This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This redirect 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

I am the author of 'A Spurious Brood'; the book referenced in the Books section of this page.

'A Spurious Brood' is fiction, because there are many elements of the story where the historical record gives us little or no evidence, particularly relating to the motivation of the key characters.

I do not wish to present "A Spurious Brood' as fact, particularly since the events relate to larger themes of real historical significance. For that reason I have created a fully referenced factual history on my website. As these individuals were not referenced on Wikipedia, I have also created web pages here, with as much of the factual detail as I think appropriate. The aim is to ensure that the actual history is not confused with the fictional account I present in 'A Spurious Brood'. Phil Revell Shropshire Lad (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reinstated Shropshire Lad (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pages Katherine More, Jacob Blakeway, Samuel More I note that multiple edits have also been made to these pages. I am somewhat dismayed to find that the edits have introduced obvious mistakes, mis-spellings, and grammatical errors. for example: katherine More: line 2

"In 1616, at his father's direction" - whose father is this? The article has not yet mentioned Samuel More. Under marriage and scandal the article again mentions Samuel, but gives no clue as to who he is.

The article says: Both of Jasper More's sons died leaving no heir. The last one, Jasper, was killed in a duel in 1607. This is wrong on two levels. Jasper had three sons, and it was Richard More who was killed in a duel. There is no excuse for this kind of sloppy error.

The article also gives the 'Royal Ancestry' of Katherine More. Whilst I understand that a US citizen might wish to stress the royal antecedents of a founding father, I wish to point out in the strongest possible terms that English royal ancestry has strictly defined criteria and that neither Richard nor Katherine meet these criteria. In order to claim royal ancestry one's claim must be accepted by the College of Heralds in London. The descent must be by unbroken, legitimate, male line. The ancestry you 'claim' for Katherine applies to about 20% of the population of the UK. It is meaningless and has no place in an encyclopedia article.

I put a lot of work into these pages and I do not appreciate the way that they have been edited with so little care or regard for accuracy. Wikipedia editors have a responsibility to edit carefully. Edits should not be made as multiple live drafts, as these seem to have been. but as finished copy, following careful preparation. These are not my rules; they are set out in the guidelines for editing.

I therefore intend to revert these edits, preserving the valid sections from recent changes. Shropshire Lad (talk) 10:18, 7 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 been removed or 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) 14:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware of my identity as the author of both 'A Spurious Brood' and 'Mayflower Children'. For reasons best known to yourself you chose to delete the note I made on this talk page (21 September 2011) where I explained the rationale for creating the suite of wiki pages. I made no reference at any point to 'A Spurious Brood' as a historical reference, and I obviously cannot breach my own copyright. I do not believe I have transgressed against the Wikipedia policies on copyright, verifiability or NPOV. If you disagree please provide the reference. On the other hand you have ignored Wikipedia guidelines which recommend that editors signal major changes to existing articles on the talk pages before making changes. I do not wish to begin an edit war, and I respect your right to make changes to these pages. I do suggest that you create new pages for the royal ancestry, as I think such material falls within Wikipedia's advice on lists. Shropshire Lad (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 and your internet webpage, 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.

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) 18:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I was asked for an opinion. The critical issue is whether The Mayflower Children can be used as a reliable source. It is apparently a self-published book by Paul Revell,( and [User:A shropshire Lad comments above that he is that person.)

There is a very simple and short answer. No. By fundamental policy, WP:Verifiability and its interpretation in the guidelines for WP:Reliable Sources, self-published works are not normally reliable sources or anything at all, unless they have been shown to be reliable by known authorities. Additionally according to the WP:Conflict of Interest guidelines , one should not ordinarily introduce one's own work as a source; the proper practice is to propose it on the talk p. and get consensus. In this case, I cannot image that there would be, unless some strong reasons for using it could be shown. Copyright questions, by the way, are irrelevant unless there's excessive quotation beyond fair use, or direct copying or Close paraphrase; one may link to a copyrighted work--most of the refs Wikipedia uses are copyright.

