Talk:Richard Stanley Hawks Moody

Published Source?
Genealogical Records of The Most Honourable Order of the Bath: Companions, Hawks-Moody, Richard Stanley has been added as a source by User:Webbjones in this edit and also by User:Hamlet94 in this edit. In the edit summary for this edit I asked where the source was published. In the edit summary for this edit User:Hamlet94 said "Information publicly available to those who enquire" but without saying where it is published or where to enquire. In this edit summary I asked for more. In the edit summary I was told by User:Hamlet94 " a link is not required. The information provided does suffice". I had not asked for a link, just where the 'source' is published. In this edit summary it is said "The records are in the public domain; the name of a bound book is not required". Whilst accepting the name of a bound book is not required, there is still not sufficient information given to be able to verify the source unless simply the public domain is considered enough to find it. Do others think we have enough to identify the publication if indeed it is published at all?SovalValtos (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi - WP:CITEHOW sets out the requirements for books: name of the author(s), title of the book in italics, volume when appropriate, name of the publisher, city of publication is optional, edition number if not the first edition, year of publication of the particular edition being referenced, chapter or page number(s) if appropriate. I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The information would be available to anybody who requested it from the records of the Order of the Bath and the College of St George from which my information has been transcribed, hence the name of the source. The requester would be provided with the information in a printed booklet. Users therefore have all the information required to verify the information, if they be sufficiently interested to do so. If, SovalValtos, you are sufficiently interested to make an enquiry to The Most Honourable Order, or the College, please do so. I recommend that you cease to contest trifles on this and related articles, as you have been noticed to be doing, and entertain yourself with one of your other hobbies. (Hamlet94 (talk) 03:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)).


 * I agree with SovalValtos. This is no more a valid reference than 'The Library of Congress'.  To be useful, a specific source has to be cited, not a repository or organization. 50.37.126.124 (talk) 01:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've removed the challenged material. Meters (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you Meters. The problem is evident on James William Webb-Jones and Richard Clement Moody. I will attempt removal.SovalValtos (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

It is a valid reference, because a print out containing the information will be provided to those who enquire for it. I made such an enquiry and have received the print out. Therefore, I have restored the information. Thank you for you input. (Hamlet94 (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)).
 * I've removed it again. The source has been challenged. Either provide a full reference so that we can evaluate whether it is a reliable source or stop using it. Meters (talk) 07:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * True, insufficient detail is provided on the source to make it verifiable, but I would argue that the deleted material does not belong in the article even if it is fully referenced. WP:UNDUE.  What third-party source, when writing a biography of this man, has deigned to notice that his mother had a descent from a prince 500 years earlier?  What third-party source has thought his entire pedigree worth detailing?  Just because one finds such information in the records of an organization into which he was inducted does not make that information of sufficient interest to place it on his Wikipedia page, particularly when nobody in the tree is sufficiently notable to have their own page other than the father and paternal grandfather - the rest are just non-notable names without context.  50.37.118.217 (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

It is not unsourced content: I have provided a source. If you continue to be delete sourced material, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The fact that you do not accept a source does not mean that it does not qualify. It has been reported that (User:Meters) appears to be creating an artificial consensus against this matter by creating a false conversation by writing without signing in, on account 50.37.126.124, and writing on his named own account. Wikipedia has been alerted and his case is pending investigation. He has also been reported for disruptive editing by another user. I recommended that you cease this practice, or perform it on articles where you will not prompt a response. In reply to your comment amount 17 generations, it is notable information given the nature of the individuals involved, which would be of great interest to those reading the article.(Hamlet94 (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)).


 * A printout booklet of notes does not seem to be a verifiable source. Does it have an ISBN? What is required is proper sourcing to the documents. Until such time as there is consensus that the sourcing is adequate the material should remain unused. I am removing it again. No rush; let us get it right.SovalValtos (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Hamlet94 It is considered a personal attack to accuse an editor of socking without evidence. You have made no such report. Please remove the above accusation immediately.
 * The material is improperly sourced because the reliability of the source has been challenged. You have chosen not to provide sufficient information to allow other editors to evaluate the source, so it cannot be used. Meters (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually don't think it unreliable. I just think it is 1) not described in sufficient detail, and 2) descriptions aside, it is the equivalent of a private contractor's research report and not a 'published' work in the sense the term is meant, but in effect represents original research (WP:NOR) by proxy.  Further, I think its inclusion represents WP:UNDUE weight being given to genealogical trivia. Is there any published account of this man that even names a great-grandfather?  If not, neither should this article.  50.37.118.217 (talk)

