Talk:Walter Raleigh/Archive 1

Archive 1

General cleanup, removed "spy" note

Raleigh is hardly known for being a spy, regardless of how one views the charges of treason; fixed the opening sentence. A bit more detail about his fallout with Robert Cecil, and political background to the charges, is called for. Another few sentences about Essex and the treasonous plots, should also be added. +sj + 04:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hearsay and Sir Walter Raleigh

My evidence professor lead me to believe that Sir Walter Raleigh's death prompted the hearsay rule on evidence, which essentially states that an out of court witness' statements can't be introduced for the truth of the matter asserted in court (so, I can't testify that "Bill told me that Sir Walter Raleigh intended to kill the king"). The rule is very relevant for modern court proceedings, and had it been present most likely Raleigh wouldn't have been executed (think it was unsubstantiated rumor that was alleged against him). I'd add it in directly, but I don't have anything besides a foggy recollection to substantiate the claim. Any help? Jahenderson 19:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

What happened?

We had a nice article through to the 25th of February; then 86.130.50.48 and 87.126.28.171 deleted everything without explanation.

WB2 07:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted to that version. Jooler 11:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Happened again, and for some reason, I'm not able to revert. Did someone disable something? Finding a way around it via the History page. gspawn 14:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Change the introduction

The introduction should be more than a few sentences on the man's name. At least add a small summary of his life and his achievements to the introduction. HoCkEy PUCK 16:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Raleigh Bicycles

Does anyone know why the Raleigh Bicycle company named itself after Sir Walter Raleigh? His image was used for many years in Raleigh ads and catalogs. -- Amir (147.234.2.2 11:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC))

Raleigh Bicycle Company was founded by Frank Bowden in 1887 in a small cycle manufacturing shop on Raleigh Street in Nottingham. --Wetman 01:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Last words

Elsewhere on the internet Raleigh's last words are said to be "So the heart be right, it is no matter which way the head lieth" or something along those lines - sources found http://www.bartleby.com/268/3/6.html and http://www.corsinet.com/braincandy/dying2.html. Clarify please -- Kevin (86.130.146.82 17:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC))

Most biographies I've encountered have given "Strike man, strike!" (directed to the headsman) as Raleigh's last words. Consequently I have altered the text to reflect this, although I encountered an odd malfunction when I attempted to add a reference in the form of a footnote. I’ll give it another try. (Barnoir 06:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC))

I couldn't get the footnote to work, may just have been me. I put the reference in the text instead. (208.104.236.101 06:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC))

Life in the Tower of London, execution

How is it that this article has gone this long without mentions of these details? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

this hole ebtire website is full of shit.... sir walter was a worthless person that romed the streets just like u all!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.169.140.205 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 3 April 2006

Hey, you can piggy-back and type at the same time - presidential candidate you!--Shtove 01:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Article spam

There is an error--junk--in the New World Section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccarroll (talk • contribs) 10:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

He went to San Thome?

Is Sao Tome of Sao Tome and Principe the place intended in the first paragraph of this article? Arthurian Legend (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Article needs expansion

It seems that many of the events described in the lead are not mentioned again later in the article, although they probably should be. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

New World addition

Please contact me as to the correct way to edit a Wikipedia article, as this is my first attempt at doing this.

I understand that this is not a forum for argument or point of view, but rather one of providing information. My intention is only to provide additional details which one might find useful in their quest for history.

OLD TEXT In 1587, Raleigh attempted a second expedition again establishing a settlement on Roanoke Island. This time, a more diversified group of settlers was sent, including some entire families, under the governance of John White. After a short while in America, White was recalled to England in order to find more supplies for the colony. He was unable to return the following year as planned, however, because the Queen had ordered that all vessels remain at port in case they were needed to fight the Spanish Armada. It was not until 1591 that the supply vessel arrived at the colony, 4 years later, only to find that all colonists had disappeared. The only clue to their fate was the word "CROATOAN" and letters "CRO" carved into separate tree trunks, suggesting the possibility that they were either massacred, absorbed or taken away by Croatans or perhaps another native tribe. Other speculation includes their being swept away or lost at sea during the stormy weather of 1588 (credited with aiding in the defeat of the Spanish Armada). However, it is worth noting that a hurricane prevented John White and the crew of the supply vessel from actually visiting Croatoan to investigate the disappearance, and no further attempts at contact were recorded for some years. Whatever the fate of the settlers, the settlement is now remembered as the "Lost Colony of Roanoke Island".

NEW TEXT/ ADDITIONAL INFO:

In 1587, Raleigh attempted a second expedition again establishing a settlement on Roanoke Island. This time, a more diversified group of settlers was sent, including some entire families, under the governance of John White. After a short while in America, White was recalled to England in order to find more supplies for the colony. He was unable to return the following year as planned, however, because the Queen had ordered that all vessels remain at port in case they were needed to fight the Spanish Armada. However, the threat of the Armada was only partially responsible for the 4 year delay of the second expedition. After England's victory over the Spanish fleet in 1588 the ships were given permission to sail. Unfortunately for the colonists at Roanoke the small fleet made an excursion towards Cuba in an attempt to capture as prizes the treasure laden Spanish merchant ships that were reported to be proliferate in those waters at that time. White is said to have objected to this unplanned foray, but was helpless to dissuade the crews who'd been told of the enormous riches to be had by the experienced (he had previously piloted in the Americas in the service of the Spanish), Portuguese pilot hired by Raleigh to navigate the voyage. It was not until 1591 that the supply vessel arrived at the colony, 4 years later, only to find that all colonists had disappeared. The only clue to their fate was the word "CROATOAN" and letters "CRO" carved into separate tree trunks, suggesting the possibility that they were either massacred, absorbed or taken away by Croatans or perhaps another native tribe. Other speculation includes their being swept away or lost at sea during the stormy weather of 1588 (credited with aiding in the defeat of the Spanish Armada). However, it is worth noting that a hurricane prevented John White and the crew of the supply vessel from actually visiting Croatoan to investigate the disappearance, and no further attempts at contact were recorded for some years. Whatever the fate of the settlers, the settlement is now remembered as the "Lost Colony of Roanoke Island". --Ottooflondon (talk) 05:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Where was he really beheaded?

Was it Whitehall or the Tower of London? The article claims both, and neither claim has a citation. Dwsnyder00 (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

He was imprisoned in the Tower, and beheaded at Whitehall. I can't see anything in the article saying he was beheaded at the Tower (though it may have been edited since your comment). DuncanHill (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have just looked at the DNB article, and that says he was executed at Westminster. Whitehall is in Westminster, and as I recall was a popular place for high-profile executions, but you are quite right, we need some better sourcing and citation here. DuncanHill (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

His head is buried underneath the Organ in the church (St.Mary's)in West Horsley, Surrey (his wife lived opposite). So although his body is in St.Pauls his head isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.235.13.179 (talk) 09:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for correction

There seems to be a discrepancy in the section on "Later Life" - at one point it says that Raleigh's son Wat survived his parents, but later it appears that Wat was killed during Raleigh's lifetime. Could someone (who knows more about it than I do) fix this, please? --Jon Rob 14:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Sources I read today confirm that in fact his son did die in 1616, although it mentions that Raleigh was sick and in fact it was his crew who started the fight with the Spanish. Also, the article that I read said that his son was named Walter and not Wat, so I think that should be confirmed too.

WB2 07:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Most biographies I have read - including 'Raleigh Trevelyan, 'Sir Walter Raleigh', 2003’, cited elsewhere in the article - broadly agree on the events surrounding the death of Sir Walter’s son.

Walter ('Wat' for short) Raleigh, Sir Walter's oldest son, was indeed killed in 1616. He accompanied Sir Walter on his ill fated voyage to Guiana, and once in South America he and other members of Raleigh’s crew (led by Lawrence Keymis) travelled up the Orinoco in search of gold. Based on his earlier explorations, Raleigh believed that there were great riches to be found up river, possibly in the form of a mine, and it was for this reason that the expedition was sent inland.

However, rather than any gold or mines, the group encountered a Spanish fort, ‘San Thome’. It is a matter of historical debate as to who began the altercation, it is perfectly possible it was the English. Sir Walter himself was not present when the fight occurred, as he was indeed sick (he was rather old by the standards of the time) and had remained on board ship while the others travelled inland. Once the skirmish began, Wat eagerly charged forward and was fatally shot. Raleigh had a younger son however, Carew, and it is he who survived his parents. (Barnoir 23:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC))

In the reference to "Her Reply" (His answer to the Marlowe poem) there appear to be two mistakes. First, it says the rhyme scheme is a-a-a-b-b, as each stanza has only 4 lines, there should only be 2 a's and 2 b's. Second, it says he wrote the reply 4 years later, but gives the same year for each of the two poems. -- James Flanagan (99.244.36.61 22:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

1591 or 1592?

I'm studying the Spenser Raleigh connection and everything I've read (three different texts, mind you) cite his imprisonment as 1592 (likely July). Any comment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.126.18 (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The article states that Raleigh married Bess Throckmorton in 1591 and the following year (that would be 1592) the Queen discovered the marriage and flung him in the tower. - PKM (talk) 03:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Walter Raleigh's date of birth

Someone has changed Walter Raleigh's Year of Birth to 1552. Many authorities are unsure of Raleigh's exact birth date, but most say 1554 is most likely. I have not reverted the Year of Birth. Is there a more authoritative answer? Nick Taylor 15:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Until there is further discussion on this, I have changed the DoB to 1552 or 1554. HoCkEy PUCK 16:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Since his date of birth is uncertain, giving his age as "66" in the infobox seems a bit silly.—Quicksilver^{T @} 14:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

1592

"In 1592, Raleigh was given many rewards by the Queen, including Durham House in the Strand and the estate of Sherborne, Dorset. He was appointed Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard, and as Lord Warden of the Stannaries of Devon and Cornwall(<<!The latter is listed above as happening in 1585>>). However, he had not been given any of the great offices of state. In the Armada year of 1588, Raleigh was appointed Vice Admiral of Devon, looking after the coastal defences and military levies." There is something wrong with the chronology here and the 'concealed comment'.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 11:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 99.164.42.182, 15 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

99.164.42.182 (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 21:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Potatoes

There's a common myth that Walter Raleigh introduced the potato to Britain. Though there is little evidence to support the idea, I think it would be worth mentioning.--Jcvamp 23:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's a common myth with emphasis on myth. According to a book called Herball, written by John Gerard in 1597, potatoes were being grown in Italy since 1585, a year before Raleigh returned from America. But you could mention it, as something he didn't do.--PhysisMantha (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I suppose he might have introduced the potato to Britain, just not to Europe. --PhysisMantha (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please explain...

...why Sir Walter Raleigh was such a stupid git? Glandrid (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Just listened to this song, which was the point of this googling. Which brings me to my next point... Bblakeney (talk) 08:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

In case you're still wondering, Bblakeney, it's apparently because Raleigh introduced tobacco to the Western world. If you notice, right before he says it, he says he'll have another cigarette. I wholeheartedly agree with Lennon, he was a stupid git. Glandrid (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The Spanish introduced tobacco to Europe. Raleigh is said to have been the first to market it in England. Tobacco is good.--Shtove (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Spanish introduced tobacco to Europe?? What about Jean Nicot?! You know, the French guy (as in nicotine). Not sure about the "tobacco is good" part though.--PhysisMantha (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 76.191.156.125, 21 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Add this line to the bibliography:

Death of the Fox (1971), by George Garrett, is a historical novel which subtly and accurately communicates Raleigh's personality, times and complex circumstances.

76.191.156.125 (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Not done:Bibliographies should include only nonfiction sources about the subject; as a novel, it can't qualify. If that book is particularly notable, a sentence about it could go into the Legacy section (alongside the other pop-culture references). I'll leave that for editors more experienced in Raleigh-ism to decide. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

edit request 1600-1618

I think there's a problem with the following: Royal favour with Queen Elizabeth I had been restored by this time but did not last. Elizabeth died in 1603, and Raleigh was arrested at Exeter Inn, Ashburton, Devon and imprisoned in the Tower of London on 19 July.

Although Queen Elizabeth is mentioned in the previous sentence, because Raleigh's wife was also named Elizabeth, there's some ambiguity in the phrase "Elizabeth died". Perhaps better to say "The Queen died".

Thanks! esserte 00:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esserte (talk • contribs)

A good suggestion, I have edited the text accordingly. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Raleigh vs. Ralegh

I see no consensus for this article using the spelling "Raleigh" and I am persuaded by the ODNB's use of "Ralegh" that that should also be the usage here, with a redirect from "Raleigh". Malleus Fatuorum 22:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Antonia Fraser uses "Ralegh" in Gunpowder Plot. Parrot of Doom 22:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It's plain from above that he himself used several spellings of his own surname during his own lifetime, none of which, however, is "Raleigh", which appears to be a modernism just as is "William Shakespeare". In these circumstances, we go with our guideline, WP:COMMONNAME.; Google, FWIW, shows 468,000 hits for "Sir Walter Raleigh" and 95000 for "Sir Walter Ralegh". Accordingly, it would seem plain that "Raleigh" is the more common usage. There was therefore no apparent need to move the article, certainly not without sources and absolutely not without consensus. I support retaining the article as it was before this nonsense. Rodhullandemu 22:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Google hits make no difference to anything; what do reliable sources call the man? As has already been pointed out, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography calls him Ralegh and historian Antonia Frazer calls him Ralegh. Which reputable modern historians call him Raleigh? Malleus Fatuorum 22:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion above at Talk:Walter_Raleigh#The_name_is_Ralegh, and I seem to recall another somewhere else a few years ago. I have to say that I find it less than ideal to settle on one spelling we have no evidence of him using instead of one which we know he did and which is used by a reputable source such as ODNB. DuncanHill (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Per this [1] summary of several dictionary entries in which only one goes with the alternative spelling and per WP:COMMONNAME the page should be left where it is. Even his tobacco [2] uses the common spelling. MarnetteD | Talk 23:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Answers.com is not a reliable source, neither is a brand which was not established by him or his family. DuncanHill (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The brand name was a joke which you missed. Answers dot com was used as it summarized numerous sources. If you need them posted individually than tha can also be done. MarnetteD | Talk 00:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Elizabethan era.org [3], Britannica.com [4], Fordham University[5], Encyclopedia.com [6], Online encyclopedia using the Encyclopedia Britannica entry [7] for a start and, as yet no reason has been stated to ignore WP:COMMONNAME MarnetteD | Talk 00:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Maybe better for you not to "joke" given your involvement. I've been watching and editing this article for years, and I have to say this shit-storm strikes me as the lowest things have got here in all that time. A justifiable move (which can also be reasonably opposed) has been made into a complete balls-up based on one or two admins objection to a single editor. I am certain that if I had made the move, neither RodHulland Emu nor you would have batted an eyelid. DuncanHill (talk)

