Talk:John Towneley (translator)

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group.

Lancashire and Cumbria Low‑importance

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Source issues

Wenceslaus Hollar's prints

The DNB source mentions a collection of Wenceslaus Hollar's prints. I've intentionally omitted it, because it seems to have belonged to the younger John Towneley in the article, it was certainly auctioned shortly after his death.[1] I've not been able to find anything that suggests the younger John inherited it.TiB chat 19:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DNB

The 1889 DNB available on Wikisource cites Annales de l'École Libre des Sciences Politiques, January 1888 for the d'Éguilles dispatch. Back in May, I thought I found the correct book which mentions "Townley" a few times, but I wasn't sure so didn't include it. It incorrectly identifies John as the Colonel of the Manchester Regiment. It didn't register at the time, but a footnote in the DNB entry explains that French authorities including Cottin's Protégé de Bachaumont confuse John with Francis. This version also identifies Argenson as the recipient of the dispatch.

In the modern DNB entry less detail is given and Cottin is used as the source. Un protégé de Bachaumont: correspondance inédite du marquis d'Éguilles (1887) appears to contain the full text of the dispatch. However the updated DNB entry now incorrectly states that the dispatch was addressed to Bachaumont, the DNB author presumably not realising that it starts on p24 under the title "Au Ministre des Affaires étrangères". I was hoping to add one of the French sources for verification, but I'm concerned that the errors will cause confusion in the future. For now I'm going to create a list of sources that confuse the two.TiB chat 11:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brothers confused

As has been discussed a number of sources confuse the two brothers. The following list are known to have a problem.TiB chat 12:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Annales de l'École Libre des Sciences Politiques and Cottin's Protégé de Bachaumont both identify John as colonel of the Manchester Regiment.
Riding's Jacobites; A New History of the 45 Rebellion attributes Francis as the Towneley mentioned the d'Éguilles dispatch.

Military Service

There's no reference to Towneley in any of the Irish Brigade records I've found so far. In 1745, it was common for exiled Scots to be given commissions in case of capture, hoping they'd be treated as POWs (see Charles Radclyffe); this seems far more likely. Plus there's no record of him being present at Falkirk Muir and Roth's detachment was one that didn't make it

More importantly, it means the period of his life from ca prior to 1746 is pretty much a blank. Worth focusing on that for anyone who's interested. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you well know the statement "M. Towneley, who will have the honour of delivering my despatches to you, is the man of most intelligence and prudence amongst those here with the prince. You may question him on all subjects" is in both 1899 version and the current online version of the DNB which cites Annales de l'École Libre des Sciences Politiques, January 1888. The relevant prose in the article was properly referenced. Your argument that you've not been able to find corroboration in the unspecified sources you have looked at is never going to fly.

Because you seem to have made quite a few mistakes with your edits and currently are not making it easy to fix them elsewhere I've reverted this article to a point before you started editing it. Lets try to get one article into decent shape (I'd prefer Francis Towneley as we were already discussing that) and then move on to the related ones. TiB chat 18:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify - it isn't that everything you did here was wrong, and I will have no issue with the non-problematic parts returning, but lets try to deal with one thing at once.TiB chat 19:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the statement Towneley fought at Falkirk with Rothe's Regiment - that has nothing to do with D'Egullies despatches. The other bit I suggested needs a citation. I strongly object to having reversions done because you can't be bothered to read edits. That's both lazy and offensive. I've restored legitimate edits but I will leave you to it.Robinvp11 (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your offence is your problem, mine is wanting to see that articles with my name on them are good ones. You've restored the good with the bad, so I see you prefer that your errors persist, rather than discuss your mistakes. I'm tempted to do another blanket revert and see if you are true to your word not to touch this further.TiB chat 20:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One point - Towneley's lieutenant's commission supposedly dated from 4 Jan 1731 so if genuine (and the provision of a specific date suggests it) long predated the 1745 conflict.Svejk74 (talk) 08:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just think it needs a reference - that's all. So if you've got it, can you provide it. I have zero interest in John, this came about because I was trying to find out what Francis was doing from 1734 to 1745. So I'm not going to touch this article further. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It had a reference (at the end of the paragraph) until you altered the prose to create yet another problem! Why have you added Riding as a source here, when you previously used it about Francis and agreed with me that she probably got it wrong? [2]TiB chat 20:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind ,I've found a preview of the Riding book.[3] She clearly is mistakenly attributing the d'Éguilles dispatch to Francis. So using it here is clearly not helpful. I'll be removing that now.TiB chat 13:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Svejk74: Where did you find the date of his commission? Seems like a great find, but I can't track it down. I'm confident he was in the French army, History of Whalley (the original edition was 1809 I believe) contains a letter from John's grand-nephew Charles Townley to the author, where he states so. The details of his career I have less confidence in. He clearly fits the profile of an admin guy rather than front line, by 1731 he was 35. The detail of the despatches seem to clearly indicate he was involved with the command staff for a significant period of time and gave an important briefing, rather than just deliver the post. I note this occurred sufficiently after Francis was captured, that he surely must have been aware. As the dispatch identifies him as Monsieur Townly (I would have expected a rank), the question occurs was he even officially in the army at this point, aged 49?TiB chat 23:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've done additional research and I think I found the commission date in Palatine Note-Book, 3 (1883), p.241. This looks like a very useful source for these articles, but it is rare and it currently seems like I will have to pay to get a better look. I might buy a copy at some point, but for now I think I'll just add it for corroboration. @Robinvp11: you asserted that the Roth's detachment was one that didn't make it to Falkirk Muir. Yet our article on the Jacobite Army (1745) states that Roth was one of three 50-man detachments that made it to Scotland, and the Battle of Falkirk Muir article says that "150 regulars from the French Irish Brigade" formed part of the rear of the Jacobite formation. Do you have a source I can look at, or shall I assume you are mistaken and move on?TiB chat 20:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restart

@Trappedinburnley: I’ve learned a few things from this; (a) I shouldn’t respond too quickly and (b) if I explain my approach, it will save a lot of energy.

First, if there’s something I’ve done to bring about this situation, it wasn’t intentional and I’m happy to apologise for my part;

Second, I’m interested in the whole of someone’s life, not just bits of it. I’ve challenged the content, not to be difficult, but because in reality we know nothing about John’s life until (roughly) 1746. That’s the point;

Faced by that, my reaction is to go out and dig – as my edits show. I took another look at Colonel Richard Towneley (because I was interested); in 30 minutes, I found another five sources not listed in the article that fill in important areas of his life.

There is a ton of information out there, if you’re willing to look, and it doesn’t take long. Far less than the energy expended to date. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robinvp11: Great! I have not intended to cause offence at any point in this. I'm just trying to keep articles I have an interest in, to a good standard. Don't take it personally, if the expert authors whose work we rely upon for our articles are making mistakes (and we've certainly got conflicting sources here), we WP editors can surely forgiven for a few. These situations are something that I still find difficult to approach, I would hate to discourage a British history contributor when there is still so much to do. I've never met an WP article that could not be improved and you have certainly brought some good sources, raised some valid points and made improvements to the prose. Now I just want to fix the issues with the least hassle possible, and I see no reason why we both can't be happy with the results.

Now I am interested in the Lancashire Plot, I actually think it could make an interesting article (sources permitting). Like I said on Francis' article, this isn't the place to get into the details as neither had been born yet. I'm also interested to learn more about all of these Towneley men and I'm happy for you to be involved if you want to be. I just need reliable answers to my questions and trust that if I've gone the effort of making a point it comes from experience not spite.TiB chat 23:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]