Talk:Edmund Rice (colonist)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Edmund Rice (1638))

Haplotype[edit]

This is a well-done page in my estimation. The only thing I was unable to locate from this is the haplogroup of the descendants of Deacon Edmund Rice. Perhaps I simply overlooked it. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way I understand it from reading the page of the Edmund Rice Association is that the Association believes that disclosing haplogroup information will confuse or distract those who are interested in genealogy. I beg to differ. I also believe that such information would be of great interest to those reading about Deacon Edmund Rice, so I hope the association will make that information public. MarmadukePercy (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The haplogroup information and reconstructed haplotype for Edmund Rice from the Edmund Rice (1638) studies is now part of the article. Innapoy (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, excellent addition, thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of material[edit]

I have removed two sections that are given WP:UNDUE weight. A listing of a hundred table cells worth of unpublished raw data, drawn from a non-reliable source, has no business being in a biographical article, while the whole section suffers from Original Research, as it is a synthesis of non-reliable web pages and reliable material that never mentions Rice (or does so only in passing). Likewise the list of descendants is arbitrary and not worth the space it occupies, as you know nothing more worthwhile about Edmund Rice by having been told that one line of his descendants, thirteen generations later, leads to Desi Arnaz IV. Agricolae (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Agricolae. First, I thought that about a year ago when we came to agreement about another issue on genealogic data, we came to a reasonably amicable agreement to stay away from each other. You have happened upon my core "pet page" that I've put nearly 4 years of work on. First, It is not unique. Genetic genealogical information is presented elsewhere in Wikipedia List of haplogroups of historical and famous figures as are articles with information about descendants Thomas Welles and Rehoboth Carpenter family. The Table 1 haplotype data is in support of the narrative information about deep ancestry origins and the material supporting the historically supported abductions during Queen Anne's War. I would appreciate greatly if you could see fit to leave my work alone as I've been averaging 2000 visits to the page monthly...more than just a handful of people find the material of interest. Furthermore, master editor Marmaduke Percy (see earlier section) provided advice and encouragement in the development of the molecular genetics section. Innapoy (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody WP:OWNs a page, and the fact that one can find some other page with similar material in no way validates the appropriateness of the material. Why is it appropriate to include raw primary data from a non-WP:RS, or unpublished conclusions about deep ancestry based on these primary data? What policy supports its inclusion? How can an indiscriminate list of descendants longer than the biography itself not be unduly weighted? Agricolae (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, nobody owns, but real people do sweat over them and get a bit perturbed when many, many hours of rather good work are wiped out in a second over a disagreement over WP:UIAR and WP:COMMON...supported by other pretty good pages. I would probably agree It may be appropriate to put in a new list of Edmund descendants directed from the page (as is done with lists of alumni from universities) that might serve the same purpose as the inline list. That which began rather small handful has pretty much ballooned over time. As for conclusions drawn from primary data, there have been public lectures and accounts thereof on the ERA web pages as cited and the primary data have been published first elsewhere. Again, our amicable agreement from the past to avoid each other? I suspect we are both rather strong willed in our personalities and could really begin to irritate one another. Innapoy (talk) 03:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At least we are getting somewhere, as the fact that one has to ignore all the rules to accept that material in the article means that it is, in fact, against the rules to include it. That is a step in the right direction. Now the question is why the rules, WP:NOR, WP:PRIMARY, WP:V and WP:NOR, some of the pillars of Wikipedia, should be ignored in this case. There actually has to be a good reason to ignore the rules; one doesn't get to do it just because they don't want to follow them. While I don't doubt that you put effort into compiling this material, that doesn't mean the product is necessarily appropriate. There is nothing personal about this - I got led here by a search for something else entirely, I found material that had no business being on a Wikipedia page, and I removed it without ever looking to see whose it was. Why would I when there is no such thing as owning text and it is entirely irrelevant - inappropriate is inappropriate, independent of who wrote it. Now, how about providing an actual justification for having an indiscriminate list of names longer than the biography, and a bunch of original research and unpublished genomic data in a biography - explain why the material is appropriate and why the rules shouldn't apply to it. Agricolae (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The way I understand it from reading the page of the Edmund Rice Association is that the Association believes that disclosing haplogroup information will confuse or distract those who are interested in genealogy. I beg to differ. I also believe that such information would be of great interest to those reading about Deacon Edmund Rice, so I hope the association will make that information public. MarmadukePercy (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC) The haplogroup information and reconstructed haplotype for Edmund Rice from the Edmund Rice (1638) studies is now part of the article. Innapoy (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Yes, excellent addition, thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)" Innapoy (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not following this - You think this material is appropriate for a Wikipedia page because some other editor disagrees with the policies of the Edmund Rice Association. I don't see how this justifies ignoring the rules. Such a justification seems to fly in the face of WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOTWEBHOST, while it seems supported only by a modified WP:ILIKEIT argument (someone else likes it). Even with your desire (or is it Marmadule's) to publicize material that a private organization would rather keep silent, I still don't see why a Wikipedia article needs to be plighted with a set of tables and a list of names longer than the legitimate content itself. Have you considered WikiLeaks instead? - disclosing data the holders of which want to keep secret is more what they are about than Wikipedia. This may be something where a WP:Third opinion is necessary as there is little room for consensus between 'inclusion of this stuff violates a whole lot of rules' and 'ignore all the rules and please stay away from my page'. Agricolae (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3O Response: Hi guys, I see a few issues here, chief among which seem to be due weight and source reliability, which should be addressed separately. Due weight turns on prevalence of the haplogroup information in reliable sources, so the source reliability information can be a good point to start with. If the source isn't reliable for the information, then the correct weight for the information is automatically zero. I scanned this source but didn't see this table therein. Further, I'm not sure this is the kind of source we'd like to use for genetic information. Now it may be that the information in the table is in the source (it's long and I didn't read all of it), but prima facie it's not there. One easy way to resolve this would be to post a thread on the reliable sources noticeboard, where I guess the source would be found to not be reliable for this information. Somehow, even if it was found reliable I don't quite see why a simple link to the source wouldn't suffice, for example with the text "The Edmund Rice Association has commissioned a genetic study to discover descendants of the Rices". Why would this biographical page need to replicate the haplogroup information? It takes a lot of space, so to comply with WP:WEIGHT it should be quite prevalent in sources that discuss the Rices. If the listed source is the only one, this may not be the case. Cheers, Dailycare (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haplotype and descendants[edit]

