Talk:Lawrence Booth

Coat of arms ...

It is still not sourced to show that the creation is actually the bishop's coat of arms. It needs such a source on the image page before it can be considered sourced. Do not edit war the unsourced image in but instead find a source and source the image page. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

As per the above, please cease edit warring and provide a source for the claim. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

This source does not give anything about the COA of Lawrence Booth. It shows a COA for a Baronet created in 1611, but that doesn't prove that Lawrence used that COA. All it shows is that the 1611 creation of the Baronet used that COA. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

agreed, it's not supported by that citation. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I posted the COA & it is very much referenced. Please see relevant Talk pages: User:Cassianto User:Hchc2009 User:Ealdgyth. Why is something so simple made so difficult? L'honorable (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

No, do not see our talk pages. Discuss the matter here. Otherwise things will become too confusing. Cassianto^Talk 22:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The confusion was created by someone who does not know about heraldry. L'honorable (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The matter is simple. The coat of arms, if it is to be displayed on this page, needs a reference that shows that Lawrence Booth used that particular coat of arms. The various references given so far do not support Lawrence Booth's use of the specific coat of arms. We use reliable sources on Wikipedia, not our personal knowledge. To add something to an article requires a reliable source that supports the information added. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

yes it is simple - it could not be clearer. These are his arms.

Ealdgyth is right here. It cannot be assumed that a cleric, particularly one of illegitimate birth, used the undifferenced arms of his ancestral family. What is needed is direct reference to the arms being used specifically by him, or it is all guesswork. The illustration in the Knowles notes is a good start, but it is hard to tell what it represents. Are they specifically Lawrence's arms or perhaps those of his half-brother, William? (after all, Knowles seems unsure that they are Lawrence's vs William's, and typical heraldic practice would call for an illegitimate son to difference his arms with a bar sinister or other demarcation) Is this South Muskham glass even contemporary with him or was it put in place centuries later by someone assuming what arms the Archbishop would have used? Given that the Archbishop is credited with the construction of 'Booth's chapel' there, I would suggest consulting the dissertation, The Stained Glass of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire 1400-1550 by Allan Barton, at academia.edu, which describes the chapel in some detail and would be an acceptable scholarly reference for his use of these arms if it makes a clear description of them as Lawrence's (I have just seen Google snippets so I can't tell what specifically it says about the glass). That being said, this would only confirm his use of the impaled arms, not for the Booth arms alone. 50.37.123.210 (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Archbishop Lawrence Booth

There are two ways in which Archbishop Booth's arms can be represented:

1. impaled with those of his arms of office, namely those of the See of York (York being to the dexter).

2. his personal arms, ie. those of his family, depicting his heraldic ecclesiastical devices (this indicates his rank as a bishop).

These arms are evidenced twofold: firstly in Burke's Extinct and Dormant Baronetcies and secondly in www.exploreyork.org.uk.

Accordingly, there should be no reason to delay the illustration of Archbishop Booth's arms on Wiki. Please advise soonest - many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Neither of those sources support the arms that are attempting to be shown in the article, however. Burke's shows the arms for a Baronet created in 1611. And the "exploreyork" site (which may or may not be a reliable source - who is J. W. Knowles and what makes him an expert in this?) shows a different COA for Lawrence Booth than the one that is kept being added. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

As I have said before, consult Wiki's Heraldry Project - clearly we are talking at cross-purposes & I have no wish be drawn further into such an elementary error on your part. Sorry - let's discuss another day when you've had time to check. L'honorable (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Anything managed by Wikimedia is considered to be an unreliable source. See WP:UGC. Cassianto^Talk 22:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

My lengthy explanatory note about the COA in question has just been deleted by edit conflict. From being a generous gesture by updating this is turning into a nightmare. Seriously just check with heraldry project - they'll tell you properly - I can't type all that again. However, simply by reading John Ward Knowles will reveal how little the protagonists know about this subject. L'honorable (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

From that I take it that J W Knowles would possibly be an expert in stained glass. That doesn't appear to show that he's an expert in heraldry .. .I'm open to being shown that he is - I just don't see it now. Nor, again, does that exploreyork document show that the COA being added here was Booth's - it shows a different COA for Lawrence Booth. I merely want a source that shows that Lawrence Booth used the COA that is being added. I did a google search myself and found nothing from a reliable source showing Lawrence Booth's COA. There were some sites that were unreliable (personal genealogy sites and the like) but those don't help. I just expect that a reliable source connects the COA to Lawrence Booth. It's a wikipedia policy that information be verifiable. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure they will, L'honorable; however, you need to reliably cite it as evidence. Having someone's word is not reliable. I discovered this earlier when Hugh Hefner told me this morning over a coffee that I will inherite his playboy mansion and everything in it. See, it's bollocks until it's written down for all to see. Cassianto^Talk 23:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

