Talk:Thomas Walsingham (died 1457)

Problems with the original version of this article
Today I amended the problems below (and more, as the edit comments show)
 * There is no reliable source cited that clearly explains why two two coats of arms are shown, or even that either of them was borne by this person. The Note contains a lot of irrelevant detail (even for a note) and appears to be based on original research.
 * Mentioning the nephew of the subject's grandson - twice - is far too tenuous a link, even if it is someone famous.
 * According to the 1993 HoP, the 1899 Heraldic Visitations gets both the subject's father and his wife's father wrong. Why should we trust the old source?
 * The formatting of references is really poor. I corrected them, but the improvements have been reverted.
 * Also, what is the relevance of this: "The Walsingham family subsequently quartered the arms of Bamme, as is visible in the 1562 heraldic stained glass in Mereworth Church in Kent" when the article is about a person who died in 1457?

, if we are to collaboratively edit this article, please discuss the above points here before reverting again. —S MALL JIM   23:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Since your reverts   indicate that I obviously took it too far for you to agree, I'll proceed piecemeal.
 * 1) I've made a couple of uncontroversial minor edits, and removed the sentence in the last bullet above and the associated image . If you think they should go back, please explain why.  —S MALL  JIM   14:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) The Visitations of the County of Surrey... was published in 1899 which already makes its validity as a reliable secondary source rather doubtful (in view of the later research that has probably taken place). However in the preface it states that it is a literal transcript of manuscript 1561 in the Harleian Collection, consisting of reports of heraldic visitations made in 1530, 1572 and 1623. Therefore its only use to us is as a record of what the heralds recorded at that time, and it's well known that historical accuracy wasn't the priority. So I've removed that source and all the content that refers to it. As before, if you disagree please explain why. Reliable sources less than, say, 50 years old would be welcome if you can find any. —S MALL  JIM   14:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Update: Lobsterthermidor has reverted again  with no attempt to discuss here. There's evidently no point in trying for reconciliation yet (see "Off topic" section below). I've raised an edit warring report —S MALL  JIM   19:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The consensus appears to be that you should both go away, act your age, leave one another alone and get on with editing. If I can add a personal opinion - you both Smalljim and Lobsterthermidor behaved poorly, each mirroring the other in haughty disdain of the other. You are each to blame for the other's attitude to you, which you have stoked by your own actions. The solution is in your own hands. I predict that in fact you are each so convinced of the other's wrongness that you will each wait for the pther to change, nothing will happen and we'll end up here gain some time sooner or later. Please prove me wrong. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 09:26, 9 November 2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive818#User:LobsterthermidorLobsterthermidor (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

OK if we have to descend to the level of trading six-year-old quotes from wise people, here's my contribution (from here):
 * If I were in your shoes I'd put on a charm offensive and be as collegial, friendly and co-operative as possible. It might break the ice and the two of you might be able to work together better. If you are rudely rebuffed then it's one point to you. (LT, if you are reading this - exactly the same applies to you!) Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I tried that in 2017, e.g. User talk:Lobsterthermidor and the following four comments - but got rebuffed, so I already have several points :-) Come on, let's patch things up! —S MALL  JIM   14:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The images
The specific problems with the double image, its caption and "reference" (more like a footnote) in this version of the article are that (1) there is no mention of "modern" or "ancient" arms in the cited source (which is a primary source), (2) the blazon of the supposed "ancient" arms isn't the same as in the source, (3) the arms of the Walsingham family are described in the source as being of eleven quarters, (4) the "reference" unnecessarily duplicates content already in the body of the article, (5) the entire long title of the Surrey Visitations book crazily links to the article Heraldic visitation instead of its archive.org location, (6) the last sentence of the "reference" unhelpfully links to the file of an image which is reproduced immediately below, (7) that last sentence is not necessary at all since the information is in the caption of the image below.

There are other more minor issues, but that's plenty to reason for the removal of this unhelpful and quite possibly wrong text and double image. So I've done that. —S MALL JIM   16:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)