Jump to content

Talk:Anne Boleyn

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Anne Boleyn/Comments)
Former good articleAnne Boleyn was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 21, 2007Good article nomineeListed
May 7, 2007WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
March 20, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
February 20, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 19, 2004, May 19, 2005, May 19, 2006, May 19, 2007, May 19, 2008, May 19, 2009, January 25, 2011, January 25, 2015, January 25, 2018, and January 25, 2021.
Current status: Delisted good article

GA Reassessment

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted, on basis of poor citation quality (GA criterion 2). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains 35 cn tags, and will need quite a bit of work meet the GA standards again. Also tagged for using unreliable sources. Femke (alt) (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Punctuation error in intro

[edit]

Someone with rights needs to fix it. 96.18.184.221 (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done I converted clauses separated by semi-colons into several sentences. However, you have been pretty vague about what needs fixing. Is there anything else? Peaceray (talk) 00:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2024

[edit]

Delete the -1507 part. Anne Boyeln was born in 1501 Anythingbrodway005 (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Contradicts the article text and the citations. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Downfall & Execution edit

[edit]

There is a random reference to a doctor named Dewhurst and his speculation without evidence that AB had imaginary pregnancies. This reference should be removed as it is biased and inconsistent with all other evidences research.

This speculation dismisses the fertility issues faced by the couple and places blame on AB despite what we know about H8’s fertility before and after AB. Research shows almost all repeat miscarriages are caused by the male. Actual research re H8 and the stillbirths/miscarriages experienced by all his wives/mistresses indicates that he was the cause of fertility issues. Across all his marriages there was a 70% stillbirth/miscarriage rate and a low impregnation rate overall.

example research ”The reproductive and nutritional history of King Henry VIII indicates that 70 percent of the legitimate pregnancies attributed to Henry and his six wives resulted in miscarriage or stillbirth. By comparison, only 10 percent of the recorded pregnancies of the thirty-one noblemen closely associated with Henry had the same outcomes. Henry’s reproductive health likely contributed to the fertility problems for which his wives took the blame. The disregard of male infertility in Henry’s case may offer a clue to the reasons for the under-reporting of male reproductive health, then and now, to the detriment of both men and women.”

Valerie Shrimplin, Channa N. Jayasena; Was Henry VIII Infertile? Miscarriages and Male Infertility in Tudor England. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History2021; 52 (2): 155–176. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/jinh_a_01695 2604:3D08:178E:5900:B529:79AB:6E89:C957 (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dewhurst's evidence is online, here, as linked from the article. It comes from Medical History, a peer-reviewed academic publication of standing; "blame" isn't mentioned. To assist, the clickable link to Shrimplin at al is here. It's from MIT Press and is also peer-reviewed. "Blame" is mentioned five times.--AntientNestor (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]