You guys! Straying well off the point. Having never mentioned personal genealogy websites or Hugh Hefner or anything else similar seems you are trying to divert attention away from what is a fact. L'honorable (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I mentioned personal genealogy sites because I did a search for sources that might support the COA being added. I did not turn up anything that was reliable showing Lawrence Booth used that COA. The only sites showing that COA in use by Lawrence Booth were personal genealogy sites. While the exploreyork document isn't a great source - it wouldn't be an issue using it to source the COA that it shows - however, it does not show this image but rather shows an image with the three boars heads on one side and the see of York's arms on the other half (or to use the description in the document: "Az a pastoral staff in pale or, surmounted by a pale argt edged and fringed or, charged with 4 crosses patée fitchy sa (See of York), impaling argt 3 boars heads erect erased sa langued gu"). The J W. Knowles source supports using THAT COA for Lawrence Booth, but not the one with just the three boars heads. And, I repeat, the Burke's source is for a baronetcy created in 1611 - it doesn't describe or illustrate the COA of Lawrence Booth at all. It would support the use of the COA with three boars heads on one of the baronets, but Lawrence wasn't a baronet. It's a simple request to provide a reliable source. That's all. We're not hounding you, we're not bullying you, we're just trying to adhere to the policies of Wikipedia which require reliable sources that support information being added or challenged. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

There are two ways in which Archbishop Booth's arms can be represented:

1. impaled with those of his arms of office, namely those of the See of York (York being to the dexter).

2. his personal arms, ie. those of his family, depicting his heraldic ecclesiastical devices (this indicates his rank as a bishop).

These arms are evidenced twofold: firstly in Burke's Extinct and Dormant Baronetcies and secondly in www.exploreyork.org.uk.

Accordingly, there should be no reason to delay the illustration of Archbishop Booth's arms on Wiki. Please advise soonest - many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I repeat this because it is next to impossible to state anything on almost any page at the moment without being disrupted. L'honorable (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself. There is no source that supports Lawrence Booth using the COA who's image you have repeatedly added to the article. I have offered a compromise that uses the Knowles source to support the COA as shown in that source. But Burke's does NOT support Lawrence using the three boars heads alone COA. Knowles does not either - he only shows the one with the York arms also. It's that simple - we have to go with what the sources give us. There is no animus against you - I just want a source that plainly shows either Lawrence Booth using the three boars heads alone COA or an image that depicts the COA shown in Knowles. That's all. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes I am repeating myself because clearly you do not grasp the simple tenents of heraldry... L'honorable (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Allow me 5 mins without interruption to explain in full plse

@Ealdgyth: medieval heraldry is problematic insofar as it is difficult to find freely licensed images for Wiki display - but here we have one. In the case of Lawrence Booth (in fact all heads of any corporate organisation) they are entitled to impale their personal (ie. family arms) with those of their corporate body (ie. Oxbridge college (in the case of Master or equiv.), Borough or City (Mayor or Lord Mayor), Diocese (Bishop etc..) - this is according to the laws of arms as set down by the College of Arms, which in fact basically adopted pre-existing traditions and set them down on paper. Now in the case of Archbishop Booth, his family arms were those sketched by Knowles (however this would not be a good enough image for Wiki purposes, and in any case possibly unlicensed) but it does indicate which arms Booth used. The Burke's reference sets down how he links in with the family. Now what I think you have yet to understand, so please allow me to explain clearly, whilst any such head of a corporate body has the option of impaling his arms it is not imperative. Thus Lawrence Booth's arms as depicted are most suitable to represent him as bishop or archbishop. L'honorable (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
PS. by the way it would also be correct to use the simple shield of the Booth arms, if you prefer..

Please be courteous and not ping me everytime you reply. There is no need, I've got this page watchlisted so all you are doing is making my notifications light up twice. All of the above may very well be perfectly accurate but it isn't a reliable source. We need a source that ties a specific COA to Lawrence Booth. The one sorta-reliable source that does tie a specific COA to Lawrence Booth is Knowles. However, what he reports as the COA for Lawrence Booth does not match the image you're trying to add. The Burke's reference does NOT tie a specific COA to Lawrence Booth. All of the above that you put forth doesn't satisfy Wikipedia policy to tie the Burke's COA to Lawrence Booth. You have two options going forward - you can find a source that ties the three boars heads COA to Lawrence Booth specifically - i.e. that he himself used it (not just that it is listed at the head of a whole list of family members, but that Lawrence Booth did so.) That would also be satisfied if you found a written description of Lawrence Booth using a COA of "argt 3 boars heads erect erased sa langued gu". Both of those options would thus provide a reliable source in Wikipedia terms for the image you have added. Or you need to find someone (perhaps even the person who did the image you're trying to add) to make an image that matches the image given in Knowles which is described as "Az a pastoral staff in pale or, surmounted by a pale argt edged and fringed or, charged with 4 crosses patée fitchy sa (See of York), impaling argt 3 boars heads erect erased sa langued gu". Then you would have an image that could be sourced to the Knowles source that supports Lawrence Booth using that COA. Right now, though, you're arguing that Knowles shows Lawrence Booth using the three boars head as part of his COA and that Burke's shows the three boars heads was used by a Booth baronet in 1611 (and later) who was related to Lawrence Booth - that those two facts can be combined or synthesized to prove that Lawrence Booth used the three boars head alone COA. We call that WP:OR, when you use two different sources to come up with a third fact. OR is against policy. This is why I object to you trying to use Burkes and Knowles to support something that can only be figured out by combining the two sources together to get them to say something neither of them say. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Good (as if I have been anything but courteous) - now I understand what is required (albeit I wish my earlier edits had not been systematically deleted by Edit Conflict - I am sure you would have preferred to have had a civil discussion whereby we arrive at this understanding). Meanwhile I am now under threat of :L'honorable, I think best to restrict all communications between us through the Kanaroo Court that is ANI. Anywhere else could compromise any such sanctions you seek to impose upon us. Cassianto^Talk 01:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

