Talk:Temperance Flowerdew

Untitled
I added a number of external web pages as links to provide supporting proof that Temperance Flowerdew deserves a page in Wikipedia. When I was researching her online, I found quite a bit of fascinating information about her and was surprised that there was no entry for her in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bskaat (talk • contribs)

Notability
As the article stands at present TF is just another woman. The article absolutely needs to state here importance, which, in my view, it does not. All I know from the article itself is that she lived a fair while ago, survived a sea voyage and married reasonably well. The article needs more than that. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Response
In reading the information regarding Wikipedia's definition of "Notability", I believe that Temperance Flowerdew is most definitely notable.

Although I recognize that there is not much information regarding Temperance Flowerdew, her life was remarkable nonetheless. Few women were mentioned at all in records of those days, and the fact that she was mentioned as often as she was indicates that she was significant to the time. The only woman mentioned extensively in the region at that time was Pocahontas.

There are some important records which include her. She was witness to John Rolfe's last will (John Rolfe being the husband of Pocahontas). She also was witness to the sale of Yeardley's two plantations, thereby giving support to the oldest recorded deed in the United States.

I believe that the article is useful in describing Lady Yeardley's remarkable life. Although I agree that she, as a woman, lived on the periphery of significant events, it is only due to her sex that her accomplishments were not more fully recorded.

It is worthwhile to allow this article to stand and to be expanded upon by additional researchers interested in this fascinating woman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bskaat (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality
We require a neutral tone in the encyclpaedia. The hard work is appreciated, but the tone has altered to reportage to a great extent, or an essay style. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Response regarding Neutrality
Fiddle Faddle, could you clarify what you found to be biased, or non-neutral in this article? I would be happy to amend any NPOV issues, but I do not know what it is that you specifically find objectionable. Bskaat (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Not objectionable, but inappropriate here. "It is interesting..." and similar lines have no place here, I'm afraid. It may be interesting, but that is for the reader to judge, not the writer. Somewhere in the Manual of Style you will find this type of thing. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the phrase "It is interesting to note" from the article. I was under the impression that there was an issue with Neutral Point of View rather than writing style. Please let me know if there is anything else you find objectionable. Bskaat (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I meant to say "anything else you object to." Bskaat (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

My use of Lead rewrite
I see an article that is well referenced and is an essay about a woman who married some people. What I do not see is any assertion of her notability. That she lived some time ago in a brutal time does not make her notable. We are all descendants of such people. So far she has inherited her notability form her husbands.

It's an interesting article, but it is not, currently, an article about a notable person, certainly the way it is written. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Made some changes -- feel free to reverse them if you prefer
I felt that the article as written seemed to focus too much on other people rather than on Temperance Flowerdew. If she is notable enough to have her own Wikipedia entry, I would say it's not because of who she married (since both of them are covered elsewhere) but because of who she was. She came from prominent English gentry, and several of her relations were active in the settlement of Jamestown. Yeardley's rise to the position of Governor, and a knighthood, might have been in part due to his marriage to Temperance. Such backstories cast useful light on the history of the settlement, in my opinion. Applephile (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Decided after reading the discussions on this page and at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EAR to back out and leave it to others. Applephile (talk) 11:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Edits to tone
The article as currently written reads more like a documentary narrative than an encyclopedia article. It also contains a good deal of collateral information which, while interesting, hasn't got much to do with the subject at hand. I'm working though it to trim off some of the excess and give the article more of a Wikipedian tone. JohnInDC (talk) 12:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I noted in my edit summaries, the article was mostly about Yeardley, the colony and things that were happening around that time - little or none of the article discussed Flowerdew, what she was doing during this period, or why is might be notable. I've taken out a good bit of extraneous information (e.g. Pocahontas is really beside the point unless Flowerdew had some relationship with her) to make it easier for the reader to extract the biographical nuggets relating to Flowerdew herself, and, as I also noted, tempered the tone a bit to make it more matter of fact and less dramatic.  I think the article could be, should be, shorter still but I'll let things rest for a bit to see how the edits sit.  JohnInDC (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think with a lot of the excess removed, the notability claim is much clearer now. She was one of but 60 survivors of the Starving Time - which is almost notable in itself; was married to two governors, wound up very wealthy, and may had a plantation, still existing today, named for her.   All the other material - the stuff I took out - seems to diminish her rather than enhance the story of her life.  The article is better, and more likely to survive a notability challenge, without it.  JohnInDC (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Temperance Flowerdew's association with Pocahontas
There is very little solid information regarding Temperance Flowerdew on record. Overall, there is very little information regarding ANY women during that time period. Therefore, I was surprised to find that the fact that she was a legal witness to Pocahontas's marriage had been removed from this article. Can you provide any further rationale for removing it? I am trying to understand the logic behind the decision.

Overall, I think that the edits were effective and made the article much stronger. Bskaat (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Temperance Yeardley was one of four witnesses to John Rolfe's will in 1622, but I've never seen her name mentioned in connection with Rolfe's marriage to Pocahontas in 1614. Any evidence?  88.97.48.91 (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Date of birth
Is there any documentation on this? 1567 seems preposterous on its face. It would mean that she waited until her forties to marry and that, after surviving the Starving Time, she had three children at an advanced age, including a son, Francis Yeardley, in her mid-fifties.

The first draft of this article included this date, but put the article in the category 1587 births. The category has since been removed, but this date stayed. I strongly suspect a typo that was never fixed, but am curious if there are reliable sources. Rklear (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that 1567 is clearly wrong. Even 1587 seems to be only someone's estimate.  I've edited the article to show her year of birth as unknown, until/unless documented evidence is found. Underdoor (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Original research and sources
That's not original research. It literally says so in the church records. And the will has been published. And is referenced in the JSTOR article. The other source is a church record of the wedding. There is no better source. BeatriceCastle (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , I think this was meant for you., please read WP:RS and WP:OR. In short: you need secondary sources, not your own reading of primary sources. Also, posting on the talk page is not a sufficient reason for reverting--rather, it is the first step towards gaining consensus for your edits. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My edit has consensus. Nobody has changed it exept Agricolae, who had shown no interest in this article except following me here. BeatriceCastle (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC) I quote from WP:OR.
 * *:: Unless restricted by another policy,
 * *:# primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.
 * *:# Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.
 * *:# A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
 * *:# analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
 * *:# base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.
 * *:# add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see, which is policy."
 * This is precisely how I have used them. BeatriceCastle (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @ If you will revert to my last edit, Agricolae can either respond here or let the edit be. BeatriceCastle (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all, please don't change bullets to indents. Second, no--you clearly do not have consensus. Third, what you are doing here is weird and unnecessary--weird because you're giving two URLs, both to primary documents (neither of which say "person X was related to person Y", as far as I can tell), and unnecessary because (presumably) the JSTOR article already verifies. In this edit you're likewise citing primary documents, but for what? To verify a tiny bit of trivia about a golden ring? If it's really important ("interesting"), then secondary sources will prove it. So, sorry but no, I will not revert to your last edit. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not certain what you mean by not changing bullets to indents. I am sure you are right about that, I just don't know what you mean by it. If you explain, I will change it back if possible. Well, I am trying to get consensus. I am here. Agricolae has previously stated to me that the talk pages are a waste of time, so I am a bit at a loss at how to get consensus otherwise, when nobody has raised any problems here, nor anybody else through edits. As to here one is to a summary at the National Archives, one is to the document itself. It is meant as a courtesy to the reader, if anyone wants to have a look at it themselves. It is also meant to confirm year of death. If you have ever worked with secondary sources concerning this period, you will know that precise years for birth or death are precious. They are often wrong or mixed up even in the most reputable and well-meaning of sources, so any exact date better be backed up if one can. No, those links do not show that Stanley and Temperance were related, the JSTOR article does that. Well, would you rather that I stated that piece of trivia without any source to back it up? Isn't that the whole point of sources? That they are supposed to back what you write up. BeatriceCastle (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, Martha’s will shows when Martha died. BeatriceCastle (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I started with an asterisk, you continued with a colon. See Colons and asterisks; keeping it the same makes it easier for people who use assisting technology. Don't change it back: I adapted my own comment. You don't have consensus because it's only you who is in favor of these changes; Agricolae and I are against, it seems. I have worked with primary and secondary sources, and secondary sources agree that often the problem is to make the primary sources agree. And how can we be sure that some website, like Ancestry.com, is posting unfalsified information? If the JSTOR article makes the point, there is no benefit in adding any more sources--especially not questionable secondary sources. Finally, no, please don't add bits of trivial: if secondary sources don't talk about it, it's likely trivial. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding colons and asterixes, I was not aware of that. I will keep it in mind in the future. I think then that more people need to be brought in. Agricolae has started to follow me from article to article and I would welcome others' perspective on this. Ancestry has published unedited scans of the original will. I think it would be a great scandal if it had been revealed to be forgeries or altered in any way. In addition, that is another reason for posting the link to the National Archives also, they have their version of the scan, easily downloadable. I have worked, through many years, with both primary and secondary sources, and I cannot ever recall having the problem of making primary sources agree. Sometimes they can be unclear – any random John Smith is not Pocahontas’s John Smith, for example – but a marriage settlement, or any source that makes clear who the subjects are, are usually very straightforward. I cannot ever recall a situation like that. Rather, it is usually the secondary sources that have differences and primary sources must be consulted to discover what is actually correct. I did not object to your word trivia when you last wrote, let me do so now. A mention in her mother's will is not trivial. It shows bonds, and contact, and routes of communication, that they were still in touch, even with the Atlantic separating them in the 1620's. Her mother's death is not a trivial fact. There is no need for a secondary source because this information is plain for all to see. They are not only permitted but encouraged by Wikipedia's own rules as straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. Wikipedia encourages the use of many sources. BeatriceCastle (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, the things you say about the will and the ring, that is really original research. You can write that down in an article for a history journal, but it is not the kind of thing we do here. No, bonds across the Atlantic and all, that is not plain for all to see; it involves a good bit of synthesis as well. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I quote myself: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. I would say that "Item I give to my daughter Temporannce yeardlie al[ia]s fflowerdewe my seale ringe of gould" is a straightforward, descriptive statement of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. It's pretty unambiguous. I have even provided a link so any educated person can have access with ease to verify it." Any extrapolation beyond those facts does not fall under the part quoted, and as you will see I have avoided that in the article itself. The will and the ring itself is permitted and even encouraged by Wikipedia's rules. BeatriceCastle (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a venue to publish your personal research findings. Agricolae (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. I would say that "Item I give to my daughter Temporannce yeardlie al[ia]s fflowerdewe my seale ringe of gould" is a straightforward, descriptive statement of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. It's pretty unambiguous. I have even provided a link so any educated person can have access with ease to verify it. BeatriceCastle (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Not how it works. Agreement cannot be assumed from people not taking any notice whatsoever. Agricolae (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I am a bit at a loss at how to get consensus otherwise, it not by raising their concerns here. If you reply to my arguments above, we can attempt to create consensus. BeatriceCastle (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You have edit warred to get your preferred version which includes this comment "It is unlikely she remained unmarried for a long time in a colony with so few women and very harsh times after the death of her first husband at an unknown time." which is VERY clearly original research. Theroadislong (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that this sentence might be struck. It is originally not mine. In the edit from 01:44, 13 June 2021 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Temperance_Flowerdew&oldid=1028285980 you see that it ran originally thus:  "This is the accepted date of marriage by genealogists. However, she was widowed in 1610. It is unlikely she remained unmarried for the next 8 years in a colony with so few women and very harsh times. Her first child by Yeardley was born 3 years before the reported marriage, thus the marriage must have been earlier." I do not know who originally wrote it. I simply amended it to fit facts (i.e. we do not know when Richard Barrow died). I agree that it is completely speculative and may be struck. BeatriceCastle (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Flowerdew Hundred sectionhas more original research
"it seems very likely that some settlement had begun there before that date" "the plantation may have been associated with the Flowerdew name before Yeardley's patent." " the land appears to have been in use by Stanley Flowerdew, Yeardley's brother-in-law, before it was patented by Yeardley" "With a population of about thirty, Flowerdew Hundred Plantation was economically successful " all seems like original research and reads nothing like an encyclopaedia article but more like a family history project. Theroadislong (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * None of those sentences are mine, feel free to find a source or strike them. If you add a citation needed tag I will do my best to find a source for this (there are a few scholars who have written about Temperance) within a reasonable timeframe, but like I said, these sentences are not mine, so I cannot vouch for their accuracy nor where the information is from. BeatriceCastle (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Or you could rewrite the sentences to something more to your liking, if you wish? I am sure they could be improved upon. What solution do you suggest would be the best? BeatriceCastle (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)