The Genetic Genealogy section is documented by: a) a non-RS web site; b) a passing reference to the fact that his family's DNA has been studied; c) another references to the same non-RS web site; d) somebody's Powerpoint presentation (really?); e) a spreadsheet on somebody's web site; f), g), h), i) & j) five scholarly articles, none of which mention Edmund Rice; k), l) & m) three more cites to the same non-RS website; n) a newsletter article that deals with descendants of Rice without specifically addressing Rice himself; o), p), q) & r) four more references to that same non-RS web site; and s) a primary record that does not mention Rice. So, in other words, there is nothing there that is both reliable and relevant. Now let's turn to that calculation of the number of descendants. No reference all - it is your own work, which doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Agricolae (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply reverting like you own the article doesn't make the problem go away. The genetics section is still not referenced with a single reliable source that actually relates directly to the subject of the article, and the list of descendants is still original research based on mostly non-reliable sources. Just to be clear about the problems, the Edmund Rice association web site is not a WP:RS. To take their report of Edmund Rices haplotype, look up the haplotype in an reliable source that speculates about Edmund Rice's origins, and then attribute those origins to Edmund Rice is a form of Original Research, as none of those sources attribute such an origin to Edmund Rice. As to the descendants, to pick out of a database of all known descendants of Edmund Rice several that you think are noteworthy is again Original Research by Synthesis. You need a reliable source that explicitly draws notice to the fact that Lucille Ball, or whoever, is a descendant of Rice. Then there is the further issue of weight - given that almost all colonial immigrants to New England have millions of descendants, and given the nature of American society means that some of them are bound to have become famous, is it really noteworthy to list them, as opposed to just an exercise in genealogical trivia? Finally, the calculation of how many descendants Edmund Rice has is simply a personal excursion into math, and is entirely original research. This is not the type of material that belongs in a Wikipedia article. Agricolae (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that my haplotype change is in perfect agreement with the 3O response above - no reliable source = no weight should be given it. There is currently no reliable source that Edmund Rice has any particular haplotype, so an entire paragraph built around the haplotype he may or may not have merits zero weight. Agricolae (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Anne's War and captives[edit]

The following sources may be of interest to readers curious about the raids during Queen Anne's and preceding wars:

John Demos mainly explores the history of the Deerfield Massacre and its more than 100 captives who were taken to Canada, specifically Kahnawake. Many were adopted by Mohawk families and stayed there, although the minister John Williams, who was ransomed, tried without success to ransom his daughter Eunice Williams. Demos provides the larger historic context of conflicts between France and England that were played out by frequent raiding back and forth across New England and Canada. He notes that a 1707 raid of Groton was by French and allied Abenaki, who frequently were involved in New England raiding and took the captives to Canada. Darren Bonaparte has a number of articles online about the early years of Kahnawake, including material from Mohawk sources. I haven't checked them yet for other references to Rice descendants. I am descended from a brother of the three Tarbell children who were taken from Groton, so was curious about them. (I added them to the Kahnawake surnames article. The two boys were adopted by Mohawk famlies, became assimilated and married into the tribe. One, referred to as Capt. Tarbell, was noted by Parkman as accompanying Timothy Rice to Massachusetts on a visit in 1740. A Mohawk descendant, Reaghan Tarbell, made a documentary about the Mohawk community in Brooklyn, called To Brooklyn and Back: A Mohawk Journey, aired on PBS.[1] A while ago, I saw it in sections on YouTube.Parkwells (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

I question using 1638, or any date, as a disambiguation tag. It's not even his year of birth or death, but a presumably significant year in his adult life. Surely we can find a word that distinguishes him from other Edmund Rices? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 11:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 December 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) Fuortu (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Rice (1638) → Edmund Rice (colonist) – Or anything really. The date is meaningless, so we need a better disambiguator. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral Seems reasonable enough to change to Edmund Rice (colonist). The 1638 is the date of Edmund's immigration to America and is in the name of the Edmund Rice (1638) Association, the organization of Edmund's descendants.Innapoy (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (immigrated 1638) would be the other option. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the (immigrated 1638) option is a better idea. Innapoy (talk) 13:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

according to coolidge article an ancestor of the president[edit]

perhaps this should be added.

or perhaps not. WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Agricolae (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edmund_Rice_(colonist)&oldid=1196433315"