Talk:Thomas Radclyffe, 3rd Earl of Sussex

1911 Encylopedia Britannica
Can whoever copied and pasted "The prevailing anarchy in Ireland, a country which, nominally subject to the English Crown, was torn by feuds among its practically independent native chieftains, made the task of the lord deputy a difficult one; the difficulty was increased by the ignorance of English statesmen concerning Ireland and Irish conditions, and by their incapacity to devise any consistent and thoroughgoing policy for bringing the island under an orderly system of administration" from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica kindly apply their critical faculties to what they are writing in a modern article. I know it wasn't paywalled, but seriously? This is cowboy and Red Indian stuff, from the age of the manifest destiny of the Empire, not history, and deserves to be treated as such. Get an up to date source with a bit of balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ematris (talk • contribs) 20:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Untitled
In my opinion this article should be divided into more sections or chapters sothat readings gets easier...
 * Note: above comment is from August 2006. - PKM (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality
A user has put an NPOV tag on the last section without comment. This wording is, I believe, straight out of the (rather effusive) 1911 Britannica and should be replaced with a more current assessment:
 * The Earl of Sussex was one of the great nobles of the Elizabethan period. Though his loyalty was questioned by his enemies, it was as unwavering as his patriotism. He shone as a courtier; he excelled in diplomacy; he was a man of cultivation and even of scholarship, a patron of literature and of the drama on the eve of its blossoming into the glory it became soon after his death.

I'll see if I can find something current. - PKM (talk) 02:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've simply cut this, which is not our "house style". Charles Matthews (talk) 09:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)