Talk:Jane Seymour/Archive 1

message: *I noticed that this page had been moved to "Lady Jane Seymour" without consensus or even consultation. I have moved it back to the correct title.  I can understand why "Lady" Jane Seymour may seem to be correct according to the naming conventions, but Jane Seymour, the queen, is never referred to in this way, and in any case it would be wrong to do so because, if a title is used, it must be the highest one she ever possessed, which of course would be queen. Deb 17:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
*Support as the nominator. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Add any additional comments
Can someone delete that "Im a idiot" on the biography for Seymour?
Perhaps "Instead she was taught in needlework and household management, which was popular at that time for women" gives the wrong impression. "Household management" for a noblewoman often meant training to manage a sizable and complex family and communal business. Though I do not know if that was the case with Jane Seymour.RMcPhee (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Add any additional comments
Can someone delete that "Im a idiot" on the biography for Seymour?
Perhaps "Instead she was taught in needlework and household management, which was popular at that time for women" gives the wrong impression. "Household management" for a noblewoman often meant training to manage a sizable and complex family and communal business. Though I do not know if that was the case with Jane Seymour.RMcPhee (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. 
Request was:
* Talk:Jane Seymour - Jane Seymour → Queen Jane Seymour I think "Jane Seymour" should be converted to a disambig page because many editors and users would expect Jane Seymour the actress instead of Queen Jane Seymour. In my opinion, they are roughly equal in popularity, and thus under Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page naming, the Queen should not be the primary topic. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discision

message: The link for the Seymour family home seems rather dubious to me.  The house is in Somerset, not Wiltshire, and the website states only that it is a 15th century farmhouse commissioned by the family of Sir Thomas Seymour.  Can anyway elaborate??  Paul75 02:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: I recently uploaded the image to the right, an engraving of Queen Seymour by Wenceslas Hollar. Feel free to use it or not. Dcoetzee 22:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New image 

message: This article is in need of some grammar and style editing. There are lots of run-on and otherwise poorly constructed sentences. 18.173.1.125 (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar and style 

message: I suppose that she kept the Roman Catholic faith even after swearing the Act of Supremacy. I think the article seems to implicate that. I ask someone who knows better the England 16th century History to please explain that, since there is no mention of it in the article.213.13.245.246 (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not aware of a shred of evidence for believing this. PatGallacher (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Her Religion

message: What is this sentence supposed to mean?: "...Henry was buried beside her in the grave he had sent to make." Filmfluff (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funeral 

message: This edit of 24 May 2011 brought to light that we've had her birth date in the infobox as 10 October 1508, ever since this edit of 6 December 2010 by anon user 81.132.40.13.
But in the lede it's still just "c. 1508".  
There is no documentary evidence of a birth date of 10 October or any other particular date, is there? 
User 81.132.40.13 does not have an extensive record of accurate edits.  I AGF and ascribe it to a well-meaning but erroneous edit. --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed now.  --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Birth date

message: I can understand why the article mentions that Jane was descended from Edward III (through Lionel Plantagenet), but I do not know why one set of her lineal ancestors should be singled out, above the others.  She has Neville as well (far more famous).  So I'm deleting the Percy part.69.108.25.101 (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the Percy's mentioned and not the Mortimers, de Burghs, Wentworths and all the others? 

message: ==This article has been vandalised but I cannot seem to revert it even with rollback. Can someone please fix it?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Hans Holbein the Younger - Jane Seymour, Queen of England - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 24, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-10-24. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Hans Holbein the Younger - Jane Seymour, Queen of England - Google Art Project.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: Walter Pyle in Anamolies and Curiosities of Medicine speaks of a possible c-section. Any truth in this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabbycatlove (talk • contribs) 03:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been some discussion of it in the literature, but the current consensus seems to be against it. See https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160932716300540. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know whether that article would be properly called pseudoscience or pseudohistory. possibly both. (not that i think there was, but I do think that any claims one way or the other purporting to be anything other than fanciful speculation to be unworthy of any credibility) Firejuggler86 (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caesarian Section? 

message: What is the relevance of this "Sir Laurence or Lawrence Cheney or Cheyne"? Why is he mentioned in the article? Or "Margery or Marjory Wadham"? Or any of the subject's great-great-grandparents? What do these names tell readers? Surtsicna (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance  

message: This tag in in the ancestry section is inappropriate. The section, added by Hedwig0407 on 27 Octover 2007 is a fairly standard genealogical chart. It doesn't provide "excessive detail"; it contains only the names of the article subject's ancestors, which is the exact level it's necessary to provide in an ancestry chart. Furthermore, since it's a drop-down menu, only interested readers even need to see this information.
As FactStraight pointed out in similar discussion about Lady Jane Grey, "ahnentafels are a compact way to provide interested readers allusions to that data which they can readily pursue according to their interests by clicking links, where they exist. ...The near ubiquity of ahnentafels in dynastic bios is indicative that they have not heretofore been truncated as 'trivia,' and that label in this case is a debatable opinion." There's no need for this tag. Flyte35 (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't useful or necessary to know whether her great-great-grandparents were Sir John Croker of Lineham and Elizabeth Fortescue, or Sir Robert and Joan Coker of Lydeard St Lawrence, none of whom had any impact on her life. It's a trivial disputed detail that can easily be avoided by simply cutting the table down to the nearer, undisputed generations. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a policy or guideline you can cite? or is your opinion based on experience? What makes you think that readers won't be interested in the ancestry as it is presently depicted? Are we reader-motivated or editor-motivated? Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  13:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy is at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory: 'Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic.' Celia Homeford (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It is certainly within reason for you to question whether or not the ancestry here presented is "appropriate to support the reader's understanding" of Jane Seymour. That, however, sounds like a very general policy statement with subjective overtones that would require a consensus among interested editors to apply to each notable subject. If you seek more of an RfC type reading of the policy, then why treat this peacemeal with this one article? Has there already been an RfC? If not, then why not start one at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not? Looks like it's already been bandied about a bit. Or is your idea to treat all of these genealogical questions on an individual-article basis? In any case, you haven't given an opinion on exactly what changes you would make. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  00:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Celia Homeford has given an opinion on changes that should be made: "simply cutting the table down to the nearer, undisputed generations". Surtsicna (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

text: The fact that in the past five centuries no biographer of Jane Seymour has ever mentioned Joan Coker of Lydeard St Lawrence assures me that Jane Seymour's connection to this woman is neither relevant nor interesting. Wikipedia biographies should be based on published biographies, i.e. secondary sources. WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Since no independent source elaborates on the importance of Jane's descent from these people, their names provide no encyclopedic value. Surtsicna (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  A genealogical chart is not a violation of these standards. This is not a family history (family history is narrative and, in this case, is presented at the beginning of the article); this is a genealogical chart. This is also not an indiscriminate collection of information. This information is put in context and references independent sources. Considering how common ahnentafels are in dynastic bios on Wikipedia, your interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines here is, well, unique. Flyte35 (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Tend to agree with you. And to Surtsicna, your valid opinion sounds like a subjective assessment; however, I'm sure you don't mean to imply that all readers share your opinion, necessarily. Is it that you don't consider this source to be reliable? Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  00:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I am referring to secondary sources and policies, so my stance is anything but a subjective assessment. It is also not solely my opinion, but that echoed by the subject's biographers. The book you cited may be a reliable source for genealogy, but it is not a biography of Jane Seymour. As WP:INDISCRIMINATE says, " merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." If biographies of Jane Seymour do not mention any Joan Coker in any context, neither should we. Flyte35, please do tell me what "context with explanations" (per WP:INDISCRIMINATE) relates to this ahnentafel. I honestly do not see any. Surtsicna (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that you honestly don't see any way in which this information provides context for or value to an understanding of Jane Seymour. The point is that others among your fellow editors do see sufficient context and value, to offer it for Wikipedia's readers to determine if they find it worth accessing. The clause quoted from WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not ban such material, but says that it is not "automatically" suitable for inclusion. But this Ahnentafel, and others like it, are being discriminately selected as suitable for inclusion, because of the inobtrusive way the info is presented (compactly yet comprehensively, with links where available, in a drop-down menu labeled "Ancestry" that readers must choose to access in order for it to become visible) and because it is not included in the vast majority of Wikipedia articles, but is almost exclusively inserted only in bios about historical dynastic figures. Nor do Wikipedia policies restrict sources to biographies of the subject: If the ancestry of the article subject has been published in a  reliable source, it is appropriate to draw information therefrom. The contribution to "understanding of the subject" offered by the Ahnentafel is that it is a visually intuitive summary of relatively recent genealogical information, especially familiar and suitable for royalty and families whose influence derived from hereditary position, because the chief notability of members of such families habitually lies in their kinships rather than their individual deeds. Readers are more apt to expect to find some background on ancestry indicative of contributors to the person's status, origin, order in the succession, multi-nationality, familial rise, degree of pedigree collapse, etc. Ahnentafels are a compact way to provide interested readers allusions to that data which they can readily pursue through links or independent research. Thus the assertion that this Ahnentafel's info should be excluded because it is "of no interest", "irrelevant" or "trivial" is a finding of opinion, not fact: some do find it of relevant, non-trivial interest. FactStraight (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In many cases a 5 generation ahnentafel is useful. In many cases it presents relevant information. As far as I can tell, this is not such a case. If there is valuable information to be gathered from the names of Jane Seymour's great-great-grandparents, something that helps readers understand the topic, then put it into prose. Do not leave readers to come up with their own interpretations of a bunch of unlinked names. If the point is that Jane Seymour's ancestry was mostly minor gentry, that is what we should say. Merely tossing out the name "Joan Coker of Lydeard St Lawrence" is ridiculously unhelpful. I also have to point out that you are directly contradicting WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Surtsicna (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: What is unhelpful is dismissing the opinions of your fellow editors here as ridiculous. We are discussing a disagreement about how Wikipedia's guidelines are to be interpreted and applied to this article. Treating the views of others as frivolous is neither persuasive nor respectful. FactStraight (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

