Talk:Blanche Parry

Clean-Up

As the portrait in Tredegar house is being wrongly sited elsewhere as of Blanche Parry I have now corrected this while not removing this portrait entirely, see:https://www.artuk.org/artdetective/discussions/discussions/who-is-the-sitter-if-not-blanche-parry-15081590 This was known as an Unknown Elizabethan Lady and this title is now considered accurate. Information from the National Trust Art Curator, Tredegar House.

The Pilley portrait is only known from this photograph. Its companion painting of Queen Elizabeth I has now been found and is in the USA. It would be wonderful to know if Blanche Parry's painting has survived too - has anyone seen it please?(User talk:BethANZ)

Please note: anyone interested in the truth about Blanche Parry is referred to 'Mistress Blanche, Queen Elizabeth I's Confidante', new edition 2018 (User talk:BethANZ)

Please note that an article is not the right place for praising the merits of a particular publication. This borders on advertising. I have therefore removed that paragraph. I have created a proper section for Notes and References instead. For NPOV reasons I have also adapted the text to a more neutral stance; for example it can hardly be maintained that Blanche Parry was "the closest person" to Elizabeth for all her life; even if the book's author says that, that's only her assumption. WP must mantain a neutral stance: using a source does not imply to copy all its content uncritically. Buchraeumer (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Single Source for References

I am not sure why the {Citation Needed} tag was deleted. While the text contains many references, they are all to a single source. Even that would not be of so much concern if there were some scholarly commentary about the source, a book written in 2007, which seems to have no independent, academic reviews. This biography needs more varied support; as it stands, it appears to be original research. // BL \\ (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. May I explain. The book cited is the very first one to be written about Blanche Parry. A pamphlet which was incomplete was published in the 1930s but that is it. I have tried to include the references below so they could be accessed independently but they keep being emoved which I find extraordinary. The page refences in Richardson 2007 do direct to these references too so they can be found in this way. This is what has been removed again:

  1. ^ Richardson 2007, 'Mistress Blanche, Queen Elizabeth I's Confidante' by Ruth Elizabeth Richardson, p 7, 133; see also www.blancheparry.com
  2. ^ Blanche's epitaph in St. Margaret's Church, adjacent to Westminster Abbey, Richardson 2007, p 136
  3. ^ Richardson 2007, p 15-17, 20, 40-41, full references p 167; accurate Welsh and English translations for all poems on www.blancheparry.com
  4. ^ Calendar State Papers Domestic & Foreign Henry VIII vol XI no 1370, Richardson 2007, p 32-34
  5. ^ 'Elegy to the Lady Blanche' by Lewys Morgannwg c.1557 translated in Richardson 2007, p 39-46, 167 and www.blancheparry.com
  6. ^ mss. of the Most Hon. the Marquis of Salisbury CP 12/59, Richardson 2007, p 75-78
  7. ^ Richardson 2007 for full details and full references from original documents
  8. ^ Richardson 2007, p 151-165 full transcriptions into modern English of both Wills with references

I am not into the game of replacing removed items as I have much else to do. However, please advise me - if the pamphlet and the epitaphs on monument and tomb (which can be visited and seen) are included then would this overcome your objection please? The information about Blanche Parry is being processed for ODB and Welsh Biography Online but there are queues for both and I am told the revised entries will be entered later this year or early next year. Meanwhile I feel anyone interested in the period is entitled to know this new evidence exists. Yrs.86.146.57.125 (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you everyone - have tried to change as suggested. I hope piece is okay now. 86.146.57.125 (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you are running up against several of the policies that define Wikipedia. I know you have been directed to such articles as Reliable sources, Conflict of interest and Verifiability which explain to a great extent what Wikipedia is, and also what it is not (And, for the latter, there is also What Wikipedia Is Not.) I shall try to synthesize the most important points here so that you, and those who would bring the article into the Wikipedia universe, are not constantly frustrated. The book you have used for your source, and where you may have a conflict of interest, has itself no verifiable credibility in Wikipedia terms. (Please note the qualifier "in Wikipedia terms"; we make no judgement of its excellence or accuracy otherwise.) There are no reviews of its material, or none that I could find, and no scholarly reporting on its facts or conclusions. (If you know of such reviews or commentaries, then please provide the references. What those secondary sources say about the book, provided they are themselves reliable and arms-length, may be used to support text in Wikipedia. Mere cataloguing would not be sufficient, and no site where there is not reasonably rigourous editorial supervision of information provided would be suitable.) The research for the book done by the author is original, which may make it excellent history and even a wonderful read, but Wikipedia does not use either original material or, with very few exceptions usually limited to biographies of living persons, primary sources. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of truth or fact, as much as it is an encylopedia of verifiable (through third-party, reliable sources) information. What appears in the article is not verifiable in Wikipedia terms and thus it cannot be relied upon as the source of facts for articles in Wikipedia. Without reliable sources, the material cannot be verified and thus the article, and that of Lady Troy, for the same reasons, is at risk of deletion.

