Talk:Harrison family of Virginia/Archive 1

Notes

For future ref. & research - suggested forefathers=brothers 1) Richard arrived New Haven Conn in 1644, 2) brother Benjamin arrived in Williamsburg, Virginia 1633, 3) Rev. Thomas at Elizabeth River Parish in 1640 and 4) Edward of Boston in 1640; reference=Houston Harrison, pp 89. Hoppyh (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Charles Keith ref. added. Hoppyh (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

DNA evidence??

An IP address editor has suggested there are DNA results which contradict sources in the article. If there is such DNA evidence, please provide, but beware that the specific source information must comply with WP:RS. Hoppyh (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Need for in-line citations

This shortfall is primarily my responsibility and I am the one who most easily can make this particular improveIment. I will attempt to cure this as time permits, i.e. slowly I’m afraid, but am grateful for the interest which has brought this to light. Hoppyh (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

My understanding, from recent FA nom work at George Washington, is that the preferred convention for the lede is not to use in-line citations there. Hoppyh (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I have completed adding citations. In most cases the citations fall at the end of the paragraph, but cover all material in it. I thought it needless to repeat the citation for each sentence. I believe the tag at the head of the article can be removed at this point. Hoppyh (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Family tree

I just created and added the family tree. What would be the best way of creating a note within the tree, repeating the statement from the article that the link to the Shenandoah Harrisons is "probable but inconclusive"? PurpleChez (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Great addition. I edited the name of the tree. If you can, make room at the bottom of the tree and use a footnote—put an asterisk after Thomas' name and at the bottom duplicate the asterisk and say Thomas Harrison's fraternity and paternity are probable but inconclusive. While we are at it, I believe the tree needs to changed to reflect that the first Thomas was the brother of Benjamin I. Hoppyh (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I couldn’t resist-added Nathaniel Harrison (brother of Benj. Harrison V); other adjustments needed. Maybe in the future I should leave the editing to you! Hoppyh (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Collaboration is the Wikipedian's way!! Thanks for the input. PurpleChez (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the Thomases... I'll re-read and revise as needed. Thanks for the heads-up. PurpleChez (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I can confirm, the first Thomas does need to be shown as Benjamin I's brother, with footnote as you suggested. Also, IMO we should end the Lincolns with the children of the President. Hoppyh (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I believe that I have corrected the relationships... although I would still like to do a more substantial revision so that, once again, the generations are all on the same horizontals. Thanks for the input. PurpleChez (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

"Stilted edits"

@Hoppyh: Here is a summary of my edits which you have persistently reverted:

• "The next in line, Benjamin Harrison V": The next in what line? Is this article about the numerous men named Benjamin Harrison? Or is it about the entire family? This is merely an example of the sloppy writing in this article which I am attempting to improve.
• "He was a corpulent and boisterous man by Puritan standards": This is both absurd and offensive. John Adams was not a Puritan; indeed, the Puritans had disappeared by this time period. But it is offensive to suggest that they had some moral disapproval of people who were corpulent or boisterous.
• "A quote is attributed to Harrison": Just one example of bad construction and wording. Quote is a verb, and one does not introduce a quotation in such a stilted fashion.
• "Thomas is said to have attended": Did he or didn't he? "A quote is attributed to"—did he say it or not?
• "joining the English nonconformist counterparts of the Puritans": What on earth is this referring to? The Puritans were non-conformists—that's why the Pilgrims sailed on the Mayflower in the first place.
• "Bishop Jeremy Taylor is quoted as saying": Again, did he or didn't he? But the bigger problem here is the long and rambling quotation which effectively says nothing.
• "who is conclusively known": Everything we write in these articles needs to be conclusively known. This sort of construction merely calls everything else into doubt. "Is this statement mere conjecture? It doesn't say it's conclusively known, after all."
• Various errors in punctuation and typography.

