Talk:William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville/Archive 1

Reversions....[edit]

Lionheart, I can't work out what your reversions were trying to do:

One reversion reintroduced two long section of quotes from message boards and newsgroups, none of them reliable sources, with a dollop of original research thrown in as well.
Several reintroduced needless subsection headings for individual paragraphs.
Another reintroduced four paragraphs of unnecessary history on William's grandmother.
Another reintroduced needless detail on his grandchildren.
Another broke User:Smalljim's fixes to several wikilinks. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hchc2009,

Contributions made to the subject profile are well-researched, applicable, appropriately sourced, and have been reviewed by respectable genealogical historians from both the U.K. and U.S.A. When you make the comment about needless detail, you are stating your opinion without backing it up with any competent authority. When editors contribute to a wikipedia page and provide content backed up by reliable sources, individuals do not have the right to automatically revise it based off of their own opinion of what the profile should read. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionheart0317 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lionheart, the relevant community policies here are WP:RELIABLE, WP:OR, and WP:ONUS; let me know when you've read these, and let's chat further. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hchc2009,

I understand the community policies. I have done nor said anything to contradict them. Let me know when you've read them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionheart0317 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to dates...[edit]

Lionheart0317, can you explain why you are changing the various dates? You don't use edit summaries, which makes it impossible to tell. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any discussion, I've BRD'ed it again. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Today's edits[edit]

Hello again, Lionheart0317. Can we work towards a compromise that satisfies Wikipedia's constraints?

1. If you can, please provide a policy- or guideline-based reason for including ancient and incorrect references (namely Pole written in the early 17th century, and Rogers which states the wife is not known and there were only two daughters) when there is a perfectly good recent reference that gives the correct information. I don't think you will find a valid reason, and hence these older references should be removed.

2. Please explain why it is so important to this article to include such a plethora of irrelevant information in references about one of Bonville's daughters. It may be that your edit summary from yesterday: "The additional references for Philippa Bonville are necessarily given the errors associated with your patronage in 21st century publications." is intended to explain, but I don't understand it. I see the same additions have been made to Margaret Grey too - there are nine references to one short paragraph.

3. As you've seen I did not remove Phillipa's 'living' date. I'm well aware of the meaning. I rephrased the paragraph so that the references would better reflect the text they are attached to. Further editing was to be done - perhaps I should have added an In use or Under construction tag: I will do so in future.

4. There may be some guidance about appending "Esq." to names, but I don't know it. It isn't, as far as I am aware, widely practised here. Please advise.

5. Thank you for providing some edit summaries. It would be a great benefit to the project if you could always explain all your edits in this way - it is accepted good practice.

I look forward to reading your responses. —SMALL JIM 13:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Smalljim, SMALL JIM Amplifying information is provided below to each number.

1. Pole is the earliest source in history that identifies the father of Philippa Bonville and is considered historically accurate. Including it as a reference does not violate any policy or guideline, and enhances the article. Rogers is a source that mentions and identifies the correct mother of Philippa as Margaret. Philippa's mother, Margaret, was not correctly identified until the 1980s, when she was discovered by a researcher. That was original research in the 1980s, but is now historical fact. Providing Rogers as a source shows that only the first name of Philippa's mother was known previously to 1980 in history.

2. The plethora of information is important given that some historical researchers have written erroneous information about the Bonville family, including the parentage of Philippa Bonville. Providing a chronological history of the sources stating her correct parentage, William Bonville, K.G., Baron Bonville and Margaret Grey, strengthens the credibility of this Wikipedia article. Which is the goal of any Wikipedia article, to make it as historically and factually accurate as possible.

3. Philippa Bonville is still being researched to this day to find her death date. The most accurate contemporary source that states her last known date of being alive is the 1464 Feet of Fines abstract, where she is mentioned in it with her second husband, John Almescombe, Esq.

4. There are historical figures in scores of Wikipedia articles using titles such as Knt. (Knight), Esq. (Esquire), Gent.(Gentleman), etc., to annotate their position or social status in that time period. In this case, there were at least two, perhaps three, William Grenvilles living in the 15th century in relatively the same area. Not all of them were knights or esquires, so including Esq., in the name of Philippa's first husband assists those unfamiliar with the family.

5. I only post relevant and historically accurate information (as deemed accurate from a plethora of credible sources) to any Wikipedia article. There is a lot of historical junk (historical inaccuracies) on other Wikipedia profiles in the medieval time period that I hope you will pay more attention to. I do not have the time to delve into all of them.

I am encouraged that you will see that I only cite or add quality and credible sources to Wikipedia articles. Anything said to the contrary is simply not true!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionheart0317 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replies, Lionheart0317 - I've indented them with colons and signed your message for you (you should use four tildes, as I'm sure you know). Formatting talk page messages correctly shows to the editors with whom you interact that you have a degree of expertise and interest in the project. I'll reply point by point:

1 and 2. You've not given a policy/guideline-based reason for the general inclusion of older references when a later one exists. There isn't one, for the good reason that they would be unnecessary clutter. Wikipedia articles should be concise. Pole is not wrong, but he only includes part of the information and in a confusing fashion (e.g. "his 2 wief Phelip"). However, as you point out, it is useful sometimes to document the history of the known facts that make up an article, but we only do that when that history is central to the understanding of the main topic. That isn't the case here and so for this minor facet a couple of up-to-date references are quite sufficient. I'll remove the extraneous ones again and I trust you can accept that.

3. We're in agreement here. I'll rephrase the paragraph again in line with my original point, i.e. to clarify the referencing.

4. I can see your argument when there are similarly named people who may be confused because of the possibility that the editor omitted a 'Sir' or similar designation - though we tend to include "(died yyyy)" or similar as clarification when necessary. It doesn't explain the need to include it for John Almescombe, though, does it? However, I don't see any need to pursue this minor point.

5. I hope you'll start including edit summaries for your edits. They make it far easier to understand and navigate through long series of edits, such as the ones you produce – it's a courtesy to other editors (both present and future). Replying to your other point, none of us has the time to deal with everything that needs doing in Wikipedia!

I won't edit the article yet – I'm sure you'll have some further comments! —SMALL JIM 17:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SMALL JIM,

I will reply to your responses point-by-point and one-by-one.

1 and 2. There isn't a violation of policy or guidelines using three or four sources, especially when the sources are relevant, reliable, and gives the reader the true history of the subject of a particular section. This is especially true when discoveries have been made and added to sources over several centuries. If an early author is only including part of the information, it is because the other information wasn't discovered until centuries later. Any historian or someone astute with the person named in this Wikipedia article can attest to that. I trust you can accept and appreciate what added benefit these sources will give readers to this Wikipedia page.

3. You don't have to agree with me on anything. Sources I've cited and dates I've annotated are considered historical fact by a multitude of historical experts on this person and time period in history. I don't see why you have the obsession to continuously quibble with me over facts cited about the person who is the subject of this article. You have already made erroneous statements about me and levied false charges against me concerning another Wikipedia page, which I had nothing to do with. That is unacceptable and inexcusable, regardless if you previously apologized. I have no obligation to respond to your points and quite frankly I don't take kindly to someone falsely accusing me, not even once.

4. I understand what (died yyyy) means. I already relayed to you that current research (you can call it original research if you like) is working on discovering her death date. All we know from historical records is that she was last living in 1464 and should be left exactly as is!!

5. I am not disagreeing that sometimes remarks do assist an editor, especially when a revision is not completely understood. However, not all editors on Wikipedia include remarks to every single revision they make.

6. A heraldry section should be added which includes the Bonville coat of arms, which is relevant to this time period of history and as it pertains to one of Bonville's daughters. Only sources stating the factual existence and what the coat or arms display will be included in a citation. It would not be considered original research to state that a family's coat of arms was impaling another family's when the actual physical item truly exists.

Lionheart0317 (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1 and 2. OK, you say three or four references are acceptable – I suggested that two was sufficient, so let's compromise on three. There are six there now, so I'm happy for you to choose the three that you think are most appropriate (but please don't include Pole!).

