Talk:Francis Walsingham

message: I'm also curious as to why the last bit was written.  It seems to have been written solely to take a jab at the movie Elizabeth without offering any insight as to why the character of Walsingham was not portrayed accurately.  I would think that this portion of the article could easily be removed without harming the otherwise informative writeup.  
--Airosche 18:36, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The last bit about fiction 

message: Anyone know where Walsingham was buried, or entombed? --Michael K. Smith (talk) 02:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burial place? 

message: The statement about Walsingham "winning" over Stafford is simply not borne out by the evidence, I am afraid: The fullest account (the only one using the original Spanish sources, not the translated calendars) so far is the article by Geoffrey Parker: "Treason and Plot in Elizabethan Diplomacy: The 'Fame of Sir Edward Stafford' Reconsidered" in Success Is Never Final by the same author (2002). There can be no doubt that Stafford was the best mole the Spaniards had, and Walsingham did not neutralise him before the Armada, when it would have mattered.
So, since there is no reference given, I removed the last sentence about Walsingham and Stafford.
Buchraeumer (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Edward Stafford

message: Changed the ownership in Elizabeth_I_(tv series) 2005 from HBO to the actual producers Channel Four HBO were just the US distributors.Twobells (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Davies, Watson and Camden are contemporaries writing eulogistic descriptions of the real man. This is quite different from the modern-day fictional portrayals. DrKay (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Having found and added a reference to Watson's poem I think the death section is too heavy now and we should have a literature section divided into poetry and novels Sceptic1954 (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I see nothing wrong with the length of the section. DrKay (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Dr.Kay The MOS point you raised can be easily bypassed, there's another poem, by Spenser to be added and the points can be fleshed out a little.  It strikes me that many of those interested i n his death will not be interested in the poetry whilst those who may be interested in the poetry may not find it if it is buried away with the account of his death.  Do you have any especial objection to a separate sub-section on Walsingham in poetry.  It strikes me that all artistic references should go together in the same general section? Sceptic1954 (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walsingham in Fiction updated 

message: Under "Walsingham's Interests", there is a sentence "His chef was noteworthy." What does this mean? Did he have an interest in cooking, or was he a publicist for his cook...? Norman21 (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The above seems to have been written on  21:02, 5 February 2009 by Mleimon. Can anyone verify it? Norman21 (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chef? 

message: Would it be frivolous to list the instrumental song "Walsingham" (written by John Dowland) at the bottom of the page? Title of song listed on Songs from the Labyrinth  (performed by Edin Karamzov). Would I need to do more than simply list the title and include some information about Dowland and research why the tune was titled "Walsingham"?
whooshing (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related Music 

message: Several books/texts list Walsingham as a Puritan yet he is listed here as a Protestant?  I was always lead to believe that Proestantism and Puritanism were bothe different?82.20.8.96 (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Puritans are Protestants. The sources used in the article say he was Protestant and that there is no direct evidence he was a Puritan. DrKay (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Protestant or Puritan

message: It is not clear if Walsingham benefitted financially from slavery. The article says he "promoted" the activities of Francis Drake.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.68.22 (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Drake was certainly involved in slavery. So was Elizabeth.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.68.22 (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hawkins, Cecil, Walsingham and Drake were all on good terms with each other in 1582.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.68.22 (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The site www.elizabethfiles.com says Walsingham invested in Drake's 1577 effort.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.103.250 (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Walsingham's investment is already in the article. DrKay (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says "Walsingham was amoung the promoters of Francis Drake's profitable 1578-1581 circumnavigation of the world". This does not says clearly if Walsingham's promotion was financial or not and does not clearly mention slavery. Walsingham was presiding over England when slavery was legal.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.215.180 (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavery 

message: His coat of arms is not worthy of inclusion in the lead. The lead is for the most important points and is designed to be a summary of the article. It shouldn't be used to introduce material not found in the article body or material of doubtful relevance. I also doubt the necessity of giving his maternal grandfather's address in the article. This is at best a tangential detail of little to no relevance. Also, note WP:DUPCITES, duplicate references should be merged. Per MOS:CAPTION, captions should be succinct with details on the file page. The captions of the introduced files were particularly bad: one misspelled his name and the other repeated details from the article text unnecessarily and was incorrect grammatically. DrKay (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Scadbury is an important historic estate purchased by Francis's great-great-grandfather, an MP and wealthy merchant. It continued to be held by the senior line of the Walsingham family until 2 generations after Francis's death. It's important to identify him with this important gentry family. The article at present is weak in this area. In fact the HoP article I sourced from is wrong (surprisingly, HoP is usually pretty good), his father was a younger son and thus did not inherit his father's estate. Nevertheless, it's relevant to explain the connection. As for the maternal grandfather's "address", it's convention to state the seat of gentry families, such as Denny, in biographies. When you know the seat it's possible for those who are interested to look into the family further, e.g. using VCH of the manor, or a county history. I don't care where the coat of arms goes, but it's certainly worthy of going in the article, WP biogs have 1,000s of CoAs so it's a well established WP convention to include them, near the top - they concern family origins, which start at the top. The 1562 stained-glass is a very valuable illustration, and needs to be included. Captions should explain what the images depict, a golden rule of any publishing. It's very irritating for the reader to be presented with an image unexplained or semi-explained by the caption and then to have to hunt through the whole article to find an explanation. Thanks for correcting any of my errors, that's always welcome, but it might be more helpful if you would work in a collaborative manner rather than delete contributions added inadvertently and in good faith in the wrong place. We're not all WP lawyers who study the rules in great depth, that's not what WP is all about for most of us. So in conclusion I intend to replace the images of the arms, under the lead if you would prefer that, and also I intend to develop the ancestry and origins of this person. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Your characterization of my edits as wikilawyering, uncollaborative and deletionism is insulting. I helped expand this article e.g. and obviously contributed collegially at Wikipedia:Peer review/Francis Walsingham/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Francis Walsingham/archive1. This article is about Walsingham not his ancestors. DrKay (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

text: None of that warrants the inclusion of two heraldry-related images into the lead (i.e. summary) of this article. The lead should contain one image, depicting the subject. Images should not be added wherever there is space because they are not supposed to be primarily decorative. They should be relevant to the section in which they appear. See WP:IMAGERELEVANCE. Surtsicna (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: New section on origins added, more information, more logically arranged. He was from a well-established gentry family, which needs to be explained, his earliest notable ancestor was Thomas Walsingham (died 1457), MP, who purchased Scadbury. That needs to be mentioned too.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's at Scadbury Park, where it belongs. The section on his family connections is already more than adequate to put across the pertinent point: that he was a well-connected member of the gentry. DrKay (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Need to explain what that connection was. That has been done in one sentence. Important information. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins