User talk:PhD Historian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia

Hello, PhD Historian, and welcome to Wikipedia! Wikipedia is one of the world's fastest growing internet sites. We aim to build the biggest and most comprehensive encyclopaedia in the world. To date we have over four million articles in a host of languages. The English language Wikipedia alone has over one million articles! But we still need more! Please feel free to contribute your knowledge and expertise to our site.

If you need help see:

Here are a few more good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Great to see a contributor with your knowledge and expertise joining. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 11:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

One tip — put something (anything) on your user page. Right now it shows up as a red link. That usually indicates a brand new user and other users thoroughly scrutinise their work to see if they are a genuine user or a vandal. Clearly from your work you are a genuine user. Removing the red link would stop other users unnecessarily double-checking what you add, or checking your talk page to find out information about you.

Regards

FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've added a brief bio blurb. I was not sure if Wiki allows me to insert my real name (John Stephan Edwards), or if I am allowed to post the URL for my own Jane Grey website (http://www.somegreymatter.com). PhD Historian 01:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

John, it does if you wish. Wikipedia, you will find, is stimulating, frustrating, challenging, fun, infuriating. There will be days when you will wish you never came on, and that you will want to leave, and days where you love every second. What has astonished me is the number of articles on WP that far exceed the quality of articles on Brittanica and other encyclopaedias. Some parts of our history stuff is good; some parts weak. Someone with your obvious skills and knowledge is a welcome addition to the team. You will find headbangers around, but also a lot of extraordinary people. (It has been rumoured that a world famous novelist and some top historians are here under false names. And I do know from contacts that some senior people in politics — including at least one prime minister — has edited here.) But academic status means nothing. It is contributions. One of the most amazing experiences I had here was about three years ago when in a rather heated debate on a talk page, two non-academics intervened. One was, he said, 14 (and some stuff he wrote elsewhere suggested he was in his mid-teens). Another was a car mechanic. And on two issues they both threw in the most extraordinary insight on a topic (I actually forget what it was now) that the rest of us practically gasped. The 14 year old's contribution was an insight none of us had spotted, but it was so insightful that for days afterwards I kept rethinking it, as did others. The car mechanic, who left school at O level, had read just about every history book on the topic and had a theory which he rather shyly put across. Academic jaws dropped.

Among the people who can be insightful and challenging are a Marxist historian in the US, User:172, as well as User:John Kenney and User:Deb. But there are scores of others. Wikipedia is an extraordinary place. As is often the case, we have far more historians with experience of the 19th and 20th centuries than the Middle Ages. So someone with insight about the mediaeval world is a welcome addition to the team. And one final thing: most people here joined to write about one topic, or period, and ended up all over the place, doing things they never imagined themselves doing. I found myself being involved in writing about royalty, and abortion, and religion, as well as Ireland. I've edited stuff on the Simpsons and on American news anchors. So you can expect a ride all over the place. If I can help in any way, do let me know. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone, on a related note, Derex has complied a "[l]ist of experts, as indicated by advanced degrees (e.g. PhD's), published works, or any other generally recognized measure [editing Wikipedia]" here. Perhaps Derex's list should be copied and moved to a page in the Wikipedia namespace for general use by the community? 172 | Talk 20:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I have experienced much of what our Irish colleague points out, especially the frustration part. Wiki tends, on the whole, to be acceptable as a starting point for gaining information on a topic, but it is not adequate as an authoritative source. I find far too many errors of basic fact in too many articles, due no doubt to the way in which Wiki is created and constructed. When I assign papers in my classes, students are specifically forbidden to cite Wikipedia (and a host of other sites) as a source for the simple reason that it is too often wrong or misleading. That said, I am happy to contribute my expertise to those areas in which I feel I can legitimately say I am qualified to do so, in an effort to improve the quality of Wikipedia. Obviously, that expertise includes Jane Grey. Just yesterday I added to the Jane Grey talk page a lengthy discussion of the illustrations accompanying that article. But as a newcomer, I am reluctant to "dive right in" and re-write the text of the article, however much it may need re-writing. I am trying to be sensitive to those who took the time and effort to create the article in the first place. Without knowing who they are, I have no idea what their own level of expertise is. But since only one other academically trained historian, Carole Levin, has published anything substantive on Jane Grey in the last 25 years, I'd have to consider myself the expert on the topic. So give me some advice so I do not step on more toes than necessary and offend all and sundry: How do I go about correcting the many errors in the Jane Grey article? What is the etiquette for editing an article? PhD Historian 02:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)



Contents

[edit] Lady Jane Grey

Thanks for your comments, explanations and advice on the Lady Jane Grey article -- excellent examples of collaborative improvement to Wikipedia! -- Pedant17 12:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lady Jane Grey revisited

Hi PhD Historian:

Thanks for your comments on my recent edits.

