Talk:Francis Towneley

Source

theguardian.com - K M Grant talking about 'Uncle Frank'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.183.202 (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The greatest intelligence and prudence

@Robinvp11: Thanks for you interest in this article, however you have re-introduced some problematic content. As it says in John Towneley (translator), d'Éguilles was referring to John when he wrote " he is the man of most intelligence and prudence amongst those here with the prince. You may question him on all subjects." While his DNB article could possibly be mistaken, it seems pretty convincing. I've previously briefly discussed this on Svejk74's talk. It seems very likely that Riding has confused the two (a mistake I believe other authors have made also), and it seems best to disregard her on this point. I note that you have introduced the same issue at Manchester Regiment (Jacobite). Ideas? TiB chat 18:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Trappedinburnley: I wrote the article on D'Eguilles (and expanded the one on his brother) so I'm aware of the link to the salon, although I haven't come across John before. You're right on Riding (she seems to have taken it from Frank Mclynn) but its easily solved.

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Robinvp11: Thanks for changing that. When I wrote John's article I was a little concerned that according to the DNB entries they both distinguished themselves at the siege of Phillipsburg in 1734. At the time decided to leave that alone. While I'm talking about the DNB, did you intend to remove it as a source completely? With so little easily verifiable sources used in the article it would seem to be important.TiB chat

@Trappedinburnley: Whoops - re-inserted.

Robinvp11 (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Robinvp11: Can I ask what the purpose is of putting sources in the External links section? It isn't an approach I've seen before and assumed it was an error. As you've moved the Tracing the Towneleys source there twice now, I guess not? TiB chat 18:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Trappedinburnley: I was told (during an A-list review) that was the accepted treatment for anything that links to a webpage; I don't understand it myself but....

Robinvp11 (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I think some confusion must have occurred there. I you can remember where the discussion happened I will take a look, but I can't imagine it is correct. I could imagine that sources used in the article that don't meet RS but do contain interesting content could be retained by moving them to Ext links. In this scenario they wouldn't be sources anymore. The easiest thing to do is to merge them into a single source list and worry about it if this ever gets to a review.TiB chat 18:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I have had so many editors tell me what is and is not Wikipedia protocol (especially on Sources) I've picked a style for the articles I edit (which is based on several reviews) and I'm not intending to change it. I don't understand how putting it in External links makes it not a Source and I'd suggest there may be areas more worthy of your attention but... Robinvp11 (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I know editing is less frustrating if others don't question your work, but this is a collaborative project. You may well have picked a style you like, however we have a Manual of Style that governs these things with a subsection on External links. Neither say anything about using external links as sources in this manner. As the person who started this article and likely WPs foremost (but not infallible) expert on the Towneleys, I'm going to get involved here one way or another. This may not seem like a serious issue, and there appear to be bigger problems, it remains unresolved. I have patiently offered both a simple solution and to look further at your argument, pick one or offer another solution please.TiB chat 20:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Uncle Richard

@Robinvp11: You've altered the prose to swap Francis' grandfather Richard Towneley to an uncle Richard (1654-1711) in regard to the family's problems during the Glorious Revolution. The source you've used for this seems to not include dates of birth or death or the relationship to Charles. There are two problems with this. 1> Victoria County History of Lancaster Vol6 p460 and Tracing the Towneleys on p13 both point to the grandfather. As head of the family at that time the elder Richard would seem more likely to me. 2> The DoB and DoD you have provided for uncle Richard may well confuse two separate people. The pedigree printed in History of the parish of Whalley] has the elder born in 1655 but dying in childhood, with another born in 1664 who was still alive in 1706. However this Richard is listed as a monk in Newport. The pedigree in Tracing the Towneleys (gen 16, p17) only lists one Richard although the possibility of the other is discussed on p25. I'm assuming that you must have got the info from another source? While we are in the neighbourhood, the list of siblings you have added appears to be incomplete. The Geni source you've used does list more? Two currently unlisted sisters (Margaret and Cecily) appear to have been nuns in Paris (Whalley pedigree). TiB chat 18:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Trappedinburnley: Lonsdale very specifically refers to Colonel Richard Towneley, born in Middlesex in 1654, who emigrated to New Jersey, where he died in 1711. As you've pointed out previously, their habit of using the same names is confusing; I'll remove Uncle, as its obviously more distant than that.

The Geni reference I've used does not list a Margaret or Cecily, so I haven't included them; if you've got a better one, please feel free. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Arhhh, that would be this Richard Townley from the Royle / Littleton branch of the family. However unless he returned from his government position in America to aid his very distant relative, Lonsdale must be wrong. I can't find that in the Lonsdale source used in the article, do you have a page number? Regarding Geni, I presume you didn't notice the "and 5 others"? TiB chat 18:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Page 93. Re your second query, yes, when I provide references, I read them; feel free to do the same (clue; the Geni reference is to his father Charles).Robinvp11 (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I've read Londsdale page 93 (and 99) thoroughly and word searched the rest and can't find the material you mention??? I see mentions of Colonel Richard Towneley and Charles Towneley, but nothing else useful. Geni: My mistake Margaret and Cecily were Francis' aunts, I confused them with his sister Ursula (Towneleys gen 17, p26) who was also a nun. I didn't look too closely (and did miss it is Charles' entry) and was comparing to the family tree in History of Whalley, which is a little hard to read.TiB chat 20:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I've done more reading. The Webster source you introduced (p64) also states it was the elder Richard. I note you have replaced the statement in Richard's article with an even more confused version, which again doesn't appear to be covered by the Lonsdale source you are using. This has however lead me to the thought that the Charles in question may actually have been his brother (1631-1712), who is mentioned on p65. Only Tracing the Towneleys (so far as I've seen) actually specifies the relationship between the two.TiB chat 00:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Lancashire Plot - participation

Confusion seems to arise from referring to Richard Towneley as Colonel, a rank he never held; reading Beaumont, this seems to be derived from the alleged Jacobite commission, appointing him Colonel of a cavalry regiment. It appears doubtful he even knew of the plan.

However, Beaumont wrongly assumes this is the Richard (1689-1735) captured at Preston in 1715, while there is no mention of any other Towneley. Hence, I've left it as 'Towneleys'.

Robinvp11 (talk) 10:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

So we have useable sources that clearly identify this Richard Towneley (as both his and this article used to state) and you've opted to rely upon a (misspelt) passing mention in a source that you know contains relevant errors? [1] Rather than returning to the point where you made the good faith mistake, you think it is better to de-clarify? As I already said we might have an issue with which Charles it was and relying entirely on the Tracing the Towneleys source might possibly become a problem at some point. If you'd prefer to omit him I could live it, however the Lonsdale source you used previously does clearly name a Charles Towneley and I would expect his then mid-thirties son and heir was more likely to have been living with him at Towneley Hall than his mid-sixties brother.

I recognise that you are trying to improve these articles, but at the moment the problems are increasing. I'm going to have a go at getting that paragraph back into a reasonable place, if you have a serious issue with it I will expecting a high quality contradictory source from you to support your argument.TiB chat 19:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not clear what 'these problems are increasing' means (please don't explain it to me).

Every single change you've directly asked for has been made (eg Riding) - what I can't do is interpret

The vast majority of the sources for this article have been supplied by me; and yes, I will admit, I get unreasonably irritated when people suggest I either can't or don't read the Sources I provide. (You're welcome to apologise at any point).

I don't know what argument you're referring to; Lonsdale identifies the wrong Richard, so its a guess, well-educated maybe but still a guess. That remains the case. I did some work and found another source ie Beaumont, which confirms Richard but for reasons that are unclear to me has been removed. He doesn't even mention Charles. So we have different sources confirming different people.

I explained my thinking; all you had to do is do the same and change it. I'm not clear why that requires you to lecture me on whether or not I'm being helpful.

I don't care which Richard or Charles weren't involved in an almost certainly fictious plot, that never happened. I do care about the waste of energy; we've gone round in a circle and mysteriously come back to the answer you came up with in 2011. Weird eh? Robinvp11 (talk) 13:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

LOL and I haven't even finished with that section yet, let alone the rest of the article. I am sorry if your mistaken assumptions and apparent inability to listen to others has lead to irritation on your part. I know it is frustrating when the effort you have put in goes to waste. However if you make mistakes you don't fix, it not only wastes your time but also that of whichever poor guy has to fix it for you. If you truly are incapable of engaging in calm, constructive discussion when disputes arise, then I would suggest that Wikipedia isn't the place for you. These discussions are where we learn to be better editors that produce higher quality articles.

From my perspective you have made a mess here and I have patiently tried to explain just a few of the issues while providing quality sources and links to WP policy and guidelines. You respond with bluster and assertions that I cannot verify. For example I have repeatedly asked you where Lonsdale asserts that this Richard Townley is the man involved in the plot. You told me page 93. I told you I'd looked through the source and could not find it. You replaced it with Beamont, which gives even less useful info to actually identify him. Yet the actual reason I trimmed that part is simply that Richard Towneley is the correct article to get into the details on this. Both of these sources certainly would be useful there. As far Francis is concerned this happened to a man he never met, 20-ish years before he was born.

Now to get a quality article I could have just gone straight to fixing it myself, then got you blocked for the edit-war you would no doubt start. But I would much prefer that we end up with both quality article and happy contributors. I would again urge you to engage in calm discussions and lets try to make some quality here.TiB chat 19:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)