|
|
Father of John Miller [6 February 2014]
According to the Ancestry.com record of the graduates of Cambridge University, our John Miller has a father named Martin, indeed from Ashford, Kent. How can we reconcile this with the name John?--Drabold 14:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Narrative of Drabold moved here from the Person page:
- "After reading several things on the web, I think it very likely that the father of this john Miller is in fact Martin Miller of Ashford, Kent. the records of Caius College, Cambridge are incredibly specific about this and also absolutely unambiguous that this is the John Miller in New England. Martin is a Weaver, and it is said that John was admitted to Caius as a Sizar -- a student of limited means. So far as I know, Cutter is the one that links this John to a father John and Bishop's Stortford. This seems spurious."
- No beef w/the analysis here - just request that the references referred to above be enumerated as sources on the person page, and attached to the appropriate facts. --jrm03063 18:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- The statement "absolutely unambiguous that this is the John Miller in New England" seems unjustified. I see nothing in the English records that shows that man went to New England, and except for presuming that a minister would be a college graduate, nothing in the New England records that suggest any thing about the origins of the man that showed up in New England. After all, John Miller is not a rare name. I believe there is a TAG article, Vol. 70, that talks about the family of John Miller and Mary Pilston but don't have access to it. But it seems like somebody that wants to show the parents are refuted, would take the trouble to look that up. Further, once the wrong parents are removed and correct parents put in place, I don't feel the refuted parents tag serves any purpose: what's the point advertising there was once a mistake on this page? Where it may serve a purpose is on the wrong parents page to keep from having the son re-entered, though personally, I think a note with explanation and source references is needed. The tag merely asserts a fact, while the reader targeted is one with the wrong notion, who therefore will need convincing. And once you put sources and explanation on the page, what purpose does the tag serve? Incidentally, I don't happen to like the tags anyway, because they highlight something that is not true about the person, distracting from what was true about a deserving life. --Jrich 00:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think we can wait and see what Drabold provides. If something isn't forthcoming in the next couple days - I'm inclined to revert. On the more general claim about how the assertion templates ought to be used - that discussion isn't reasonable on an individual case basis. --jrm03063 04:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Revert to what? You perhaps missed the point? In any event, much water is under the bridge since you last made a change. I know you added no sources in your recent edits (which was, by the way, a big part of the point), but I added at least 6 sources to the page, many of them primary. --Jrich 06:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- The point of my edits was a more standardized appearance of the existing content, for the benefit of someone who may be somewhat new to the site and the software. I took his claims at face value, as there is no harm in doing so on an interim basis. I sought neither to add nor remove information from the previous edition of the page, though I did solicit the backing sources for User:Drabold's claims and expect to see some of that shortly. Revert would not be the right term - revisit seems more like it. In the meantime, we can wait a bit. --jrm03063 16:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
|
|
