Talk:Edward IV

}}

Use of Findagrave

This was removed as a 'self-published' source, which I think is harsh. The guidelines say 'use with caution' and I don't see the problem with using this to verify the location of his burial place, as opposed to qualitative assessments.

Findagrave has tens of thousands of entries, entered by thousands of individuals and provides pictures and details; if you think there's a better one, then please feel free but until then, can we keep this.Robinvp11 (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The number of entries at a crowdsourced site is not relevant to its accuracy. Find-a-Grave entry is Rarely appropriate as an external link, and almost never as an article source - (WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL). This site really doesn't have any "specific, unique feature or information that is not available elsewhere", so it does not qualify for either a citation or external link. Further, its use here is misleading, in that the sentence has three separate facts in it, that Edward rebuilt the chapel, that he was buried in the chapel, and that this burial took place was in 1483, but the Find-a-Grave page only documents one of these three items, the burial place (it gives the death date, not the burial date). We are going to need another source anyhow, so we are better off finding a good one that does the full job. Agricolae (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Focus

I'm not a specialist in this area but, coming to the article for the first time, the introduction strikes me as too full of events and circumstances leading up to Edward's accession. I think these should be moved to the beginning of the "Accession to the throne" section, and the introduction should do more to summarise the most important features of his life, reign and personality. Similarly, most of the section on "Early life" is not focussed on Edward himself. The details about his father's conflict with Henry VI are more appropriate to the articles on those two people. But here it would seem more relevant to mention why Edward happened to be born in Rouen, where he mainly grew up, what kind of education he had, etc. Mrmedley (talk) 04:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Further to the above, I drafted a new lead section before realizing that the article is protected. For what it's worth, I copy my draft below. I think it does a better job of summarising the contents of the article, although the article itself is rather weak regarding the qualities of Edward and his reign.

Edward was a central figure in the Wars of the Roses, a series of civil wars for state power in England fought by opposing Yorkist and Lancastrian factions between 1455 and 1487. His father, Richard of York, led the Yorkists against King Henry VI at the start of these wars but was killed in battle in December 1460. As the eldest son, Edward (then aged 18) inherited his father’s claim to the throne. In the first few months of 1461 he commanded victorious forces in the battles of Morton Cross and Towton, and became king.

His reign was interrupted by a French-backed revolt in 1470-1471 which briefly installed King Henry VI for a second time. Edward regained the throne after finding refuge and funds in Flanders, winning the Battle of Barnet and entering London. He quickly consolidated his position by having Henry killed and winning another victory at Tewksbury.

Edward reigned twelve more years. Shortly before he died, in 1483, seeing that his heir apparent was still a minor, he named his brother, the Duke of Gloucester, as Protector. After his death, Edward’s surviving sons were declared illegitimate by Gloucester who then ascended to the throne as Richard III. Edward nevertheless became an ancestor of Tudor and Stuart monarchs through his daughter, Elizabeth of York, who married Richard’s vanquisher, King Henry VII.

Mrmedley (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I would agree that the lead section at present focuses too much on Henry VI and not enough on Edward. However, you can't plunge straight in with your first paragraph without explaining a little more. I'd make a few changes and come up with something like this:

King Edward IV of England was a central figure in the Wars of the Roses, a series of civil wars in England fought between the Yorkist and Lancastrian factions between 1455 and 1487, during the reign of King Henry VI of England. Edward was the eldest son of Richard, Duke of York, a rival claimant to the throne and the leader of the opposition to Henry VI. When Richard was killed in battle in December 1460, Edward inherited his claim to the throne. In the first few months of 1461 he commanded victorious forces in the battles of Mortimer's Cross and Towton, and became king.

Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville led to his falling out with his mentor, Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick. His reign was interrupted by a revolt in 1470-1471, led by Warwick and backed by the French, which briefly re-installed Henry VI as king. Edward regained the throne after finding refuge and funds in Flanders, winning the Battle of Barnet and entering London. He quickly consolidated his position by having Henry killed and winning another victory at Tewkesbury.

