:This is interesting, but you cannot simply assert this. You need to cite public, published sources (please give all the bibliographic details), that show very clearly that the two sources given currently in the article are wrong as to the date. Please see '''[[WP:RS]]''' for more information about what sources are acceptable in this encyclopedia. -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 16:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

:[John2o2o2o wrote elsewhere: The will of John Slater of Aylestone is held in the Record Office for Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland. It is listed in the "Calendars of Wills and Administrations Relating to the County Of Leicester Proved in the Archdeaconry Court of Leicester 1495-1649" as transcribed and indexed by Henry Hartopp. The will is indexed on page 35 of this publication under the year 1557. There is a copy of this book available online, however if you want to access the will itself you will have to visit the record office and inspect it yourself or telephone the record office who will provide a copy for a fee.]

Oh dear! Look SSlivers. Firstly. This is the discussion page. You will note that I have not made any attempt to edit the main page and for this reason. The guidelines do not surely apply to the discussion pages, otherwise nothing would ever be discussed! Secondly. Give me a chance! I only posted this yesterday. I myself am the source and it is from original research. I will cite the reference for your information. However, I will not edit the main page.

The source is the will of John Slater of Aylestone held in the Record Office for Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland. The will is listed in the "Calendars of Wills and Administrations Relating to the County Of Leicester Proved in the Archdeaconry Court of Leicester 1495-1649" as transcribed and indexed by Henry Hartopp. The will is indexed on page 35 of this publication under the year 1557. There is a copy of this book available online, however if you want to access the will itself you will have to visit the record office and inspect it yourself or telephone the record office who will provide a copy for a fee.

I checked the document again yesterday and can confirm the date. There is an inventory attached to the will, which is dated 10th November in the fifth year of the reign of Mary and fourth of Philip, ie, 10th November 1557. Therefore the marriage must have taken place before this date. An inventory is usually taken within days of the death. Mr Slater's burial date cannot be ascertained as the parish register does not being until 1561.

I am not going to say anything further about this matter. Do what you will with this information. Thank you. [[User:John2o2o2o|John2o2o2o]] ([[User talk:John2o2o2o|talk]]) 10:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

:It is fine to discuss it here. The prohibition on [[WP:OR]] applies only in the article itself, not here on the Talk page. David Trutt's research indicates that this is a mistake: Dorothy Vernon was born in 1545. She was 12 years old in 1557. Dorothy's older sister married in 1558, but Dorothy did not marry until 1563, when she was 18 years old: http://www.haddon-hall.com/HaddonHallBooks/DorothyVernon.pdf -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 20:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

No. David Trutt's research does not say that this is a mistake. I have read somewhere that there is a legend that Dorothy was supposedly married in 1558. That is perhaps what David Trutt was for some reason refuting.

My interest is not in Dorothy Vernon in any case, but in Aylestone. I just happened to come across the statement by Slater as part of my studies and put it here as it represents fresh evidence concerning the marriage of Dorothy Vernon.

I doubt that David Trutt ever saw the will of John Slater, which is not the source of the legend. And why would it be as the will is dated the year before anyway! The will is a 458 year old document. It is genuine. There is no reason why anybody would lie about this as it was simply the testator's statement that he owed her money. He refers to her by her married name so clearly she was married by that date. It is new evidence that clearly proves beyond question that Dorothy was married before 10th November 1557.

I'm sorry, but clearly David Trutt was wrong. I am a professional researcher in historical records. The record is a genuine one. I don't know what Haddon Hall has to do with it, they don't have a monopoly on the truth of the matter.

Dorothy is not stated to be certainly born in 1545. Even here that is an estimate. "c" means "circa" ie, "about". She could have been legally married at the age of 12 at that time, but that is a little unlikely. I think in the light of this new evidence that the date of her birth is in fact probably a little earlier than 1545. Probably more like about 1540, but again that is an estimate. I doubt that there is any concrete record of the exact date of her birth surviving anywhere.

