Talk:Robert de Brus, 1st Lord of Annandale

Son?
This page says that his son was William the Third of Annandale, but the page for William says he was the son of Robert the Second Lord of Annandale, whose page in turn says he was the son of this Robert, the First Lord...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.79.25 (talk) 04:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Gisborough Priory
THis page says he founded Gisborough Priory, but the page for the priory says it was Robert de Brus, 2nd Lord of Annandale. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The latter page is wrong. The author there, btw, meant Robert de Brus, 1st Lord of Annandale, but probably wrote "2nd Lord of Annandale" because he believed the 1st Lord of Annandale was the 2nd. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Disputed

 * Robert was born to Adam Brus and Emma Ramsey at Annandale in 1071. Adam Brus was a landowner in Normandy who married Emma in Carrick, circa 1062.  

Adraeus, please don't take this as a slight against your ego, but this and most of the other stuff added by your recent edits constitute nothing but historical fiction. There were no people with those names in Scotland in the 11th century, and the Bruce family didn't even come to Britain until around 1100 (the source you are using is poor quality). In fact, it would be transparent that such assertions are nonsense to anyone with any familiarity with this period, but sadly one needs to read more than Burke's Peerage to attain this. Even if you don't believe me in this, you don't have to; believe Ruth M. Blakely's recent academic history of the Brus family The Brus Family in England and Scotland, 1100-1295 (p. 8): "the first Robert de Brus, the "conquistador of Cleveland, Hartness and Annandale", founder of the Augustinian priory of Guisborough and progenitor of both the English and Scottish branches of the family, came into England from the west of Normandy among the followers of Henry I in or around the year 1100. By 1103, when he makes his first appearance in royal records ...". Please don't reinsert this stuff. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 06:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim has removed a significant amount of well-researched and cited material from the article without any discussion, asserting without substance that the material is "historical fiction." I have filed a request for arbitration in this matter. Adraeus (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * For those who wish to read that material, you can do so here Adraeus (talk) 12:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, let's debate the content and not shout "vandalism". You made changes, they were reverted. You then come to talk page and give reasons for them and we discuss it. See WP:BRD. I see no real discussion yet. If that doesn't work, you go to dispute resolution, the first stage of which is requesting input from other editors. I hate to tell you, but arbitration is NOT for content disputes, and your case WILL be rejected.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyway. The Dictionary of National Biography, seem to say that the theories you've put forward have been discredited. What say you to that?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Verifiability states, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth &mdash; that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." [Latter emphasis added.]


 * The material removed was derived from three sources:


 * Burke, Bernard. A Genealogical History of the Dormant, Abeyant, Forfeited, and Extinct Peerages of the British Empire. Baltimore: Genealogical Pub. Co, 1978.
 * Collins, Arthur. Peerage of England. London: Printed for F. C. and J. Rivington, Otridge and son, 1812.
 * Sherlock, Stephen. "Gisborough Priory: Information for Teachers" English Heritage. 2001. 1 Oct 2008.


 * These sources must be proved as unreliable in order for the material removed to have been legitimately removed; otherwise, Deacon's suggestion that the material is "historical fiction" is simply a matter of him believing the material false.


