# Talk:Joseph Brittan

Link to the DYK nomination. Schwede66 22:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Brother's house in Oxford Terrace

Hello Syne41, welcome to Wikipedia. I see that you are a brand new editor. Your edit summaries are interesting: "Previous version amounts to slander. Amended to fit the facts" and "Nothing to indicate that it was scandle [sic] that made them follow his brother and her sisters."  Before we get into a discussion on the finer details of this, can I please ask what sources you have for the changes that you have made to the article? Schwede66 07:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've waited a few days for a response, and despite a note on your talk page, nothing has come back. I shall thus revert your edits to the fully sourced version as it was before. Happy to have a discussion at some point in the future if you wish. Schwede66 18:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
hello Schweede66. I'm very new at this and still not sure how to reply. Not sure if this will work. I'm a decendant and have some old family documents.Syne41  Syne41 (talk) 07:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
hello Schweede66. I have been away for a couple of days and although we frequently look up info on wikipedia we had not thought of adding to it until my son saw this bit of family details.
It is sad that the old agruements between my grandfather and his sister resurface. Rosamond wrote her book without reference to us and it has errors and assumptions, some of which are repeated in this reference ie 5 other children died in infancy, when in fact there were only 7 children all told. I would like to discuss things with you, it is just we get very cross when incorrect information is published. Dick Brittan Syne41 (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Schwede and Syne41, and welcome to wikipedia, Syne.  This article is now being tugged in two different directions, so we need to come up with some kind of acceptable solution.  The article needs to be properly documented throughout, particularly now that the article has reached Good Article status.  However, the article also needs to be factually correct.  The problem is that in wikipedia we generally don't use primary source documents, because our job is not to interpret these documents, but rather to use secondary sources where the original source material has been interpreted and made intelligible for us.  I'm very sympathetic to anyone who finds factual inaccuracies in an article about an ancestor, because that is exactly why I became a wikipedian, but I was fortunate in that all the "correct material" on my ancestor was published in journals that I could use.  Since I'm not sure how to handle primary source documents, would it be possible to begin by just removing disputed material, rather than trying to significantly alter entire paragraphs?  For instance, if we are talking about the number of children that died in infancy, would it be OK to omit mention of the number, or just be vague by using the word "several"?  It would probably be good, Syne, if you articulated the errors you find on this talk page, along with what documents you have supporting these, and then we may be able to collaboratively come up with some kind of wording that is both correct and still sufficiently documented.  I'm not sure how far we'll get, but I would like to see the article be factually correct, and this of course is of paramount importance to any descendants, close relatives, or friends.  As an aside, I've removed the GA review from this talk page, because it can be accessed from the good article banner at the top of the page.Sarnold17 (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello again. I am no expert on our family history and it is rather flattering to find an entry on these pages. I would be happy to see any incorrect or doubtful references removed. I do have some family papers including children's births recorded by Joseph in the family bible. Also the Danish papers and the partnership agreement with Guise for the "Western Flying Post Sherborne and Yeovil Mercury." Most of the other papers are not relevant and reading them is not easy. I do not know his medical qualifications and would be interested. I note that the 1848 Kelly's Directory of Dorset lists him and Guise as the proprietors of "Sherborne & Yeovil Mercury" and he as agent to the Royal Exchange fire and life office.Syne41 (talk) 08:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It's good to have some dialogue about this. I like Sarnold's suggestion of compiling a list here of those things that need updating. So let's compile this, and then we'll have a discussion how we go about that (e.g. an exact number of children who died in infancy vs. "several"). I'll start the list below (it's not complete; it's just a start to get the format rolling. Schwede66 17:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, Syne41 prefers to use email and is a bit daunted by WP. Fair enough. I have received the following from him, and have set up a table so that we can have a discussion here. Here we go:

The text currently says:

His first wife was Elizabeth Mary Chandler with whom he had nine children. Five of them died in infancy, and then his wife died in 1849, two weeks after the birth and death of their last child. The surviving children were Joseph (Joe), Arthur, Elizabeth Mary (Mary) and Frances (Frank).
I suggest we change this to the following. Please edit the suggested text and once we all agree, we'll use this to replace the entry on the page:

His first wife was Elizabeth Mary Chandler. According to the biography of one of their daughters, they had nine children, of whom five died in infancy. This is likely to be incorrect, though, as the family bible and family paper list only seven children, with three of them dying in infancy. Children were born in 1836, 1838, 1841, 1843, 1845, 1847 and 1849. The three who died were Emma, Adelaide and Mary.  The surviving children were Joseph (Joe), Arthur, Elizabeth Mary (Mary) and Frances (Frank).  His wife died in 1849, two weeks after the birth and death of their last child.
That said, I think it would be better if we could match the children's names with their respective birth year and indicate those who died as infants, but for that, we need Syne41's help. So Mary's entry could appear like so. "Elizabeth Mary (known as Mary; 1845–1940)" How does that sound? Schwede66 21:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, definitely give the names and dates together.Sarnold17 (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I still get lost with edits. The children that died were Emma Sophia 9 July 1838 -4 Oct 1839, Adelaide Mary 4 Jan 1841- 13 Jan 1842
and Mary borne 6 Feb 1849 and died 12 hours later. I do not have the family bible, only odd photo copies. 22:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)~  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syne41 (talk • contribs)  

