Talk:Richard Tylman/Archive 1

Reliable sources
There is a discussion about the reliability of some of the sources used in this article at WP:RSN. TFD (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Richard Tylman, yeoman
I do not see any reason to put into a footnote that someone who shared the same name as the subject of this article received permission from the courts to trade in grain. Originally the article said they were one and the same person, but that is impossible since one of them died in 1584, while the other appeared in court in 1600. Nor can he be a descendant, since he is described as a "yeoman". Therefore I will remove it as totally irrelevant to the article.

BTW - is there any evidence that the Richard Tylman and Richard Tillman in this article are the same person?

TFD (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the footnote describes things correctly; however it should be split into a proper footnote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 20:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * One more thing. TFD already nominated this entry (same title, but totally different content) for the 4th AfD in somewhat dubitable circumstances during the EEML attack. I would like to suggest that you, TFD, allow other editors to decide what is, and what isn't proper. Your reversion was inappropriate and smacked of WP:COI. Please do not misrepresent the Canterbury records with a made up claim of Tylman appearing in court on that date. The actual document says nothing of the sort. Thanks. Poeticbent talk 20:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * See What is a conflict of interest?: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vanity press nor a forum for advertising and promoting yourself or your ideas. As such it should contain only material that complies with its content policies, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest."
 * It would be a conflict if this article were about myself, but as is clear it is not. I have posted the disputed footnote to WP:NORN.  I do not know if that is the correct noticeboard, as I have never before come across a footnote unrelated to the article content that anyone has chosen to reinstate.
 * TFD (talk)
 * Asking for more input is always a good idea. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Copied from deletion discussion
As these notes are about the substance of the article rather than WP policies this seems to be a better location.
 * Comments
 * Faversham had a book entirely about it written in 1776: The History of the Town and Port of Haversham: In the County of Kent by Edward Jacobs. The book lists our subject as a mayor for a year. See page 122.
 * There is then this: An obviously reliable source says: "Richard Tylman of Faversham, yeoman, allowed a badger by Michael Sondes, knight, Richard Sondes, and George Waller, esqs" on July 22, 1600. That throws most of the genealogy references into question, assuming any one accepted them to begin with. A badger is the right to trade food or grains.
 * There is an article "Notes from the records of Haversham, 1500-1600" by J.M. Cowper in the Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Volume I, here: page 218 which lists the number of houses in Haversham as roughly 200, and population at most 1400 in the time period we are interested in.
 * The book "The Historical Development of the Port of Faversham, Kent 1580-1780" does mention a Tillman from Haversham who was a trader. Since the time and place match, and since the place had just 200 houses (and 200 heads of households), it is reasonable to take this Tillman as Tylman. The place couldn't have had two traders of grain at the same time with such similar names.
 * Per this link the guy seems to have been involved in a court case, with the type marked "concord," against John Cok and his wife, Maria. I don't know what "concord" means here.
 * In the article of the Royal Historical Society mentioned earlier,, on page 169 is a listing of the property of Nicholas Tylman, our subject's father (again, there couldn't have been two Tylmans there at that time heading two different households), at the time of the father's death. Richard Tylman is mentioned nowhere in the text (there is an index at the end, with the Tylman page visible in Google Books preview). Churn and change (talk) 04:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The Nicholas Tylman mentioned in the Royal Society article could not have been the father of Richard Tylman, since Nicholas lived from 1516-1568 while the Royal Society article is about a Nicholas who died in 1577.

The Richard Tylman who was sued over a "concord" could not be Mayor Tylman because the case occured in 1484, 62 years before the future mayor's birth in 1546.

Since the Tylman family had settled in Kent since at least 1225 and several branches of the family had settled in Faversham, it is not reasonable to assume that the Richard Tillman mentioned in the article as living in Faversham in 1580 was the same person as the mayor of Faversham in 1580. It is not uncommon btw for cousins to have the same christian names. In any case that is original research. We would need a source that put this together.

