Jump to content

Talk:Edward V

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lack of quality scholarly material

[edit]

Some peer reviewed research, rather than Rushton2010's heavy over-reliance on the BBC's website, would be encouraging. It might even lead to a marked improvement in the quality of the article rather than concentrating on the weird ramblings of Philippa Gregory.

Unfortunately, Rushton2010 has reverted my attempts to make a start on this. Any suggestions?31.54.9.127 (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you were compiling a bibliography of sources on the subject of Edward V, what would you include? Nev1 (talk) 09:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've put some suggestions on the Talk Page of the Princes in the Tower, as follows: 'I think more material should be incorporated from Desmond Seward (although I'm a little uncomfortable with some of his very partisan and in my view less than brilliantly sourced conclusions, particularly around the fates of Henry VI and Edward Prince of Wales) and Michael Hicks in particular, with good helpings from Horrox and Weir, not to mention Baldwin's book rather than his BBC article. There's also a fairly recent, more sympathetic biography of Richard by Carson that might be worth mining.' In particular, it is surprising that although Hicks' biography of Edward is mentioned in the bibliography, it is not referenced in the article. Admittedly, that is partly because there is a paucity of information on Edward and therefore it is almost a narrative of the political situation, but it should still be the key source rather than a throwaway line at the bottom.31.54.9.127 (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


My concern is for the neutrality of the article and for wikipedia's policies; which I will continue to defend. You must realise how ridiculous it looks for a wikipedia article (not just this one) to claim to have "solved" a mystery which has remained unsolved for hundreds of years and which continues to provoke debate, books, documentaries and countless different theories. I'm very glad someone is looking to expand the article. It needs extra references: the disappearance section is the only one with proper referencing. I will look at the authors you suggest and see what can be added.
I would strongly recommend you (anon IP) read and respect wikipedia's policies. We all tear our hair out at some of them, but they must be followed. --Rushton2010 (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And on a lesser note.... you hilarious rambling that the article relies on Philipa Gregory; have you read the article? Clearly not seeing as her only mention is the Portrayals in Fiction section. "In the 2013 TV series The White Queen, an adaptation of Philippa Gregory's historical novel series The Cousins' War, Edward is played by Ashley Charles."

And thanks Nev for you offer to give me access to that source. I already have access to it and most of the other online subscription based sites: Jstor and such.
Thanks again though its appreciated. --Rushton2010 (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rushton, I have read them and I am following them. I am using established secondary literature to improve the article. You, on the other hand, are using what amounts to a blog post on the BBC (see WP:RS) as a main source to promote a fringe theory here and on other pages, which I would remind you is entirely contrary to WP policies. Nowhere have I claimed, or tried to claim, that the matter has been 'solved', but the overwhelming historical consensus (which is what WP should reflect: see WP:TRUTH) is that Richard is by far the likeliest suspect and to put forward anyone else as a 'principal' suspect is therefore dubious. My recommendation would be for something along the lines of 'Richard III is the man most usually identified by historians as a possible murderer, but other theories have been advanced implicating (among others) Buckingham, Tyrell, Henry Tudor and Margaret Beaufort.' (I wouldn't personally bother with Beaufort, but since you won't have it any other way, I'm willing to compromise.) That would represent the historical consensus but the article as it stands does not. If that is acceptable to you, please make the change.

I would be extremely grateful, however, if you could investigate the literature more thoroughly and improve the article and indeed the one on the Princes in the Tower, because both undoubtedly need it. There is further suggested reading on the subject on the talk page there (including direct references to the historical consensus from other encyclopaedias) along with a critique of Baldwin's BBC post.

Can this article be updated a bit more related to the Missing Princes Project and Phillipa Langley's work, which found multiple documents proving that Edward V survived until at least 1487, and also found a 4-page diary from Richard of Shrewsbury? There's plenty of sources to pull from now, including a documentary and a book explaining the findings. 69.112.240.139 (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Edward I of England which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Princes in the Tower by Philippa Langley

[edit]