• Inclined to agree with the first part of what Duncan said above. As regards the naming issue I can see good arguments on both sides. --John (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Not so. In the middle of an edit-war, it behoves conscientious editors to realise that there is a contentious issue, and accordingly, despite WP:BRD, realise that there is an issue open for constructive discussion. The article was stable in one version for a lengthy time, and a major change of name to one that is not consonant with WP:COMMONNAME surely invites discussion. I'd say that if the name of the article mattered that much to you, since you have "been watching and editing this article for years", you would have changed it yourself before now. As it happens, you didn't do that, so I can only assume that you were happy with the way it was. I would have "batted an eyelid", although I assume you would have not made such a major change in the middle of an edit-war and preferred to bring the issue here for discussion. Rodhullandemu 01:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I assume then that you are happy with all aspects of every article on your watchlist? Because if you were not, then you would already have made all the changes you wanted to. I have never heard such a ridiculous argument from anyone. Unlike you, I am a human being, with only so much time on my hands and an occasional need to sleep (just how long is it now you've been awake for? The hallucinations must be getting heavy). Just because I hadn't got around to proposing or performing a move in no way suggests that I "was happy with the way it was", and I do not see how any rational commentator could suggest that it does. Go away, get some sleep, and ignore MF. You are making yourself look ludicrous, and creating far more drama than you have ever helped solve. DuncanHill (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course not. "Unlike you, I am a human being"; really? no. If you can't follow the argument, I suggest you butt out. I'm serious here, and have no time for amateurs. If you have a serious point to make, please make it, otherwise forget it. Ridiculous. Rodhullandemu 02:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You appeared to be saying that because I hadn't previously move or proposed a move, I must agree with the current title. That was not a serious point. You are the one who needs to butt out. And I am serious - you won't just end up with a topic ban but you will end up not an admin and pretty soon after that not an editor. Take your bullying, vindictive, and increasingly irrational behaviour elsewhere. You appear to be wanting to exert ownership of this article, for no good reason other than your long-standing and well-documented vendetta against MF (and now anyone who doesn't wholeheartedly support you in it). DuncanHill (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Enough of that and back to the discussion. Is there consensus for any name? Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I was surprised by all this brouhaha. Since when is "Raleigh" NOT the common spelling? It's how they spelled it when I was in school, it's the name of the cigarettes and the state capital, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

And Beijing was spelt Peking when I was at school.... The article is not about the cigarettes or an American city, it's about a man for whom we have ample evidence that he used the spelling Ralegh more than any other, and no evidence that he ever used the spelling Raleigh (as noted in the original discussion linked above). DuncanHill (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Why does that matter? Are you trying to argue that the current common spelling is not "Raleigh"??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Britannica says "Raleigh".[8] Oh, but what do they know? They're just a bunch of ignorant Brits. Wikipedians know The Truth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Do you have any idea where Britannica is based? Malleus Fatuorum 18:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to know where you get the idea that the common name is anything other than "Raleigh". And don't go talking about how he spelled it in his day. By that argument, we should start calling the famous Roman emperor "IVLIVS". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Britannica is an American publication, and has been for many years. ODNB uses Ralegh. Julius Caesar was not, and did not speak, English, so that's a bit of a red herring. DuncanHill (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

As is the "Peking" vs. "Beijing" argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

"Raleigh" is the common spelling, but if you want to make wikipedia look stupid, that's up to you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a tension between COMMONNAME and following modern high quality sources. Both are strong arguments but seemingly on this issue pull us in different directions. Neither spelling would make us look stupid, and this dispute is not worth anybody getting upset over, in my opinion. --John (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You're right. It's currently Raleigh, and it can stay that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

BBC appears to agree there -- http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/raleigh_walter.shtml. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm waiting for someone to inform us that the BBC is operated by Americans now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If you took the trouble to check you'd see that the BBC doesn't use either spelling consistently. See this, for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

When Common usage appears to give a different result than the Most authoritative current source (the ODNB), we need to recall that it is difficult to judge common usage , but easy and indisputable to check the wording of the source. It's consonant with NOR that we follow authority. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Not when it makes wikipedia look stupid. The common spelling is "Raleigh". To go with another spelling makes wikipedia look stupid, and further undermines wikipedia's credibility. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

How bizarre. Is it your view that the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography looks stupid for using the spelling that the man himself used, "Ralegh"? Is it really your view that wikipedia is more authoritative than the ODNB? Now that really would be stupid. Malleus Fatuorum 03:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to use wikipedia as an agent to alter the common spelling, be sure to notify the North Carolina government and the makers of a certain brand of cigarettes that they have to change their spelling to "Ralegh"... because we are wikipedia, and we know The Truth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it that you can't read or that you can't understand what you're being told? Malleus Fatuorum 04:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I was just about to ask YOU that question. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, try not to make yourself sound even more arrogant (and ignorant) than you usually do. You're only really tolerated on WP for being funny, so when you've run out of anything amusing to say you should just shut up. DuncanHill (talk) 08:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"Raleigh" is the common spelling, so your lectures about "ignorance" are pointed in the wrong direction. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this discussion is getting somewhat too personal, and lacking in the collegiate spirit we have all signed an oath in blood to uphold. We can do better than this. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

To be honest I think this all a bit of a travesty. Common name states "When there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus". Here, reliable English sources use both Ralegh and Raleigh.

• Point 1 - This should be at least reflected in the article, nowhere do I see "Ralegh"

Reliable sources. The BBC are proving to be a little vague on the matter, the series from 2005 episode eight had him as Ralegh [9] Many books up until 1900 have him as both,but when reprinting his own works, or as a biography, the tendency seems to be slightly in favour of Ralegh. Most of the books written before 1800 I have seen seem to have him as Ralegh - for example [10]. There is also the fact that he himself used Ralegh, as do several of his contemporary portraits and the seal of office (although that also has "Walteri"). Encyclopaedias, they have more difficulties. The EB - 5 out of the 6 recommend definitive biographies they recommend have him as Ralegh, they list him as Raleigh - still, they are not a British encyclopaedia. And then Malleus has already given the definitive British listing from the ODNB. I would add Argumentum ad populum is not a good enough reason for me.

