Talk:Thomas Seymour, 1st Baron Seymour of Sudeley

message: This statement was not said by Princess Elizabeth but by someone claiming she said it in the 17th century but later proved incorrect.
I'd like to see a citation to explain that, though. As it reads now in the article, it does not make much sense to say, essentially, "Elizabeth didn't say this" and no explain. --Hiraeth 01:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This day died a man of much wit and very little judgment

message: This article says:
"...the eldest was Edward Seymour..., the second, Thomas. He was a younger brother of Jane Seymour..."
That's not possible: he can't be the 2nd surviving child and be younger than Edward and Jane.
The article on John Seymour (Tudor)(father) says Thomas was born in 1508, Jane in 1509.
The article on Jane Seymour says she was born in 1507 or 1508, but that the date is usually given as 1509.
The statement of being a younger or older brother of Jane can't be made consistent with the current articles on John and Jane. Right now, the article is not consistent with itself. Unless these can be reconciled, I suggest the following change:
"He was also a brother of Jane Seymour, whose year of birth is disputed."
--Just Jerry 22:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Younger or older brother of Jane Seymour 

message: As written, some elements of the article seem to violate Wikipedia NPOV.  For example, "He was completely and thoroughly indiscreet in his bid for power.". This statement is not supported with a citation and seems to take a strong POV.  
The sentence before it is also problematic.  "As admiral, he also encouraged piracy, after bidding to capture the pirate Thomas Walton, Thomas Walton instead made an agreement for a share of all booty seized by him."  The 'him' is ambiguous and the sentence seems to imply that Walton took a share of the booty claimed by Thomas Seymour.  Can anyone clarify?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.24.131.121 (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV issues 

message: Most of the information in this article seems accurate; however, it is poorly documented.  It is also poorly organized and difficult to understand. Since it has been in essentially this form for at least 5 years, I would like to take a crack at improving it.  One of the problems is that it seems to be written from the point of view that the reader already knows a lot about these people, which is not a good point of view for an encyclopedia.  For example, the article only referred to Thomas Seymour as a politician in the introduction, without summarizing why he would be listed in an encyclopedia, nor why anyone would care to know or read about him (I already added a little basic information to remedy this). Also, I think this article fails to convey the sense of the man, Thomas Seymour, who was a loud, boisterous, fun fellow, whom people, especially women, liked very much, who rushed into crazy schemes, full-steam-ahead, without ever thinking things through very well.  In reorganizing this article, I would like to go through it and add some citations, where ever I can.  Then, I would like to add some additional sentences throughout, to supplement the meaning and  provide more information, also, including citations. Then I would like to look at the whole thing, and rearrange it, as much as necessary, to make it flow better and read better.  I hope to get all this done within a week or two.Grinbriar (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analysis of this article September 2013 

message: "In the summer of 1547, Somerset invaded Scotland. During his absence from the court, his brother, Thomas, fomented opposition to his authority, voicing open disapproval of his brother's administrative skills. Because his activities seemed suspicious, several members of the nobility advised him to be content with his position, but he would not listen."
It's referring to 2 somersets, but feels like a copy-paste from Edward's page? Could someone please clarify which Somerset is being referred to in this set of sentences?--KimYunmi (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing sentence?