These are just highlights of my attempted improvements. Please explain where your contentions lie, and why you want to restore the problems and errors. —Dilidor (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

A couple of your explanations above are plausible substantive arguments at best, based on your style preferences, over which none of us has a monopoly here. You might have more success if you stick to substantive explanations, and lose the offensive hyperbole. In any case, your removal of a sourced quote is inexcusable, and vandalistic. What goes around, comes around, Dildor; just suck it up, pal. Hoppyh (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Hoppyh: What goes around, comes around, Dildor; just suck it up, pal. I have no idea what that means, but it sounds like some form of threat. I also don't know what you are referring to as my "offensive hyperbole", but your comment certainly provides a nice example of it. Please feel free to point out any offensive hyperbole of mine. Finally, removing a sourced quotation is most assuredly not either inexcusable or vandalistic. I do not recall now what I removed, but I suspect that the quotation was unsuited to the article for some reason such as irrelevance. —Dilidor (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Being a professional writer of such note, and having so much experience, of course you wouldn’t “have any idea” or “know” or “recall” the above matters. Perhaps your trusted principals could help. Hoppyh (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, I have attempted an amicable conversation here, but your snide tone prevents it. —Dilidor (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Rambling and irrelevant quotation

@Hoppyh: What is the purpose of this interminable, rambling quotation which you adamantly insist upon including in full?

"He was rewarded by the governor's confidence, and his advice was often asked for and acted upon. When in 1658 he published his extremely popular manual of piety, Topica Sacra, he was the most popular divine in Ireland."

There is no other mention of this "extremely popular manual of piety" anywhere in this article, nor is there a wiki-link to provide any insight. What is this book? Why is it significant? What does it have to do with his popularity? What does any of this detail have to do with the Harrison family as a whole? The business about the governor's confidence is so vague and ambiguous and generic that it is nearly worthless as a detail.

Can you please explain why you insist upon reverting my edits, which focus on the core of the quotation: that he was "the most popular divine in Ireland"? And even this is a concession, because that detail itself is vague and ambiguous and utterly unprovable. If you can engage in an amicable discussion and refrain from snarky sarcasm, I would welcome it. −Dilidor (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a pertinent and sourced commentary made by an important contemporary in the 17th century, and will therefore remain in full, despite unwarranted attempts to vandalize it. That it may not meet someone's preferred present-day style is of absolutely no consequence. The details of the referenced work represent an opportunity for additional substantive effort on the article.Hoppyh (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Your persistent aggressive belligerence makes it impossible to work together productively. My edits are not vandalism, and you are violating Wikipedia protocol by not assuming my good faith. Your assertion that "it will remain in full" demonstrates your own misguided sense of ownership on the article, an accusation which you have thrown quite freely at other editors on other articles. I am attempting to help in this "additional substantive effort on the article", whatever that may refer to, by tightening the writing and looking for areas that need to be strengthened. This mysterious "manual of piety", this Topica Sacra needs to be fleshed out, since you intend to defend it to the death. So do so! Explain what this mystery book was, why it was so important, and how on earth it led to the author being universally lauded as "the most popular divine in Ireland". —Dilidor (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

If you see a need, then why not put aside for a moment your own misguided desire to control the copy editing here, and do some substantive research? Regardless, there is every reason to include all of the very notable bishop’s praise. As for my insistence, it is called STEWARDSHIP. Hoppyh (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

You are the one who is demanding that it be included, not I! Therefore, the onus in on you to explain why it needs to be there! DO SO. That, after all, is the essence of stewardship. —Dilidor (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The quote is pertinent, accurate, correctly attributed, and reliably sourced. For that reason and that reason alone, it shall remain in the article, contrary to YOUR preference, Dilldor. THAT is stewardship.Hoppyh (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I shall decide what shall be and what shall not, for I am the owner of this article! Thus spake Hoppyh. —Dilidor (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Chopawamsic Harrisons?

Did I incorrectly link pages of another family to this article? I added articles about descendants of Burr Harrison of Dumfries, Virginia, whose father Thomas had a plantation on Chopawamsic creek and whose grandfather Burr Harrison (1637-1706) emigrated to what became Stafford County, Virginia. Descendants moved to Louudoun County, Virginia as well as the upper Shenandoah Valley (Winchester) and included one of the first justices (and other politicians) of West Virginia. The online genealogy pages seem to link them to Cuthbert Harrison of York, England and St. Margaret's, Westminister, London.Jweaver28 (talk)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Harrison family of Virginia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 15:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

{{in progress}} Look for a review end of this week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I am grateful for the review. Look forward to addressing suggestions or questions. Hoppyh (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Overall, there's a lot of solid content in the article. I have some concerns, which I'll go into below:

• General and prose:
  • There's some unclear prose throughout along the lines of "Others say", "another source", "Isaiah is thought to", etc, that should be clarified as to who is saying what.