• Point 2 - "Born Walter Ralegh"

It is not a matter for me that the modern spelling is Raleigh, it is that we should be correct and reflect the most scholarly works, the man himself probably knew how to spell his name as, it seems, did most of his contemporaries. Out with the birth certificate - on we go. Oh! look ! it's Ralegh! Chaosdruid (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Irish history

I find it so insulting that this "Sir" Walter Raleigh fails to talk about the mass genocide HE commited in 1580 in Smerwick, Co. Kerry in Ireland. But then again, just like Oliver Cromwell,. he's gonna to eat my dust. a pioneer and not a mass murderer. I guess somethings will never change, they were only Irish in anyway, so who cares???!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannyoconnell (talk • contribs) 01:02, 2 October 2005

truthfully... you ... you r gonna to .. for your trying to correct the past , but the past is done and over with and ment to be forgotten..... that is why we all just fade away and waste are time... when everyone is just sheltered in their minds!!!!!!!!!!! so... bite me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.169.140.20 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 3 April 2006

The inhabitants of Smerwick fort were around 600 Spanish and Italian soldiers who built up the defences there as a staging point for an invasion of England. So firstly: they weren't Irish, they weren't civilian, they were a foreign military force with the specific aim of attacking England. I can only guess that you've heard somewhere of a "massacre" at Smerwick and assumed it was an unprovoked attack on civilians. If you check out the facts you'll realise that the word "genocide" is completely inappropriate in this case, and the word "massacre" is used only because the Spanish were so comprehensively beaten. Since Raleigh was a mere captain at the time, aged 26, there's little point in adding it to the article.
So there's no need to feel "so insulted": if you want to rant on the behalf of people who have been dead for four centuries, you at least owe them the courtesy of checking out their story first. --J Tierney, Dublin. 15:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Raleigh was one of the officers under Lord Grey's command, who carried out what was in fact a massacre of soldiers who had surrendered (they were paunched - stomachs slit with pikes). It was regarded with some horror in military circles in Europe at the time, and was seen as a precedent for Spanish massacres in the Azores in 1583. So, it was a significant event, and Raleigh played his part in it. Raleigh was a merciless soldier during the last of the Desmond Rebellions. The invasion force was not part of an overall attempt on England, but was sent to assist Catholic rebels in Munster under James Fitzmaurice Fitzgerald. The term genocide is laughably inappropriate for Smerwick itself, but perhaps not for the general manner in which the rebellion was suppressed. Ding-ding: next round!--Shtove 17:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair comment. I'll come clean and admit that my knowledge of the subject is built around 3 minutes of googling, so there's no need for a next round! I stick to my opinion that the original poster is an idiot, and that blindly applying loaded modern terms to pre-modern historical figures should be punishable by impalement. On a pike, no less! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.76.54 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 26 May 2006

I think the original poster was wearing on his lapel a great bunch of shamrock, cut with a red sickle. Applying modern terms to historical events is always dodgy. But then the one phrase that bugs me whenever I read it is: "Of course we cannot judge them by modern standards/mores/values..." Human nature doesn't change.--Shtove 21:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it bugs me too. Spread by academics who've read excerpts of Nietzsche but couldn't be arsed to read him in full. Cops his idea that moral systems are fluid human creations lacking universal validity, then insists on imposing "Thou shalt not pass judgement on the primitive moral systems of others" without a flicker of irony. As a fan of Prussia's best-kept moustache, I'm livid. Now, where did I leave my pike? (paunching - fantastic verb btw. Makes up for the fact I came here looking for the other Sir Walter Raleigh (1861-1922) and got sidelined) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.68.247 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 27 May 2006

Damn academics thinking they know more about their own subject than someone who's read Nietzsche! Of course moral systems change, where can we find absolute moral values, there is only human opinion which is heavily influenced by the culture it develops in. The only concept of absolute morals comes from a God (which I don't personally believe in) and even then there are contradictions and ambiguities effectively leaving it up to the judgement of the individual. Although maybe this isn't the place for discussion. I was also looking for another Walter Raliegh, btw, the fictional one on Blackadder II, who is linked to here!Jameskeates 08:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Back to the original point: now seems the evidence is that Raleigh was probably not at Smerwick - I don't have a reference for this, but if I'm right then reference to the massacre should not be included.--Shtove 16:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Scratch that - here's the lastest DNB saying he definitely was there: Mark Nicholls and Penry Williams, ‘Ralegh, Sir Walter (1554–1618)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, online edn, Oxford University Press, Oct 2006 accessed 29 Dec 2006 - I added it to the text.--Shtove 17:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I must agree, but i am to confuse him with another he was possble a closed catholic ? I believe i hear this from pbs in new York. The English have always been murders of the irish and this never going to change, aleast back then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishmonk (talk • contribs) 8:19, 27 March 2007

As opposed to the Irish capturing innocents fleeing Britain from Roman slavery and selling them back just to save themselves eh? sickening hypocrisy.Twobells (talk) 12:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The Siege of Smerwick article still cannot back up it's allegations about Spenser & Rayleigh with sourced material so it's been removed, the received wisdom states only that he was there, also the ONDB entry only states he was there at the 'Smerwik Seige' not that he was involved in any so-called 'massacre', subsequently as they are unproven allegations this article has been updated accordingly until verification appears, toodles.Twobells (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Update: I just checked Encyclopaedia Britannica online (EBO) and there is no mention of him participating in any 'massacre' at Smerwick.Twobells (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, it seems there is no source on the recent addition to the Rayleigh ONDB entry that he oversaw any massacre which is very odd, the paragraph suggesting that he was involved was recently added and I have urgently requested information on this as ONDB content is traditionally heavily referenced, the actual 'massacre' has in fact been accorded to an entirely different man Arthur Grey, 14th Baron Grey de Wilton, it seems true that like success, atrocities have many fathers.Twobells (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

hayes barton

"Hayes Barton" was not "a farmer". Walter Raleigh was born in a very old estate in Devon, known now as Hayes-Barton. It was the ancestral home of the Duke, or Duc, family. It had previously been known as Poer-Hayes, or Power's Hayes...it was said to have been the home of the Poer family prior to intermarriage with the Dukes. The current estate still stands; construction on this current estate probably began in the 15th century.

See images at: http://www.britishexplorers.com/woodbury/hayesba.html

Rwpower (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added this external link to the article, as well as a link to "Sir Walter Raleigh" on the same site. Names of this type, by the way, at least today are not hyphenated - I've lived in Devon. --Wikiain (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

what infromation can i put for a talk about sir walter raliegh

plz help me i have the basics but i need more as it hasnt reached the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.79.183 (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Gibberish.

Bibliography?

Apparently Raleigh wrote 'Discovery of the Large, Rich, and Beautiful Empire of Guiana' and some poetry, so shouldn't there be a bibliography section? Just a thought. VenomousConcept (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 October 2012

Latin tobacco pouch quote should be Comes meus fuit illo miserrimo tempore. See the website of The Wallace Collection which has the pouch.