TFD (talk) 05:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So you are using unreliable genealogical sources to argue against identification from a reliable source (for the Nicholas Tylman case; I do agree about the court case)? All identification in any source requires some interpretation. I don't understand what cousins having the same given name has to do with it. We are talking of Haversham in particular, not Kent in general. We need two traders of food/grains from a place with 200 households, at the same time, with similar given names and slightly different surnames. Excluding that may be OR, but is subject to debate; it is not obviously WP:OR. After all no source is going to say: "This is XYZ who is the subject of the article on XYZ on Wikipedia"; we always infer that from context and a set of circumstances (name, place, date, other referential associations). Whether the inference rises to WP:OR depends on editorial discretion. Churn and change (talk) 06:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * None of the sources providing lifespans used in the article are reliable. However common sense tells us that a person who was mayor in 1580 could not have been involved in a court case in 1484 and that a former mayor would not be described as a yeoman.  The only source that a Nicholas Tylman was the father of Richard Tylman is a non-rs family tree.  While it may seem strange to us today, there was a time when families remained in the same location for centuries, so it would not be unusual to find people of the same surname living in the same town.  Also, since most corn from North Kent was shipped through Faversham, and trading corn was one of the main industries in Faversham ("The Historical Development of the Port of Faversham, Kent 1580-1780"), there would be many people involved in the trade.  To conclude that the mayor and the trader were one and the same person cannot be supported by the sources provided.  TFD (talk) 07:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding section Copied from deletion discussion by ClemRutter (talk • contribs)

pounds of silver
Should be in quotation marks - the usage at that time was for an amount of money and not an amount of weight AFAICT. Collect (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for noticing it. I think the actual internal link is Anglo-Saxon pound, but I'm not sure how to convert the amount? Poeticbent talk 19:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Cinque ports
This is speculation but it is probably relevant that Faversham was an outlyer (limb) for Dover and thus part of the Cinque ports confederation. Ref. and at this period (very late) all the ports except Dover has silted up and were of little importance. Faversham with its wharfs at Whitstable was in a unique trading position--this is not my period and I have no useful books in my collection to help further- this background needs to be inserted some where. I have mentioned elsewhere that we have an FA on another Elizabethan- who has achieved great fame when virtually nothing is verifiable apart from the fact he died- and he is now credited with being something of a writer! It shows how to handle uncertainty. --ClemRutter (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Please add the information about the Faversham's wharfs beneath the section about Tylman's personal life, AGF if need be, because he operated them also. Such background information is essential for the understanding of the true significance of Faversham’s trade, otherwise, the impression might be, that the quantities of grain exported to London from the local traders were comparable across the entire region in Elizabethan times. Poeticbent talk 23:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

On line family tree sites
Based on an enquiry at WP:RSN the consensus appears to be that while these sites may publish copies of reliable information, such as certificates of live birth and census records, that the original research of amateur genealogists who post to these sites is not reliable. Therefore I am removing all the unreliable information. I am listing all the sources below in case any editors wish to argue for their inclusion.


 * 1.^ Richard Tylman. Born - 1546 in United-Kingdom. Died - 1584. Genealogy Place - The Ultimate Genealogy Search Engine 2009.
 * 3.^ Richard Tylman of Faversham. The will of Thomas Cobb. Rootsweb genealogy.
 * 6.^ a b Richard Tylman (1546 - 1584) 2012 Ancestry.com. Source: Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1538-1812, London, England.
 * 7.^ Richard Tylman and Ellen. 2012 Ancestry.com.
 * 8.^ a b Thomas Cobb's daughter, who married one Richard Tylman of Faversham. Cobbes Eleventh Generation. 2012 Ancestry.com.
 * 9.^ William Tylman, VII (1562–1613/1614). Ancestry Archive 2012.
 * 10.^ Richard Tylman (1569–1614). Ancestry.com 2012.
 * 11.^ Richard Tylman born 1569; Tylman family. Ancestry Archive, 2003.