Edward reigned twelve more years, but died suddenly in 1483. Since his heir apparent was still a minor, he named his brother, the Duke of Gloucester, as Lord Protector. After his death, Edward’s surviving sons were declared illegitimate by Gloucester who then ascended the throne as Richard III before himself being killed in battle. Edward nevertheless became an ancestor of Tudor and Stuart monarchs through his daughter, Elizabeth of York, who married Richard's rival, King Henry VII. Deb (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's better! Thanks. Mrmedley (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

So, Deb, will you make this change? Or perhaps even remove the protected status of the page, on a trial basis at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmedley (talk • contribs) 01:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

First, the Lead is supposed to summarise the Article; Second, its hard to leave out Henry's role, because (lets be clear), the Wars are what people focus on. Even Thomas Penn's recent rewrite of the Brothers York covers the period 1471 to 1483 in a chapter.

I'm not suggesting it can't be improved but I don't think it needs to be entirely rewritten (plus "Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville led to his falling out with his mentor, Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick" is not really accurate. Its far more complex than that, and relates to foreign policy).

As the person who rewrote it, can I have a go first? Then you can critique.Robinvp11 (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

See what you think. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Robinvp11, for your response. But my opinion - for what it's worth - remains that, for a lead section, the present one gets too bogged down in what I would consider to be background information, particularly in the 2nd and 3rd sentences of the second paragraph and the first sentence of the third paragraph. The lead section is supposed to summarize the most important points and in my view these are not among the most important points of this specific article. But on consideration I agree it wasn't necessary to rewrite the whole of the lead section. Mrmedley (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Edward was a usurper, not an heir; that means the political and economic context which led to the civil wars is key. Hence reference to the Regency council, and Henry's minority; without that, why he ended up fighting for the throne becomes a mystery.

Henry's personality and mental condition is central to the Wars of the Roses, which is what most readers will be looking for (that's not really controversial; in comparison to books on the War, even purported biographies of Edward are thin on the ground, and usually cover the second half of his reign in a chapter). If Henry had been Edward III, history would look very different; if he was either sane, or insane, all the time, the problem would have been simpler. It was his occasional recovery that caused what remains a unique situation in English history (George III occurred in a different context).

All these points are discussed in the article; its reasonable to have three sentences in a five paragraph Lead covering Henry, the economic and political circumstances of his minority, his personality even when sane, and his mental illness. It's essential background. Robinvp11 (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm dubious about the statement "and until 1453, heir presumptive to Henry VI". Surely Humphrey of Gloucester was heir presumptive until his death in 1447? Deb (talk) 08:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes; York was heir between the death of Gloucester and the birth of the PoW. serial ^# 09:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

My mistake, I'll clarify, thanks :). Robinvp11 (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Renominate for GA

I see it failed back in 2015 - is it worth renominating it now? Robinvp11 (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The article looks much better now than it did last year but I do not think it is quite there yet. The chronology is odd. Why is the "Legitimacy" section after "Successors"? Why does it mention an unnamed and apparently discredited TV documentary? Much of what is in "Overview" belongs to "Reign". "Ancestry" is unsourced and names some people for no apparent reason; shouldn't a genealogy chart mention his brothers, who had such a great role in his reign, rather than an obscure Maud Percy? Surtsicna (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It's a bit bitty though, yeah; the vastness of the literature means this should probably be a ≥12,000-worder. ——Serial ^# 19:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks both. Answers below;

I agree the focus and flow is a bit odd, largely because I didn't want to simply impose my perspective on the article. There were huge paragraphs devoted to Legitimacy and the TV documentary, so getting it down to one line was a considerable achievement :).

Personally, ancestry charts bore me to tears. I can find a reference without any trouble, but I have zero interest in expanding it, so if anyone else does, please feel free.

I don't think it needs more words per se. I seem to be in a minority on this topic, but we need to think about users. This is an encyclopaedia, so conciseness is a virtue. Graphics break it up, especially when viewed on a mobile device, which (per Wikipedia) is how most people will access it.