This has been a most educational insight into Wiki behaviour but hey-ho - I learn from it. L'honorable (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see your comment above wherein you state "That would also be satisfied if you found a written description of Lawrence Booth using a COA of "argt 3 boars heads erect erased sa langued gu". This is exactly what J.W. Knowles does state qv: www.exploreyork.org.uk 17/88 - pls ack. L'honorable (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

No, Knowles' complete description is "Az a pastoral staff in pale or, surmounted by a pale argt edged and fringed or, charged with 4 crosses patée fitchy sa (See of York), impaling argt 3 boars heads erect erased sa langued gu" You can't selectively quote part of his description. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Please note my statement above: "whilst any such head of a corporate body has the option of impaling his arms it is not imperative". Alternatively look at Impalement (heraldry). When will this end?! L'honorable (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
PS. Booth was entitled to have impaled any of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge University, Durham and/or York - but, his arms as presented are very much in keeping with those currently displayed by Wiki for Rowan Williams... it is entirely accurate and arguably more representative for Wiki to display the arms to which Booth was entitled during the latter part of his life (ie. after becoming a bishop in 1457).

Hopefully we have all learned something today... (and having been on the receiving end of constant let's say "messages", for reasons which perhaps others might deduce, all has now gone quiet)... But surely Wiki does not need to be quite so argumentative to achieve the result surely we all strive for (unless I am mistaken & others want something else - a bit of unnecessary)? L'honorable (talk) 03:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, one of his preserved seals while Bishop of Durham uses the unimpaled arms of Booth, but differenced with a bordure engrailed. They are also so presented in the contemporary decorations of Durham Cathedral. A snippet view of Archaelogica Aeliana from GBooks says the bordure was sable--it seems to be a list of arms of Bishops of Durham, but I can't see the full source. Blomefield's Collectanea Cantabrigiensia attributes to him the undifferenced arms. Choess (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Repetition of material...

L'honorable, there's no need to add quotations repeating material already in the article, and already cited, using from a book from back in 1841. We only need to say a given fact once. Hchc2009 (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Now for something entirely different...

The first para in the first section reads: "The illegitimate son of John Booth, lord of the manor of Barton, near Eccles, Lancashire, of the ancient Cheshire family of Booth, established by his half-brother Sir Robert Booth at Dunham Massey, home to the Grey-Booth family's descendants until 1976 (qv. Earls of Stamford and Warrington)." -- is it me, or is this a little incoherent? Cassianto^Talk 00:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I have no idea where it came from - I don't actively research post-1300 English bishops and archbishops, I just try to keep them from degenerating too far. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

...and a wonderful job you do to. I'll set about sorting it out then. But I'm without sources, so not wanting to rely on poetic licence, I may end up deleting it altogether. Cassianto^Talk 01:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

You have access to the ODNB? The article on him there is reasonably complete. If you don't, I can email you a copy if you drop me an email. (I'm like swamped in RL which is why I'm barely editing) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I do have ODNB. Currently I'm on holiday 6,000 miles away so I don't have the access right now. I return on Wednesday, so I can fix it then. Cassianto^Talk 01:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Cassianto: does this mean you are now going to make extra efforts to reimprove this article? L'honorable (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
PS. if so, why not try something completely different such as the many articles in significant need of improvement and let's work together...

@Ealdgyth and Cassianto: You do not need poetic licence, either of you - it is all to be seen in Burke's. ODNB is biographical whereas Burke's is genealogical - Wiki aspires to be both. So here the case is that: Lawrence was very much the younger but illegitimate son of John Booth. His very much elder brother William spotted his younger sibling's ability & pushed him towards the Church. Here biography & genealogy combine (so it is good to have an understanding of both!). Another son (of John Booth) Sir Robert had the dosh or cash or financial clout, howsoever you wish to put it nowadays, to propel his younger brother to greater heights. The two were intertwined & they succeeded well in their gameplan. It would have been nigh on impossible to become Archbishop of York in those days without financial clout. L'honorable (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
PS. the legacy left by the Booth family having two archbishops in the 15c was considerable & helped the family reach further heights - I can go on further if you like.....

This is badly entitled : it is not Now for something entirely different... but a continuation of the same & a ruse by which to attempt to get you out of a hole. It should be entitled Now to harp on about the same... - don't be misleading! L'honorable (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

L'honorable, I think best to restrict all communications between us through the Kangaroo court that is ANI. Anywhere else could compromise any such sanctions you seek to impose upon us. Cassianto^Talk 01:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Now you have linked it I understand - but please give over - are you deliberately trying to cause mischief? L'honorable (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)