Talk:Thomas Fairfax (Gilling)

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.

European history Low‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe 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.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Yorkshire Start‑class Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Thomas Fairfax (Gilling) is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please expand

I can't find very many sources about this person, besides WARGS and John Marwood's History of Gilling. I would appreciate any help. --La comadreja _{formerly AFriedman} RESEARCH (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Thomas Fairfax (c1475 - 1520)

It is a relief to see the William & Catherine ancestry attributed to the right Fairfax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smlark (talk • contribs) 18:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since Gilling is not part of his name, perhaps Sir Thomas Fairfax (c1475 - 1520) would be the better title, as there are several Sir thomas Fairfaxes.--Wetman (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Wasn't sure how to distinguish him, in the title, from his father and from the other people with the same name. Feel free to make those page moves. --La comadreja _{formerly AFriedman} RESEARCH (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before you do anything, look up a few other names that are shared by multiple people - for example John Smith. There is very little consistency in how people are distinguished. Martinvl (talk) 12:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Does this Sir Thomas Fairfax have sufficient notability to be included in Wikipedia. An extract from the section on invalid criteria for notability read "For example, Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander are included in the articles on David Beckham and Britney Spears, respectively, and the links, Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander, are merely redirects to those articles."

If Sir Thomas is not notable, to which article should references to him be redirected?

In my view, that there are four candidate articles for redirection is sufficient cause for the article to stand alone, especially if there is additional information that is irrelevant to all four articles. Martinvl (talk) 13:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a notable topic simply because people will be interested in an article on the common ancestor of the two, no matter how terse his mention in the historical record. But of course to be gender correct the mother was presumably also a common ancestor and the article should be phrased in such a way that this is made clear. --PBS (talk) 12:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a geneaology website. If the mention must be made in the article then it should only be stated once. More than that sounds obsessive. Virgosky (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have already had this discussion so I have reverted your changes. Martinvl (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said, this matter has been discussed; moreover anything in the lede should be expanded in the body of the article. Martinvl (talk) 07:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources

I have added the template to {{unreliable source}} to two sources:

Ancestry of Kate Middleton, William Addams Reitweisner Genealogy Services.[unreliable source?]
"Sir Thomas Fairfax". thePeerage.com. 5 November 2010. http://www.thepeerage.com/p15419.htm#i154183. cites Michael Rhodes, "re: updates," e-mail message to www.thepeerage.com, 8 July 2004. Hereinafter cited as "re: updates."; Richard Glanville-Brown, online <e-mail address>, Richard Glanville-Brown (RR 2, Milton, Ontario, Canada), downloaded 17 August 2005.[unreliable source?]

Because AFAICT the first source is not in itself reliable and it does not cite its sources. The second Darryl Lundy of thePeerage.com can usually be made reliable by citing the sources it uses, but in this case they are email messages which are not reliable, therefor the whole citation is not reliable. -- PBS (talk) 12:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I talked with Darryl Lundy and he said "I have William Fairfax as a son of Nicholas Fairfax, son of Sir Thomas Fairfax and Anne Gascoigne. Which doesn’t quite match William Reitwiesner’s site, who is normally quite reliable. http://www.wargs.com/other/middleton.html So I’m wondering if I should simply delete the connection between William and Nicholas and let the line stop at William. Regards, Darryl". Again, none of this has been proven yet -- many sites are just going off the one site of Reitweisner and then what they have read in the papers. This has become a huge mess -- please refer to Talk:Kate Middleton under ancestry issues. The Glanville-Brown citation is no longer on the peerage site, under the source for what Darryl has it simply has an email from Michael Rhodes. The Marwood source says nothing more than what is posted on the page 'William was Nicholas' twin and settled at Bury St. Edmunds, being buried in Walsingham.' There is no mention of his wife or lineage which on the Reitweisner page says is another William Fairfax but again lists no wife. Also you notice that these pages only came up after the papers started printing this information on Kate, right after the engagement? As a note to those putting up personal webpages as sources, wiki's status on it:

"Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, one should take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." -- Lady Meg (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the flags that were introduiced a few hours ago. There has been a long discussion about parts of this article at Talk:Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton. Please read these before reinstating any flags and in particular the flags associated with WARGS. Martinvl (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that none of this has been proven with reasonable sources and that has even been said on that "Wedding" page. If you look at Kate's talk page you will see what we have been talking about and how there is no sources confirming these statements. This page was obviously written to put up Kate Middleton's supposed ancestry that was released in a paper right after the engagement, which has not been proven. The other Thomas Fairfax has the same sentence in the beginning about Prince William and Kate having this same ancestor. It's solely based on a few articles which do not refer to reliable sources. Even in that Reitweisner page there are self-published books trying to confirm this lineage and for the Fairfax lineage there is only one book, a family memoirs book called The Suffolk Bartholomeans : a memoir of the ministerial and domestic history of John Meadows, again I think you need to read the Wikipedia:Verifiability page about self published sources which state at the top and bottom of the page 'The following material on the immediate ancestry of Kate Middleton should not be considered either exhaustive or authoritative, but rather as a first draft.' -- Lady Meg (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC) Also if you go in to edit the actual references -- it says in the description A guess but most likely, right there in the middle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lady Meg (talk • contribs) 23:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly is the text to which you refer. I had a look at the document, but could not find it. I do know that there is one connection which Reiswitter mentions, but which is says must be treated with caution - the connection that would, if it could be proven, make then 12th cousins. If you look at the verifiablity note, we are justified in making the statement because we could quote all the daily newspapers. Martinvl (talk) 06:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Treated with caution" means that is speculation and uproven. Virgosky (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstatement of 18-May-2011

Thomas Fairfax' notability in the 21st century is his connection with both the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. That is why I reinstated the sentence. Martinvl (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am reverting it. Wikipedia is not a geneaology website or an outlet for fans of William and Kate. Thomas Fairfax is an ancestor of many notable royals. Are you planning to list of them, as well? Virgosky (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created this artcile in the frist place because many sources, both in Wikipedia and in the press erroneously cited Sir Thomas Fairfax, the Parliamentarian general of a century later as being the common ancestor of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. If the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are linked to this article, then a reverse link is also reasonable. If you disagree, please raise as RFC rather than re-edit.

Which other royals are descended from Sir Thomas Fairfax of Gilling? I only know of Diana, Princess of Wales, but unlike her son, William, Duke of Cambridge, her spouse was not also descended from him. Martinvl (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Harry for one. He is William's brother and therefore a descent of Thomas Fairfax. Sarah Ferguson and her two daughters, and I believe the Countess of Wessex and her children. Unless you are planning to list them too the information does not belong there. Why is it necessary to list William and Kate as descendents? Last time I checked, Wikipedia was not meant to be a geneaology website nor a fansite for the Duke and Duchess. Just because you have the sources does not mean the information belongs in the article. But, I can see you are a fan who wishes to use this site as your own personal shrine to the couple so arguing with you is useless. Virgosky (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add the other members of the RF in the article then you can list William and Kate, although, I would remind you again this not a geneaology site. Virgosky (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for Sir Thomas' notability is that he is a common ancestor to both William and Kate who are husband and wife. There is no other instance where he is an ancestor to both husband and wife. Furthermore I wouldn't get too stressed about the spelling of Gascoigne/Gascoyne - it was only in the nineteenth century that spellings became standardised in England - Shakespeare for example signed his name in half a dozen different ways. Martinvl (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revertion of 2 March 2013

There is sound evidence to demonstrate that the Duchess was descended from somebody called William Fairfax. There is sound evidence that Sir Thomas Fairfax had a son called William. There is circumstancial evidence to suggest that these two records refer to the same person. The changes to the text do not make this clear which is why I reverted. Martinvl (talk) 07:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency across pages

There is an inconsistency between this page and the page of the father: Thomas Fairfax (Walton). Father's page states that Thomas was one of 10 children (Including a Margaret) while this page states nine siblings and excludes Margaret. Any clarification would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheesmanjc (talk • contribs) 14:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]