Template:Did you know nominations/John Sackville (died 1557)

John Sackville (died 1557)

 * ... that Sir John Sackville wife, Margaret Boleyn, was an aunt of Queen Anne Boleyn and a great-aunt of Queen Elizabeth I?
 * Reviewed: Blaufrankisch

Created/expanded by NinaGreen (talk). Self nominated at 07:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC).


 * Article - expansion started on 25 February when 559 characters, now 3527 characters of readable prose, so long enough with x6 expansion; neutral; at least one inline citation to every paragraph; no copy vios detected using earwig/duplication detector; assessed as start class.
 * Hook - within length criteria at 120 characters; correctly formatted - I changed the apostrophe in the hook using template, so hope this is correct; properly cited/supported by ref #1 in lead section, verified using google books; and interesting.
 * QPQ done; no image.
 * There is a DAB link in the article, which I was unable to correct as I wasn't sure which Thomas Palmer it was (but doesn't affect DYK).
 * Symbol confirmed.svg interesting article and hook.  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  11:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am slightly concerned about the wording of the hook, given that Anne Boleyn was never both Boleyn and queen. It would be more factually correct to say "of the queen Anne Boleyn" (where the word "queen" is just a descriptor). Mixing maiden names and marital titles does not work well. Also, I think it would be better to say that Sackville was Anne Boleyn's uncle and Elizabeth I's great-uncle (thus focusing more on him, since the article itself is about him). Thus, I would suggest something like:
 * ALT1: ... that Sir John Sackville was an uncle of Anne Boleyn and a great-uncle of Elizabeth I?
 * ALT2: ... that Sir John Sackville was an uncle of the English queen Anne Boleyn and a great-uncle of Queen Elizabeth I?
 * In addition to being more relevant, they are also more concise and thus more likely to attract readers' attention. Surtsicna (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * They also sound more natural - as you say, "Queen Anne Boleyn" isn't the way she's normally referred to. I'd go with #2. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A recent review in The Guardian states that George W. Bernard, professor of early modern history at Southampton University and editor of the English Historical Review, in a recent book refers to her as 'Queen Anne Boleyn', quoting a contemporary French poem:
 * A recent review in The Guardian states that George W. Bernard, professor of early modern history at Southampton University and editor of the English Historical Review, in a recent book refers to her as 'Queen Anne Boleyn', quoting a contemporary French poem:


 * "Examining a 1545 poem by Lancelot de Carles, who was then serving the French ambassador to Henry's court, Bernard concludes that the poem, entitled 'A letter containing the criminal charges laid against Queen Anne Boleyn of England,' offers strong evidence that Anne did, in fact, commit adultery."


