Talk:Walter Hungerford, 1st Baron Hungerford

Untitled
How does Walter Hungerford come to be Lord High Treasurer a century before he actually lived. Is he, by any chance being confused with another Walter Hungerford who was a 15th century Speaker of the House of Commons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.40.36.52 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 29 March 2005

Giving women their full names in Wikipedia articles
Hi PBS,

I notice you changed my edit of yesterday's date, 'He married secondly Eleanor Berkeley (d. 1 August 1455), daughter of Sir John Berkeley'. to 'He married secondly Eleanor (died 1 August 1455), daughter of Sir John Berkeley'. The reason I put the full maiden name of women of this historical period in Wikipedia articles when giving details of their marriages is that some of them deserve to be better known, and with the interest in Women's Studies, people search for them on the internet and on Wikipedia itself, but are unable to find mention of them if they are referred to in Wikipedia articles merely by their first names. NinaGreen (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you're thinking too deeply about whoever edited it. We're supposed to assume good faith; to me it looks like it was a simple change to make the sentence flow better. The second version sounds far better as it stops the repetition of "Berkeley". And it doesn't detract from anything; her surname is obviously that of her father, it doesn't make her less known and makes no affect on the "googleability" as it doesn't matter if the two words are together or not.
 * Google "Eleanor Berkeley" the top result is actually a Wikipedia page:  Eleanor Rosch (once known as Eleanor Rosch Heider; born 1938) is a professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley.  -doesn't matter that the two words are not together.
 * If you want someone to be "better known", create an article for them. Best --Rushton2010 (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. I agree that there was likely a feeling by the editor that the sentence would flow better. But I wanted to put down a marker because in the old DNB of a century ago, women were identified in exactly this way in terms of their fathers, and it's time we moved on, isn't it? NinaGreen (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We'ere all identified in terms of our fathers; its how surnames work. And the same edit would have been made if it was "Edward, son of Sir John Berkeley". It's just sentence flow, not sexism. --Rushton2010 (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong.:-) The context is a marriage, i.e. X married Y, and a male wouldn't be identified in terms of his father in that context, he'd be identified as himself, as in 'Lady Anne Seymour (d.1588), married firstly John Dudley, 2nd Earl of Warwick; she married secondly Sir Edward Unton'. There is an inherent sexism in the wording I objected to. But let's give it a rest. I've made the point, and hopefully Wikipedia editors will take it under advisement. NinaGreen (talk) 02:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Using the daughter formula is a way to avoid complications where a woman marries more than once. Elizabeth is a good example Beverstone/FitzAlan/Poynings/Berkeley. At the time of her marriage to Berkeley she was presumably Elizabeth Poynings, but that is more confusing than missing out the surname and identifying her as "daughter of, a stable name". It also avoids OR as most sources use that formula (and by adding in her surname and there is a danger of inaccuracy as former marriage may have happened, but is not in the sources that the Wikipeida editor reviews when writing the summary for a Wikiepdia biography entry).
 * As to notability issues, if a subject is notable enough to have a biography then that presumably will be under whatever name the subject is usually known as in reliable sources. See for example Lucy Hutchinson (1620–1681) where she is best known using her married name. However in her husband's biography she is referred to as "He was married to Lucy, daughter of Sir Allen Apsley Lord Lieutenant of the Tower of London." and I think putting "Lucy Hutchinson" into her husbands biography would be confusing (had she married before to another man named Hutchinson?) and using "Lucy Apsley" would be repetitious (a point made by Rushton2010) and would not not help with finding her with an internet search on her common name.
 * I also think that when listing children that only their first name (and titles at birth) should be used (unless for some reason they do not carry their father's surname at birth). The comment after the child's name can note their notability, although of course their first name should be linked to a biography on the person if they are notable in their own right.   -- PBS (talk) 11:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's an unresolved issue on Wikipedia, with no policy in place, and individual editors should not impose their own personal views on other editors. There are good reasons for including surnames of both women and children in Wikipedia articles, not the least of which is that a Google search with the full names in quotation marks will not turn up the Wikipedia article which mentions "Elizabeth Berkeley", for example. There is so much other work to do on Wikipedia that I can't help but wonder why some Wikipedia editors make it a priority to revert and revise edits by other Wikipedia editors at every turn in accordance with their own personal preferences. I've run into this too many times. NinaGreen (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)