Talk:Thomas Wolsey/Archive 1

Archive 1

Length of article

Does this article need to be this long? Can it not be edited or at least divided into shorter sections for readability? It is a difficult read. Hu Gadarn 02:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

General

While I've added a little bit of family information on Wosley, I am troubled by the last paragraph which seems to editorialize rather than inform. As a direct descendent of this good man, I can state through family records and lore that he chose not to persecute the spread of Lutheranism not because he was negligent, but because he believed that truth would ultimately triumph without using the power of the state to force matters of conscience.

Actually, and prosaically I'm afraid, he didn't do it because Englishb Lutherans numbered roughly 50 during his tenure. 129.67.43.240 11:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

---

See Talk:Thomas Wosley (page deleted and merged with this page. A talk page to a redirect article page should not exist.)

The spelling is still incorrect for the second entry s/b: Thomas Wolsey and for some reason I cannot edit it.

---

The here and deleted the page.

---

title and his name is Thomas Wolsey.

Also there are discrepancies in dates, etc. I have left the text in its entirety (with a misspelling in the title Wosley should be Wolsey. See my page: Thomas Wosley and the original page: Thomas Cardinal Wolsey

Anyone care to confer on this item?

I think it's supposed to be "Thomas, Cardinal Wolsey"....the Catholic Encyclopedia turns up Thomas Cardinal Wolsey without the comma, which leads me to suspect it's one of those archaic turn-of-the-century things that Britannica would have used. I've always heard his name as Thomas Wolsey. As for the dates, there are always discrepancies (in birthdates especially) for non-royal people at that time...if you put "c. 1531" or whatever, that should solve the problem :) Adam Bishop 21:28 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The naming convention on wiki for cardinals for practical reasons has put all cardinals in as [first name Cardinal surname]. That is the agreed format, which was created because it is unworkable to refer to cardinals simply by name. Among the reasons

1. Some cardinals has personal names that are different to their cardinal names; (eg. Cardinal Richelieu)
2. Some mediæval cardinal's first names are unknown. Using the word Cardinal still allows us to create references to them. WIthout it, all we would have is the surname.
3. Even if we know the first name of a mediæval cardinal, many historical cardinals are known only as Cardinal X. Using first name surname would produce references that few would recognise.
4. Cardinal names raise some of the problems that also arise with royalty. As with royalty, the only workable solution is to use their title in the article name, not to simply use a personal name.

1960s was known as William Cardinal Conway. His successor was known generally as Cardinal Tómas Ó Fiaich. Putting in Conway as Cardinal Wiliam Conway would involve reordering his name in a form he was never known by. And Ó Fiaich was officially named as Tómas Cardinal Ó Fiaich, even if that form was not used in everyday language.

1. Using [[first name Cardinal surname]] keeps Cardinal surname together and so makes it easier to recognise. For example the page on John Cardinal O'Connor of New York keeps the words Cardinal O'Connor together, which is what most people would know him as.

likely one was to be known without reference to title. So while it may indeed be practical to refer to lower clergy by personal names alone, cardinals, patriarchs and popes tended to be exclusively known via their title, often indeed changing their names on assuming office.

BTW I have deleted the talk page for Thomas Wosley (sic). There should not be separate talk pages for redirect pages. All debates should take place on the talk page attached to the main page. So please do not recreate the Thomas Wolsey page. Any debate should be held here. FearÉIREANN 08:36 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The procedure for pages on cardinals is to insert the "Cardinal" title between Given and Family names. If it is not at Thomas Cardinal Wolsey it should be at Thomas Wolsey. The current location is completely inappropriate. john k 05:42, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

moved page twice

I saw the page and said "Shit this page should be Cardinal Thomas Wolsey not Thomas Cardinal Wolsey". Turns out it is right all along. See the section from: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles).

For cardinals, use "{name if known} Cardinal {surname}]]". For example, Giuseppe Cardinal Siri not Cardinal Guiseppe Siri This format avoids problems associated with historical cardinals whose first names have long since been forgotten; they can be entered as "Cardinal {surname}" and adapted later if and when their first name has been unearthed. It also has the benefit of keeping the cardinal surname together for search purposes. This is the format officially used by the Roman Catholic Church to refer to its cardinals. Since Vatican II, an alternative version, placing the word 'Cardinal' before the first name has grown in popularity. However as the great majority of cardinals predate this change, that format would require a complete change in all cardinal titles before 1965 and is impractical.

That solves alot of my problems. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 05:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Technically, the title ought to be entirely left out of the name if the subject is deceased, as the cardinalate held by the subject is now held by someone else. It may be useful for reference purposes to leave the title in, if it helps readers to identify the subject of the article from a list, but in Wolsey's case this is probably not necessary, and the current designation should stand. The first line of the article, however, should read 'Thomas Wolsey'.I would also have to query the use of the post-nominal 'PC' in this instance. The style refers to current members of the Privy Council, not to former or deceased members, and in any case would never have been employed in the 16th century. I'm going to go out on limb and change it... Cursitor 18:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Who is Gerard Corvin?

I have removed the references to Gerard Corvin in the sub headers - who is he? Has someone lifted copyright material from him? :) Brookie: A collector of little round things 14:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

A large block of material was added by anon editor 82.16.157.71 at 20:24, on 22 November 2005. Overwritting some usful sections which I have restored. The name Gerard Corvin was associated with the material and subsequent edits by the same anon user. I have tried to find an on line source via Google but none seems to exist. Likewise the is no published author called Gerard Corvin on this subject.

