Talk:Thomas Percy (Gunpowder Plot)

message: "Holbech House" is normally spelled as "Holbeach House". It is on the borders between Staffordshire and Warwickshire, on the Warwickshire side.
:wrong: it is Holbeche House in Kingswinford, which was in Staffordshire.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Enjoy Warwickshire: Warwickshire and the gunpowder plot
:I have yet again reverted the unsubstantiated claim that Thomas Percy was a knight (with the prefix "Sir") added by an anon editor.  The above Warwickshire website (which I did not find) does indeed give him this title, but I have checked Antonia Fraser, Gunpowder Plot (Mandarin, London 1997), 184-6, where the events at Holbeche house are described (and index).  She does not give Percy this title.  She is careful to give it to others, such as Sir Richard Walsh, High sheriff of Worcestershire, whose sheriff's posse was responsible for the arrests, presumably on the principle that hot pursuit allowed him to follow traitors beyond his county boundary.  
:If there is substantial academic evidence for the knighthood, it needs to be set out in the text about his earlier life and properly cited.  The reliability of the above Warwickshire tourism page is not clear: there are links to various other websites, but it is not clear where the information come from.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Peterkingiron. I used to spend quite a lot of effort maintaining Thomas as a commoner in this article, and like you I have never encountered any evidence for a knighthood, whether bestowed or inherited. Nick Michael (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've removed the following text from the article, not because I doubt its authenticity, but because I can't find any mention of it in more modern sources (beyond vague mentions of his unpopularity in his role at Alnwick).  I can't even find it in the online versions of the source it claims to come from:
In 1602 he was accused of several misdemeanours involving mismanagement or embezzlement of his master's property: 
*
And bribery: 
*
Can anyone help? Parrot of Doom 11:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks credible, but we need access to the book cited.  The second quote certainly reads like bribery, but I would prefer it only to appear in WP if the accusation in the source book, not merely as a WP editor's interpretation.  There might be an innocent explanation.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The book in question can be found on Google Books: . I would request the extracts reinstated as they not only a valuable example of Percy's misdemeanours but are also correctly referenced. Thanks. Nick Michael (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps then you could find the above text in that book, because I can't. Parrot of Doom 23:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry I didn't mean my post to sound antagonistic.  The above is fine, its unfortunate however, that we can't see the text in its full context.  How about I expand the article to include some "controversy" with regard to the above, and include them in the notes?  I'm a little hesitant to rely wholly on those quotes, as they're in a pretty old source, and also because no other author I have read on this subject has mentioned them. Parrot of Doom 19:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No antagonism taken Parrot. The source is old, indeed, but contemporary - not some late C19 amateur historian commenting, but good C17 text. But by all means comment on them and put them in the notes. The fact that no other author has mentioned them merely says something about the other authors! But I really think they're entirely worthy of inclusion in one form or another as they are evidence of Percy's character. Nick Michael (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Only small things really, in my scattergun attempt to rely on more than two sources (Fraser and Haynes).  I think its best to write something like "a 16xx report makes mention of x and y, etc etc", and add the entire quotes to the notes section.  It'll flow better that way as well, its just that I hesitate to bolster the negative parts of his character with such old sources, that's usually the job of modern authors. Parrot of Doom 20:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  hmmm 

message: For the sake of grammar I changed "whom he supposed had reneged" to  "who he supposed had reneged" . "Who" is the subject of "had reneged". You can write "whom he supposed to have reneged" but you can't really write the phrase as it stands. Very nit-picking, I know, but this is an encyclopaedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campolongo (talk • contribs) 09:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I must admit I had to think about which is correct, but I have no problem with your change.  Either works for me. Parrot of Doom 10:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Pedantry

message: I find the title awkward, because "Gunpowder Plot" is an event rather than an occupation or some other similar word which describes a person. May I suggest Thomas Percy (conspirator)? Several other biographies use that form, such as Charles Paget (conspirator) and George Brooke (conspirator). Moonraker (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Moonraker's proposal of Thomas Percy (conspirator). This is better and more succinct than "Plotter" or "Gunpowder Plot". Nick Michael (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed change of name

message: I came across this article when it was linked to the Holidays and Observances for August 22, which seemed strange. Turns out, another related and rebellious Thomas Percy died on that day when this Thomas Percy was 12, so I fixed the link and recommended its H&O deletion, which swiftly occurred. I also tried to revise this article twice, and both my edits were reversed by Nikkimaria, a Canadian editor, presumably because of its FA status, which I believe unwarranted, having reviewed the only easy online link, to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article. That is much better written and reasoned, IMHO, despite the lengthy bibliography here. I have no desire to engage in an edit war, and know that English martyrs of this religious wars period may be a sore spot with some Catholics a century plus after the other Thomas Percy's beautification (with an odd November feast day), and that some Anglo- or military historians may well be more obsessed with the Gunpowder Plot and Guy Fawkes day than I. Still, IMHO this article needs a heavy copyedit in its lede and "Life Before 1604" section, which cite the OAB article by Nicholls 13 times, more than the cites to the 2005 anniversary books/folios by Frazer, Haynes, Sharpe and Tesimond combined. The mention that this Percy converted to Catholicism (rather than having been a closet "papist" all his life) doesn't have a date nor citation here. It may arise from the near-hagiography on page 58 of the John Gerard 1871 book, although only the previous page is quoted and cited in both those sections. For whatever its worth, that dated bio also might have caused the liturgical commemoration mess with the other man two decades later. But more work is needed to these sections for this article to deserve GA much less FA status.Jweaver28 (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What are your specific concerns related to the FA criteria? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The lede and first section (life before 1604) are neither well-written, well-researched nor neutral. The lede is not concise and the first section is disorganized, skipping around genealogy several times between diversions about education, personal characteristics (a couple of times) and marital status. I don't care if his marital history is near the beginning, or end as in the Nicholls OAB article. That makes clear that this was a troubled individual, whereas these sections as written seem to be trying to portray him as a dashing romantic hero. I know that anti-Catholicism was a problem in the late 19th century U.S., and a similar situation in Britain might account for the tone of the 1871 John Gerard book (as well as the other Thomas Percy's beatification and feast day perhaps linked to the decapitation of this man's corpse!), but that non-neutral viewpoint is not appropriate for wikipedia. His impetuosity admitted in the 1871 book, together with his problematic-for-the-era marital and work histories (and my own life experience) indicate him a troublesome man. A boy raised with tales of his aristocratic ancestors and two generations of fatal Catholic military advocacy might very well be troubled. Of course, calling this plot a fatal middle-age crisis is both colloquial and simplistic. The rest of the article seems to fit the GA criteria (given my not reading the 2005 anniversary books), but I would hope this would get cleaned up before Guy Fawkes day!Jweaver28 (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done some reorganization, but I don't agree that the portrayal given is of a "dashing romantic hero". Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reconsideration of FA status warranted?