165.124.76.152 (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: That statement is referenced to a reliable source and therefore the burden is on you to provide a reliable source to the contrary. A vague statement of "See ___ website" is not sufficient; we need a specific page on that website. If you can provide that, please set the "answered" parameter above to "no" or leave me a message on my talk page to get my attention, and I would be amenable to making the requested minor change. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 November 2012

About the tobacco pouch: At the Wallace Collection website it's called "Pipe pouch with pipes and tobacco stopper" ... "By tradition Sir Walter Raleigh." The inscription on the pouch is "Comes meus fuit in illo miserrimo tempore"--possibly a reference to Cicero Epistulae ad familiares, XIII.71. "Tempo" in the Wikipedia would have to be an abbreviation for "tempore." See <http://wallacelive.wallacecollection.org/eMuseumPlus?service=ExternalInterface&module=collection&objectId=64809&viewType=detailView> 165.124.76.152 (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. Actually the use of "tempo" is what is used in the source that was already on the article. However, I consider the source you provided to be more reliable than the other source, so I have made the change accordingly. The other source remains on the article as it does verify other statements made in the same sentence. Thank you for helping to improve Wikipedia. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 02:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 November 2012

By the way, if you are going to follow the motto on the Wallace Collection pouch, the word "in" should be inserted after the word "fuit." Also the object is a leather pouch, not a box. 165.124.76.152 (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Done - with this edit (and this correction, because I missed one). If you blow up the Wallace image you can actually make out the "in" on the inscription, confirming the quote. Thanks for pointing this out. Begoon ^talk 04:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Notability

The U.K.-based 'Shakespearean Authorship Trust'—established in 1922 to "seek, and if possible establish, the truth concerning the authorship of Shakespeare's plays and poems"—includes Raleigh in the list of potential authors.

Removed (by another editor) due to lack of third-party sourcing. Their trustees and associates sure seem notable enough (Sir Derek Jacobi anyone?). Third-party sources enough can certainly be found. The Trust merits its own page, frankly. --Artaxerxes (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I've also cut the SAQ material completely. It is non-notable, and none of the other minor candidate biographical pages include it. This article needs work to be comprehensive without adding a non-notable theory that no one holds today and has been debunked. It is mentioned on the List of Shakespeare authorship candidates page. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

References

Edit request on 6 March 2013

AUniversity of Oxford UGP 2011 Cover]

University of Oxford UGP 2011 Cover.

In 2011, Walter Raleigh was honoured by the University of Oxford, his alma mater, as one of its 100 most distinguished members from 10 centuries. Other honourees included Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, Erasmus of Rotterdam, Saint Thomas More, John Locke, Christopher Wren, Adam Smith, Lawrence of Arabia, Oscar Wilde, J.R.R. Tolkien and living University members Rupert Murdoch, Bill Clinton, Stephen Hawking and Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck. For the cover of the 2011 Prospectus , Oxford University named 100 streets in Oxford historical centre after these graduates. Plantation Rd. was renamed for Walter Raleigh.

Elvicendecun (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that being one of the most distinguished members is noteworthy - do you have a source for that? The URL you provided didn't show the prospectus. Did they really rename the street, or just put Raleigh's name on the cover of the prospectus? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The source given makes no mention of either Raleigh, an award, or any of these other people, nor of any streets being renamed. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Edit request on 18 July 2013

This should be deleted: During his seventeen years as an Irish landlord, frequently being domiciled at Killua Castle, Clonmellon, county Westmeath. [There is no evidence that Raleigh ever lived there beside a claim made in the early 19th century by the landowner. Whoever added this to the essay is either joking or someone associated with this property distant from Raleigh's estates. I have been studying Raleigh for 10 years and am a professional historian writing a book about him and thus have culled the sources. Also, Lismore was not a coastal town, nor did he receive it in his grant from the crown. This was a later lease he received from the Bishop of Lismore. Also, he took part in the suppression of the Second Desmond Rebellion, not the Desmond Rebellions. Also, Spenser was not an acquaintance, he was a friend. Much of the rest of this essay is terrible and if I have time I will rewrite it one day. Algallay (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Alan Gallay, Lyndon Johnson Chair of History, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas Algallay (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Otherwise it's just replacing a bunch of unsourced text with different unsourced text, neither of which is verifiable. 786b6364 (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Lost Colony at Roanoke Island

This section is poorly written. I don't have time to deal with it, but hopefully someone will take it upon himself to improve this singular low point in the otherwise good quality of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.155.208 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 7 September 2005

I agree..there is a lot of new information regarding the Roanoke colony [ http://lost-colony.com ] I am in the process of researching the history in order to edit some of the articles regarding eastern Carolina history..when I have more information I`ll come back and try to improve this part too. Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

"Aristocrat"?

Is it correct to describe him in the introduction as, among other things, an "aristocrat"? It appears from the biographical narrative he was the son of farmers, who evolved to landowning through his campaigns and land grants (as well buccaneering). He did not appear to have nobility (peers generally) among his existing relatives, nor was he ennobled himself.Cloptonson (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not correct. The point came up in his trial, when the prosecutor referred to him in a demeaning way reserved for commoners: http://tudorblog.com/2011/11/27/sir-walter-raleigh-and-the-spiders-from-hell/#more-1557

On the use of "thou" in this sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou#History

Shtove (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

House in Blackwall (photograph)

See 'Old Blackwall', Survey of London: volumes 43 and 44: Poplar, Blackwall and Isle of Dogs (1994) (link) for discussion of the photograph of a house in Blackwall on this page.

Blackwall was the site of an ancient timber-framed house which became known, some time during the nineteenth century, as 'Raleigh's House'. It stood directly opposite the Artichoke Inn. Any association with the sixteenthcentury courtier and explorer is extremely tenuous, as is the further claim that the same property had been the residence of Sebastian Cabot. (ref. 26) Raleigh was indeed at Blackwall on many occasions, while waiting to go aboard ship or when on naval business. Many letters written by him are signed from Blackwall, but this is not proof that he was a permanent resident. (ref. 27)

A photograph of the house taken in 1873 shows it to have been a jettied timber-framed building infilled with lath and plaster (Plate 93b). (fn. b) Wooden carvings of grotesque heads decorated the facade. The floor of the house was, by the late nineteenth century, below street level and the main entrance was blocked. As early as 1856 it was suggested that such a quaint house should be preserved and turned into 'a little almshouse or school'. (ref. 29) This advice was not heeded, and pressures to develop the area eventually led to the demolition of the building, which had been carried out by 1881. Its site was bought by the Metropolitan Board of Works from the London and North West Railway Company in 1888 for the construction of the Blackwall Tunnel. (ref. 30)

Footnote b tells us that "An article written in 1856 stated that the house was built of strongly framed timber, which had been plastered over in recent years".

Plate 93b is clearly the photograph used in this article, albeit dated as 1890. I suspect the 1873 date is correct; perhaps "circa 1890" was an educated guess based on the start of construction work on the Blackwall Tunnel in 1892. According to the Survey of London, it does not appear that the house really belonged to Raleigh. Should the photo really feature in this article? Perhaps there is sufficient material for a new article on the house itself. TheGrappler (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Added info

Added: In 1572 he is listed as an undergraduate at Oxford and in the registry of the Middle Temple in 1575.
Moved "The city of Raleigh, North Carolina takes its name from Sir Walter." to bottom as it was at end of first para. Alf 01:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) Why was he givin a charter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.108.215.6 (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Raleigh in Pop Culture