3. I don't know why you're getting angry with me when I'm agreeing with you. Try reading the above exchange again. For reference your two edits that prompted my initial point 3 were these. You're effectively arguing against the replacement of "(living 1464)" with "and was still living in 1464" – a change intended simply to allow the references to more accurately reflect the text they refer to.

3a. Your outburst accusing me of erroneous statements and false charges is misplaced. You must be referring to User_talk:Smalljim#John Fortescue (Captain of Meaux). Please re-read that section. An apology would be welcome.

4. You seem to be confusing this with the above point. This is about including "Esq." etc. Although I said I didn't think this was important, Clifford Mill evidently does (see next section).

5. Fine, but remember that the edit summary is also visible in the Revision History page and in a user's Watchlist too, whereas the content of the edit isn't. So it's a great aid to let others see at a glance what you've been working on, and I'm sure I'm not the only one to find that it helps when I need to review my own edits too. It takes but a moment to type a helpful note in the box!

6. A proportionate heraldry section – centred on the subject of the article - would be fine, as long as it didn't stray into WP:OR as did the content that I removed.

Thanks for getting to grips with the somewhat arcane talk page conventions – it's much appreciated. —SMALL JIM 20:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SMALL JIM,

1 and 2. OK, I'll remove Pole and the Feet of Fines abstract. It's easy to find the source stating she was living in 1464 on other sites, however, the year remains in the entry. So with those concessions, let's agree on just four. Some references rely on the information of the previous reference, especially with regard to the discovery of the surname of Bonville's first wife, Margaret.

6. The heraldry section will only state the location of the coat of arms, what symbols are on it, the time period, and citations explaining heraldry in the 15th century.

Lionheart0317 (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Heraldry section[edit]

SMALL JIM,

You seem to be under the opinion that including a 15th century heraldic shield associated with William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville, who is the subject of this Wikipedia article, in an English church represents original research. If it hadn't occurred to you, the coats of arms in this very church are mentioned in other Wikipedia articles that you seem to be reluctant to acknowledge and are cited as being Bonville and Grenville arms. Yet, you have an obsession with not including a heraldry section about those arms in this particular article on William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville. The Bonville coat of arms image (see caption = Arms of Bonville: Sable, six mullets argent pierced gules [ref]Burke's General Armory 1884, p. 99) has been a part of this article for years. The coat of arms in the Devonshire church belongs to the Bonville family. It isn't original research to state that the impaled coats of arms belong to the Bonville and Grenville families. The arms belong specifically to Philippa Bonville. The identification of the coats of arms was made in the late 19th century. British authors and experts have commented about these coats of arms specifically in 1972 and 1992. It was possibly original research over a century ago, but that discovery isn't any kind of 20th or 21st century "original research"! You do not provide a sufficient argument supporting your opinion that the coats of arms are original research, and thus should not be included in this article! Repeatedly stating, "It's OR!" It's OR!" does not cut it. Please make your case that it's original research to state that the coats of arms in question are (1) Bonville arms, (2) Philippa Bonville was the daughter of Lord Bonville and represented the peerage, and (3) William Grenville was a member of the landed gentry. All these facts have been in print for well over a century!!!

Lionheart0317 (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lionheart0317, I've just spent a while reading what I can find on the internet. You know the following, but for anyone else reading who may not, the parentage of Philippa Bonville has been extensively discussed over the last few years on genealogy forums. Some at least of the interest derives from the fact that if Philippa was a daughter of Margaret Grey (the wife of our William Bonville) then she would apparently be descended from Edward I (see first post to this thread on soc.genealogy.medieval), and so would her descendants, some of whom, one assumes, are alive today. However, if she was William's sister, which is the other main possibility, then that Royal descent is not there.

There are numerous threads on soc.genealogy.medieval and also on WikiTree - the 'Best answer' to this question there provides a few useful links. As is often the case, the paucity of evidence and disagreements between the extant sources frequently makes it impossible to be certain of the truth. For instance one person will claim that Pole is most reliable (he says 'daughter'), another will claim that the Heraldic visitations are more accurate (the relevant one says 'sister'). It is not settled to the satisfaction of all, and won't be unless more evidence comes to light.

However, we can't cite any of these discussions in our articles because we rightly don't consider messages on discussion groups to be reliable. We have to wait until something is published in a reliable source (RS). There is a summary on WikiTree, by Joe Cochoit here, which seems to be a useful summary with plenty of references, but I'm not sure whether it would pass as a RS for us.

So that's a summary of the position as I see it. If there is dispute about a topic, we report that dispute, we don't take sides. And that – I've finally got there – is why, Lionheart0317, your Heraldry section is completely unacceptable. It takes sides. It's based on disputed evidence, not reliable sources. It draws inferences from primary sources. It's original research. Someone posting as 'anonymous' on WikiTree has made the exact same arguments arguing strongly in favour of the 'daughter' option, here. I suggest that discussion groups are the right place to pursue your theories: a summary can be included in Wikipedia when a reliable source has written about it. Much of your evidence hangs on a coat of arms shown in a stained-glass window in Petrockstowe church which has apparently been reversed. This might be good evidence of Philippa's greater honour, but neither you nor 'anonymous' on WikiTree are in a position to have this theory included on Wikipedia.

Lastly, in addition all the above there is the question of balancing aspects. This article is about William Bonville and his interesting life and death; to include an entire section, four images and nine references (in your original version) about his (possible) daughter's parentage would not be appropriate even if it was all verified information. If there are enough reliable sources about her, she could have her own article. —SMALL JIM 13:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SMALL JIM,

SmallJim, a truly neutral position to this article would be to not include any children of William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville, except his only son, William Bonville, Esq., who is essentially the only undisputed child of William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville and Margaret Grey. How you or anyone else defines a reliable source, which could provide a dispute on a descent, becomes more of an opinion than one of fact. Disputed evidence can be found in reliable sources, no matter how someone defines a reliable source. I never stated that internet forums and discussion groups were reliable sources. You obviously have deliberately misstated my position. I stated previously that the most recent reliable source is Justin Glenn's The Washingtons: A Family History: Volume Three: Royal Descents of the Presidential Branch (2015), which states that William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville and Margaret Grey had "one son and three daughters." Other sources actually name the son and all three daughters. That is the only “position” I have actually stated. I know who and what this article is about! There are at least a dozen other Wikipedia articles I can name right now where children and marriages are listed for the subject of the article using so-called reliable sources. The listed wives and children of these other Wikipedia articles are disputed in various “reliable sources.” One possible solution to this article would be the creation of separate Wikipedia articles for each daughter of William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville and Margaret Grey. Reliable sources can then be added to the articles for each daughter. It is most probable that as future reliable sources on this family are published, someone (not particularly myself) will add them to the Wikipedia articles about these Bonville family members.

Lionheart0317 (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you agree, then, that the significance, if any, of the CoA in the Petrockstowe window should stay out of the article until it gets reliably published.

Regarding Philippa's relationship to William Bonville, looking at what reliable sources have said, we have something like this:

1. Daughter: mother was Margaret Grey

Pole (c. 1630)
Many authors who just followed Pole (including Collins, Prince, Gilbert, Burke, Polsue, Fox)
Rogers (1890)
Granville (1895) though he expressed doubt: "(sister?)"
Weis MCS early eds.
Roskell (HOP, 1993)

2. Sister: mother was Elizabeth FitzRoger

Visitations (early), as reported by Vivian (1874)
Worthy (1884)
Fitch-Northen (1979)
Weis MCS 4th ed.
Richardson (2011 and 2013)

3. Uncertain, or no comment

Granville (1895) "sister?"
Grant (1992)
Yeo Society website (2006)

The important thing here isn't whether I've missed out any sources, or which side has the most votes, or what the arguments are, etc., but simply that for over a hundred years there has been scholarly dispute about this question, and it continues today. Maybe, when it's published, the Petrockstowe CoA will close the matter, or maybe it won't. Here and now, it's clear that Wikipedia shouldn't state definitively that Philippa was Bonville and Grey's daughter because that would be misrepresenting the current state of knowledge. We need to express that there is doubt, without going into the arguments (because it's not particularly important to this article).