My recommendation on the baptismal record and Bible record is to scan them, and create images in wikipedia for them, and then post them to this talk page.  I don't know how orthodox this is, but I think under the circumstances it gives credence to the material that diverges from published sources.  Then I would reference the material back to the wikipedia image.  I did this in the Mary Pickersgill article (ref #12) as follows:  (ref)Inscriptions on tombstone and plaque at Mary Pickersgill gravesite, Loudon Park Cemetery; see File:MaryPickersgill.Tombstone.20120612.jpg and File:MaryPickersgill.GravePlaque.20120612.jpg(/ref)
Concerning the marriage scandal, as I mentioned earlier I never thought the marriage was scandalous, and now Syne confirms that.  Even though this notion appeared in the DYK, if the wording in the article could be softened by just omitting the material or noting that it was an opinion (later disputed), that would be OK.  You could even put in a footnote to see the table on the talk page.Sarnold17 (talk) 10:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
At this stage I do not wish to scan in any family papers. Am still looking at various records when in the City and at home, bur until I have a clear picture would not like to add anything to the excelent article that was not definitely correct, but would like errors removed. I note from Canterbury Assn records that Joseph bought Linwood before his second mariage. Also he does not seem to have been in land speculation like his brother. The nominal index shows him with two properties and Guise with 22.Syne41 (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipidia is not supposed to state personal opinions and this is what you have by quoting Rosamond Rolleston. She even had some of the correct, facts, see her papers in the Turnbull Library. The truth is not as exciting as the scandal story, but lets correct the details now. He did train as a sergeon in 1827 but gave up and was in partnership with his brother-in-law in Waymouth about 1840 before joining his brother at the newspaper. He did not leave England in a hurry or have much involvement in land speculation. He bought 100 acres in the Canterbury Settlement on 10 July 1851 and his brother chose Linwood for him (50 acres, I do not know where the rest was). In the 1851 census he is listed as newspaper owner and publisher (formally a sergeon). These are some of the details in public documents, but I am very slow on the internet. You can find the correct information quicker than I can.09:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)~  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.236.177 (talk)  

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Joseph Brittan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130208184141/http://canterburyearthquake.org.nz/category/buildings/demolition/page/3/ to http://canterburyearthquake.org.nz/category/buildings/demolition/page/3/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120330231608/http://linwoodhouse.co.nz/ to http://linwoodhouse.co.nz/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Hugo999, can you please note the following:

Your recent edits have created unreferenced paragraphs. That is not permitted for Great Articles (and should never been done in either case). Please fix that.
Please use a space after placing a comma (yes, even before numerals / page numbers).
Do not mark your edits as minor when they are not. The moment you add content it is *not* a minor edit. There are reasons why you should not mark edits as minor that are not minor.
Any questions please ask. Schwede66 04:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

After spending some time on this and related articles about the Linwood Estate, I have just seen the above discussion from several years ago and realised I should have read it first. Before seeing this talk page I saw what appeared to be differences on the main wiki article page and the Rosamond book. I was about to change the number of births back to 9 from 7 because that is what the book, a proper secondary source, says, but now I will leave it be. I can also see there are many other 'facts' that are in question and can only see an lot of work trying to sort everything out, including dealing with family opinions, so I think it might be prudent leaving everything alone. One specific 'fact' I looked for was the Linwood estate was supposedly named after the then hamlet of Linwood, Hampshire in the UK where Britton was supposed to have lived. Even though it is likely to be true, I was having trouble finding this in a reliable secondary source, even Rosalind's book. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that was fun back then. You think you write a bio of someone long dead, and it's all straightforward, but no, it was like poking a hornet's nest. Schwede66 01:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Regarding "Linwood", Margaret Harper at Christchurch City Libraries was in charge of compiling and maintaining Christchurch Place Names for decades before she finally retired. When a librarian knows what they are doing, I rate their work very highly. Hence, I had no trouble accepting her work as a source for the name. Schwede66 01:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Ok. I added Brittan and Linwood NZ to the Linwood Hampshire article thinking there was an obvious source, but when I looked I couldn't find one. I tried to look at the many sources the librarian supplied, mainly old newspapers but couldn't find anything about the name there either. There were other sources too that are held in the library, which I might check out one day. Brittan certainly seems to have worked and lived on the Dorset-Hampshire border area which is nearby to Linwood UK. Back then Linwood would have been a hamlet with a pub and a few houses, and possibly some large estates containing grander housing or farms. It also looks as though Linwood-UK was not just the name of the hamlet but of a larger area - part of a parish or a hundred. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
List of hundreds of England In this article there is a section and map of the hundreds of Hampshire, with Redwood in the bottom left (Dorset is not shown but is immediately left of Hampshire). Also of interest is that the UK Christchurch, town and hundred, which supposedly has nothing to do with the NZ Christchurch name, is immediately below Redwood and Linwood. Perhaps just a coincidence but there are very clear similarities with NZ. Maybe that is why the NZ-Linwood name was chosen? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)