# Talk:Humphrey Atherton

I changed the date of the Pequot War from 1937 to 1637.  Also, I am planning to change the birth date from "bef 1627" to "bef 1617" since Atherton was made a freeman in 1638, and would have been at least 21 years of age at the time.  I will allow any discussion before doing this.Sarnold17 (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I originally put "unknown" for his dob, because it really is unknown.  Someone must have changed it.  There is an argument, as explained in the article, for putting the dob at abt. 1608, so if there have to be an approximate date I would say that should be it.--Ishtar456 (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and changed the birth date to "bef 1617" which is vague, but accurate.  The 1608 birthdate is attractive, and very likely closer to his actual birth date based on Atherton holding high office in the late 1630s, but a stronger connection between Edmund and Humphrey Atherton would have to be established.Sarnold17 (talk) 10:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I did not include the above edit in the edit summary, because I don't know how to give an edit summary.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Humphrey Atherton/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Aaron north (T/C) 20:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Y After a few minor edits, this is a very easy pass. Aaron north (T/C) 20:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The source entitled "Adams" is described thus: Adams, William Frederick, William Richard Cutter. Genealogical and personal memoirs relating to the families of the state of Massachusetts, Volume 4. Lewis Historical Publishing Company. 1910. pp. 2646–2647.
The Google Book version of this work only has 2200 pages, as does the Internet Archive version.  Searching it for references to Atherton returns only minimal info, which does not support the material cited to this source (Volume 1, at different page numbers, does provide a biographic sketch of Atherton).  Given a glaring inaccuracy (Atherton was never "deputy governor", something which was cited to this source and is readily disproven by other published lists of colonial officials) I question the use of this source. Magic♪piano 16:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This article is a giant mess at present, and is clearly not a good article. The problem appear to have been largely caused by a single editor, User:Adin-Atherton, so I propose to revert to a version prior to their changes, and also prior to the edits of another editor. This version of the article from 22 May 2018 (!!) is the one I have in mind. Does anyone think this is the preferred solution? Or can the article be salvaged in its current state? FDW777 (talk) 09:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
The article was in a poor state with no chronology and no citations. It was by no means a good article. Over the last week I have tried to removed excess text. My editing is not complete. It would be a sad state of affairs to turn the clock back.  Adin-Atherton (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, that's complete rubbish. The version I plan to revert to has thirty citations, and isn't significantly different from the version which was passed as a good article. The article, which you have ruined in my opinion, is currently in an appalling state and should be either reverted to an acceptable version (sensible option) or have its good article status withdrawn (less sensible option). FDW777 (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I have cut out a great deal of the fat. We can go further. It doesn’t have to be just me as an editor. Propose removing the grave photo (or moving away from the intro).. I also don’t like all genealogy - families claiming ancestry. Let’s remove unless the citation contains good facts. Also notable descendants could be cut down.  My aim is to separate his public service from his emigration to his military service. It’s chronological and has some excellent citations. I am not editing further  Adin-Atherton (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I don’t need to be spoken to like that. There are better ways to express yourself. Let’s collaborate and seek a consensus. Don’t insult others. Let’s seek harmony and retain good article status  Adin-Atherton (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Could you please explain how Richard Mather was Humphrey Atherton's future father in law. FDW777 (talk) 08:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I support the reversion. I don’t know what happened to the article, but it’s currently a mess and it appears much more cogent in the 2018 version. This is littered with jarring quotes, scattered citations, and information explaining his origin has been removed. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
There's been some improvement as a result of this, for example this section has been removed. I still think a lot of work would be needed to make it anywhere near the quality of the May 2018 version, and worthy of staying a GA. FDW777 (talk) 10:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Humphrey’s eldest daughter born in England (Elizabeth Catherine Atherton) married Timothy Mather in 1650. Timothy was the  the brother of Increase Mather. Their father was  Reverend Richard Mather.  
I can remove some of the quotes Adin-Atherton (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

So Humphrey Atherton's daughter married Richard Mather's son? That doesn't make Richard Mather his [Humphrey] father in law, it makes Richard Mather the father in law of Timothy. There is a fringe viewpoint that Humphrey and Richard would be co-fathers-in-law, but that isn't a generally accepted term in English. FDW777 (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Unless we have a source which explicitly establishes the in-law relationship, it’s basically original research at this point for us to make that conclusion in the article text. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Also I reiterate my support for a reversion, the article is garbage. The tone is off, the citations are improperly formatted, etc. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I shall remove the reference to in-law for Mather. This is the issue with historical documents (wills). In-law term misuse. The same seems to have happened with the Wales family. Referring to Nathaniel Wales Snr as in-law. Wales Jr married one of Humphrey’s daughters.  Adin-Atherton (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I brought it back to life. Looks 98% like the 2018 article  Adin-Atherton (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

