User talk:Camikympy22

John Grubb
I have reverted your edit to John Grubb because it should not be placed before the introduction to the article. It also appears to be quite speculative. If it were placed lower in the article, rephrased to state that certain sources give a possible clue to her identity and omitted the reference to a personal ancestry.com site, it would be more appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia and better formatted.

In order to give some guidance on Wikipedia formatting, guidelines and policies, here are some links to pages with useful information that can help you in editing and writing for Wikipedia:


 * Introduction to Wikipedia; and Contributing to Wikipedia; and Wikipedia tutorial; and Getting started
 * Avoiding common mistakes; and How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * Simplified ruleset; and Simplified Manual of Style; and Manual of Style
 * Help:Referencing for beginners; and Help:Footnotes
 * List of policies; and List of guidelines
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia; and What Wikipedia is not; and Manual of Style/Words to watch
 * Identifying reliable sources; and Verifiability; and No original research; and Neutral point of view
 * How to copy-edit; and How to create your first article
 * Help:Introduction to talk pages; and Help:Using talk pages; and Talk page guidelines
 * Copyright Problems; and Copyright violations; and Images; and  Image use policy
 * Help:Contents and Questions provide guidance and links to pages where help can be requested. Also see Teahouse.

Many of these pages are reasonably brief and can be reviewed quickly. Some other pages with more detail are linked from some of these pages.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages (but not article edits) by typing four tildes (~) ; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions or ask your question on this page and then place Help me before the question. You may also ask me a question on my user talk page and I will answer it, if I can, or try to refer you to a page or person that might help, the next time I am online at Wikipedia. Donner60 (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

First Wiki submission: please explain how it is speculative...
...when the two cited documents are bonafide historic English documents? The Vivian's Visitations of Cornwall cite gives actual dates of Frances Vane's residency in Menheniot, Cornwall, England, which are contemporaneous dates with John Grubb's dates, and literally she lived 11 miles from Stoke-Climsland, Cornwall, England. They used the same market town--Liskeard--the designated one in their vicinity. MapQuest.uk will show the 11-mile distance between the two subject villages. May I add MapQuest.uk as a citation for the "11-mile" claim? The 1919 published Royal Historical Society biography of Sir Henry Vane the Younger shows there was no evidence upon publication in 1919 that Frances Vane was buried in Shipborne Church, Kent, England. Author Willcock lists in this biography many Vane elders and children buried at Shipborne (through two generations) but omits Frances Vane from burial there or anywhere in England or on The Continent. I apologize for not knowing that Wiki submissions cannot list other Web sites, clearly unless they are a citation. No problem as I will remove the reference to ancestry.com tomorrow. However, I do need your detailed analysis of what is speculative so I can either cite it or remove it. This I would appreciate tremendously. However, there is one date that stands in the current Wikipedia entry about John Grubb, and that is the speculation that Frances Vane was born ca. 1660. Vivian's Visitations lists Frances Vane as marrying 1664, thus the claim of ca. 1660 that now stands in Wiki makes her a 4-year-old bride! How do we address this and other speculations in the official Wiki entry? Thank you, Cami Camikympy22 (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have just seen your further question on my talk page and the above question so I am sorry for the delayed response. The publication that you mention on my talk page appears to be the same type of valid source that I have used in similar circumstances. I will need to review the article, apparently in more detail, to give you a good answer. I can say definitely that text that is purely speculative or does not make sense (4 year old bride) needs to fixed or removed. In some cases, the speculation may be removed simply by changing the wording to state that the presumably reliable source states that __________, rather than having the Wikipedia article declare that ____________, but then qualify it in a way to make it appear speculative. Information from a reliable source that could be correct, but also apparently may not be, should be stated as coming from the source, not directly from the Wikipedia author(s).I am not suggesting that this type of information be excluded. It is not being presented as Wikipedia's research without a source. I am just saying that it should be qualified. Conclusions made from the source's information should be left to the reader and not be original research. I hope that makes sense.


