Talk:Thomas Parr (MP for Westmorland)

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lancashire and Cumbria Low‑importance

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Deletion of close paraphrase text[edit]

I have edited the article to remove some text which appeared to be too close a paraphrase of the copyright text at the website identified by CorenSearchBot. From the copyright info on that website, it appears that permission might be granted to use the text if needed. Information on how to do this can be found at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.--CharlieDelta (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections and self-published sources[edit]

The major source used for this article is a self-published, an original researched pdf which has no author that I can find. Of the few "sources" given, they include a "Glegge Family - Personal Family History Report"; a "Bower Family - Personal Family History Report"; and a "Tresham Family - Personal Family History Report". Also, the death date according to Richardson's "Plantagenet Ancestry" is 24 November 1464; Richardson is a well known author of genealogy and is predominantly used on Wikipedia. Therefore the page should probably be renamed. It's a great article, but major errors were made. Wasn't there a page for Thomas before? What happened to it? Did someone delete it? -- Lady Meg (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, no consensus to do do Mike Cline (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Parr (d.1461) → Sir Thomas Parr of Kendal – As stated above, Richardson's Plantagenet Ancestry and Magna Carta ancestry states that he died on 24 November 1464. Two choices would work here, but the Sir Thomas Parr of Kendal just looks and sounds better then Sir Thomas Parr (d.1464). Either way, the page needs to be moved as the date is incorrect. I have already had this posted above since 4 January 2012 and no one has responded as to if they are ok with this proposed move. relisted--Mike Cline (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC) -- Lady Meg (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is one reason we discourage disambiguation by dates; another is that it is doubtful they are of any help to the reader. JCScaliger (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are two Sir Thomas Parrs of Kendal we have articles on. Both articles need to be named to something sensible. Sir Thomas Parr of Kendal and Sir Thomas Parr (d.1461) of Kendal! The solution is to move this to Thomas Parr (died 1464) and rename the other to Thomas Parr (died 1517) -- 76.65.128.132 (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Sir Thomas Parr", "Sir Thomas Parr of Kendal", "Thomas Parr of Kendal" should all redirect to the disambiguation page Thomas Parr. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 04:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Who started this page and named it anyway? There are two Sir Thomas Parr's of Kendal but the other one is only named Sir Thomas Parr, that is it. This is the elder Sir Thomas, grandfather of Sir Thomas Parr who is labeled as Lord of Kendal in his article. I really dislike using the numeric title; it looks terrible. Even just Thomas Parr of Kendal would work better then adding his death date. The other one shouldn't even be considered for changing as people who know and research Queen Catherine Parr know exactly who Sir Thomas Parr is and if you add [d. 1517] it just makes the article look odd, like he's less known then all these other "important" Tudor people! The only other wife of Henry VIII to have her father's date in his title is Jane Seymour's father, John Seymour (1474–1536), who's father was also named John, hence the John Seymour (died 1491). Sir Thomas's father was William, son of the elder Sir Thomas Parr. I strongly oppose the numeric title! -- Lady Meg (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vehemently Oppose -- Oxford Dictionary of National Biography gives the date of death as 1461. It cites a series of highly reputable academci sources, a Ph.D. thesis on the family and (unspecified) Chancery records. The latter is likely ton include an inquisition post mortem, which will be primary evidcne of the date of his death. In contrast, Plantagenet Ancestry is a 2004 book published by a genealogical publisher in Salt Lake City. It is probably regurgitating the content of some quite ancient genealogical publications, which no one will have checked in many years. I will back ODNB as the more reliable source any day. The inclusion of "Sir" in an article title for a knight is contrary to the best WP practice and that article should be moved to Thomas Parr (d.1517) or Thomas Parr (died 1517): I forget which is the preferred format. At this period, it is often best not to quote a birth date, as these are frequently unknown or uncertain. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Peterkingiron is right on what ODNB says. Furthermore, the difference between 1461 and 1464 in a genealogical source is likely to be a misprint, or a repeat of somebody else's misprint. (ODNB clearly is not; they assert evidence that he died the year after Wakefield.)
- However, this is a dispute, and a warranted one, of the article content; the only certain conclusion about the article title is that it should not be (d.1464), which has not been proposed - but it shouldn't be (d.1461) either, if it can be avoided. Many of whatever readers this article has will come here from such sources as Plantagenet Ancestry; including 1461 will merely cause them to question whether they have the right article. JCScaliger (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Using Sir is a perfectly reasonable means of disambiguation, when it does disambiguate, supported by WP:NCROY. But Thomas Parr of Kendal is an equally acceptable target. JCScaliger (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - In this case, there are two Sir Thomas Parr or Thomas Parr of Kendal or Sir Thomas Parr of Kendal that we have articles on, so it doesn't work either because neither is primary, or the other Thomas Parr is primary, and all three page names should refer to the other Parr. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with JCScaliger; Sir is a title which he had, why shouldn't it be used? It's used all over Wikipedia. As for Richardson, he is used all over Wikipedia and is a respected genealogist if you look at other talk pages. Well apparently Linda Porter, a biographer of Catherine Parr shows 1461 as the date so there are conflicting dates, but again this is the first edition. Corrections were made in the second edition which was released in 2011. Maybe the dates should just be taken out of the title? But then we still have an issue with the names even though if people go to the page they can clearly read the first line and understand who the person is. -- Lady Meg (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we also against anything like Thomas Parr of Kendal, the elder or just using the word "elder" in the title? Just a thought. -- Lady Meg (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still support keeping at Thomas Parr (d.1461). We are dealing with the conflict between ODNB, a recent well-researched academic source, the best WP:RS, and what I take to be a recent book regurgitating material from old genealogical works. I intend non personal reflection on Richardson, of whom I know nothing. I see no objection to having Thomas Parr (d.1464) as a redirect to the 1461 article. ODND gives the death date as end November 1461. The WP article says that a son succeeded as sheriff in 1462, which is hardly likely if the father was alive. Unfortunately, the Inquisitions post mortem of this period remain to be subject to modern catalogiuing, so that I cannot cite a TNA referecne for the inqueisition, without going there. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Second response by same editor; please make one of them a comment. JCScaliger (talk)
- No it isn't. The present title would be undesirable if every source cited said 1461. JCScaliger (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.