# Talk:Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland

@Matty.007 you reverted an edit by be with the comment From what I can see (at Elizabeth II), we don't reference this section, though please prove me wrong if I am
All sections should have citations particularly when "material [is] challenged or likely to be challenged" (WP:BURDEN). Two examples of Ancestry sections with full citations are Charles I of England#Ancestry and Charles II of England#Ancestry (both featured articles). Unlike navigation boxes where sourcing can usually be found in the article to which there are links, there is information contain in ancestry trees that may well not be in the linked articles. 
The problem is that it is easy to look up an ancestry tree from one of the dozens online sites, but most of them are not are defined as reliable sources on Wikipedia and do not meet the levels of scholarly research needed for such trees.
In ages when birth was a regular killer of women it was not uncommon for a man to have several wives.  As an example: It takes only one mistake in the naming of a grandmother (because the mother is incorrectly given as the first wife and not the second one) and seven boxes contain the wrong ancestry, even if every box contains citations that confirms who was married to whom. It is because mistakes such as this are easily made that these trees need accurate precise citations. -- PBS (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

A long term simple solution is for the {{Persondata}} to contain the names mother and father as article titles, then it would be easy to check (and/or generate) these ancestry trees automatically. -- PBS (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I am on a Wikibreak at the minute, so will reply by this weekend hopefully. Thanks, Matty.007 20:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure what you mean with the persondata, please could you clarify. Looking at how to resolve issue. Thanks, Matty.007 20:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
PBS, please can you clarify what you mean with regards to persondata? Thanks, Matty.007 18:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
You will find {{Persondata}} at the bottom of many biography articles. For example it exist at the bottom of this biography. It holds certain information about an individual. However some now think it has been superseded by Wikidata see Wikipedia talk:Persondata#Ancestry, but the problem is that Wikidata is not very reliable although it could be used to cross check some ancestry trees unless the ancestry tree is based on Wikidata or Wikipedia. -- PBS (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
PBS sorry, I missed this. I'm afraid I'm not 100% sure what I am meant to be doing with the persondata? As the parents are sourced, can we not just take it as OK, given that your proposal was to add persondata to get the sources from their articles? Thanks, Matty.007 18:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
This was a side issue, it was a possible long term general solution and is not directly relevant to this ancestry tree in its current state. -- PBS (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I am reinstating the tag that was removed with this edit (11:29, 2 April 2014). Before you can removed the tag you have to find reliable sources for some or all of the tree and ideally one sources otherwise there is a real danger of synning ("Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"). The choices are either tag the section (for say 6 months to a year to allow people time to find reliable sources), delete the section and/or move it to the talk page. If you want the information in the section remain the WP:BURDEN (policy) is on you, so please do not remove the tag again without replacing it with an appropriate tag or tags until the section is fully cited. 
For example what is the reliable source or sources that state that Katherine Swynford was his great-grandmother or that  Elizabeth de Burgh, 4th Countess of Ulster was his great-great-grandmother. If reliable sources only cover his parentage then the rest of the tree shoudl be dropped, until such time as reliable sources are provided for the earlier generations. If a name on the tree is not sourced then it should be removed until such time as it can be sourced. The tag has now been in placed for several weeks an not one citation has been added. If there was one citation then the tag at the top could be changed to {{refimprove section}}. If say half the tree was cited then those that are not cited could be tagged individually with {{citation needed}} or removed, negating the need for the general section template such as  {{refimprove section}}. But at the moment the section carries no citations and the {{unreferenced section}} is appropriate. -- PBS (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the removal, as I said above I missed your reply. Any objection to moving the section to the talk page for editors to re-instate if they want? Thanks, Matty.007 09:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
It could be moved to the talk page, but that is a more drastic solution than tagging it. -- PBS (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd agree with PBS; tag it first, perhaps advertise the problem on one of the project pages, and see if anyone with a strength in medieval genealogy can help out. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
My initial re-action was to remove the ancestry chart completely, mainly as I don't like to see them unless for dog pedigrees! Personally I would prefer ancestors to be described within the text; however, I fully acknowledge that is just my own preference. Other reasons that are not intrinsic to the article but it is not a good reflection for a very newly promoted GA to be sporting a refs req'd tag (and I don't mean any criticism by that as I appreciate both Matty and HcHc2009 feel/felt it was acceptable for the section not to have refs. A final reason is that I'm aware this article is nominated for DYK at the moment and it will fail the DYK criteria because of the tag!I've done a very brief spin round Google to see if I could find anything - the following books may at least allow Matty to source some of the generations? [1], [2], or even [3]. Hope it might be helpful. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid I can't find much sourcing except for his parents in the books, so I tracked down the editor who added it (amazingly she is still active) and asked her. Thanks, Matty.007 17:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Wow, that edit takes me way back. Yes, I added the ancestry table to this article and would have probably built it by perusing through some of my reference books and Google books, along with the Wikipedia articles of their ancestors. I have noticed the recent surge in tags for these sections, and adding sources to ancestry charts has been something I've recently flirted with to test how practical such efforts would be. As anyone can see with my edits, I'm a stickler for citations and never add any content without them. Ancestry tables are the obvious exception, simply because it would be immensely time consuming (it look me forever just to do Edmund Mortimer's, and I had a wonderful reference to use; imagine the work needed for more obscure historical figures). In my opinion, ancestry is rarely controversial material "likely to be challenged" (anyone who knows Beaufort and English history, for instance, would see how Percy descends from John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford). Ruby 2010/2013 18:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