 * Some Wikipedia editors appear to have developed certain conventions concerning the way in which English queens are to be referred to which are supported neither by the way in which these queens are referred to by their contemporaries, by historians, or in popular culture. Regarding the latter, if one googles 'Queen Anne Boleyn', one gets 97,000 hits. Whether these conventions developed by some Wikipedia editors over the past few years are correct or not would appear to be a topic which should be considered in a venue other than DYK. Perhaps someone can suggest an appropriate Wikipedia forum to which that discussion could be moved. But on the evidence of the historian G.W. Bernard's discussion of the contemporary poem which he titles "A letter containing the criminal charges laid against Queen Anne Boleyn of England," it is clearly not historically inaccurate to refer to her as 'Queen Anne Boleyn'. Moreover the 97,000 hits one gets on google offers evidence that she is commonly referred to in that way in popular culture. It does not appear that Wikipedia's policy is to dispute reliable sources such as the historian G.W. Bernard, or to dispute and 'correct' popular culture.NinaGreen (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no need to refer to Andrew Gray and me as "some Wikipedia editors". It is quite clear who voiced their concern. For what it's worth, Anne never signed as Anne Boleyn following her marriage; she signed as "Anne the quene". I also do not understand why the concern of two users should be ignored. If we can choose between a troubled hook and an incontestable one, why choose the former? Surtsicna (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue is not who the Wikipedia editors are who have developed these conventions. The issue is whether these conventions which have been developed by certain Wikipedia editors are historically accurate, and whether they should be 'enforced' throughout Wikipedia considering that they dispute both reliable sources and popular culture, as I've shown above. As I've suggested, this is not a discussion for DYK, and hopefully someone can suggest an appropriate forum on Wikipedia to which it can be moved. The hook is not 'troubled' either in terms of historical accuracy or popular culture. It is only 'troubled' in terms of conventions which have been developed by certain Wikipedia editors, conventions which are themselves in dispute, and need input from a large number of Wikipedia editors before any attempt is made to enforce them throughout Wikipedia. NinaGreen (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Two users raised their concerns about a hook. That makes the hook contested. Please do not avoid answering to my question, which is very simple: if we can choose between a troubled contested hook and an incontestable one, why choose the former? Surtsicna (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've answered the question. The grounds on which the hook has been contested are themselves in dispute, and appear to constitute original research, contrary to WP:NOR. The grounds on which the hook has been contested are neither supported by a contemporary document, by historians, or in popular culture, as I've shown. The issue needs to be moved from DYK to an appropriate forum where input can be obtained from a wide variety of editors on the issue of whether these conventions constitute original research.NinaGreen (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You haven't shown anything and you haven't answered the question. The fact is that the original hook's wording has been contested. I asked why the suggested alternative should be discarded in favour of the contested original hook. You have not provided a reason. Of course, you are not obliged to do that, but a disputed hook is very unlikely to reach the main page (and remain there). The fact that two users do not approve of it probably means something. That said, I am having trouble figuring out where the original research rambling came from. Surtsicna (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it other DYK editors to decide whether I've answered the question. I've demonstrated that the grounds on which the hook has been 'contested' appear to constitute original research contrary to Wikipedia's policy of WP:NOR, and not merely original research which affects this hook alone, but original research which affects a very wide range of Wikipedia articles because it consists of 'conventions' developed by one or two Wikipedia editors concerning the way in which queens are to be referred to throughout Wikipedia articles, and these 'conventions' contradict reliable sources and attempt to 'correct' popular culture. The issue of whether this actually does constitute original research goes far beyond the hook for this article, and has already been 'enforced' in a number of Wikipedia articles, and will eventually affect several hundred additional Wikipedia articles at a minimum, and many Wikipedia editors. It needs to be resolved in some Wikipedia forum other than DYK, and hopefully some other DYK editor(s) will suggest a forum to which the discussion of this wide issue of whether these 'conventions' constitute original research can be moved for resolution. NinaGreen (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Nina, I don't know what our standard naming conventions are for articles about short-lived royal consorts, or what debates lie behind those, and I don't particularly want to get drawn into a lengthy fight about them. My comment about "normally referred to" was made because this is the way I have always encountered both academic and non-academic sources referring to Boleyn, and the "Queen Anne Boleyn" form seems jarring and awkward as a result. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew Gray, I am afraid that calling it "jarring and awkward" is apparently original research. (I can only sigh at that.) Surtsicna (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, thanks for the clarification. However I'm puzzled as to why you say she is not 'normally referred to' in 'both academic and non-academic sources' as 'Queen Anne Boleyn. For example in the historian David Loades' Elizabeth I: A Life, there is this note on p. 325:

"47. Nicholas Udall, ‘English Verses and Ditties at the Coronation Procession of Queen Anne Boleyn’, in A.F. Pollard, Tudor Tracts (1903), p. 21."

This establishes that she was referred to by contemporaries such as Nicholas Udall as 'Queen Anne Boleyn', and that eminent modern historians such as David Loades and A.F. Pollard find no fault with 'Queen Anne Boleyn'. As for non-academic sources, surely 97,000 google hits for 'Queen Anne Boleyn' speaks for itself. It is only one or two Wikipedia editors who assert that it is totally impermissible to refer to her as 'Queen Anne Boleyn', and this appears to constitute original research on their part as no reliable source has ever been offered in support of the claim by these editors that it is totally impermissible to refer to her as 'Queen Anne Boleyn'. It clearly is permissible, and the usage is supported by reliable sources, including contemporary sources, modern historians, and sources from modern popular culture. NinaGreen (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, I am puzzled as to why you continue to ignore every suggested compromise and keep insisting on a usage that is obviously not the best possible one (if it were, it would not have been contested). Surtsicna (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The hook should never have been contested on the basis on which you contested it. You said:

"given that Anne Boleyn was never both Boleyn and queen. It would be more factually correct to say 'of the queen Anne Boleyn' (where the word 'queen' is just a descriptor). Mixing maiden names and marital titles does not work well."


