This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
It wilfully misreads... "Edward of York was born at Rouen in France" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.184.220 ( talk) 19:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Edward IV of England has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article about Edward IV of England contains an inaccuracy. Edward IV had a daughter in 1461. Her name was Elizabeth. She became Elizabeth Lumley upon her marriage to Sir Thomas Lumley. No one knows who the mother of Lady Elizabeth Lumley was. She was brought up by Edward IV's mother, her own grandmother, Cecily Neville. The identity of the mother is lost to history. No one knows who she was. Lady Elizabeth Lucy was put forward as a potential mother and some people have argued Elizabeth Waite was the mother of Lady Elizabeth Lumley. Some also try to argue these two women are in fact the same person. In order to strengthen these arguments historians have, from time to time, tried to argue Elizabeth Lumley was born in 1464 and not 1461. Neither Elizabeth Waite nor Elizabeth Lucy knew Edward IV in 1461 and neither was in a relationship with him at that time. If Lady Elizabeth Lumley, was born in 1464, as your article claims and was subsequently married in 1477 to Sir Thomas Lumley, she would only have been aged 12 at the time. Those who support the idea Edward IV was married or engaged to Dame Eleanor Butler know that the relationship began in either 1462 or 1463. They also try to argue Elizabeth Lumley was born in 1464 in order to make Lady Elizabeth Lumley's date of birth of 1464, post date the Dame Eleanor Butler controversy. Elizabeth Lucy and Elizabeth Waite were two different women. Lady Elizabeth Lumley was born in 1461. She was the child of an unknown woman and Edward IV at a time when we had common law marriage in England. This child was a product of Edward IV's first known sexual relationship. It is most likely the mother died in childbirth. That goes some way to explain why she was brought up by her grandmother Cecily Neville. Your article also makes no reference to a son Edward IV allegedly had with Dame Eleanor in either 1464 or 1468 the year of her death. The boy (Edward of Wigmore) allegedly died in 1468. For completeness the article should not omit this information. The information is from Doubledays Encyclopedia of the Peerage NigelBoddysolicitor ( talk) 09:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Edward IV of England has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Says that edward was succeeded by henry vi - i think should be henry vii 69.202.240.54 ( talk) 14:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
General comments (for what its worth);
(a) While Edward was a talented individual (while young), the article is fairly uncritical, which is not the case even for the references already provided (eg Ross);
(b) I'm not going to touch it but is the question of his legitimacy worthy of more attention than (say) his foreign policy? Its three times longer than the current coverage of his reign post 1471 and has no references. Seems unbalanced. Robinvp11 ( talk) 18:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
This was removed as a 'self-published' source, which I think is harsh. The guidelines say 'use with caution' and I don't see the problem with using this to verify the location of his burial place, as opposed to qualitative assessments.
Findagrave has tens of thousands of entries, entered by thousands of individuals and provides pictures and details; if you think there's a better one, then please feel free but until then, can we keep this. Robinvp11 ( talk) 19:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not a specialist in this area but, coming to the article for the first time, the introduction strikes me as too full of events and circumstances leading up to Edward's accession. I think these should be moved to the beginning of the "Accession to the throne" section, and the introduction should do more to summarise the most important features of his life, reign and personality. Similarly, most of the section on "Early life" is not focussed on Edward himself. The details about his father's conflict with Henry VI are more appropriate to the articles on those two people. But here it would seem more relevant to mention why Edward happened to be born in Rouen, where he mainly grew up, what kind of education he had, etc. Mrmedley ( talk) 04:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Further to the above, I drafted a new lead section before realizing that the article is protected. For what it's worth, I copy my draft below. I think it does a better job of summarising the contents of the article, although the article itself is rather weak regarding the qualities of Edward and his reign.
Mrmedley ( talk) 13:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that's better! Thanks. Mrmedley ( talk) 14:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
So, Deb, will you make this change? Or perhaps even remove the protected status of the page, on a trial basis at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmedley ( talk • contribs) 01:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Robinvp11, for your response. But my opinion - for what it's worth - remains that, for a lead section, the present one gets too bogged down in what I would consider to be background information, particularly in the 2nd and 3rd sentences of the second paragraph and the first sentence of the third paragraph. The lead section is supposed to summarize the most important points and in my view these are not among the most important points of this specific article. But on consideration I agree it wasn't necessary to rewrite the whole of the lead section. Mrmedley ( talk) 02:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I see it failed back in 2015 - is it worth renominating it now? Robinvp11 ( talk) 17:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Cheers, —— Serial # 13:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
the person and individual, rather than "the third son of Edward III", etc., and other pre-history). Debs' lead nicely draws the central figure into the context without wasting words. Her prose is, frankly, delightful; I felt what it replaced—while longer—was choppier and fragmentary. Cheers, —— Serial # 16:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Did a virus shielded, cheeky, drive-by ce; auto-edded, cite scan, removed redundant ref harvs, changed date to year, moved unused references to further reading, rv dupe wikilinks. Tried to find Ross 1992 but couldn't. Rv as desired. Keith-264 ( talk) 13:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Deb, It looks to me that the article's extended-protected status should now be lifted. From the log I see you imposed it in September 2018 in response to a flurry of disruptive edits from an IP address. Is there a particular reason to think those would resume at the same level? If not, could you lift it, or at least reduce the protection level? Mrmedley ( talk) 00:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Mrmedley ( talk) 10:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm wondering why User:Surtsicna has changed "Elizabeth of York" to the ambiguous "Elizabeth, Queen of England" in the infobox? Deb ( talk) 12:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Aftermath section has Cardinal Reginald Pole as the 'last legitimate heir'. Cardinal Reginald Pole was the last surviving son of Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury, but he had at least four nephews surviving at the time of his death (Sir Arthur, Thomas, Edmund and Geoffrey) - legitimate sons of his brother Sir Geoffrey Pole and Constance Pakenham.
Is it just me or is the issues section in Edward IV's infobox jumbled up? It's not even chronological, if whoever did it did so for the purposes of highlighting historically important children of Edward IV. Should it be fixed? Yourlocallordandsavior ( talk) 06:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, just want to reiterate to people to try and use the talk page if they have any revisions they think that might be controversial or challenged. It can be a little annoying when some people try to make really big changes to the pages, especially those without much thinking behind it, and other editors having to revert these silly changes. Just a precaution so that it can ease some of the burdens other editors have to deal with, which can take quite a bit of hours to do, when those initial edits just took seconds or minutes to make. Thanks. Yourlocallordandsavior ( talk) 03:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
I believe George, Duke of Clarence, was older then King Richard III. -- GoodDay ( talk) 23:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
This page states that, When Richard Duke of York was replaced in France, his replacement was Henry Beaufort, 3rd Duke of Somerset. This is incorrect. Henry Beaufort was born in 1436. York was replaced in France in 1443, first by Henry's grandfather, John Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset, and then by Henry's father Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Somerset. Henry Beaufort was sent to Calais in 1459 to dislodge the Earl of Warwick. That was his only military command in France. Wayside55 ( talk) 02:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: ( non-admin closure) NO CONSENSUS User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
The votes are fairly evenly split, and many of the oppose voters feel the language If the regnal name and number are unambiguous, use them: Louis XVIII, Edward VIII, Alfonso XII, Gustaf VI Adolf. Adding a country to the article title, when there is no other country with a monarch of that name, goes against WP:PRECISION
at
WP:COGNOMEN (a guideline) does not have site-wide consensus. A broader discussion is necessary on this topic.
User:力 (power~enwiki,
π,
ν) 19:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
– The articles of many British and English monarchs are formatted without the country in the name. This is the case for Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, George V, Elizabeth II, to name a few. I see no reason to exclude Edward IV and Edward V. Векочел ( talk) 16:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. Havelock Jones ( talk) 15:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
For someone like myself, who is not knowledgeable about this period and comes here to be educated, this article is very imprecise as to which of the many Henrys are being mentioned at any particular juncture. For example, which Henry is being talked about in this quote: "Matters came to a head in August 1453 when Henry collapsed into a catatonic stupor..." ? Bushel C andle 13:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Edward IV of England has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2A01:CB0C:BA1:4C00:34E9:B898:BE7B:E691 ( talk) 17:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
You should add "Mary of York" as the second child of Edward IV of England and Elizabeth Woodville because I don't see her in the Edward's child and yesturday I saw her. I don't know why she was delated and who done it, but I think that's a shame imagine if pupils searched for informations about this king for a school homework and had bad grade because of this mistake, it would be a pity for them, who trusted Wikipedia.
