Talk:Culham

Rehoboth Carpenter Family

We have conflicting conclusions. No evidence points that the Carpenters of Culham were releated to the Rehoboth, MA USA Carpentes. Gene Zubrinsky's conclusions and refutation indicates that this section needs to be reviewed and possibily removed. If the Carpenters of Culham are not famous, notable or important to Culham, then this section should be removed. John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I expect you are right. When I recently expanded the article I left the Rehoboth Carpenter section out of courtesy to whoever had put it there. Even if the Carpenters of Culham were the right family, I am not sure the section looks right to remain in this article. I have no objection to its removal. Motacilla (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I took that section out and it appears here for review. John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Rehoboth Carpenter Family

Records from Culham Manor of the late 1500s to the early 1600s, now in the Bodleian Library, show a William Carpenter senior and his son William Carpenter junior, who emigrated to Weymouth, Massachusetts, in 1638 and helped found Rehoboth, Massachusetts, in 1645. Eugene Cole Zubrinsky refutes this claimed connection between the Weymouth/Rehoboth Carpenters and those of Culham in his "William¹ Carpenter of Newtown, Shalbourne, Wiltshire (Bevis, 1638)".

Reference

Why keep the section that is wrong? Shouldn't it be removed? Enfermero (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it should. I initially left the erroneous statement as a courtesy to editor Iwanafish (alias 160.244.140.202), author of this unsupported (and unsupportable) claim. Knowing his disagreeable nature from RootsWeb's Carpenter mailing list, I thought I might avert an editing war by letting his statement stand and simply mentioning the source that refutes it. He, however, restored his version, as he has also done repeatedly and without discussion on the "Rehoboth Carpenter family" Wikipedia page. A few days ago, I removed the Rehoboth Carpenter Family section from the Culham article, but he promptly reversed it. If you've noticed what's going on with the "Reoboth Carpenter family" article--where Iwanafish's mistakes, misrepresentations, and bad behavior are more extensive--it should be evident that Iwanafish gives democracy a bad name. He deserves to be barred from editing--if not for his inept scholarship, then certainly for his incivility. GeneZub (talk) 03:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

1 May 2009

Iwanafish aka 160.244.140.202 This is a warning for your continuing disruptive edits.
Caution: do not violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you have done with Rehoboth Carpenter family and now Culham.

Please use the article discussion page of Rehoboth Carpenter family and Culham to post your arguements for or against. Repeatedly removing another's edit without discussion or reason is disruptive and wrong.

Please communicate & discuss, please do not start another edit war. Several people have tried (by sending email to your various emails for some time) to communicate with you to help establish a neutral point of view regarding this and other articles.

John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Disputed

The following statement, authored by Iwanafish, appears in the current (3 May 2009) version of this article: “Records from Culham Manor of the late 1500s to the early 1600s, now in the Bodleian Library, show a William Carpenter senior and his son William Carpenter junior, who emigrated to Weymouth, Massachusetts, in 1638 and helped found Rehoboth, Massachusetts, in 1645.” Without a word of discussion, Iwanafish has repeatedly deleted both an inserted reference to a source refuting his unsupported claim and a related external link. Iwanafish also goes by sock-puppet usernames 125.199.58.121 and 160.244.140.202.

From 1608 until at least late 1637, the Carpenters of Weymouth and Rehoboth had resided at Newtown, in the parish of Shalbourne, which straddled the Wiltshire–Berkshire line (Survey of Shalbourne Westcourt [c1610–1639/40], Savernake Estate Collection, ref. 9/24/460, p. 7, Wiltshire and Swindon Archives, Chippenham, England; Eugene Cole Zubrinsky, "The Family of William² Carpenter of Rehoboth, Massachusetts, With the English Origin of the Rehoboth Carpenters,” The American Genealogist 70 [1995]:193–204, at 194–95; map of Shalbourne Parish). As will become apparent, the identification of the Culham Carpenters with those of Shalbourne, Weymouth, and Rehoboth is completely unjustified. Iwanafish is alone in making this claim, and he does so only in Wikipedia. This violates Wikipedia’s “no original research” policy.

