Talk:Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham/Archive 1

Family

From A-class assessment:

The names of his children appearing in the infobox do not all appear elsewhere in the body of the text. ~~As such, this is not (apparently) supported by a citation.~~
The list of children absents one son and one daughter. This "appears" to be an error of omission and not (at least for the son) an absence of information.

Done

In the family section, the dates given indicate that Anne is the youngest, and not the eldest daughter.
The text suggests that his three daughters married before his death. Sources indicate that only one definitely did, with one marrying close to the time of his death (before March 1461) and the third, in 1467.
There are conflicting reports as to whether Catherine or Margret was the third daughter to marry. The sources I have linked are unanimous it was Catherine.
I note that Catherine is sometimes Katherine. This is not exceptional for the time, when spelling was not as ridgid as it is now. I also noted that Joan has been reported as Joanne. Only the matter of Joan[ne] and that the names of all five daughters is available arise specifically from the ODNB1898. The other apparent conflicts are from sources cited in articles on the husbands. They appear to be online compilations of Cokayne and Carcroft that are referenced to him (see hyperlinks ~~above~~ below).
I indicated that conflicting sources should be acknowledged and, if possible, reconciled. More specifically, it is not up to us to make judgements about sources (thought we might rely on the judgements of others to reconcile differences). This last comment is not specific to any source or issue but a general observation, as it might assist in addressing some of these issues.

Further comments to perhaps clarify: The ODNB98 gives the daughters (in order) as: Anne (m Aubrey), Joanne (m Beaumont), Elizabeth, Margret and Catherine (m Talbot). Of the three sources I linked, the ODNB98 gives Joanna and the others Joan. It is the only one to list all five daughters. [1] lists both Catherine and Katherine. On closer inspection of that source, these are clearly the same. I was not intending that "Katherine" should replace "Catherine" in this article unless you have good reason for doing so. The other two sources give "Catherine". All three sources indicate it was Catherine and not Margret that married Talbot. The Third link is [2]. I did not intend that the article speculate to any extent as to the seventh son but rather note that the name was unknown (from the sources consulted). By doing so, it would clarify that the name is unknown rater than an error of omission in writing the article. I would not speculate as to whether the seventh son actually existed. I have made an edit to the first para IAW these.

To be clearer, the DOBs given at the third para indicate that Anne is the youngest of the three married daughters but sources give Anne as the eldest. I think there is an issue with the dates (a transcription error by somebody) and not that Anne was the youngest, since Anne is consistently reported as the eldest. I had thought that the inconsistency would stand out like a country dunny in the middle of a 40 ac paddock once I drew your attention to it. I appologise for any miscommunication on my part.

I think that the issue of Joan|ne and K|Catherine is best dealt with at the third para but much as you did in your recent edit - eg Joan (sometimes Joanna). I have not attempted to edit the third para per the issues herein since a big part of this depends on dealing with the DOBs. If it is an "error" in the source, I would tend to acknowledge and reconcile it as a footnote. I see you haven't used them. If you did decide on a footnote, it is not necessary to create a separate notes section for just one. It could reasonably appear with the references. The footnote can even include references. I would see no issue with a citation within a note being in Harvard (parenthetic style) v a footnote within a footnote (Vancouver system). IMO this would not be inconsistent as it would be consistent with the format of the reference section. Happy to help with markup if you decide to go this way. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinderella157: It's true, I forgot about notes; in fact, tbh, I think I wasn't really aware of them when I wrote the bulk of this text (but cf. a more recent thing, which is chock-full of 'em). I can certainly utilise them to good effect here. Do you think the issues you raise here could be resolved as simply as noting (in—ahem—a pagenote) that there is potentially another DOB, for example, or that "Historians disagree regarding the...." etc. thoughts? Hope you're well, >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I am not certain exactly what the best way to deal with it is. It does very much look like a transcription error. Is there enough "other material" to indicate the "most likely" or "correct" order of births? I am guessing that the recent ODNB is your source for the dates? Is there an alternative source for the dates? If not, I would omit the life ranges from the main body of the text and deal with the inconsistency in a note. How do the death dates given marry up with other sources. Certainly Anne cannot be the eldest based on these dates and yet she is referred to as such. Also, named for her mother, she is likely the first born daughter? Margaret cannot be unwed per 1st para of section and then be married to Talbot in the last? There is also the order of issue in the info box. There is info for the order of the male issue and the order of the female issue but not both?