As you point out, apart from son William, there may be significant doubts about the other children too. I haven't come across any debates about them (though I haven't looked beyond what I've reported above), but if you know of any, then we should consider reporting those doubts too.

What's particularly concerning, of course, is that although you must be familiar with the 'sister' opinion, you have chosen to totally ignore it and use Wikipedia to further your favoured point of view. You must not do this! —SMALL JIM 21:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SMALL JIM,

Mr. SmallJim, time and again, you have stated what you THINK I believe, said, or feel. Making such false statements does not further your cause or credibility on Wikipedia or your editorial actions. That is what's considered "most concerning," is your repeated false accusations and false statements while acting as a Wikipedia editor. It has happened more than once, Mr. SmallJim, where you have leveled unsupported and false accusations to garner support for your editorial bias. You must not and cannot do this!!! Recent scholarship, some of which you have read and certainly not my scholarship, confirms the conclusion that Philippa Bonville was the daughter of William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville and Margaret Grey. The most important thing to mention about our entire exchange here on this talk page is that this recent scholarship has not reached the printing presses yet in a publication or what you call a reliable source. I have never stated that Philippa wasn’t ever mentioned in print as being the sister of Lord Bonville. This is evident in the 1620 Visitation of Cornwall Grenville pedigree. With that said, you should know after your extensive reading on the subject in the last week, that this particular Grenville pedigree has been proven to contain errors in numerous generations. Again, recent (2018) scholarship, not mine, and please don’t level any more false accusations that it’s my research on this talk page, concludes that Philippa was the daughter of Lord Bonville and Margaret Grey. My only concession is that I said a future publication covering the heraldic proof in the Petrockstowe church would be needed to completely validate a heraldry section for this article.

Looking at all the publications or sources that have stated the relationship of Philippa to William Bonville, you should know that all authors supporting Sir William Pole’s (died c. 1630) Grenville pedigree, have stated that Philippa was the daughter of Lord Bonville. Likewise, all authors supporting the 1620 Visitation of Cornwall Grenville pedigree have followed the entry that stated Philippa was sister to Lord Bonville. As you should know from all your readings on the subject, many historical and genealogical experts have commented on the many errors found in this 1620 Visitation of Cornwall Grenville pedigree. When an earlier source is proven to be in error beyond a reasonable doubt by current scholarship [see WikiTree which acknowledges this current scholarship, "The Grenville pedigree in the 1620 Cornwall Visitation is the only known document that actually identifies Philippa as a Bonville. However, this pedigree contains several errors, including misidentifying Philippa as the sister (not daughter) of William Bonville."], as is the case with the 1620 Visitation of Cornwall Grenville pedigree where it states that Philippa was the sister of Lord Bonville, it renders all subsequent publications or sources [Visitations (early), as reported by Vivian (1874); Worthy (1884); Fitch-Northen (1979); Weis MCS 4th ed.; and Richardson (2011 and 2013)] referencing that earlier source as "unreliable sources."

Additionally, you seem to be in error with your last section mentioning those publications or sources that are *uncertain or no comment!* Roger Granville (1895) stated that Philippa was the daughter of Lord Bonville in his genealogical chart titled “A Pedigree of the Granville family.” If he were completely uncertain, he wouldn’t have stated that in the pedigree published in his History of the Granville family book. He merely stated (sister ?) to highlight what readers familiar with the family already knew from the 1620 Visitation of Cornwall Grenville pedigree. You also appear to be in error concerning the Yeo Society. The Yeo Society has several genealogical charts and statements which read: (1) “Ellen's mother was Phillipa Bonville, daughter of Lord William Bonville.” (2) “Phillipa 's father, Lord Bonville was one of the wealthiest men in Devon, having inherited massive estates in Devon, Somerset & Dorset. He married. Margaret Grey, the daughter of Lord Grey of Ruthin.” And (3) “Phillipa had seen her brother and nephew killed at the Battle of Wakefield and her father beheaded and around 1465 she placed a stained glass window in Petrockstowe Church, (which can now be viewed in the vestry of Petrockstowe Church), celebrating the marriage of her daughter to William Yeo, which includes the Yeo, Grenville, Bonville & Jeue coat of arms.” If the Yeo Society is in doubt about whether Philippa was the daughter or sister of Lord Bonville, then this sampling of quotes would surely inform the reader of what they believe the research and evidence supported. I think this closes the matter for now, Mr. SmallJim.

Lionheart0317 (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's so much that I ought to say in response to that, but I'll just repeat the important bit – hopefully to close this discussion. Basically, see our neutral point of view policy. When there's a dispute about facts, as there is in the 'daughter' vs 'sister' debate, we describe the dispute in the article (probably very briefly here as it's not central to the topic, which is William, not Philippa). We don't take sides and we shouldn't waste time arguing why one side is better than another – that's what forums (WikiTree etc.) are for. It's an ongoing dispute with respected proponents on each side, so our job is just to describe it. Maybe you didn't understand this; if that's the case, then I apologise for assuming that you did. It's one of WP's fundamental policies. —SMALL JIM 10:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SMALL JIM,

There is so much more I should say on this topic and to your responses, but you would continue to respond in kind. You speak as if you are the sole and ultimate authority on Wikipedia. That is not the case. When you are speaking, you are doing it from your opinion and point of view, and then you so happen to reference Wikipedia stated policy. I have done the same, but I am not an ultimate authority on Wikipedia, nor are you. With that said and in the interest of closing out this discussion, the heraldry section will not be included in this article until recent scholarship has been published in a reliable source. When you say the "dispute about facts, as there is in the 'daughter' vs 'sister' debate," you can't have two sets of facts to the same issue. By WP definition, "A fact is a statement that is consistent with reality or can be proven with evidence." Either one is true and the other is false or both are false. Both cannot be true, especially in the case of Lord Bonville being either the father or brother of Philippa. One central theme you are trying to say, is that there are two separate facts that are in dispute. A true fact is true, a false fact is false. You cannot say that two facts (as you label them as true) about Philippa's parentage are true. Philippa was not daughter and sister of Lord Bonville at the same time. This is not consistent with reality! One is a true fact and the other is a false fact. When an alleged fact is published in a historical text and later scholarly research has provided sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged fact in question is actually false, it cannot be interpreted as truth any longer, no matter how respected an author is in repeating the error proven to be false with sufficient evidence.

We at Wikipedia understand the neutrality policy. A neutral point of view as stated per WP is that "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The pivotal words in that WP definition are "reliable sources!" I explained why some sources you listed previously are not considered reliable sources based solely on their referencing of an earlier source with an alleged fact now considered to be false and in error, thus making it an "unreliable source!" A point of view published in an unreliable source does not pertain by definition to the Wikipedia neutrality policy. When someone willfully edits a Wikipedia article with information they consider to be factual, but has been determined to be false and an error by sufficient evidence and scholarly research, we hope editors will bring attention to that false fact and proper true facts can be entered into Wikipedia articles. A neutral point of view is relevant and not an archaic practice at WP, however, Wikipedia editors should know that there can never be two sets of facts to a specific issue in question, there are false facts and true facts. In this instance, Lord Bonville was not both Philippa's father and also her brother at the same time. He could not have been both. I'm not here to continue to debate you on one Wikipedia article about what is fact vs. non-fact, what is true vs. false, or what is a reliable source vs. an unreliable source. The most important point that needs to be mentioned is that there are numerous other WP articles that contain false facts and errors being neglected by Wikipedia editors. Those articles deserve just as much time, attention, and awareness to improve their quality for Wikipedia readers!

