This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Wales Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales 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.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Don't most experts now consider Newquay in Pembrokeshire the true inspiration for Llaregub?Serpren (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's debatable. It seems more to have been an amalgamation of the two. See Under Milk Wood#Laugharne and New Quay. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The relationship to Newquay is essentially topographical, Laugharne is clearly the subject here -

“This is Llaregyb* Hill, old as the hills, high, cool, and green, and from this small circle of stones, made not by druids but by Mrs Beynon’s Billy, you can see all the town below you sleeping in the first of the dawn. Less than five hundred souls inhabit the three quaint streets and the few narrow by-lanes and scattered farmsteads that constitutes this small, decaying watering place which may, indeed be called a ‘backwater of life’ without disrespect to its natives who possess, to this day, a salty individuality of their own.”

• The fictional settlement 'Llaregyb' as it occurs in earlier versions of Under Milkwood is possibly a more delicate and Welsh sounding derivative of the originally scurrilous Llareggub, which was first used in 1934 in the early stories ‘The Orchards’, ‘The Holy Six’ and ‘The Burning Baby’. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirjohnperrot (talk • contribs) 09:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I included the following as an explanatory reference to my edit about the relevance of DT's short stay in New Quay in the gestation of 'Under Milk Wood'.

"In his 1934 BBC radio script “Quite Early One Morning” he developed his idea, “The Town was Mad”, for a town as an asylum, isolated from influences of the outside world. This became the basis for “Under Milk Wood” for which Daniel Jones, in his preface of 1954 comments:"Thomas thought he had found the theme he wanted in the contrast between the mythical town and the surrounding world, the conflict between the eccentrics, strong in their individuality and freedom and the sane ones who sacrifice everything to some notion of conformity."

This comment, along with the short passage already quoted above, was quickly removed in the interests of brevity by Snowded - a fate shared by all my contributions to this article so far. Are there specific rules about the permitted length of citations or have I perhaps trespassed inadvertently on proprietorial privileges allowing this user to determine what is germane and appropriate and which I do not possess? It seems that if I reverse these changes I may again be charged with bellicose conduct. As a novice I would welcome a disinterested view of this potential editing conflict. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Charter of Laugharne is quite a large item. Can the amount of space it takes up be reduced in any way? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting as it is, there is no source, so should it be in the article at all? Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have commented it out for now. Even if there was a source (and it's shown to be not copyvio), the quotation seems to be too long as per WP:UNDUE. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Martin, Gareth - surely there have to be sanctions against the IP who is creating an often irrelevant history lesson out of so many Welsh articles, and so untidily, too? Many of the refs are unverifiable outside a main library. See User_talk:80.5.1.159#February_2019 and Special:Contributions/80.5.1.159. Frustrated. Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, the vandalism warning route seems to be appropriate. But some might judge some of these to be good faith additions? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many are clearly good faith edits, but many are not, and it's difficult to separate one from the other from the way they edit wholesale. I reported the user for this angry message User_talk:Tony_Holkham#Your_self-important_vandalism_has_got_to_stop,. and more, and the IP address has now been blocked. Perhaps they will register and decide to collaborate, Wikipedia-style; we'll have to see. Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the update. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Tony! Since yesterday morning before the rugby started, this is my first visit to my pc. Well done, I read that they have a one month block set about half an hour ago.[1] Now I am going to watch England versus France, sadly on ITV—a French win will suit me nicely. Cheers! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems to me that there is far too much minute detail in the history section, not all of it relevant or of interest to the reader. I will leave it for now to see whether anyone else thinks so, too. Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tend to agree. More soucing is also required. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also agree, a revision of this section would benefit the article and is overdue. Hope to make a start soon. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've just restored Sir John as a notable resident of Laugharne after Snowded removed him. Until Dylan Thomas he was arguably the most famous one although not popular! Also the reference to his alleged royal paternity should be qualified by citing his ODNB biographer Roger Turvey's detailed work showing the claim to be unfounded. Similar comments are included in the articles on Sir John himself and on Laugharne castle - both should also be amended in the interests of accuracy.

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Perrot-4

I have no appetite for a dispute on these issues and can understand why the amount of biographical info in my edit adding Sir John could be reduced.

Sirjohnperrot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirjohnperrot (talk • contribs) 08:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The place for this is on the talk page of the article itself. I will say that the web site you reference is not really a reliable source -----Snowded ^TALK 08:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As requested I've moved the topic here.

1) A Wiki editor questioning the reliability of a protected Wikitree profile is a bit rich tbh! That entry is essentially a collection of source references - in what respect do you find it problematic? Please don't get sniffy about others in the community of volunteer editors, it undermines the spirit of the Wikimedia project - at least do them the courtesy of explaining why you think they are in error.

2) On the question of his falsely alleged Tudor paternity I simply refer you to the present authority on his life. Dr. R.K Turvey's paper pubished in 1992 - hopefully long enough ago to have percolated through even the most hardened prejudices:

https://journals.library.wales/view/1386666/1424133/80#?cv=80&m=95&h=turvey+OR+OR+OR+bastard&c=0&s=0&manifest=https%3A%2F%2Fdamsssl.llgc.org.uk%2Fiiif%2F2.0%2F1386666%2Fmanifest.json&xywh=-1824%2C-49%2C5911%2C3618

Sirjohnperrot (talk) 10:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perrot put much time, energy and money into converting Laugharne Castle from a medieval fortification into a Tudor mansion. It's unclear how much time he personally spent in Laugharne, but it must certainly have been enough for him to qualify as a "notable resident" and to be listed in this article. However, the biographical details about him should be limited, as in the case of other residents, to no more than 30–50 words: any reader wanting to know more can follow the link to his dedicated article. The myth of his being a bastard of Henry VIII is trivia: it should be discussed, and refuted, in his dedicated article, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Laugharne and has no place in this article. GrindtXX (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Listing his name is fine, all the commentary etc is not approproate -----Snowded ^TALK 18:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the memorable if inaccurate claim that Sir John was the sole male issue of Henry VIII is a significant element of his enduring celebrity - 'trivia' is selling the legend a bit short! Certainly the numerous historical novels and TV programmes about him regard it as a USP as did both his friends and enemies in the court of Elizabeth. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 08:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe in the article about him, but it is not relevant here -----Snowded ^TALK 09:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see you have just deleted my inclusion of Sir John's sons, both notable residents in their own right, within in his entry. Do you suggest I give them each an individual record instead? If not perhaps you should undo your edit.Sirjohnperrot (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an article about Laugharne in which Perrot deserves a mention but that is it. His sons may have inherited the estates and that might, just might make them notable residents, if there is evidence they were resident but it doesn't justify your adding commentary. -----Snowded ^TALK 17:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you disputing that Sir John's sons Sir James and Sir Thomas had notable careers in their own right or that they were resident in Laugharne? If so, please be good enough to supply the grounds. If not, both should be included on the list, either referenced within Sir John's entry - which seems logically, chronologically and stylistically appropriate - or independently. In order to achieve either outcome a 'commentary' of some kind needs to be added which should necessarily link them to their father. Any suggestions for improvement to my text would be welcomed. So, once again, may I ask what is your reason for deleting them, especially given my earlier comment? Sirjohnperrot (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Briefly: this is an article about a town, not about people who had some connection with it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So you think the list of its notable residents is unnecessary? Sirjohnperrot (talk) 05:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't see a case for their being notable and there is no case to add all the commentary you think is necessary. You've been given a reason and the matter is closed unless other editors support you or you provide new evidence. I also indented your comment for you - please follow guidelines -----Snowded ^TALK 05:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Their articles in here self evidently qualify them as notable enough for inclusion alongside those already present. Are you proposing some other criteria are used to exclude them? Sirjohnperrot (talk) 05:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neither article mentions Laugharne. Again I have indented your comment for you - please add a colon after each insert so that the thread is clear. -----Snowded ^TALK 05:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sirjohnperrot: Here's how it works. An article whose name is that of a town should primarily describe that town. An article whose name is that of a notable person should primarily describe that person. The article about the notable person may mention towns with which they have some connection, but only if sources are provided which establish that connection; similarly, the article about the town may mention notable people who have some connection with the town. In each case, a wikilink to the other article is necessary; and where I use the word "notable", this is in the Wikipedia sense of notability.

So in the article about the person (in this case John Perrot), you may describe their great deeds and meritorious descendants with sources; but those descriptions do not belong in the article about the town (in this case Laugharne), which should merely list the individual people with a link to each one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I understand that - you made the same point earlier and your case for the list of notable residents being restricted to simply names linking them to their profiles is a strong one. It is not currently the case as you know, each entry has a brief descriptive summary of the individual. Whether it remains in that form or not though my sole concern is to add two further notable residents to the existing list. Are you prepared to support that edit remaining undeleted?Sirjohnperrot (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added in a single line for Thomas as he appears to have been resident as heir but I can't find anything that supports James. I'm not sure Thomas is signficant but given the general criteria that having a wikipedia article makes you so I think its fine. This edit was reverted as excessive. There is an argument we should remove all the descriptions and just have a list as is normal. I made that change as well but as a separate edit in case someone feels strongly it should be discussed here first but it is the normal style just to list -----Snowded ^TALK 04:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Sir James Perrot was almost certainly born in Laugharne and definitely lived there for much of his life. He was an influential figure in Wales and England during the 17th century and features prominently in the WDNB, ODNB and in PHO. He also has a detailed profile on Wikitree. Your searching abilities seem to be rather limited as does your understanding of what is 'normal' in the use of the 'Notable People/Residents' section of the wikipedia town template. A short description of the individuals listed occurs in all the entries for surrounding towns I have looked up e.g. Swansea, Carmarthen, Llanelli, etc. The merits of a simple list in terms of brevity seem to me outweighed by the help given to readers by a short intro to assist them in identifying those whom they may be interested in finding more about. Your edits have therefore been been reverted allowing further consideration by other users who have an interest.Sirjohnperrot (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If we look at those references in respect of James (which is where we are uncertain):

1. Biography of Wales says "He was probably born at Haroldston but is sometimes referred to as of Westmead, Carmarthenshire"
2. Oxford says he was born in Munster
3. History of Parliament makes no reference to Birth but says he lived in Haroldston
4. Wikitree says "Westmead, in the parish of Laugharne, Carmarthenshire" not the town

So there is no evidence that he was born or lived in the town of Laugharne. I have therefore removed that addition until you provide evidence. It is possible I have missed something reading the material in which case please provide the quote. If that doesn't work for you then we can revert to the previous stable version. I have opened up the question of decription as a separate section below for other editors to comment -----Snowded ^TALK 09:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This discussion seems like some sort of tedious game, the bit you have unsurprisingly missed - yet again (see his previous post) - is the wholly straightforward account given by his biographer Dr R K Turvey. Roger is the principal authority on Sir James and was twice cited above confirming he was almost certainly born in Laugharne and definitely lived there for much of his life. Sir James Perrot's home at Westmead Mansion was in the Lordship of Laugharne at Llanmiloe where it stood until it was demolished in 1940 by the MOD. Its estate was bounded to the east by the Perrot family mansion at Brook, the seat of Sir John's cousin Thomas. His son, Robert, was placed at the Inns of Court by Sir James. Brook was adjacent to Roche Castle, the home of Sir John's legitimate son and heir Sir Thomas.Sirjohnperrot (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(I corrected your indenting). The source you have says Westmead (as do others) which is located in Pendinenot Laugharne. The Lordship or the Parish are not the same thing as the town which is the subject of this article -----Snowded ^TALK 13:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are mistaken yet again.Laugharne town does not exist Laugharne Township is the correct name for the settlement which is the subject of this article. Just put him back. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(please try and learn how to indent your posts)Pendine is six miles from Laugharneand is a separate settlement. Laugharne Township is a spearate article and is an electoral ward that includes Pendine AND Laugharne. Please try and be a little less agressive and respond to the facts and references -----Snowded ^TALK 14:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your corrections, I do my best but it's good that somebody knows about that sort of thing. Pity you're not as accomplished at reading sources as you are at reading wikicode. You may have seen Westmead Mansion actually stood in what is now Llanmiloe, equidistant from the villages of Pendine and Laugharne in the township of Laugharne but in the fantasy world of wikiland apparently it really doesn't matter. Reminds me of Carmarthen Record Office - spent their budget on improving IT and let the archives be destroyed by mould in the castle cellars. Frankly I feel like Horatius at the Bridge and wonder if Mr Wales realises the barbaric forces he has unleashed. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just had to correct you again - just add one more colon forget the asterick. Otherwise as you know Llanmiloe is adjacent to Pendine (http://www.dyfedarchaeology.org.uk/HLC/EstuaryArea/area139.htm this reference is one I used] and it is not in Laugharne. Various settlements make up the Township (for which there is a separate article. Wikipedia works from reliable sources and your overall attitude is not going to get you much sympathy -----Snowded ^TALK 19:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reference clearly identifies Llanmiloe as a separate place in the Lordship of Laugharne, which is the salient point. At the time Sir James occupied Westmead neither the Pendine shore settlement or anything other than his mansion existed in the locality, it was the sole occupier of the place. To suggest it is not within the purview of the wiki article is simply astonishing. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Lordship of Laugharne and the Township of Laugharne have several settlements including Laughane but they are not the same thing as Laugharne, which is the subject of this article. I quote from the opening "Laugharne is within the electoral ward and community of Laugharne Township" (my bold). I patiently went through your references and then added one myself on the location of Westmead House. In none of those references is there any mention of the Town. I started to draft a report after your last revert but then saw that you have now been warned. The best thing you could do is self-revert and await consensus here. If you don't, then later today I am going to shorten each description per the consensus below and will again remove James unless (i) you find a reference that links with the Town itself or (ii) other editors agree with you. If you then disagree with that then you should raise a RfC you should not change the article. Your constant accusations of vandalism don't help here and discourage anyone from cutting you some slack. -----Snowded ^TALK 05:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, we need to move on and the consensus here will determine what happens next - as refereed by wikipedia admin - apologies for testing the patience of other users. I believe the issue is straightforward, my candidate for being a notable resident has been arbitrarily excluded by interpreting the article's scope as solely confined to the small central area of the village limited to properties in and around a few undefined short streets between The Gryst and St Martins. The boundaries described at the beginning the History section, which contains the Notable Residents subsection, have simply been ignored for no good reason. Sir James Perrot was from Laugharne in that he lived much of his life at Westmead Mansion in the Lordship of Laugharne, in the Marcher Borough of Laugharne, in the Parish of Laugharne and in the Township of Laugharne. The location of the mansion was east of Llanmiloe, a settlement which didn't exist for another two centuries. With the exception of his father, legitimate brother and Madam Bevan (all born elsewhere) none of the others on the NR list lived in Laugharne as adults and one it seems never set foot in the place! Sirjohnperrot (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The criteria, per Wikipedia style guide is that a notable person has to be born in, or live in, the subject of the article. If anyone on the list fails those criteria they should be deleted. As I have said ad nausiam this article is about the town of Laugharne which is not confined to a "few undefined short streets" (that was a terribly misleading statement). If you do a tythe map search then you see the limits and there are other sites you can check. Llanmiloe is 3.5 miles away from Laugharne and separated by mostly agricultural land. Further Llanmiloe has its own article and you can add James to that - it lacks a notable person list. Please note that no one is refereeing this discussion, you have been told you will be blocked if you continue to edit war without first gaining a consensus. We have agreed to add Thomas and that has been done. Adding James is more dubious without better sourcing and you should self-revert pending agreemeent here; if nothing else a gesture of good faith and an indication that you are willing to abide by Wikipedia process. As I say, if you don't then I will restore the position later on today including shortening the other descriptions. If I have time I will check the credentials of the other people listed. -----Snowded ^TALK 10:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Completely wrong again, the 1836 tithe map you reference clearly shows Sir James Perrot's Westmead Mansion was inside the Parish, Lordship, Borough and Township of Laugharne, the boundaries described in the History section of the article. Suggesting Sir James be added as a notable resident of a settlement which didn't exist for centuries after he died testifies to your lack of seriousness and good faith in this exchange. Who is this 'we' of whom you speak? As far as I can see you are the only obstacle here to an accurate article. You deleted Sir John and Sir Thomas for no good reason and they were restored by a consensus view you opposed. Now you are trying to manipulate the community's history and the scope of the main Laugharne article without any evidence of support from other users. Empty threats and self-important posturing fool nobody, you are just trying to save face and damaging the integrity of Wikipedia as a consequence. Grow up. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh for Gods sake - Firstly I inserted Thomas into the system and never opposed John being there, like EVERYONE else here I rejected your excessive descriptions. You've been reverted by several editors not just me, and todate only you have reverted any edit I have made. I have tried very patiently to explain to you that the Twon is not the Parish, Lordship, Borough and Township and that there are other articles on wikipedia for the Township and for the one settlement we can associate with James. You are again resorting to personal attacks rather than engaging in the discussion. I start to seriously doubt you are here to improve Wikipedia -----Snowded ^TALK 12:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simply untrue, as anyone reading the edit history of this section can see from its first sentence. Patience is certainly not a feature of your contributions here. In any event your case for excluding Sir James is simply incoherent and no explanation can justify such arbitrary restrictions on content. Time to let others judge the outcome of this issue Sirjohnperrot (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Attempt to resolve post full protection

I've applied full protection to the article, as I do not believe edits as this discussion currently stands are productive. I've read through the above discussion and must echo what Redrose64 said: this boils down to needing a reliable source that says the person lived in or was from Laugharne. None of the sources provided above say "Sir James Perrot was from/lived in Laugharne" (similarly to what Snowded wrote above). I'd also like to acknowledge the progress on removing extended descriptions. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 17:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I spent 40 mionutes this evening reading through this reference provided by Sirjohnperrot to support his claim. Unless I have missed something it says that he was born and lived in Llanmiloe and it is not known if he lived elsewhere before going to Oxford. It then explictly states that after he inherited the estate he lived in Haroldston House which appears to be located in Haverfordwest. There is no mention of Laugharne. He does however appear to be far and away the most interesting of the three Perrot's under discussion and his article could do with some expansion -----Snowded ^TALK 20:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes indeed, for a staunch Protestant like him to marry a Catholic recusant was extraordinary. Dr Turvey has spent the last 40 years researching the Perrot family and continues to do so with great energy. He discovered that Sir James was the real author of his father's biography (formerly attributed to Rawlinson) which illuminates their close relationship. For you (and it seems Airplaneman) the crux of this dispute is deciding how close Sir James' residence at Westmead Mansion would need to have been to his father's castle for him to qualify for an entry on the same list. How much further down the A4066 must it have been built before it crossed your virtual 'town' line and counted as inside ? In the real world there is no municipal boundary marker just a tourist notice at the start of the picturesque bit. If that is your frontier a large number of the current population will be outside the pale. I quoted Dylan Thomas' 1954 description of Laugharne earlier in a different context but it sums up my objection to your view - “Less than five hundred souls inhabit the three quaint streets and the few narrow by-lanes and scattered farmsteads that constitutes this small, decaying watering place which may, indeed be called a ‘backwater of life’ without disrespect to its natives who possess, to this day, a salty individuality of their own.” It is still very small but you even want to kick out the "scattered farmsteads" like Westmead. Poor old Sir James, after such an illustrious career to be relocated by wiki as a notable resident of a settlement that didn't exist until after 1940. (Please note that article describes Laugharne correctly as a village not a town.) I strongly recommend users to support a more holistic and historical view of what wiki defines as Laugharne. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look, I'll try to explain again. The article Laugharne is about the town itself. The article Laugharne Township is about the greater area, that is, the part of Carmarthenshire governed at local level by Laugharne Corporation (having the status of a community) roughly corresponding to the pre-1974 parish. It includes not just the town itself but also the small villages that are close by - from Whitehill Down in the north to Plashett in the west (the western boundary crosses the A4066 between Plashett and Brook), including such settlements as Cross Inn, Brixton, Glancorran, Llandawke, Llansadwrnen, Honey Corse and Little Burrows. It includes part of Pendine Sands, but not Pendine village, which belongs to its own community - with Llanddowror community in between.

There is a case to be made that some of the material presently in Laugharne should really be in the Laugharne Township article, such as the section on Laugharne Corporation. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The current municipal geography is not regulative for the article. The settlements you name are all tiny hamlets and Llandawke and Llansadwrnen were former ecclesiastical parishes in their own right enclaved by Laugharne parish. Llanddowror is a civil parish containing Llansadwrnen. Using this reductionist approach just obscures the dynamic historical narrative and creates unnecessary conflicts. Laugharne Township should simply redirect back to Laugharne and its content incorporated in the main article.Sirjohnperrot (talk) 08:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Absolutely not, the relationship between Laugharne Corporation and Laugharne Township, including the village is integral. Please see above. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 08:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like we have some unsigned comments above :-) Sirjohnperrot if you want to propose that Laugharne Township redirect to Laugharne you are free to do so but for the moment it doesn't. Looking at the history of engagement on the talk page and reverts of your edit then all the editors active on this page do not agree with your redefinition of the scope of the article and Airplaneman who is a neutral party has also stated that this rests on a reference saying he was born or lived in the village or town of Laugharne. Personally I'd agreed with moving material to the Township article but that is for another day. You have not offered new evidence so I think that closes the matter. Sir James is listed under Llanmiloe (it formeded around the house) not here. If you succeed in an attempt (should you choose to make it) to redirect the Township article then we can look at the mattter again. Can you confirm agreement to that so we can move on? And again my thanks for bringing my attention to Sir James I plan to read more as I have an ongoing interest in those who crossed the Protestant/Catholic devide in the aftermath of the English Reformation. -----Snowded ^TALK 04:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mea culpa, forgive me Guardians of Wikicode ;) Apologies, I was finishing my pre-bedtime cocoa when those posts landed and I replied while half asleep. Laugharne Corporation is a precious survival - unique in Wales - the only example of a medieval borough. I think its Portreeve and 500 Burgesses would be shocked by your new proposals to further fragment their domain on here. The evisceration of the Charter section last year would also be frowned upon if they noticed it. The Tories of West Carmarthen are probably well represented amongst them in 'Little England Beyond Wales' and they would certainly see you both as nefarious agents of Plaid Cymru that have infiltrated Wikipedia ;-) Whilst not sharing such political affiliations I would agree about the damaging consequences of article proliferation. This whole dispute is actually the result of a trivial category mistake. For those unfamiliar with the term it refers to making a statement about something that belongs to one category but is intelligible only of something belonging to another category. Gilbert Ryle's famous example of Oxford University and its colleges parallels the current Wikipedia treatment of Laugharne and its constituent parts. "A foreigner visiting Oxford or Cambridge for the first time is shown a number of colleges, libraries, playing fields, museums, scientific departments, and administrative offices. He then asks ‘But where is the University? I have seen where the members of the Colleges live, where the Registrar works, where the scientists experiment, and the rest. But I have not yet seen the University in which reside and work the members of your University.’ It has then to be explained to him that the University is not another collateral institution, some ulterior counterpart to the colleges, laboratories, and offices which he has seen. The University is just the way in which all that he has already seen is organized. When they are seen and when their co-ordination is understood, the University has been seen." Airplaneman is sadly just another victim of the fallacy.Sirjohnperrot (talk) 08:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well I have a degree in philosophy so I am well aquainted with the idea of a category error, and I briefly studied under Ryle when he was a visiting lecturer at my college. I disagree with you on your suggestion here and I don't think this is a comparable situation to Ryle's example. I'm also a member of Plaid Cymru so doubly damed I suspect. Whatever you are in a minority of one on this - are you prepared to let go of the issue and accept that on this point your point of view will not prevail? That happens to us all on wikipedia. If you are then the article can be unlocked, Sir James deleted (but he is elsewhere) and we can all move forwards. Also we are not fragmenting things - the township article is linked and people can follow through. Wikipedia is a lot less fragmented than you imply -----Snowded ^TALK 08:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also met Ryle, sadly when in his dotage, nice chap but behaviourists have never been my cup of tea. His 'Category Mistake' is an excellent 'dead cat' though ;) I profoundly disagree with you, unnecessary fragmentation and doctrinaire reductionism is the root problem on here and regrettably (honestly) your exhortation to let go of this issue must go unheeded - I can only hope the cavalry ride over the hill to rescue me, Sir James and Wikipedia from itself before the trapdoor opens in a week.
(On the subject of your most recent closure fiat "in the absence of new evidence" that Sir James was a resident in Laugharne. I still await an answer to my question inviting you to specify at what exact point along the A4066 Westmead Mansion would have to have stood to come within your definition of your virtual town. Your continuing failure to respond to this challenge is in itself compelling evidence that he qualifies for inclusion in the Laugharne Notable Resident list.) Sirjohnperrot (talk) 08:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your question shows a misunderstanding of the way Wikipedia works. We don't do research we see what is referenced. The article is not about the township it is about the town/village. There is no reference to him living in the town/village there is for the parish/township but that is not the same thing. In general I don't agrees with the way you are characterising the problem.

Two things (trying to help here) you need to be aware of. Firstly there is no Fifth Cavalary and no one will ever ajudicate content, Wikipedia is a good example of a complex adaptive system it is managed by enabling constraints, namely behaviour. So if you edit war, or refuse to get acceptance you are likely to get a block or topic ban. Secondly we all have to learn to let some things go if we want to be a part of Wikipedia. I am profoundly disturbed by characterising Ayn Rand as a Philosopher, but my persistence on that got me a three month Arb Com imposed ban from editing the article; OK the pro-Ayn people got a year or more so I consider that an acceptable sacrifice. If you can't learn to let things go you are likely to be blocked from editing wikipedia. I suggest you rethink your position. -----Snowded ^TALK 09:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The more you reveal about yourself the more I like you. I applaud your sacrifice in deplatforming Ayn Rand, her 'Virtues of Selfishness' is probably bedtime reading for the Orange Imbecile across the water. The cavalry I hope for will come as other users forming a consensus to keep the good Sir James in his ancestral seat and with any luck also to enable the majority content of the current ill-framed and badly filleted Laugharne article to be incorporated into a much enlarged one for Laugharne (Township) which will become the primary reference with copious information on its historical riches and deserving a Wikipedia gold star ;)Sirjohnperrot (talk) 10:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Then you might be better agreeing to withdraw your case here (which would be a good declaration of intent) and instead open up a case for a merge of Laugharne into Laugharne Township. If that proposal for a merge suceeded then you case would be made, but as it currently stands you are not going to get there. -----Snowded ^TALK 10:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree entirely with Snowded here. Get over it! Sincerely, Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 10:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both of you promise to back the merge and the block can be lifted!Sirjohnperrot (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I back the idea of merging the two articles. Makes sense. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm open to the idea - there needs to a discussion of how we handle Llanmiloe in that context. But that is the real issue, nothing will change here unless the articles are merged or you find new evidence. And by the way a merger proposal is the right way to do things, asking other editors to guarantee support is little off :-) If you want help setting up the merge process then just ask -----Snowded ^TALK 11:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My take will be that since Llanmiloe House was built sometime after 1610 and the modern village of that name existed only from the 1940s those facts should determine the content of its linked article. Hence Sir James residence in Westmead Mansion standing alone to the east of the current village, some 40 years before anything else was built, would qualify him as a notable resident of Laugharne Township which will incorporate all the settlements within the current community of that name. Your help on the merge would of course be very much appreciated.Sirjohnperrot (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So are you prepared to abandon your attempts to change this article and instead create a merge proposal? -----Snowded ^TALK 14:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am, a compromise solution has been reached in traditional manner ;) (and in the spirit of collaboration now prevailing my sincere apologies to Redrose64 for inadvertently breaching numerous protocols by moving his post so I could align my reply next to it. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good then the next stage is for you to propose the merge and how to do that is described here. If you have a problem then ask and one of us will help you. Just to be clear, your comment on the talk page Airplaneman is incorrect. A merge has not been agreed, it has been agreed that proposing a merge is the proper way forward. Gareth Griffith-Jones has said he will support it, I have said that I am open to it. Other editors will get involved as merge proposals are flagged. I strongly suggest you spend a bit of time reading the welcome notice on your talk page which has multiple links to how wikipedia works and also to groups who specialise in helping new editors. -----Snowded ^TALK 18:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, that's most helpful and I will amend my message to Airplaneman accordingly.Sirjohnperrot (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should we remove the descriptions on each notable person, or leave the short descriptions?

• Remove extended description. Follow pattern on other Welsh towns (listed above) of a two/three word statement of occupation. But I don't have strong feeling on this but removal would stop this article being bloated with material that belongs better in linked articles. Wikipedia Policy seems to support the idea of only listing names. -----Snowded ^TALK 09:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Please don't use policy when you mean guideline. There is a difference. Cheers, Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Remove extended description. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Remove extended description: hopefully ensuring the brief links will still help readers identify which individual(s) they may want to find more about but also take account of info displayed in the hover panel.Sirjohnperrot (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ACTIONED - James Perrot added to Llanmiloe in a new section -----Snowded ^TALK 12:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC):Reply[reply]

• Please note that notable people entries still need a reliable source like any other part of the article. A Wikilink is not enough, because Wikipedia itself is not a RS. Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reopening the discussion

I an late to this discussion and I have not fully studied the entire discussion above. However, the articles on John Perrot and James Perrot do not currently mention Laugharne, so they should not be included in our list of notable people. The case for Thomas Perrot is less clear-cut because his article says that he inherited Laugharne Castle, but it does not say anything else about Laugharne. If Sir Thomas was simply an absentee landlord then we should probably not include him. If there are reliable sources that establish these men's connection to Laugharne then please edit their articles accordingly before listing them here. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The criteria for inclusion is that they were born in, or lived in the town so that is all that needs to be proved. It may be that the individual articles need to be updated -----Snowded ^TALK 06:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Following the lack of an opposing response I removed the three Perrots from the list of notable people. My edit was reverted by Sirjohnperrot.

I am neither disputing nor supporting the claim that the that the Perrots lived in Laugharne. My point is simply that their articles do not say that they did, nor does this article. Mentions of Laugharne in their articles do not appear to have been recently deleted.

If the sources referred to above are reliable then please expand the articles on John, James and Thomas Perrot to cover their connections with Laugharne, and/or cover them in the body of this article. Until this is done there is no basis for including their names in the list; please challenge this here if you disagree.

The same applies to James Perrot as a notable person in Llanmiloe; this is not mentioned in his article.

In the same revert Sirjohnperrot also reverted my other edits to the list of notable people, including adding dates and sorting in name order. It is unclear why these changes were reverted. Looking again it appears that the list had been ordered chronologically; on the whole I favour chronological order, but if the dates are not included then the order is unclear. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've restored the improvements from Verbcatcher but left in the three Perrots to give Sirjohnperrot a chance to amend their articles. We know all three lived or were born within the current compass of the article. If those articles are not changed in, say the next week, then I agree they should go. I hope that is seen as a compromise -----Snowded ^TALK 05:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm happy with this. Verbcatcher (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I noted above, notable people entries need a source just as any information does. Provide a source for every entry and inclusion is justified. Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the linked article mentions Laugharne that is generally considered enough isn't it? Do we really need all these 'born in' and 'lived in' statements? -----Snowded ^TALK 10:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't believe so. My understanding (can't find chapter and verse) is that WP is not a RS for the reason that the linked article may not provide a source, so you could add some unsourced info in one article and quote it as a source in another, which it clearly isn't. There is a guideline (or policy) somewhere that says this. Sorry this seems complicated. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See WP:UGC - not policy, but guideline. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think Snowded was asking whether we needed all the "born in" statements, not about the references recently added by Tony Holkham. I would keep the "born in" statements; I think the level of detail for each person is now about right. On the sources, I think the official rule is that everything should be sourced where it is stated; however in practice with lists most editors appear to accept a reliable source in the linked article. Verbcatcher (talk) 11:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am thinking of raising the 'there is an authoritive source in the link' for this and also for the influenced by lists on BLP article on the RS notice board as we getting a lot of bloat and policy is not clear -----Snowded ^TALK 11:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It isn't entirely clear. See WP:V for policy, and WP:UGC for guideline. You could argue that it needs more clarity. For me, though, the simplest solution is to source everything. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Read both and agree it needs more clarity. It also impacts of lists of 'influenced' in BLP articles. I am thinking for forumlating something for the RS notice board to get community consensus -----Snowded ^TALK 12:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's WP:LISTPEOPLE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At only start class in terms of quality this article clearly needs improvement. To kick things off I've drafted a few possible revisions which are parked below for storage & comment:

Laugharne /ˈlɑːrn/ (Welsh: Talacharn) is a small town on the south coast of Carmarthenshire, Wales, lying on the estuary of the River Tâf.

The Ancient Borough of Laugharne Township (Welsh: Treflan Lacharn) with its Corporation and Charter is a unique survival in Wales. In a predominantly English-speaking area, just south of the Landsker Line, the community is bordered by those of Llanddowror, St Clears, Llangynog and Llansteffan. It had a population at the 2011 census of 1,222. ^[1] Laugharne Township electoral ward also includes the communities of Eglwyscummin, Pendine and Llanddowror.^[2]

Dylan Thomas lived in Laugharne from 1949 until his death in 1953, famously describing it as a "timeless, mild, beguiling island of a town" ^[3]. It is generally accepted as the inspiration for the fictional town of Llareggub in Under Milk Wood. Thomas himself confirmed on two occasions ^[4] that his play was based on Laugharne although topographically it is also similar to New Quay where he briefly lived.^[5]

Much of what has been removed can be included as part of a newly templated History Section with collapsible sub sections in concise summary form tracing developments over time leading up to the abolition of both the civil parish (1889-1974) and the separate ecclesiastical parish (c1286-2018). Sirjohnperrot (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Collapsible sections would violate MOS:COLLAPSE. I've not looked properly at the rest: it seems that you have copypasted part of the article here, for no apparent reason. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps when you do look properly you might spot the changes and the reason why they are being suggested. Maybe you just don't think the article can be improved - in which case this TalkPage is redundant given article improvement is its sole purpose. Collapsible was the wrong word btw - apologies - I meant a redirect at the start of an article section to a more detailed mainpage (if necessary) as with the B Class Milford Haven History Section redirect to History of Milford Haven Do you think that could be a useful device at all?

Another question, I believe you have expertise in the area my question on the Dylan Thomas Talk Page was about. It's not yet been picked up on there - can you help? Sirjohnperrot (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A photo of the subject appears when the cursor is hovering over this inserted link Sir John Powell but not when over the Dylan Thomas link. How can the target article format be edited to achieve this? I've had a couple of trial attempts at modification but only generated fierce warnings on the previews! Sirjohnperrot (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After many trials I seem to have accomplished this edit but the two images at the beginning of the Dylan Thomas article now are very similar - also if I transfer the one from its info box that contains a citation in the caption - which seems to be regarded as a bad thing - but another more cheerful photo could be substituted? Sirjohnperrot (talk) 08:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is interesting. Unfortunately it doesn't mention Laugharne, but it does have a comprehensive list of other sources. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The ODNB entry for Sir John by Roger Turvey is a subscription service but this part describes his residence in Laugharne, whose Gosport Harbour served as the point of departure for several of his maritime expeditions. (I've cited Andrew Green's recent article in the NP list.) His son Sir Thomas is thought to have lived inRoche Castle and certainly had substantial holdings in Laugharne before he inherited his father's estates according to the IPM following Sir John's Attainder in 1592. I'll have to identify a suitable NR citation for Sir Thomas. Turvey describes his famous voyage with his father in 1579 in the biography.

Andrew Thrush is the author of the Sir James' entry in the ONDB and also that in History of Parliament Online which acknowledges Turvey's view that he was born in Laugharne not Munster as per the citation I've added. There is however no doubt that he lived there until his marriage in 1602.Sirjohnperrot (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added the complex citation for James Perrot because the Turvey source does not say he was from Laugharne. If a reliable source explicitly says that he lived in Laugharne then we could cite that in the normal way.Verbcatcher (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC) Please do not play ventriloquist – I added this entry later in this talk page, by all means refer to it but do not copy it with my signature. Verbcatcher (talk) 09:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forgery can now be added to my list of crimes ;)Sirjohnperrot (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And it is a crime, see WP:SIGFORGE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is figurative escalation a crime too? ;) Sirjohnperrot (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sir Sackville Crowe like Sir James Perrot lived at Westmead Mansion, which is here described as 'near Laugharne' if that helps. In fact Sir Sackville's entry in the History of Parliament Online also describes him of Laugharne, which really should settle the matter by inference as far as Sir James is concerned. I would regard his Wikitree entry as reliable source which could be substituted for the Turvey citation thus eliminating the need for the additional note.Sirjohnperrot Sirjohnperrot (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiTree is a user-contributed website and as such it is not a reliable source for Wikipedia, see WP:USERGENERATED. Even if WikiTree is more reliable than Wikipedia, it is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia. Verbcatcher (talk) 09:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, thanks, that link provides clear explanation of the issues with Wikitree, I understand them better now. Do you take the point about Sir John Powell & Sir Sackville Crowe?Sirjohnperrot (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The History of Parliament source is fine. We should be cautious about assuming that the fact that someone has a place name in their title or owns property there means that they lived there. The Dukes of Norfolk and of Devonshire appear to have little connection with the counties in their titles.

The Dyfed Archaeological Trust source[2] is all we need to establish that Westfield House and Llanmiloe House were in the ancient parish of Laugharne and were owned / built by John Perrot and Sackville Crow.

Also, please give fuller citations, see Wikipedia:Citing sources. The HoP source says 'Published in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1604-1629, ed. Andrew Thrush and John P. Ferris, 2010 / Available from Cambridge University Press' and 'Authors: Alan Davidson / Andrew Thrush', and these should be in the citaton (but see WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT). Incomplete citations risk being lost due to link rot. Verbcatcher (talk) 11:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This form of citation generates an error when checked.Sirjohnperrot (talk) 06:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not seeing an error. Please clarify what error you are seeing in what circumstances. Verbcatcher (talk) 11:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neither am I now but it was like the current one but in a red box with the extended HoP citation inside it

Citation error report Sieges of Laugharne Castle by S Lloyd (2013)Report for CADW & RCAMW Multiple references contain the same content Sirjohnperrot (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The HoPO is a reliable source and while there is absolutely no doubt that Sir James Perrot and later Sir Sackville Crowe both owned and lived in Westmead Mansion it certainly predated them, surviving in a ruinous state until about 1940. Neither individual lived in or has any known connection with Llanmiloe House which was built in 1720. The present settlement takes its name from the building, now a care home, which was compulsorily purchased by the army during the war. According to the village's wikipage when 'the Squire, Morgan-Jones, was given alternative accommodation in an old mansion seventeen miles inland, he was so unhappy about his dispossession that he committed suicide.' Very happy to give fuller citations where required, link rot sounds very serious and I wouldn't wish to be held responsible but not sure what the difference is between the print and online versions of your example. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had misread the source about Llanmiloe House. Full citations are always desirable. Inadequate citations do not cause link rot but full citations make it much easier to recover from, by finding where a page has moved to. In this case, citing a printed book gives a fall-back source if the content is removed from the web. I would cite the History of Parliament source like this:

• Davidson, Alan; Thrush, Andrew (2010). "CROWE, Sackville (1595-1671), of Laugharne, Carm.; formerly of Brasted Place, Kent and Mays, Selmeston, Suss.". In Thrush, Andrew; Ferris, John P. (eds.). The House of Commons, 1604-1629. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1107002258.
  Accessed via "CROWE, Sackville (1595-1671), of Laugharne, Carm.; formerly of Brasted Place, Kent and Mays, Selmeston, Suss". The History of Parliament. Retrieved 24 June 2020.

Wikipedia is a valuable resource for students and scholars, but diligent scholars should place limited credence on what our article says but instead use its references point them to reliable sources. Templates such as ((cite book)) and ((cite web)) help to standardise the referencing format and are potentially valuable for automated tools. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see you have reverted my edit removing the need for a separate note for Sir James Perrot in the NR list. This is puzzling as it seemed to be implied by your earlier comment "The Dyfed Archaeological Trust source[3] is all we need to establish that Westfield House and Llanmiloe House were in the ancient parish of Laugharne and were owned / built by John Perrot and Sackville Crow." The deleted citation simply confirms Westmead Mansion was in Laugharne which is already clearly established as his home in his wiki article and its references including HoPO. We need to understand why you think his citation is not adequate and requires further annotation. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sirjohnperrot: I explained the reasons for my edit in its edit summary:

• partial revert, Dyfed Archaeological Trust page does not mention James. Don't need tithe maps source as it is a primary source and the Dyfed Archaeological Trust is preferable

The Dyfed Archaeological Trust source[4] mentions John Perrot, not James, so it is cannot an adequate source for James Perrot having lived in Laugharne. Verbcatcher (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The simple point you consistently fail to recognise is that his wiki page and the DAT citation together are sufficient to establish residence without the further annotation repeating the connection. The existing second reference simply clarifies Westmead Mansion was in Laugharne, it does not need to mention Sir James and consequently does not, I repeat, require an additional note. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The James Perrot article does not mention Laughare. Even if it had, this article uses a convention of local sourcing, not reliance on other pages. The James Perrot article says "Perrot is thought to have been born at Westmead Mansion", with a source. Sourcing should be clear and explicit; it is unreasonable to expect readers to make a connection between a mention of Westmead Mansion in another article and a source here that says where the mansion was. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The simple point which you consistently fail to recognise is that Wikipedia is not a reliable source - see WP:SPS and WP:CIRCULAR. Also, you need to take note of WP:SYNTHESIS. These are policies - disregard them at your peril. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Verbcatcher: What is a reasonable expectation of the reader is indeed the key issue here but shortening the quote in a vain attempt to support your case is disappointing and disingenuous. The complete quotation from the article reads "Perrot is thought to have been born at Westmead Mansion" and continues "where he lived until moving to Haroldston after his marriage to Mary Ashfield in 1602." That he lived there is incontrovertible as attested by every published biography including those cited on his own page. It is therefore entirely reasonable to make the connection that Westmead Mansion was in Laugharne from the NP list reference without further iteration in a note which adds nothing. The interesting question is why Dr Thrush chose to headline his HoP articles on Sir Sackville Crowe as "as of Laugharne" and Sir James Perrot as "as of Westmead, Carms" when they owned and lived in exactly the same property within a few years of each other. I'll ask him and let you know his answer - if it's forthcoming. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Redrose64:If you are you suggesting that I have somewhere transgressed policies that are contained in the yards of text that lie behind those parenthetical masterpieces of compression - it would be helpful to know where? A Wikipedia article is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for NP listing but the presence of one on an individual should reliably ensure the notability criteria are met and it would be highly unusual if the co-ordinates of an historical subject as they paddle along the river of spacetime did not feature in it. Where a further clarificatory reference to residence is thought necessary, as with Sir James Perrot, then it can be added to their NP entry page or preferably on their own page (where the identical reference to that on the current NR list is already cited btw) - please see my proposed correspondence with the author of his HoP biography above. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sirjohnperrot: your accusation that I was disingenuous is unwarranted and may be a breach of the the civility policy.

I ended my quotation from James Perrot at the point where Turvey is cited. There appears to be no source for the phrase where he lived until moving to Haroldston after his marriage to Mary Ashfield in 1602. This is not mentioned in the HoP source cited at the end of the paragraph. This claim is explicitly contradicted by Turvey:

• To where he moved from Westmead before entering Oxford is not known but it could hardly have been Haroldston, [...]

Until now I have not denied that James Perrot lived in Westmead, but I am now not so sure. Your claim "That he lived there is incontrovertible as attested by every published biography including those cited on his own page" does not stand up to scrutiny: His ODNB biography[5] in hardly definite:

• Perrot, Sir James (1571/2–1637), politician, was probably born in Munster [...] His father owned the Haroldston estate, near Haverfordwest in Pembrokeshire, but James may have spent his boyhood at Westmead in Carmarthenshire, one of Sir John's lesser Welsh properties.

The Dictionary of Welsh Biography article on the Perrot family[6] says:

• He was probably born at Haroldston but is sometimes referred to as of Westmead, Carmarthenshire, which was in his father's possession and which may have descended to him.

Turvey[7] is also not definitive:

• Unsurprisingly, his place of birth is far from certain but is thought to be the now-lost but once fine mansion house of Westmead near Pendine in Carmarthenshire. Tradition early links him with this Perrot-owned manor, certainly from boyhood, but the fact that he was referred to, as a teenager, as being 'late' of that place by his own father in the spring of 1584, is proof of a close association. [...] To where he moved from Westmead before entering Oxford is not known but it could hardly have been Haroldston, [...]

Rather than being 'incontrovertible', these sources indicate significant doubt. Based on this I think we should change the description to 'may have lived in Laugharne as a boy'. Or should we remove him from the list? Verbcatcher (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Verbcatcher: It can hardly be a breach of civility policy since it is true that you clearly manipulated the quotation in order to support an inaccurate contention. How else would you describe such practices? You have now compounded and repeated this failure to respect the original meaning of a source by selective abbreviations of Turvey's article in order to make the absurd claim that Sir James' residence in Laughane is doubtful. If you had continued the sentence it shows Dr Turvey is addressing the failure of earlier biographies to take full account of his connection with Westmead. (See also Dr Thrush, who points out in HoP that Perrot didn't acquire Haroldston until 1599 when he was 30 years old.) It is disappointing but not really surprising you have referenced those outdated biographies but even they contradict your completely unsupported and frankly, rather petty attempt to cast doubt on Sir James' residence in Laugharne simply because I hurt your feelings by telling the truth. The relevant passages are quoted in full below for other editors to judge their import.

• "Sir James Perrot was born of an illicit affair between his father and an otherwise, and hitherto, unknown Sybil Jones of Radnorshire. That theirs was no short liaison but a longstanding affair of the heart is suggested by the deputy-herald for Wales, Lewys Dwnn (d.c. 1616), who states that Perrot's mistress bore him two children, a son James and a daughter Mary.1 At the time of Dwnn's writing, in 1596, James' sister was already married to a gentleman by the name of David Morgan who hailed from Abergavenny. That he remained close to his sister and her family is suggested by the bequests in his will in which he left the princely sum of £ 60 to be divided equally between his nephew and two nieces.2 When, how and where Perrot's parents met and how long their affair lasted are not known, nor are they likely to be, but that his mother was of gentle, if probably minor, stock may be supposed from Dwnn's acknowledgement of her in the pedigree he compiled on behalf of the family. What became of her we can but wonder but at no time is mention or provision made for her either by her lover or later by her son. [...]
• "Unsurprisingly, his place of birth is far from certain but is thought to be the now-lost but once fine mansion house of Westmead near Pendine in Carmarthenshire.5 Tradition early links him with this Perrot-owned manor, certainly from boyhood, but the fact that he was referred to, as a teenager, as being 'late' of that place by his own father in the spring of 1584, is proof of a close association.6 Besides its possible use as a convenient and congenial extra-marital home for Perrot's errant father and mistress mother, Westmead would have served as a fitting place in which to raise a freely acknowledged illegitimate son. Unfortunately, the details of Perrot's early life and upbringing are lost to us but it might reasonably be presumed that he and his sister Mary were brought up together by their mother. To where he moved from Westmead before entering Oxford is not known but it could hardly have been Haroldston, as has been suggested by some, given the sensitivity of the relationship and the fact that Sir John Perrot's eldest son and heir, Sir Thomas, lived there. Indeed, there is no evidence to suggest a relationship between the half-brothers let alone an acknowledgement of James by Thomas of whom no mention is made in the latter's last will and testament of February 1594."

It should be noted that Westmead is indeed near the modern shore settlement of Pendine, which didn't exist for hundreds of years after Westmead was built in the heart of the Lordship and parish of Laugharne, remaining so until 1935.

As for your claim "There appears to be no source for the phrase where he lived until moving to Haroldston after his marriage to Mary Ashfield in 1602. This is not mentioned in the HoP source cited at the end of the paragraph. This claim is explicitly contradicted by Turvey"

• "It was to Haroldston that Perrot brought his bride Mary Ashfield. As with so much about Sir James Perrot's life we do not know when they married, almost certainly by the summer of 1602" What contradiction?

see Admiration or Revulsion: Interpreting the Life, Career and Character of Sir James Perrot (1571-1637) Journal of the Pembrokeshire Historical Society Vol. 11, 2002

Sirjohnperrot (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sirjohnperrot: the ODNB article is more recent than the Turvey article.

What is the relevance of the your first extract ("Sir James Perrot was born of an illicit affair...")?

Your second extract supports my point, that Turvey is not certain where James was born or lived as a boy. My extract from that paragraph was not "manipulated", but included its relevant points.

The contradiction is between this sentence in our James Perrot article:

• Perrot is thought to have been born at Westmead Mansion where he lived until moving to Haroldston after his marriage to Mary Ashfield in 1602.

And this sentence in Turvey:

• To where he moved from Westmead before entering Oxford is not known but it could hardly have been Haroldston, as has been suggested by some, given the sensitivity of the relationship and the fact that Sir John Perrot's eldest son and heir, Sir Thomas, lived there.

The contradiction is that we say that James lived at Westmead until 1602, but Turvey indicates that moved to an unidentified place before entering Oxford (which we say was in 1596).

I am not saying that your statements about the Perrots are false, but that the cited sources cited in our articles do not appear to support them. I have not made absurd claims about James's residence; it is clear from the sources that it is uncertain. ODNB says "James may have spent his boyhood at Westmead", DWB says "sometimes referred to as of Westmead", and Turvey says "Tradition early links him with this Perrot-owned manor" and "proof of a close association". You are confident that James lived in Westmead as a boy; this may well be true and be based on good research, but to include it in Wikipedia you need to cite reliable sources that support it. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, there is this one as linked earlier in this section. I don't have access in lockdown at home to Dr Thrush's 1985 ODNB biography of Sir James but it predates Dr Turvey's biography by some 7 years and Roger's comments questioning the statements about his birth in Munster etc relate to it. I have engaged the HoP blog about the Sackville Crowe comparison and will let you know the outcome as promised. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have access to the online ODNB through a public library membership. The top matter of page includes "Published in print: 23 September 2004 / Published online: 23 September 2004 / This version: 03 January 2008". You may be referring to an earlier printed edition.

Your link is to the History of Parliament page, where the only relevant content is the title of the article: "PERROT, James (c.1571-1637), of Westmede, Carm. and Haroldston, Pemb." It is unclear what the basis of the title is. It may be how Perrot was entered in a House of Commons register, in which case it is a primary source on which we should not rely. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HoP History is a reliable secondary source which states unequivocally Sir James was of Westmead, Carm. it is not necessary to speculate any further.

Dr Turvey's 2003 biography certainly makes reference in Note 4 to Dr Thrush's HoP article which in turn cites Dr Turvey. I don't have access to the content of his ODNB entry and it may indeed post-date the other articles but unless there is any conflict with them on this matter it is irrelevant. The crucial point is that Sir James did not obtain the lease of Haroldston until settling a protracted legal battle with Dorothy, his half-brother's widow, in 1597. Before then his primary residence for over 20 years was with his mother and sister at Westmead Mansion, for which he inherited title after Sir John's 1584 estate settlement made before his departure for Ireland. When he actually moved is unknown but it was some time before 1602. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The archaic spelling "of Westmede, Carm." in the title of HoP source supports my contention that this may his entry in an old register. The authors would surely have mentioned his birthplace and childhood home if they knew what they were. Your definitive statements are not supported by our sources, all of which indicate significant uncertainty. The ODNB is a very reliable source. Its entry starts:

• Perrot, Sir James (1571/2–1637), politician, was probably born in Munster, the third (but sole illegitimate) son of Sir John Perrot (1528–1592), lord deputy of Ireland, and his mistress, Sybil Jones of Radnorshire. His father owned the Haroldston estate, near Haverfordwest in Pembrokeshire, but James may have spent his boyhood at Westmead in Carmarthenshire, one of Sir John's lesser Welsh properties.

Based on this, I propose:

• Sir James Perrot (1571-1636) writer and Member of Parliament, probably lived at Westmead in the Parish of Laugharne as a boy.

This is consistent with the Turvey and HoP sources. On reflection, I think the 'complex' citation is unnecessary if we cite the ODNB (to say Westmead) and the DAT (to say it was in the parish). We could keep Turvey as a supporting source.

Other editors: Sirjohnperrot and I have been in discussing this for some time, please help us to resolve this issue. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Verbcatcher:I only make the case for the removal of the additional note and if this can be accomplished by the combination you suggest within a single reference - as with the rest of the NP list - there is no problem. I would advise caution about regarding the ODNB entry on Sir James as 'very reliable' though, for example the passage you quote states he was his father's only illegitimate son but this is flatly contradicted by the entry un the same publication for Sir John Perrot - (please see final line.) Sirjohnperrot (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Verbcatcher: Inserted new citation for single, simplified and authoritative source which should now satisfy the criteria. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sirjohnperrot: there are several issues with the citation you added today.

1. The archive.org page that you link to was created today by the archive.org member "Perrott Family of Wales". Are you responsible for this upload? If so it would raise the suspicion that you might have created the page for the purpose of citing it here, and to make the source appear more authoritative. I am not questioning the accuracy of the quote.
2. There is a reasonable suspicion that the image on the archive.org page may be a copyright violation. It is from a 1997 book and is dated 'before 1940'; this does not indicate that it is public domain. Wikipedia is not allowed to link to probable copyright violations, see WP:ELNEVER.
3. It is unclear whether the title of the archive.org page 'WESTMEAD, Laugharne' is from Jones' book or if this was added by the uploader.
4. Your description of Francis Jones as the 'principal authority on the subject' is an unsourced opinion and is inappropriate in a citation.

There would be no problem with citing Jones' book in the normal way, a link is not required and you can give the quote in the citation.

The phrase in the source 'late of Westmead in the County of Carmarthen' appears to be a direct quotation from a 1584 deed. There is no indication that Jones expresses a view on whether this is an accurate description of James Perrot. A quotation from a deed would be a primary source and not a suitable source for Wikipedia. This source is essentially the same as the the HoP source; it appears to be quoting from an old document without expressing a view on its veracity.

On my user talk page you have identified a newer biography on the History of Parliament website (Andrew Thrush, 2010).[8] This article echoes the ODNB, and says:

• Probably born in Munster, James may have spent much of his boyhood at Westmead, near Pendine in Carmarthenshire, rather than at the family seat of Haroldston, in Pembrokeshire.

I repeat that none of our sources should be interpreted as being more positive than that James probably lived in Westmead as a boy ('may have' might be better). I will change the article to cite the Thrush's 2010 article and the Dyfed Archaeological Trust. I will make this change without further discussion because of the WP:ELNEVER issue. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why have you adopted this disgraceful pejorative tone? Use of the word 'suspicions' is highly inappropriate and your imputation of deception impertinent. You know full well I uploaded the screen shot of the Jones entry with the added relevant quotation and I did so to assist readers and simplify the list by removing your pointless annotations. The link contains the complete reference to the printed source and the illustration is just a bonus for those that may have an interest. It is completely irrelevant to the purpose of the citation and violates no copyright I am aware of. We are then treated to yet another tedious recital of your completely unjustified assertion that there is some doubt about Sir James Perrot's residence at Westmead. There is none and this is a deplorable example of disruptive editing. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• For the avoidance of doubt about the probity of the deleted reference here is a screengrab of the pages in question from which the quote was taken and showing the title of the entry - with the image deleted.Sirjohnperrot (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The latest addition by Verbcatcher to the latter's NR description is inconsistent with othe entries and clearly disruptive since their is no justification for departing from the previous consensus. I will now revert it as such

• *Below is the answer to my question above to History of Parliament about Sir Sackville Crowe's an Sir James Perrot's periods of residence at Westmead together with my reply - in chronological order

From: website@histparl.ac.uk [9] Sent: 27 June 2020 09:49 To: Website Subject: Form submission from: Contact Us Form Submitted on Saturday, 27 June, 2020 - 09:48 Submitted by anonymous user: [86.131.202.123] Name: XXXX Email: XXXXX Page URL: http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org+http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1558-1603/member/perrot-james-1571-1637

Message: May I ask why the article headline on Sir Sackville Crowe describes him as "of Laugharne" whilst that of Sir James Perrot is as "of Westmead, Carms" - when they owned and lived in exactly the same property within a few years of each other?

The results of this submission may be viewed at: https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/node/68537/submission/3947 ______________________________________________________________________

From: Connie Jeffery Sent: 30 June 2020 12:15 To: XXXXX Cc: Website Subject: RE: Form submission from: Contact Us Form

Dear Mr XXXXr,

Thank you very much for contacting the History of Parliament Trust with your enquiry regarding Sir Sackville Crowe and Sir James Perrot.

I have been in discussion with my colleague Dr Andrew Thrush, who you may notice was responsible for producing some of the History’s biographies of Crowe and Perrot. Unfortunately, as I sure you can understand, recent lockdown procedure has forced the History of Parliament’s main office in London to close until further notice, thus denying my colleagues access to their research notes- including those belonging to Dr Thrush. However we have attempted to get to the bottom of your query.

Firstly, it is important to note that the History has actually produced two biographies of James Perrot, for the two separate volumes that his career spanned. The biography that you have linked to was produced for our 1558-1603 volumes, published in 1981. However, a larger, more in-depth biography was then written by Dr Thrush as part of our 2010 published 1604-1629 volumes. Because of the changing nature of history research and the ever-increasing amount of sources available, we acknowledge that the former volume may now be seen as somewhat out of date, and therefore always encourage researchers to favour the most recent biography available to them.

For this reason, we recommend paying more attention to this version of Perrot’s biography: http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/perrot-sir-james-1572-1637

From this you will note that the address headline attributed to Perrot is now Haroldston, Pembrokeshire. Westmead is mentioned once in the article, in connection with Perrot's boyhood and Dr Thrush came to the conclusion that he likely stayed there for much of his boyhood rather than at Haroldston.

So far as Crowe is concerned, he was described as being of Laugharne in 1662, having in 1617 obtained a reversion of the lease of the lordship and castle for 21 years after the death of Dorothy, countess of Northumberland.

Dr Thrush mentioned that he was unaware that Perrot and Crowe lived in the same property, within a few years of one another and would be very grateful if you were able to provide any further information or evidence for this. Whilst we are unable to make alterations to our biographies at this time, we are currently working on a new website feature that will allow us to insert additional information where beneficial.

I hope that this information proved useful to you. Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Kind regards, Connie Jeffery

Public Engagement Assistant History of Parliament

www.historyofparliamentonline.org www.facebook.com/HistoryOfParliament Twitter: @HistParl

18 Bloomsbury Square London WC1A 2NS _______________________________________________________________________________

From: XXXXX Sent: 30 June 2020 23:32 To: Connie Jeffery Subject: RE: Contact Us Form: Westmead Mansion - Sir Sackville Crowe & SirJames Perrot

Dear Connie,

Many thanks to both you and Dr Thrush for your speedy and very helpful reply to my question.

I read that Westmead was Sir Sackville Crowe’s residence in Laugharne in ‘Historic Carmarthenshire Homes & Their Families ‘ by Francis Jones (1997) p 196/7. He gives further details of his sources there and quotes an extract from this passage by Mary Curtis in ‘Antiquities of Laugharne & Pendine’ which is one of several references to the property in her delightful book. I’ve attached a screenshot of Major Jones’ entry – hope no copyright violations result!

I read in Dr Thrush’s article on Sir James Perrot that he entered the Middle Temple aged just 20 in 1591 after two years at Oxford and a brief period travelling abroad. This is the same year mentioned in connection with the change of occupier at Westmead in Jones. Unusually Lewys Dwnn included both the illegitimate Sir James’ mother Sybil Jones in his Perrot pedigree together with his daughter, Mary who was already married to David Morgan by 1588. In addition, this unverified source gives his mother’s death as also in 1591 and his sister Lettice had married Walter Vaughan of Golden Grove in 1587.

My opinion is that probably all these circumstances combined to prompt Sir James to move out at that time. He didn’t acquire the lease to Haroldston until 1597 so there is still a question mark concerning his whereabouts until then. The ODNB entry for Sir John Perrot does reference an older brother or half-brother John, born c1565 and he is supposedly recorded as a member of the Inner Temple in 1583*. Maybe he and Lettice helped Sir James settle in London since it seems very unlikely for him to have lived at Haroldston when Sir Thomas lived there with Sir John’s wife and the rest of his legitimate family.

I’m guessing then that the interval between the Perrots exit and the arrival of the Crowes at Westmead wasn’t very long, indeed Jones says ‘soon afterwards’. It looks to be post-1619 when Sir Sackville’s 1617 reversionary lease on the Lordship fell in on the death of Sir Thomas P’s widow Dorothy. On the evidence of Sir Sackville’s activity in the area it does seems the house was occupied pretty quickly after that, possibly even acquired some time before and substantially rebuilt in anticipation of their possession.

I hope at least some the above is helpful, I’m quite sure you are very well aware of most of it already.

Once again may I say how much I appreciate your interest,

Yours sincerely, XXXXXX

• The Temple register is filmed in this Irish TV programme about 33 minutes in Sirjohnperrot (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At the beginning of this section on 19th June I added this comment "Andrew Thrush is the author of the Sir James' entry in the ONDB and also that in History of Parliament Online which acknowledges Turvey's view that he was born in Laugharne not Munster as per the [then current] citation " to which Verbcatcher responded "I added the complex citation for James Perrot because the Turvey source does not say he was from Laugharne. If a reliable source explicitly says that he lived in Laugharne then we could cite that in the normal way."

This substitution as agreed has now been made. Following the correspondence above it seems that Sir James no longer occupied Westmead after 1591 following the death of his mother; his sister and daughter having married and left the family home in 1587 and 1588 respectively. His older brother (omitted by Dr Thrush) was also already living in London from 1587 as a member of the Inner Temple. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone, somewhere (I can't remember) wondered whether prose was better than a list. I think yes (see Pembrokeshire#Notable people for example), but only when all people in the list are sourced. Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

T'was me on another Talk page using a different example "...I remain puzzled why this Notable People section does not resemble that in the 'good article' status example Milford Haven recommended as a model. The narrative style there allows for category and family grouping without boundary disputes and provides a more readable and informative 'stand-alone' treatment of the subject than that of a simple list - which in the Laugharne case seems to need encirclement by ever more complex citations." Sirjohnperrot (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the reminder. I would say the Milford Haven example was a bit weighty, but that's just my opinion. Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I prefer the town comparison rather than with a county. Don't think a half-way house is the answer, either we should keep the current minimalist list - as many other places do - or go for the Milford Haven full monty, which would be my preference.Sirjohnperrot (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record, WP:UKTOWNS#Notable people "prefers" prose. Personally, however, I disagree: I think a fairly minimal list (as we have at present) is far more readily comprehensible, with each entry limited to the individual's name, summary description of what makes them notable, and summary indication of their connection with the place (born there, lived there, held office there, or whatever). Anyone wanting more detail can click through to the relevant article. If the individual was significantly "shaped" by their local residence, or if they played a significant role in shaping the settlement's development or reputation, that might be explained elsewhere in the article (as we currently do with Dylan Thomas). I'd have no objection to the list being reordered in alphabetical rather than chronological order, which would make family connections more obvious. GrindtXX (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:UKTOWNS is not part of the Manual of Style, but it is still worth noting. Milford Haven is a poor example. Its dense paragraphs have little flow and for the most part are lists that have been chained together into paragraphs. I suspect that few readers will plough through them. Pembrokeshire is better and Swansea and Cardiff are much more successful; the detailed lists are separate in List of people from Swansea and List of people from Cardiff.

Some articles such as Llanelli have categorised lists, but I think the Laugharne people are too varied for this.

The best format depends on the article. There are too many notable people from Cardiff or Swansea to list them all in the article, so continuous prose summarising them and highlighting a few is appropriate. For smaller places a bulletted list in the article is usually preferred.

When a person or a family is of particular importance to the place they should have one or more paragraphs; we should do this more clearly for Dylan Thomas and possibly for the Perrot family. These could be top-level sections or paragraphs or subsections within 'Notable people', as in Llandecwyn.

I am not worried whether the sources are cited locally or in the linked articles. A snag with local sourcing is that the source should confirm all the information we give, not just the connection with the place.

I added the complex citation for James Perrot because the Turvey source does not say he was from Laugharne. If a reliable source explicitly says that he lived in Laugharne then we could cite that in the normal way.

Verbcatcher (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see Perrot section above for my proposal about your last point. I agree with your other comments and particularly the view that as the list grows, the case for continuous prose (highlighting those of special importance) is strengthened.Sirjohnperrot (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• My Perrott Family Data-52.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sirjohnperrot:, you addition of Rowland Laugharne to the notable people does not appear to be justified your source.(Gildas Research) The relevant section of the source appears to be pages 13 to 14 where it says that Rowland Laugharne besieged the castle and 'knocked it about a bit', but does not say that he owned the castle or lived in Laugharne. If I have overlooked something then please identify it.

The Rowland Laugharne article does not mention that he was from the town, nor does the ODNB article on him. An article in an 1839 edition of the Gentleman's Magazine[10] refers to an anonymous writer who said that Owen Laugharne acquired the castle (in or shortly after the reign on Edward III), but that it reverted to the crown under Henry VIII. This is not a citable source, but it points away from the Laugharne family owning the castle in Rowland's time. Please help us to interpret your source or provide a clearer one. Verbcatcher (talk) 09:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:UKTOWNS#Notable people guidelines would seem to imply that 'significant' - in "lived in for significant period of time" - would indicate an unspecified temporal duration rather than a significant connection or event during their stay. I would nonetheless argue for the latter justification in the case of Roland Laugharne, who transformed the town’s principal attraction into a permanent but picturesque ruin.

My reference was to his “ancestors' castle” not his btw. As well as the Owen who you mention, they include his grandmother, the daughter of Sir John Perrot . Although the Lordship of Laugharne was only granted to him outright in 1575 Sir John was described in a property transaction as “late of Carew “ in 1570 (12 Eliz.) (Public Deeds 26334) which he held in fief from the Earl of Pembroke from before 1568. He is thought to have taken up residence in Laugharne Castle around this time so his daughter Lettice (Rowland’s granny) then aged 7 would have called it home.Sirjohnperrot (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sirjohnperrot: the evidence that Kingsley Amis was sufficiently connected with Laugharne to be listed under 'Notable people' is inadequate. Your cited source[11] says "Kingsley Amis wrote much of his Booker Prize winning novel 'The Old Devils' in Cliff House". This does not mean that it was his principal residence. Coflein is a more reliable source for the same claim.[12]

The following book has more details. It does not appear to say that Amis lived in Laugharne, but it probably would if its author could establish the fact.

• Davies, James A. (15 February 2014). Dylan Thomas's Swansea, Gower and Laugharne. University of Wales Press. p. 91. ISBN 978-1-78316-133-1.

Amis was a lecturer in UC Swansea from 1949 to 1961, but his article does not have any suggestion that he lived in Wales after this. The Old Devils was published in 1986.

We could include Amis in a new section on Literary connections, along with Dylan Thomas and the other writers we have identified. Davies's book (above) also mentions Vernon Watkins and Margaret Attwood in connection with Laugharne. Verbcatcher (talk) 10:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let me first say that this article by George Tremlett is a far superior source on Laugharne's literary heritage than Coflein! The connection inadequacy of which you speak highlights the difference between a list of Notable People - which we have - rather than a list of Notable Residents - which we don't. Not sure where you get your ‘principal residence’ criterion from but most of the subjects listed never set foot in the town during their adult lives whereas virtually all those who have had the most impact were all born elsewhere! A Literary Section could be a compromise reflecting an important aspect of the town's history and include those you mention plus many others - but it still wouldn't encompass Rowland Laugharne above.Sirjohnperrot (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some creative people - writers, musical composers, abstract artists - might take themselves away from their normal home for a period in order to concentrate on their work without distraction from the hurlyburly of domestic life. They may rent a property temporarily in which to live for this purpose, but that doesn't make it their residence. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed - creative people of many varieties - but in the case of Kingsley and The Old Devils the relationship was symbiotic with "Birdarthur a thinly disguised Laugharne" It was unquestionably his residence and inspiration while writing the novel and on many other occcasions too btw - a 'regular feature' in the context of the earlier debate here Sirjohnperrot (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the Rowland Laugharne and Kingsley Amis sections above, Sirjohnperrot questions the criteria for the 'Notable people' list. Snowded has asserted that 'The criteria for inclusion is that they were born in, or lived in the town'. This follows WP:UKTOWNS#Notable people, but we could use our editorial discretion and change the criteria, possibly renaming the section to 'Notable people connected to Laugharne'.

In my view this would be too elastic and could include people with a very tenuous connection. Also, the list is already rather long, and if it were much longer it would be overweight. Non-residents with a significant connection should be discussed in the body of the article. I have already proposed a literary section; we should also have a section on the castle where we can mention Rowland Laugharne and his actions.

A useful guide to whether something is noteworthy is whether it is mentioned in the articles on the subject. Laugharne is not mentioned in the articles of several of the people at issue, nor in The Old Devils. The authors of these articles may not have been aware of the connection with Laugharne, but this suggests that Laugharne was not prominent in their sources.

Is anyone in favour of changing the 'born in or lived in' criteria? Verbcatcher (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the guide line is about exclusion - if there were not born and did not live (which doesn't include short term occupancy) in the town then there are not listed. If there is a connection which is worthly of entry in the main article (Old Devils MIGHT be) then its in the article but not in the list -----Snowded ^TALK 12:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm all in favour of treating guidelines flexibly, but not unduly so. For me, the key point to bear in mind is that the focus of this article should be the town – the physical infrastructure and the community – and that any mention of individuals should be limited to those who helped make the town what it is today, and those whose own lives and careers were significantly shaped by living there. Transient visitors (unless, I suppose, they had a life-changing experience) should be excluded. So, in the two cases currently in dispute, Amis probably shouldn't be listed under "Notable people" (though he could go into a separate section on Literary connections); Rowland Laugharne could arguably be mentioned, but if so I think it should be clarified for the benefit of the reader that his surname relates to fairly remote ancestral links, and that he wasn't the local mesne lord (as the current reference to "his ancestors' castle" may seem to imply).

I'd certainly support the creation of a prose "Literary" section, which would help thin out the current list of people. I'd have no objection to a dedicated section on the Castle, but it should be kept to a bare minimum, as there's a separate Laugharne Castle article to which readers should be referred for detail. GrindtXX (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would Dylan Thomas get a berth in both?Sirjohnperrot (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it would be ok for Dylan and the other resident writer to be listed in 'Notable people' and discussed in a literary section. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Me too, I think separate 'Literary' and 'Laugharne Castle' sections would be an improvement for the reasons given by GrindtXX Sirjohnperrot (talk) 10:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The source for Reginald Peacock being born in Laugharne is inadequate due to its age (published 1801),[13] and because more modern sources indicate that his exact birthplace is unclear. Choosing one very old source where several more modern reliable sources are available looks like cherrypicking and appears to misrepresent the consensus of published reliable sources.

• The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica says "probably born in Wales".[14]
• The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911) says "born in North Wales about 1395"[15][16][17]
• The New Catholic Encyclopedia says "b. Wales, probably Saint David's diocese, between 1392 and 1395"[18](via Encyclopedia.com)
• The Oxford Companion to British History says "A Welshman"[19](via Encyclopedia.com)
• The Dictionary of Welsh Biography (1959) says "Possibly of Welsh origin: tradition says he came from Laugharne, Carmarthenshire, and although no definite evidence supports this, there were Pecocks in this town in the Middle Ages." It goes on to discuss the evidence.[20]
• Charles W. Brockwell, Jr. in The Harvard Theological Review (1981) says "born in Wales"[21]

All the reliable sources that I have found indicate that his exact birthplace it unclear. We should not prefer an 1801 book that goes against the modern consensus. However, I could not access several modern sources which might contradict my analysis. Unless a better source is found I propose to remove Reginald Peacock from the list. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wendy Scase in the ODNB (2004) says "born in Wales, probably about 1392". There is a book-length study, Bishop Reginald Pecock: A Study in Ecclesiastical History and Thought, by V. H. H. Green, first published 1945, but reprinted by CUP in 2014, so clearly still thought authoritative (although I gather it's more about his thought than his life). That needs checking, but otherwise I agree with your reasoning. GrindtXX (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scans of the relevant pages of Green's book are available on Google Books.[22] On page 8 it says:

• Reginald Peacock was born in Wales somewhere between 1390 and 1395, although both the exact date and place are unknown. All the evidence agrees on his Welsh parentage [...] One tradition asserts that he was born at Laugharne in Carmarthenshire, but there is no evidence to suggest whether this was so or not.

Verbcatcher (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Verbcatcher: First published in 1720 (not 1801 - which was the publication date of the enlarged version on Gbook) and it's still in print. That information was provided in his Wiki entry which your edit has removed from my citation. Willis was a highly respected antiquarian, the first to systematically record church records and none of the sources you list conflict with his attribution and consequently provide no basis for challenging its reliability. Maybe if the encyclopedias of 1911 together with Messrs Green in 1945 and Sanders (DWB) in 1959 had all enjoyed the benefits of the internet they may have not overlooked the earlier authorities. There is simply no reason why it should have been invented, his St Asaph Survey was one of more than 20 such detailed ecclesiastical works so may I ask you to revert your edit and restore the original citation (in your improved format) together with the Wiki reference to its author. (It wasn't helpful to remove the image link from the citation either btw.) I will add my own source - "The Book of Laugharne" Ch.15 Notabilities & Characters' by R.H.Tyler (1925) Gomer Press ISBN 0-86383-154-0 as an additional reference.

@GrindtXX: There are 4 independent references to Peacock being born in Laugharne - Browne Willis, Tyler, Green and Sanders and no source cited claims he wasn't. Sources can always be improved of course but the current ones are surely not inadequate. All we need is to find a copy of 'Fuller's Worthies of Wales' with Peacock mentioned on page 9 and we can add another the list!

Sirjohnperrot (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Browne Willis was indeed an eminent antiquary, but, as you rightly point out, was a pioneer writing three hundred years ago, without the benefit not merely of the internet but of a wealth of other modern published resources – and knowledge moves on. We do not have "4 independent references" to Pecock being born in Laugharne: we have Willis, plus 3 others who are channelling him. Green and Sanders (DWB) both refer to "tradition", and both express strong reservations about the reliability of the claim: "there is no evidence to suggest whether this was so or not"/"no definite evidence supports this" respectively. I can't speak for Tyler. Willis attributes his information to Thomas Fuller's History of the Worthies of England (1662). (He calls it "Worthies in Wales, p. 9", but clearly means the "Principality of Wales" section of the Worthies of England.) However, as Green points out (p. 8 n. 3) Fuller had made no such claim: he says merely that Pecock was "born in Wales" – see here. Fuller in turn attributes his information to John Bale's Scriptorum illustrium majoris Britanniae Catalogus, in the Basel edition of 1557–9 (p. 594) – but, again, Bale merely makes a passing allusion to "Cambria solo natali" ("Wales, his place of birth") – I've checked. This is how myths evolve. Sanders shows that there was a Pecock family associated with Laugharne in the middle ages (perhaps as landholders rather than residents – it's far from clear), but that's really not enough to claim Reginald categorically, or even with a qualification, as a native. The modern scholarly consensus, which we follow, is that Pecock was born in Wales, location unknown.

On a wider point (and this is also goes to some extent for James Perrot), in my opinion claims for a person's birthplace or residence should be stated in the first instance within the individual's own biographical article, and if necessary discussed on its Talk page, where the issue is more likely to attract the attention of editors with advanced knowledge of the subject. If the discussion is prolonged, a notification might also be posted on the geographical article's Talk page. Once the claim is accepted in the biographical article (including citation of sources, and with any necessary qualifications or disclaimers), then a consistent but condensed paraphrase can also be included in the "Notable people" section or elsewhere of the geographical article. But claims of this sort are primarily biographical, and the biographical article should surely take priority. GrindtXX (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The key issue here is that many sources available to the likes of Willis are irretrievably lost to us today. This is reflected as the weight placed upon the findings of such early authorities by contemporary scholarship has increased significantly over time. Much of what Browne saw centuries ago when he visited Tenby church - recording inscriptions on memorial effigies including those to the Peacocks of Laugharne - has since been inexorably washed away by the gentle Welsh rain. What grounds can there possibly be for discounting his evidence for artefacts which may no longer exist? What you describe as channelling is a process whereby independent authors indovidually appraise the sources and make a critical judgement as to what use in their own contribution. Referencing a tradition, even through failing to find further evidence for its origin, is not a negative action - it a desideratum for future research. The youngest member of the 'modern consensus' listed above is over 60 years old btw!

To repeat my earlier comment on another subject you raised, Willis cited a specific page reference in his copy of Fuller which Green was unable to identify in the one he was able to consult in 1948. That situation is a clear invitation to locate editions available to Willis in 1720 and must be inevitably be accompanied by the question of - why would it be invented?

Robert Henry Tyler should be regarded as the pre-eminent contemporary authority on this subject. For half a century the Oxford educated headmaster in Laugharne (where he also served as Alderman and Portreeve) was a pillar of incorrigible and invincible rectitude as the town historian. He taught several later generations of the Peacock family of Laugharne who could recite their lineage for 11 generations. Together they proudly preserved a wealth of stories about their illustrious ancestor Bishop Reginald which should not be ignored.

On your wider point I fully concur, except to point out that the subject's place of birth or residence may occasionally be an insignificant detail in the context of their notable life and deeds. It is nonetheless a necessary requirement for an NP list and may require there a level of attention as such which is deemed inappropriate on the dedicated page. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 10:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Sirjohnperrot (talk)

Believe me, I am fully conscious of the value of the investigative and recording activities of early antiquaries to modern scholarship. We also have to accept, however, that like all pioneers, the antiquaries were often floundering in the dark, and sometimes got it wrong – and when an antiquary fails to provide any indication of his source of information for an event three hundred years before his lifetime, we need to treat his testimony with great caution. In the present instance, Willis does cite a source (Fuller), and we know which edition he used (1662) because he provides the correct page number – but he garbles his statement, because the claim he makes simply isn't where he says it is. What we're left with (unless you can provide anything more substantial from Tyler) is an unsubstantiated rumour and the highly circumstantial evidence that there was indeed a Pecock family associated with Laugharne – but then, as Sanders points out, the heraldic evidence suggests that the Bishop was unconnected to that family. Sanders and Green may indeed be inviting future research – but an encyclopedia article is not the place to pursue such research. There may perhaps be just about enough circumstantial evidence and speculation from reputable scholars for something about Laugharne to be added to Pecock's own page, with appropriate qualifications clarifying the absence of hard evidence: but, given the considerable uncertainty, there is absolutely not, on what we presently have, sufficient evidence for him to be included as a native here. GrindtXX (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As requested, I have restored the author link and original publication date to the Browne Willis citation. GrindtXX appears to have more expertise in this area than I do. For me a key fact is that Green and Sanders (DWB) considered the evidence for Laugharne and found it to be insufficient; we would need extremely strong evidence to prefer an earlier source to these. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GrindtXX:I believe you but - as they used to say in theological circles - claims of absence of evidence are not evidence of absence :) I also believe an encyclopedia is not the place to contest the reliability of two eminent published authorities who had the inestimable advantage of 'on the spot' access to primary sources, on the basis of two others (who can hardly be described as contemporary) who didn't but provided no good reason to doubt them. I believe there is "absolutely" (if I may borrow your adverb) sufficient available evidence to justify Reginald Pecock qualifying as a native of Laugharne.

@Verbcatcher: Your restoration providing ocular proof of reliable published evidence is most welcome. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Been looking for more references for Pecock's Laugharne origins using the NLW Journal search engine. It produced over a thousand instances of Browne Willis being cited in support of articles but those mentioning Laugharne seem to be all in Welsh. I'm working my way through them but thought I'd share this translation of an 1868 letter from a Rev James Williams, a retired minister in the town recalling his Methodist predecessor there:

• "My heart rejoiced at seeing the picture of the beloved Mr. Howells. When I saw his face — I will not say a trophy, but a day, my memory would throw me back in a second to our old chapel at Langharne, and we will begin to recite some of his English texts, which he preached forty years ago. You must not forget that some of its great names came from the lower part of Carmarthenshire. Both Charles; Peter Williams; John Rees; Theophilus Jones, Wotten-under-edge; David Howells; and many others that could be named. And I have recently discovered a remarkable fact [Also?] was born in Langharne Reginald Peacock, Bishop of St Asaph, in the year 1444. He stood up many years before Luther and Calvin, against the doctrines of the Church of Rome; and translated parts of the Scriptures into English. The day I found out he was born in Langharne, I shouted out Hallelujah! with all my heart, and at once I rose up to go into the land to distribute the word of the Lord among the Britons. It also renewed my vows that I would fight Rome until my body was buried."

This one is more recent and I'm still looking for it - The Essayist, Issue details: Ref. CXXXV (574-577) 1980 - "Reginald Peacock, a native of the diocese of St Davids, and bishop of St Asaph, and in Chichester, in the early fifteenth century, was the subject of T. J. Hooson's paper at the next meeting." Sirjohnperrot (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quick summary of above. There seems no shortage of unverifiable assertions that Bishop Pecock was from Laugharne but my review of the NLW sources does at least confirm a modern consensus that he was a Welsh student at Exeter College, Oxford from the diocese of St Davids. The evidence that survives for Willis' association of Reginald Pecock in his 'Survey of St Asaph' with the family of the same name in Laugharne is the White pedigree in Lewys Dwnn (1591) together with Lord's 'Ichnography of Tenby Church' as already referenced - "The effigy of Thomas White represents a civilian, a townsman, in the dress of his class and period. His head rests on a peacock by family right of his mother, Elenor, daughter and heiress of Jenkin Peacock, of Laugharne." As a result of my recent search Prof Sir John Edward Lloyd's biographical entry in the 'History of Carmarthenshire' Vol 2 p 443 (1939) can be added to Willis, Edwards and Tyler as a published authority who specifies Laugharne as Pecock's birthplace. I think this extra citation is as far as the sources will carry us and can be considered sufficient evidence (acknowledging reservations by some scholars) for his NP status to be resolved. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Verbcatcher: With reference to your recent edit - "redlink as we should only include him if he merits an article" and based on WP:ACADEMIC - is there any reason why the above Laugharne Notable should not join the ranks of this considerable group? His absence from Wiki is not a reason to deprive him of notability is it? Sirjohnperrot (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, he merits an article, but he doesn't have one. Perhaps you'd like to start one. See WP:WTAF. GrindtXX (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I already know he merits an article but it should not be a condition of his uncoloured place on the list that I have to create one, especially if the current ensanguination signifies whatever the antonym for notable is. My modest contribution to the aims of Wikipedia in this instance will be to revert that edit while we await his inclusion in the encyclopedia by someone more appreciative of the finer points of modern civil engineering Sirjohnperrot (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sirjohnperrot: many editors will remove any 'Notable people' entries without an article, citing the Write the article first essay. This may be a response to frequent vandalism where unwanted names are added to lists of alumni or of people from a place. However, 'write the article first' is not an official guideline, and in my view an article is not essential if the cited sources show that the person qualifies for an article. It is unclear whether the obituary in Nature meets this threshold, but it is close and I am not arguing for removal. My red link was meant as a request for an article, see Wikipedia:Red link.

You do not need significant expertise to create a biographical stub (see WP:STUB). You only need to give his outline biography and sufficient material to establish his notability, with sources.Verbcatcher (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many editors would therefore be in error if they did so in this case for the reasons you give. I am unclear why you are unclear that the current citation falls short of establishing notability in terms of WP:ACADEMIC. I would be grateful if you could expand on your areas of concern whilst I digest the contents of WP:STUB. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 12:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sirjohnperrot: since you ask, these are my concerns about his notability. I am not arguing that he is not notable, but these issues are likely to come up in a notability discussion. WP:NACADEMIC has eight criteria, only one of which need be met:

1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

• The most relevant paragraph of the obit beings "In the field of research", but this dies not show a significant impact on his discipline.

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

• No such award is mentioned.

3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).

• He was a Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers (MICE), and a Member of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (MIMechE). He might qualify if he had been a fellow (FICE or FIMechE). FRS would certainly qualify

4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

• He is reported to have been a good lecturer, but the obit does not indicate that his teaching had a wider influence.

5. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.

• Neither of his professorial posts were named chairs. This seems to be a dubious and rough-and ready method of ranking the prestige of professorial chairs, but it would include Regius Professors who are probably very distinguished. However, I think named chairs are uncommon in the UK, and may have been even less common in his day. Also, 'Professor' appears to be a more senior rank in the UK than elsewhere. We may be able to argue that being the senior (or only) professor in a major department of a major UK university is sufficient.

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

• He was Administrative Head of the Engineering Departments at Leeds, but I think this clause is looking for Vice Chancellors.

7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

• Neither his earlier work as a schools inspector nor his work during World War I appear to qualify.

8. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

• This is not stated in the obit.

I have found two more obituaries,[23] but they do help us much.

I think that there is most hope with criteria 1 and 5. For criterion 1 the notes say:

• The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account.

Tools are available to generate citation metrics (discussed under the criteria), but they may be of limited use for this period. A specialist editor might be of help here. Another difficulty is the lack of reliable sources. His main research topic seems to have been combustion, and a Google search for 'W. T. David combustion' found some of his papers, but I have not found anything approaching a biography.

I think your removal of the redlink was wrong. A redlink does not question notability, rather it asserts probable notability and requests an article. WP:REDLINK says "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject." I hope that your removal of the redlink was not tactical, to make the absence of an article less obvious.

Verbcatcher (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most helpful, thank you for taking the time and trouble to look for more information. This piece "Professor David, who was awarded the Thomas Hawksley Gold Medal in 1937, was also a winner of the Dugald Clerk Prize and a recipient of the Starley Premium...." may fit #2. Progress with the stub is not encouraging - my sandbox currently resembles a sand dune.Sirjohnperrot (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suspect that these awards might not be judged sufficiently prestigious, partly because they don't have Wikipedia articles. I tracked them down easily, the first two were for the best paper published by the institution in the year. Definitely worth mentioning in his article, but probably insufficient.

For help with your stub I suggest looking at some the articles in Category:Stub-Class biography (science and academia) articles. I looked for European names with just initials, as these are likely to be older academics (modern Indian academics often use initials), and came up with R. J. Q. Adams, T.C. Johnson, T.R. Johns, G. V. Skrotskii and T. M. F. Smith. I hope this helps, Verbcatcher (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks again, I console myself with the thought that if this one made it even I stand a chance ;) Sirjohnperrot (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It should be noted that as per WP:CITSTRUCT, the agreement on the structure of settlement articles, a person can only be included in a Notable people list if it has an article. No article, no inclusion. Note this is only for settlements (towns, villages, cities etc) and does not prescribe them from being in a list of an educational institution. WP:NLIST would apply in that case. Canterbury Tail talk 14:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Canterbury Tail: my understanding is that guidelines within Wikiprojects have a lower authority that the Manual of Style. The relevant section of the MOS is at WP:SOURCELIST (which is linked from WP:NLIST), which has no requirement for a linked article. We should pay due attention to WP:CITSTRUCT, but you phrase 'can only be included' is too prescriptive; this is a matter for editorial judgement. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Submitted article for review Professor W.T.David Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft now linked on main page awaiting review. Should this discussion be moved to the Talk Page for the new article? Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You might want to revert that - linking to a draft article is unprecidented in my experience Placing a notice here for review (and also the BLP page) is better. The issue maybe notability but I am not an expert on that - the BLP page will attract the right attention -----Snowded ^TALK 08:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A happy outcome nonetheless, my confidence in the excellent advice received here (and taken) was not misplaced. 'Be bold' says Jimbo Cambrensis and I took him at his word ;) Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would have been better if you had made the change rather than waiting until this afternoon when another editor did it for you :-) It all worked out so no issue as the draft article was accepted -----Snowded ^TALK 16:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Modesty forbade, that task was more appropriately performed by the engineering cognoscenti - but it's always nice to create a precedent.Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is an inconsistency between the figure of 1,222 in the lead, but 817 in the infobox. Presumably these come from different boundary definitions, but the article needs to reconcile the difference. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The population at the 2011 census was 1,222.^[1]
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added image in 'Other Landmarks' currently in the news and hopefully will get a Wiki article soon. BLB Entry Sirjohnperrot (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Property now included within Landmarks section and linked with new article. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added image of Dylan Thomas Sculpture in 'Other Landmarks'. Bust by Simon Hedger, Welsh wood sculptor. Erected by Laugharne Youth Club in 2000 in The Gryst Millenium Garden facing the castle. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ Horatius At The Bridge,
See my editing: here. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What seems a straightforward matter to establish through his inheritance of the Perrot properties in the town following his attainted father's death is actually difficult to verify without the use of primary sources. Sir Thomas died shortly after he succeeded to the manor and castle of Laugharne (although not Carew) but it is not known whether or not he took up residence there at that time. In February 1593 he had successfully moved a writ of 'amoveas manus' citing a 1584 Deed of Settlement following Thomas' marriage to Dorothy Devereux and Sir John's appointment as Lord President of Munster. Thomas died in 1594 and a 21 year lease of certain properties in Laugharne was then granted to his widow Dorothy (from 1594 Lady Percy) and his daughter Penelope through Letters Patent in in the same year (Eliz 36) and then in 1596 (Eliz 39) 'the mansion house and castle of Tallagharn' was granted to her brother Robert, 2nd Earl of Essex (d.1601). Laugharne castle had been Thomas' home along with his stepmother (d 1592) and her 3 children from sometime before 1578 when the family moved there from Carew castle according to the public deeds referenced currently in his NR entry. There are various local traditions that also associate him with Roche Castle in Broadway and his building of a dovecote there but I can find no other secondary source so far which reliably confirms his residence in Laugharne other than records which show Thomas accompanied his father on two maritime expeditions from Gosport harbour next to the castle. In these circumstances and in accordance with WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD I believe the existing citation is sufficient although may be improved with further research. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image added and article currently under construction in my Sandbox Horatius At The Bridge All contributions very welcome.(talk) 21:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article accepted and linked. Image ND withdrawn and deletedHoratius At The Bridge (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added to NP - article to follow, all contributions welcome Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I find it difficult to see how this person is notable - an inspector of education who writes a few articles on education is all that is in the reference. Is there something else? In general the rule is that if someone has no article they are not notable so removing the entry for the moment -----Snowded ^TALK 15:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you sure that a person needs a Wiki article to be included in NP? Arguably it is a sufficient condition but is it a necessary one? W T David had an entry before I wrote his article. Caleb Rees also has an entry in DWB, unlike Prof David, which I understand on its own confers likelihood of notability in terms of WP:BIO. Having just re-read Wikipedia:Red link may I invite you to reconsider and revert your deletion?Horatius At The Bridge Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my experience yes but I am open to correction by other editors. The general criteria for notability is "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." although the inclusion in the biography of Wales might be enough - I would ask editors who specilise in that area. Whatever the general practice is no article no inclusion in a list and that has alrady been applied here in a previous case. It is a little different from say an article on education in Wales which cited his work where a red link would be possibly valuable. I'll admit I couldn't see how he justified an article in the Biography of Wales! -----Snowded ^TALK 05:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This looks like another case of #Professor W.T.David, but involving a different person. So, why are we discussing this all over again? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am discussing it because, unlike #Professor W.T.David, this entry has been deleted.

Snowded Frankly, that is disappointing response. Deleting an item without prior discussion on its existing Talk Page section is discourteous and to do so without specifiying the basis or any prior example, even after being asked to supply them, is worse. As has just been pointed out, W T David remained as an entry before his article was accepted and the same applies here. What you or I think about the subject's achievements as evidence of notability is irrelevant the consensus and WP policies will prevail. Do take account of his draft article and please revert your edit as requested to await the outcome of the community response on here to your reservations - if any. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 09:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You were bold, you were reverted now you discuss. If you think that is discourteous then your sojourn on wikipedia will be full of dissapointment! The basis is simple - the convention is no article then no reference in this list and you've had that explained to you by other editors on this page. In this case I can't see any semblence of notability for Caleb Rees but if you can get the community to accept an article about him then it will be accepted here -----Snowded ^TALK 09:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bold? I think not, the addition to the NR was in adherence to Wiki policies. You have still failed to identify any such that support your deletion and the lack of prior discussion is clearly contrary to recommended protocol. My simple, and now thrice repeated request, is for you

1. to identify which WP policy justifies your reversion,
2. to identify which previous example are you citing
3. to identify which other editor holds your view of that " no article then no reference in this list "

it would also be helpful to know what evidence there is for the 'convention' you are referencing Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 09:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disclosure. I have been asked to come here as an uninvolved editor to offer my thoughts. I have no horse in this race. I have previously accepted at AFC a couple of drafts by HATB, but that is the extent of our relationship, a cordial talk page relationship.

I see you are both involved in a WP:BRD, which is good. Generally articles improve through these discussions whatever the outcome of the point in question.

I think this discussion is about the removal of a (possible) notable person from the article. I have two points to ask you both to consider:

• The edit summary at removal was "(needs an article for them to be notable)" and I do not think this is correct. I think they simply need to be shown to be notable and connected to the article they are listed in
• I have a firm belief that, whether having an article here 'of their own' or not all items added to lists require a reference which unambiguously links them to that list

I have only looked at the discussion being held, not at the article itself, nor in detail at any edits, only the edit summary of the edit that removed the list member. I hope you both find these comments helpful Fiddle Faddle 10:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Timtrent You need to get your facts correct :-) its about not about a deletetion, but about not accepted the insertion of a notable person without a discussion on the talk page. Generally if asked to comment it makes sense to look at the edit history on a page to get the context. Everyone on wikipedia is free to have an opinion but the no article no inclusion principle is very common so that might need to go to another forum. That said, if you check, I explained why I thought Caleb did not qualify as notable and that needs a response not an appeal to a third party. You also need to be aware that I am currently (loosely) mentoring Horatius At The Bridge as a condition of him not being permanently banned from editing Wikipedia. One of the issues there was forum shopping so please don't get sucked in and encourage Horatius to use the talk page and RfC and other processes -----Snowded ^TALK 10:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Horatius At The Bridge I am under no obligation to review a talk page for links which you can find yourself by simply walking back through this. I've also said that I can see nothing notable in the bio of this person and quoted the need for multiple full time sources from polocy for you. Todate one other editor agrees with me. I suggest you find more evidence to support notability and look to create an article. You can also call a RfC if disucssion here does not progress as you want. -----Snowded ^TALK 10:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Snowded, Thank you for your information on the mentoring. I shall not express curiosity over the reasons, wrong time wrong place. I agree that the principle you mention should become formalised; until it is we will just differ quietly as colleagues. I did look at the edit history, just not the article. I apologise for not making that more clear. I came to offer a couple of thoughts. Having offered them I will back quietly away. Fiddle Faddle 10:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SnowdedI did so when you claimed they existed and there are none I can find, which probably explains why you can't name the alleged individual (now singular I note) either. Your mentoring role is appreciated but was not a condition of anything, it was voluntarily offered and voluntarily accepted. The final proposal was for an indefinite ban with a 7 day review not a permanent one btw. It came about, you may recall, as a result of my complaints to admin about your dishonesty. I would also remind you that the family of Caleb Rees might well be reading this discussion and could well find your remark that his career (as outlined in DWB) 'lacked any semblance of notability' as rather offensive. I would urge you to be more measured in your observations about him and also in your consideration of the comments on the appropriateness of your deletion by a neutral editor.

Timtrent Thank you for your input. I have corrected the inaccurate account of mentoring given by Snowded above (also the forum shopping insult etc he just edited in) but it is completely irrelevant to the subject under discussion and does him discredit to both mention it and to misdescribe it. An apology from him would be appropriate but I'll step away from this unpleasantness and complete the article. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll ignore you starting up on the personal attacks again this time but any repitition of that, or if you start forum shopping again and I will withdraw from mentoring. The onus is on you to show notability, so far you haven't. Try and focus on that -----Snowded ^TALK 12:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article created and reversion undone in accordance with WP:REDLINK. The "no article, no inclusion in a list" principle/convention referred to above, whether on this page or elsewhere, is not in accordance with BIO as far as I can see but if other editors share the views of Snowded the issue can be flagged for resolution. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well as of next week I will have been editing here for 14 years with over 36k edits on over 3.7k pages and in ALL that time you are the only person to raise such a challenge. Guidence for Settlement Articles] is very clear that people should not be included in the list of those notable unless they satisfy the criteria for notability. The existence of an article about them is deemed sufficient for this. So you have now done what I asked you to do which is to put the creation of an article before insertion so there really was no need for all the drama. Policy on red links really deals with content more than lists and it should be pretty self evident. :If you are correct then you could list yourself as a notable person on the Stockport Page, with a red link as could the whole population of that that town, or Greater Manchester for that matter. If you really think you are correct then you might want to raise a discussion at the talk page of the above referenced guidence page. I note that you have simply created the article and have not had it reviewed so I have put it under watch. If a new article reviewer (not my area of expertise) challenges it then the entry will need to be deleted. Whatever, your reaction above and on your talk page raises serious issues about either your willingness to be mentored or my ability to manage that but I will add a section to your talk page re that as it doesn't belong here. -----Snowded ^TALK 18:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As has already been pointed out by another editor, this issue has already been discussed in a previous section and resolved. I'll quote the exchange for easy reference

"It should be noted that as per WP:CITSTRUCT, the agreement on the structure of settlement articles, a person can only be included in a Notable people list if it has an article. No article, no inclusion. Note this is only for settlements (towns, villages, cities etc) and does not prescribe them from being in a list of an educational institution. WP:NLIST would apply in that case. User:Canterbury Tail

@Canterbury Tail: my understanding is that guidelines within Wikiprojects have a lower authority that the Manual of Style. The relevant section of the MOS is at WP:SOURCELIST (which is linked from WP:NLIST), which has no requirement for a linked article. We should pay due attention to WP:CITSTRUCT, but you phrase 'can only be included' is too prescriptive; this is a matter for editorial judgement. User:Verbcatcher"

I hope that addresses your concerns and there is no danger of my appearing in red-linked form since, very regrettably, nobody has seen fit to include me in a National Biography and thereby make it likely I could be considered notable enough to appear in the list of Stockport NPs. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Please use diffs rather than cutting and pasting, it means that other editors comments are taken out of context - several editors have told you about this before and you need to take it on board. That is not a resolution, you have an experienced admin support the idea of a linked article and another editor disagreeing that may be too strict. If you want to resolve it you will need to take it to an appropriate forum for community discussion. -----Snowded ^TALK 19:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies. Thank you for your corrections and advice, which is appreciated and will be followed as all good advice should. I don't recall other editors having raised the matter before but since you say they have it must be true. I don't believe the quoted passage has been taken out of context though. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes Guidelines and Wikiprojects are of lesser authority than the Manual of Style, but you'll find the majority of Wikipedia editors adhere to them. If a Wikiproject or group has determine, through consensus with the community, that this is a structure or process they wish to follow, then generally it's followed. Is WP:CITSTRUCT policy? No, because policy is not about area specific topics but across the entire Wiki, that is left to Wikiprojects and the like. Is it something that people should generally adhere to because it represents consensus? Yes, and CITSTRUCT is something reached through the consensus of a rather large Wikiproject of hundreds of users so you'd need a good reason to go against it. Just because something is a guideline and not a policy, doesn't mean you can ignore it because the guidelines represent the project consensus on that topic. Think of them as localised rules rather than the global ones represented by policies. Canterbury Tail talk 20:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, very well put and I agree with you - if only you'd posted it earlier before we fell out ... :) Obviously not with yourself I should add. The argument citing the greater good being achieved via the observance of the rule rather than the individual act has been successfully deployed by my former employers in the Civil Service since it inception and is a very powerful one. I fully accept it is appropriate for the Wiki community approach. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to the BBC's 'Wales & the History of the World' Part 1 - 20 minutes 19 secs - it was Sir William Lower in Laugharne, not Galileo in Pisa, who first saw the moon through a telescope in 1609. William was apparently then living in Laugharne castle, which his wife Penelope (granddaughter of Sir John Perrot) inherited from her father Sir Thomas when he died in 1594. Her mother, Dorothy remarried in the same year and went off to live with her new husband 'The Wizard' Earl of Northumberland leaving her daughter behind. She married in 1604 and it's implied didn't move to Treventy across the estuary in Llanfihangel Abercowin until after 1609. Another (very) notable resident for the list if our national broadcaster is correct! I'm sceptical though, more research required to establish how long they lived together in Laugharne, if at all. He was certainly living in Treventy by 1609 according to these articles 1905 + 1897.Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• My Perrott Family Data-52.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per WP:ELPOINTS no. 2, I have removed the following inline external links from the History section of the article:

• prehistoric humans
• Coygan Bluff
• quarrying
• a long occupation sequence
• summit of the hill
• Iron Age
• 6th century AD.

--Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leucariwm (now Laugharne) was a Roman station on the Via Julia which was carried along the coast from Moridunum (now Carmarthen) to Isca Silurum (now Caerleon).^[1]

An editor has reverted my above addition to the History section on the following grounds:

“Not credible as Laugharne is not on any reasonable route from Carmarthen to Caerleon, very old source. I can't find any reference to Roman road remains in Laugharne on Coflein.”

I think its removal is unjustified. Laugharne had a Roman fort which was linked by land to their other centres. Castellae and villas were not actually physically on the main route of 'Via Julia' but connected to it.That designation, as with other Roman Roads, refers to the entire linear network. Coflein records only those parts of the Via Julia for which there is surviving archaeological evidence and actually new discoveries in south west Wales is currently a growth area.

The source cited is indeed old but is from the reliable and peer-reviewed journal of the British Archaeological Association and has not been contradicted as far as I know. Unless it has there is no reason for it being discounted as far as I can see.

Do others disagree that the reversion should be undone pending evidence showing the passage to be inaccurate?

Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 08:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, just to correct a typo: the placename as given by Picton is Leucarium not Leucariwm (i.e. Latin not Welsh). Second, I have checked this in Rivet, A. L. F.; Smith, Colin (1979). The Place-Names of Roman Britain. London: Batsford. pp. 174, 388–389.. They give the name in the form Leucarum, and source it to Iter XII of the Antonine Itinerary: they identify it as "probably" Loughor, Glamorgan, and derive it from the river-name Leuca, the modern River Loughor. See also Leucarum, which makes the same identification. Rivet & Smith admit a margin of doubt, and offer Hendy as another possibility, but not Laugharne. Third, Picton's Via Julia runs Moridunum–Leucariwm–Nidum–Isca Silurum; which he interprets as Carmarthen–Laugharne–Neath–Caerleon. That is clearly nonsense, given that Laugharne lies well to the (south-)west of Carmarthen, and suggests that the name may actually be a misprint, and not even what Picton intended. So all in all, despite the JBAA being a respectable and authoritative journal, I think on this point it's pretty clearly out of date and in error, and should be ignored. (As far as I can see, the name Via Julia is also pretty outmoded: I see it's used on some Coflein records for a road roughly along the line of the A40, but I can't find it used in any more general modern sources on Roman Britain, and I'm unclear where it originates.) GrindtXX (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's very clear, @Verbcatcher:'s reversion was fully justified. Thank you both for taking the time to check my edit. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My Roman Britain (Map) (Fourth ed.). 1:625 000. Southampton: Ordnance Survey. 1991 [1978]. ISBN 0-319-29025-5. shows Roman roads running west from CICVCIVM (doubtfully identified as Y Gaer) to MORIDVNVM (Carmarthen) and south-west to NIDVM (Neath); but there is no direct road connecting Moridunum with Nidum; however, there is a fort between them at LEVCARVM (Loughor). Further west there is a fortlet at modern Tavernspite, but it's not given a Roman name. I suspect that this was very much a frontier area. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note addressing a couple of points made above. The now reverted edit was based on a secondary reference included in a recent article which reflects new interest and research into the extent of Roman influence in south-west Wales (it also accounts for my typo - see p31!) Among numerous collected extracts the following is offered as to the orgin of the name 'Via Julia' as mentioned by @GrindtXX:"Unknown Roman Roads” by Tudor A Morgan: “In the early days of their occupation the Roman s built a highway from Caerwent (Venta Silurum) to St David’s Head (Menapia). Julius Frontinus, AD 71-78 widened the road for military traffic, and ever since it been called the Via Julia...."

The wiki entry cites * Dahm, Murray K (1997), The Career and Writings of Sextus Julius Frontinus which contains this passage about his time in south west Wales:

Frontinus was appointed provincial governor of Britain as legatus Augusti pro praetore probably from 74 to 78. During his term of office he conquered the Silures of Wales, as Tacitus says in the Agricola:

. . . sustinuit molem Iulius Frontinus, vir magnus, quantam licebat, validamque et pugnacem Silurum gentem armis subegit, super virtutem hostium locorum quoque difficultates eluctatus.

. . . but Julius Frontinus was a great man, and so far as was humanly possible sustained the burden cast on him: his arms reduced the Silures, a powerful and warlike race; he surmounted not only the valour of the enemy but also the physical difficulties of their land.

This is the only solid evidence for the achievements of Frontinus' tenure as governor of Britain.. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 12:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]