Talk:William Farrar (settler)

Reference templates and reliable sources

Note: I'm assuming that the people who're working on this page have it on their watchlists so that they will be easily able to see it, but I'll be mentioning some people that I know have looked at this page just in case: Shashi Sushila Murray, Ariconte

I've changed some citations to use templates. But those in the further reading section probably still need some work.

Also, could someone check which of the web citations qualify as reliable sources? I'm more used to fixing formatting errors in random articles than to check references. For the same reason, I left some {{citation needed}} templates there while formatting citations right next to them. I'll make one change more to a journal citation and then I'll go offline, and I'm not sure if I'll make more edits today after that.

Another note: I had changed some curly quotes to straight quotes, to follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style, but it seems someone has added more curly quotes since then. The manual says to use straight quotes and apostrophes, but I'm not changing more of them until the article is ready for review. I just wanted to mention why I'm making this change. – Pretended leer {talk} 19:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and formatted some citations. Alvanhholmes, when you add in a source you can click the "cite" button at the top of your editing page after clicking where you want the citation to be placed (in the body of the article I mean). I then recommend choosing "manual" for the sake of accuracy. You can copy and paste any links that you're using into the "automatic" box, but I usually find that it gives me a lot of wrong information that I have to correct anyway. So I have the habit of going through the "manual" option to prevent myself from overlooking something out of convenience.

Pretended leer, you're right that we should look over the sources to ensure that they meet Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources. I've gotten busy, but I'll give it a shot eventually (if someone else hasn't already started on it). Since I'm a new editor on Wikipedia, and encyclopedic writing is new to me, I'm wary that I'll not have the same judgment as other editors. However, this will provide me with a learning opportunity as well so I'll try! :)

Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 10:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Joining in

Hi. Wow, this article is better than many in the mainspace (although that's not saying much, since there are a lot of crappy articles in the mainspace, hence AfD). But seriously, very nice start. I used to do quite a bit of work over at AfC, so I'll treat this article like I would one that was there.

1. First, the lead should be like you were writing a college essay: every major section in the article should be mentioned in the lead. Therefore, you have 9 sections in the body of the article, so you should have short entries regarding each of those sections in the lead.
2. You need more footnotes. Basically every assertion made in the article should be cited. If an entire paragraph comes from the same source, a single footnote at the end of the paragraph should suffice. If you need help on formatting footnotes, simply point to where the citation comes from (including page #), and I'll format them.
3. The above is especially true for quotes. Every quote must have a citation.
4. Organization - this article is a bit all over the place. It should be put in chronological order, which for the most part it is. However the "Background section" needs to be integrated into the article. As does the Historical Background of the two islands. Personally, I would break it up into 2 main sections: History and Personal life. The latter would include the marriage and descendants sections, and the former would include everything else.
5. Further reading. Needs formatting. I'm sure some of the editors looking at this can help.
6. General cleanup. Lots of cleanup needed for tone, Manual of style, and grammar.
7. Don't include irrelevant data.
8. Also beware of commentary and peacock words. Simply state facts, don't elaborate.

Having said all that. Great initial job. Definitely notable. I'm going to edit a section to show you what I think (and remember, I'm only a single editor, other folks might see it differently) should happen during editing. Take a look at the "Farrar's Island and William's Inheritance" section. I don't have access to the source, so please verify that my edit matches the quote. Also, I've linked to Nicholas Ferrar, if that is not the correct target, should not be linked, but it looks good.

Regardless, welcome to Wikipedia. Please keep editing. Brilliant work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Why shorter

In the process of expanding this article, content has often been duplicated or near-duplicated within and across section.s Editing to reduce duplication. There is still the question of huge chunks of content present and referenced, but not directly relevant to William Farrar. Question is whether some of this content is so far afield that it does not belong here, perhaps adequately covered in other Wikipedia articles that can be Wikilinked. The lead, however, should be expanded from its current one short paragraphs to two or three paragraphs. David notMD (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Background section

This section seems to not be on topic and straying into original research with phrases like "This would seem to indicate that", I think it could be trimmed back. Theroadislong (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Theroadislong:Thank you so much for your edits and comments. I really appreciate those. The last edit you made was indeed my original research. It was based on deductive reasoning, considering the laws of the time and era. Simply put, a Woman could not file a patent (nor in the 19th Century in most states, a homestead or deed) without doing so in the name of a male, apparently Cecily Jordan Farrar had dower rights, but sans a husband could not claim those rights, which in this case was a patent, so she needed a male in whose name the patent was filed, and that male was Councillor William Farrars oldest Son William the younger, who was then about 12 years of age, and most certainly not tutored in the law and it's requrements unlike the mother.. All too wordy to put in the paragraph, but it is factual and please don't ask me find citations to prove it, I will be at it for the next week. But the reason that I am writing this is a request for help. In the references at the end there is red lined comments which I do not undertand. If I understood them, I can suss them out and fix them, but I don't know quite what I am looking for, can you help Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Holmes1972" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). Article: William Farrar (sett;er_ pleaseOldperson (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research is one of the core principals of Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 09:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk:Thank you very much for your edits. I would never have seen themOldperson (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Notes on a substantial edit