TFD (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Inquiry at WP:RS/N was inconclusive and lacking vital information in its initial statement leading only to further misunderstandings. Please wait for feedback here, and allow the necessary time for other editors to complete their research as indicated already, before consensus can be reached. Thanks. Poeticbent talk 10:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Richard Tillman
I do not think that the fact the mayor once spelled his name "Tillman" is conclusive evidence that he was the same person. There were after all several people called Richard Tylman in the genealogical databases living at the same time in Faversham and for all we know many more. Since the corn trade was a major industry in Faversham, it is not unreasonable that several of them would have been involved in the trade. BTW Faversham never had a "lord mayor". It appears to be an error in the description of the letter in the source. TFD (talk) 02:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should information sourced to research in genealogical websites be included?
This edit removed information sourced to genealogical websites with the notation, "Remove information sourced to amateur postings on family tree websites". Are any of these sources reliable or should they be excluded? TFD (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The relevant sources with links are listed below.
 * 1) Richard Tylman. Born - 1546 in United-Kingdom. Died - 1584. Genealogy Place - The Ultimate Genealogy Search Engine 2009.
 * 2) Richard Tylman of Faversham. The will of Thomas Cobb. Rootsweb genealogy.
 * 3) Richard Tylman (1546 - 1584) 2012 Ancestry.com. Source: Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1538-1812, London, England.
 * 4) Richard Tylman and Ellen. 2012 Ancestry.com.
 * 5) Thomas Cobb's daughter, who married one Richard Tylman of Faversham. Cobbes Eleventh Generation. 2012 Ancestry.com.
 * 6) William Tylman, VII (1562–1613/1614). Ancestry Archive 2012.
 * 7) Richard Tylman (1569–1614). Ancestry.com 2012.
 * 8) Richard Tylman born 1569; Tylman family. Ancestry Archive, 2003 . TFD (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Exclude This matter was discussed at WP:RSN. My understanding of the discussion is that when copies or extracts of records are used, that they can be used.  In that case the records themselves are reliable sources and the website is merely where we found them.  However, postings by amateurs tracing their family tree are not reliable sources, because there is no fact-checking.  TFD (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment When a question is posted: it should avoid weasel words and POV and make it clear that this is part of a long running grudge that the proposer has with another prolific editor. The truth is that none of us get paid to do WP- we are all amateurs and I happen to believe that we produce a work of the highest quality. We know a FA from a stub, and the guys who generate stuff for some Ancestry sites (even those behind a paywall) do it freely, and with the same rigour as ourselves. Some is dross, some are copies of primary sources and other articles are equivalent to the best post doctoral research. One uses discretion- and follows the reference and judges its quality, and if possible re-reference it with the original source. Used this way even poor site can be helful; to bring an article from a stub to a GA. It the article is already a GA these references can be left on the talk page. Making a global rule, on the evidence of one example is poor practice- particularly when one suspects that this will be used later in a sixth AfD debate if the fifth attempt fails.--ClemRutter (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The article called "Richard Tylman" that was deleted on its fourth nomination was about a different person. That Richard Tylman was born in Poland in the 20th century.  This Richard Tylman lived in England in the 1500s.  TFD (talk) 04:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, use them as sources. The reason we have footnotes and links is so anybody can go to the Source and see if it is authoritative or not. Some genealogies are the product of great rigor; others are not. In any event, we should Assume Good Faith that an editor will not knowingly add anything to an article that is not correct. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Include as per GeorgeLouis and ClemRutter.--Juraj Budak (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Follow up to this RFC closure can be found at
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive242.

Fly-by-night
Re: controversial edit by Middletown single purpose IP 75.5.202.21. I'm commenting here, so I won't have to "talk to the hand" in my edit summary. The refs have been discussed at No original research/Noticeboard and at Reliable sources/Noticeboard under Archive 132 Genealogy databases. A number of editors spoke out about Ancestry.com webpage. There were no objections to using an authored piece written by a geneaology expert complete with cited references. The study by Robert Stanley Cobb posted on Ancestry.com under "Cobbes Eleventh Generation" could have been posted anywhere – considering its quality, but the author chose to use the Genealogy databases instead. This reference wasn't challenged by anybody at all at WP:RS/N which means it was basically approved as reliable. I left my own comment there at WP:RS/N. Here's what I said:

Other experienced long-term editors also spoke out in defence of my references at WP:RS/N including and  – quoting academic reviews and content of databases used in scientific research.. It is not acceptable, to be ignoring their input (or anybody's input...), while waging a revert war based on misleading edit summaries. Poeticbent <span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#FFFFFF;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk 16:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You are misinterpreting that discussion. Certain documents that appear on webistes may be reliable sources.  The conclusions drawn by amateur genealogists are not.  BTW your conclusion that the subject of this article received a permit to deal in grain posthumously makes no sense.  No reason either to mention the names of the magistrates.  TFD (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that I have already accepted the fact that the dates quoted by anonymous editors at Ancestry.com might not be reliable, and therefore I did not return them to the lead in this article. I'd like to repeat also what ClemRutter said above: "we are all amateurs". <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> <span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#FFFFFF;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk 17:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The family tree sources and the RFC close
Since I've closed the RFC after its long inactivity, the page has become active again. I don't want to be involved in any squabbles here, and I really do not care about the subject of the article. As an independent and uninvolved user, I closed the RFC, making a decision on policy and the arguments themselves. The simple fact was that the sources used were improper, unverifiable and unreliable. A family tree that references nothing, but the amateur postings of its members is not reliable. I'd have said it was okay if primary sources were used or if they were backed by reputable research and not the said-so of an unknown individual. Please do not reopen the discussion again. If you have such a problem, open a new RFC or discuss it here. The other was long due for a close. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Chris- I realise you are trying to restore sanity to an article about a long dead mayor of a small town 30km from here, but I can happily agree that two commercial websites are not valid sources. I fail to understand how they shouldn't be cited for external links- so the dear reader can share the external links he will need to use if he wishes to do OR. I fail to understand how an article can be improved, if editors who have little contact with the subject matter can zap a whole section without constructively providing alternative material- just because they have read some distant RFC. Can I leave you to ponder that- ask you to look at items on this page that have been deleted rather than answered- then pop on round for some coffee and hot mince pies because it would be great to have a chat. --ClemRutter (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * What external links are not appropriate can be found at WP:ELNO. These links appear to violate policy because (1) they "do[] not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article,"  (2) the sites are not reliable sources, (6) payment is required for full use.  I have  brought the topic to WP:ELN.  TFD (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how those links don't form a valid elinks. This is stretching our policies way, way too far. They are relevant and relatively unique, and their reliability, while controversial, is not possible to clearly prove or disprove. The reader should be given the option of investigating them. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 18:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * @TFD-Thanks for the response- It is good to have the link to your starting point. The section is headed up  'Links normally to be avoided' . I understand that this is best practice not policy. I totally concur that these links are normally to be avoided. I focus on the word ' normally '- and state that ' normally ' in big twentieth century articles that might mean always- but the links that we are focussing on here are incredibly valuable in giving a lead to anyone who needs to further research. Take one example: * cite web | url=http://records.ancestry.com/Richard_Tylman_records.ashx?pid=98370627 | title=Richard Tylman (1546 - 1584) | publisher=Ancestry.com | work=Source: Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1538–1812, London, England | date=2012 | accessdate= gives the lead to Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1538–1812, London, England . Many useful works are behind a paywall- I don't have a JSTOR account, and have to have a Library Card to access the DNB. So in exceptional cases- and that is what 'Links normally to be avoided' says, the listed criteria do not apply. This is one of those exceptions. Further, putting a link to such a site tells the reader that they are walking on thin ice- and they have the freedom to choose what to do with it. If you do attempt to visit Faversham- do pop in for a coffee and a chat. --ClemRutter (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll explain my reasoning, as WP:ELNO is a good starting point, but as a whole the external links have to be useful for the article and be accessible and able to last. On the first two, they fail. For usefulness, the mere name on a sheet is not really useful. Considering that we are discussing his life, yet no one can see the date of marriage despite having linked to this source. I'm assuming that no one can see the information it alludes to. As a source (of a primary document) it may be minimally useful if we are certain it is the correct Richard Tylman and not his son or his son's son, all named Richard Tylman or any other Richard Tylman in the London area. One line saying marriage and their two names is hardly useful. Though ELNO is a good basis, I'd be more apt to say are the sources themselves reliable, as they need not be external links (if they met the sourcing requirements I would have said use them as sources, not external links). So it falls to WP:RS, and the discussion of whether or not they are reliable comes directly into view. Ancestry.com and a host of other sites are businesses that profit and run off people finding and making their ancestries known. Also, family trees and such are a load of junk unless you do the research properly. This is terrible documentation and it is no better then Joe Schmoe who traced himself back to William the Conquerer. Ancestry.com is a site dedicated to original research, and quite frankly Wikipedia forbids original research. Want to do you own? Good for you, not on here and not on our articles. Go get it peer reviewed and evaluated before you stick it on here. The deeper I look into the ancestry links the more certain I am that it is fabricated and is clearly not accurate. If one thing doesn't make since, then quite clearly everything should be questioned. If anyone has solid reliable evidence, then include it. If not, forget about it. Its such a stretch, that it lowers the overall quality of the article. Because of WP:RS and WP:V, it was clear that they had not met the requirements. So that's why I closed and gave that reasoning. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry to disagree, Chris. I do not know much about genealogy databases, but the non-admin closure above was clearly made without WP:Consensus. That's why you started edit war to enforce your closure.  That's why we need consensus. Speaking on essence of the dispute, I do not think that several links in "Other reading" section  worth anyone's time, and especially going to ANI. Nothing happens if they stay in the article. P.S. In your edit summary you said: "There was no activity until I closed the discussion." Yes, exactly. There was no activity because there was de facto consensus, one that you now violated. My very best wishes (talk) 01:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