Done. Hoppyh (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• • In a similar vein, I think there's some less-formal language that should be avoided for encyclopedic tone, e.g. "In any case". Just state the facts.

Done. Hoppyh (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• • I'm not sure why The Harrisons are among three other families to have two presidents in their number, the others being the Adams, Roosevelt, and Bush families. is off by itself in the lead. If it's not important enough to mention, it shouldn't be there. If it's relevant, it needs to fit somewhere else (perhaps after the first line?)

Moved to first paragraph. Hoppyh (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• • None of the successive Benjamins used the numerical suffix; it is employed by historians as a convenient tool for distinguishing them—this bit confuses me because you use II for Benjamin, don't disambiguate Benjamin III with the Roman numerals, and then link IV and V, but I'm not sure if these Benjamins went by the numerals or not.

Numerical suffix is now consistent. Non use by Benjamins confirmed by biographer Dowdey. Hoppyh (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• Images:
  • File:Major-General Thomas Harrison (General) in Cromwell's Army.jpg has improper source information (the uploader isn't the creator of the original work, and there's no details to explain when it was published/how it's freely available.)

Removed, at least until licensing issues resolved. Hoppyh (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• • Likewise, the license for File:Benjamin Harrison V miniature portrait.png is incorrect—it's public domain if that can be asserted, but there's no details relating to that in the description page.

Removed at least until licensing validated.Hoppyh (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• • As a minor stylistic thing, the number of images sort of collides with the text oddly at various screen sizes given the short amount of prose to images. I'd look to reducing the vertical space taken up by images and perhaps trimming some so it's a bit cleaner (this isn't really a matter with GA criteria, just presentation.)

See removals above and other image layout adjustments Hoppyh (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• References:
  • You've got a citation error in the references section.

Fixed. Hoppyh (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• • Given that it's self-published, what makes Hooker, Mary G.'s inclusion meet WP:SPS?

Valid point—the particular facts for which she is cited are readily verifiable, being the official positions of Benj.V, Nathaniel, and Edmund. Refs added—I’m happy to remove the Hooker ref if appropriate.Hoppyh (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

If there's better sources than yes, remove. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Done. Hoppyh (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• • I may be missing something, but I don't see where Willard (missing a page number, btw) mentions the womens rights angle for Mary Stuart Smith.

Ref. for MSS speech to Women’s Congress added; Willard page # added.Hoppyh (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I believe I’ve addressed everything. Let me know if additional work is needed, and thanks again for your time. Hoppyh (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to do a copyedit pass tonight and see if there are any remaining issues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I have a qualm with the slavery section as written: do you think you could quote the material used to cite it? As written, it feels a bit non-neutral in trying to mitigate their slaveholding. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Quotes added. Hoppyh (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but you don't explain who Dowdey is prior to that (he's only mentioned as a biographer in the footnotes.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Try this...see note “b”...I expanded Dowdey's qualification a bit and added a cite and external link to the note. I’m glad to adjust further.Hoppyh (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

On another note, I have attempted to address NPOV. Hoppyh (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok. With that concern addressed, I am passing the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Orser67

Nice job with this article, I just have a couple comments. I think that there might be a few things that should be uncapitalized per MOS:JOBTITLES. For example: "His son Benjamin II (1645–1712) served as County Sheriff and in the House of Burgesses, and also was appointed to the Governor's Council, the upper house of the Colony's legislature". I would think that County Sheriff at least should be decapitalized. Also, for this sentence: "then Treasurer of the Colony and Speaker of the Burgesses." I think it would be "treasurer" unless the specific title actually was "Treasurer of the Colony". Also, I'm wondering if there is any more information available on their English origins. I'm not super familiar with how English heraldry worked, but is there any backstory for why they had a coat of arms? Did most families of this period have a coat of arms? I also made a couple of other minor copyedits that I hope are non-controversial. Orser67 (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. You are so right about the titles. I’ll try to clean them up. I’m not well versed with the heraldry thing either, but I think it was primarily a symbol of military status. I get the impression that for those families who applied for and maintained their heraldry, it provides a method of record keeping for the family in addition to church and court records. My impression is that the use of heraldry was the exception not the rule.Hoppyh (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok great, thanks for addressing my concerns. I personally find dealing with capitalization to be one of the most confusing and least interesting issues on Wikipedia. Orser67 (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I have a tough time with it as well! Hoppyh (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)