Lionheart0317 (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased that you're not going to reinsert the Heraldry section – thank you! I'll edit Philippa's details to reflect the current position; I don't think you'll find it too disturbing. —SMALL JIM 13:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SMALL JIM,

By what authority do you arbitrarily just pick and choose those sources you want to include in an article? This article was fine as is without the heraldry section and an additional notes section. Yet, you feel compelled to add a notes section? The one citation you and you alone chose to include for Philippa's entry mentions the 1620 Visitation of Cornwall Grenville pedigree and Pole's Grenville pedigree. You do not need a notes section when the Granville (1895) citation covers what you mentioned in your newly created notes section. It doesn't matter what I find disturbing, your opinions are not facts. They may be facts to you, but not to other editors. What is disturbing, is your obsession with this article. You have been told what current scholarly research says by experts in the field, including what these experts consider the true facts to be regarding the parentage of Philippa Bonville. If I concede to just one citation for Philippa and no heraldry section, you can concede to excluding a notes section. I will find it disturbing if you do not feel that is appropriate for this article.

Lionheart0317 (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of footnote[edit]

@Lionheart0317: Following on from the 'Heraldry' section above, I added a footnote to explain the ongoing dispute about Philippa's status (i.e. was she Bonville's daughter or sister?). You have removed the footnote with an edit summary that doesn't seem to be relevant. How do you propose, then, that we report the disagreement in the published sources about Philippa's status? Remember that neither Weis nor Richardson – both respected scholars with articles here – have published retractions of their published position (that Philippa was Bonville's sister). If you're unsure of why we need to include this, please read WP:NPOV again. —SMALL JIM 17:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SMALL JIM, I don't see it as an ongoing current dispute when you want to assign historical fact to just one author who has been proven to be in error regarding the alleged fact in question. I previously stated in the "Heraldry" section above, "When an alleged fact is published in a historical text and later scholarly research has provided sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged fact in question is actually false, it cannot be interpreted as truth any longer, no matter how respected an author is in repeating the error proven to be false with sufficient evidence." The two authors you mention were in disagreements themselves. Frederick Lewis Weis died decades ago and his line of descent containing Philippa Bonville in the 4th and 5th editions of Magna Charta Ancestry were revised with errors by Douglas Richardson. Weis' never retracted because he didn't have to. In his first, second, and third editions, Weis stated that Philippa Bonville was the daughter of William Bonville, 1st Lord Bonville {see Weis, Frederick Lewis. The Magna Charta Sureties, 1215. third ed. (1985): p. 16 [Line 22-10] (author states, "William Grenville of Biddeford, d. c. 1451; m. Philippa, dau. of Sir William Bonville, K.G., Lord Bonville, of Chewton-Mendip, near Wells Somerset ... Robert Behra, El Paso, Tex., has identified the wife of Sir William, Lord Bonville, as Margaret, dau. of Reginald, 3rd Lord Grey of Ruthyn, and Margaret de Ros."}. All three of Weis' editions were published before the monumental History of Parliament biographies were written. J.S. Roskell (your fellow countryman), the most highly respected medieval historian of the latter half of the 20th century, named the three daughters in his History of Parliament biography on William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville.

The current most highly respected author who has commented and written a biography on William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville is Dr. Justin Glenn. Glenn in The Washingtons: A Family History: Volume Three: Royal Descents of the Presidential Branch (2015), states that William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville and Margaret Grey had three daughters. The third daughter he names is Elizabeth Bonville. You didn't delete this citation, which befuddles me. Obviously, the other two daughters were named by J.S. Roskell. We can't categorically say that this dispute is either current or ongoing, because of one author who has printed the same error in several series of his books. Stating even a possible or probable error in a Wikipedia article for the sake of neutrality should not be included at all. Especially, when the dispute revolves around one author, whose error regarding this issue has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. You don't need a retraction by one author to not include a dispute that one author has made, when that author's alleged fact is contradicted and proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be false by other authors who are more highly respected than the author who hasn't retracted the error. That in no way hampers the spirit or intent of neutrality when the most current and highly respected author who has written a biography on William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville has obviously stated that William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville had three daughters.

When a source such as Richardson, whether it be his Bonville lines of descent found in Magna Charta Sureties 5th Edition (1999), Magna Carta Ancestry (2011), Plantagenet Ancestry (2011), and Royal Ancestry (2013), repeats an error that current scholarship has provided sufficient evidence to prove it was an error, those sources become "unreliable sources," and thus invalidates a neutrality argument. Again, as I have previously stated, a neutral point of view as stated per WP is that "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The pivotal words in that WP definition are "reliable sources!" These Richardson books are not considered "reliable sources" after repeating an error that is contradicted by a plethora of highly respected authors and by current scholarship. As such, these Richardson works do not apply to the neutrality policy because they are not "reliable sources" on the topic! I have provided more than enough evidence and facts as to why Richardson's assignment of parentage for Philippa Bonville is an error and why his works containing the Bonville lineage are not by definition a "reliable source!" It wouldn't be relevant in the interest of neutrality, historical accuracy, genealogical accuracy, or current scholarship to imply, confirm, or state that there is a current dispute. ---Lionheart0317 (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thanks for the update on Weis – I had overlooked that he died in 1966.

On to the matter at issue. You keep repeating that we shouldn't include Richardson's published opinion because he is in error. It's not up to you as a Wikipedia editor to decide that – imagine the chaos if editors were allowed to make those decisions! We're fortunate that on 20th February 2017 in a post on soc.genealogy.medieval, titled Parentage of Philippe Bonville (living 1464), wife of William Grenville, Esq., and John Almescombe, Esq., Richardson provided an explanation of his published position. It takes into account many factors, mostly chronological, and he only mentions the Visitation later, as other evidence.

So, although it's not necessary to do so – because we don't decide whether published authors are right or wrong – this demolishes your argument that Richardson is what you call an "unreliable source".

There are 195 posts in that thread started by Richardson, the latest from 5th January this year by a user signing as 'deca...' (a very active and ardent 'daughter' supporter). Richardson clearly still stands by his published position and the liveliness of the discussion shows that the matter is far from settled.

It is definitely not certain that Philippa was Bonville's daughter and an alternative theory that she was his sister has been published (most recently by Richardson). We must therefore reflect the uncertainty in our article. It is of more than academic interest because of the possibility of a Royal descent that I mentioned in my first post of 12th May, above, and it's hard to conceive of any other reason why you should be trying so vigorously to suppress any mention of an alternative to this otherwise minor genealogical point.

I will replace my footnote (amended) as an unobtrusive way of bringing this uncertainty to the attention of readers. I'm happy to discuss other ways of presenting the information, but not that it should not be included, I'm afraid, because I cannot condone violating one of our core policies.

If you find yourself unable to agree, may I suggest invoking the third opinion process. —SMALL JIM 23:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, you don't have to thank me for pointing out your obvious errors, which I have done consistently in this entire discussion about this article. I assure you that the discussion should be terminated. If you are so adamant about supporting and not violating WP's neutral point of view policy, I will list those articles blatantly in violation of that policy, just so you can spent time on those. The matter at issue is that you are referencing an internet forum that is unmonitored and unverified. If you care to pay any attention at all, minor genealogical points (only as you have defined it) become incredible issues when authors perpetuate those errors.

There are at least two to three other sets of parents assigned to Philippa Bonville on various internet forums, but those forums aren't considered reliable sources by any stretch of the imagination. And certainly, the evidence doesn't point to Philippa equally having two or three sets of parents. Again, if you care to review another one of Richardson's errors, please visit the WP article on Hugh Courtenay (died 1425). Richardson is cited many times in different articles on Wikipedia without regard to identifying errors in his works. That is the reason behind why Wikipedia editors need to pay close attention to such authors, and is not based on your false supposition that I'm vigorously trying to suppress information. As a matter of fact, the neutral point of view policy is completely violated in those instances. So don't lecture me on "demolishing arguments," you have repeatedly made false statements and erroneous assumptions on this particular subject, which greatly discredits any argument you are making, besides stating that you THINK I'm violating Wikipedia policies.