I have alerted Wikipedia to the fact that it appears - from the nature and time of his edits, the syntax and structure of his sentences used to make comments, and his diction, both on pages to which I have contributed and several others to which I have not, and with regard to what seems to a historical aversion to the material on the pages to which I have contributed - thatMeters is the author of the account 50.37.126.124, between which and his own account he stages a dialog to create the appearance that his views are corroborated by other editors, in order to achieve objectives (the deletion of the material contested material) motivated by some kind of emotional aversion to the matter concerned. I am a professional language analyst and semiotician and this presents itself as the overwhelming probability. The accusation is no more of a personal attack than his incessant disruptive edits on articles to which I contribute: I do not remove it. I have not submitted a separate complaint about his disruptive editing, but will do so if the complaint I have made does not come to fruition. It is claimed by Meters that I have included '17 generations' of ancestors on the pages concerned and that this is'too tenuous': this is untrue, I have not included 17 generations, but, in two decidedly un-tenuous sentences, have named two or three extremely notable individuals from 17 generations or so previous to the subject of the article - individuals whose antecedence to the subject would be of great interest to any interested in the subject. It will be noted that I have accepted the removal, by SovalValtos, of information regarding the descent of the subject from less notable individuals - those in whom readers of the articles are unlikely to be interested. I am happy to discuss this matter with this user - and any others who are not Meters in disguise. (Hamlet94 (talk) 05:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamlet94 (talk • contribs)


 * It is not for Wikipedia editors to decide what other people may find interesting. Published sources provide the basis for this evaluation.  What 'published' account (not private report) of Richard Stanley Hawks Moody has made note of his descent from anyone 500 years before? or of his kinship to George Washington? (Oh, and assuming good faith, I will point out that if your decision as to whether to report Meters for disruptive editing depends on the outcome of the complain you have already made regarding sock puppetry, you should be aware that you must have made an error in submitting that complaint.  No such report appears on the appropriate Wikipedia noticeboard, nor is there any indication in your edit history that you made such a report.  It would appear, then, that you will need to try again to make that report as it doesn't appear to have gone through.)  50.37.118.217 (talk) 08:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Progress. IP 50.37.118.217 in the edit above made the point about genealogical trivia. I agree that undue weight has been given to this.  It might have a place in a privately published amateur family history, but not in Wikipedia.SovalValtos (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

SovalValtos First, I have accepted the removal of the George Washington information because I agree that this is comparatively trivial, Washington being a distant cousin of the subject and not a lineal ancestor, and because the source for this did not mention the subject by name. The point I dispute is the inclusion of the two sentences which detail the descent of the subject from Edward III. The source I originally cited for this information is authoritative and there is certainly nothing 'amateur' about it, but, for your satisfaction, I have located another source that cannot fail to meet your criteria: The printed book 'The Plantagenet roll of the blood royal: being a complete table of all the descendants now living of Edward III, King of England' (ISBN 0-8063-1436-2, ISBN 978-0-8063-1436-5). The source is available online. If one views this page http://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?db=Plntgnt&gss=sfs28_ms_r_db&new=1&rank=1&gsln=Hawks&gsln_x=1&MSAV=1&uidh=000 ('Hawks' is the name of the mother of the subject of this article, Richard Stanley, and the wife of Richard Clement Moody) it is possible to see - even without the subscription to the Ancestry website, which, on the 'Plantagenet roll...' page, provides numerous pieces of evidence - the image preview of the fifth result down, which includes the names 'Edward Hawks' and 'William Boyd': Edward Hawks was a first cousin of the mother of the subject, as can be verified here http://gw.geneanet.org/mangan8?lang=en&pz=alexandra+audrey&nz=martel&ocz=0&p=joseph&n=stanley+hawks and William Boyd, already mentioned on the article, is the grandmother of the subject (N.B. not the wife of the subject, who shares the name). I trust that this source, which conforms to all Wikipedia criteria for reliable sources, shall be to the satisfaction of all editors and, therefore, have re-added the information which is thus cited. IP 50.37.118.217 states that 'Published sources provide the basis for [the] evaluation [of the interest of a topic to the public]. What 'published' account (not private report) of Richard Stanley Hawks Moody has made note of his descent from anyone 500 years before?' - I have now provided that published account. (Hamlet94 (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)).
 * The source you are now giving us is actually an online database from Ancestry.com called "Plantagenet Roll of the Blood Royal". The original data is from "The Plantagenet Roll of the Blood Royal Being A Complete Table of All the Descendents Now Living of Edward III", King of England. The Marquis of Ruvigny and Raineval, Melville Henry Massue, London, England: T.C. & E. C. Jack, 1905-1911. but you are not accessing that directly.  You need to cite the source where you actually saw the material, which is the online database "Plantagenet Roll of the Blood Royal" [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2002. I have not yet evaluated this source, bu teven if it is a reliable source this does not address the concerns editors have raised abouth this information not being appropriate for the article. Please do not restore the material until a consensus is reached here.
 * I'm still waiting for you to retract or delete your multiple accusations of socking and false claims of having started an SPI. Meters (talk) 03:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Meters, what you have said is a categorical lie and you are now WP:DE by reversing my edits. Read what I have written in the previous comment: I am citing the volumes of the published books themselves and then showing editors such as SovalValtos where they might find a transcript of the books - there are numerous scanned copies of the books online and I might have directed editors towards any one of these. This direction is not the citation, which is for the book itself, but was an afterthought for the satisfaction of editors. The source, which is the book, conforms to all Wikipedia criteria for reliable sources. It shall be to the satisfaction of all editors (apart from you, no doubt). Also, in my previous comment, I have addressed - by direct quotation - ('IP 50.37.118.217 states that 'Published sources provide the basis for [the] evaluation [of the interest of a topic to the public]') the contestation of the relevance of the information. There are hundreds of articles regarding individuals that note the descent of the subject from notable individuals who lived numerous generations previously. If the individuals whose antecedence were extensive were non-notable, the mention would be irrelevant. This is not the case: we are speaking of descent from a King of England. Public interest in this lineage has been sufficient to warrant the publication of hundreds of books specifically regarding the topic - including the 'Plantagenet Roll of the Blood Royal' series that has run into multiple volumes over the past 110 years. Therefore, it belongs in the article.(Hamlet94 (talk) 04:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)).
 * Please WP:AGF. Calling me a liar is yet another personal attack. Please remove that statement also. I apologize if I misunderstood your comment above where you directed us to the online database but since you did not provide full references I assumed you were using the online database. Please provide full references, including the volume numbers and page numbers, where the documents state that Richard Stanley Hawks Moody is direct descendant of the House of Plantagenet and the 18th great-grandson of Edward III so we can verify the sources. And since you say "there are numerous scanned copies of the books online" please provide us with a link to one of these copies rather than to the paywalled site so that other editors without Ancestry.com memberships can see the source.


