Talk:Richard More (Mayflower passenger)/Archive 1

Re: recent edits There are a number of places where the sentence structure and/or grammar leads to an unintended or unclear meaning. One example is in the first section: "In the Shipton parish records[7] Richard More's parent is given as Samuel More,[8] but his actual parents were Jacob Blakeway and Katherine More," This is both inaccurate and misleading. The parish record gives the father's name as Samuel More, adding Katherine's name on one entry. This is entirely accurate; Samuel was the children's legal father. Their biological father was probably Jacob Blakeway, but we cannot be exact about this. There are other examples that I will not enumerate; suffice to say that I think the article as it stands needs careful editing for sense and accuracy. In other cases you have allowed your enthusiasm for the story to lead you to overstate the facts. You and I may believe that Katherine loved Jacob, but this is a supposition, an inference from the facts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and all its statements should be based on documented fact. In the original article there were links to Wikipedia pages for Samuel More, Jacob Blakeway and Katherine. These appear to have been lost in the new version. On a more serious note you appear to have confused some of the references. Some that are listed as the 'Mayflower Children' are clearly intended to refer to the 'Mayflower Bastard' by David Lindsay (for example reference 35). In a couple of places the article cites 'A Spurious Brood' as a source. This cannot be; the book is fiction, and cannot be cited as a source. The references to Donald F. Harris's work are in my view confusing. The two pamphlets (Mayflower Children and Richard More) are vernacular versions of three academic papers published by the Massachusetts Society of Mayflower Descendants. In an encyclopedia the academic papers are the original source, taking precedence over later publications. They also represent a more detailed account. I suggest that you reinstate the original references, as follows: “Research papers by Donald Harris PhD: published in ‘The Mayflower Descendant’, the magazine of the Massachusetts Society of Mayflower Descendants, Volume 43 July 1993 and Volume 44 January & July 1994.” You have also cited each reference in full on each occasion. This is unnecessary. Wikipedia allows use of the term 'op cit' provided the preceding reference is identified (i.e. op cit - D.F.Harris above). In my view the lengthy section on Richard More's royal antecedents could be removed. As I indicated in a previous mail, almost every English landowning family can trace its history back to one of the royal lines. It is unremarkable; it is also likely to be disputed. In Donald Harris' research he made it clear that the royal connections had been investigated, and found to be tenuous. I do understand why you are keen to include the historical line, but, if it is to be included, it should, in my view, be made the subject of a separate Wikipedia article. This is the convention on Wikipedia. For example, on the subject of the Mayflower, there is a separate wikipage for the passengers on the ship. Shropshire Lad (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand your concerns, I must observe that a show of the edit history reveals there was very little information inserted into this article before I and other editors began expanding it. The edits you have objected to have already been removed, or recently corrected except for the royal ancestry which I will seek Administrator's advice on before taking it out. Your references were malformed in that they redirected to a book page which may or may not have been written by you. At any rate, that is prohibited by Wikipedia because it is considered a copyright violation. I, therefore, had to re-create the references in the Wikipedia format. The reference to a fictional book which, again, may or may not have been written by you, is not acceptable either as a reference or as a mention in a Source or Book Section. I will continued to improve the references in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and will look at your comments again to review that I have answered them. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to comment. Mugginsx (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As to your comments on my talk page: First: Wikipedia copyright policy is very clear. Anyone who can edit Wikipedia can say they are you. I believe you are the author but that is not enough to satisfy legal issues. I assure you that you will be reverted everytime you try to show an actual page until you have some private legal contract with the Wikipedia Association(if that is even possible). Even then some one could hack your username and say they are you. I hope I have explained that correctly. I have not made any major changes to any of these articles on More. I have EXPANDED the article and that does not need any notice on the talk page. It is what Wikipedia editors are supposed to do. I might suggest to you also that the guidelines for Wikipedia are very different than those for writing a book. You may keep your book of fiction on the pages if you like but I believe that it is forbidden and WIKI-SPAM which your announcement of your identity, internet web page, along with information as to how to purchase your book was. I would advise you to look up that guideline. I deleted that material to protect you, believe it or not. I will check into the list guideline you recommended but I am certain on the other points. Copyright violation is a highly sensitive issue which has been discussed EVERYWHERE. I also referenced in accordance with Wikpedia guidlines and was advised that op cit was not recommended by Wikipedia. Further you must look up wp: Primary, secondary and tertiary sources at Wikipedia:No original research.Mugginsx (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finally I must amend your amusing remark: Whilst I understand that a US citizen might wish to stress the royal antecedents of a founding father. It is only half correct. Every citizen might wish to stress their antecendants as being founding fathers. Americans are not generally impressed with Royalty. Mugginsx (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For Administrators remarks, please see Talk pages of Katherine More which also applies here. Mugginsx (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inserted here as follow-up information. Removed self-published of Harris and replaced with acceptable Harris sources. Sent information on Harris and Lindsay requested by DGG to him in February 2012 and both were accepted. Mugginsx (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Replaced some questionable references and advise against Op cit. referencing

