User talk:Miss Gender

Welcome!

Hello, Miss Gender, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Miss Gender, good luck, and have fun. — Newslinger talk 06:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Gender, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Miss Gender! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources

In the past several days you have added genealogical details to several articles, but have failed to document these additions. Material on Wikipedia must be documented by reference to reliable sources, and if undocumented can be removed and shouldn't be restored without such a source - the burden is on the person adding the information to demonstrate that it is verifiable. Agricolae (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry how do I do this?

The genealogical information that I have added pertains to my family lineage, I take this very serious. Abiel Foster Is my 6th Great Grandfather, John Rogers the Martyr 1507-1555 is my 12th Great Grandfather. I have verified the oral and written family history recently and been able to go beyond John Rogers. Sorry I did not do this properly but chalk this up to being a noob. Please anyone help me with how to quote reliable sources? Miss Gender (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source documentation is done in several ways. At a minimum, one can put a 'Sources' section heading at the bottom of the page and simply list the sources, but this really only works for 'stub' pages, ones that only have a couple of sentences of text, and it falls short of best practice. For that, you want to include in-line citations, so it is clear which specific pieces of information are being supported by which specific sources. For this you need to use the citation code. You put your citation text between <ref> and </ ref>tags. So, for example, <ref>G. E. Cockayne, Complete Peerage, vol. 4, pp. 159-161.</ ref>. This will insert a footnote at the place in question, but you will also need to designate where the text of the footnote is supposed to go. Most pages already have a section for References and your footnote will just be added, but if the page does not, you also need to create that section. For this you insert the following code after the body of the text (and before categories):

== Citations == (or == References ==, or == Footnotes ==)
{{Reflist|30em}}

That will create a section of the article that contains the text of the footnotes you have encoded. Because articles often cite the same source multiple times, there is a more elaborate format that is often used. Such a format will use abbreviated footnotes, and then have a separate bibliography section that provides the full information on the sources. Different pages will name these sections differently. The page on William the Conqueror names the section with the footnotes 'Citations' and the bibliographic section 'References', while that of Edward the Confessor calls them 'References' and 'Bibliography' respectively. Others call them 'Footnotes' and 'Sources'. Any combination of these is acceptable.

The final trick is the use of citation templates. Several sets of encoding have been developed for footnotes that organize a standard set of information and present it in a standard way. One set of these can be found at Wikipedia:Citation Templates. It is not required that you use such a template, but editors are expected to match the format already in use on the page - if you are adding a footnote too a page that already is using citation templates rather than bare text for the footnotes, then you should use the same style of citation template. An example of this would look like the following:

<ref>{{cite book | last = Barlow | first = Frank | title = Edward the Confessor | date = 1970 | publisher = University of California Press | location = Berkeley, CA | pages = 29–36 | isbn = 0-520-01671-8 }}</ref>

This looks complex but is actually pretty straightforward, just a matter of filling in the appropriate information in each position (and unknown parameters can be left out).

That is how you technically do it, but there is a separate issue - deciding what references are appropriate. For that see the next section. Agricolae (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Rogers the Martyr connection to Thomas Rogers and Catherine de Courtenay

Here is a source listing John Rogers Sr as the father of John Rogers The Martyr https://www.geni.com/people/John-Rogers-of-Deritend/6000000001531368838

Here is a source linking Catherine De Courtenay and Thomas Rogers and quoting their third son John Rogers Sr. http://www.deloriahurst.com/deloriahurst%20page/2201.html

Is this wrong? Miss Gender (talk) 02:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is the information wrong? It is hard to tell, but I suspect it is not correct (more on this below). Is it appropriate for Wikipedia? No. There are innumerable genealogical web sites that contain material of a range of qualities. You can find pages that are well researches, with adequate source citations that tell you from where they derived the information. Unfortunately, most genealogical web pages are not of this type - they present information without any indication of where it comes from or whether it is based on anything more than guesswork. Even when they do tell you where they got the information it is frequently just someone else's tree, which doesn't really solve the problem. Because of this, as a general rule, any genealogy (or any information at all for that matter) found on the personal web pages is deemed to be untrustworthy. Wikipedia has some rules about what constitutes a reliable source, and anything self-published, web pages or books published without an editor reviewing the information, is considered to be unreliable and material should not be added to Wikipedia from such sources.

