Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Reynolds (cleric)
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Charles Reynolds (cleric)
[edit]
... that Charles Reynolds was posthumously charged for treason, after he successfully persuaded the Pope to excommunicate King Henry VIII of England?Source: Ellis (1976): "According to Ortiz, the pope in reply excused himself for his past negligence, promised to do his duty". Source: Henry VIII of England article referenceing Churchill (1966), Scarisbrick (1997), Gairdner (1893), Bunet (1865). "On 30 August 1535, Pope Paul III drew up a bull of excommunication which began "Eius qui immobilis."ALT1:... that Charles Reynolds was posthumously charged for treason, after he successfully persuaded the Pope to excommunicate the King of England?- ALT2:... that Charles Reynolds was posthumously attainted of treason, after he successfully persuaded the Pope to excommunicate Henry VIII of England?
- ALT3:... that Charles Reynolds was posthumously found guilty of high treason, after he successfully persuaded the Pope to excommunicate Henry VIII of England?
ALT4:... that Charles Reynolds was posthumously condemned for high treason, after successfully persuading the Pope to excommunicate Henry VIII of England?- ALT5:... that Charles Reynolds was posthumously convicted of high treason, after successfully persuading the Pope to excommunicate Henry VIII of England?
Improved to Good Article status by Nmclough (talk) and Farang Rak Tham (talk). Nominated by Nmclough (talk) at 17:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC).
The article qualifies as GA and naturally is well-cited, neutrally written, without signs of copyvio, and so on. The illustrations are excellent. The problem is with the wording of the hook. In English law you can't be charged with a crime posthumously, and in any event this Attainder of the Earl of Kildare Act 1536 wouldn't have charged anyone with anything, an act of attainder was in effect a judgement of guilt in itself. I can only suggest you might like to offer an ALT2 which relies closely on what is said in one of the reliable sources. Please ping me when you're ready. Moonraker (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Nmclough, Moonraker, maybe we could use attainted of instead, as the article does, though that would create a less accessible hook in terms of language. Or sentenced for...--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- And can I suggest 'guilty of high treason' (adding "high" recovers accessibility of the hook), the word "attained" is difficult. Nmclough (talk) 09:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Added ALT2 for consideration. Nmclough (talk) 09:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'd go for ALT5. Found guilty slants toward subjectivity, and condemned might just mean a verbal statement without legal consequences. Convicted works for me.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Farang Rak Tham, Moonraker, I like ALT5 too. Oxford dictionary definition fits .. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/conviction. Lets go with that. Nmclough (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)"
- Added ALT2 for consideration. Nmclough (talk) 09:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- And can I suggest 'guilty of high treason' (adding "high" recovers accessibility of the hook), the word "attained" is difficult. Nmclough (talk) 09:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Sources for the hook are accepted AGF. One of them is online, but the PDF is so huge that my iPad couldn't cope with it. This tick is for ALT2, ALT3, and ALT5, and of them I prefer ALT2. I've taken the liberty of linking "attainted", which deals with Farang Rak Tham's point about inaccessible language. I agree that "condemned" is too vague, and "convicted" is technically all right but suggests a judicious process, whereas these acts of attainder were highly political, so it gives the wrong impression. Moonraker (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)