if not, then perhaps we should just leave it alone.
 * As a side-note, there are other issues with the way you have used Risdon in this instance, some of which have been pointed out elsewhere. Firstly, the citation comes at the end of a paragraph but the work cited only supports some of the information in that paragraph; this is potentially confusing for people wishing to follow up the sources to check the facts. Remember, verification is a core principle on Wikipedia. Citing the whole paragraph to Risdon also signals to a reader that what you've written is based on a reliable source, when in fact it is partly your own summary in this case. Whether you mean it or not, that is misleading to readers. Secondly, the constables adopted the Lacy name around 1193 when they inherited the Lacy lands from a collateral branch (you acknowledge this); they didn't change their name because of anything to do with living in Lassy, Normandy (which they didn't do, as far as I can tell), so the statement that is irrelevant here. Thirdly, the supposed command from Edward I (if it existed) came at least 80 years after the constables adopted Lacy as their surname, so it is doubly irrelevant here. Aside from the unreliability of Risdon, the fact that you're including his explanation about name changes (and doing so in a very factual tone) right in the middle of this article suggests quite clearly to a reader that his explanation for why people stopped using the Fitz patronymic form applies in this article, when actually it doesn't apply and Risdon never apparently intended it as an explanation specific to the constables of Chester. I don't doubt that this is one of the reasons why you are being accused of original research by other editors on this page. —Noswall59 (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC).
 * Statement of facts are not generally given in quotation marks. I gave his statement in quotation marks; it may have been better had I said "Risdon (d.1640) stated ...", for which I apologise. I don’t think giving a quote in quotation marks is akin to stating it as a fact.  why not? He is a historian. You have pigeon-holed him as someone who knows nothing of English history beyond the border of Devon, which I think is possibly prejudiced. County historians are also very well versed in the general history of England, which they apply to their own narrower specialist subject areas. There may well be "better sources for Anglo-Norman onomastics", I would agree with you, but that does not invalidate using a source who may not be OPTIMAL.


 * I actually think your second paragraph and criticism has much merit, and I would agree with you that the Risdon quote was misused chronologically by me. It was in fact largely irrelevant to this article, for which I apologise. I think you have stated the case very clearly and helpfully and I can now see clearly where my fault lay. It’s not necessarily that Risdon is an unacceptable source, it’s that I applied his general statement in a place where it was not relevant due to chronology and thus could be misleading. I think perhaps if the name-change had ocurred between 1272 and 1307 (reign of Edward I) and without clear reason, namely an inheritance, the inclusion of Risdon’s text might have been more acceptable. But I won’t use it again, to avoid any future dispute. I will repeat that conclusion and apology at the bottom as a general apology to all concerned. Thanks.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * . Thanks, I'm glad that my second paragraph has helped you to see why this instance was problematic and hopefully will be helpful in future.
 * With regards to using Risdon, I stand by my earlier comments, especially my post from 19 November. I take issue with your assertion that I'm pidgeon-holing him as "someone who knows nothing of English history beyond the border of Devon". I don't think I've said that or implied it anywhere here. My view is that Risdon was operating at a time when scholarly standards were different, and I therefore think it's difficult to use him as a source for things on Wikipedia (Devon-related or otherwise) without a very heavy degree of caution and clear, inline attribution. I've already explained my reasons for that above—yes, he was a historian but four centuries ago. Methods of historical scholarship have been transformed since then, and many new discoveries and analyses have emerged which could have significant bearing on the accuracy of Risdon's statements, even if he believed them to be true. While he might be correct in many instances, and of doubtless use to modern historians, he is not appropriate for regular use on this website because we are not supposed to be making critical judgements about the accuracy of his sources; remember, we don't write as historians and we don't do what historians do here, because doing so introduces our own research and points of view into Wikipedia, which violates our POV and OR guidelines and makes Wikipedia become a secondary source, when it is meant to be a tertiary one. Moving on to onomastics, it's not a question of there being better sources, but of whether Risdon is an appropriate source at all and, for similar reasons, I don't believe he can be: he was writing at a time before the modern, critical study of onomastics existed. I've discussed my views on Risdon in more detail above, in my comment of 19 November. —Noswall59 (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC).

Lest anyone who has read this far gets sidetracked away from what the issue here really is, can I suggest re-reading the post that started this thread (and several others below). Incidentally, I note that Lobsterthermidor has avoided saying anything about point 2. —S MALL JIM   17:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've just posted a response above which, although long, seems to cover most of the issues I have with using Risdon as a source generally and its relevance in this situation. I don't want to get drawn into a long debate, so I think that's all I will say in this section. Incidentally, my comment above about the general suitability of Risdon would be equally applicable to the RFC discussion elsewhere on this page. I'm happy for it to be copied there or I can do it myself. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC).
 * And returning the initial response, No, it really doesn't.  Not unless it had a some effect on the constableship of Chester, or conversely their holding of the constableship of Chester affected their byname/surname practices, neither of which seems to have been the case. Agricolae (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Summary
This article violates the principle of summary style. It should provide brief summaries of each person, encouraging those who want to learn more to follow the links to the main articles: all but two of the constables here have their own article. What we have instead is the copying-in of large chunks of the other articles. This is not only unnecessary, but will also cause problems later when one or other of the versions gets edited, leaving inconsistencies. The content on each holder of the post should be dramatically trimmed to what is relevant to the office. Much like the position regarding manorial descents, in fact. —S MALL JIM   00:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * (e/c - started my own new section to say much the same apparently just as Smalljim added theirs, so I will just leave my comment as written and remove my section header)
 * I am thinking that this article is doing the same thing we have had a problem with elsewhere, the coatracking of extensive biography and genealogy into a page about a title. I just removed a lot in the section about Eustace that was entirely unnecessary here, and probably should have taken out more. The more I look at it, the more I find much of the biographical material extraneous to the purpose of this page - we don't need to recapitulate full biographies here, turning it into a content fork for the individual articles (or like some of the manor histories, a coatrack for a family genealogy). I'm thinking less is more here - hit only big picture stuff and those items that specifically relate to the constableship (if there even are any for most of these people). Agricolae (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you are possibly missing a couple of points. Firstly this is a hereditary office, so it's absolutely essential to explain how the inheritance operated, and it gets complex. Nor was the inheritance set down in letters patent as for most modern peerages. Perhaps it was not written down anywhere, I don't know, possibly further sources usefully suggested below may elaborate. It's not just a list of random office holders such as for example Sheriff of Berkshire. Also the office is somewhat nebulous and ill-defined, we don't even know what the duties were, so far as my sources reveal, again, possibly further sources suggested below may elaborate. A simple list might give the reader the impression that the descent is something well-established and clear. It's complex. The article was not in any case intended as a mere list, so why should it follow a convention for drawing up lists? I think a short paragraph summarising each holder is important for a proper understanding of the topic. All were short paragraphs, bare summaries of the holder's inheritance qualifications and career, so that his essence can be grasped by the reader. Essential to a useful article. It was intended as an article on the subject of Constable of Chester, not on other aspects of each holder's career, that involves focussing especially on the Chester/Cheshire connections and activities of each holder - but not entirely ignoring the other aspects. Also very important is any relationship or connection with any Earl of Chester, to whom the Constable apparently owed feudal service. This is a vital relationship which will help to explain the functions of the office. It seems that what is proposed by objectors is an entirely superficial article which will leave the reader little the wiser on the topic. That might be a total waste of time on all sides.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope, not missing these points so much as not seeing them as valid. I can't for the life of me figure out what you think is so complex about it passing to an eldest son, then an eldest son, then that man's eldest sister's husband, then eldest sons from that point forward until it went to an only daughter. Where is the complexity in that? It is standard Anglo-Norman succession. And part of the reason Wikipedia has links is so we don't have to repeat everything multiple times, leading to content forking. As a principle, in articles like this we give brief summaries with hatnotes, rather than recapitulate the full biographies of people with their own pages. Agricolae (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Something relevant that has not been brought up yet - we already have a Halton (barony) article that follows the exact same lineage. That these were co-inherited is all the more reason why this article should focus specifically on the role of these people in the constableship (if we can ever find anything like that on most of them), rather than general biographies that would make the two pages either redundant or content forks. Also, note the appropriate use of a brief-summary style on that page. Agricolae (talk) 11:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Better source?
I have just added the following source to the further reading section: It is basically a detailed history of this office and its associated fee, which I imagine would be the best source for this page. Thoughts? —Noswall59 (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC).
 * Round, J. Horace, and Oswald Barron, "The Barony of the Constable of Chester within the Lyme", in William Farrer and John Brownhill (eds.), The Victoria History of the Counties of England: Lancashire, vol. 1 (London: Archibald Constable and Co., 1906), pp. 297–312.


 * A little dated, but quality work by respected scholars, and probably the best readily-available, detailed coverage to be found, so yes, it should serve as the core sourcing for this page (and also the basis for a significant pare down). Agricolae (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Any further sources are welcome, my initial text was just a start! Please feel free to build on the article with further sources.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Speccot??
By the way how has this discussion got anything to do with "Speccot", as in the heading? It was a general comment made by Tristram Risdon which he just happened to make in that section of his work. There is no implication whatsoever that it refers only to that topic.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It got Speccot as the subject because the text you put in the article about Constables of Chester referred directly to Speccots. Agricolae (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The observation by Risdon refers to Speccot and also to "men" in general throughout the whole of England. So to interpret it as relating primarily or entirely to Speccot is incorrect. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You asked, ' As already explained, it was your reference to Speccot in the article that made it have anything to do with Speccot. Agricolae (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My reference to Speccot was not in the article, it was in the note. I specified where the quote was on the page quoted, to direct the reader to the quote and to save them reading the whole page. As in "see page xx under para yy" does not imply that the matter referred to relates exclusively to subject yy. It's just an address.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (Please stop pinging me.) A note is a part of an article. The answer remains the same: Speccot was introduced into the context of this article because you introduced it, and you continue to do so in the discussion, mentioning it in both your responses to the Edward I topic today. Your continued invocation of Speccot is not the best way to have Speccot not be part of the discussion, any more than repeatedly saying 'pay no attention to the elephant in the corner' is a good way to get people to pay no attention to the elephant in the corner. Agricolae (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Ordered by King Edward I
"Indeed, from the conquest unto the time of king Edward the first, the addition of Fitz was so frequent with the Normans, that to avoid confusion in that kind, men were commanded to assume unto themselves local names;" clearly means that the practice ended during the reign of King Edward I - "unto the time of king Edward the first" can hardly be clearer. "Until the 1980s flared trousers were fashionable" means the fashion ended in the 1980s. The practice ended then. And to say "ordered by King Edward I" is therefore not original research, it ended in his reign and someone commanded it to end; saying "the king ordered" is reasonable shorthand for "government commanded", not original research.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * If I were you, then, I'd carry on adding that Risdon extract to articles, just as you have before. —S MALL  JIM   21:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know if that's sarcastic or your acceptance that my point is valid. Please try to follow WP:Civility and engage in the discussion in a clearer way. Your comment was not helpful and did not address any of the points I made.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your point isn't valid. This is exactly the type of information found in Risdon that one has to treat with skepticism. On your Talk you said Risdon is no worse than other works of his era. In this you are right, and that is the problem.  Scholarly standards were entirely different, and it was all too common for them just unquestioningly repeat whatever a family told them, however braggadocious or absurd. Risdon's more narrative style was particularly prone to anachronistic and 'just so story' recitations, while Pole's biggest failing was perhaps to represent as father-to-son pedigrees what were nothing but patterns of successive ownership. The point is, we can, and should do better. Risdon (and Pole) should only be used in a limited manner, with extreme caution.
 * Plus in the histories of manors where you have been adding this anecdote, you are taking a specific statement about one family adopting a toponymic and applying it generically to every family with a toponymic, without any evidence that Edward's dictat played any role in that any specific family's toponymic adoption. That is WP:OR, and further, from the perspective of the manor it is sufficient that the family bore the name of the manor without explaining why.  Agricolae (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Both Risdon and Pole were highly scholarly men, very well-educated and very well read. Not simpleton parrots as you suggest. Not mediaeval monks writing fantastical bestiaries. It seems to me that you are possibly unfamiliar with their writings. Many of these county historians were trained as lawyers at the Inns of Court (then the standard training for sons of gentry with prospects of estates to manage and business to conduct) and were thoroughly well-versed with the concepts of evidence, hearsay, lies, false claims, etc. They frequently state "I heard it said by" or "I read it in a deed I saw in Mr X's house" or "tradition states that". They frequently discuss their evidence, and assess it. They do indeed often repeat what a family told them (history is fundamentally all about what someone told someone else, recorded in writing), but qualify it "I heard it from Mr XYZ". Pole certainly spent a great deal of his time visiting country houses and, for the specific purpose of collecting materials for writing his history, he read the deeds of his hosts, including conveyances of land, marriage settlements, entails, which are all primary and very reliable sources of family relationships. Now 99% lost. Frequently Pole and Risdon state when they are sceptical or uncertain. Have you read either author in any depth or are you just guessing with prejudice? For example, perhaps you could give me an example of where Pole claimed father-to-son pedigrees which were "nothing but patterns of successive ownership". That's the sort of thing he was most interested in, so he made every effort to state it accurately. When he does not know the relationship he merely states "it came to", deliberately vague.


 * Surely I just explained above why "men were commanded to assume unto themselves local names" is not "a specific statement about one family". That would have been "This family was commanded to assume unto itself a local name". He is saying that a law was passed relating to "men" in general, which law he mentions here because he believes it explains why this family changed its name. A similar scenario might be written by a historian in 2300 "Mr Smith died in about November 2020. COVID was then raging across the world". His statement that "COVID was raging across the world" does not relate only to Mr Smith who he is talking about, rather he is applying a broad fact to the specific instance of Mr Smith and making an intelligent deduction. Thus Risdon is stating a broad fact and then applying it intelligently to a narrow area, as a possible (or even likely) explanation as to why a particular family changed its name. He does not say it was the reason why Speccot changed their name, it's his intelligent suggestion, and he makes that clear. You will read thousands of times in wikipedia "source ABC suggests that", and unless the source is known to be entirely unreliable or even wilfully misleading, that is a useful addition. Risdon is very far from being "entirely unreliable", he is a good source who compiled his work diligently and with care. His statement that such a law was passed is not an opinion or suggestion, he is asserting it as a fact. He was living only about three centuries after the reign of King Edward I, which is like us commenting on the laws of Queen Anne, not too long ago, with many surviving documents still uneaten by rats or burned in housefires. Risdon is a credible source, a highly intelligent and well-educated man and his opinion and suggestion carries some weight, certainly much interest, to a discussion of the topic, as does something he asserts as a fact. So it is not WP:OR to quote a statement from Risdon, properly attributed. It's what he said, no more no less, and the quote makes that clear. I think we should take this to RfD, it's essential we determine whether county historians are valid sources on wikipedia. Would you support that?Lobsterthermidor (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not going to read this wall of text, but I will address the first sentence. I am not calling Risdon and Pole simpletons. I am saying that the entire nature of scholarship in their era was different, and yes, they sometimes did parrot what they were told, because that was how scholarship was done in their era. Agricolae (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just as a self-followup, please note that I am not saying that there are no circumstances in which these authors can be used. In particular, I can think of one instance where Pole explicitly states that there is a charter in which person X calls person Z "my brother". From my perspective, citing this is perfectly acceptable, because it is clear he was taking it from a document contemporary with the events being reported, and I don't question his competence at reading and summarizing a document.  However when he just gives relationship information without stating a source, then he could have gotten it from a charter, it could be from a visitation, it could be from a hagiographic account of an abbey's founding family written hundreds of years later (many of which fudged the details to push their foundation back in time or to glorify their founders - the false 'de Burgo' connection of Eustace Fitz John is just such a fabrication, unmasked by modern scholarship). We just don't know where he got it from, and that makes its citation problematic. Agricolae (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "We just don't know where he got it from, and that makes its citation problematic". That makes Pole a primary source, not necessarily a problem. All history starts with primary sources, what someone said/wrote without quoting a further source. The origin of the asserted fact. It's OK to quote primary sources. Pole is the original source for most of the manorial/family history of Devon. Nothing else survives, parchment/deeds/pedigrees eaten by rats, burnt in housefires, he's all we've got. He is by no means prima facie unreliable or biased, so there's no problem with using him as a primary source, in the format "Pole states that ....., I usually give the date of his death too to alert the reader that he is an ancient source. That is not saying "it's true", it's just saying that "Pole states that xyz". You are never going to get any "modern scholarship" to examine the manor of Speccot, or many of the other matter Pole writes about, firstly because he has said all there is to say about the matters, and secondly because no further sources survive. So either you stay silent on the whole notable topic, or you use the best surviving source you have, which is Pole, and you quote what he said - without dressing it up as 100% fact, which in any case can only be said of such things as video footage which have only existed in modern times. Even that can be doctored. All earlier history is just assertions.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really. Pole remains a secondary source, as the term is used by historians, for most of what he is reporting, just one that does not meet modern historical standards. As such it has to be used with extreme caution.  Anyhow, reclassifying it as a primary source in order to rationalise its use is counterproductive: we are not supposed to base article narratives on primary sources anyhow. Primary sources are to be used in very limited circumstances to supplement/clarify secondary sources, not as the stand-alone basis for a narrative.  If all we have is primary sources, then what we are doing is entirely WP:Original research, which is expressly forbidden. When taking this prohibition into account, yours is actually an argument for not writing detailed accounts that require the reliance on primary sources, not one for writing long tracts of original research because the 'primary sources' (or dubious secondary sources) are all we have. Agricolae (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (. . . and another thing) You keep insisting this has nothing to do with Speccot, yet you keep mentioning Speccot. Agricolae (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I skimmed it. Just two points that are probably relevant:
 * Read WP:STICKTOSOURCE again very carefully. It's the core of our policy on original research.
 * Merely asserting, no matter how vigorously, that something is true does not make it so. You need evidence. Have you looked for any? Are you going to? —S MALL  JIM   21:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:STICKTOSOURCE states: "Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources". Risdon specifically said "men were commanded" - so he was making a general statement. His clear intention was to generalise. So to use that information in a general context is NOT using it out of context. If he had said "the lord of the manor of Speccot was ordered to adopt a local name" and relying on that I had written "many men were ordered to adopt a local name, for example as occurred at Speccot", that would indeed be original research and synthesis, going beyond what was stated and beyond Risdon's intention. I did not do that. Please read WP:STICKTOSOURCE more carefully and avoid a mechanistic interpretation. General statements are frequently contained within discussions of specific topics. For example if talking about a specific sailing trip to Panama, mentioning "the current in the Caribbean flows in a clockwise direction" is a general statement not aimed at relating only to that particular journey. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The elephant in the room is your claim that King Edward I issued this general commandment. You wrote above (about Risdon): He is saying that a law was passed relating to "men" in general .... If this supposed law had such an important effect on how people in England were named then it would have been referred to many times in the 400 years since Risdon. Please present evidence from a recent reliable source that such a significant law was passed.

This point impacts directly both on the reliability of Risdon as a source and on your ability to accurately summarise information in source material. Your retraction below of one minor point doesn't invalidate all the other concerns that have been voiced on this page. —S MALL JIM   19:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Here's another 400-year-old source talking about the same thing: William Camden Remains (c. 1610) - see the Internet Archive copy of a 1674 edition (p. 185).

The dislike of others hath caused also a change of names, for King Edward the first, disliking the iteration of Fitz, commanded the Lord John Fitz-Robert, an ancient Baron, (whose ancestors had continued their Surnames by their fathers Christian names), to leave that manner, and be called John of Clavering, which was the capital seat of his Barony. And in this time, many that had followed that course of naming by Fitz, took them one settled name, and retained it, as Fitz-Walter, and others.

The differences from what Risdon wrote point up the dangers of using this old material. —S MALL JIM   11:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Is Tristram Risdon an allowable source?
Please can we have some further comment as to whether Devonshire county historians Tristram Risdon (d.1640) and Sir William Pole (d.1635) are acceptable sources (or even acceptable primary sources) for use on wikipedia, under the guideline Reliable sources. In addition, are county historians in general acceptable sources for wikipedia? Is it OK to quote from Tristram Risdon in the form "Risdon (d.1640) stated that xyz"? I feel this is an important issue to get a wider ruling on as it could have significant consequences (and set a significantly restrictive precedent) for wikipedia's articles on local history, as English local history relies largely on what the county historians (working generally 17-18th centuries) recorded, observed and opined about, usually without them giving any sources. Effectively they are primary sources in many areas. I have received a formal warning of a block for quoting from Risdon as "own original research into ancient and unreliable sources". Please see my talk page under "Re Constable of Chester".Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Please read: Writing requests for comment. Also consider that neither the general reliability of 17th century sources nor any warning you may have received are issues having much to do with the Constables of Chester, so perhaps this is not the best venue for a achieving a general consensus over the use of a whole class of sources across Wikipedia, and certainly not the place to litigate a disciplinary dispute. Agricolae (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. The discussion here has been about Risdon as a source. We haven't discussed very much the Constables of Chester. The warning I got was indeed specifically related to this article quoting "own original research into ancient and unreliable sources". Where in your opinion would be the best place to request further comment on the issue of the acceptability of Risdon as a source? I have been warned not to use him as an "ancient and unreliable source", which I believe is an inaccurate definition of this source. As I said such a ban would create a dramatic and far-reaching precedent for wikipedia. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if your warning mentioned your edit here, this venue is for discussions about improving this page, not about your disciplinary trevails. The discussion here has been about your use of Risdon for the specific statement that you put into this article on the Constables of Chester. Yes, there has been some discussion drift, in part justified since the same disputed text has been spammed verbatim to multiple pages, but you introduced Pole and then broadened it all out of proportion by making it about to the use of all 17th-18th century antiquarians anywhere on Wikipedia, when it is completely unreasonable to expect platform-wide Wikipedia precedent on a couple of centuries of English regional antiquarian sources to emerge from discussions among a small cadre of editors with an interest in the Constables of Chester. Agricolae (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * See WP:RFCBEFORE: "Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC. / If a local discussion does not answer your question or resolve the problem, then some other forums for resolution include: / If the article is complex or technical, it may be worthwhile to ask for help at the relevant WikiProject. / If an article content question is just between two editors, you can simply and quickly ask for a third opinion on the Third opinion page. / If more than two editors are involved or the issue is complex, dispute resolution is available through the Dispute resolution noticeboard. [...] / If you are not sure if an RfC is necessary, or about how best to frame it, ask on the talk page of this project."
 * If you are not satisfied with the discussion that has taken place so far on this page, then an appropriate next step is to approach the WikiProjects Cheshire, England, UK geography and History. I would think there would be a number of editors at those projects familiar with using older sources and coming to an assessment as to which older sources are considered reliable and when. SilkTork (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * you classed my use of Risdon as "own original research into ancient and unreliable sources". Surely you were confident of your position - you actually used it as a reason to threaten me with an editing ban? That is a serious matter for me about which I require clarification. I am seeking a general opinion as to whether this particular source is acceptable on wikipedia and whether as you assert it is an "ancient and unreliable source". Presumably you yourself have a well thought-out rationale, as you used it to threaten a disciplinary ban, the highest disciplinary tool available. I would hope you had thought about the matter in some depth before giving such a serious warning.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Out of interest, I had a look for who else uses Tristram Risdon as a source, as that could add weight to any argument regarding his suitability. These are the results of the first eleven uses I found:, , , , , , , , , , . It is possible that there are others who use Risdon, but I felt at this point I should stop. SilkTork (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't follow your point? That just suggests (all those links show my own usage of Risdon) that I am possibly the principal writer on Devonshire parochial/local history on wikipedia. Nobody could write on the topic without using Risdon (or Pole) as a source, those two are the main sources. It says nothing about the acceptability of the source. It's a specialist area, so unless someone were writing about Devonshire local history there would be no use for it as a source. He writes about nothing else. If a source writes about nothing other than The Beatles and there's one main wp contributor on The Beatles, why would you expect that author to be used as a source by other editors? Would that prove that the source was discredited? W. G. Hoskins (d.1992) gives a very superficial account of each parish, rarely quoting his sources, but which are in fact largely taken from Pole and Risdon, as are all others.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For clarity, Lobsterthermidor, as you seem a bit unsure. I have given you a warning for using original research (OR), not for using Tristram Risdon as a source. If you use ANY source and interpret findings or analyse or interpretations of your own, then I will block you. This will not be a permanent block, it will be a short block - greater than one day, your previous block, but shorter than one week. Repeated instances of you using original research will result in increasingly longer blocks. If it comes to that. You have been advised many times over your ten years here not to use OR, yet you continue to do so. This has to stop. If you find a consensus that Tristram Risdon is an acceptable source in some circumstances (as I suspect he probably is), that does not impact at all on your warning for not engaging in OR while consulting that or any other source. SilkTork (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your warning appeared to specifically relate to my use of Risdon, whom you characterised as "own original research into ancient and unreliable sources". Your words, you actually gave the diff which was supposedly so offensive. What did you mean if you were not referring to Risdon? I did not interpret Risdon's words nor analyse them. I quoted them, in inverted commas, as wikipedia reccommends. I quoted a general observation made by Risdon. Quoting general observations is not OR nor is it synthesis. So when you tell me "this has to stop" it seems to me that if I quote from Risdon ever again, I will be blocked. Your warning is extremely unclear and possibly needs to be re-written. That will effectively shut down the topic of Devonshire local/parochial/manorial history on wikipedia. That's why I'm seeking clarification. Surely the onus is on those challenging the use of Risdon to state why he should NOT be deemed an acceptable source? Prima facie he is an acceptable source, he's a respected county historian. And until consensus has been reached that he SHOULD be banned as a source, use of Risdon should be acceptable, surely? One county historian of Devon is widely known to be somewhat unreliable, namely Thomas Westcote, whom I rarely use, for that reason. His inaccuracies are often very obvious.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Agricolae (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your one word response, but that does not get the discussion much further. You seem to be suggesting that any source written/published before a certain cut off date is prima facie unreliable. What would that date be, and what would be your justification? I think that is possibly a prejudiced and condescending view of ancient scholarship. Moreover I can't see that stated in the WP guideline on sources. It might be appropriate in certain areas, such as the sciences, medicine for example or astrology. This topic is largely about the reading and recording of ancient deeds, not rocket science, which Risdon and Pole were probably better qualified than modern scholars to do - their Latin was better as was their ability to read old handwriting and abbreviations. They were intelligent and honest men who recorded what they read and discovered by their investigations. We are not interested in an unusual star they might have observed, just in their recording or summarising of a deed.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) In general, the default for all challenged material is non-inclusion pending consensus, which is why your claim that Risdon should 'surely' be OK to use until a consensus arises otherwise is incorrect. Hence my 'No'. 2) Because they usually don't say what their sources are for any particular statement they make, their qualification at reading ancient deeds is not entirely pertinent - we have no idea that is what they were doing.  Further, as others have pointed out, their ability to read a deed and their ability to determine if a deed is a fabrication are two separate things, and the latter is something for which modern scholars, both with the critical standards of modern scholarship and the much broader accessibility to complementary source material are in a much better position to make a sound judgment upon, which partially negates the supposed greater familiarity the 17th century diletants had with deeds (an assumption I reject anyhow). Their intelligence and honesty have nothing to do with it - it was a different time with different standards. Agricolae (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Copying my comment from 19 November, above: I second pretty much everything that Agricolae [has said in his comment of 15:55, 25 November 2020]. The problem with these early scholars is that they lacked the critical faculty and access to resources that modern scholars have. They may have made major leaps in terms of topographical history and the genesis of modern historical studies, but they were very much operating, as Agricolae says, in a different scholarly framework. They also may have preserved records or information which have otherwise been lost to history, but because they lacked the kind of critical apparatus expected of modern scholarship, it is not appropriate for them to be used as sources of fact on Wikipedia. Even where Risdon was actually reciting or summarising a medieval charter, how do we know that this document was not a forgery? There are plenty of examples of Dugdale being caught out by forgeries or drawing conclusions which have been refuted by more recent findings and analysis. I have no idea whether Risdon fell foul of such situations, but that's more the point: we shouldn't have to be applying critical historical skills when we cite scholars or primary sources. We should just be able to rely on them, which is why we must only use the kind of sources which have been written by modern experts with access to the latest learning and knowledge, been through modern peer-review and editorial processes and which have done all the weighing up and critical analysis for us. These are called secondary sources and Wikipedia takes them and summarises them neutrally, verifiably and without introducing our own critical understanding, biases, points of view or secondary research; this is what makes Wikipedia a tertiary source and is an absolutely fundamental part of what this encyclopaedia is. It's really imperative that you grasp this purpose; it's something that is enshrined in our core policies and has been established for the best part of two decades. If you wish to write your own histories of these offices, fees and manors, and weigh up for yourself the evidence presented in Risdon and others, then that's fine: you can do that on a blog, in an article or a book, at a genealogy newsgroup or in some other venue. But all we ask is that you don't do that here, because that's not what we're for. I don't wish to be drawn into a long debate and back and forth about this; you've asked for opinions and I've given mine. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC).
 * As an added point, if we quote Risdon et al, which must be done sparingly, we should definitely be saying something like "According to the 17th-century antiquarian Tristram Risdon...". Even if using quotation marks, we should not be presenting Risdon's words in Wikipedia's voice or making it sound like what he has written is undoubtedly correct. In general I don't think we should really be using him or other scholars operating in his time period. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC).
 * , Ping etc., OK, I will be very happy to use that formula "According to the 17th-century antiquarian Tristram Risdon..." that seems a very clear caveat to any reader that we are not vouching the source on the same level as a 21st century Oxford professor whose work has been peer reviewed by 10 of his colleagues. It pretty much says: this is a primary source we are quoting here", and as primary sources are indeed allowed by wikipedia, when suitably caveated, that I hope will be a solution to this issue. In effect a quotation from Risdon will be treated in the same way as a quotation from a 17th century church monument, which is a primary source allowed by wikipedia. I would of course prefer to use a bang-up-to-date source but they are not always available for every notable topic, as generally there is no more to say on the topic that what he has said. I always tried to give such caveat by quoting "Risdon (d.1640) stated ... ", but the above formula is much clearer.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 'According to Risdon . . .' does not give free license to incorporate otherwise unreliable information, and this has no comparison whatsoever to a 17th century church monument. Risdon should only be used very sparingly, with extreme caution, not wherever one can't find an actual reliable source - the attribution does not change that. If Risdon is the only source, then the material probably isn't noteworthy. (And I already asked you once already not to ping me.) Agricolae (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just as an aside, in comparison of Risdon with the use of 17th century church monuments, you open a can of worms. I have been concerned with what you have been doing with some of these as well, reaching your own WP:OR conclusions about the identity and relevance of the heraldry shown on them.  That's not kosher, so the last thing you want to to is hold up their use as a model for using Risdon. Agricolae (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Heraldry is merely another language, based on clear, unambiguous and unique (with rare exceptions) symbols, just like letters and words. Reading heraldry from a monument is akin to reading Latin from a monument. Indeed it is specifically designed to be clear and unambiguous. It requires a certain competence, which I humbly put myself forward as possessing. There is a group of wikipedians who state themselves competent in the reading of blazonry, if ever you want a to query anything. Blazons are entirely verifiable from a multitude of credible heraldic sources, in exactly the same way as the interpretation of a French word is verifiable from a French dictionary. If you wish to challenge any of my heraldic edits, that can be done in the article concerned. The positioning of quarterings is an important part of the language. It is an assertion that the family displaying the arms married at some past time the heraldic heiress of that family. Heraldry is a very plain guide on this point - again it is no more than an assertion, as with any other primary source, allowable on wikipedia.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is all just false. Heraldry is not unambiguous, and the exceptions to it being unique are not rare. It is not a plain guide that there was an ancestral marriage to an heiress. Families faked arms, families used heraldry to pretend to be genealogical heirs to disputed lands when they had no descent, arms on monuments lacking tinctures are inherently ambiguous, aging of pigments can change apparent tinctures (notably argent often corrodes to appear sable), glass panels were often taken apart for cleaning or reconstruction and not correctly put back together, and that doesn't even touch on the fact that in the earlier days of heraldry, the 'rules' are completely anachronistic, which is how the family in this article ended up with a doubly-differenced coat of the Earls of Essex, from whom they had no descent. While Papworth or Burke give the impression of simplicity and rules, a look at Wagner's Dictionary of British Arms shows miriad complexity - the same family recorded with multiple distinct variants (such as Henry de Lacy, in this article, actually bearing at least at one point a quarterly coat with a bordure and bend sinister), and the same exact coats used by numerous - a few as many as a dozen or more - families. There is nothing precise about it. Agricolae (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting: I hadn't heard of Wagner's work. The summary at https://heraldica.hypotheses.org/6332 suggests that the four volumes would make an excellent source, which no doubt supersede any earlier work on the period covered. And they are even available to download at oapen.org! —S MALL  JIM   20:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To return to Risdon et al., the well-regarded modern Devonshire historian William Hoskins stated (in the bibliography of his work "Devon" (1954)) of Risdon: "Westcote and Risdon are both useful but are almost entirely concerned with the descents of families and estates like so many of the early topographers". He praised Pole lavishly as "an invaluable work". (page 556). Let me repeat that "an invaluable work". He uses Pole so much as a source he even includes him as one of his "List of Abbreviations", containing only 24 of his sources. Reliable sources, section "Usage by other sources" states: "How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts". Hoskins relies on Pole substantially, without comment - except to praise him. And he also offers praise for Risdon, but less effusively, and merely regrets that he did not have a wider scope to his work.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, an invaluable work to a scholar. Let me repeat that: an invaluable work to a scholar, which you, when editing here, are specifically not. (More in my previous post, below) —S MALL  JIM   19:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * (e/c) I had typed a longer response tp basically make this exact point, less succinctly, so I will just second this. Agricolae (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

user:Lobsterthermidor. At this point we are not that concerned about how happy you are. We are concerned that you don't understand what you are doing, and you have created work for others to clean up. Please do not use any pre-20th century sources as you have proved that you are incapable of using them sensibly. SilkTork (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Agricolae, Smalljim, and Noswall59 that Risdon isn't really a good source for Wikipedia. Too much is going to need interpretation by a historian which is not what we do on Wikipedia. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks and also a threat of block
I was "thanked" on 15 Nov by an admin of 14 years standing for having converted this page direct into a substantial article. How is it that an admin of 14 years standing can thank me for it, then three others can rip it to pieces and criticise virtually every aspect of my work - and even threaten me with a block? (see my talk page under "Re Constable of Chester").Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Because this is Wikipedia, and you have been participating long enough to know how it works (and sometimes doesn't). This is not really the place to litigate your disciplinary situation, which really has little to do with the Constables of Chester. Agricolae (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The request is under the heading "Wikipedia policies and guidelines", not "biographies", I think that's clear. I am not "litigating my disciplinary situation", I'm seeking clarification as to whether Risdon is an acceptable source on wikipedia, which will have substantial bearing on my future work on wikipedia as my main subject area is the history of Devon. If I am disallowed from using Risdon and Pole as sources, that subject area will largely be shut down. They are the main sources at the micro/parochial level.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not clear what your point is. If this is not about your 'disciplinary situation', quit harping on about your block warning. If this is about Risdon, there was already a section on this Talk page to discuss that, and there is no relevance in mentioning that somebody thanked you for a general article expansion and three other editors 'ripped it to pieces', which together with block warning whining represents the entire content of your opening contribution to this section and the name of the section itself. Not only is the constituent 'the lurkers support me in email' argument not reflective of how Wikipedia actually works, it has nothing to do with the category into which you placed your RfC over Risdon. Agricolae (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * otherwise known as "seeking justice", lol. Please try to follow WP:Civility ("whining"). I was threatened with a block for using a certain source. I'm appealing that the source in question is acceptable under wp guidelines. It's clear that what is happening at present here and on a couple of other pages is a concerted attempt to make my editing experience on wikipedia so unpleasant that I go away. Otherwise put "appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually, the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing". When I quote compliance with WP guidelines or question the accusations, the matter is not engaged with, or is ignored. I want to know if Risdon is acceptable or not. Simple question. We've heard your opinion, now it's time to get some further input from independent editors. That is the purpose of RfC.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely none of which has anything whatsoever to do with the Constables of Chester. 17:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Which is why I listed it under "Wikipedia policies and guidelines", not "biographies". Much effort and argument has gone into discussing the acceptability of Risdon as a source on this talk page, possibly over 50%. If Pole and Risdon are indeed disallowed, that will be the end of all articles concerning Devonshire local history on wikipedia. Maybe that is the intention, but that's another discussion, which may or may not be ongoing, I'm not sure, see my talk page section "Talk:Manor of .... and general Descent concerns" and User talk:Lobsterthermidor/Discussion.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Again with this non sequitur. Your general sense of grievance is not germain to this Talk page, no matter what category you gave the Risdon RfC. Agricolae (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In that case perhaps you would be kind enough to suggest where in your opinion the appropriate place would be to discuss the matter, so I can raise it there instead. Thanks.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Typically one discusses one's sense of grievance on their own Talk page or the Talk pages of those causing the grief, not just some page they happen to be editing. If you think the case is extreme enough to demand third-party intervention, then maybe WP:ANI is the place to air your grievances. Agricolae (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It was probably me who thanked the creator of this article. When I'm active I frequently thank people who create significant new Cheshire articles; I did not intend it as any kind of a source review, which (as a scientist, not a historian) I'm in no way qualified to perform, nor was it intended as any kind of administrative action. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a good explanation of the light-weight "Thanks" procedure. Although receiving thanks is always very welcome, one shouldn't read too much into them. —S MALL  JIM   23:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Apology and retraction by Lobsterthermidor
I replied to Noswall above at 18:51 as follows, which will I hope serve as a general apology and retraction to all concerned: ''I would agree with you that the Risdon quote was misused chronologically by me. It was in fact largely irrelevant to this article, for which I apologise. I think you have stated the case very clearly and helpfully and I can now see clearly where my fault lay. It’s not necessarily that Risdon is an unacceptable source, it’s that I applied his general statement in a place where it was not relevant due to chronology and thus could be misleading. I think perhaps if the name-change had ocurred between 1272 and 1307 (reign of Edward I) and without clear reason, namely an inheritance, the inclusion of Risdon’s text might have been more acceptable. But I won’t use it again, to avoid any future dispute''. I hope that can now resolve the matter. Thanks to all for putting me right.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To reiterate to yourself and others, and for reasons already outlined by myself above, I don't believe we should be using Risdon in all but exceptional cases. I will reply more fully above later. —Noswall59 (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC).


 * Well done for apologising, Lobsterthermidor. Would you now remove the RfC tag? SilkTork (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, much appreciated. No I do not want to remove the RfC tag, I think it's a very important precedent we might be setting in banning the use of Risdon (and thus also Pole) who are the principal primary sources for the whole local/parochial history of Devonshire, the second largest county in England. If that becomes a precedent then it could well extend logically to every county historian of every county of England. That would effectively shut down local English history on wikipedia. Frequently the old county historians have said all there is to say concerning a particular parish or manor, no other primary sources exist/survive, so modern scholars have nothing to add to the topic, and no incentive to write about it. We will wait in vain until a modern source comes along, and the notable topic will thus be left uncovered by wikipedia. Surely we have to work with the sources available, however imperfect, and suitably caveated, rather than dream about perfect sources about to appear out of thin air.


 * I believe strongly that Risdon and Pole are prima facie solid primary sources, unless in specific instances they can be shown to the contrary. Like all sources there will be errors in places, which I think are well known, and can be caveated/refuted by the use of the correcting source. i.e. "Risdon stated that xyz, now known to be inaccurate due to the work of abc". Indeed these primary sources are so important in this area that I would suggest even their errors are notable and need to be discussed. Notable howlers. I have been reading these two sources for many years and have noticed very few, the works are very scholarly (as Agricolae points out above, to the standards of their own age, which were very much above the standards of mere "mediaeval monks", who are liberally (and rightly) quoted on wikipedia, i.e. Matthew Paris). So I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm fighting for an important principle which will make wikipedia stronger with wider coverage, of an acceptable standard of reliability. I would suggest that for a source to be deemed "unreliable" a threshold proportion of erroneous content would need to be reached. i.e. it needs to be shown/proved to be riddled with significant/careless errors, as has been shown by xyz academic. That has in fact happened with some, for example Thomas Westcote whose work on Devon parochial/manorial history is notoriously unreliable. I very rarely use it for that reason.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But who decides when Risdon is accurate and when he is not? —S MALL  JIM   14:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:BATTLEGROUND - "Wikipedia is not a place to . . . carry on ideological battles. . . ." Wikipedia will not be stronger if we include dubious material from dubious sources. This is not analogous to medieval monks - as I said before, these secondary sources are neither contemporary enough for most of what they are reporting for it to be considered reliable primary sourcing, nor are they recent enough to be trusted as scholars because of the different standards of their time.  That is why extreme caution is required when using them.  Also, not every error that has ever appeared in print is noteworthy - 'notable howlers' is rarely 'a thing', it is just propagating false information. Presenting known falsehood with the sole goal of then stating it is false just buries the narrative in pointless text that does not inform the reader about the subject. There needs to be a very high threshold for inclusion of such material. As to your standard for source reliability, I hope you realize your own standards condemn the use of Vivian, of which you are incredibly fond. Agricolae (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. There are several places this can be discussed.
 * You can discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources - not as a RfC, and not specifically the writers you mention, but as a general question, such as "WP:AGE MATTERS discourages the use of older sources; however, if more recent sources cannot be found, how much can we rely on older sources which have been known to make some errors?"
 * You can raise the issue either directly at the talkpages of the WikiProjects I mentioned above, or draw their attention to the discussion on this page.
 * You could raise the issue at Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
 * I am not trying to shut down discussion on the issue, just trying to make sure you are raising the issue in the most appropriate manner which doesn't waste people's time, and gets you the most appropriate responses. SilkTork (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:AGE MATTERS seems to refer primarily to certain specific areas "In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely the new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years. In particular, newer sources are generally preferred in medicine". Clearly science too. I think we may be over-applying the scientific approach to an area where it is of limited relevance. There will never be any new revolutionary work on who the lord of the manor of Chudleigh was. It's not like discovering a new solar system, it is unlikely that any further ancient deeds will be brought to life. In fact with regard to history WP:AGE MATTERS states "With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing". I don't want to wast anyone's time, I may well raise the issue at the places you suggested.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not referring to giving preference to a 17th century source over a 20th century source in relating events in the 13th century - it is Risdon who is more prone to the types of errors that are a problem. Your rationalizations, "" and "", both are false. The local record offices, The National Archives, and the private collection of the Devonshire Association all have innumerable ancient records that have yet to be mined by historians, and TDA and D&CN&Q have long histories of publishing accounts that revise the descent of manors, as have scholarly genealogical publications (plus the prospect that eventually VCH Devon will be taken beyond the one Domesday volume). There is no special caveat to Wikipedia policy that says, 'if it's not science, then all of the policies about reliable sources and verifiability just don't matter all that much.' Agricolae (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There may well be some unread deed lurking in an obscure corner of the National Archives, but I don't think we have to put the relevant Wikipedia article on hold for the next two centuries until a professor of history finds it, analyses it and has his conclusions peer reviewed. I think we can safely write on what the present knowledge appears to be, using the best sources available. It would be useful if you would expand what you mean by using a source "with extreme caution" - it seems to me that using the formula "According to the 17th-century antiquarian Tristram Risdon..." is the use of extreme caution. There are no parts of Risdon's work which appear obviously to merit more or less use of extreme caution - except perhaps the passages concerned with his own family, which may be seen as either possible sources of bias or sources of especially reliable reporting. Either way, use of the formula "According to the 17th-century antiquarian Tristram Risdon..." should surely suffice, perhaps with an additional caveat "Risdon, writing about his own family, stated ....". Hoskins praised Pole lavishly as "an invaluable work" and Risdon as "useful", as I commented above. The only thing he appeared to regret about Risdon's work was that it concentrated largely on genealogy, not on the wider events happening in Devon. Sorry if I pinged you, I will try to remember not to do that in future.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Predicating an unreliable source with an attribution is not úsing with caution. Using with caution means usually not using it at all, unless there is particular reason to believe it is accurate - and the simple fact that Risdon wrote it is not such a particular reason. This is not rocket science. When the 19th century Burkes are writing about people of their own time, they can be considered relatively reliable, but when they are writing the earlier history of the families, they are abysmal (progressively worse the farther back they go).  They represent an extreme, but the principle is the same - prior to the development of modern scholarship or clear indication given as to sourcing, such pre-scholarly antiquarians are not to be trusted, full stop.  We, as editors, have the responsibility of keeping untrustworthy material out of articles, not just presenting it in this way under the false assumption that the average reader will understand that by the attribution we are really telling them what follows is untrustworthy. The whole line of argument here seems to be predicated on the principle that if there are no good sources, using bad sources is better than not being able to say anything - I disagree. Agricolae (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To expand on what Agricolae has just written, Hoskins was a historian, a scholar – when you are editing Wikipedia you are not. Old sources need critical interpretation which we are specifically forbidden to do. If Hoskins (20th C. scholar) says something based on what Risdon or Pole etc. (early 17th C. scholars) wrote, then we cite Hoskins. But if we can find no reliable sources on a point we just omit it. Why are you the only prolific Wikipedia editor who seems unable to 'get' this? It might be time to go through all your contributions and remove everything based on these old sources in case they mislead readers. —S MALL  JIM   19:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I strongly support going through Lobsterthermidor's contributions to ensure that inappropriate material and edits are amended or removed. I intend myself to go through and examine where Lobsterthermidor has inserted "descent of the manor" material, as that material is significantly problematic. I also intend to examine "Manor" articles that Lobsterthermidor has created, as the examples I am aware of are highly inappropriate.
 * There may be a way for Lobsterthermidor to continue contributing to Wikipedia, but it cannot be the way he has been contributing for the past ten years, as he is creating too much work for others to now clean up. Lobsterthermidor, please stop arguing and start listening. If you wish to contribute lasting material to Wikipedia (not dubious material that will be removed, as will now start to happen as a clean up takes place), you need to shift your attitude from you being the one in the right and all the other experienced Wikipedians are wrong, to one in which you accept consensus. SilkTork (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)