I've completed a major edit that tries work to keep as much of the original information and authorial voice bringing it closer to the standards of Wikipedia style. A great deal of editing was done to ordering elements into a narrative order, deleting elements that could not be referenced, merging duplicates, moving quotes out of the article body and pointing to them through references, avoiding referencing websites with weak documentation, and pushing topic amplifications into other Wikipedia links. In addition, images that illustrate his life were added, which also create an informative context and show the relation of this article with others. Hopefully the article is a cleaner, well-sourced narrative that gives the reader a sense of the the broader historical context that mark's the subject's significance in the early history of the British Colonization of America.

Wtfiv (talk) 09:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:William Farrar (settler)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kaiser matias (talk · contribs) 17:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Will go over this in the next few days. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• "In the following year, Farrar became involved in North America's first breach of promise suit when he proposed to Cecily Jordan." Did anything come of this? It may be worth noting the resolution in the lead.

• "Alexander Brown states that while in England, William Farrar received an education in law." I'd add a qualifier of who Alexander Brown was: from his article it looks like he was a historian?

• There are a couple duplicate links (Alexander Brown and headright).

That's all from my first read-through. A cursory look at the references suggests they all come from reputable publishers and so will trust they are of good quality. Also like the addition of the several journal articles about the Farrar family from 1900–02. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kaiser matias:Thank you for your thoughtful review. I hope I can successfully address them hear.

• As regards the breach of promise suit. The whole dispute is referenced as a "see also Cecily Jordan v Greville Pooley Dispute" immediately under the heading "Move to Jordan's Journey and marriage" and also in last sentence of 2nd paragraph under that heading: "Eventually, Pooley signed an agreement in January 1624/5 that acquitted Cecily Jordan of her alleged former promises.[27]:42"

I saw that after I wrote this here, and think it should be good enough.

• Alexander Brown has his own article on WP, he is linked to that article via an internal link to wit: Alexander Brown

I see you added a descriptor, though I slightly modified it to be clearer.

• You say: "There are a couple duplicate links (Alexander Brown and headright)." Might I please impose upon you to point out these duplicate links. There are four separate Alexander Brown books referenced "Genesis of the United States, Vol 1, Genesis of the United States Vol 2,The First Republic in Early America and English Politics in Early Virginia History. The first two have been cited more than once. As regards headright links. If you would point me towards duplicate links I would be very appreciative. As regards duplicate links to headight, I find "Coldham,Peter Wilson" mentioned twice in paragraphs mentioning headrights. (Two separate paragraphs) in each instance these are references to different pages and thus different subjects. e.g. Reference (citation) 20 page 6 and reference 20 page 5. I will be glad to correct this, but do not have an idea as how to best do that.

I took care of the duplicate links I found (see my edit for reference). The other things aren't an issue.

I hope that you understand that I am not being defensive or argumentative. In my defense I do have some deficits from a craniotomy and subsequent radiation treatments to remove a cancerous tumor, and triweekly infusions of immunotherapy for lung cancer. No excuses here, just an explanation of why I might be able to comprehend. I feel fortunate to be able to do this much, my verbal communication ability has been zeroed though. See my user page Oldperson (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Not a worry, I don't find you defensive or argumentative. I appreciate the explanations on things, as you are far more familiar with the subject than I am. And to do so after such a procedure is nothing short of amazing, and I do hope things are all well on your end. At this point feel comfortable listing it as a Good Article. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Cecily Kelke Farrar

Hello.

I edited the page a number of days ago and added references to both the American gentry and the First Families of Virginia. These edits were then subsequently deleted by Wtfiv. He was kind enough to explain in the edit summary why he didn't feel that the edits were appropriate, though.

I've since seen that those references were indeed unnecessary in the main article. Perhaps we could include a "See also" section with links to their pages at the end or something, but otherwise I think that the page is pretty solid. I would however ask for permission to include a cited reference to Farrar's mother Cecily Kelke. Wtfiv said that we should only limit ourselves to referring to things that affected Farrar's life. Well, surely his mother was every bit as important as his father (who is already mentioned here)?

Here's hoping that you have a good day. I look forward to your response(s).