As a famous historical figure who's referenced in a plethora of popular culture outlets, would it be appropriate to have a section for Raleigh as represented in other mediums (other than history books)? Clive Owen has played him in movies, and the Beatles' complained about him, so maybe a segment on this is in order? Dunno if wikipedia has guidelines for when an "In Popular Culture" section is in order, but I feel it'd be appropriate here. It's late and it's Christmas, so I didn't bother to check. If your response is ire for not checking, save it. It will have absolutely no effect on me. But if somebody thinks similarly, let me know and I'll do the legwork. Bblakeney (talk) 08:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Lying scum! Christmas on the 26th? Scum! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.189.209 (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy Buffett refers to Captain Walter (staring at the stars) in a song called "We learned to be cool from you" a reference it seems to his coolness when being executed. The song is on his Buffet Hotel album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.182.239 (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I don't know the proper posting format. This talk topic and the one I just read above it titled "...Could someone please explain..." both point out that the Beatles (and others) have iconically mentioned Sir Raleigh. In fact, more young people may have heard Lennon mention him than from other sources. In the main article for some reason it links to a very brief stand alone stub that I think would be more appropriate as a short section of this main article. Does anyone agree and want to change this? Richard 50.47.246.194 (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The Beatles described WR as a "stupid get" (their dialect), not "stupid git". This is discussed in Talk for The Beatles (album), which cites the website for I'm So Tired. I'll link this article to that website. Wikiain (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The puddle

I was a little surprised in stumbling across this article to see the dropped-his-cloak-for-Elizabeth-to-avoid-puddle story not mentioned at all, even if it's been debunked. It's so widely associated with him that it probably deserves its own section. I'm not qualified to write on the veracity of it but if someone would do a paragraph on it I'd argue it should be included. Old64mb 14:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Motion seconded. And just for further info, that story started with 17th-century historian Thomas Fuller, who apparently liked to make up incidents like this when the facts got too boring for him. --PhysisMantha (talk) 13:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Three years later I'd just like to add my agreement. There needs to be some mention of this, if only to prove that it is fable and where that fable's origins lie. any thoughts? David T Tokyo (talk) 09:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Done, finally! Adpete (talk) 05:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Pic

Just added a very good high resolution painting with wonderful details if enlarged. This could make it possible to nominate Sir Walter Raleigh for featured picture. Please don't remove it, it has to be used to have a chance. Hafspajen (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Poetry section: Fabricated poetry list/unreliable source reference. ("Song of Myself"??)

The list in alpha-order of Ralegh poems is surely spurious. It is all sourced from one document (currently #44 on the citation list), a pdf on PoemHunter entitled "Sir Walter Raleigh: Poems", which I've just read. http://www.poemhunter.com/i/ebooks/pdf/sir_walter_raleigh_2004_9.pdf True, the poem on p 7 represented as "Her Reply" seems to be the (genuine) Ralegh poem most people know as "The Nymph's Reply to the Shepherd". But scroll down to "Song of Myself" on p. 17 of the document, which begins "I was a Poet!/ But I did not know it,/Neither did my Mother/Nor my Sister nor my Brother./ ... /Aunt Sue/Said it was obviously untrue./Uncle Ned/Said I was off my head./(This from a Colonial/Was really a good testimonial.)" Please, someone, put the correct information here. [Edit: I see I'm not currently in a position to do the research that would provide the requisite support for my challenge to this wiki's current "scholarship" on the canon of Ralegh's verse. I do, however, feel compelled to call a fraud when I see one. (Missviscous (talk) 10:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC))]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Missviscous (talk • contribs) 09:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

You're right - "Song of Myself" is obviously not by Walter Ralegh. I suspect that it might be by the other Sir Walter Ralegh. DuncanHill (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the Poemhunter reference as unreliable. I also found some more in the list which are definitely by Walter Raleigh (professor). I'll snout around to see if I can find an authoritative source for a list of our Sir Walter's poems. Good call, thank you :) DuncanHill (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• My copy of Silver Poets of the 16th Century (edited by Gerald Bullett, Everyman Library no. 1985, published 1947), contains "all finished (and some unfinished) poems known to have been written by Ralegh, and, with one exception, the best of those others that are plausibly but less confidently attributed to him. The exception is the famous ballad: As ye came from the holy land. It is one of the most beautiful of all English poems; but in some form or another it vertainly existed before Ralegh arrived on the scene; Ralegh's connexion with it is largely a matter of conjecture...". I shall amend the list accordingly. DuncanHill (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

My saviour! I know my wiki manners are abrupt, but I joined solely out of passion to correct this error -- these are my first posts 108.172.172.185 (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

That's quite alright - I think that's how most of us start! I've listed the poems in Silver Poets, and included the note about As ye came from the holy land as readers might expect to see it listed. DuncanHill (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Seal of office - "PROPRIA" and "TNSIHNIA"

Two suggestions about the inscription on the seal of office: 1. For "PROPRIA" prefer "personal" to "private" - the inscription lists his public offices at the time.

Seal of office while in England

2. Explain the very odd "TNSIHNIA". It can't be an error: no sane engraver could have made so great a bungle and, if he had, Ralegh would not have accepted it. So it must be deliberate and, then, why? I'll make a guess, hoping that someone can source this as correct or not. Another seal of office (right) said "SIGILL[A]", the ordinary word for a seal (and BTW he is "Ralegh" there too). So we may have "TNSIHNIA" instead of "SIGILL[A]" - yet it looks more like "INSIGNIA", ordinarily a badge or emblem. Thus it looks doubly wrong - or maybe only singly wrong if in Ralegh's day "INSIGNIA" was sometimes used on seals. Yet it is not wrong in a way that really stands out. Exactly, I suggest: this was a mass-produced version of the real seal; had it been identical to the real seal, every purchaser of it could have faked documents in Ralegh's name. The difference had to be evident to inspection, yet not stand out to a glance so that the facsimile would not be worth having. Wikiain (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Rally, really?

"...though in practice "rally" is the usual modern pronunciation." Comment? I daren't. --Wetman 03:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that "rally" could be called the "usual" pronunciation; in fact, I don't think I've ever heard the name pronounced "rally". It's always been pronounced "rawley" in my experience. This probably needs some evidence if it's going to stay in. Gomer Bolstrood 02:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a cultural-horizon issue, I think: "Raleigh, North Carolina" is pronounced "rally"— and "North Carolina" is pronounced "No'th Calina".--Wetman 07:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've heard the name 'Raleigh' being pronounced the same as 'rally', over here in Ireland. Mushed 21:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've always heard it as 'Rally' or 'Ralleh'. However, I do remember reading somewhere (infuriatingly, I can't remember where) that as a Devon man he always pronounced it 'Rawley'. Mon Vier 14:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've always heard it being pronounced 'raa (rhyming with car) lee'.--Jcvamp 23:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sean Connery pronounces it 'rally' in The Rock, and I like to trust Sir Sean on all matters of pronunciation. Win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.149.83 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 29 June 2007

I think it's a British-American thing. I've never heard Americans call him anything but "Rawley", but I've never heard British, Australians or New Zealanders call him anything but "Rally". -- JackofOz 01:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

And what's going on with that phonetic transcription? It says his name sounds like "wah-tuh rah-lie" (silent L in Walter), which I've certainly never heard, and the note doesn't even acknowledge the "rawly" pronunciation (just the spelling) which is often said to be correct and is apparently standard in the US even though less common than "rally" in the UK. Can anyone shed any light? Flapdragon (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