text: No-one is disputing that some description of family background is beneficial. However, remote ancestors that have no bearing at all on the article's topic and that are never discussed in relation to the topic in reliable sources about the topic should be excluded. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

text: No, it looks like that source is self-published. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

text: It's worth noting here that Celia Homeford recently reverted the removal of the tag in question by Paine Ellsworth on the grounds that "it's not the inclusion of the family tree that is in dispute, it's the excessive number of generations." Really? Because all of the discussion above here seems to have to do with what Wikipedia considers appropriate for inclusion. As far as I can tell Wikipedia guidelines say nothing about the number of generations genealogical charts should include. Flyte35 (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. They do not, which is why I am puzzled by your insistence to include as many as five, and even in cases where the great-great-grandparents are disputed or obviously irrelevant to the understanding of the subject. Surtsicna (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  This discussion above seems to be somewhat ambiguous. "Excessive" is an inherently vague adjective. But the tag should probably be reserved for material that is objectively excessive. If your real argument is just that genealogical charts in Wikipedia should include only four generations, well, OK. You can go ahead and make that argument. It's an arbitrary cut-off point, however, and not supported by Wikipedia guidelines. Flyte35 (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If "excessive" is an inherently vague adjective, then surely there can be no such thing as objectively excessive. My argument is that each article should contain only relevant and useful information; in some cases it would be beneficial to have six generations, in some only four, and in some no ahnentafel is needed. This is supported by the above mentioned policies and guidelines. Your one-size-fits-all 5 generation cut-off point is not supported by any guideline. Surtsicna (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither 4 nor 5 generations is explicitly supported or deprecated by any guideline, and each side believes its point of view falls within them. The article's editors are engaging in a discussion about how to apply guidelines and editorial judgment here. The guideline won't decide that. We will. FactStraight (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

text: Well it seems to me if the real question here is about the number of generations genealogical charts in Wikipedia should contain this discussion is, as User:Paine Ellsworth says above, really more appropriate for an RfC. Considering the 5 generation ahnentafel is quite common in articles about historical dynastic subjects, the overly detailed tag here seems essentially arbitrary. Flyte35 (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Often when a few editors cannot agree, getting input from more editors results in consensus one way or another. Just be aware that the ensuing discussion and consensus might not always be to your liking; however, whether or not I've liked it, I've always respected the consensual outcome. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  16:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive detail tag 

message: The article states, “By Christmas 1536, Jane was pregnant, but she lost the child.” Delete this or say something like “some historians suspect Jane may have been pregnant and lost a child.”
There is no evidence to suggest Jane Seymour was ever pregnant more than once or that she ever suffered a miscarriage. Her only known pregnancy was with Edward VI, who was born in October 1537. There is supposition that Jane may have conceived earlier in her marriage and suffered miscarriages, but no evidence beyond a select few historian’s pondering. 2601:1C2:1:800:5CDB:F785:5F60:F1A7 (talk) 08:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is this: "The Manuscripts of His Grace the Duke of Rutland: Letters and papers, 1440–1797 (v.3 mainly correspondence of the fourth Duke of Rutland). v.4. Charters, cartularies, &c. Letters and papers, supplementary. Extracts from household accounts. H.M. Stationery Office, 1888, p 310". Are you saying this unreliable? I must admit I do not have a copy to hand. But who are those few historians? If they are notable, perhaps their ponderings could be clearly attributed? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2021 

message: Suggest changing:
:She died of postnatal complications less than two weeks after the birth of her only child, later King Edward VI. 
to
:She died of postnatal complications less than two weeks after the birth of her only child, the future King Edward VI. 
which reads better to me. 109.152.42.225 (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: . ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2021