Richardson publishes and presents many lines of descent in his books, numerous ones have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be in error. He sometimes corrects these errors in subsequent books, and sometimes he doesn't. The point being, there are current errors identified in his works, including his most recent work, Royal Ancestry (2013). When those errors are identified and in contradiction to other highly respected "reliable sources" (Roskell and Glenn), the publication (or specific line of descent) that error is published in becomes an "unreliable source." Recent scholarship which hasn't been published but mentioned on other internet forums, including soc.genealogy.medieval, has pointed out and explained the errors in Richardson's theories. New evidence has also been presented that demolishes your statement that, "It is definitely not certain that Philippa was Bonville's daughter..." Again, since you don't agree, I will inform you that your opinion is not fact, nor is your interpretation of Wikipedia's policies considered the binding truth in a matter. If you can't find yourself agreeing with the facts as I have laid them out to you, I encourage you to invoke the third opinion process ---Lionheart0317 (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You really are incorrigible! Pole, Roskell etc. are totally infallible, of course...

If I request a third opinion, will you agree to abide by it? —SMALL JIM 09:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SMALL JIM, I beg your pardon! Have you been reading anything that you've written? When you are wrong, you surely like to level the false accusations and insults. You might want to read this! The most important question is, do you think Richardson is infallible? I think I already answered that one for you. Of course Pole, Rogers, Faris, Granville, Dalton, Weis, Roskell, and Glenn are not infallible. However, these highly respected historians and genealogists have published in reliable sources asserting that Philippa was the daughter of William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville, which appears to be the historical truth! I have already pointed out to you why other authors' works are considered unreliable sources, as they rely on an earlier primary source (1620 Visitation of Cornwall Grenville pedigree), which has been concluded to be in error (by highly respected and competent authorities), regarding its entry stating that Philippa was sister to Lord Bonville. Why would someone who doesn't abide by Wikipedia policy, according to you, not abide by a third party opinion? Do you see the ridiculousness of your prior statements? Of course, I abide by Wikipedia policies, including a third opinion. --Lionheart0317 (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, British cynical humour obviously doesn't work where you are! I'm sorry if I have unwittingly upset you once again. I could emphasise again the fact that Richardson's opinion of Philippa's parentage wasn't based solely, or even significantly, on the Visitation that you are so certain is wrong, but I won't. The really important fact is that due to the fragmentary and often contradictory nature of the source material, no-one trying to make sense of it can ever be infallible. Opinion based on years of experience in the field is often the only available tool and Douglas Richardson's opinions, published in widely used and referenced books, are as good as any others (and there are few published experts in this field). So when he expresses an opinion it's worth considering seriously.

Anyway thanks for agreeing to abide by the decision of an uninvolved third party, as will I. I've submitted our disagreement at WP:3O with a very simple short neutral explanation, as required. —SMALL JIM 22:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An erroneous third opinion does not need to be accepted. Dude, it doesn’t matter whether you speak American English, Australian English, British English, or Canadian English. An insult is an insult in any dialect of the English language. It has nothing to do with "cynical humour," British or otherwise regardless of which dialect you speak. You definitely have some issues, which Wikipedia needs to address. Back to the matter at hand, you also seem to have a major editorial bias when current scholarship has clearly shown the errors in Douglas Richardson’s theories and false suppositions with regard to the correct parentage of Philippa Bonville.

This scholarship has been mentioned on different internet forums and genealogical websites. Which you have previously referenced and alluded to. It is your own editorial bias that refuses to acknowledge this. You go to the internet for several days and discover several forums where Douglas Richardson presents his many theories and suppositions on the matter, without even mentioning or highlighting the numerous errors in his theories. These errors are obvious and proven even to the novice historian or lay reader. You then tell Wikipedians to declare that Richardson’s opinions are reliable, historical truths, and thus applicable to this discussion. That is a complete fallacy.

These two examples prove that your certification of the author, Douglas Richardson, as being reliable on this particular subject is nothing but a fallacy. The first statement found here states, “Additional evidence has indeed turned up (see the discussion of the stained glass window below). Furthermore, Richardson appears to be in error regarding which pedigree, Pole's or Grenville's, is older. It is clear from the 1604 letter from William Pole, published on pp. iv-vi of the introduction to his Collections Towards a Description of the County of Devon, that he was already hard at work on this project, sixteen years before Bernard Grenville gave his pedigree to the Visitation herald.” The second example which shows where Richardson is in error again is found here which states, “Bonville impaling Grenville appears to give clear evidence that Philippa was the daughter of William, Baron Bonville." There are several other false suppositions Richardson makes regarding the evidence surrounding the parentage of Philippa Bonville, but these two examples are the ones I wanted to highlight.

An alleged scholarly opinion is only as reliable as the alleged scholar who is giving that opinion. When an alleged scholarly opinion is proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be false, it is considered an error, no matter how scholarly someone wants to define that opinion to be. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, however, it is not free to reflect every erroneous theory on a topic that has been published in a book, especially when other reliable sources and experts have contradicted that theory and proven it to be false. Certifying the opinions of the author, Douglas Richardson, as being reliable and historical truths concerning the parentage of Philippa Bonville, when they have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be false, clearly would be an egregious mistake. This is neither the personal research nor the prejudice of one editor. These are the facts as stated throughout this talk page concerning William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville. Other Wikipedia editors can join in and voice their opinion, that is more than welcome, but it does not change the true facts as they have been presented. The quality and accuracy of a Wikipedia article is the most important matter here, especially when new and convincing evidence has turned up which disproves the alleged scholarly opinions of just one author. --Lionheart0317 (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nah - you can't tempt me to respond further, even to your first sentence. My previous post says all that needs to be said. —SMALL JIM 18:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if you respond any further. Every sentence in my previous post says it all. You have surely said enough! And you haven't made any beneficial contributions to this article at all, except for your snide remarks and personal attacks on this talk page because someone disagrees with you and rightfully so! --Lionheart0317 (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smalljim and Lionheart0317: I disagree with the removal of the footnote; where there is disagreement within sources, our role is to reflect that. We act as a direction finder for the reader to discover more; they will find that difficult if we hand them a gap in the literature. And at least one of you needs to cut back on the walls-of-text; but I am not going to say who :p —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 11:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

—SerialNumber54129, I will abide by your third opinion decision for the footnote to be reinstated, but with the request that the second daughter, Margaret (Bonville) Courtenay, is also mentioned as (probable). This daughter appears in various literature and other sources with conflicting parentage as well. That is if SMALL JIM will agree. ---Lionheart0317 (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lionheart0317 and Smalljim: I think that is a fair compromise, and if SJ does, feel free to choose a form of words amongst yourselves. Although this has clearly been a robust discussion (certainly in parts) it is clear that when two knowledgable and conscientious editors are determined to reach consensus, great things can be achieved! Take care all! —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 13:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129 and Lionheart0317: thanks for the opinion, Serial Number 54129. I'm happy enough for the footnote to remain as you have reinstated it. Since an identical entry for Philippa appears in Margaret Grey – her (probable) mother – that entry should also be amended similarly. I haven't researched the other daughter (another Margaret) at all, but if her parentage has also been doubted in reliable sources, we should certainly recognise that fact too. Incidentally, Serial, should you remove the entry from WP:3O? —SMALL JIM 18:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable certainly; thanks for the nudge, Smalljim, I got distracted and totally forgot. Take care, —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 19:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parentage of Philippa Bonville, wife of William Grenville and secondly of John Almescombe[edit]

The debate is whether this Philippa Bonville was the sister of William Bonville, 1st Baron, or his daughter. Though unable to add a neutral third opinion, having already contributed to both the article and the talk page, can I make some observations?

Is this Philippa notable? If not, does she need any record in Wikipedia beyond parentage and marriage?

