Talk:Thomas Fairfax

message: I think this article need sections. --Cantalamessa 13:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections 

message: Prince William and Miss Middleton are descended from A Sir Thomas Fairfax but not this one. This Fairfax (see Genealogics, TudorPlace and Tompsett's database at Hull) had only a daughter, who married the Duke of Buckingham after the Restoration and died childless.
The Sir Thomas Fairfax who IS their common ancestor lived from about 1476 to 1520 and married Agnes Gascoigne, great-great-great-granddaughter of John of Gaunt.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smlark (talk • contribs) 16:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, your Buckingham and Sir Thomas Fairfax pages bear this out. Had Buckingham and Mary Fairfax left issue, their Buckingham House would not have been demolished, leaving room for Buckingham PALACE to be built. 
This article is obviously written by someone with a very favourable view of Fairfax and the Roundheads. All speculation into the character of anyone involved should be removed. --70.187.199.42 22:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It apppears to be not dissimilar in tone from the 1911 EB article (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Fairfax%2C_3rd_Lord_Fairfax_of_Cameron&oldid=731776) from whence it came.  If you could specify specific examples which you consider problematic then that might be a useful starting point. Greenshed 23:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This article seems consistent with everything else I have read regarding Fairfax, who seems to be generally well regarded by historians. 194.75.128.200 (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

text: FWIW, you should make sure to compare his actions with those of contemporaries, not modern standards, which are much improved. Francis Bond (talk) 06:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I saw an unsourced article that seemed to imply that not only did Thomas Fairfax own property in the American colonies, but that Fairfax County, Virginia is named for him. Sadly I can't find any actual citations to this fact. Was he or one of his descendents owners of the land here? Is this worth noting?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.114.163 (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  property in the american colonies? 

message: Not sure I follow the apparently egalitarian argument, to which Fairfax himself was certainly no friend, especially at Burford and other places. The whole point of the Civil Wars in Britain was the best way of keeping the kingdom or kingdoms safe for people like Fairfax to enjoy life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Part of that was respect for status.  To grasp how that worked, we need to know who had it, why, and what it implied.  I don't want to bring it back in the twenty-first century, but if I want to grasp the seventeenth I don't want Wikipedia to pretend that such things didn't exist in it on the grounds that they shouldn't now Delahays (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles and stuff 

message: I added the 'one source' template, as the article is almost entirely based on Chisholm 1911. Although I have no reason to doubt Chisholm's accuracy, it is evident that he writes from a particular point of view on the Commonwealth and its parties, and the article could be improved in its neutrality by reference to other sources as well.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GarethAd (talk • contribs) 04:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to improve the article further as others have done: it already has a range of sources. Dormskirk (talk) 09:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

text: I don't have the expertise to improve it, and I won't get into an editing war, but the 'one source' template is appropriate. There are other sources, but Chisholm is the only source for Pre-Civil War section and seven out of nine paragraphs in the Civil War section, as well as parts of several other sections, amounting to well over 3/4 of the article. This need not matter too much, except that the paragraph beginning "With the collapse of the Royalist cause..." contains two unwarranted and unsupported statements of opinion, passed off as fact, which appear to be those of Chisholm. The particular passages are "the propaganda of the Independents" and "the overthrow of parliament". These were still to some extent live political controversies in 1911, and it is evident that, on these points, Chisholm is not a neutral commentator. He takes the Presbyterian side. GarethAd (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the two phrases that you were concerned about. I hope that helps. Dormskirk (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added 'one source' template