If there is a topic missing, let's discuss, but I'm not a fan of simply expanding because its a big subject. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Robinvp11: Mayhap; but have a glance at WP:FA?, of which a requirement (1b) is that the article is comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Cheers, ——Serial ^# 13:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I thought only George Martin used 'Mayhap' :) As above, what topic(s) do you consider are missing? Robinvp11 (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It needs full and comprehensive coverage of the first 9 years of the reign; the current effort is cursory bordering on the useless. This would include the pacification of the north, the Wydeville connection, and relations with Warwick at least. Deposition, exile and restoration need a fuller treatment, as does the second reign. Other topics effectively unaddressed by their brevity would probably include law and order, economic policy and income, foreign policy, family policy and relations with Wales, Scotland, Ireland and the north of England. His family unit, his court and his matrimonial/patronage policy. Relations with parliament and the nobility. Popular contemporary image. Historiography, subsequent depictions. And the usual background/aftermath sections.

That should keep you busy. I may be of some assistance with sources. ——Serial ^# 15:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Serial# has a point regarding comprehensiveness. The contents page of the biography by Ross can serve as a good checklist. For example, Ross devotes 12 pages to "policies towards Wales, the north of England, and Ireland", while the body of this article mentions Wales once and Ireland not even once; Ross has 19 pages on Edward's "Great Enterprise" (invasion of France), spanning from 1472 until 1475, while our article has no more than three sentences, beginning in 1475, at the very end of the entire affair; the House of Commons is not mentioned at all despite Ross dedicating 10 pages to "the King and the Commons in Parliament", etc. I do not quite like sprawling articles either but this one is rather lacking. Yet it is miles better than it was the last time I checked. The articles about Edward IV and Henry VI have always stood out as the least developed among English monarchs and I am very happy to see that they are getting some attention too. Surtsicna (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Excellent points, Surtsicna, and of course, you're right: Ross is n excellent starting point. Very readable. ——Serial ^# 15:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Just so we're all clear, I've read eight different books on this topic, including Ross, Penn and Seward, plus numerous articles. Of the 45 Sources provided in this article, the vast majority come from me. I don't need help with Sources, thanks all the same.

Conciseness is hard work, not because I'm too lazy to read more than one book. Its easy to simply regurgitate large chunks of content, although I know many editors seem to think the ability to do so is a sign of intelligence.

As a result, I'm well aware of all the different aspects of his reign; Ross wrote a 400 page biography, which is why he could devote 12 pages to Edward spending a lot of money to traipse around Northern France for a month. This is an encyclopaedia.

The article is about Edward IV, the person and individual, not the economic development of 15th century England. Wikipedia is an online ecyclopedia for general users, most of whom spend no more five minutes on the article (Wikipedia stats). Longer is not better.

It needs full and comprehensive coverage of the first 9 years of the reign; the current effort is cursory bordering on the useless. This comment is neither helpful, or accurate.

How about providing an example of an article we should aspire to? Then we can decide who'd like to do it. Doesn't have to be me; my main objective was to remove huge chunks of pointless speculation about his legitimacy. Job done. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. I did not suggest that you read a book. I suggested that you use the Contents page of a comprehensive general biography as a checklist to ensure that every major point has been covered. It simply does not make sense for Ireland, the other of the two islands partially ruled by Edward, to be completely ignored - especially since space is accorded to the marital choices of Edward's grandson and Edward's rival's mother-in-law. Surtsicna (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand your point but not every topic covered by Ross is important enough to be included; the fact its not included is not because it hasn't been considered. Horrox' online Oxford DNB entry (which is a lot longer than this) does not even mention Ireland. If there's a relevant point you think should be included, please feel free to add it. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