 * As the reliable sources I've cited above demonstrate, the foregoing statement by you is inaccurate, and constitutes original research on your part, contrary to Wikipedia policy. I think the appropriate step under the circumstances would be for you to withdraw your comments, and to allow the original hook to go forward as the wording in the original hook is supported by contemporary sources, modern historians, and sources from modern popular culture. The point needs to be made because, as I've said above, this is not solely about this particular hook. It has consequences for many other Wikipedia articles, and you've already made a large number of changes to many Wikipedia articles based on your original research concerning the 'proper' (in your view) way English queens must be referred to in Wikipedia articles. If this hook is changed, you will feel you have been given carte blanche to change many other Wikipedia articles in accordance with your original research on this point. If there were reliable sources against me, I'd be the first to concede the point and change the hook. In the total absence of reliable sources which state that it is impermissible to refer to her as 'Queen Anne Boleyn', and since there are excellent reliable sources which state that it is permissible to refer to her in that way, I think the original hook should stand. Hooks should not be contested on the basis of original research. NinaGreen (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That is still not an answer. The hook is contested and it is contested by two users. At least one of them is not going to withdraw anything. Google hits and a very obscure poem are hardly going to convince anyone in this case. I must also say that your accusations of original research are thoroughly inappropriate. You either do not know what original research is or you want to use big words to somehow refute my arguments. I am going to assume good faith and presume that you do not know what OR is. That said, please read about it and stop accusing me of it. It is very hard to tolerate such things for a long period of time. Surtsicna (talk) 09:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I undertook the review of this nomination and have to say I was taken aback yesterday when I read Surtsicna's first comment. I'm sure it was not intended to come across as un-necessarily confrontational but I'm afraid it did read that way to me, so I was going to step back from becoming further involved. However, I still support the original hook as the term 'Queen Anne Boleyn' did not, and still does not, strike me as incorrect or in-accurate. A very brief search on the Oxford Dictionary of National Biographic site for the term 'Queen Anne Boleyn' throws up a number of instances where she is referred to as that ; also searching the British History online site brings results showing her termed as 'Queen Anne Boleyn', so it seems it comes down to a matter of personal preference? NinaGreen, the nominator, has already stated her wish to retain the original hook, so unless a Wikipedia policy to overturn this can be cited, surely it should remain?  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  12:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My first comment here was confrontational? Pardon my straightforwardness, but that is absurd and anyone can see that. A DYK review is not a confrontation. Anyway, you are surely going to find kings and queens of Great Britain and the United Kingdom referred to as "king of England" or "queen of England", even in reputable sources, but it does not make it appropriate or correct. "Queen Anne Boleyn" does not sound odd without a reason. What is next? "Queen Catherine of Aragon"? "Queen Anne of Cleves"? The main page should not feature hooks that will raise eyebrows and whose wording and/or accuracy could be disputed, especially not when there is an only slightly modified alternative whose wording and/or accuracy are undisputable and whose meaning and "hookyness" are the same. Surtsicna (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sagacious Phil, thanks for your recent comment, and for pointing the way forward, which is that the issue can and should be resolved on the basis of Wikipedia policy. There is currently no specific Wikipedia policy stating how Anne Boleyn and Henry VIII's five other Queens are to be referred to, and the 'conventions' Surtsicna is insisting upon here and in other Wikipedia articles are 'conventions' of her own invention, and are thus original research WP:NOR. Until such a policy is put in place by consensus after thorough discussion among all interested editors, Surtsicna has no right to insist that her own 'conventions' be adopted both in this hook and in the many other Wikipedia articles she has already changed in accordance with her own 'conventions'. Moreover there is a very clear overriding Wikipedia policy on reliable sources WP:RS, and Surtsicna, either with respect to this hook or with respect to the many other changes she has made in accordance with her 'conventions' to other Wikipedia articles has never cited a single reliable source which states that her 'conventions' are the only permissible manner by which Henry VIII's six Queens can be referred to. On the other hand, I've cited a number of very reliable sources in both contemporary documents from the Tudor period and in the works of modern historians, and you've cited other reliable sources as well, which use the form 'Queen Anne Boleyn', indicating that is entirely permissible to use the form 'Queen Anne Boleyn' in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources WP:RS, and that Surtsicna is clearly wrong in insisting that it is impermissible. Moreover 97,000 hits on google for 'Queen Anne Boleyn' indicates that that phrase is part of popular culture as well, and no Wikipedia reader is going to be put off by it in the slightest. I don't know what is to be done if Surtsicna will not withdraw her comments 'contesting' the hook, but her position is clearly not supported by Wikipedia policy in any way. NinaGreen (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Surtsicna will not withdraw his comment. In fact, it is entirely inappropriate to request a reviewer to do such a thing. I have already warned you about accusing me of something that I am obviously not doing. If you do not stop slandering me by rambling about original research, I will have no option but to report such behaviour. All of this is getting out of control here. I understand that you may have an issue with me (albeit for petty reasons), but shouldn't you at least take Andrew Gray's concern into consideration? I suggested an only slightly reworded alternative that would solve this entire dispute, but you would rather go through all of this than even consider the alternative. The solution is in compromise, not in obstinacy. Surtsicna (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition to the overriding Wikipedia policies of editing in accordance with reliable sources WP:RS and no original research WP:NOR, there is also a statement of Wikipedia's position on this issue in the Wikipedia Manual of Style in the section on 'Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)' at :
