Talk:Loretta de Braose, Countess of Leicester

Siblings
A complete list of Loretta's siblings is on her mother's page, Maud de Braose

Doug (at Wiki) 13:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference to another Wikipedia article does not meet the criteria of verification. Genealogy for twelfth-century England is tricky, and it can be difficult to verify the actual number of children for any couple, even those of higher rank than the de Braoses. Stating "at least four" is safer than stating a specific number.DeAragon 04:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dearagon (talk • contribs)

No reference to any Wikepedia article is given for verification in the article. The only reference given in the article is to Powicke who gives the five daughters. It's not at all difficult to verify these five. There may be more - unlikely though since Maud de Braose's 17 children seem enough! I referred to her mother's article on this page so that you could check for yourself that your change was unnecessary. On the reasoning you give in the paragraph above it would be safer to say " at least three" or "at least two" or...... It's best to give accurate information where it can be verified. Doug (at Wiki) 16:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not alone in doubting that Maud de Braose had 17 children (which number, by the way, would make her the most prolific mother known for 12th-century England by far). You made the reference to the list of children given in another Wikipedia article. As to "It is not at all difficult to verify these five"--I question what you mean by verifying. I work routinely with twelfth-century documents in relation to the aristocracy and can attest to the fact that it can be very difficult to get accurate genealogical information about families--even from near-contemporary sources--and especially difficult to ascertain female offspring. Whether we say "at least five daughters" or some other number is, in a way, immaterial. The point is that a great deal of highly inaccurate genealogical information abounds on the Internet and Wikipedia, like any good encyclopedia, should be as accurate as possible. I was taking a more conservative stance with what I wrote about Loretta to counter that, while allowing for the possibility that future research might find compelling reasons to revise the number of her female siblings.DeAragon 05:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dearagon (talk • contribs)

By "It is not at all difficult to verify these five" I mean to Wkipedia's standard. That is - reference to a reliable source. Powicke is a reliable source. As to the objective truth, that is another thing. Original research cannot be used on Wikipedia so we stick with the published sources. It is not helpful to the accuracy of Wikipedia to change one "verified" fact to another without citing a good reason. Conservatism is just misleading in this instance. If you doubt any of the five daughters, why not say so. If you have access to the wealth of twelfth and thirteenth century documents that exist it is fairly easy to find evidence for each daughter written contemporarily. However, it's good to see that there is someone else on Wikipedia who is trying to correct the mass of inaccurate medieval genealogical information. Perhaps we should collaborate on that. Doug (at Wiki) 19:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Simon de Montfort
is the great-nephew of Loretta. His grandmother Amicia was the sister of Robert de Beaumont, Loretta's husband. Not a blood relationship but a family relationship. Doug (at Wiki) 09:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)