Yours sincerely,

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)O.ominirabluejack (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

O.ominirabluejack, I missed your comment on this particular on this talk page, but we did discuss it on my talk page around March 21, 2020. I'm glad we came to consensus on how his mother's background certainly gives context to his own life, particularly since his father's background was given. After you added the text, citations and references for Cecily Kelke, I reformatted the references, moved them to the bottom of the article, and created an accessible link to the book that describes Cecily Kelke's immediate family. Wtfiv (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Wtfiv...

Thank you for taking the time to inform me about your improvements. I really do appreciate it. I trust your judgement entirely as far as optimizing the information provided goes.

As for my position in my previous comment, you were absolutely wonderful when we discussed it subsequently. As is obvious, you eventually came to agree with my views, but beyond that - and more importantly - you were gracious even when you didn't. That was appreciated too.

All of the best,

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 01:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Recent Edits

Jweaver28 I updated and changed some of the elements you added to the article. Leads don't use citations, points made in leads should summarize points made in main article. I also removed mention of William Farrar II in the lead. The article is about William Farrar, not his son. Perhaps a sentence or two about Farrar II in the Farrar island section would make sense. Finally, the scandal involving Cecily Jordan, Farrar and Pooley was not just any scandal, but a scandal that directly involved Farrar, as it was Cecily's decision to marry Farrar that led to the breach of promise suit. Wtfiv (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

This seems disingenuous, if not cyberbullying contrary to many wikipedia policies, for you reverted all of my edits. For now, I'm not reverting your reversion, hoping that in good faith you are in fact updating and changing the article. Wikipedia policy includes a main article cited in the lead, which this did not have. From the talk page, there seemed to be an initial problem about original research contrary to wikipedia policies, which may never really have been addressed. Before my edits, the lead wandered all over, rather than summarized the article, which in this case relies mostly on research more than 100 years old, so I am surprised it got Good Article status in 2018. There seems some confusion between the 3 men of the same name--this man definitely did not serve as a burgess, contrary to some of the very old articles cited, so discussion about that body in the section about his roles is at best confused. Moreover, the article after your reversion again fails to cite the well-documented 2012 McCartney book, and the entire article was written in the passive voice. IMHO the breach of promise suit was a minor matter in this man's life and probably didn't deserve mention in the lead, but in a separate section about his marriage. In fact, I was planning to start a disambiguating article about his son and grandson when the reference libraries open tomorrow or Monday, at which time I look forward to your response.Jweaver28 (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi JWeaver,

Thanks for the reply. I was modifying some of your edits while you were editing. I saw your edits deleted most of mine, so I thought we should talk. I didn't remove all your edits, and I just put in many of changes of voice you had previously edited.

Most of the changes I reverted were to the lead, particularly the first paragraph which mentions what makes Farrar did that makes him notable: Serving as councilor, commissioner, and being directly involved in the first breach of promise suit. His children's actions should not be in the lead, as the article is about Farrar. Also, citations should not go in the lead, they should go in the article main text. If you look at any featured article in Wikipedia, the lead will not have citations: rather they summarize the main article.

You are right to point out that the lead was incorrect to mention Farrar as serving on the General Assembly. It's not mentioned in the article and I deleted it. He served as one of thirteen Councilors with Yardley and was commissioner for the upper parts (which included not just Shirley Hundred and Jordan Journey, but City of Henrico too).

Before I became involved, a previous editor had done a bit of original research. I don't think article currently has any. Please take a look at the citations, almost all of them are available as open resources via link for verification. If they are incorrect, they would have to be fixed. Take a look, almost all the sources are freely available.

It is interesting in that there is definitely a confusion between William Farrar and William Ferrar. That confusion led to the misidentification of Farrar as Ferrar up to the mid 20th century. This confusion is noted with citations in the article. As I'm sure you researched, Ferrar sailed over around the same time Farrar did, but he died at sea. I think one thing that may need clarification, as you point out, is the 40 indentured servants for the Garland episode. These seemed to be assigned to Ferrar, who never claimed them, but there is the confusion they go to Farrar. This isn't addressed as there's no discussion of this is in the secondary research and it would become original research. This may need to be moved to another footnote at best.