With top notch politically active aristocracy like this it is fairly easy to source them through the the ONDB/DNB, and there is no need to do it for every member as one will often cover three generations. So for example ODNB Percy, Henry, first earl of Northumberland contains within it "elder son of Henry Percy, third Lord Percy of Alnwick (c.1321–1368), and his first wife, Mary (d. 1362), the daughter of Henry, third earl of Lancaster (c.1280–1345)." and "he married Margaret (d. 1372), widow of William, Lord Ros of Helmsley, and daughter of Ralph Neville, fourth Lord Neville of Raby." "With his first wife Northumberland had three sons: Henry Percy Hotspur,..."  The next obvious targets to look for information are Ralph de Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland and John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster if those contain similar information to that in the ODNB for the first earl of Northumberland then 90% of the tree will be filled in with only half a dozen sources. -- PBS (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Now here is a problem:

The ONDB source for: Ralph de Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland states he is the "eldest son of John Neville, fifth Baron Neville (c.1330–1388), and Maud (d. 1378/9), daughter of Henry, second Lord Percy of Alnwick."
ODNB Percy, Henry, first earl of Northumberland "he married Margaret (d. 1372), widow of William, Lord Ros of Helmsley, and daughter of Ralph Neville, fourth Lord Neville of Raby."
The ODNB articles are written by two different authors, but they must be singing from a different hymn book from Wikipedia. They have  "fifth Baron Neville (c.1330–1388)" and "fourth Lord Neville of Raby  (c.1291–1367)." Wikipedia has John Neville, 3rd Baron Neville de Raby (c.1337 – 17 October 1388) and Ralph Neville, 2nd Baron Neville de Raby  (c.1291 – 5 August 1367). Presumably the same men but with different numbering. See also the page Baron Neville de Raby which is based on rayment N1. What is the best thing to do? -- PBS (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

If, as seems likely, it is a numbering issue, Wikipedia is probably more likely to be right due to the multitude of sources used (more in the 3rd Baron than the 2nd). Anyway, is there any objection to moving ancestory to this page so that someone with experience can have a go at a later date if they want? Thanks, Matty.007 07:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I have reverted the removal because both Hchc2009 and myself do not think that removal is necessary and that the tag suffices. The question of the barons Neville is probably the same as many similar cases where at some point a peer was naughty and was stripped of his title. When a near relative is re-granted the title depending on the circumstances historians may or may not number it as if the removal never occurred. I have been busy recently and have not had time to put the question to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage about this case, but I will do so in the next day or so.  -- PBS (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The tag means that the article is not at GA standard, or at DYK standard, where it is nominated at the minute. Why not remove it for now until a response from the Wikiproject? Thanks, Matty.007 20:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
@Matty.007: Because it is closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. If the section half cited is not up to GA standard then the section with no citations clearly was not. If so why was it give GA status as the section was in situ at the time of the the review with no questions asked. It took me half an hour to find the other citations needed to bring it up to 90% cited. Instead of moving the section why didn't you do that? I had even mentioned above that the ODNB for John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster would probably be sufficient for most of the rest of the tree, and it was trivial to look up a couple of others to fill in most of the blanks. If you do not have access to the ONDB it is likely that the same information is available from Wikisource:Dictionary of National Biography. I will now go and make enquiries about the Numbering of the two Barons Neville. -- PBS (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Because I had no idea where to go; the books linked seemed to not have any detailed info that I could see, and them all being Henry Percy wasn't the greatest help. As you may know, historical articles such as this are much less my forte, so thank you for the help. Best, Matty.007 20:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done All entries in the ancestry tree now have a reliable source. -- PBS (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

She also appears as a daughter of Henry, 4th.