 * It is incorrect that your original source was sufficient. You initially sourced this simply to "Genealogical Records of The Most Honourable Order of the Bath: Companions, Hawks-Moody, Richard Stanley" and later stated that it was a printout you obtained. That was contested by more than one editor. Your new source may well be sufficient. As I said, I have not yet evaluated it, and we have yet to hear from the other concerned editors. You think it's a good source and you think the material should be in the article. I get that, but we edit by consensus, and that does not mean you give you opinion andd readd the material without waiting for the othe reditors to respond. Please stop adding this material until consensus is reached. Meters (talk) 06:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The citation provided by Hamlet94 doesn't even bear on the question. The source to which the search result applies makes no mention of Richard Stanley Hawks Moody. That, in and of itself, is damning. The search given above is just a generic one for the Hawks surname, and not a single one of the hits provides any Hawks ancestry: of a total of 8 matches, one is to the index of the book, three are mistaken partial matches to Hawkshaw, two are to "____ Hawks" for whom neither ancestors nor descendants are shown, and the remaining two are to the marriage of Edward Hawks to Mary Anne Knightley, for whom only Knightley's ancestry is traced. How does this in any way satisfy the request for sourcing? It doesn't refer to the subject, it doesn't show the ancestry of the subject, it doesn't even show the ancestry of the man Hamlet94 says is the cousin of the subject. It is fundamental to the use of citations that the source cited should actually have relevance to the statement it is being used to support. In this case, it simply bears witness to the fact that a book about royal descendants includes the surname Hawks, which doesn't cut it. It is also critical that when citing a source, one should actually have consulted the source, not just the snippets that turn up in a set of search results - this is the kind of fast-and-loose treatment of source material that has gotten editors banned. Hamlet94 also seems to have missed my point on due weight. It is insufficient to find a piece of genealogical trivia in a published book, or to show that generically some people are interested in descent from royalty. The question is, do biographers of our subject care? In his obituary or other biographical blurb, do they mention that he has a 17-generation descent from king Edward III? If not, we shouldn't even if it is unquestionable that he had such a descent. 50.37.123.34 (talk) 07:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Although an exposition of the line on which Moody is descended, the Anne/Agnes Gascoigne and Thomas Fairfax line is promised by the comment 'See Part II' on the Table XXX Page of the volume - https://archive.org/stream/plantagenetrollo01ruvi#page/32/mode/2up - it seems that this 'Part II' was never completed, for I cannot find it anywhere. So this source, although it would fulfil the criteria if complete, cannot be used. I would state to50.37.123.34, however, that I have read that part in entirety and, as he would know if he had taken more care in reading of my comment, that the link I provided - as a direction, not the entirety of the source - would be valid if this missing Part II were included, because the entry references William Boyd, who, as is proven by other sources, is the great-grandfather of the subject - because Boyd is the proven mother of Hawks, they are synonymous for our purposes. If the Part II were present, it would explain the descent of Boyd from Edward III. So it was not an invalid direction to the source whatsoever. - Concerning the original source and the example of the Library of Congress, to which, indeed, the original source is directly equivalent, what is the rule on matter which is not published except in response to request - material from historical archives, etc.? (Hamlet94 (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)).


 * It would have been a valid citation had Part II existed? How do you know?  Part II doesn't exist, so it is only speculation what it might have contained, and the fact that the source was cited without knowing it did not contain the necessary information, that the Part that would have had the critical information if only it had been published was never published, is evidence enough why one doesn't guess what a book is going to say.  You have to see it.  Likewise, sources are not used to establish general tone.  You cite a specific volume and page or pages to document a specific fact found there, not a series because somewhere within it it should have that kind of information.  A William Boyd does appear in search results, but not the right one.  It is William Boyd, son-in-law of Edward Hawks, not his uncle's father-in-law.  It is an invalid direction, because non-existant books aside, the information it is being used to support is not found in the cited source.  Regarding your last question, in almost all circumstances, a one-off research report produced at the request of a client is a unique documentary expression of original research and not a WP:RS. What is needed, at a minimum, for the information on the royal descent to be appropriate is a biographical account of Richard Stanley Hawks Moody that explicitly makes reference to his royal ancestry, not that you think biographers should be interested, but that actual biographers have been.  Such a descent may seem fascinating, but such descents are not as rare as one might think.  It is a consequence of the population histories of the British diaspora that millions and millions of people descend from Edward III.  Right now I could spit and hit someone descended from Edward III.  This descent is not a special circumstance that makes this person special or unusual or noteworthy, and 'nearest royal ancestor' is not one of the fundamental characteristics of a human that mandate its inclusion in biographical articles.  50.37.123.34 (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Look, you really need to stop doing this - you have added to both disputed pages a citation to a 14-volume set without any further information. That is completely inappropriate.  You need to cite a specific page or pages in a specific volume. 50.37.123.34 (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Hamlet94 may be satisfied with what should be included and their own sourcing, but more than that is required. Consensus needs to be established. It may take a few days or several weeks. Meanwhile please do not add contentious content.SovalValtos (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * 50.37.123.34 If you had read my comment before proceeding with your fury, you would have realized - both on this Talk page and the other - that I am no longer pressing for the inclusion of the Edward III part until, as SovalValtos states, consensus has been reached. It is the second or third time you have responded inaccurately and inappropriately because you have not read the comment carefully. If you continue to do this, you may be blocked for inappropriate behavior. The book was not cited inappropriately, because it contains either side of the genealogy but not the middle part: this is what makes it unacceptable. I have the full genealogy, that which I originally cited, so I know what is missing. I could fill it in with a combination of about 7 different links to different sources, each detailing a different marriage, and then cite this together with the book, thus collectively providing a source, but I simply cannot be bothered to do this at present. Almost all of the material in the public domain on these topics, including that on the grounds of which all of the cited biographies were written, has been supplied by those for whom I undertake the study of these topics, who acquired the geneaology in the first place to satisfy the curiosity of an Imperial scholar/biographer, and who have passed it to me, such a biographer.
 * Such descents are special, which is why they are mentioned on pages such as this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Percy,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darius_Guppy, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Lee (also, until recently, those for Benedict Cumberbatch and Alexander Armstrong) and countless others and why the topic specifically has warranted a series of 5 500 page volumes, which collectively contain about half of the lines of descent in existence. There are about 500,000 lines of descent, not millions. Do not pontificate amount what modern historians 'usually' do - you wouldn't have ended up editing Wikipedia with such sodomitical petulance on a daily basis if you knew. As I said before, it seems that you are motivated towards the deletion of this detail by something other than concern for the quality of the articles: you said 'Published sources provide the basis for [the] evaluation [of the interest of a topic to the public]': I find such proof, a series of books specifically concerning the topic, thus refuting your objection: now, thus miffed, you select another basis on which to object and do so with further vehemence.
 * To other editors and SovalValtosI had not realized the deficiency of the first new citation: I have now improved it with a direct link to the specific page which contains the information, which, if such would please you, you can view with a free trial of the software. I have not added anything contentious since realizing that the book source was incomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamlet94 (talk • contribs) 20:31, November 18, 2016 (UTC)