Farrar II plays no role in the article, except that his birth is mentioned as per articles that mention the birth of children and it is mentioned that the Farrar's Island went to II. If you want to mention a sentence more about Farrar II, it'd be best in the Farrar's Island article, which is more of a legacy and where Farrar II plays a role. If you are going to create a Farrar II article, then certainly linking him would make sense, though I don't see Farrar II as notable enough to merit an article. What is known about him is that he served in the House of Burgess, served as a militia colonel, and his will is still extant. I removed the McCartney because it was in the lead, but fill free to add it later, perhaps in the Farrar Island section. Dorman is already cited in the Jordan's Journey section, doing the same work as McCartney, to presenting the name and approximate birth dates of Cicely and Farrar's children. Returned the McCartney 2012. Though Dorman already covers it, used it to mention the birth of the children. Wtfiv (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I was told a few years ago that the policy is now to include a main citation in the lead. That said, I say you made major changes yesterday, and also that you were wone of the early editors of the article. I posted an article about his son just now, but probably won't be able to do more work on it in the next couple of days. Even is grandson is suitable for a short wikipedia article, haveing served as a burgess. I know how difficult these articles are about 17th century people, due to the multiple spelling of names through another century. I really don't have time to figure out how many slaves William Jr. or William Farrar III might have owned, but that was the era of changing from indentured servitude to slavery.Jweaver28 (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it is great that you got in the article on William Farrar Jr. There was a history here in which an editor did not think the family was notable and was removing articles. But that seems to have passed. I added a link to the first mention of W. Farrar II in this article. It's at the end of the Jordans Journey section, where he is mentioned by first name as one of Farrar's children. I saw you put a link in the Farrar's Island article, too. I had removed it because there was no article, but I've put it back now that there is one. Wtfiv (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your detail-oriented work on this article and that of William Farrar Jr. I also appreciated your citation style so I could relatively quickly look up the Stanard articles, which were good for their day, but not quite up to modern standards. For what it's worth, I think this man was legally trained, because he was clearly educated (hence probably why Cecily Jordan preferred him to the Rev.) and seems involved in legal type work in the Council (the colony's highest court) as well as trading headrights, etc. A fair number of lawyers did emigrate in that era, and not just because of rising religious tensions in England and the tobacco boom which crashed around 1660.... Of course, slightly later on, the rebel Nathaniel Bacon also had legal training.... For what it's worth, only one more Farrar served in the Virginia General Assembly, he represented developing Prince Edward County after the Revolutionary War. But working on these articles has proved a distraction from my planned article about a modern-era emigrant and conservationist, which I had hoped to post for Public Lands Day last Saturday....Jweaver28 (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks JWeaver28. One of my guiding goals is to try to get convenience links to all sources so people like you can check on them and make sure they're right. The problem we are up against is that Genealogy Press has their works tightly locked up, so we struggle even to get links to snips or quotes. Fortunately, I have access to them. I don't have access to McCartney's latest, but I'm willing to bet much of the data is repackaging her 2007 book. More fascinating was her Jordan's Point book (2001), but it looks like the publisher made her chuck the bibliography so it has no references: a kind of dead end that requires us to trust McCartney. (Admittedly, she hews close to the sources I find.)

I agree the Stanard is old, but its clear the more recent sources rely on them. There's really been no new information, so by providing the links, we are getting the sources that McCartney and Dorman relied on.

I appreciate your conjectures, it's just we have to stay within what we can verify when writing these articles. I like to imagine that he was trained as a lawyer in London, probably in one of the minor inns. (William Ferrar is clearly the person who was called to the bar after a stint in the Middle Temple) The conjecture I am interested in, but can't pursue in Wikipedia is the conflation of William Farrar with William Ferrar, something you picked up on too (and perhaps I helped by alluding to in the article with the help of the Ransome article). There are good questions there. For example, 40 indentured servants were sent by John Ferrar to Virginia for Iron Works. Why would they go to someone with 100 acres on the Appomatox. Why did Farrar cash in precisely 40 indentured servants and get land in Henrico, in the same place where John and Nicholas had intended to invest in building an "Indian College".

I don't think Farrar was referred to as "the Reverend" in Cicely's relationship with Pooley, which is recorded. Rather, Pooley was "The reverend", as he was a minister. As to being on Farrar's role on the Council, most discussions of the first settlers, shows that almost none of them, including Councillors were legally trained. Footnote 15 on pg. 219 of Virginia 1619: Slavery Freedom in the Making of English America (Horn, Musselwhite, & Mancall, 2019) point out only three judges had degrees. They give one of them to Ferrar. They spell the name Ferrar, but appear to be attributing the degree to Farrar. What is likely is that William Farrar, son of John Farrar of Croxton, esquire probably had higher education than the rest as all of J. Farrar's kids got some inherited wealth. But, alas, there's no documentation.

As far as trading headrights go, that seems to have been one of the major forms of speculation at that time, and a legal degree isn't needed. Research beyond genealogy show that settlers were trading headright certificates as cash. Farrar's 40 headrights for his Farrar headright's patent is a hodgepodge of names that seem random. Speculative buying and selling seems a possible explanations.

If you could, let me know when you complete your planned article on the modern day immigrant, please let me know!. I'd like to read it. Wtfiv (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)