This article is due for a substantial overall based on Langley's authoritative report on The Missing Princes Project. PlaysInPeoria (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also compare this National Geographic article, published 20 November 2023, which includes a high resolution photograph of the document discovered in May 2020 at the archive of Lille in France (announced in November 2023) that proves that Edward V. was alive as of 16 December 1487 (sic). There is a second document, found in November 2020 at an archive in the Netherlands, similarly showing that his brother Richard was alive in 1493. The two documents are described in some more detail at thehistorypress.co.uk, under paragraphs "Discovery 3" and "Discovery 4", respectively, and on Langley's website, which gives more images of the other documents. I would imagine it is also discussed in Philippa Langley's book that is curiously already cited in the Wikipedia article about Richard, but leaving out what may be its most important conclusions. There is also an interview with the author by the Folger Shakespeare Library in which she gives some further details. Alongside a photograph, Langley's website gives the following summary of the 1493 four-page document (about Richard, not his brother Edward V.): It is a witness statement written in the first person and records Richard, Duke of York’s story from the point at which he left sanctuary in Westminster in London as a 9 year-old boy in 1483, to his arrival at the court of his aunt, Margaret of York, in Burgundy in 1493. The witness statement provides extensive detail. A full transcription of the text of that document is given in Appendix 5 of Langley's book. The 1487 document about Edward V. is transcribed in Appendix 2. As a citation for the 1493 document, one might use Nathalie Nijman-Bliekendaal, Research Report 21 November 2020: Gelders Archief, 0510 ‘Diverse Charters en Aanwinsten [Various Charters & Acquisitions]’, nr 1549: Verhandelingen over de lotgevallen van Richard van York, ca 1500 [Treatises on the fates of Richard of York c. 1500].
There are book reviews in The Times and other publications, but none that I could find are accessible without a subscription. While I am not ready to believe the full length of the conclusions that Langley draws, I think she generally is a credible source, having previously been involved in the successful search for the remains of Richard III. And the documentary evidence (found by other members of her research group) is probably hard to refute. We shouldn't give undue weight to it either, especially considering how new it is, but mentioning it is in order. Renerpho (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that parts of this had been added to the Wikipedia article by an IP user in November 2023. The edit was poorly formatted (but not unsourced), and it was reverted[1] rather than being improved upon, followed by protection for one year[2] to prevent further "vandalism". Renerpho (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Deb: It was you who protected the article. Do you think that needs to be kept in place? The protection seems to have been based on edits from a single IP that look constructive enough to me. I would kindly ask for the protection to be lifted. Renerpho (talk) 07:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This and all other articles relating to Richard III and/or the Princes in the Tower have been subject to the frequent addition of unsourced or poorly-sourced material, and as a result have been protected or semi-protected many times. Unfortunately, this material often comes from anonymous IPs - one-off users who've been reading the Daily Mail or Josephine Tey and taken these versions of the truth at face value. The supposed "new evidence" trumpeted by Philippa Langley herself, Channel 4 and her publishers really doesn't stand much scrutiny, but is intended to catch the eye of those who have a fleeting and superficial interest in history and like conspiracy theories. That's the reason these articles need protection until the fuss dies down. See the verdict from impartial sources such as this. I don't disagree that the article needs updating, and that the latest theory should be mentioned, but the job needs to be tackled by autoconfirmed users who understand the problems relating to the topic and how to comply with Wikipedia:NPOV. Deb (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Deb. Do you have an alternative to The Spectator that is available without a subscription? I cannot subscribe to them from my location, so I can't check what they say about it. The Princes in the Tower article mentions alternative theories, including Langley's. Maybe we can use that as a blueprint, although I suspect that article may need to be edited as well, if anything to include criticism of Langley's work. The Spectator article, for instance, is not mentioned there, and neither are any other of the "impartial sources" you talk about. Renerpho (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I'm not sure that any reputable periodicals (other than National Geographic, which I can't view) have covered it in any depth, though no doubt they will when there's been time to assess the pros and cons. Reporters on local newspapers don't usually have much of a handle on topics like this and will just repeat whatever Channel 4 said. This, by a somewhat obscure but apparently reputable historian called David Pilling (not the journalist), probably would not be admissible because it's more or less a blog. Deb (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link to the blog. It's a pity how Channel 4 documentaries sometimes run with these revolutionary ideas. I remember a documentary about the origins of Syphilis (showing "clear evidence" that it was present in England in the 1300s, and in Ancient Greece as well), as if that turned 500 years of historical evidence on its head. The evidence presented isn't wrong, it's just misinterpreted. That appears to be the case here as well. National Geographics take Langley's theory at face value, by the way. That doesn't make it easier to judge its veracity! Renerpho (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In an episode of the Gone Medieval podcast last year, Langley is being interviewed about these discoveries. She explains who determined that these documents are authentic, and how. If needed, I can link the episode number and the timestamps. Edit: The podcast episode is from November 16, 2023, titled "Princes in the Tower: New Evidence Revealed". The timestamp for the part where Langley explains who was involved in verifying the authenticity of the finds is 35:30. A book was also released with all the evidence found and detailed, called "The Princes in the Tower: Solving History's Biggest Cold Case". Indiana Johns (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the two articles you mentioned. You call the Spectator article "impartial", but the title is already super partial: "Of course Richard III killed the Princes in the Tower", then it proceeds to call Philippa Langley's discovery "nonsense" in just the third paragraph. I'm not sure how this can be considered impartial.
As for the interview with David Pilling, his main point is that it's more believable that the documents are totally authentic forgeries from the right time as these kinds of forgeries were "extremely common", as opposed to the documents being exactly what they say they are. He fails to elaborate that if these finds are so common, then why did it take a concerted effort in multiple countries and years of research to find two of them?
His tone just reminds of those grumpy historians who already scoffed at the idea that a laywoman would be able to find Richard III's body, and some of them actively tried to hinder her progress.
I'm all about being careful with new evidence, but so far all I've seen was subtle or not-so-subtle ragging on Langley. Indiana Johns (talk) 04:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant, as others recognise, that The Spectator is an impartial source, which has no vested interest in arguing either way, whereas Langley is bound to support her own theories. And I think you are saying that you are prepared to accept David Pilling's findings when they coincide with Langley's, but not when they don't. Deb (talk) 16:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding on that "vested interest" train of thought, that would also make David Pilling more interested in arguing for the generally accepted stance of Richard III murdering his nephews, just like it was "better" to argue a bit over a decade ago that Richard III's body will not be found and that it was thrown into the river.
I'm not saying that Philippa's theory needs to be taken as gospel, I'm saying that the work she already put in along with the evidence she found needs to be mentioned, as it directly relates to Edward V. It doesn't seem like an unreasonable thing to say that her theory is currently under scrutiny by the professional community. Indiana Johns (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 February 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved per WP:SOVEREIGN. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background: There was a recent RM which proposed to drop the "of England" from all of the English Edwards, which ended in no consensus. However, the closer explicitly stated a separate nomination limited to Edward IV and Edward V would be more fruitful, and might be the best next step to pursue. This is that discussion.

