Talk:Richard de Lucy

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

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Unreliable source[edit]

I see nothing that would indicate that Rosie Bevan or Peter G. M. Dale are historians, thus this "source" is unreliable and should not be used. --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you in fact read the article in question? Ms. Bevan is on the journal advisory panel of the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy and Mr. Dale has an undergraduate degree in History as well as being a lawyer. The article is scholarly and provides primary and secondary evidence sources for the contents therein. Srdl1179 (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even know what a reliable source is? Clearly not.

"Have you in fact read the article in question?"

I do not care what the article says. It was not written by historians nor was it published by a reliable publisher.

Peter G. M. Dale is not published in any academic journals as a historian and appears as a Venture Capital & Legal Consultant. I see nothing about Rosie Bevan that would indicate she is an historian. The FMG website is not considered a reliable source, nor should it be.

Oh, and the next time you log out to removed referenced information, I will report you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am relatively new to Wikipedia and unfamiliar with the protocols. However, you have directed me to certain of them, albeit in a rather uncordial manner. I disagree with your view as per the reliability of the source in question. I encourage readers who are interested in Richard de Lucy to review the article ‘A Rose By Any Other Name: Another Daughter of Richard de Lucy’, by Rosie Bevan and Peter G. M. Dale, Foundations (2014) 6: 13-46 for further information on Richard and his family.Srdl1179 (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I disagree with your view as per the reliability of the source in question."

And yet you have nothing to support the authors or the publisher. FMG is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia and their journal is not peer reviewed.

The article stands on its own merit and readers are encouraged to review it and the notes and sources set out therein.Srdl1179 (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"However, you have directed me to certain of them, albeit in a rather uncordial manner."

Like you are completely unaware of edit warring whilst logged out, is a violation.

Another example of your uncordial tone of engagement.Srdl1179 (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If your information is so well known then I am sure academic historians have written about it. Not two authors with zero academic standing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is staggeringly small-minded in that it presupposes that only "academic historians" will discover and/or write about new and interesting finds in historical research which is clearly not the case.Srdl1179 (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Typical of an editor that can not discuss the issues pertaining to the source(s) in question and instead, has to resort to childish personal attack(ie. example of your uncordial tone of engagement, staggeringly small-minded). I would suggest learning what Wikipedia considers a reliable source.

The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
The piece of work itself (the article, book)
The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)
Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I’m going to conclude this dialogue with you by otherwise ignoring your uncordial tone and again encourage readers who are interested in Richard de Lucy to review the article ‘A Rose By Any Other Name: Another Daughter of Richard de Lucy’, by Rosie Bevan and Peter G. M. Dale, Foundations (2014) 6: 13-46 for further information on Richard and his family.Srdl1179 (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]