In a recent episode of the British TV quiz show Have I Got News for You the host, Alexander Armstrong, pronounced it "Rawley". Panellists and audience burst out laughing, and Ian Hislop asked him whether he pronounced it "Shawkespeare" or had a "Rawley" bike when he was young. "That's how you say it," he said plaintively. Lacking any reponse to my query I've changed the bizarre IPA transcription to what was probably meant. Flapdragon (talk) 03:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just added to external links britishexplorers.com "Sir Walter Raleigh", where the proper pronunciation is stated to be "raw lie". That is what I remember being told many years ago by the guide on a tour of Hayes Barton. The statement is not sourced, so I've written to the contact and will report any reply. --Wikiain (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC) But I never got a reply. Wikiain (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The name is Ralegh

If a complete citation would have been made in the first footnote, you would read:

Ralegh himself had not kept the same spelling throughout his life. Down to 1583 his more usual signature had been the phonetic Rauley. But in 1578 he signed as Rawleyghe a deed which his father signed as Ralegh, and his brother Carew as Rawlygh. A letter of March 17, 1583, is the first he is known to have signed as Ralegh; and in the following April and May he reverted to the signature Rauley. From June 9, 1584, he used till his death no other signature than Ralegh. It appears in his books when the name is mentioned. It is used in a pedigree drawn up for him in 1601. Of the hundred and sixty-nine letters collected by Mr. Edward Edwards, a hundred and thirty-five are thus signed. Six signed Rauley, one Raleghe, and one Rauleigh, belong to an earlier date. The rest are either unsigned or initialled. The reason of his adoption of the spelling Ralegh from 1584, unless that it was his dead father's, is unknown. Of the fact there is no doubt. The spelling Raleigh, which posterity has preferred, happens to be one he is not known to have ever employed. Stebbing, Sir Walter Ralegh, Oxford 1899 [11]

So, I'll adapt/move the article after a discussion period. --Ayacop (talk) 08:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

At the time, it was common to vary spellings - particularly of names, for instance "Shakespeare" never used that variant of his name at any time during his life. The primary concern in wikipedia is naming an article by its 'common name' - ie the name that the majority of people (throughout the world) would look for. It is enough to provide an explanation of the variation in the article, for the different forms of the name.

It should be recognised that the first serious attempts to formalise English spelling did not come about until the late 17th century (again, Shakespeare, for instance, uses different spellings of common words in order to indicate the rhyme he is trying to achieve). In the 18th and 19th, there were further moves to formalise the English language - that resulted in spelling differences between English and American varieties of English ...

The current introduction indicates that there are variations of the name. 'Ralegh' should (and does) redirect here. This latter spelling appears to have been recently adopted for 'key stage 2' history and science; it may well become the more common variety although that will still leave the problem of persuading the residents of Raleigh, North Carolina that they should go with the flow .... Kbthompson (talk) 08:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Not just in high schools. In academia (Guy's Tudor England, Brigden's New Worlds, Lost Worlds, Paul Hammer's Elizabeth's Wars to name the first three books to hand) there is a consensus on the Ralegh spelling. Wikipedia should be using the accepted spelling, with a note on the varied spellings, and the people in Raleigh can decide what to do with their town's name. 5.70.142.21 (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

For what its worth my KS3&4 History taught me to spell it "Rayleigh". 5.70.142.21 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of the correct way to spell his name, but the article should be consistent. The "Legacy" section and only that section still says "Ralegh," unlike the rest of the article and the title. IAmNitpicking (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2016

Please change Raleigh received 40,000 acres (16,000 ha) upon the seizure and distribution of land following the attainders arising from the rebellion, including the coastal walled towns of Youghal and Lismore.

to Raleigh received 40,000 acres (16,000 ha) upon the seizure and distribution of land following the attainders arising from the rebellion, including the coastal walled town of Youghal, Co Cork, and Lismore in Co. Waterford. Jtcurragh (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Not necessary as they both are linked to their respective articles. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2017

In the legacy section the Beatles song, I'm so tired, should be mentioned. There is a lyric where John says " And Curse Sir Walter Raleigh, He was such a stupid git!" I feel that is an important reference. Jamesacarter43 (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done It is already mentioned in that section. "Due to Raleigh's role in the popularisation of smoking, John Lennon humorously referred to him as "such a stupid get" in the song "I'm So Tired" on the "White Album" The Beatles (1968).". DuncanHill (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Sir Walter

* [[Sir Walter]], a race horse should be a WP:Hatnote rather than aSee also, but I don't know how to do that, especially midnight locally.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Headline text

Sir Walter Raleigh was born on 1552 in Devonshire,England and went to collage at Oriel Collage,Oxford and died on 29th of october 1618 (age 66) London,England — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.165.177.20 (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

* Sir Walter, a race horse

• Sir Walter, a race horse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomsen8 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Raleigh or Raleigh

The Wikipedia page states itself that the man himself preferred Ralegh. I've changed all Raleigh's to RaleghFitzwimarc (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Er, but not in the title of this discussion?? JezGrove (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Requested move 30 May 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move (bordering on a consensus not to move). The "Sir" is commonly found in sources, but the name is also sometimes found in sources without it, and the honorific does not appear necessary for recognizability and would make the title less concise. There is clearly more opposition than support in the discussion – roughly a 2:1 ratio. Given the general lack of support, continuing the discussion doesn't seem necessary. In the absence of a consensus to do otherwise, we should keep the title as it has been ever since the article was created in 2001 (except for 12 minutes in 2011). (non-admin closure) —BarrelProof (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Walter Raleigh → Sir Walter Raleigh – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:HONORIFIC:

"Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it, it should be included. For example, the honorific may be included for Mother Teresa."

