Talk:Thomas Wentworth, 1st Earl of Strafford

message: This must be a mistake. 2,000 would already be a huge crowd for that time and venueZeisseng 18:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A crowd of 200,000? 

message: To illustrate my point on references I have provided a Link.  The tag at the top of the article has been there for quite some time.  You will also notice the efforts which are going into referencing this article. If the information in the article is challenged, you could hardly keep referring to two sources and leave it at that. For example which source for which statement? Another example of a well referenced articles is this, . Now we can hardly expect one standard of referencing for one article, if we are likewise not going to accept it on all articles. Regards--Domer48 09:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: The passage which says there was no choice but to dismiss Parliament in November 1640 and that the Long Parliamnet assembled on 3 November 1640 does not seem to make sense. Should this read "recall parliament" instead of "dismiss" ?--Streona (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Long Parliament

message: The impression that the final paragraph of the "The failure of impeachment and the Bill of Attainder" section is that Strafford was prepared to die for the king. Surely we should add a section referencing the view that in fact Strafford's letter was a ploy, and he intended the King to show it to the Lords, and in a similar way to the case of Father Goodman, gain their sympathy? This would explain some of his last words: "Put not your trust in princes". I think Laud also said something on the matter, I can't remember it exactly, something like "He [Charles] knew not how to be great nor how to be made great". I.e, he didn't cotton on to Strafford's plan.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.20.173 (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Strafford's letter to the king

message: *, translated from the French, with notes by an American, publishers J.S. Redfield, Clinton Hall
Given the origin of this book, its date of publication and its title (as well as the contents as displayed in the Wikipedia article) this is a polemic with a strong POV. While the POV may be useful for a sentence or two, I think that the two paragraphs which have been incorporated from the book word for word are unnecessary as the article already summarises the paragraphs with "Wentworth ignored Charles's promise that no colonists should be forced into Connaught,..."
So I am removing the source and the paragraphs that rely on it. -- PBS (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: The Criminal History of the English Government

message: I think a paragraph on Wentworth running of a regime that allowed men like Sir Philip Perceval to amass 101,000 acres of Irish land, would be a useful addition to this article. -- PBS (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get rich quick 

message: There's something wrong if a Google book - Castle, Egerton (1574), English book-plates: ancient and modern, G. Bell & sons, is being cited as a reference for the biography of a man born 19 years after it was printed! Bloody hell, a bit of common sense please! Just because Google screwed on the  book's publication date, doesn't mean we need to mindlessly follow them.Catsmeat (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok fixed.Catsmeat (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference

message: Some reference, and a link, to Jigginstown Castle would seem appraoriate, but I'm not sure how or where to work that into the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jigginstown Castle 

message: I think the "Baron Raby" bookplate belongs to the other one - Thomas Wentworth, 1st Earl of Strafford (1672–1739).  He inherited the title Baron Raby, by special remainder, and got the Earldom later.  This one always had better titles.  - FitzwilliamDarcy (talk) 02:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The bookplate states this man to be a Colonel of dragoons but the Lord Strafford who is subject of this article did not see military service. I am removing it and placing it here.Cloptonson (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bookplate 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Thomas Wentworth, 1st Earl of Strafford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019142119/http://www.ancestryhost.org/jeanajin/pages/ashfieldheythorpe.htm to http://www.ancestryhost.org/jeanajin/pages/ashfieldheythorpe.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Great Page, thank you.
'...had to deal with a people who had not arrived at national cohesion.'
I quite admire Strafford and am sympathetic to his overall efforts but will the sun ever set on this particular sentence! 
I forget who wrote it but there was a version of Beowulf from the point of view of Grendel, the monster's mother.
Upon reflection, maybe the highlighted sentence should stand, as an exemplar. What appears innocuous to some appears unbalanced and/or plain wrong to others, a far more interesting activity than the mere reporting of facts, surely. It's like a moth preserved in a piece of amber.
It's going to take a while -several hundred years I imagine- but ptolemaic, earth-centered narrative discourse is going to have to make way for a sun-centered Copernican galaxy where imperial endeavours and sentences like this are concerned. Kind Regards.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PfPorlock (talk • contribs) 09:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, this is the sort of rubbish that appears in articles that are copied verbatim from obsolete public domain sources written over a hundred years ago. All this is from York 1911. DrKay (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  1543 at Becher's Brook '...had to deal with a people who had not arrived at national cohesion' 

message: Is this article biased towards defending the Earl of Strafford? 
I don't have time to look it up now, but what I remember from the various books I've read on this part of history is that Strafford is most notable for first being one of the biggest enemies of King Charles in Parliament to being his chief minister and being ennobled as Lord Strafford, and that this is one reason Parliament hated him and had him executed. 
The article current sounds like it was written by a descendant who wants to ward off criticism of his switching sides. 
editeur24 (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the article is highly misleading. Someone needs to fix it. A scholarly journal article provides a lot f details that could be used. I have omitted its footnotes. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5157&context=uclrev
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editeur24 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this article biased towards defending the Earl of Strafford? Neutral point of view?