Talk:Thomas More

---

No Controversy

My understanding is that among secular figures, humanists and academic Thomas More is an incredibly controversial figure, representative of much of the intellectual and religious oppression of the Middle Ages (to paraphrase Christopher Hitchens and others). As the former president of a University secular society, I can confirm there are universities around the world where his name in invoked when talking about intellectual oppression and at least one Australian university has declined to name a building after him.

These claims, of course, require sourcing before publication to Wikipedia, however, it begs the question: why no criticism or controversy on this page? Rotovia (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but did you even bother to read the entire article? There are references to authors critical of Thomas More.85.243.69.170 (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

G. K. Chesterton Quote

This is the exact quote of G. K. Chesterton about Thomas More: "May come to be counted the greatest Englishman, or at least the greatest historical character in English History." It is taken from "The New Encyclopedia Britannica", Micropedia, vol. 8, 1995.Mistico (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Opinion masquerading as fact

The opening section states "In 1535, he was tried for treason, convicted on perjured testimony, and beheaded." Is this not merely opinion (of the truthfulness of the testimony of Richard Rich)?

There are a fair few other references of this ilk scattered around e.g. "However, the jury knew where their own best interests lay".

paxman (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

the "perjured testimony" bit is the consensus of the RS (reliable sources), it is not the opinion of a Wiki editor. Rjensen (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Titles and Honorifics (Saint vs Sir)

We seem to have a continuing sequence of people wanting to change the name of the article to "Saint Thomas More". My understanding is that articles about historical figures are named by the titles they had in life (that at some point someone might have used to describe them), and their canonization is mentioned separately. Does someone have available an official pointer to a policy for Wikipedia on the matter? The existing examples I can find show such a pattern (e.g., Thomas Aquinas), with only articles about people whose notability is purely canonical being named "Saint xxx" (e.g., Saint Joseph). Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I've worked on a fair number of Saint-related articles, and generally the way it's handled is that the article title is of the name without the honorific, but then the full title can be in the top of the infobox. Examples: John of the Cross, Raphael Kalinowski. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints/Style Guidelines#The_word "Saint" in article titles. --Elonka 05:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that references Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) , which no longer exists. It redirects to Royalty and Nobility. The quote from there makes sense, but I can no longer find the original context. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The objections are also to the article beginning "Sir..." not "Saint..." and, in my case, to having an honorifics line at the top of the infobox that gave "The Right Honourable" but not Saint, which is simply silly. It should have Saint, or both as I added, or just be removed, as the cruft it is. If we are getting into matters of precedence Saints obviously outrank knights, though I don't see why the two can't be combined. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you come up with a reference of Thomas More ever being referenced as "The Right Honourable Saint Sir Thomas More"? I've only seen two styles - "Saint Thomas More" (where evidently "Saint" makes all other styles irrelevant) and the various styles he used in life. I've never seen them combined. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably not; I think you'd have difficulty referencing "The Right Honourable Sir Thomas More" in any case. Johnbod (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like "The Right Honourable Sir" is fairly common: John A. Macdonald, Wilfrid Laurier, William Thomas White, ... I note that "Sir" seems to be placed in the name, not as an honorific. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is, but for More specifically? Johnbod (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure - http://www.oxford-shakespeare.com/Chancery/C_1-685-22.pdf , page 3. An interesting search in Australia's library shows the dichotomy - referred to as either Saint or T.R.H.S: http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/5518819 . Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

IMHO the best option is simply to work out a local consensus here. I'm in favour of retaining the present arrangement in the lead, with no view on the infobox. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 20:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure when the honorific even came into use. Has anyone got a reference to its use at the time of Henry VIII or earlier? Dabbler (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up to my immediately previous comment. I did some searching around and found evidence that More actually was addressed as the Right Honorable Sir Thomas More in various documents quoted in later books. Dabbler (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Well my main point was that it was ridiculous to have "Right Honorable" in the infobox but not Saint, so I propose to remove the crufty line altogether - most biographies don't have it. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. See e.g., John A. Macdonald, Wilfrid Laurier, William Thomas White. It's hyper-formal usage, but it does get used in formal documents and when high personages get announced. The point I was trying to make is that it made no sense to mix the style used in life with posthumous designations which are almost always used stand-alone. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It is very common on British and Commonwealth political and government figures (or officeholders as they are described in the infobox) to have the Right Honorable honorific at the top of the infobox, though it is less common for Tudor figures possibly becasue so many of them were enobled than contemporary politicians. More was known as Sir Thomas during his life and the next few centuries, only becoming a Saint in 1935 more than 400 years after his death, so Sir is the most appropriate primary usage in the officeholder infobox in use. After all More wasn`t an officeholder because he was a saint. Dabbler (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Consistent capitalisation

Over time, inconsistencies have appeared in the article. In cleaning these up, I've adopted the OUP standards. I.e., generic king or kings, pope or popes, etc, is l.c.; King Henry and Pope Leo (title) take cap inits; "the King" and "the Pope" take the cap init only when the referent is understood to be a specific king or pope. Sometimes, where the distinction is blurred, I have reworded, e.g., "the power of the pope" to "papal power", making it more clear that the term is generic. The Bible is capitalised, but not "biblical". I follow Hart's Rules in other cases, e.g., "(Lord) Chancellor", but "chancellorship". Questionable capitalisation within quotes is, of course, not changed. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 04:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)