Now please. Let this matter rest here - I don't know what more I can add. If you want to look at the will of John Slater yourself please follow my instructions above. Thank you. [[User:John2o2o2o|John2o2o2o]] ([[User talk:John2o2o2o|talk]]) 12:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

:It really is regrettable when this sort of dilemma occurs. On the one hand we have first-hand expert research which says one thing, and on the other we have WP's requirement that we go by published secondary sources, and they seem to say something else. For my part, I find John2o2o2o's contentions very persuasive, but Ssilvers is right too: we are just not allowed to go on original research. At least the matter remains here for anyone who may want to see the discussion of the matter, and I think Wikipedia should be grateful to both parties above for their input. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size:1.05em;">[[User:Tim riley|<font color="#0A0A2A">Tim riley</font>]][[User talk:Tim riley|<font color="#848484"> talk</font>]]</span>''' 21:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Tim. I should point out that I made no attempt to alter the main page of this article. I have used the talk page to discuss the matter. (However, what I have said can easily be verified!)

I think that this issue highlights one of the problems of Wikipedia. There is (thus far) an almost robotic adherence to the policy of referencing published resources. However, the publication of statements in magazine or book form does not in itself constitute evidence of reliability or accuracy. Far from it !

Ultimately the most reliable sources of information for matters of a historical nature are original, contemporary documents. There is no real substitute for these. Even then, there are times when, for political or selfish reasons, individuals may lie, but in this case, the context of the document and the date is evidence enough of reliability.

I think, indeed I hope that it will in time be recognised that original research, backed up (as in this case) by references that can easily be checked, is not only acceptable, but extemely valuable in improving the reputation of Wikipedia as an information resource.

I am very disappointed in general with Wikipedians and I find posting on Wikipedia - despite the fact that it is supposedly a place where any interested parties are free to edit articles - an extremely frustrating and generally very depressing experience. [[User:John2o2o2o|John2o2o2o]] ([[User talk:John2o2o2o|talk]]) 12:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

:I have now submitted an article for discussion on the wikipedia policy pages. It is (to me crass) that incorrect assertions on a printed source are still being displayed on the main page of this article, despite the fact that what I have said is easily verifiable - I challenge the reader to obtain the document that I have referred to above. [[User:John2o2o2o|John2o2o2o]] ([[User talk:John2o2o2o|talk]]) 09:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If you (or anyone) were to write an article about the Will and publish it in a respected history journal, then we would happily cite it. But all we have so far are the assertions of an anonymous person on the internet (John2o2o2o) that the Will is authentic and means what you say it means. You really, really need to read this link: [[WP:RS]]. -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 17:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Right. Enough. NO NO NO NO. I WILL NOT OBEY YOUR COMMAND. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO TELL ME WHAT DO.

THIS IS A TALK PAGE. S SILVERS WHO ARE YOU? I DON'T KNOW YOU? I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF YOU EITHER!

S Silvers YOU are an anonymous person. Leave me alone. I mean it. Leave me alone or I will call the police. Stop harassing me!!!!!!!

Leave me alone! I meant it. Leave me alone!!!!!!!!! I WILL CALL THE POLICE. LEAVE ME ALONE!

If you want to know that the document is authentic then get a copy of it from Leicestershire Record Office. I have told you what to do. This is a trivial matter. This person is a practical non-entity in historical terms! And who the hell was David Trutt? Well? A respected historian? Or some man with an interest in Dorothy vernon who wrote a pamphlet and had it published. Probably privately.

What makes his assertions truth? A printing press?

Well?

I'me really sick of this now. Really sick of it. You know what. If 100 people saw a pink elephant in a field and a newspaper reported it as a blue elephant and it got onto Wikipedia. No amount of protests by people who were there would pursuade Wikipedants to change the word to pink insead of blue.

I hope to God I never have any more contact with you S Silvers. And As for Wikipedia. I hope it dies a death soon. I know I will at this rate! [[User:John2o2o2o|John2o2o2o]] ([[User talk:John2o2o2o|talk]]) 01:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)