The ngram data confirms that the Sir honorific "is so commonly attached to" the name Walter Raleigh "that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it", therefore "it should be included". В²C ☎ 00:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not comparable to Mother Theresa, Father Damien or Pope Francis, but rather to Francis Drake or even Lancelot or Galahad. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • But, Roman Spinner, Sir Francis Drake is also "rarely found in English reliable sources without" the Sir[12], while Lancelot and Galahad are commonly found without the Sir[13] [14], so I get why the Sir is excluded from Lancelot and Galahad, but why should it not be included for Sir Francis Drake and this title per this WP:HONORIFIC guidance and usage in reliable English sources? What am I missing? --В²C ☎ 16:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom and most common form of the name. The "Sir" is as much a part of this name as "Walter", and provides the full form of the subject's most familiar name in English. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with Roman Spinner. Rjensen (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Roman Spinner. See also WP:AINTBROKE. Calidum 04:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Roman. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom & Randy Kryn. I'm satisfied that use of the honorific is common enough to meet the guideline. If people are going to oppose this based on an "otherstuff" argument, it should be noted that a search for pages beginning with "Sir_" throws up plenty of counter examples. PC78 (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose wrong from the nom: ngram shows that the name is found in English reliable sources without it In ictu oculi (talk) 07:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The criteria is "rarely", not "never". --В²C ☎ 16:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Roman Spinner and Calidum. Thryduulf (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, a title such as "Sir" is not part of the name, and it is misleading and unencyclopaedic to pretend it is. DuncanHill (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Weak support Britannica includes the honorific title. I'd also point out that in the Raleigh (disambiguation) move discussion the nom put the stats for the redirect Sir Walter Raleigh, not Walter Raleigh. I expect that the new title would be seen as less concise though and its more than the usual "Firstname Lastname". Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support. He is almost always referred to as "Sir Walter Raleigh". Rreagan007 (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom's spot-on reasoning. The ngrams evidence is compelling and shows almost universal usage of the "Sir". Roman Spinner has given no valid rationale, just a simple list of counter examples which may or may not be applicable. Its a glorified WP:IDONTLIKEIT vote. -- Netoholic @ 20:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Duncan Hill. Who actually types Sir into a search engine when looking for anyone's name? Hyperbolic use of the term "universal" is problematic as I see no evidence that anywhere other than the "pale blue dot" even knows of his existence. MarnetteD|Talk 20:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • There is no requirement for the title to match the likely search term - that's why we have redirects. There is a requirement for the title to match the WP:COMMONNAME — the name most commonly used to refer to the topic in reliable English sources. Your argument regarding "universal" is silly semantics. Apparently opposition here has no argument actually based in policy. --В²C ☎ 20:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Any use of the term "universal" is silly hyperbolic semantics and the man's common name is Walter Raleigh. MarnetteD|Talk 20:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    • (e/c)He wasn't Sir for half his life. Any source calling him Sir Walter Raleigh for the period before his knighthood is by that very fact less than reliable. I also, and I know this isn't policy-based, think it appalling that this kind of snobbery is gaining traction on Wikipedia. "Ooh, he's a Sir!". There is no need whatsoever to move the article, it won't help disambiguate him from the other Sir Walter Raleigh, and it does not improve the encyclopaedia. Sir is not part of the name, so it isn't part of the common name. DuncanHill (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
      • MarnetteD I believe you're confusing WP:COMMONNAME with "common name" - they are not the same and what's relevant here is the former — the term most commonly used in reliable English source to refer to this article's subject. The ngrams in the nom clearly show that is his name including the Sir. Whether it's correct or appropriate or actually his "common name" is all irrelevant. --В²C ☎ 21:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Thank you for acknowledging that your suggestion has nothing to do with being either correct or appropriate. DuncanHill (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
          • You're welcome. Yes, what is "correct" or "appropriate" (or WP:OFFICIAL for that matter) is not relevant to title decision-making. See WP:CORRECT. The only "correct" that matters is the title that best meets the criteria set out in the policy on article titles. Hence this proposal and its basis on WP:COMMONNAME (part of WP:AT), and not "common name". --В²C ☎ 23:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
            • But how does your change improve the encyclopaedia? So far nothing you have said has had anything whatsoever to do with that. Your proposal does not make it easier for people to find the article, does not make it easier to disambiguate, does not correct any kind of factual error, does not reflect improved scholarship. It does make it more likely that people will introduce anachronisms into other articles, when they link to "Sir Walter Raleigh" for a period before he was a knight. No benefits, just an increased likelihood of error. DuncanHill (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
              • DuncanHill, "Improving the encyclopedia" is rarely what any title change accomplishes, and is certainly not a requirement for moving any article. Because of redirects, title changes rarely make articles easier to find. As stated in the nom, the reason for this change is better compliance with COMMONNAME and HONORIFIC, for what it's worth. Ultimately, having our titles in better compliance with WP:CRITERIA helps establish precedents for doing that for all articles. We presume following a consistent set of naming guidelines is an improvement over not following them, right? --В²C ☎ 21:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
                • Not when the result is crass, and would encourage errors, as it would here. If you aren't trying to improve the encyclopaedia then you really shouldn't be making this sort of proposal at all. And for Pete's sake, please do follow Begoon's advice below and read your "Good advice for me" section again. Even better, try following it. DuncanHill (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
                  • I am following that advice; thanks. I'm not repeating my points. I'm having a discussion with you. Whether it's crass is a matter of opinion. So why do you feel it is crass to use what is the most COMMONNAME, by far, to refer to someone, as the title of their article? As far as linking for a period before he was a knight, how is that different from linking to Mother Teresa for a period before she was known as Mother Teresa? The article about her is riddled with examples of such references. Or how about Pope John Paul II? He too was not pope for most of his life, of course. More generally, many people have been known by different names throughout their lives, but ultimately we go with their COMMONNAME for the article title. I'm sorry, but I'm struggling to understand why you or anyone else thinks an exception to COMMONNAME is warranted here. Do you also object to these? Sir Arthur Harris, 1st Baronet, Sir Arthur Harris, 1st Baronet, of Stowford, Sir Alexander Cockburn, 12th Baronet, Sir Arthur Acheson, 5th Baronet, Sir Arthur Pearson, 1st Baronet, etc? --В²C ☎ 22:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
                    • Anachronisms are ahistorical, and degrade the encyclopaedia. You are happy to encourage them and to have them strewn about, I am not. When you have paid a little more attention to how editors actually edit, you will notice that when an article is called "Sir Snobby Snobworth" editors will have that as the text - they will not pipe - even for periods when he wasn't a knight. Sometimes the use of a title can aid disambiguation, in this case it cannot, as I pointed out above. And I'm not necessarily happy with all cases of the use of titles in article names (but then I don't spend my time on Wikipedia looking for article titles I don't like). But another point - you are forcing the English language to do something it does not do, when you pretend that a title such as Sir is part of a name. You say that that is what is intended by WP:COMMONNAME, but if our policies are to be accepted as written in some hideous form of Newspeak where words do not have their common meanings, then we may as well all give up. DuncanHill (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
                      • While not applicable to Walter Raleigh, the Manual of Style does provide exception for baronets at WP:NCBRITPEER — "A baronet should never be referred to with the title but without "Sir" preceding (e.g. do not use "William Williams, 2nd Baronet, of Clapton")". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose If this passes it will just cause unnecessary confusion with another Sir Walter Raleigh. There is no reason for a change, especially if it conflicts with another person. Mother Theresa, Father Damien or Pope Francis for example fundamentally change knowledge of the name, Mary Teresa Bojaxhiu, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, or Damien De Veuster are completely unrecognizable to nearly everyone who knows the names with the title and thus require the honorific, this isn't the case here "Sir Walter Raleigh" will still be recognized by "Walter Raleigh". GuzzyG (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Do you have any policy guidance underlying your position that the alternative to using the honorific must be "completely unrecognizable to nearly everyone who knows the names with the title" to require the honorific, or did you just make this up? --В²C ☎ 22:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    • But the poet is primary for both "Walter Raleigh" and "Sir Walter Raleigh" so there could be confusion on both sides anyway no matter which title is used. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose No reason to move the article. It is easily found, the evidence that "Sir" is more commonly used is questionable. As mentioned, he was "Sir" for only half of his life. There's no improvement to the encyclopedia by making this move, and several good arguments above that it's a poor idea. Don't try to "fix" what is not broken. (And B2C, when you get the urge to badger me as you have others, please first reflect on the section of your user page entitled "Good advice for me") -- Begoon 01:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• WP:SNOW come on, close. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose No reason to move the article; see above for several good reasons why.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Historie of the World

The work is mentioned twice. The second time is just a repeat of the first. Ciao --Pentaclebreaker (talk) 09:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Correction needed

The sentence "he helped defend England during the Spanish Armada" makes absolutely no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.114.205.206 (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)