Talk:Nicholas Byron

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Gratuitous genealogy, anachronistic puffery, original research

The material that keeps getting added here violates WP:NOTGENEALOGY, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOR, and much of it lacks any source whatsoever, let alone a reliable one. Likewise it is completely anachronistic to pretend that people who lived in medieval or early-modern times used the puffed up styles that came to be popularized in the Victorian era and beyond. Please quit violating Wikipeida policy. Agricolae (talk) 10:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Factual accuracy disputes

An IP incorporated the following text into the article: This page is incorrect, as it is a combination of the first Nicholas (1418-after 1459) and his son of the same name (1458-1503). The "Family" section applies to the first, and the "Marriage and issue" section applies to the second. I reverted because an encyclopedia does not deal with disputed material simply by adding a sentence saying, in effect, 'what you are about to read is false' - it fixes the false information, or at least discusses disagreement among scholars to contextualize the informaton given. My revert should not be taken as endorsement of the current text, about which I have no information, and I put this note here so the concern expressed over the current text is not lost in the edit history, and have flagged the article with the 'disputed' tag. Agricolae (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a followup, I can't help but note that none of the references given are representative of modern scholarship. The first (Burke) is miscited as this work has had many editions, but not many volumes, let alone the volume 30 claimed. Unclear if this is the 30th edition, or a typo for volume 3. All of the others, and probably whatever edition of Burke was being used, are more than a century old and don't reflect modern scholarship (if there even is such a thing on a man so obscure). Agricolae (talk) 09:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]