Rationale: per WP:SOVEREIGN, Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed. Given that there are no other Edward IVs/Edward Vs, it is obvious that no disambiguation is needed. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Biography has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject English Royalty has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject England has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Middle Ages has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:NCROY, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and similar to later monarchs such as Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, etc. Векочел (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not comparing Henry VIII and Elizabeth I to the eleven-week boy king? Really? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I see no benefit from trying to reduce the article title to as few words as possible, when the article title is already short. As has been pointed out, we don't use Einstein or Hitler because "it is obvious that no disambiguation is needed". The opening rationale is unpersuasive and the naming convention is largely defunct now that so many articles have been moved to titles that are inconsistent with each other. When naming conventions lapse or become obsolete, they should be marked as such. The general article titling policy can be used instead. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Celia Homeford et al. Per our consistency criterion, we favor using similar patterns for similar topics “to the extent that this is practical.” Given that we’re already retaining the country for the surrounding Edwards, it’s most consistent to retain it for these two as well, and doing so is in no way impractical. Including the country also yields a title that better serves the interests of our readers (which policy instructs us to make our priority) and which is more encyclopedic (to judge from the geographical clarifier that Britannica includes with its own article title). And finally, the fact that a concise primary form redirects to a longer one has nothing to do with whether the shorter form is the most suitable title (e.g. LBJ). ╠╣uw [talk] 14:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the fact that a concise form redirects to a longer one is merely proof that the topic is primary for its concise name – which is one of the two criteria to be considered when assessing whether "of country" is needed. And as we've covered before, Britannia's clarifiers are comparable to wikipedia short descriptions, not article titles. Lastly, WP:CONSISTENT itself tells us that consistency does not apply to disambiguators. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re short descriptions: no, they’re not comparable, as covered before. Most of our readers don’t even see them, so removing the clarifier from the title would result in most getting no clarifier whatsoever. That’s distinctly different from Britannica and doesn't serve our readers.
Re “of country”, no: it’s neither a parenthetical disambiguator nor a means of naturally disambiguating between multiple articles with otherwise identical titles, which is what the passage about dabs addresses. Hence the LBJ reference. (The form “Lyndon B. Johnson” is not disambiguation.) Very simply, I see retaining the country as the form that best meets our WP:CRITERIA and other WP:TITLE directives, including the mandates of policy to prioritize the interests of our readers, fit an encyclopedic register, etc. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica Library, ie the version of the encyclopedia for 'grown ups', https://library.eb.co.uk/levels/adult/article/Edward-V/32030, it is solely Edward V as it is at Columbia Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia.com, ODNB, Oxford Companion to British History, Oxford Dictionary of the Renaissance, Dictionary of World History, World Encyclopedia, Canadian Oxford Dictionary, etc. Bill Reid | (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at those entries? Columbia, for instance, explicitly notes right above the title that it’s a "British and Irish History: Biographies" article, which makes the context clear. Encyclopedia.com does the very same. And articles in the Oxford Companion to British History will necessarily be about Britain. (Also, I’m reasonably sure that Britannica is for grown-ups.) Suffice to say that having some form of clarifier is common and valuable, and I don’t see that deliberately showing none at all is in our readers’ interests. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid your response is a little too cryptic for me. Could you help me with that? Did you look at these entries? - of course I did otherwise how else could I have come up with the list? Columbia, for instance, explicitly notes right above the title that it’s a "British and Irish History: Biographies" article, which makes the context clear. It's a British and Irish History: Biography; well, yes, but so what? And what does making the context clear mean, exactly? To clarify my comment about Britannica Library: if you look at the link I provided - did you notice the word adult. Britannica Library provides three reading levels of articles depending on the reader, ie junior, young student and adult. The adult version is the version that appears in the print copy and does not use of country. In the UK, access is provided through our local library online service, but since Britannica is a US company, I would have thought the service would be available to you also. I don't agree that having a clarifier is common and valuable, I would say it's uncommon and useless. Bill Reid | (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’re welcome to that opinion. Mine is that having a clarifier that identifies the country (as we have now) improves the reader’s experience, which per policy is our priority. Various encyclopedias do this in various ways, but the move proposed here means that we would not, and I see that as a detriment to our readers. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We already clarify the country he reigned over: it is literally the first thing after his name in the article, and in the infobox. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but explanations in the lede or the infobox don't exempt us from our explicit policy obligations to seek the title that best serves our general readers. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSISTENT specifically does not apply to disambiguation like "of England" Here is what WP:CONSISTENT says in regards to disambiguation. "There are two main areas, however, where Wikipedians have consistently shown that consistency does not control:
Umbrella: No, WP:CONSISTENT does apply because “of country” in this case is not disambiguation. The passage you cite from WP:CONSISTENT refers to cases where we must add either parenthetical or natural disambiguation in order to distinguish otherwise identical titles, but here there are no other “Edward V” articles that we’re distinguishing this one from. The “of country” is instead a clarifier that exists to help us best meet WP:CRITERIA and the other policy directives given in WP:AT, such as the requirements to prioritize reader benefit, follow an encyclopedic register, etc. As such, it’s entirely appropriate (and desirable) to favor a consistency of form among like articles. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSISTENT does not apply to disambiguation, but even if it did I could just as easily say we should be consistent with Edward VI, Edward VII, and Edward VIII. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LBJ is also totally unambiguous but isn't the title that best serves our readers, meets an encyclopedic register, satisfies our WP:CRITERIA, etc. Likewise, the concern here is that removing the clarifier would leave us with a title that doesn’t meet requirements as well as the current one, NCROY notwithstanding. ╠╣uw [talk] 17:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Titling the article on Lyndon B. Johnson "LBJ" violates WP:CONCISE, as stated there "Exceptions exist for biographical articles. For example, given names and family names are usually not omitted or abbreviated for the purposes of concision. Thus Oprah Winfrey (not Oprah) and Jean-Paul Sartre (not J. P. Sartre). See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)." UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested closure for this at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Natg 19 (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2024

[edit]

Change “Edward's eldest sister.” to “Edward's eldest daughter.” In the following paragraph. I believe this was a typo as Henry VII married Edward IV’s daughter Elizabeth of York, not his sister who’s was Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy.

Edward V was never crowned, and his brief reign was dominated by the influence of his uncle and Lord Protector, the Duke of Gloucester, who deposed him to reign as King Richard III; this was confirmed by the Titulus Regius, an Act of Parliament which denounced any further claims through Edward IV's heirs by delegitimising Edward V and all of his siblings. This was later repealed by Henry VII, who wished to legitimise his reign by marrying Elizabeth of York, Edward's eldest sister. 72.42.165.190 (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward V is meant. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2024

[edit]

In the section entitled Epitaph, the transcription of the original Latin is incorrect in several particulars.

First, since the carved letter "v" is used for "u" in the epitaph, but is transcribed as "u" where appropriate, the first word in the phrase "div et multum quæsita" should be transcribed "diu".

Second, in the parenthetical phrase "(scala istæ ad Sacellum Turris Albæ nuper ducebant)", the first word should be transcribed with the "ae" ligature as the last letter, "scalæ".

Finally, in the phrase "Carolus II Rex clementissimu sacerbam sortem miseratus", the words are improperly segmented, and should read "Carolus II Rex clementissimus acerbam sortem miseratus".

The second and third of these corrections can easily be justified by looking at the image of the epitaph supplied in the article with a modicum of magnification. The first is just a matter of consistency in the use of the letter "u" for the inscribed letter "v", and can be easily confirmed by looking up "diu" in any Latin dictionary and comparing it with the English translation already in the article, where it is rendered correctly as "long". Josephcasazza (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edward_V&oldid=1234626373"