It is odd, and revealing, to see scholarly opinions repeatedly described as 'errors'. To my mind, this betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the collaborative historiographical process and casts considerable doubt on the validity of the writer's views. Where sources are fragmentary and contradictory, serious researchers may either reach a judgement on their interpretation of the available facts or just record the differences.

Since Wikipedia is meant to reflect informed published opinion, rather than the personal research and prejudices of its volunteer editors for which discussion forums or individual blogs are available, it seems to me that the article should merely note that there were either two Philippas, aunt and niece, or one Philippa whose parentage remains uncertain unless convincing evidence turns up.

Clifford Mill (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Clifford Mill: In response to your observations, no, I don't think Philippa is notable. I did briefly wonder if the argument surrounding her parentage might meet WP:N – as Parentage of Philippa Bonville perhaps – but I don't think it does, simply because all the discussion about it takes place in discussion groups etc. I don't think the discussion has made it to the reliable sources: my understanding is that they just adopt one of the two opposing points of view and only mention her in passing. So as you say, only a short note of the uncertainty is necessary here – did you think that my suggested footnote (in this revision) was about right, or did it go into too much detail?

Thanks for the support. —SMALL JIM 19:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford Mill and SMALL JIM,

I don’t think it’s an accurate statement to say that Philippa Bonville was not notable. She was the ancestress of many prominent figures in history: Admiral Richard Grenville (d. 1591), “Captain of the Revenge”; the Granville Earls of Bath; 14th U.S. President Franklin Pierce; Lady Diana Spencer, Princess of Wales; Prime Minister Winston Churchill; and Prime Minister David Cameron; just to name a few. --Lionheart0317 (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although she may be thought of as 'notable' (common use of the word), she won't be Notable (use of the word within Wikipedia) just because she was an ancestor of prominent people. If that was a valid criterion we'd end up with articles on lots of nonentities! The General notability guideline should help determine whether she should have her own article. —SMALL JIM 18:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By your definition, we'd then have to say that none of the three daughters of William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville are considered notable. If you haven't noticed (since you've spent so much time recently on just a very select few of Wikipedia articles), there are plenty of Wikipedia articles about "nonentities" that others have already created! --Lionheart0317 (talk) 00:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lionheart0317: Since you have asked, I personally do not think that any of Bonville's presumed daughters are in themselves noteworthy and all they therefore merit is a brief mention in their father's article. To claim that someone is notable through the biological accident of having a famous descendant is, as Smalljim has pointed out, absurd. Apart from Philippa Bonville, in that generation David Cameron has maybe 52,000 ancestors and the number of those of any importance must be minuscule. To argue that Wikipedia is already infested with articles on nonentities is true but equally unhelpful, as there is a solution here at Template:Notability. And I see no need to be rude about the editing preferences of @Smalljim: or any other honest contributor to this ramshackle edifice, since what counts is not the activity of the editor but the quality of the content. At some point, an apology would help. Clifford Mill (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Clifford Mill: Nah, I'm not going to respond to your opinions. I've already stated the true facts about this article for Wikipedians to read. --Lionheart0317 (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Philippa and bias[edit]

Anyone who cares to read the above discussions will see that Lionheart0317 is very determined that Wikipedia should state that Philippa Bonville is the daughter of William, the subject of this article. Before he started editing this article (his very first edit in June 2016 to WP was this), it contained many references to a work of 2011 (Magna Carta Ancestry) by Douglas Richardson, and it looked like this – Philippa is stated to be Bonville's sister (which is Richardson's contention). After a very long series of edits by Lionheart0317 (and a few by others mostly trying to curb his excesses), by May 2018 the article looked like this. All mention of Richardson has been erased and Philippa is shown as Bonville's daughter.

After having made a few earlier edits I stepped in at this stage, initially unsure of all the facts, but concerned about the excessive space devoted to this minor aspect of the topic, and the apparent original research that had crept in (at one point nearly half of the article – including references – was about Philippa). A long and sometimes acrimonious discussion (above) ensued mainly between us two, once it became apparent that Lionheart0317 was not going to give up on his determination that the article should state that Philippa was Bonville's daughter, with no other opinion allowed to be expressed. The disagreement was eventually resolved by the giver of a third opinion who agreed that the doubt that exists about Philippa's status should be included in the article and briefly explained in a short footnote. This would be proportionate to the incidental nature of this subtopic to the main topic of the article. This was done here.

Since that agreement Lionheart0317 has in a series of small changes surreptitiously eroded the 'sister' alternative until it read like it was very much a fringe opinion – see here. Note that he silently removed "(probable)" in this edit, changed "continue to disagree" to "have disagreed" here and added further content to the footnote intending to diminish the veracity of the 'sister' opinion, as here. All this without explanation.

Coming back to the article a few days ago I thought I'd look into the background a bit more deeply. I re-read some of the relevant material on soc.genealogy medieval where in Feb 2017 Douglas Richardson explained the reasons for his opinion on the parentage of Philippa, and the 195 subsequent posts that his explanation generated. Also the WikiTree forum. Thanks to Google Books I found relevant extracts from Richardson's books. I re-read Roskell (on the HOP website). And I looked at the pre-Lionheart0317 versions of this article.

This reconsideration has led me to the opinion that both the pre-Lionheart0317 and yesterday's versions have failed to capture the true nature of Philippa's status. It's clear that Richardson must be mentioned. It's also clear that some indication of the uncertainty must be expressed – more forcefully than we have hitherto done. We all know that we can only include material that's based on reliable published sources. And yet despite all this, we are talking about a minor aspect of this topic – no-one claims that Philippa is notable enough for her own article, and the details of her parentage are very peripheral to the topic – so only a small proportion of the article should be devoted to this matter.

Therefore I've started editing this part of the article back to what it should be according to Wikipedia's principles (as well as tidying up the references as I go). If anyone disagrees with these actions, then please set out your rational arguments here, rather than engaging in edit-warring. —SMALL JIM 20:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Richardson Bias and Author’s False Assumptions Concerning Philippa (Bonville) Grenville Almescombe[edit]

There seems to be one Wikipedia editor’s bias in using just one author as the supreme source for William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville’s Wikipedia page. This editor (Smalljim) has taken it upon himself to delete reliable sources and authors in preference to his desired source, which is Richardson’s book, Magna Carta Ancestry (2011). While Philippa’s historical significance may not rise to the level of warranting her own Wikipedia page, she is still important enough in her relationship to William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville to be placed correctly within the Bonville pedigree. The genealogist and author in question is Douglas Richardson, who has written extensively on early colonial American families and specializes in the area of American History. He has also ventured into writing about royal ancestry and has published a series of books on the subject, in addition to frequently posting his opinions to genealogical websites and blog spaces.

It should help Wikipedians to know the true facts concerning Richardson’s Bonville pedigree and the false assumptions that Richardson has stated which form his conclusions regarding his assignment of parentage for Philippa Bonville. While Richardson’s royal ancestry book, Magna Carta Ancestry (2011), is useful for the many primary and secondary sources it lists, Richardson will still complete pedigrees based on his own assumptions and conclusions of the evidence surrounding the family he’s writing about.

Douglas Richardson makes three false assumptions concerning the evidence, family relationships, and assignment of parentage for Philippa Bonville. These assumptions need to be discussed in depth to show why this author’s Magna Carta Ancestry (2011) is not the best source for the Bonville lineage and Philippa’s placement in it.

First: Richardson assumes that Sir William Pole’s (1561-1635) Grenville pedigree was compiled after Bernard Grenville gave his Grenville pedigree to the visitation heralds in 1620. Bernard Grenville’s pedigree of the Grenville family is found in the 1620 Visitation of the County of Cornwall.

Douglas Richardson has stated, "The earliest and presumably the best source as to Philippe's parentage is the Visitation of Cornwall which places her as Lord Bonville's sister. While I certainly respect Pole, he is not infallible. He makes Philippe the daughter of Lord Bonville. I should note that Pole was writing in a later period than the published visitation. In this case, I would give the visitation greater weight than Pole."