I have now removed all of my refences to the self-published phamplets of Dr. Donald F. Harris and replaced them with his published works in various accredited publications mentioned in discussion with administrator. I have added other refereces and would ask that they please not be removed as before and reinserted in the Op cit and Op cit above manner of referencing which, although, technically allowed at Wikipedia, is frown upon because they can be interfered with by the Wikipedia programming see: Wikipedia:Citing sources sub-section: Citing multiple pages of the same source. Thank you to all editors involved on this and the related articles. Mugginsx (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Alexcoldcasefan re: you massive deletion of material and changing of my references

When someone makes a large edit they are supposed to explain on the talkpage their justification and use a Wikipedia guideline to back up their deletion. This story is long and complicated and each part is inextricably linked to the other. To tell it and be complete it must be fully detailed and connect and explain the two linked mysteries. Of course, everyone is allowed to edit this article, but not to simply take out half the article and link it to THEIR personal article which does not begin to tell the story, is scant and incomplete and has a title no one would know to look under. Please do not make that large deletion again. If you do I will be forced to go to the administrator again.

Further you are not supposed to change valid references. You took MY references and change the style to your styling of referencing. That style although not prohibited is not recommended by Wikipedia. Further, an Administrator has determined this information valid and does not make the article overlong. Mugginsx (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not supposition to state that Katherine loved, as well as believed she was married to Jacob Blakeway. She states it in her affadavit.Mugginsx (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC) For administrator remarks, please see User talk:DrKiernan. Mugginsx (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Took out repetitive baptismal dates

Took out repetitive baptismal dates. Nothing else is considered repetitive. The lead contains a synopsis of the story, see WP:LEAD. The information is then presented in detail in the body of the article. This is not considered repetitive. It is then organized in chronological order. Mugginsx (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with chronology

The article says he was 24 in the 1650s, which clearly cannot be. I do not know which is correct (the date or the age), so I will not edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.187.8 (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I will check the reference material and correct. For now, I took out his age. Will re-order the book from the library. Mugginsx (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: Found the source and my dating was off - made the correction. Thanks for noticing. Mugginsx (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard More - ancestry

(Moved from my talk page this date Mugginsx (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard More

I am in no way trying to deprive Americans of their ancestry. You will note that I did not remove from the page the fact that Richard More descends from royalty - in fact, this is his primary claim to being noteworthy. Were he not the only Pilgrim with a royal descent, he would be just another boy on a boat. What I did was remove an accounting of every Anglo-Norman king (plus one arbitrary Scottish king and one king of Wessex) because it is unnecessary: anyone descended from Henry III can be presumed to descend from Henry's father and grandfather, etc., so there is no reason to go through listing them all, nor is it clear why it would be more noteworthy to name, for example, King John or Malcolm III of Scotland than to name Ramiro II of Aragon or Alfonso VI of Leon or Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV, likewise ancestors of Richard More. Simply put, to name the most recent king is sufficient to illustrate More's distant descent, and anyone who is interested enough to pursue it can go look at Edward III's page (why did it just show Henry III when the pedigree shows a more recent tie-in?) to find out what genealogical avenues this opens up. Agricolae (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Just another boy in a boat? Congratulations, Ag, you have just insulted every American. I know you like to be shocking but this time you have outdone yourself. Mugginsx (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Once again, you have reverted ancestry on an article without WP:Consensus. Mugginsx (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Ancestry is well documented and is referenced with reliable sources, see: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary Zero-revert rule. Mugginsx (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]