In a Wikipedia article devoted to the Rehoboth Carpenter family, Iwanafish describes so-called William Carpenter Sr. (i.e., William¹ Carpenter of Shalbourne, father of William² Carpenter of Rehoboth [also formerly of Shalbourne]) as being from a “prosperous yeoman family” at Culham, where he “served as assessor of fines in the Culham Manor Court. Many pages of Latin records bearing his name are now in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.” Iwanafish ignores important evidence that his claims are false: Far from being the scholarly yeoman (land-owning farmer) who sat on a manorial court at Culham, William¹ Carpenter of Shalbourne (35 miles distant) was an illiterate carpenter and husbandman (Shalbourne Vicarage Glebe Terrier, ref. D/5/10/2/8, Wiltshire and Swindon Archives [as Shalbourne church warden, Carpenter signed 1628 record by mark]; The New England Historical and Genealogical Register 14:336 [Bevis passenger list calls him carpenter]; Survey of Shalbourne Westcourt, 7 [he was a tenant farmer]).

A telling probate record puts the last nail in the coffin of the claim that the two immigrant William Carpenters, formerly of Shalbourne, were identical to a pair of same-named men of Culham. On 22 November 1636, William Carpenter of Culham was appointed to administer the estate of his son Thomas of London, whose will failed to name an executor (John Matthews and George F. Matthews, Abstracts of Probate Acts in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, 1635–1639 [London, 1903], 83 [digital image online at http://books.google.com]). By this time, William¹ Carpenter and his only known son, the eventual William² of Rehoboth, had been living at Shalbourne for twenty-eight years!

Finally, Rehoboth was not founded in 1645. The town was established as Seacunk in late 1643 (meetings held at Weymouth) and settled in 1644; it was incorporated as Rehoboth in 1645 (Rehoboth Town Meetings [and Vital Records], 1644–1673 [FHL film #562,558 (uncatalogued), item 4], 1:27, [29?], 31 [hereafter cited as RTM]; Leonard Bliss Jr., The History of Rehoboth, Bristol County, Massachusetts [Boston, 1836] 24–25, 31, 55). The earliest Rehoboth record naming William² Carpenter is dated 10 1st month [March] 1644, when he was among fifty-eight original proprietors who drew lots for the first division “in the Neck” (RTM, 1:6; Rehoboth Proprietors’ Records, vols. 4A–5 [FHL film #550,005], 4A:5). The assignment of home-lots, of which no record survives, had presumably already occurred. GeneZub (talk) 04:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Carpenter section

Can I suggest that the section on "Rehoboth Carpenter Family" family is left out of the Culham article until the resolution of the edit war and/or accuracy determination has been decided at Rehoboth Carpenter family article. This is prevent lots of articles having various "disputed" etc. tags on them. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fine in principle. Apparently, though, you haven't noticed that every revision or removal of that section (there have been several) has resulted in Iwanafish's prompt restoration of "his" version. It was in response to his most recent reversion that I added the tags and related discussion. Removing the section again will simply result in Iwanafish's restoring it--without the tags. And without the tags, no one will bother to read the discussion. As you know, Iwanafish behaves in the same cavalier and malicious manner with respect to the Rehoboth Carpenter family article. What makes you think that that article's problems will be resolved anytime soon--unless Iwanafish is barred from editing? My point-by-point rebuttal (on the Rehoboth Carpenter family article's discussion page) of his many mistakes and wild-eyed speculations provides the facts necessary to discredit once and for all the version Iwanafish insists upon. But nothing has changed. How are disputes such as these ever settled--especially when one party refuses to communicate (with good reason: he doesn't have a leg to stand on)? Mediation isn't an option unless both parties are willing to participate. And in any case, I'm no more willing to accept Iwanafish's version of the facts than he is mine. It looks as though the next logical step is arbitration, but I find the instructions for initiating the process somewhat opaque. GeneZub (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This is an ongoing vandalism by Iwannafish. He refuses to talk or discuss. His disruptive edits have gone to harassment and now is considered vandal acts.

Maybe we need to contact his employers in Japan to show what he has been doing?

JOhn R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Rehoboth Carpenter Family

Records from Culham Manor of the late 1500s to the early 1600s, now in the Bodleian Library, show a William Carpenter senior and his son William Carpenter junior, who emigrated to Weymouth, Massachusetts, in 1638 and helped found Rehoboth, Massachusetts, in 1645.

7 May 2009

Warning!

To Iwanafish, alias 125.199.58.121 and 160.244.140.202, in response to your most recent reinsertion, this date, of a false assertion:

Your repeated insertion of the baseless claim (see Disputed section, above) that the Carpenters of Shalbourne, Weymouth, and Rehoboth originated in Culham violates Wikipedia standards pertaining to factual accuracy, neutrality, original research, and unverified claims (see tags in Rehoboth Carpenter section above). And your refusal to discuss these and similar violations in other Wikipedia articles ("Rehoboth Carpenter family" in particular) is at odds with Wikipedia's cooperative ethos.

If you persist, action will be taken against you. GeneZub (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)