It may well be that the book was an attractive text to write because there were no others on the subjects. It may also well be that, over time, the book becomes a "reliable source" in Wikipedia terms. However, for the moment, it is not. None of this has anything to do with the quality of the book, of its writing or even of the writing of the articles. Verifiability is the only method the editors of Wikipedia have to check on the material the encyclopedia contains. That a claim exists in a single publication, and that publication has not, itself, been verifiably and reliably assessed, makes it unproven and thus unsuitable for inclusion. I do encourage you to read the guidlelines before you make any more edits or revert any more references. One of the consequences of continuing to revert references or text that does not meet the guidelines, once the problem has been explained, is that you may be blocked from editing entirely for what here is called edit warring. Please do come to my talk page if you have any questions. I will do my best to help you work within the guidelines, though we will need other sources for the information if the article is to survive any deletion challenge. // BL \\ (talk) 01:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear BL, Thank you for your interest and offer of help. I understood that Wikipedia is designed to provide reliable information that can be checked and that is what I have done in this article. There is nothing there that cannot be checked. If anything is phrased wrongly I am happy to alter it. All I am trying to do is to allow anyone who is interested to obtain accurate, properly researched information if they wish to do so. There are reviews and several more are in preparation (perfectly genuine). In addition the material in this book has been used by notable historians, and at least one such book is being published later this year (and this too is perfectly genuine). The author of this book has been frequently thanked for such rigorously careful writing. I should be grateful if this article is now allowed to remain as it is, as it provides free verifiable evidence to anyone interested - and this is why I wrote the article as I am strongly in favour of the free dissemination of accurate information. I repeat that I am happy to re-phrase if you wish and I am happy to work within guidelines. By the way, if you wish to contact the author there is a contact page on www.blancheparry.com which might help. Yours sincerely,86.165.235.124 (talk) 09:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As discussions about Wikipedia are best kept here, I will trust that you will see this at some point. The article remains for the moment; so do the problems with it. WP does not check primary sources nor does it use them. All sources for which the artcile relies must be cited int he article. A single text that has not itself been reviewed (or, if it has, please direct us) in a "reliable source" is not sufficient for the weight of the whole of an article. In short, something is not "information" for WP purposes until a third party in a reliable source says it is. I would direct you to WP:RS and WP:V. // BL \\ (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I was asked to cast an eye over this article, which I have done, and offer some thoughts on sources, original research and verifiability. So here goes... Its not ideal to have an entire article based on a single source, irrespective of how accurate or reliable it may be. However, there is obviously certain occasions - such as this one - when an abundance of sources are simply not (yet) available. That provokes questions of how notable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia the subject is. But, at the same time, we do have to be mindful that records of individuals born over 500 years ago are not what they are today. Therefore the benchmark for establishing "notability" must be relative, rather than absolute. Perhaps Parry would be considered the Tara Palmer-Tomkinson of her time!

With regards to the major source provided. It does appear to be published by a real, (as opposed to vanity press) publisher, albeit a small specialty one; the author also appears to be an academic. Therefore there is little cause to dismiss it's reliability, notwithstanding the lack of supporting sources. That all said, WP:RS states Information in Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, moreover articles should be based primarily on third-party sources. This article's biggest problem is that it has only a single source from a small publishing house, lacking third party validation, and therefore we have no real way of judging its reliability, fact-checking and accuracy. Its probably worth considering how extraordinary the claims in the book are in establishing Parry's notability (given that extraordinary claims requires extraordinarily good sources). I'm not really the person the judge this, but I don't feel as if the article in its current state is particularly controversial. Do correct me if I'm wrong.