That source, and all material based only on it, must be immediately removed. I advise the user who inserted it to do so themselves. Otherwise, I shall do it. (or Muggins may, but it might be better for me to do it as an outsider.) The place to dispute this would be the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard, but I don't see the point of doing so, as the answer will almost certainly be the answer I have given. (I have some additional comments about conflict of interest on the user's talk p.)

Additionally, if the material is then supported only by primary sources, this is very likely also to run afoul of Reliable Source policy, unless it is obviously relevant documentation of reliably sourced material. Such sources, even ordinarily reliable public records, require interpretation, and such interpretation is considered original research. We can only use interpretation if published elsewhere in reliable sources, and your books are not. Again, the Reliable sources noticeboard would be the place for further discussion. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I see another of the references used here "A Mayflower bastard" is described in the LC cataloging record as a biography for a children's audience. ^[1] Normally. I would like to see some book reviews about its reliability before using it here--but it is in the general collection of many good university libraries, and it is published by St.Martin's , a reliable mainstream nonfiction publisher. It's supposed to have bibliographic references on pp.243-50; has anyone seen them? If it does list the Revell books, what does it say about them? I'll try to get this book next week DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked on my talk p. to expand some of this. I copy here:

first, anyone who insists on placing in an article multiple references to their own works without tacit or express consensus, is editing disruptively, because doing this is unambiguously against our guidelines, and there is complete community support for dealing with it as disruption if necessary. (if an author places a reasonable reference, and if nobody objects, there is tacit consensus. That's not the case here). However, as an admin, I cannot control the actual content in an article; if I edit, I edit as any other editor. But I have the responsibility to prevent disruptive editing behavior.

Now, about the sources: Revell's books on the topic are self published. Unless one can show that he is an authority on the subject as proven by reliable sources, or unless the books get such reviews in reliable sources as to show them reliable , or get cited by reliable sources in such a manner as to show them reliable, or the like, they may not be used as references, by him or by anyone. There's really no room for equivocation here. They must be removed. Harris's work has been used here at Wikipedia a few times--it has been cited to the self-published pamphlets with an inexact mention of the original publications on which they are based; this needs to be changed to show exactly where they were originally published, including the page numbers. He has no other relevant published work, so I cannot see how he would qualify as an expert, but his work is usable if published by a RS with proper editorial control, through peer-review or otherwise. The Mayflower Descendant is held by most major libraries, and is thus a possibly reliable source--I would accept it as a convenient source for the reprinted original documents; the question is accepting it as a RS for the synthesis. But I think it would need discussion. It is not a peer-reviewed journal, though I believe that in 1990 the editor was Alicia Crane Williams. As she has published nothing except through the society, or privately, I can see no reason for considering her editing as the necessary editorial control for a RS. [1] Based on what I see in Google Scholar, the publication is very rarely cited by ordinary historical journals--of course that database is not near complete. I'm open to being convinced for using it.

Probably a good deal of the article can be sourced from other sources than Revell or Harris. I tend to be flexible about accepting primary sources for the plain facts of a matter, though not for interpretation. If there is no RS for the interpretations in the article, they must be removed; the technique here is to just present the facts, and trust the reader to make the obvious conclusions. DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I accept this judgement and I have made the first of the edits today. I have retained some primary sources (mainly baptismal and marriage records held by the UK archives) and slimmed down the article to what can be verified by third party sources. For that reason I have slimmed down the reference to royalty and changed the source. Sir Anthony Wagner is, in my view, the most reliable source for this section of the article. Shropshire Lad (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted inaccurate paragraph & reference. Jasper More died in 1613, three years before the children were taken away in 1616. My profilic friend would know this if he knew anything about the subject he is so carefully editing. Shropshire Lad (talk) 19:09, 9 February 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)[reply]

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 or 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: WP:IBID. 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) 12:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC) See below:[reply]

Constructs such as ibid., loc. cit. and idem are discouraged by Wikipedia's style guide for footnotes, as they are easily broken. Please improve this article by replacing them with named references (quick guide), or an abbreviated title. (June 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Updated burial information for the More children. They are inextricably linked to the story about Katherine More and what happened to her children. They are also notable in their own right as Mayflower passengers and in solving the mystery as to what happened to Katherine More's children. Please do not remove. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A number of the references on this page cite books and journals which are either out of print or inaccessible to the general reader; this makes it difficult to check the accuracy of the source.
For example: reference 46 cites "Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry: A Study in Colonial and Medieval Families Katherine More (2004) pgs 515-516". This book is out of print; it is cited as a source for Katherine More's ancestry, yet its listing on the genealogical.com website does not list Katherine More as one of seventeenth-century immigrants whose Plantagenet ancestry is the subject of the book. It does list Richard More but as an immigrant from Plymouth, which would seem to indicate that the writer was unaware of RM's Shropshire background.
Reference 23 cites as a source a book by David Lindsay (also cited elsewhere) for a quote from a statement made by Samuel More. Lindsay's book, 'Mayflower Bastard', has received reviews on Amazon that cast doubt on its validity as a source. One review accuses the author of "making assumptions and jumping to conclusions, some of which may have a basis in fact (we will probably never know) but others which I truly believe are erroneous. Excellent footnotes cite original sources, but the writing style makes it impossible to determine conclusively which of the author's suppositions are backed up by good evidence and which are not."
In my view Lindsay's book quotes much that is fanciful or pure invention and is not a reliable source.
The book's reliability can be judged from page 3, where the author states that Katherine's marriage contract was 'without tabling' enabling Samuel to live away from the hall. In fact the exact opposite was the case, as indicated in another of the sources cited on this page (Donald F. Harris PhD. The Mayflower Descendant (Jan 1994) vol. 44 no. 1 p. 13) and, incidentally, by the actual marriage contract, which can be seen in Shropshire's archive.
Lindsay also quotes from a court deposition made by Samuel in or around 1622. Samuel is quoted as having written:
"Katharine went to the tenants dwelling where her children had been sequestered, and in a hail of murderous oaths, did teare the cloathes from their backes."
This quote is inaccurate; it has been 'hyped up' from the original to make it sound more impressive.
Given the above I think that Lindsay should be seen as an unreliable source for this page and I would like to see material which is entirely reliant on his research removed.
For other sources I think the preference should be for material which is easily accessible to the reader, preferably in an online format. Where such sources exist they should be used in preference to some of the less accessible sources on this page. I declare an interest in the above, as I am the author of exactly such a source, but there are others. Donald Harris's research is in my view sufficient for most of the material on the page. Shropshire Lad (talk) 09:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Richard Lindsey in this article.

I have changed the name to the correct 'David Lindsay'. The points I have raised remain valid, and I await a response. Incidentally, one is supposed to sign one's edits on Wikipedia. Shropshire Lad (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the relevance to this article of Katherine More's descent from Edward III, still less her descent from William the Conqueror. (Why not Genghis Khan, while one is about it?) An interesting recent academic article suggests that 99% of the present English population is descended from Edward III; whether accurate or not, this gives some indication of the insignificance of such a descent, even at an earlier period. Should the table not be deleted? 45ossington (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance of her descent from William the Conqueror is that unlike someone who had a statistical possibility of being a descendant she actually has a pedigree. It is noteworthy too because the second most popular subject of Internet searches is genealogy. So genealogy is interesting to a large number of Internet users, many of whom are our readers. That you or I might not be interested in genealogy is not the point. The fact remains we write these articles for the readers. Mugginsx (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. As it happens, I have a keen amateur interest in genealogy, but agree with you that that is beside the point. Nor am I sure that I follow your argument from the frequency of genealogy-based internet searches. (I imagine that the most popular subject of Internet searches is pornography!) Two possibilities occur to me:

either (1) Katherine More has specific genealogical notability because she has been publicly identified as a "gateway" ancestor by a large number of Americans who have researched their genealogy. On that basis, I can see that her descent from William the Conqueror could be of potential significance, but I think it would help to explain in the article briefly why;

or (2) Katherine More's descent from William the Conqueror is no more significant than any other individual's identified descent from William the Conqueror. On that basis, I can't see why it should be included: (a) Other individuals with identifiable descents from English royalty do not all have their descents set out in their articles; (b) the table here does not set out Katherine More's pedigree, but only a single line of ancestry; (c) why should her descent from William the Conqueror be shown, rather than from Genghis Khan or any other of a host of famous ancestors?

What do you think? 45ossington (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given your keen interest in genealogy I think we both know she isn't a gateway ancestor. I also don't believe I know of any requirement that only a gateway ancestor is entitled to a pedigree. I suspect the line from the English kings is in all probability her most notable. At the time she lived record keeping for commoners in England did not go back that far making this list stand out from her contemporaries. You could use an Ahnentafel tree I suppose, but do we have all her other branches? Are these branches in any way as notable as this one is? Then the list the contributing editor used seems to be the better option. As to whether Edward III or the Conqueror (Ignoring Genghis Kahn for obvious reasons), they each have their merits. It's conventional to show the line back to the first English monarch but it's also notable that half her ancestry is comprised of English Kings. Not every descendant of the Conqueror has such a pedigree so it's interesting on that basis as well. If you have a pedigree which you or a member of your family has researched, you're not entitled to that pedigree—it is yours simply because they are your known ancestors. The ancestors you know versus the ancestors you might be descended from but don't know. A pedigree, whether a single list or all the branches, is a list of ancestors you know and how you are related to them. Lastly, when we begin removing notable facts in a biography at some point she (or he) is no longer notable. We not only deprive readers of interesting and noteworthy facts about an individual, at some point we would have to remove her information completely. Everything I've read tells me Wikipedia is building an encyclopedia here, not removing valid information because there is a shortage of server space. Mugginsx (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps as a result of being English, rather than American (and much more interested in my own genealogy than anyone else's), I wasn't in fact aware that Katherine More is not a gateway ancestor. In any event, I wouldn't want to remove the table in the face of your objections, although I confess to remaining unconvinced by its value. With best wishes, 45ossington (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the deciding factor here should be that such 'royal' connections are not notable in an English context. They are shared by nearly all English families of the 'gentry'. This is not my opinion; this is the opinion of Donald F Harris PhD whose papers form the core of the research for this article. In a footnote to his paper to the Massachusetts Society of Mayflower Descendants, dated July 1993, Mr Harris said:
"...these very tenuous royal links, similar to those of most gentry families, gave the Mores no special status."
Mr Harris quotes as his source the article by Sir Anthony Wagner that the Wikipedia editor has cited as a source. It would therefore appear that the Wiki editor is aware of the 'tenuousness' of the claim, but has pursued the possibly spurious link to royalty anyway.
I think this section should be removed unless it can be shown that a reliable source cites the Mores as having some significant notability in respect of their royal antecedents. Or do we rely on an editor's opinion? Shropshire Lad (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinstated the Talk page history previously deleted by Mugginsx
I have done this for three reasons:
Firstly - because Mugginsx, in clear breach of Wikipedia convention - see Wikipedia:CBLANK, gave no reason for his/her deletion, nor any notice on the page that s/he intended to deleted the content;
Secondly - because Talk pages offer a vital insight into the background and development of an article.
Thirdly because it is an accepted convention on Wikipedia that such pages are not deleted except under the most exceptional circumstances.
Shropshire Lad (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page was not deleted. Please see this revision: https://teknopedia.ac.id/w/index.php?title=Talk:Katherine_More&oldid=573799564 It was archived here: https://teknopedia.ac.id/wiki/Talk:Katherine_More/Archive_1 where it remains though you have removed the indicator as to the page. Archiving is in accordance with Wikipedia policy. You have also restored it on the talk page, where I will leave it to avoid anymore controversy.Mugginsx (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]