The ODNBCurrent identifies Anne as the eldest but gives the following years of life: Anne (1446–1472), Joan (1442–1484) and Margaret(1437–1476). The life ranges (or dates of birth at least) appear to have been misassigned. The order of issue appears to be: ... This is based on ...

As for the order of issue, I would go with the most consistent and identify the inconsistencies in the text. Alternatively, I might note that the sources are inconsistent and the order of issue is unclear. This may or may not help. You have some information that I don't have access to. Whatever the course, the inconsistencies need to be removed from the main text. To that extent, it is not "just" a case of adding a note or two. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ >SerialNumber, I added the {{Self-contradictory}} tag after raising these points during the review and then again on the talk page - and only after waiting some time without a reply. You will note, that the review was closed while these issues remained unresolved. If this was a matter I could resolve myself, I would have. However, I don't have access to the same material you do, nor do I know what led you to write these inconsistencies - and consequently the best way to resolve the issue. I am happy to work with you to resolve the matter. This is definitely not a case of WP:Point - which might succinctly be described as a "perverse" act to prove a point. I am disappointed that you should suggest it to be ""pointy". This is a legitimate use of a tag, only after reasonable efforts to otherwise resolve the matter - in which I have not received a response until recently (and then as a question which I have answered - and tried to suggest how it could be resolved). I have tried to describe my concerns as best I can but: "I had thought that the inconsistency would stand out like a country dunny in the middle of a 40 ac paddock once I drew your attention to it" (see above). I am happy for the tag to be removed "once" the issues have been reasonably addressed and I am (again) more than willing to assist in finding an appropriate resolution. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090826175836/http://www.vandeleurcreagh.org:80/b382.htm to http://www.vandeleurcreagh.org/b382.htm#P1935

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Buckingham's Retinue Reenactment Site

Family

The following is reinstated from what was recently archived. It is the most recent post in that thread.

To be honest, I am not certain exactly what the best way to deal with it is. It does very much look like a transcription error. Is there enough "other material" to indicate the "most likely" or "correct" order of births? I am guessing that the recent ODNB is your source for the dates? Is there an alternative source for the dates? If not, I would omit the life ranges from the main body of the text and deal with the inconsistency in a note. How do the death dates given marry up with other sources. Certainly Anne cannot be the eldest based on these dates and yet she is referred to as such. Also, named for her mother, she is likely the first born daughter? Margaret cannot be unwed per 1st para of section and then be married to Talbot in the last? There is also the order of issue in the info box. There is info for the order of the male issue and the order of the female issue but not both? [underline added to archived original for emphasis]
The ODNBCurrent identifies Anne as the eldest but gives the following years of life: Anne (1446–1472), Joan (1442–1484) and Margaret(1437–1476). The life ranges (or dates of birth at least) appear to have been misassigned. The order of issue appears to be: ... This is based on ...

