Talk:John Sackville (died 1557)

Henry VIII's Queen
Hi Surtsicna,

On 28 February 2013 you changed 'Henry VIII's second Queen, Anne Boleyn' to 'Henry VIII's second wife, Anne Boleyn', with the edit comment that:

"Calling her Henry's queen is a bit odd. We would not refer to Henry as Anne's king, would we? Anyway, since it is not a proper noun, it would have been 'second queen'."

In future, could you please cite either a specific Wikipedia policy or a reliable source supporting your edit before you make a change of this sort? A reliable source WP:RS, an article by the historian G.W. Bernard ("The Fall of Anne Boleyn" English Historical Review (1991) CVI(CCCCXX): 584-610 doi:10.1093/ehr/CVI.CCCCXX.584), (see ) uses precisely the wording to which you object and the capitalization to which you object:

Bernard's article begins:

"In May 1536 Henry VIII’s Queen, Anne Boleyn, her brother George, Viscount Rochford etc."

Since there is a reliable source (and doubtless many others could be found, but one is sufficient) which supports the original wording and capitalization, I'm restoring that version.

I'm certain that we could avoid virtually all of these issues if you would take the trouble to cite a reliable source WP:RS, or a relevant Wikipedia policy, on the Talk page prior to making these sorts of changes, rather than simply making a change accompanied by edit comments which speak of things being 'a bit odd'.NinaGreen (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not going to argue over such petty issues, but would it trouble you I at least corrected the spelling? It should be "Henry VIII's queen", per Manual of Style/Biographies. Surtsicna (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The section to which you refer supports the use of a capital letter:
 * "Louis XVI was King of France"
 * Bernard's usage in The English Historical Review, quoted above, has the noun in apposition, as does my usage, which follows Bernard. A scholarly publication such as The English Historical Review is a reliable source WP:RS, and the manual of style in the EHR obviously supports the capitalization, and does not consider it a 'spelling error'. If the Wikipedia Manual of Style takes a different position (which as I've indicated, I don't think it does, as it doesn't have an example of a noun used in apposition), I won't quibble with that (I haven't reverted your 'correction'). However if I might offer a suggestion, could you refrain in future from referring in your edit comments to 'correcting' other editors' alleged 'spelling errors'? Putdowns of that nature get peoples' backs up. Wikipedia editors are all doing their best here, contributing their efforts free of charge for the common good. Sometimes all of us make mistakes, but telling people you're 'correcting their errors' isn't helpful, is it, particularly when the Manual of Style doesn't provide an example of the usage you claim to be 'correcting'? NinaGreen (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. I never said I was correcting your grammar or spelling. I am correcting grammar and spelling used in the article. You cannot seriously expect users not to say that they are "correcting spelling errors" when they are correcting spelling errors. Anyway, you do understand that the example you cited has nothing to do with this. I hope that you are not trying to manipulate the guidelines. "Standard or commonly used names of an office are treated as proper nouns." The word "queen" in "Henry VIII's queen" is not a name of an office. "Henry VIII's Queen of England" might be, but that sounds awkward. You are aware of this. Surtsicna (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have corrected dozens of errors in Wikipedia articles, and have managed to use phrasing other than 'I'm correcting your error' in the edit comment, and almost every other Wikipedia editor I've run across manages to extend that courtesy when correcting errors. I'm suggesting that you do the same. My statement that the Wikipedia Manual of Style has no example in the section you've cited of nouns used in apposition is correct. The EHR capitalizes the noun Queen when it's used in apposition. The Wikipedia Manual of Style has nothing to say on the subject, so 'correcting' an alleged 'error' on the basis of a non-existent example in the Wikipedia Manual of Style is questionable at best. But I haven't reverted your 'correction'. Obviously something needs to be written into the Wikipedia Manual of Style on nouns used in apposition. NinaGreen (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you do not suggest how I should use my edit summaries. Your comments are becoming more and more absurd, ranging from claims that referring to Elizabeth I of England as "Elizabeth" is disrespectful to claims that "correcting spelling" is an inappropriate edit summary. For God's sake, even Help:Edit summary lists "fixed spelling" as a helpful edit summary! It is actually fascinating that I still have enough patience to engage in discussions as ridiculous as these. I am also appalled to learn that The English Historical Review is now an authority on grammar and orthography. Surtsicna (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Surtsicna, the statement you're ridiculing is of your own invention ('claims that referring to Elizabeth I of England as "Elizabeth" is disrespectful'). That statement would be an absurdity, and of course I never made it. As you're well aware, what I said on the Wikipedia Project Royalty Talk page was that after Elizabeth and Mary were bastardized by Henry VIII under the Act of Succession, they were never referred to by their contemporaries as merely Elizabeth and Mary, which would have been extremely disrespectful. Here are my exact words:
 * "In short, Elizabeth and Mary were never referred to by their contemporaries as merely 'Mary' and 'Elizabeth', which would have been disrespectful in the extreme"
 * You've falsely attributed the version you're ridiculing and variants thereof to me several times, so it's necessary to clear up for the record, and in context, what I actually did say, with a link so that other editors can verify it for themselves. An apology from you for publicly misrepresenting what I actually said would be in order. NinaGreen (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Everyone can see what you wrote. "In short, Elizabeth and Mary were never referred to by their contemporaries as merely 'Mary' and 'Elizabeth', which would have been disrespectful in the extreme, and trying to work into every Wikipedia article the designation by which they actually were referred to, 'the Lady Mary's Grace' and 'the Lady Elizabeth's Grace' is well-nigh impossible." Your point was that we should not refer to them as Elizabeth and Mary because their contemporaries did not do so. Please don't insult the intelligence of other users by claiming otherwise, especially since you made no attempt to deny that while we were discussing it. Now, on the other side of the spectrum, there is the claim that "correcting spelling is an inappropriate edit summary. Sigh. Surtsicna (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Surtsicna, that was not my point at all. My point was simply what I said, i.e. that their contemporaries would not have referred to them merely as 'Elizabeth' or 'Mary' after their bastardization, but in fact did refer to them as 'the Lady Mary's Grace' and 'the Lady Elizabeth's Grace', which would be difficult to work into Wikipedia articles. And you do owe me an apology for several times misrepresenting what I've said in that respect. You seem to understand very little of what I say, and routinely misrepresent what I've actually said in your responses. I said earlier that it would be better if we were to edit separately for a time. I've never edited on an article you've been working on, but you appear to be following my work and focussing on articles I'm working on, and you've made 'corrections' to countless articles I've been working on, never citing a reliable source or a Wikipedia policy for your 'corrections' in your edit summaries. Most of your 'corrections' to my articles can't be supported by reliable sources or Wikipedia policy. This course of action of yours is counterproductive, and has led to unnecessary exchanges in many Wikipedia forums. This could all be avoided if you would agree that it would be best if we were to edit entirely separately for a few months at the minimum, as I suggested earlier. It may be that we can work together in the future since we're both interested in the same historical period, but for the time being it would be best for all concerned if you were not to follow me around on Wikipedia 'correcting' almost every article I'm working on. Agreed? NinaGreen (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have any understanding of how Wikipedia works? There are no forums here and there are no "articles that you are working on" or "articles that I am working on". It is also bizarre that you keep insisting on something that is so blatantly untrue, as if nobody could see that. When you hit a wall with such ridiculous arguments, you simply ignore the entire thing - as with your edit summary protest. I've warned you about slander several times, but you do not seem to care. Anyway, I believe this discussion has run its course. Surtsicna (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Sackville (died 1557). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071021175150/http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/Bios/JohnSackville.htm to http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/Bios/JohnSackville.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)