There is a risk this is a copyright violation of materiel copied from some textbook by a novice user.

Or it could be an essay by the anon user which is being made over into the public domain through Wikipedia.

It needs someone knowledgeable in this field to see if there is a copyright source for it.

Can anyone help? Lumos3 11:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Posted on User Brookie's talk page by User: 82.16.159.166 7 Feb 2006

regarding the "Who is Gerard Corvin?" on the Cardinal Wolsey discussion board

I am he. Indeed, I am not a published author; I am an AS Student who has only recently finished studying the eponymous cleric. I assure you that my essays are entirely my own work. By lending them to Wikipedia (a truly remarkable fountain of knowledge, which has aided me in my study on countless occasions) I felt I was sharing with other students the profits of my own labour in the hope that they might make their grasp of Wolsey just that little bit more confident. Admittedly, when I submitted the essays to you they were marked with, in garishly bold letters, "by Gerard Corvin" -not a publicity stunt, you can be sure. Nevertheless, if somewhere on the site you can credit me I would most appreciate it.

Thank you, and keep up the good work!

Asking for personal credit in the body of a WP article seems highly inappropriate and un-encyclopedic to me, and hints at violations of WP:OR. Mentioning that you wrote a section might be appropriate for a talk page, but not for the body of the article. If Mr. Corvin demands credit in the article in return for the use of his words, then I think the only reasonable action is to remove those words and substitute something else (properly sourced, of course). -- Xtifr 23:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of this page

I'd just like to question the reliability and impartiality of this article as, particularly in the 'achievements' section, it expresses views which are of some debate within the historical community.

I agree. There are several instances of boosterism rather than factural writing. A less biased pen would strengthen this article greatly. Hu Gadarn 02:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The achievements does have a little bit of bias, seems to be making him out to be this grandiose figure. Saying he cared about his job immensely is a little bit of an overstatement. He took part in major pluralism(part of the reason he became so rich and powerful) and simony, that alone shows his lack of dedication to his job.

"Furthermore, the horrors of enclosures were significantly hyperbolized. In truth there were relatively few enclosures, and, even after Wolsey’s labours, the countryside was still ripe[sic] with enclosure."

Uhh, which is it? Also in general this section is too chatty "Wosley was new to the diplomacy game" etc. 129.67.43.240 11:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

i agree

• • • Pluralism, that means holding more than one religious office. Right? Simony is selling the benefits of religion. I do not know about the simony charge but pluralism was standard operating procedure in England, then and for quite some time after. Does the phrase 'a church living' sound familiar?

So I don't see your connection. Wolsey was work horse. A workaholic. He loved himself, loved pomp and power, but loved work. That he was rewarded, that he was paid, showed what Henry thought of him.

A mistake in the article

The article states that after the death of Louis XII , Mary Tudor didn't want to marry the new king François I and eloped with Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk. Mary Tudor was promised at a very young age to François I, who was also a child. That marriage contract was ended in 1522 leaving François free to marry. Unfortunately the author of the article doesn't seem to realize that at the time François I was married to Claude of France, the daughter of Louis XII, so marriage between Mary Tudor and François I was not a possibility. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.180.91.203 (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Yes, you're right it was not a possibility. But I think the writer was confused because Francois did attempt to seduce Mary Rose. Dextrase (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

marriage

isn't he a cardinal? or am I just terribly ignorant and cardinals could marry back then? --little Alex 07:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

he had illegitimate children.

vandalism

someone who has been watching this article needs to take the vandalism from the last few days out. Jfeckstein 23:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

yep ... not sure if he had either a wii, nor an x360??

Wolsey loved display and his Wii60, although it is generally accepted that, as the King's principal servant, such things were necessary to present a good image to foreign diplomats and kings. He lived in royal splendour in his palace at E3. There is a theory that his long-term ambition was to become Pope, although much evidence discredits this. The idea that he aligned English foreign policy to that of the Papacy does not explain why he was often involved in wars in continental Europe, even if they were not on behalf of the Papacy. There is also the fact that he never attempted to build support in the Wii, which was necessary to obtain the X360. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.94.116 (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Major edits begun

This article needs a lot of work. I've started by rearranging it to be in more of a chronological order, and removing some redundant or POV material. There is a lot left to do. I'm going to continue editing for style and organization, and look for some sources to verify the facts. The last step will be to edit the article down to a manageable length. (The edits were done as 66.208.46.254.)Eldred 18:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Mistakes in accuracy

The article states that Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk married Princess Margaret, the widowed Queen of Portugal. This is factual only in the television show, The Tudors. Charles was married to Princess Mary, the former Queen of France. locura 07 May 2007

The Tudors?

This article is very detailed and identical to what happens in The Tudors which aren't factual.

I don't know enough about Wolsey myself, but someone should really look at this and possibly remove quite a few parts. --carocat 06:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Unattributed quote

In Henry VIII, Act. 3 Sc. 2 l. 535, Shakespeare has Wolsey say: Had I but served my God with half the zeal I served my king, He would not in mine age Have left me naked to mine enemies.

Is it possible that the version given in the article stems from this and not from any more reliable source? HHHEB3 (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1