As for the order of issue, I would go with the most consistent and identify the inconsistencies in the text. Alternatively, I might note that the sources are inconsistent and the order of issue is unclear. This may or may not help. You have some information that I don't have access to. Whatever the course, the inconsistencies need to be removed from the main text. To that extent, it is not "just" a case of adding a note or two. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@ >SerialNumber, I added the {{Self-contradictory}} tag after raising these points during the review and then again on the talk page - and only after waiting some time without a reply. You will note, that the review was closed while these issues remained unresolved. If this was a matter I could resolve myself, I would have. However, I don't have access to the same material you do, nor do I know what led you to write these inconsistencies - and consequently the best way to resolve the issue. I am happy to work with you to resolve the matter. This is definitely not a case of WP:Point - which might succinctly be described as a "perverse" act to prove a point. I am disappointed that you should suggest it to be ""pointy". This is a legitimate use of a tag, only after reasonable efforts to otherwise resolve the matter - in which I have not received a response until recently (and then as a question which I have answered - and tried to suggest how it could be resolved). I have tried to describe my concerns as best I can but: "I had thought that the inconsistency would stand out like a country dunny in the middle of a 40 ac paddock once I drew your attention to it" (see above). I am happy for the tag to be removed "once" the issues have been reasonably addressed and I am (again) more than willing to assist in finding an appropriate resolution. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Continuing thread; The tag was recently removed without addressing the issues. When reinstated, it was then removed again. To simplify, I have underlined just one inconsistency identified previously. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Discontinuing thread;~~ That makes it much easier to attend to. Much of this could probably have been averted if I had originally realised that it was C/Katherine who married Talbot, not Margaret. Still, life's rich tapestry and all that. ——SerialNumber54129 13:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing thread; Serial Number 54129, the main text reads: One daughter—possibly Anne (1446–1472)—had been proposed as the future consort to Louis XI of France ... This is inconsistent with the note: Tait also notes that "about 1450 there was some talk of marrying one of Buckingham's daughters, probably the eldest, to the Dauphin, afterwards Louis XI". While the text has altered since the original concern, the essence remains. Based on info in the article (then or now) Anne is not the eldest? Is the weight of sources on the order of birth of Catherine, Anne and Joan clear or uncertain (who got it wrong)? Understanding this will indicate how to weigh the article and reconcile the sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aside: Buckingham may be the eponymous character of the early-seventeenth-century play ... per words to watch, such uncertainty or speculation is better if more directly attributed to the source (eg according to ...). Cinderella157 (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto: Buckingham and Anne probably had twelve children, possibly consisting of seven sons ... plus other instances of same. See also "likely" in caption. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the wiki on constables of France not want to list Humphrey Stafford?

Something weird going on. I edited him in but bet won't last long. Humphrey Stafford is also asidely scrubbed out of beingness on the John Talbot wiki to those with a sharp eye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.237.140 (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

H'mmm. I can't see any changes to the John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury page, or any mentions—or removals!—of Buckingham? As for the Constable of France list, it's because that is dealing specifically with the French crown's own office of Constable, not the English office which was somewhat nominally Constable of France, and actually (by this period) pretty much just Constable of Gascony and Normandy. If you get my drift :) ——SerialNumber54129 19:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Handful of Harvard errors

User:Serial Number 54129: pinging nominator to make sure they see this because the FAC bot edited the talk page a hour after I posted. AmericanLemming (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 71 ("St John Hope 1914, p. 96") has a Harvard error; that source doesn't appear to be listed anywhere in the "Bibliography" section. Two sources listed in the "Bibliography" section have the opposite problem; they don't appear to be cited anywhere in the article: "Logan, H. M. (1979). "KLIC: A Computer Aid to Graphological Analysis" and "Zimbalist, B. (2012). "Imitating the Imagined: Clemence of Barking's Life of St. Catherine". AmericanLemming (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sup, AmericanLemming. Many thanks indeed for the reminder: the FAC got mildly trolled, which resulted in sources getting buggered about. I'll be restoring both the missing sources and/or the missing material very shortly. "Welcome to the party pal!" :) ——SerialNumber54129 12:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Earl of Shrewsbury Was Not Killed at Northampton

According to his own page biography, the Earl of Shrewsbury in question, John Talbot, was not killed at the battle along with Buckingham, but rather lived until 1473. Which is incorrect? Venqax (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was his dad, John Talbot, 2nd Earl of Shrewsbury who was killed, but the son, John Talbot, 3rd Earl of Shrewsbury was Buckingham's son-in-law, & he was therefore not Earl of Shrewsbury until after the battle. Yes it needs sorting, but better let the main editors do it. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have clarified the entries - assuming that the mention of his son-in-law is correct, rather than meaning the 2nd Earl RGCorris (talk) 09:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]