This is Richardson’s primary basis for considering William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville to be Philippa's brother (not her father). It is more than abundantly clear that Richardson is in error regarding which pedigree, Pole's or Grenville's, is older. The evidence disproving Richardson’s assumption is the 1604 letter from William Pole, published on pp. iv-vi of the introduction to his Collections Towards a Description of the County of Devon, which shows that Pole was already hard at work on this project and completed it at least sixteen years before Bernard Grenville gave his pedigree to the visitation heralds in 1620.

Second: Philippa Bonville had previous unknown marriages and children prior to her marriage to William Grenville, Esq. (died c. 1450), which explains why she had such a late marriage to William Grenville in her early-mid 30s.

Douglas Richardson has stated, “I assume that Philippe had an unknown first marriage before her known marriage to William Grenville.”

And this is the primary basis for Richardson’s assumption to explain why an aristocratic woman of Philippa’s social status would marry William Grenville, as a second husband, at such a late age in her early-mid 30s during the time frame of 1427 to 1431.

Unfortunately, there is no zero evidence to suggest that Philippa was born in July 1397 or earlier as Sir John Bonville died on 21 October 1396. Similar to Richardson, someone could speculate that she had an unknown first husband with unknown children in her teenage years and 20s. This would help explain such a late marriage to William Grenville in her early-mid 30s, but there is no evidence to support this and such a speculation, even possible in the absence of evidence, would seem to contradict Philippa's decision to show the Bonville coat of arms impaling the Grenville coat of arms in the medieval stained glass window at St. Petroc's Church. The Bonville coat of arms impaling the Grenville coat of arms instead of the arms of another speculative first husband disproves the earlier marriage theory for Philippa Bonville.

If Philippa did have husbands and children prior to William Grenville, where is the evidence to support it? Most women of Philippa’s social class were married by the time they were 15 or 16 years of age and bore their children by the time they were 24 years of age. Many competent and respected medieval genealogical historians have stated as such. It appears Philippa had only five children and most likely wouldn’t have bore children in her 40s. Philippa’s youngest daughter, Ellen (Grenville) Yeo, could have been born as late as 1438, as Ellen gave birth to her first child, Robert Yeo, in 1455. There isn’t a shred of evidence to suggest that Philippa had previous marriages to William Grenville, bore children prior to her marriage to William Grenville, or that William Grenville was not her first husband.

Third: Hugh Stucley (died c. 1457) could only have been the half-brother of Philippa Bonville because Hugh’s name appears in a document associated with Philippa’s first husband; William Grenville, Esq (died c. 1450).

Douglas Richardson has stated, “I noted that her half-brother, Hugh Stucley, Esq., had served as a feoffee for her lst husband, William Grenville, Esq., in 1447. . . . Many things are possible. But the most likely explanation is that Hugh Stucle, Esq., was Isabel and Philippe Bonville's half-brother.”

The exact relationship between William Grenville, Esq. (died c. 1450) and Hugh Stucley is not known. There isn’t a record that states their relationship. A feoffee’s relationship to one deceased family member doesn’t automatically mean it’s the same relationship to a different family member they serve as feoffee to, regardless if it’s within the same family surname. Nor is it the same relationship when that same family member is mentioned in a different record of another family member who is of the same family surname.

Basing someone’s parentage and weighting it the most in an analysis solely on a feoffee status or the mentioning of the same family member in a record of someone else with the same family surname, where the relationship is not known, does not prove or confirm anything. Douglas Richardson wants to make Philippa the sister of Lord Bonville to support his assumptions, so it is more than convenient to say that Hugh Stucley was Philippa’s half-brother. Sure, Hugh Stucley was of some sort of kinship to Philippa as Lord Bonville was Hugh’s half-brother, but that is all that can be concluded from Philippa’s relationship to any Stucley. Just as “sources” are not all equal, “feoffee relationships” are not all equal.

It is crystal clear that the role of Hugh Stucley provides no such support for his placement as the half-brother of Philippa Bonville. If you look at these types of feoffee transactions during this time period; you see the names of cousins, in-laws, allies, lawyers, etc., and even uncles. There is no reason to declare or certify that the appearance of Hugh in the group of feoffees favors him being a half-brother and not a half-uncle of Philippa. It is just Douglas Richardson’s confirmation bias to conclude this was the case.

Furthermore, the famed 19th century British Antiquarian, W. H. Hamilton Rogers, who specialized in the West Country of England, stated on pages 43-44 in his The Strife of the Roses & Days of the Tudors in the West (1890): "John Bonville had two sons, William elder and heir, Thomas, and one daughter Isabel. . . . Isabel, only daughter of John Bonville, son and heir of William Bonville, married Richard Champernowne of Modbury, son of Sir Richard Champernowne, who died 26 Feb., 1418-19, and Katherine daughter of Sir Giles Daubeney, and who were both buried at Dodbrooke, near Kingsbridge."

Finally, if Hugh Stucley were the half-brother of Philippa Bonville, why weren’t the Stucley arms installed as a lone/straight coat of arms in the stained glass window at St. Petroc’s Church during the early 1450s? That’s because the coat of arms of Philippa’s factually true half-brother, John Bonville (died 1499) (illegitimate son of William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville by his mistress Elizabeth, daughter of Alexander Kirkby and his wife Isabel Tunstall), was installed in the early 1450s within the same exact stained glass window where Philippa's paternal coat of arms are impaling the Grenville coat of arms at St. Petroc’s Church in Petrockstowe, Devon, England. It is an undisputed fact that Hugh Stucley's coat of arms was never associated with the arms of Philippa Bonville, as the heraldic evidence proves that the coat of arms of Philippa's true half-brother, John Bonville, Esq. (died 1499), was associated with Philippa in the stained glass window at St. Petroc's Church.

As Wikipedians can read for themselves, I have laid out the three major assumptions that Douglas Richardson uses to “declare” and “certify” his conclusion that Philippa was the sister of William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville. The evidence presented confirms that Richardson’s assumptions are indeed false, which undeniably contributes to the flawed conclusion of his parentage assignment for Philippa Bonville.

William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville’s Wikipedia page as it exists today, 19 August 2018, states that Philippa (Bonville) Grenville Almescombe was the daughter of William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville by his first wife, Margaret Grey: (“Bonville's son and heir by Margaret, William, married Lord Harington's only daughter Elizabeth around 1443,[12] and two of Bonville's daughters—Margaret and Philippa—married William Courtenay and William Grenville respectively, who were both scions of cadet branches of the Courtenay family.”). --Lionheart0317 (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:V. —SMALL JIM 16:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read one of the reliable and verifiable sources for this article: Roskell, J. S.; Clark, L.; Rawcliffe, C. R. (1993b). "Bonville, Sir William II (c.1392-1461), of Shute, Devon". The History of Parliament. Archived from the original on 11 August 2018. Retrieved 11 August 2018. --Lionheart0317 (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it several times. Have you read WP:V yet? —SMALL JIM 22:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should keep reading it, as it is the most referenced (with 45 citations alone), most reliable, and most verifiable source for this article! You should also read WP:PUS, as Richardson's books are self-published. --Lionheart0317 (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's very good on William, certainly, but it only mentions Philippa briefly, since she's only a peripheral detail. Of all the writers, only two have written anything specifically about Philippa, and significantly both of them – Fitch-Northen and Richardson – determined that she is unlikely to be Bonville's daughter. Everyone else probably just copied what their sources say, since it's not important to the main topic. Now contrary to what you're trying hard to accuse me of, I'm not claiming that Richardson is correct or the best or only usable source. My contention is simply that there is sufficient doubt about the matter for us to briefly mention it. —SMALL JIM 22:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and only the 2nd edition of Magna Carta Ancestry (2011) has been self-published (see here). The important Magna Charta Securities certainly isn't. Incidentally, have you read WP:V yet? ;-) —SMALL JIM 22:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, how you now want to bring Charles Fitch-Northen into the conversation. Fitch-Northen’s work on the Bonville/Grenville lineage was considered low-quality and so error-filled that not even Douglas Richardson cites Fitch-Northen as a secondary source in any of his books. Richardson publicly commented on the subpar-quality of this particular Fitch-Northen work himself. Neither Fitch-Northen nor Richardson ever published any works with a biographical sketch on Philippa Bonville or her relationship to William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville. Fitch-Northen briefly mentions her in his short essay on the Grenville pedigree.

