Talk:Reginald de Braose

Untitled
Sundehel - Your revisions were incorrect. The FMG site is hopelessly wrong on this family. See a more respected publication such as The Complete Peerage or a specialist site such as http://freespace.virgin.net/doug.thompson/BraoseWeb/family/home.html --Doug (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagreed. Did you check the footnotes in the FMG link (no. 34 and no. 35)? I do not have any access to the Complete Peerage for clarification, if the Complete Peerage have the same informations as the footnotes above. If you disagree with the FMG, you are at liberty to take that to the FMG administrators yourself and contact them for sources, perhaps correct the informations there. Let me know how did that goes. Sundehel 17:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Update: This is from the Barons de Braose website, directly from your own website and I saw this on the Marcher Lords page:
 * http://freespace.virgin.net/doug.thompson/BraoseWeb/page7.htm Sundehel 17:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The Braose website mentioned above has moved and the page is now at http://douglyn.co.uk/BraoseWeb/page7.htm Doug (at Wiki) 16:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Sundehel - Your reliance on the "Medieval Lands" section of the fmg site is misplaced. For a discussion of the many inaccuracies made by Cawley see http://groups.google.com/group/soc.genealogy.medieval/browse_frm/thread/e84e19e0138e3e47/a7865e8a1445f17c?lnk=gst&q=cawley#a7865e8a1445f17c In the particular caes of the Braose family Cawley has used a limited range of sources relying on some which are known to be incorrect. A discussion of the Braose family as Lords of Abergavenny can be seen in The Complete Peerage Vol 1 pages 21 - 22. I suggest you try to read some of the published works like this before you make any further revisions. The correct parentage of Reginald had been in this article for nearly four years before you changed it.

When there is longstanding information in an article you should think of discussing it before you change it on the strength of reading one website. I have reverted it to the previous state and replaced the reference to fmg by a more reliable source.--Doug (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you telling me that the entire issues with Medieval Lands and the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy are unreliable? I'm really disheartened and disappointed by this. Thank you for crushing my faith in humanity's ability to improve itself in small ways and this is NOT a sarcastic comment, Doug. :( Sundehel 04:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well. FMG has lots of really good resources available, (for most of them you need to pay a subscription) but the Medieval Lands section is not reliable. Even this can point you to good references though. Any compilation is only as good as the range of sources it is prepared from. We are trying to make Wikipedia better than most! --Doug (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agreed about Wikipedia, but alternative sources are important to reinforce or disprove subject matters, even though some informations from FMG's Medieval Lands project can be useful for others, like us, to investigate and research deeper and help compare or share data with others out there. Even some informations from Medieval Lands may be somewhat unreliable, it would still encourage future researchers to improvise sketchy or unconfirmed data and actually improve the Medieval Lands project in the process. However, that's a big if... should pride, stubbornness and bias get in the way of the ongoing improvisation and accuracy of our vast genealogical trees, we may not be able to move forward and our descendants may blame us for not doing something about that. I would rather that we owe our descendants a huge favor with our unbiased efforts to improve our family trees, with all the computer and information technologies and the resources of the genealogical community available at our disposal. In a nutshell, any information is helpful, even if it is unreliable or unconfirmed, so that we can improve on! Sundehel 03:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

WPMA Importance/Quality Scales
Reginald is an important figure in the context of the conflicts in England leading to the creation of the Magna Carta. So I have rated the article's importance as HIGH.--Doug (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The article seems to fit the "start" class criteria. There's a lot of work to be done yet.--Doug (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The Braose Arms
Not sure what authority Dlkeller999 uses for the arms.

My view is that the accepted version is this one: (See Foster's Dictionary of Heraldry)

Reginald's own seal confirms this. See image of seal.

Any comments? --Doug (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(The graphic file of the arms was corrected 26 Oct 2010)Doug (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright issue?
The owner of the copyright of

http://web.archive.org/web/20030825060721/http://freespace.virgin.net/doug.thompson/BraoseWeb/Reginald.htm

permits its use under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License.

An email has been sent to permissions-en at wikimedia dot org. Doug (at Wiki) 23:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)