There is a second reason why this information could be considered inappropriate. Wikipedia has a policy that lists things that Wikipedia was never intended to be, and among the things listed is genealogy. Specifically, genealogical information is only to be included if it tells you something that helps you understand the subject of an article. Now, you will have noticed that a lot of pages have genealogical tidbits that do not meet this standard, but they are done counter to policy, and as articles are improved, this information has a tendency to be removed. There is also a more general policy regarding what information should be included in an article: WP:PROPORTION, which tells you that different sources have different interests, and one has to be careful not to overemphasize certain aspects of a biography just because a given source with a special interest focuses on it. I view this as saying that just because you have a source doesn't mean it isn't just trivia, and just because a genealogical source gives genealogical information doesn't mean all that information is appropriate for a general biographical article. As a general rule, we take our lead from scholarly work on the subject. If a published general biography of an individual such as found in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography or the History of Parliament series gives a particular genealogical relationship as noteworthy, then it is perfectly appropriate to include it, but if they don't, then it would be giving it disproportionate attention to include it in our article. I view this multi-generation link to be genealogical trivia. For that matter, in most cases even naming grandchildren is too much genealogy.

Finally, the information itself. I have not studied this particular question before seeing what you added, so all I can do is give you an off-the-cuff evaluation based on your sources and what I find elsewhere on Wikipedia. There are a couple of red flags that are raised. First off, we have an article on John Rogers (Bible editor and martyr). Now, this page itself has poor citations, just bare URLs, mostly, and is not a style that should be emulated, but of interest to us is what it says of the Martyr's origins. "His father was also called John Rogers and was a lorimer – a maker of bits and spurs – whose family came from Aston; his mother was Margaret Wyatt, the daughter of a tanner with family in Erdington and Sutton Coldfield." This is cited to a book from 1907, and I have some concerns over the reliability of that book, but taken at face value we have a big problem. His father was a specialized blacksmith, and his mother's father was a tanner. This is a family 'in trade'. There was a degree of social mobility, but this is not what one would expect for the grandson of one of the most prominent men in Devonshire.

The second red flag is found in your cited web pages. The geni.com page calls the father John Rogers, also known as Thomas, while the personal page calls him Thomas (John). This is a very bad sign. It is extremely rare to find people in this time period with alternative names. It is almost always a genealogical construct - something devised by a genealogist to merge together two entirely distinct people. This usually comes about one of two ways. One source names the person's father as John, and another source names him as Thomas, so the genealogist, rather than treating this as two alternative solutions concludes that they are both right, and that there was a single person named both John and Thomas. That is one scenario. The other is that someone finds a person of the same surname and concludes there must be a connection, for example, that a William Powell was the grandson of a Richard Powell, and by dates, William must be grandson of Richard. (Why do they think there is a link at all when there are a lot of people with that surname? Usually because Richard Powell's wife was from an important family, and they really want to be descended from that important family.) William Powell, the 'grandson', is known to be son of a man named John Powell. Richard, the 'grandfather', is known to have had an only son named Simon. Now, a critical genealogist would see this and conclude that the connection must be false, but the genealogist who is personally invested in this connection being true will conclude that John Powell and Simon Powell have to be the same person, a Simon John Powell, and they will then merge these two distinct men with different biographies into a single record. Such sloppy genealogy infests the online genealogical web sites, and finding someone from this time period with two distinct names is a tip off that it is not to be trusted. Thus I have grave concerns that the genealogical connection between John Rogers, the Martyr, and Thomas Rogers, husband of Catherine Courteney, is authentic. Agricolae (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Descendents of Dr David Rogers

By Dr Beixedon, Edward Francis Fremaux b. 1897 Published in 1921

This is my source for the genealogy of John Rogers the Martyr to Thomas Rogers and Catherine De Courtenay

It is very in depth and has numerous facts that are omitted on Wikipedia

Is this considered a reliable source? Miss Gender (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are two separate questions here. Is it a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia? No. It is self-published, with no editor confirming that the material presented is accurate. By definition, then, is is not a Wikipedia:Reliable source. Is it reliable, genealogically speaking. That is something that can't be answered without repeating the research independently, but I can make some observations. First, following p. 30 there is a coat of arms credited to Roger I, Grand Count of Sicily. This is a problem on two levels. First, there are no documented coats of arms from all of Europe dating to the reign of Roger I, so the author is clearly repeating heraldic information that is inauthentic. Secondly, while Rogers derives from 'son of Roger', it was not this Roger who was their ancestor. His male-line descendants were kings of Sicily, and are well-known. None of them used Rogers as a surname, The surname arose in England (usually from Welsh immigrants) and Cornwall, multiple independent times, from people who were sons of any number of men named Roger, and there is no reason to assume any genealogical connection existed with any famous person named Roger, or between any two people named Rogers.

Moving on to the back of the book, I see why he used that coat of arms in an illustration. He really does claim to be descended from Roger I (p. 89). He traces to Roger's grandson, Tancred, and then simply waves his magical genealogical wand and concludes that his Aaron Fitz Roger was a great-grandson of Tancred, ignoring the fact that this Tancred died at the age of 19 or 21, childless, and all of his property was inherited by his brother, William - he had no great-grandson and your source has just made this up based on nothing but the name Roger. It wouldn't surprise me if everything said about the men named Aaron Fitz Rogers is completely invented - Aaron was not a common name at all at this time, at least among Christians in England. The transition from Fitz Roger to Rogers is likewise dubious. While the Fitz patronymic surnames names fell out of favor among the gentry, this was because they preferred to be identified by their properties - they adopted toponymics associated with the property they held (example: the Fitz Alans, Earls of Arundel, started to use Arundel as their surname), in part to highlight their status as landholding gentry and to separate themselves from the commoners who could only be identified based on the given name of their father. There would be no similar motivation to switch from an Anglo-Norman patronymic (Fitz Rogers) to an Anglo-Welsh or Cornish patronymic (Rogers). That is not to say it didn't happen, but more often when you find this in a pedigree it is indication of a genealogist trying to link together two distinct families. Moving to the critical generation, it says Thomas Rogers amassed a considerable fortune. It is unusual for his son to have been a country tradesman. I am not saying it is impossible, but it would not have been common, at all. I know of prominent men at court whose sons were in the trades, but this was in London, where the guilds held appreciable power and some of their members were filthy rich. It would be highly unusual for someone from such a background to end up as a tradesman out in the countryside. I have to think this is just a case of linking up people with the Rogers surname, based on nothing but them having the same common surname. Next you have an odd England-Saxony-Scotland migration that has every appearance of an attempt to bridge together two distinct families, and this is followed by a Thomas Matthew Rogers - remember what I said about people with multiple given names? It is then linked to Mayflower passenger Thoman Rogers. I don't think there were any members of the Pilgrim religious community with roots in Scotland, so that is one red flag, but there is a bigger one, and this is enough to tell me that the whole thing lacks validity. As of relatively recently (perhaps even still), there was only one family group of Mayflower passengers with a documented genealogical descent from royalty, and that was the unfortunate More children. All of the other claimed descents had been rejected by genealogical scholars who went back over the old claims and dismissed all of them as having been 'overly optimistic', either based on conclusions that could not be supported by the actual documentary evidence, or in most cases simply made up outright. This descent would give you a royal line, via the Courtenays, and hence even though I am unfamiliar with the specific refutation, this descent has clearly been dismissed by scholarly genealogists. It is likely that the Mayflower passenger himself is of unknown parentage, and the author's creativity went into overdrive with the next generation back.

So, my evaluation of the source is that no, it is not reliable, either as defined by Wikipedia or by the standards of scholarly genealogy. Agricolae (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I appreciate your assessment. I guess all I can really know with zero doubt in my mind is my lineage to John Rogers the Martyr. My families oral and written history outlines 15 generations starting at John Rogers 1507-1555 to Nathaniel Rogers arrival in Ipswich in 1636, all the way to my Mother. Not Wikipedia worthy but important to me.

I am interested in accuracy not fabrication, as this is my lineage I would hate to have false info in my tree. I will keep searching. I will now take my leave. sorry for not doing this right. Miss Gender (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize, all new editors have a bit of learning to do. Agricolae (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lyman Beecher Hannaford moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Lyman Beecher Hannaford, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. —AE (talk • contributions) 12:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lyman Beecher Hannaford (September 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Note to reviewers: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the instructions here.

You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

Draft:Lyman Beecher Hannaford may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— Newslinger talk 06:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Lyman Beecher Hannaford

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Lyman Beecher Hannaford requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://lymanbhannaford.wordpress.com/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Newslinger talk 06:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Draft talk:Lyman Beecher Hannaford, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. — Newslinger talk 07:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

O3000 (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Hi. Note that the article you have recently edited, Racial views of Donald Trump, is under special sanctions including "Consensus required". This means that all editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of the article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, don't make the edit. O3000 (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just chime in with O3000 and say that that was an edit that should not have been made. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Lyman Beecher Hannaford

Hello, Miss Gender. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Lyman Beecher Hannaford".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Phospheros (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cascadia Day

Hi Miss Gender -- welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for working hard on your edits. I know it's difficult to get started. I just reverted your addition to the Cascadia (independence movement) article about Cascadia Day and Cascadia Week. I did that because I couldn't find an independent source confirming the designation of those days. Are you able to find a source, such as a news article about them? Let me know if you need any help on this or any other edits you're working on! -- Cloud atlas (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Miss Gender -- thanks for adding back the "Cascadia Day" info. I think it's in a better place in the article now. I rephrased it a little to make it more clear, and I changed the links you added into an actual reference. Just so you know for the future, you added your links as "external links" right in the text of the article using the little chain-link icon. A better way is to add them as a reference using the little quotation mark icon. Let me know if you're working on anything next! You can reply to this message by editing this page and typing your message below mine, and then publishing the changes. -- Cloud atlas (talk) 04:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]