Douglas Richardson does self-publish. The Magna Charta Sureties, 1215 series was written by Frederick Lewis Weis with assistance from Walter Lee Sheppard, Jr. and William R. Beall. That is a fact, no matter how you might want to spin the truth about it on Wikipedia. Richardson played a minor role in that series of works, as he somehow lobbied to change some of the lineages in the 5th edition, which included lines 16D, 22, 59A, 90A and 101A, largely based on his own assumptions of the evidence. Contrary to what you’re being accused of? When you delete reliable and verifiable sources and then insert Richardson’s works, it’s not rocket science to figure out why and your intentions about doing it! Anyone would conclude that you believe Richardson is a supreme source and correct! So, if you are going to state anything, please state the facts, and stop guessing and misleading others with what you’re putting on Wikipedia. Have you read WP:FRINGE yet? --Lionheart0317 (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology adrift?[edit]

Hchc2009, SMALLJIM, Lionheart0317 People in this article are not named consistently, or in line with modern practice. Surely, all the redundant additions of 'Esq.' should be deleted? Shouldn't the man himself be called either 'Bonville' or 'he'? And couldn't we replace the pompous Latin phrases beloved of antiquarians with 21st-century English? Or, when they add little or nothing to the biography, just delete them? Clifford Mill (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my remarks above, I certainly wouldn't object if anyone updated the language in this or any other article. —SMALL JIM 20:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote on Philippa[edit]

Per the above [now at /Archive 1#Removal of Heraldry section, etc.], I've added the briefest footnote to direct readers to the uncertainty surrounding Philippa Bonville's parentage. I hope that it, or something like it, will be acceptable to all. —SMALL JIM 22:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If a footnote is an absolute necessity, it should only briefly alert direct readers to the one source (the 1620 Visitation of the County of Cornwall-Grenville pedigree), which has been determined to be a flawed and unreliable pedigree by countless historians and genealogists over the past several centuries. --Lionheart0317 (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Smalljim: It is now apparent that you not only believe, but support, endorse, and solely own the fringe view (sister to William, 1st Baron Bonville) concerning Philippa Bonville's parentage. This has become clear in the following Wikipedia articles: William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville, Margaret Grey, Manor of Bideford, and Richard Stucley. You have initiated and waged an edit-warring campaign to further your fringe theory and give it a coequal and proportionate weight to the mainstream view (daughter of William, 1st Baron Bonville) in these Wikipedia articles mentioning the 15th-century woman, Philippa Bonville. You have done this despite a third party opinion reaffirming what was considered the fringe and mainstream views concerning Philippa's parentage and then challenging that view with your own misrepresentation of the facts. Not to even mention disregarding what the current 21st-century scholarship and research have produced in the way of true facts regarding her parentage, that readers should be made aware of. Your obsessive and self-righteous behavior is inexcusable and indefensible when used as a basis to edit-war and then level bogus accusations. Posting absurd accusations and misrepresenting the facts repetitively to talk pages across the Wikipedia Universe, in order to ensure that your fringe view is given the coequal and proportionate view as the mainstream view (daughter of William, 1st Baron Bonville), is a direct violation of numerous Wikipedia policies and is not acceptable to all.

—Lionheart0317 (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"...third party opinion" – do you mean these opinions [1], [2], [3]? They don't support you. Please stop misrepresenting my position which as you well know is that there is not enough evidence to unequivocally support either alternative (was Philippa Bonville's daughter or sister?), and since both have been advanced recently in reliable sources, we must mention both of them – but only briefly, because it's rather peripheral to the articles in which the question arises. Everyone else who has so far expressed an opinion has agreed with that. Regarding editor behaviour, see User talk:Lionheart0317#Editor (Smalljim or Smallerjim) Hounding and Trolling. — SMALL JIM 18:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Smalljim: Stop misrepresenting the facts. Yes, a third party gave their opinion and stated their opinion explicitly. That opinion asserted the fringe view was Philippa as being the sister to William, 1st Baron Bonville. Regardless, the most reliable published sources presenting the evidence (whether you consider nonextant evidence used (Pole) or the preponderance of evidence), including the interpretation of the evidence by medieval experts, have all stated that Philippa Bonville was the daughter of William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville. That is not even taking into account OR or recent scholarship. Your misrepresentation of the facts, which includes the one 17th-century source deemed as unreliable by countless medieval experts and referencing one view of an author (of American colonial history), who isn't even an expert of the medieval period, doesn't support your statement that the evidence doesn't unequivocally support either alternative. It is of no consequence to me what your position is, but please stop misrepresenting the facts. —Lionheart0317 (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added a few relevant remarks to your talk page - see the new section: Update on FRINGE. —SMALL JIM 14:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Smalljim: Your rendition of the facts and your interpretation of the evidence does not constitute historical truths. Sure, Wikipedia articles can display a wide range of theories in its articles. There's no dispute there. However; misrepresenting facts, cherry-picking certain authors (evident by your obsessive reverts), and presenting your fringe theory ("sister") as a coequal or predominant view should not be condoned or accepted by any Wikipedia user. Regardless of all your ranting, raving, and personal attacks; it will not change the true historical record and documents commented on by Sir William Pole (d. 1635) (the earliest source mentioning Philippa's parentage). This includes the countless number of other medieval experts who have commented on this 15th-century woman over the past several centuries asserting that she was the daughter of William, 1st Baron Bonville. —Lionheart0317 (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

archive.is failed link[edit]

Accessing the provided link for the ODNB article by Cherry, M. (2004) in "Sources" – https://archive.is/Xa7rx – gives me a university library login page. I don't think it's a problem this end, though I suppose it could be. ODNB isn't freely available online though, and I've seen citations to it elsewhere annotated with "(subscription or free access with a UK library card number)". —SMALL JIM 11:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 15:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"and the following year he joined" The year following what? No earlier year is mentioned.
"This John married Alice Denys and had been endowed in 1453" Should "had been" be 'was'?
"caput"?
Could we have your standard footnote explaining what a mark is?
"appointed seneschal of Gascony"; "Sir Philip Chetwynd had been governing Guyenne". You're going to have to explain the distinction for all but the most anoraky of readers. Later the lieutenancy of Aquitaine also appears. Good luck.
"the importance the Duke of Suffolk's government held him in" You can't hold someone in importance. 'the esteem' perhaps, or rephrase?
Could J. S. Roskell be linked at first mention?
"at the end of April that year" The year hasn't previously been mentioned in the paragraph.
Can Michael Hicks be linked at first mention.
"who had been promoted to his peerage by King Henry I" I am loath to mess with a quote, but is there a 'V' missing?
Footnote 3: "Prior to the 143s".
Alt text for the infobox image?

Thanks for this Gog the Mild; I've attended (I think) to those points except regarding the seneschalcy etc, which I'll probably hit tomorrow. Hope all's well! ——SerialNumber54129 15:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good. Saving the best 'til last? Not too bad thanks. Yourself? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look who's here. Thanks Gog, you were too fast for me. I wanted to review this one in the near future, even I have some other nominations who're waiting for me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5. Beat you to it. It's a long article, but turned out to be pretty straight forward. I have no idea why i has waited so long. Now you will have time to have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Calais/archive1.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd wait a little bit. I first want to get rid of the Second Fitna's source review. If that's done then we finally can promote it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, Gog the Mild; I've filled out infos on those offices with footnotes, here. ——SerialNumber54129 07:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine stuff. Promoting. I look forward to seeing this at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed