This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks for the update. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
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)
Inspiration for Llareggub
Don't most experts now consider Newquay in Pembrokeshire the true inspiration for Llaregub?Serpren (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Merger proposal
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge. As all content on the Township article was already here no amendments are necessary . ---SnowdedTALK 17:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I've removed full protection and created this section so that a merger can be discussed. Please note that the removal of the page protection does not mean the back-and-forth that led to the protection in the first place can once again occur before an agreement is reached here. Airplaneman(talk)✈ 21:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
To start the ball rolling I've contacted the Clerk to Laugharne Township Community Council and asked if they have a view about the proposed merger and also any suggestions for improvement of the existing articles.Sirjohnperrot (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:GEOLAND its standard to have separate articles for communities and settlements they contain unless the settlement and community have the same name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC) Neutral per below since it appears that this might be an alternative name for the town, similar to "Clynnog" apparently being one for Clynnog Fawr. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't have much experience of that policy but reading it legal status is what counts. In this case a large part of the history of the two entities is deeply enwined with Laugharne Castle at the centre of both. Any precidents elsewhere that you are aware of? -----SnowdedTALK 10:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
As has already been pointed out, the Laugharne Corporation linkage to Laugharne Township is unique in Wales, in fact the only other surviving Corporation is the City of London which is not really comparable. The Laugharne Township article is a stub and has remained virtually unchanged for 6 years, at which time it was first suggested it could be merged with the Laugharne article by Tony Holkham. The Clerk to Laugharne Township has quickly responded to my contact and replied as follows "I have asked members for comment and will get back to you in the next couple of days. I believe the answer is yes to merging them and the style does need to be refreshed. " The LTTC website sets out the formal relationship and I don't see a conflict with the guidance you reference. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 11:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
User:Crouch, Swale But Burry Port and Pembrey are distinct settlements while Laugharne Township is an extension of Laugharne. Given the overlap between the articles (it would be impossible to talk about Laugharne without at least mentioning the Township) is a merge really against what is am ambiguous guideline? -----SnowdedTALK 12:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Carmarthenshire ParishesUser:Crouch, Swale The current Laugharne article's opening para invites the L Township community and the L Township electoral ward to be regarded as coterminous - which they are not. Laugharne civil parish was before boundary changes in 1935 when Llanddowror and Pendine parishes annexed a large part of its eastern area as shown in this composite graphic.) This one also maps the same changes and compares the Marcher Lordship and the development of Laugharne ecclesiasical parish which formerly enclaved those of Llansadurnen and Llandawke. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for re-aligning my old parish map image, I'm learning all the time :-) Not sure you're right about there being no wards anymore, if you are you should perhaps tell Carmarthenshire Council. Also for many years Laugharne was one of numerous examples of coterminous civil and ecclesiastical parishes in Wales but perhaps we can leave that discussion for another time. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Support merge. WP:GEOLAND is a guideline, not policy. I think we have an exception here. Tony Holkham(Talk) 11:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Support merge. I already displayed my support above, but it needs recording here too. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Support merge given that the one objection is now neutral -----SnowdedTALK 16:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Laugharne - New Merged Article
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:
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]
^"Dylan Thomas on Laugharne". Dylan Thomas The Official Website. The City and County of Swansea. 2015. Retrieved June 11, 2020.
^ Letters to John Ormond March 6, 1948 and Princess Caetani, October 1951
^"Under Milk Wood – A Chronology". Dylan Thomas The Official Website. The City and County of Swansea. 2015. Retrieved March 22, 2016.
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)
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)
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)
Trying to get Dylan Thomas' image to appear in the hover panel over his link on the Notable Resident/People lists
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)
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)
Notable Laugharne Resident : Sir John Perrot
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.
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 -----SnowdedTALK 08:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
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:
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)
Listing his name is fine, all the commentary etc is not approproate -----SnowdedTALK 18:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
Maybe in the article about him, but it is not relevant here -----SnowdedTALK 09:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
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. -----SnowdedTALK 17:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
So you think the list of its notable residents is unnecessary? Sirjohnperrot (talk) 05:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
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 -----SnowdedTALK 05:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
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. -----SnowdedTALK 05:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@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)
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)
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 -----SnowdedTALK 04:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
If we look at those references in respect of James (which is where we are uncertain):
Biography of Wales says "He was probably born at Haroldston but is sometimes referred to as of Westmead, Carmarthenshire"
Oxford says he was born in Munster
History of Parliament makes no reference to Birth but says he lived in Haroldston
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 -----SnowdedTALK 09:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
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 certainlyborn 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)
(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 -----SnowdedTALK 13:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
(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 -----SnowdedTALK 14:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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 -----SnowdedTALK 19:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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. -----SnowdedTALK 05:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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. -----SnowdedTALK 10:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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 -----SnowdedTALK 12:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 -----SnowdedTALK 20:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. -----SnowdedTALK 04:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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 -----SnowdedTALK 08:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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. -----SnowdedTALK 09:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
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).
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. -----SnowdedTALK 10:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
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 -----SnowdedTALK 11:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
So are you prepared to abandon your attempts to change this article and instead create a merge proposal? -----SnowdedTALK 14:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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. -----SnowdedTALK 18:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, that's most helpful and I will amend my message to Airplaneman accordingly.Sirjohnperrot (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
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. -----SnowdedTALK 09:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Please don't use policy when you mean guideline. There is a difference. Cheers, Tony Holkham(Talk) 12:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
ACTIONED - James Perrot added to Llanmiloe in a new section -----SnowdedTALK 12:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC):
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)
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)
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 -----SnowdedTALK 06:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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 -----SnowdedTALK 05:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm happy with this. Verbcatcher (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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? -----SnowdedTALK 10:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 -----SnowdedTALK 11:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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 -----SnowdedTALK 12:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
Rowland Laugharne
@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[2] 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)
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)
Kingsley Amis
@Sirjohnperrot: the evidence that Kingsley Amis was sufficiently connected with Laugharne to be listed under 'Notable people' is inadequate. Your cited source[3] 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.[4]
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
Notable people criteria
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)
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 -----SnowdedTALK 12:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
Would Dylan Thomas get a berth in both?Sirjohnperrot (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
Me too, I think separate 'Literary' and 'Laugharne Castle' sections would be an improvement for the reasons given by GrindtXXSirjohnperrot (talk) 10:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
Forgery can now be added to my list of crimes ;)Sirjohnperrot (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Is figurative escalation a crime too? ;) Sirjohnperrot (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
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.SirjohnperrotSirjohnperrot (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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[5] 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)
This form of citation generates an error when checked.Sirjohnperrot (talk) 06:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I am not seeing an error. Please clarify what error you are seeing in what circumstances. Verbcatcher (talk) 11:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Neither am I now but it was like the current one but in a red box with the extended HoP citation inside it
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)
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:
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)
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[6] 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)
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[7] 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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
@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)
@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[8] 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.
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.
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)
@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?
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
@Verbcatcher: Inserted new citation for single, simplified and authoritative source which should now satisfy the criteria. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@Sirjohnperrot: there are several issues with the citation you added today.
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.
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.
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.
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).[11] 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)
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)
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)
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
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?
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.
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.
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)
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)
Population
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)