So, while I do think this article does have notability/verifiability issues, I think its worth putting in perspective. There is clearly no BLP problem and no real concern it is a hoax. I'd be tempted to argue that it remain so long as it focuses on documented facts about her life, rather than include claims over the extent of her relationship with the Queen. Once the book is used as a source in other works, or by other historians, we can perhaps write a little more about her relationship and use those as supporting sources. We should also be careful of WP:SPAM, and avoid undue promotion of the book and accompanying website.

The alternative is to take it to WP:AfD (as I doubt more supporting material could be found to improve the sourcing). I feel that it would probably survive that, but thats only an opinion. Finally, the Lady Troy article needs a lot of work. Rockpocket 02:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Rockpocket, Thank you for your consideration of the article. I understand that the author has had further assurances that the article on Blanche Parry in WBO using this new material will be shortly updated (the hold-up is technical) and the new entry on Lady Troy will be included. I am happy to change whatever is needed here to comply with guidelines. Could the 'tag' re citations (not sure if this is the correct term for it) be removed please? There are three sources now though there are many more fully verifiable original sources used. The aim is simply to allow anyone interested to know this information exists - it is absolutely accurate and the author researched for over eight years, meticulously and critically. The book also says that the author had a grant to facilitate the research from a highly respected body in academic circles. I realise the Lady Troy article needs side-headings etc. and I will do this as soon as I can work out how to do it - apologies for my lack of expertise. I am happy to accept your help simply, as I said, to make this information available for those who wish to use it. Yours sincerely,81.147.62.193 (talk) 08:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Apologies my name did not appear - I think I forgot to sing in -REHopkins (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the single source template is twofold. Firstly to encourage editors to improve the article by adding further sources, if possible, and secondly to inform readers about the limitation of our source material. In our case, the second reason is probably most relevant. Since the entire article is essentially based on a single source (the two other sources support very little of the material) I think its probably appropriate that it remains for the moment. Once additional supporting sources are provided then anyone is free to remove it themselves. It is no slight on the book or the information therein to have this article templated in such a manner, we do it all the time as part of the continual improvement process. I have no doubt that the author of the book is very well respected and the book is well researched, but it still is a single source.

Finally, no need to apologize over your lack of expertize. We appreciate your contributions. This is the beauty of a wiki: somebody contributes something, others edit mercilessly and the sum of which is an appropriate article. When I get a moment, I'll copy edit and wikify the Lady Troy article. Rockpocket 05:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you REHopkins (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear All, 1) I have changed one 'Parry' back to Blanche Parry as the lady was never called Parry - in fact she was most often known as Mistress Blanche. 2) I have added a couple of side-headings. 3) I have added a citation to the new book by Dr. Tracy Borman, 'Elizabeth's Women, The Hidden Story of the Virgin Queen', published Jonathan Cape, London September 2009. This means this is no longer a single sourced entry. Apologies - cannot make the summary edit work. Thank you. REHopkins (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Radio Wales programme 28 Jan 2018, extra source

A programme on Blanche Parry was broadcast on Radio Wales programme 28 Jan 2018, mostly using commentary by Ruth Richardson, the author of the principal source on Blanche Parry as used in this WP article. Programme made by Huw Thomas BBC Wales arts and media correspondent See Queen's Confidante: The Story of Blanche Parry BBC Radio Wales, 18:30 GMT on 25 January and on BBC iPlayer[1]. Richardson and her book are now clearly regarded as reliable sources, and have now been referred to by many academics, including Eleri Lynn, the curator of historic dress for Historic Royal Palaces. It should perhaps have been apparent to any sensible observer that a lady who has TWO grand monuments in her memory, one of which is in such an important place as St Margaret's Westminster, is "notable" for WP purposes, even if she did apparently erect one of them herself! Something of a Bess of Harwick it seems!Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)