Talk:Harrison family of Virginia/Archive 1

DNA evidence??
An IP address editor has suggested there are DNA results which contradict sources in the article. If there is such DNA evidence, please provide, but beware that the specific source information must comply with WP:RS. Hoppyh (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Need for in-line citations
This shortfall is primarily my responsibility and I am the one who most easily can make this particular improveIment. I will attempt to cure this as time permits, i.e. slowly I’m afraid, but am grateful for the interest which has brought this to light. Hoppyh (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

My understanding, from recent FA nom work at George Washington, is that the preferred convention for the lede is not to use in-line citations there. Hoppyh (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I have completed adding citations. In most cases the citations fall at the end of the paragraph, but cover all material in it. I thought it needless to repeat the citation for each sentence. I believe the tag at the head of the article can be removed at this point. Hoppyh (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Family tree
I just created and added the family tree. What would be the best way of creating a note within the tree, repeating the statement from the article that the link to the Shenandoah Harrisons is "probable but inconclusive"? PurpleChez (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Great addition. I edited the name of the tree. If you can, make room at the bottom of the tree and use a footnote—put an asterisk after Thomas' name and at the bottom duplicate the asterisk and say Thomas Harrison's fraternity and paternity are probable but inconclusive. While we are at it, I believe the tree needs to changed to reflect that the first Thomas was the brother of Benjamin I. Hoppyh (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I couldn’t resist-added Nathaniel Harrison (brother of Benj. Harrison V); other adjustments needed. Maybe in the future I should leave the editing to you! Hoppyh (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Collaboration is the Wikipedian's way!! Thanks for the input. PurpleChez (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Thomases... I'll re-read and revise as needed. Thanks for the heads-up. PurpleChez (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I can confirm, the first Thomas does need to be shown as Benjamin I's brother, with footnote as you suggested. Also, IMO we should end the Lincolns with the children of the President. Hoppyh (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe that I have corrected the relationships... although I would still like to do a more substantial revision so that, once again, the generations are all on the same horizontals. Thanks for the input. PurpleChez (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

"Stilted edits"
Here is a summary of my edits which you have persistently reverted:
 * "The next in line, Benjamin Harrison V": The next in what line? Is this article about the numerous men named Benjamin Harrison? Or is it about the entire family? This is merely an example of the sloppy writing in this article which I am attempting to improve.
 * "He was a corpulent and boisterous man by Puritan standards": This is both absurd and offensive. John Adams was not a Puritan; indeed, the Puritans had disappeared by this time period. But it is offensive to suggest that they had some moral disapproval of people who were corpulent or boisterous.
 * "A quote is attributed to Harrison": Just one example of bad construction and wording. Quote is a verb, and one does not introduce a quotation in such a stilted fashion.
 * "Thomas is said to have attended": Did he or didn't he? "A quote is attributed to"—did he say it or not?
 * "joining the English nonconformist counterparts of the Puritans": What on earth is this referring to? The Puritans were non-conformists—that's why the Pilgrims sailed on the Mayflower in the first place.
 * "Bishop Jeremy Taylor is quoted as saying": Again, did he or didn't he? But the bigger problem here is the long and rambling quotation which effectively says nothing.
 * "who is conclusively known": Everything we write in these articles needs to be conclusively known. This sort of construction merely calls everything else into doubt. "Is this statement mere conjecture? It doesn't say it's conclusively known, after all."
 * Various errors in punctuation and typography.

These are just highlights of my attempted improvements. Please explain where your contentions lie, and why you want to restore the problems and errors. —Dilidor (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * A couple of your explanations above are plausible substantive arguments at best, based on your style preferences, over which none of us has a monopoly here. You might have more success if you stick to substantive explanations, and lose the offensive hyperbole. In any case, your removal of a sourced quote is inexcusable, and vandalistic. What goes around, comes around, Dildor; just suck it up, pal. Hoppyh (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

What goes around, comes around, Dildor; just suck it up, pal. I have no idea what that means, but it sounds like some form of threat. I also don't know what you are referring to as my "offensive hyperbole", but your comment certainly provides a nice example of it. Please feel free to point out any offensive hyperbole of mine. Finally, removing a sourced quotation is most assuredly not either inexcusable or vandalistic. I do not recall now what I removed, but I suspect that the quotation was unsuited to the article for some reason such as irrelevance. —Dilidor (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Being a professional writer of such note, and having so much experience, of course you wouldn’t “have any idea” or “know” or “recall” the above matters. Perhaps your trusted principals could help. Hoppyh (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I have attempted an amicable conversation here, but your snide tone prevents it. —Dilidor (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Rambling and irrelevant quotation
What is the purpose of this interminable, rambling quotation which you adamantly insist upon including in full?
 * "He was rewarded by the governor's confidence, and his advice was often asked for and acted upon. When in 1658 he published his extremely popular manual of piety, Topica Sacra, he was the most popular divine in Ireland."

There is no other mention of this "extremely popular manual of piety" anywhere in this article, nor is there a wiki-link to provide any insight. What is this book? Why is it significant? What does it have to do with his popularity? What does any of this detail have to do with the Harrison family as a whole? The business about the governor's confidence is so vague and ambiguous and generic that it is nearly worthless as a detail.

Can you please explain why you insist upon reverting my edits, which focus on the core of the quotation: that he was "the most popular divine in Ireland"? And even this is a concession, because that detail itself is vague and ambiguous and utterly unprovable. If you can engage in an amicable discussion and refrain from snarky sarcasm, I would welcome it. −Dilidor (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a pertinent and sourced commentary made by an important contemporary in the 17th century, and will therefore remain in full, despite unwarranted attempts to vandalize it. That it may not meet someone's preferred present-day style is of absolutely no consequence. The details of the referenced work represent an opportunity for additional substantive effort on the article.Hoppyh (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Your persistent aggressive belligerence makes it impossible to work together productively. My edits are not vandalism, and you are violating Wikipedia protocol by not assuming my good faith. Your assertion that "it will remain in full" demonstrates your own misguided sense of ownership on the article, an accusation which you have thrown quite freely at other editors on other articles. I am attempting to help in this "additional substantive effort on the article", whatever that may refer to, by tightening the writing and looking for areas that need to be strengthened. This mysterious "manual of piety", this Topica Sacra needs to be fleshed out, since you intend to defend it to the death. So do so! Explain what this mystery book was, why it was so important, and how on earth it led to the author being universally lauded as "the most popular divine in Ireland". —Dilidor (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you see a need, then why not put aside for a moment your own misguided desire to control the copy editing here, and do some substantive research? Regardless, there is every reason to include all of the very notable bishop’s praise. As for my insistence, it is called STEWARDSHIP. Hoppyh (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You are the one who is demanding that it be included, not I! Therefore, the onus in on you to explain why it needs to be there! DO SO. That, after all, is the essence of stewardship. —Dilidor (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The quote is pertinent, accurate, correctly attributed, and reliably sourced. For that reason and that reason alone, it shall remain in the article, contrary to YOUR preference, Dilldor. THAT is stewardship.Hoppyh (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I shall decide what shall be and what shall not, for I am the owner of this article! Thus spake Hoppyh. —Dilidor (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Chopawamsic Harrisons?
Did I incorrectly link pages of another family to this article? I added articles about descendants of Burr Harrison of Dumfries, Virginia, whose father Thomas had a plantation on Chopawamsic creek and whose grandfather Burr Harrison (1637-1706) emigrated to what became Stafford County, Virginia. Descendants moved to Louudoun County, Virginia as well as the upper Shenandoah Valley (Winchester) and included one of the first justices (and other politicians) of West Virginia. The online genealogy pages seem to link them to Cuthbert Harrison of York, England and St. Margaret's, Westminister, London.Jweaver28 (talk)

Comments from Orser67
Nice job with this article, I just have a couple comments. I think that there might be a few things that should be uncapitalized per MOS:JOBTITLES. For example: "His son Benjamin II (1645–1712) served as County Sheriff and in the House of Burgesses, and also was appointed to the Governor's Council, the upper house of the Colony's legislature". I would think that County Sheriff at least should be decapitalized. Also, for this sentence: "then Treasurer of the Colony and Speaker of the Burgesses." I think it would be "treasurer" unless the specific title actually was "Treasurer of the Colony". Also, I'm wondering if there is any more information available on their English origins. I'm not super familiar with how English heraldry worked, but is there any backstory for why they had a coat of arms? Did most families of this period have a coat of arms? I also made a couple of other minor copyedits that I hope are non-controversial. Orser67 (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You are so right about the titles. I’ll try to clean them up. I’m not well versed with the heraldry thing either, but I think it was primarily a symbol of military status. I get the impression that for those families who applied for and maintained their heraldry, it provides a method of record keeping for the family in addition to church and court records. My impression is that the use of heraldry was the exception not the rule.Hoppyh (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok great, thanks for addressing my concerns. I personally find dealing with capitalization to be one of the most confusing and least interesting issues on Wikipedia. Orser67 (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have a tough time with it as well! Hoppyh (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)