Talk:Anne Boleyn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Anne Boleyn has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
February 21, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
May 7, 2007 WikiProject A-class review Not approved
March 20, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept
Current status: Good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Royalty and Nobility (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Anglicanism (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Anne Boleyn is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Christianity (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject England (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject English Royalty (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Royalty. For more information, visit the project page.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Women's History (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Charges of adultery, incest and treason[edit]

This subsection begins "According to author and Tudor historian Alison Weir, Thomas Cromwell plotted Anne's downfall while feigning illness and detailing the plot 20–21 April 1536." There is no citation to Alison Weir, and what on earth does "detailing the plot 20–21 April 1536" mean? I have added some tags and hope someone can tidy this up. Moonraker (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This tendency to make such bold un-cited statements that others have to flag up, seems to me to be one of the unfortunate weaknesses of the Wikipedia principles. Look, this has remained as at present since last July, now some seven months ago. And having to supply other people's citations, guessing and researching where they came from, is a real pain in the whatsit. Time is better spent on other more constructive editing. I suggest deleting the complete short section referring to Alison Wear (an author of historical fiction and popular history?), then the next author, who is cited, covers a similar point, and Thos Cromwell can be cross-linked from there. If nobody objects within the next few weeks, I shall make this change. Okan 19:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I have removed questionable text as proposed by Okan and Moonraker above.Pincrete (talk) 07:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Anne Boleyn's year of Birth[edit]

Why has the hobby-horse of a random American academic (that Anne was born in 1507) been given equal billing with the consensus view of 1501? Warnicke has presented her evidence and failed to convince the academic community. It is extremely unlikely that Anne was a maid-of-honour aged 5 or 6, or that she could've written the letter aged 7 (in her second language). TheMathemagician (talk) 12:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course, correct me if I am mistaken, please. I believe that you are mistaken and referring to the opposite ages, vice versa, as is apparent to me after checking the citation, that the consensus supposedly used to be AD1507 CE and an academic has supposedly proven that Anne was not a child-prodigy but rather was born in AD1501 CE.W124l29 (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I have just searched, and found numerous sources stating that Warnicke said 1507, in contrast to a consensus for 1501, and not a single one giving it the other way round, so it seems that the original post above was right. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anne Boleyn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia style question: New style versus Old style dating[edit]

Looking at the coronation date, some other dates aswell, this article not standing alone with regard to my question: are Old style & New style, Julian & Gregorian respectively, to be noted and/or differentiated? If not, then why? If not, then being as that it's not a rule I'd assume, then I would like to argue to amend accepted policy.W124l29 (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)