 * More threats and insults (sigh). You need to cite a specific page, not just cite an entire 14-volume set and then provide a web-link that leads to a log-in page - it is useless.  Your current citation reads "Joseph Jackson Howard, ed. Heraldic Visitation of England and Wales, Vol. I-XIV: Boyd of Moor House, co. Durham. Privately printed, 1893-1906."  It includes no volume number and no page number or numbers.  The fact that this series of books happens to be available to Ancestry subscribers is no reason to provide incomplete information.  As to the pedigree, what sources can you cite that give such a pedigree for either of the Moodys, so that this would not represent original research?  What specific individuals within the pedigree are of sufficient notability that knowing they are ancestors would provide the reader with useful information, with more insight into either Moody?  The one on the RIcheard Clement Moody page is so full of blanks it isn't even worth having a pedigree.  I have been trying to assume good faith here, but it is becoming increasingly hard not to view this as an attempt to turn Wikipedia into a repository for personal genealogical findings.  Here is my suggestion - since you have access to Ancestry, upload this information there, where random genealogy is more at home than in Wikipedia.  50.37.123.34 (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Ancestry through mother
In order to make the claim that Richard Moody had a royal descent through his mother, you need a source that says that Richard had such a descent through his mother, explicitly. If an editor puts this together themselves, even if the individual links in the chain of descent can be sourced, it is WP:SYNTH. Further, there is the issue of WP:UNDUE weight. What biographical account of Richard Moody thinks this information is important? None of the cited sources even name Richard (they couldn't, as they date from before he was born). Relevance is determined by what secondary sources decide is relevant, not whatever individual editors decide should be in an article based on their own Original Research. There is no supporting the inclusion of this information. Agricolae (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

-- To Agricolae Thank you for your comment. The Hylton Longstaffe source, The House of Clervaux,Its Descent and Alliances, details, explicitly, all of the lines of descent of Mary Hawks (the mother), whom it names in person, from Edward III and from other monarchs of the Plantagenet dynasty (through other lines). It mentions both the subject's mother, Mary Hawks, and his father, Richard Clement Moody, explicitly, by name, at the end of the genealogy that begins with the ancestors of the Plantagenet dynasty, making an explicit point of tracing her descent from these individuals and then noting her marriage to Richard Clement. Therefore, I accept your removal of the information from this page (because the link is present only by implication) but not your removal of the information from the pages for the father, Richard Clement, and the mother, Mary Hawks (the 'Hawks family' page) because the source states both by name and emphasizes the point of their descent. For those two pages, there is absolutely no WP:SYNTH nor any Original Research. Let us then agree on the rational compromise: the information shall remain absent from this page (Richard Stanley), whom the sources do not mention by name, but present on the page for Richard Clement and that for Mary Hawks, both of whom it mentions by name.2A02:C7D:607F:3500:391F:17CC:220:98C4 (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

P.S. To Agricolae. Please note that I am not the same as the editor of the article of Edmund Pendleton, over which, I note from your edit history, you are engaged in a dispute, and who has a similar IP address to me.2A02:C7D:607F:3500:68E0:2B86:2270:C3C3 (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)