The article currently states Edward "remains the only king in English history since 1066 in active possession of his throne who failed to secure the safe succession of his son." It's not literally true, and there are too many caveats that you would need to add to this statement to make it helpful. Anna ( talk) 14:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
It may seem like a minor nit-pick, but the article claims Edward was 'crowned' in London before moving on to Towton to confront Anjou's force. This is not true, Edward was appointed King, but was not crowned such until after Towton. It is actually a moderatly important detail that ought to be remedied. Spudkinned ( talk) 16:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
It wilfully misreads... "Edward of York was born at Rouen in France" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.184.220 ( talk) 19:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Edward IV of England has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article about Edward IV of England contains an inaccuracy. Edward IV had a daughter in 1461. Her name was Elizabeth. She became Elizabeth Lumley upon her marriage to Sir Thomas Lumley. No one knows who the mother of Lady Elizabeth Lumley was. She was brought up by Edward IV's mother, her own grandmother, Cecily Neville. The identity of the mother is lost to history. No one knows who she was. Lady Elizabeth Lucy was put forward as a potential mother and some people have argued Elizabeth Waite was the mother of Lady Elizabeth Lumley. Some also try to argue these two women are in fact the same person. In order to strengthen these arguments historians have, from time to time, tried to argue Elizabeth Lumley was born in 1464 and not 1461. Neither Elizabeth Waite nor Elizabeth Lucy knew Edward IV in 1461 and neither was in a relationship with him at that time. If Lady Elizabeth Lumley, was born in 1464, as your article claims and was subsequently married in 1477 to Sir Thomas Lumley, she would only have been aged 12 at the time. Those who support the idea Edward IV was married or engaged to Dame Eleanor Butler know that the relationship began in either 1462 or 1463. They also try to argue Elizabeth Lumley was born in 1464 in order to make Lady Elizabeth Lumley's date of birth of 1464, post date the Dame Eleanor Butler controversy. Elizabeth Lucy and Elizabeth Waite were two different women. Lady Elizabeth Lumley was born in 1461. She was the child of an unknown woman and Edward IV at a time when we had common law marriage in England. This child was a product of Edward IV's first known sexual relationship. It is most likely the mother died in childbirth. That goes some way to explain why she was brought up by her grandmother Cecily Neville. Your article also makes no reference to a son Edward IV allegedly had with Dame Eleanor in either 1464 or 1468 the year of her death. The boy (Edward of Wigmore) allegedly died in 1468. For completeness the article should not omit this information. The information is from Doubledays Encyclopedia of the Peerage NigelBoddysolicitor ( talk) 09:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Edward IV of England has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Says that edward was succeeded by henry vi - i think should be henry vii 69.202.240.54 ( talk) 14:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
General comments (for what its worth);
(a) While Edward was a talented individual (while young), the article is fairly uncritical, which is not the case even for the references already provided (eg Ross);
(b) I'm not going to touch it but is the question of his legitimacy worthy of more attention than (say) his foreign policy? Its three times longer than the current coverage of his reign post 1471 and has no references. Seems unbalanced. Robinvp11 ( talk) 18:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
This was removed as a 'self-published' source, which I think is harsh. The guidelines say 'use with caution' and I don't see the problem with using this to verify the location of his burial place, as opposed to qualitative assessments.
Findagrave has tens of thousands of entries, entered by thousands of individuals and provides pictures and details; if you think there's a better one, then please feel free but until then, can we keep this. Robinvp11 ( talk) 19:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not a specialist in this area but, coming to the article for the first time, the introduction strikes me as too full of events and circumstances leading up to Edward's accession. I think these should be moved to the beginning of the "Accession to the throne" section, and the introduction should do more to summarise the most important features of his life, reign and personality. Similarly, most of the section on "Early life" is not focussed on Edward himself. The details about his father's conflict with Henry VI are more appropriate to the articles on those two people. But here it would seem more relevant to mention why Edward happened to be born in Rouen, where he mainly grew up, what kind of education he had, etc. Mrmedley ( talk) 04:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Further to the above, I drafted a new lead section before realizing that the article is protected. For what it's worth, I copy my draft below. I think it does a better job of summarising the contents of the article, although the article itself is rather weak regarding the qualities of Edward and his reign.