 * I am sorry that I have made this more difficult work, which I had not intended. I now realize that by using templates and not explaining my point in more detail, a new editor might not have enough information to proceed or might otherwise be confused. Such detailed explanations are not often necessary (although we should cite Wikipedia information pages more often when edits are obviously in good faith and meant to be constructive). But we do not advance the project and encourage new editors if we are not explicit enough. You, on the other hand, have no reason to apologize for anything. Wikipedia has many format, policy and other guidelines but I think it is not necessarily easy for new users to be aware of and to find the pages which explain these. (There are also editors who review recent changes and try to apply the guidelines to changes. Perhaps, although in good faith, we may not always be entirely consistent in doing so.)


 * I will review the comments and the article again and reply further as promptly as I can. Thanks for your contributions and efforts. Donner60 (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * In further reply: Since Frances Vane is recorded to have been married to one Kekewich, this wedding could have taken place in 1664. (One would have to presume that 12-year old John Grubb did not marry Frances in 1664.) But if John Grubb's wife was born c. 1660, as seems likely due to the birth years of their children, she was not the same person who was married to Kekewich (or anyone) in 1664. It would be safe to assume that Frances would have been at least 4 and perhaps 6 or more years older than John if she were married in 1664. By itself that would not be an implausible difference if a proven connection were made and facts that undermine the conclusion did not exist. However, the Grubbs's last child was born in 1702. If Frances were born in about 1648 (making her only 16 in 1664), she would have been at least 54 years old in 1702. It does not seem plausible that a woman that old would have a child (even today) whereas it would still seem plausible for a woman of about 42 years old to have a child in 1702. If Frances were the mother of all of John's children, that would include Peter, born in 1702 when she was of advanced age and also the next youngest child born c. 1693 when she would have been at least 45 years old by conservative calculation of her age.


 * A MapQuest citation would support the 11-mile claim if that claim is includable. After all, the towns could not have changed their relative locations. But I think what I have written in the previous paragraph brings the claim about Frances Vane into doubt. At this point, I do not see that there is any real proof that John Grubb and Frances Vane knew each other, only that they lived 11 miles apart (which was some distance in that age) and had the same faith. It is simply speculation to say it is a "virtual impossibility" they did not know each other simply on this basis. Even if they did know each other, it seems to be quite a speculative jump to the conclusion that it is "highly likely" that Frances Vane married John Grubb - based on no further fact than an apparent absence of mention of Frances's burial in England in another source. The existing article refutes that conclusion by stating Frances Vane was buried in England. I will try to review the sources further if they are on line in order to see if they can be reconciled or distinguished.


 * Although there might be some reason to place a comment elsewhere, as near as I can determine, anything about John Grubb's family (unless it is to make a correction or brief explanation in the opening paragraphs) should be placed in the "Family" section of the article.


 * As I noted, I will do some further review but it no doubt will be quite late today or early tomorrow before I can make any further comment. Donner60 (talk) 06:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I could have saved some time and not gone through a part of the analysis above if I had carefully read the second source you cited. It shows that Frances Vane, daughter of Sir Henry Vane the Younger, was born in 1641. It would have been quite impossible for a woman born that early to have been the mother of John Grubb's nine children. She would have been 41 years old when the oldest of them was born and 61 years old when the youngest was born.


 * In addition, I see nothing in the sources you cited that relate that Frances Vane directly to John Grubb or mention them together, much less show that they married after Frances's first husband died in 1674. You have taken some inferences from coincidences or facts that may relate to each person individually and drawn your own conclusions. That is both speculation and original research. I am sorry to have to reach this conclusion I see no other conclusion that is supported by the sources or makes sense. As an aside, a public entry in Ancestry.com would need to show some factual support from reliable, verifiable sources to be of any value. Anyone can put anything in such internet pages without any direct evidence or even any support at all.


 * If you wish to take this forward for another opinion, you might look at Help:Directory, possibly in particular Help:Directory and Questions. I now see no reason to change my original evaluation of the entry. Donner60 (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)