My very best wishes, your suggestion violates at least three principles of Links normally to be avoided:
 * Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.
 * Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting.
 * Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation.

These guidelines in turn are guided by policies such as verifiability and no orginal research. If you do not like the policies and guidelines we are expected to follow, then you should endeavor to change them. Arguing for noncompliance in isolated articles is merely disruptive.

Note also, "Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them". TFD (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * TFD is correct in the assessment. And typically, the links should NOT have been present during the RFC. And I didn't just 'overturn' concensus, but I actually took into consideration the RSN about this which said that trees themselves are not reliable, but the primary documents themselves are useful. This should not be hard concept to grasp, but in the discussion was geared towards 'primary documents' being OK (as under RS and other primary document criteria) and the 'family trees' made by amateurs are not reliable. All of the 'External links' were just a 'family tree', of which did not even cover Richard Tylman himself, but the presumed son and grandson as well. Poetic does not even have assess to the sources that he added, so even if we were to go for the better PRIMARY documents, the problem is that there is clear errors in the forms used and the best one represents a single line entry in a log book, and nothing more. Even the best source we have makes no mention about Richard Tylman being the mayor, and much of the prose here is wrong in its assertions. I'm not 'edit warring' and I haven't gone and addressed the OTHER issues because I don't want to deal with this every day I'm on wiki. And there actually SEEMS to be concensus about the links themselves not being reliable, which logically defaults to not being valid sources. Clemrutter even acknowledges this point as above. One of the 'includes' was a Sockpuppet and is invalid, yet it had no arguement either. The other was on the 'let readers decide if it is authoritive'.
 * If you want a proper gauge of the discussion, see the RSN entry as I noted. Its more obvious and detailed. Also the only two people who really made arguments were TFD and Poetic, both were active on the RSN debate as well. The fact three individuals on this RFC (which took place at the same time as the RSN debate) also have expressed concerns about the validity of the sources really defaults to the 3 Removes and 1 Yes (Poetic). A close with no concensus still equals removal. Either way, it doesn't change the result and no one on ANI or in the side discusses has dealt with the issues themselves, instead of the action of the close. Those who have expressed concerns with the sources did so in policy and knew that there really was no way they would have remained valid. Its because they do not pass RS, V and ELNO, not because I'm being a jerk. I could have closed it as 'no concensus' and still removed the things as according to policy. Instead I gave a solid answer on why TFD's argument won out in light of policy. Either way, if I closed as 'no concensus, removing links per policy' the outcome would have been no different to worse. Ironic thing, I don't even know why the previous incarnation of the poet Richard Tylman was deleted. It seems stupid to me and I have half a mind to try and resurrect the page, but Poetic is absent for now and I won't risk further ire by doing so. I'm not a 'bad guy', and I'm really level headed. I just want Wikipedia to be accurate, verifiable and proper. All the drama I can do without. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * So, here they are:



I agree, these links do not add any value to the article beyond mere fact that such person existed and when. However, I would never remove such links from an article of B-level or lower if this causes anyone's objections, because these links do not make anything really worse, and it is not worth anyone's time disputing such matters per WP:IAR. And I would never post an RfC about such obviously unimportant matter, unless I had something else in mind, as TFD obviously does. My very best wishes (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Chris. Life is too short. I suspect you are actually trying to justify an approach with which you no longer agree.:). Which is why your post is so long.My very best wishes has clear described the situation. We are not editing a FAC but a glorified stub. Even if we take it to a 'B' we would not remove a dodgy external link. I suggest the dodgy links are restored- TFD leaves this on his watchlist and should it ever be proposed for a 'A' or 'GA´ he should repeat his views which would then be valued. This throwing around of WP;guidance and policies is totally inappropriate for articles of this class- and brings us all into disrepute.--ClemRutter (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)