 * "There is no agreed-upon general convention for deceased consorts"
 * It is thus entirely in accordance with the overriding Wikipedia policy on reliable sources WP:RS and with the Wikipedia Manual of Style, to use a form, 'Queen Anne Boleyn', which is found in contemporary sources from the Tudor period itself, and which is used by modern historians, and is also widely used and accepted in popular culture. It is unfortunate that Surtsicna has chosen to insist that a form must be used of her own choice, misterming it 'compromise', and for Surtsicna to make the claim that the use of a form which complies in every way with Wikipedia policy constitutes 'obstinacy'. NinaGreen (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Of 513,000 books mentioning Anne Boleyn, only 447 refer to "queen anne boleyn". Those 447 results include the uncontested "the queen Anne Boleyn" form. It means that 512,000 books refer to her simply as "Anne Boleyn" and less than 447 books call her "Queen Anne Boleyn". It is thus perfectly clear how accepted that form is and why we found it unusual to the point of being bizarre. So much about being "widely used and accepted in popular culture". As a matter of fact, this entire discussion has become bizarre, especially NinaGreen's bringing up ridiculously unrelated policies and his attempts to depict an obscure poem as representing the entire popular culture. Surtsicna (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No-one, least of all me, has ever said that the form 'Anne Boleyn' is incorrect, or that it is not widely used, and Surtsicna's attempt to shift the discussion to a point which has never been in issue is unhelpful. The issue is that the other form, 'Queen Anne Boleyn', is also correct, and its use is in complete accordance with contemporary documents, scholarly books and articles by historians, and every relevant Wikipedia policy, as stated many times above, and Surtsicna should never have challenged the hook on the basis that it is incorrect, and should withdraw her comments. If Surtsicna wishes to put something into the Wikipedia Manual of Style which states that the form 'Queen Anne Boleyn' should never be used on Wikipedia, she's free to raise the issue on the Manual of Style Talk Page on Naming Conventions, Royalty and Nobility, and see whether she can gain consensus for her position. In the meantime, as I've quoted it above, the Manual of Style states that 'There is no agreed-upon general convention for deceased consorts', and I would suggest that unless she can get that statement changed, Surtsicna should learn to live with it. Surtsicna has 'corrected' a very large number of Wikipedia articles on the basis of her views that certain forms of referring to Henry VIII's queens are 'incorrect' and cannot be used on Wikipedia, and she is clearly wrong herself in insisting upon those 'corrections', as the statement that 'There is no agreed-upon general convention for deceased consorts' in the Manual of Style indicates. The path forward is very clear. If Surtsicna wants to have the Manual of Style changed in accordance with her views, she needs to do that. In the interim Surtsicna needs to stop contantly correcting alleged 'errors' which conflict with views which she won't try to obtain consensus for. As I said at the outset, this is not about the wording of this particular hook. I would have agreed at the outset to Surtsicna's suggested change had she not already made so many changes to so many other Wikipedia articles on this point, alleging that she was 'correcting errors' and making flip comments about things 'sounding wierd' and 'sounding a bit odd' etc., without citing either a reliable source or a Wikipedia policy to support her 'corrections'. It was clear to me, and I suspect, clear to others, that Surtsicna's challenge of the use of the term 'Queen Anne Boleyn', which is perfectly acceptable for the reasons already cited so many times, was an attempt by Surtsicna to extend her 'corrections' even further, and to validate them. Challenging a DYK hook is not the way to do that on Wikipedia. This is a Wikipedia Manual of Style issue. The Wikipedia Manual of Style is in a state of constant development. If someone feels it should be changed, the proper way to bring about that change is to take it up on the appropriate Manual of Style Talk page, and attempt to obtain consensus for one's view. The proper way is not to follow editors around on Wikipedia constantly changing their work while claiming to be 'correcting their errors' (I am by no means the only editor who has been subjected to Surtsicna's 'corrections'). It is unfortunate that Surtsicna chose this forum for a lengthy discussion of a point which, given the vehemence of her position on the point, she should have raised long ago on the appropriate Manual of Style Talk page. If Surtsicna wants the Manual of Style changed on this point, she has only to raise the issue on the appropriate Manual of Style Talk page and attempt to gain consensus for it. In the interim she should withdraw her comments here, and allow the DYK nomination to proceed. NinaGreen (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not even going to bother reading the preceding comment. Judging by his previous comments, it would be a waste of any user's time. In case it is not clear, I am not withdrawing my review. It is preposterous to even suggest doing so. I cannot decide whether all of this is bizarre or ridiculous. Surtsicna (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)