Mrmedley ( talk) 13:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that's better! Thanks. Mrmedley ( talk) 14:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
So, Deb, will you make this change? Or perhaps even remove the protected status of the page, on a trial basis at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmedley ( talk • contribs) 01:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Robinvp11, for your response. But my opinion - for what it's worth - remains that, for a lead section, the present one gets too bogged down in what I would consider to be background information, particularly in the 2nd and 3rd sentences of the second paragraph and the first sentence of the third paragraph. The lead section is supposed to summarize the most important points and in my view these are not among the most important points of this specific article. But on consideration I agree it wasn't necessary to rewrite the whole of the lead section. Mrmedley ( talk) 02:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I see it failed back in 2015 - is it worth renominating it now? Robinvp11 ( talk) 17:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Cheers, —— Serial # 13:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
the person and individual, rather than "the third son of Edward III", etc., and other pre-history). Debs' lead nicely draws the central figure into the context without wasting words. Her prose is, frankly, delightful; I felt what it replaced—while longer—was choppier and fragmentary. Cheers, —— Serial # 16:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Did a virus shielded, cheeky, drive-by ce; auto-edded, cite scan, removed redundant ref harvs, changed date to year, moved unused references to further reading, rv dupe wikilinks. Tried to find Ross 1992 but couldn't. Rv as desired. Keith-264 ( talk) 13:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Deb, It looks to me that the article's extended-protected status should now be lifted. From the log I see you imposed it in September 2018 in response to a flurry of disruptive edits from an IP address. Is there a particular reason to think those would resume at the same level? If not, could you lift it, or at least reduce the protection level? Mrmedley ( talk) 00:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Mrmedley ( talk) 10:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm wondering why User:Surtsicna has changed "Elizabeth of York" to the ambiguous "Elizabeth, Queen of England" in the infobox? Deb ( talk) 12:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Aftermath section has Cardinal Reginald Pole as the 'last legitimate heir'. Cardinal Reginald Pole was the last surviving son of Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury, but he had at least four nephews surviving at the time of his death (Sir Arthur, Thomas, Edmund and Geoffrey) - legitimate sons of his brother Sir Geoffrey Pole and Constance Pakenham.
Is it just me or is the issues section in Edward IV's infobox jumbled up? It's not even chronological, if whoever did it did so for the purposes of highlighting historically important children of Edward IV. Should it be fixed? Yourlocallordandsavior ( talk) 06:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, just want to reiterate to people to try and use the talk page if they have any revisions they think that might be controversial or challenged. It can be a little annoying when some people try to make really big changes to the pages, especially those without much thinking behind it, and other editors having to revert these silly changes. Just a precaution so that it can ease some of the burdens other editors have to deal with, which can take quite a bit of hours to do, when those initial edits just took seconds or minutes to make. Thanks. Yourlocallordandsavior ( talk) 03:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
I believe George, Duke of Clarence, was older then King Richard III. -- GoodDay ( talk) 23:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
This page states that, When Richard Duke of York was replaced in France, his replacement was Henry Beaufort, 3rd Duke of Somerset. This is incorrect. Henry Beaufort was born in 1436. York was replaced in France in 1443, first by Henry's grandfather, John Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset, and then by Henry's father Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Somerset. Henry Beaufort was sent to Calais in 1459 to dislodge the Earl of Warwick. That was his only military command in France. Wayside55 ( talk) 02:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: ( non-admin closure) NO CONSENSUS User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
The votes are fairly evenly split, and many of the oppose voters feel the language If the regnal name and number are unambiguous, use them: Louis XVIII, Edward VIII, Alfonso XII, Gustaf VI Adolf. Adding a country to the article title, when there is no other country with a monarch of that name, goes against WP:PRECISION
at
WP:COGNOMEN (a guideline) does not have site-wide consensus. A broader discussion is necessary on this topic.
User:力 (power~enwiki,
π,
ν) 19:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
– The articles of many British and English monarchs are formatted without the country in the name. This is the case for Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, George V, Elizabeth II, to name a few. I see no reason to exclude Edward IV and Edward V. Векочел ( talk) 16:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. Havelock Jones ( talk) 15:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
For someone like myself, who is not knowledgeable about this period and comes here to be educated, this article is very imprecise as to which of the many Henrys are being mentioned at any particular juncture. For example, which Henry is being talked about in this quote: "Matters came to a head in August 1453 when Henry collapsed into a catatonic stupor..." ? Bushel C andle 13:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Edward IV of England has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2A01:CB0C:BA1:4C00:34E9:B898:BE7B:E691 ( talk) 17:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
You should add "Mary of York" as the second child of Edward IV of England and Elizabeth Woodville because I don't see her in the Edward's child and yesturday I saw her. I don't know why she was delated and who done it, but I think that's a shame imagine if pupils searched for informations about this king for a school homework and had bad grade because of this mistake, it would be a pity for them, who trusted Wikipedia.
The article currently states Edward "remains the only king in English history since 1066 in active possession of his throne who failed to secure the safe succession of his son." It's not literally true, and there are too many caveats that you would need to add to this statement to make it helpful. Anna ( talk) 14:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
It may seem like a minor nit-pick, but the article claims Edward was 'crowned' in London before moving on to Towton to confront Anjou's force. This is not true, Edward was appointed King, but was not crowned such until after Towton. It is actually a moderatly important detail that ought to be remedied. Spudkinned ( talk) 16:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)