However, Duane Hamilton Hurd, in History of Norfolk County, Massachusetts stated that Atherton was 36 years old when he died in 1661, how credible is this reference? I have read it on Google Books, and it says the following In 1613, Edmund Atherton did [sic, presumably died] in Wigan, Lancashire, his son and next heir, Humphrey, being at this time four years old, thus giving his birth in 1608. This Humphrey is referred to by Mr. Brown in an article on "the Atherton family in England," "New England Historical and Genealogical Register", January 1881, as perhaps being the identical Humphrey Atherton, major-general of Dorchester, progenitor of the American line. That they are different persons is clearly shown by the fact Gen. Atherton was killed in 1661, when only thirty-six years old. If he was 36 in 1661 that would give an approximate year of birth of 1625, however the lead of this article says He became a representative in the General Court in 1638 and 1639–41. In 1653, he was Speaker of the House, representing Springfield, Massachusetts. He was chosen assistant governor, a member of the lower house of the General Court who also served as magistrate in the judiciary of colonial government, in 1654, and remained as such until his death. It strikes me as odd that aged ~13 he would be a representative in the General Court. Records of the First Church at Dorchester, in New England, 1636-1734 is clear that there was a Humfrey Atheron (Esq) in attendance on 23 June 1636. He was one of only three "Esq"s in attendance, which seems at odds with the status of an ~11 year old. It seems to me that Duane Hamilton Hurd has made some kind of mistake, and we really shouldn't give his opinion much weight at all. We're not obliged to include this information, and I believe it would be better excluded. FDW777 (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
After reading further, I believe this reference should be ignored completely. He continues Humphrey Atherton, born in Lancashire, perhaps son of above, married Mary Wales, probably daughter of John Wales, of Idle, England, and with three children, Jonathan, Isabel (married Nathaniel Wales, Jr.), and Elizabeth came in the ship "James" from Bristol to America in 1635 . . . Humphrey was married when an infant. His first child was born when he was fourteen years old . . . They had twelve children, those mentioned above and the following nine born in Dorchester. Hurd states Atherton died in 1661 aged 36. This would have made him ~10 at the time of the voyage to America in 1635. Yet Hurd states by the time of the voyage Atherton already had three children, after becoming a father at 14. Those numbers just don't work. FDW777 (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Agree reference to this source should be deleted. This is an issue with many of the old genealogical family studies.   Inaccurate claims have been made that confuse later historic documents or family histories. It makes sense to remove the reference to him. I’m not a fan on the origin section at all. Hence posted some contemporary research I found in a separate talk heading below.  I am glad that you deleted the notable descendants. It makes sense and detracted from the article.  Adin-Atherton (talk) 11:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I am conscious the article now discusses likely origin based on Victorian research. Let’s keep posting below any contemporary research. I don’t expect a consensus but I’m placing the sources here that specify JAN 4, 1607 and place of origin in Lancashire, England.
https://atherton.one-name.net/tng/getperson.php?personID=I27037&tree=1
https://atherton.one-name.net/tng/showmedia.php?mediaID=614
This article from the Stoughton Sentinel is littered with errors (when he became a Freeman), however the dates of his children look accurate). 
https://atherton.one-name.net/tng/showmedia.php?mediaID=5509 
Sadly not much to go on in terms of his DOB in England apart from his town of origin Preston. Adin-Atherton (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there any credible dispute over his (rough) age/date of birth? I believe Hurd should be dismissed with prejudice for the reasons documented at #Duane Hamilton Hurd above. Perhaps language use has changed since 1884, but considering he says Humphrey was married when an infant (to a wife a year younger than him as well) that's a big red flag to me. Plus his own figures are contradictory. He gives three separate "facts" regarding Humphrey Atherton
Humphrey Atherton first became a father aged 14
Humphrey Atherton, at the time a father of three children, came to American in 1635
Humphrey Atherton died at the age of 36 in 1661
It's impossible for all those things to be true, so Hurd should be ignored completely. FDW777 (talk) 11:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a record of Nathaniel Wales having voyaged on the James. Wales referred to Humphrey Atherton as his "brother-in-law" in his last will and testament, so it has been assumed that Atherton's wife, Mary, was Wales' sister. However, the term may have been used because Atherton's daughter, Elizabeth (isabel), was married to Nathaniel Wales, Jr. Putnam's Historical Magazine, Volume 7. pp. 98–104.  
The identity of Humphrey’s wife is therefore disputed. Some sources say Mary Kennion. This is now favored over Mary Wales which has carried through to many family trees since the late 1800s. Adin-Atherton (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)