 * If the Dictionary of National Biography claims that such material is discredited or false, then the Dictionary of National Biography should be cited as stating so while leaving the material included and intact. Wikipedia is not in the business of revising history or original research. Wikipedia is in the business of aggregating information across a variety of sources, even sources that provide contrary information. If there are conflicting sources, then such conflicts must be recognized. Verifiability over truth. Adraeus (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * the key here is "reliable"... and a work published in 1812 is generally NOT a reliable source, especially when it's contradicted. Also, Burke's works are generally not even considered reliable in genealogical circles, much less historical sources. If a source from English Heritage contradicts something published by Oxford University, I think Oxford is going to win the reliable debate. I'm sorry to say but the first two sources are not going to meet the RS threshhold, at least in my book. The third one, if it's not contradicted by other sources, would be acceptable, but scholarly works published recently by academic presses would trump it. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Further note ... the Burke is a reprint of an 1866 work, so that also makes it suspect on age. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's nice and all, but mere opinion doesn't disqualify the reliability of a source. Adraeus (talk) 12:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Burke is widely referenced. Anyone who wants to read the original can do so, courtesy of Google. By the way, the first volume of the Dictionary of National Biography was published in 1885. Is the Dictionary of National Biography suspect, too? How about the U.S. Constitution? Adraeus (talk) 12:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It isn't just Deacon and I (and the others) that believe it false, it's current reputable historians in the field, i.e. Emma Crowie who writes "Brus [Bruce], Robert de (supp. d. 1094), supposed nobleman, was once thought to have been the ancestor of the Brus (later Bruce) family. The search for the origins of the family led nineteenth-century historians, including Aeneas Mackay writing in the Dictionary of National Biography, to accept late medieval lists of those who fought at Hastings, such as that cited by John Leland (d. 1552) in his Collectanea, as evidence for Brus's existence at that time. These lists are, however, wholly unreliable. The real founder of the family's fortunes in Britain was Robert (I) de Brus (d. 1142). It was this Robert who had extensive holdings in northern England, the first of which were granted by Henry I, perhaps soon after 1106, and were added to the Yorkshire section of Domesday Book between 1114 and 1119." (Oxford Dictionary of National Biography) A. A. M. Duncan, another historian, agrees with this in the ONDB's article on Robert, the subject of this article. History can and does get overturned, just like scientific theories do. The older theory of the Bruce family origins has been superceded, and that disqualifies older works that deal with this. I'm sure Deacon has a number of works that discuss this (I believe his mentioned one above this) that might be profitably read. As far as Burke being widely referenced, that doesn't mean it's correct. And, yes, the older Dictionary of National Biography has been superceded by the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, to which I referred above. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * According to your "age argument," the Holy Bible must also be historically suspect, too, as well as all of the primary sources that your so-called expert historians use to perform their research. You'll argue anything to get your way, won't you? What you've quoted doesn't mention Burke's work at all. Furthermore, the role of Wikipedia isn't to exclude information, but to compile that information in an accessible manner. If Emma Crowie disputes Burke's work implicitly, then her complaint should be referenced alongside the information she disputes. Verifiability supersedes truth here. That is, it is not your place to decide what's reliable; that's for the experts to decide. It's only our place to record and that's all. WP:NOR Adraeus (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I won't "argue anything to get my way", because quite honestly the Scottish history articles are quite a bit from my area of work. Please don't personalize this, it doesn't help matters. I'd point out the same facts on any FAC I commented on, and have in the past. I'll let someone else weigh in, at this point. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * We don't abandon our critical faculty and claim that the luminiferous æther exists, a claim to be found in books of Burke's time. And WP:V tells us that we don't: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ... In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." And why doesn't the luminiferous æther appear more often? "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority." Likewise here. If no modern historian can be found to accept the "came over with the Conqueror (or Emma)" thesis, whether explicitly or implicitly, we don't include it. Well, not unless we're aiming for a historiographic study, and Wikipedia sure isn't big on those. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Adraeus, why don't you read the post I posted last night? :P Ealdgyth & Scott, don't let this guy waste your time ... please. It's tragic. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 14:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If I don't speak up, then consensus doesn't take my voice into account. However, I'm letting other folks speak up too. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Good Old Sir James Balfour Paul, while happy enough to have Brus holding land in the north, considered the tale that "Adam" had come across with Bad Queen Emma "very doubtful". [Scots Peerage, 2:428] But, as WP:V says, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ... In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." Burke and Paul don't rate; Barrow, Crowie, Duncan and Oram do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by angusmclellan (talk • contribs) It was supposed to be either this or the one above, but not both. Who's a silly old Angus? Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The ODNB (which as others have said is not to be confused with the original DNB) represents the latest academic view, so should be accepted as having a strong consensus behind it unless equivalent academic sources can be found which dispute its conclusions. ODNB articles are by the named authors, if subsequently amended by someone else the article will state rev Joe Bloggs.  David Underdown (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll weigh in further on this later, when I have time, but in a nutshell, Burke's Peerage is insufficiently reliable to sustain a particular point of view against modern academic sources when contested. (It can be reliable when properly applied.) See this article and this one, which describe some of the unreliabilities in Burke's, the documented scholarly controversy surrounding it in the early 20th century (in which John Horace Round played so prominent a role), and the gradual revision of the publication to remove these inaccuracies and absurdities, a process which was not yet complete when the edition being cited was originally published (1970). Having struggled for two and a half years, on and off, to keep someone from inserting absurd 19th century genealogical fantasies into several of our articles, I'm deeply disappointed that an editor of some seniority has decided to champion them in this case. Choess (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, the promised "further".
 * Burke's Peerage, at least the pre-1999 editions (supposedly that one is pretty well cleansed of cruft), has serious but relatively well-defined inaccuracies. It is reasonable to use it as a resource on later peers, but when it presents the ancestry of persons raised to the peerage, particularly genealogies before, say, 1200, it may not necessarily be accurate. Round's criticisms of Burke's and other sources of genealogy can be found on Google Books and JSTOR and are generally considered well-founded. The pedigrees he criticised were commonly created and circulated during the 19th century, and genealogical sources published at that time, and tertiary sources which draw on such sources, should be regarded with great suspicion and carefully checked against recent academic literature.
 * The invocation of "verifiability" is a red herring. Obviously, both versions of de Brus's ancestry are verifiable, one to Burke's and other sources compiled in the 19th century, and one to recent scholarship. That said, it is desirable that an article not blatantly contradict itself, and therefore we are called upon to use our critical judgment as editors to decide which account seems most likely at present to be the correct one. As per Angus' comments, we are not compelled to preserve 19th-century conclusions in amber.
 * Other sources published in the 19th century and earlier are, indeed, subject to challenge whensoever they contradict more modern sources dealing with the same topic. We are not obliged to extend credulity to every view published throughout history on a particular subject. Choess (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have some gripes about odnb from time to time but as a general statement I would agree with Choess above. Though I'd add that almost any genealogy so early is always going to have a certain level of assumed inaccuracy as the records are often so poor. AllsoulsDay (talk) 11:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Welcome to wikipedia, AllsoulsDay. Choess, joke peerage sources are used all the time on wikipedia, and generally there are more people adding such bullcrap than removing it. It's reproductive memetic power is undeniable, and the peerage stuff fits most of the definitions of a virus actually, at least in regards to historical material on the internet. We need to improve our guidelines on this kind of thing so that people don't have to spend as much time ego-massaging and repeating the same obvious stuff to absolutely every account in the latter group. It does get tiresome. I'm at the stage now Choess, concentrating as I do on earlier medieval history, that the very term peerage (an anachronistic term it goes without saying) or the sight of a diff that introduces the word causes involuntary cringing the length of my body. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason I'm finicking about the areas where Burke's is reliable is because we had an episode of The Troubles (how apt) where people tried to gut our coverage of nobles and baronets in the 17th century and later because of these issues. I try, therefore, to make sure that it isn't written off altogether. That said, are there any particular areas where you're having trouble suppressing the "...but the book my third cousin twice removed wrote says my family is descended from Charlemagne!"? Choess (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Biggest problem I get is origin of families. Late medieval/early modern nobles and writers liked to make up ancestors with more ideological convenience: i.e. in Britain longer, came at the time of a William the Conqueror (England) or Malcolm III/Margaret (Scotland), and this is a constant plague (see, for instance, Talk:Inchkeith and Talk:Lauder/Archive_1), as guys like Burke didn't have the time or ability always to distinguish later myth and contemporary reality, so merge the stories. Sometimes they make guesses which get included as if they are fact. Thereafter the hideously large-sized peerage crowd help such nonsense spread like a virus all over the internet and onto wiki. You can be certain that any high medieval "nobility" articles not gotten to by me or a few other editors will contain such nonsense (and the clan pages do as a matter of practice), and it's often a pain in the butt to get rid of it, because besides the wasted time there is also the personal crap or the old Burke/WP:VER attack. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 18:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

All this "Lord" nonsense
There was no such peerage dignity in either England or Scotland in the Norman era. A lord was merely a landlord. Anybody who had a tenant was a lord, but it meant nothing beyond that. Succession boxes for landlords seem OTT. FitzwilliamDarcy (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)