A lot of good improvements have been made in the last few days. But I think there should be more consideration of Edward's role in evolving the structures of English monarchy and governance. Ross mentions - and more recent historians still discuss - Green's "New Monarchy" thesis. As I understand it, this is the idea that Edward dealt an important blow to the power of the barons (not only in defeat of Warwick and seizure of the Duchy of Lancaster but also in various financial and administrative techniques and in the promotion of commoners in government reporting to the king) that paved a way toward Henry VIII's reformation and the civil service of Elizabeth I. Some of these elements are already in the article, but there is scope for more, and for mentioning the ongoing historical debate about their combined significance. I suggest deleting the paraphrasing of Ross that Edward's "reign was ultimately a failure", since the reduction of a whole reign to such a term is unhelpful. Mrmedley (talk) 03:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Penn, Seward and Horrox argue Edward tried to disrupt existing regional powerbrokers (eg handing the North to John Neville, removing the Tudors in Wales, Courtenays in the South-West etc) rather than necessarily destroy them. But I'll give it some thought, then you can take a look. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Surtsicna Deb Mrmedley Sorry to drag you into this, but I find edit wars incredibly childish. Can one of you have a look at the rewrite of the Lead and make any adjustments; I don't think its an improvement, but I may well be biased. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Really? It's Debs' own lead from the section above, which is superior as it concentrates on Edward himself (as you point out above, the person and individual, rather than "the third son of Edward III", etc., and other pre-history). Debs' lead nicely draws the central figure into the context without wasting words. Her prose is, frankly, delightful; I felt what it replaced—while longer—was choppier and fragmentary. Cheers, ——Serial ^# 16:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry, Robinvp11, we're all here willingly :D I do prefer this version to this because it is less sprawling and focuses much more on Edward (the second paragraph of this version, for example, does not even mention Edward). For what it's worth, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section advises that there should be no more than four paragraphs in a lead section. This version, however, is severely underlinked. Is that an oversight? Surtsicna (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: It's purely because Deb didn't link theirs^^^ :) and I didn't wan't to insert links until we had a consensus. ——Serial ^# 17:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Compliments are always much appreciated, but I'm always willing to compromise on wording and in this case, there are several people who know a lot about the subject. Perhaps that makes it harder in some ways to agree on where the emphasis should be. Deb (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm very happy with the new/current version of the lead, though I hope the main article will eventually support adding something about innovations in monarchical governance and the economy during Edward's reign. Mrmedley (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh but I just noticed that the Wars of the Roses are said to have taken place "between 1455 and 1487, during the reign of Henry VI". Henry VI's reign didn't cover the latter part, so could one of you extended-confirmed-users cut out "during the reign of Henry VI"? Mrmedley (talk) 03:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

CE

Did a virus shielded, cheeky, drive-by ce; auto-edded, cite scan, removed redundant ref harvs, changed date to year, moved unused references to further reading, rv dupe wikilinks. Tried to find Ross 1992 but couldn't. Rv as desired. Keith-264 (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Robinvp11 (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Request to remove or reduce the article's protection

Deb, It looks to me that the article's extended-protected status should now be lifted. From the log I see you imposed it in September 2018 in response to a flurry of disruptive edits from an IP address. Is there a particular reason to think those would resume at the same level? If not, could you lift it, or at least reduce the protection level? Mrmedley (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I can, but is a high-visibility article that frequently gets vandalised, or rather frequently gets edited by people with imperfect knowledge of the topic (e.g. dates of reign and predecessor/successor are regularly interfered with). You're autoconfirmed so you should be able to edit it now. Deb (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Mrmedley (talk) 10:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Elizabeth of York

I'm wondering why User:Surtsicna has changed "Elizabeth of York" to the ambiguous "Elizabeth, Queen of England" in the infobox? Deb (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

All his children are "of York". The name of the house is stated right after the list of children. Compare with the infobox in Edward III. "Elizabeth of York, Queen of England" takes up two rows and is a bit of an overkill; "Elizabeth of York" and "Elizabeth, Queen of England" (with "York" stated below) are both enough to identify the daughter. Surtsicna (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

But everyone, when they see "Elizabeth, Queen of England", thinks of Queen Elizabeth I of England. And "Elizabeth of York" is the normal, common name for this particular consort. In fact, it was her raison d'etre, being the person who was supposed to unite the houses of York and Lancaster. Deb (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Likewise, "Richard, Duke of York", is normally understood to mean Edward IV's father, so much so that the article with that title actually redirects to Richard of York, 3rd Duke of York. Deb (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

As I said, I am fine with choosing common name over consistency. "Elizabeth of York" works well. It is "Elizabeth of York, Queen of England" that bothers me. Surtsicna (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I get that. Deb (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)