I changed:

Mary I proved to have more popular support than Jane, largely because the English people regarded her as the rightful heiress, but perhaps partly because of the continuing sympathy for her mother (Catherine of Aragon), whom Henry VIII had annulled.

to:

Mary I proved to have more popular support than Jane, largely because the English people regarded her as the rightful heiress, but perhaps partly because of the continuing sympathy for her mother, Catherine of Aragon (Henry VIII had had his own marriage with Catherine annulled).

The difficulty I had here involved smuggling in the word "marriage" (which I felt we needed as a complement of "annulled". I couldn't find a clear case in the OED where one can "annul" a person in quite the sense I suspect you intended here.) We may need more verbiage to bring out clearly the asssociation beween the sympathy and the annullment...

My second edit involved changing:

  • SomeGreyMatter Contains extensive bibliography with reviews of each work, as well as discussion of two portraits recently identified as Lady Jane Grey.

to:

  • SomeGreyMatter Contains an extensive bibliography with reviews of each work, as well as discussion of two portraits recently identified as depicting Lady Jane Grey.

In this change I attempted to pin down the word "recently" -- which as you suggest can have multiple definitions. (I've edited articles on politics where "recently" might mean "within the last few days"; I've also worked in geological-time contexts where "recently" might span thousands if not millions of years...). "Recently" in conventionally published work tends to have a clear context relating to publication-date. Not so in a wiki, where a "recently" can "drift" from version to version of the text, changing its meaning as it does without anyone necessarily noticing. Your "recently identified" would acquire different connotations if left in place for another year or so. Thus I tried to "pin down" the usage to when it first occurred, adding the link-synonym as of 2006. (Perhaps I should have used as of August 2006.)

Wikipedia needs to tag such usage as possibly needing future attention: this applies often when someone writes "now", "nowadays" or "contemporary" or even "modern"...

I applaud your elegant solution of mentioning the actual date of the identification. I had hoped for that sort of result, and I believe you the best person to provide it.

-- Best wishes: -- Pedant17 01:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Tudor and "Majesty"

Thanks for that. I of course defer to your expertise. But surely "Her Majesty" wasn't the exclusive term even by the reign of Queen Anne, was it? In any case, those little summary information boxes tend to use simply the regnal name without "His/Her Majesty," n'est-ce pas? Masalai 04:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

You mention that you might welcome some help with footnotes. My recommendation is that you try this approach: Place the text of any footnotes you want between <ref> and </ref>, in line in the article. Then at the end, place <references/> where you want the notes to appear. You don't need to do anything more complicated than that, and if someone later wants to convert them to a prettier form they can. For example[1], this approach.
==References==

  1. ^ This is a fairly uninformative footnote

So you really need remember only three "odd" commands (<ref>, </ref>, and <references/>), and the last of them will only appear once in any article. - Nunh-huh 04:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

A short, simple explanation of how to do it! Thank you very much indeed! Why doesn't my IT customer service rep offer the same style of answer to my questions when my computer crashes? LOL PhD Historian 20:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jane Grey

Are you still intending to rewrite her article? You really should, if you can make useful contributions. I know I'd be interested to read it. Michaelsanders 12:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am planning to re-write the article. At the moment, however, I have become involved in negotiating a contract for my academic biogrpahy of Jane Grey. Given Stephen Colbert's comments on his show last night regarding Wikipedia, I'm waiting to make the changes to the article when I can concentrate on it and monitor closely the response that I anticipate it will create. I am still conflicted over whether or not I should devote the time and energy required for the effort when it will take only one "editor" to completely negate the whole endeavor. PhD Historian 21:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jane Grey article

You make a good point concerning the terms, but I thought "illegitimate" might get the correct point across to a general audience. Wikipedia is read by teenage students who might find "legal bastard" to be a rather interesting term. But you can change it back if you want. SwissLimey 02:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request from a fellow member of the WikiBiography Project

I saw your name on the list of participants of the WikiBiography project and was wondering if you would be willing to review the article I wrote on Anna Laetitia Barbauld. It is up for FAC right now, but I would appreciate more review than its getting. I know that you are an Early Modernist, but I have been unable to locate anyone as of yet with a real interest or expertise in either the eighteenth century or the Romantic period. I would greatly appreciate it and, in return, I would certainly be willing to help you out in any way I can. Thanks. Awadewit 12:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The article appears to be very well written and well above the lower standard so commonly seen on Wikipedia. It is very refreshing to see a truly scholarly article. I would be happy to review it formally, if I knew how to do so. I'm not very skilled at this Wikipedia thing, as far as all the mechanical bells and whistles are concerned. If you can tell me what the mechanics are of reviewing, I'd be happy to do so. PhD Historian 20:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Featured articles at wikipedia go through a nomination process in which reviewers make suggestions for improvement and vote on whether or not they meet the featured article criteria WP:FA?. The featured article page, WP:FA, explains the nomination and voting process. It is easy enough to become familiar with the process because you have access to all of the ongoing and past debates over whether or not an article should become featured. I would recommend looking at some that have been contentious such as Intelligent Design, although please don't be thrown by the hostility; this really only happens on highly controversial topics like intelligent design (one reason it is nice to write about the eighteenth century - editors are rarely invested enough in the topics I write on to debate like this). A consensus is easily reached on most articles; you might, therefore, look at some that seem on their way to acceptance such as Anton Chekhov. You might also look at actual FAs themselves, but as has been pointed out to some authors in the FAC process, this can be problematic because FAC requirements have changed in recent months - they have become more stringent. If you want to do this, I would look at the list of recently accepted FAs for guidance. (Another article I wrote was accepted last month, Mary Wollstonecraft, but it would probably be good if you looked at someone else's work.) I'm not saying that you need to do all of this background work in order to review an article, I'm just outlining all of the possibilities. Again, if there is anything I can do to help you out on your articles or with general wikipedia questions, please let me know. Thanks so much. Awadewit 21:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Doesn't the fact that you base your work for the Jane Grey entry on original research make it a bit difficult for others to challenge your view on things? You also write in a way that makes it sound as if you're pretty certain that everything you say is correct, as you refer to the fact that you are the first scholar to write a historically acceptable account of her life and that therefore it'll have to stand alone until someone challenges it. However, in my view (as a history student) work like that is only validated once it has been open to criticism. But in this case, you're basing your work here on the work you're doing for your book, which hasn't been published, therefore, no one can take issue with it yet (even if they're wrong). All we have to go on is your assurance that you're doing your best, which I'm sure you're doing, but you can't expect everyone to quit adding and editing in favour of your own efforts, even if you know what you're doing is right. It just isn't what Wikipedia is like, imho...

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure you're doing a good job. I just mean to point out that in this way anything you say goes and that doesn't seem very scientific. Perhaps it might be better to wait a little while, not add anything until you can refer to your book and fellow historians can take a crack at it and prove or disprove things that you're saying? Especially since you seem to indicate on the discussion page for that entry that you're planning on doing a lot more work on it, even if others disagree. To me, that does not seem to correspond very well with the way Wikipedia is supposed to work, which is based on agreement. This way, you edit something, someone disagrees and edits your work, you edit it back because you are certain you are right (but you can't prove it other than by stating you've done your research), someone comes back and edits what you said, etc. To me, there doesn't seem a way out of this except by rewriting the article as based on your published book, adding notes or just referring to the entire book, people buying it and you getting paid for that and people then commenting on it and being on able to argue with you about things.

Again, I respect you and your work, it just seems to me that this is a bit impractical. It might very well be true that you know a lot more about this topic than anyone else here, but since Wikipedia is open to everyone, it seems to me that you have to be prepared to let other people in on this as well. Although perhaps it might be possible to give this article "protected" status and for you to be made an editor for this specific article or something like that. To me it seems preferable that you think about this carefully before you get frustrated and perhaps even give up on Wikipedia. That way you can continue to contribute, which will probably result in a high-quality article by a well-informed individual and hopefully in a number of new entries. Also, it'll hopefully keep others who are just trying to contribute from getting frustrated at getting edited by you. ;) Skeptic77 00:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

'Original research' is the creation of a thesis or set of ideas based upon sources. Quoting, or producing, sourced data is not Original Research. In other words - produce a viewpoint, and you'll have problems; quote directly from an original document, and you should be fine. Indeed, one of the ideas of wikipedia being an encyclopedia anyone could edit was that it allowed the encyclopedia to have access to a fantastic range of sources, because of the number and diversity of editors. And, as long as information is sourced, it is fine, regardless of whether anyone else can challenge it (I think we are meant to check up on the sourcing of others, to check that nobody is pulling a fast one. I don't know if anyone does this). Also, as a history student, I would say that 'criticism' applies only to original theories and suggestions - if you are simply quoting a source, then let the source speak for itself. Of course, as a history student, I am also annoyed by the fact that this long promised revision to the article has not yet happened. If you still intend to do it, please do it soon - it'll assuage my curiousity, and (more importantly) actually show us editors whether there is any reason to be aggrieved by the changes (for all we know, it might just be a collective "Oh, I see!"). So please, don't be put off. If you want to edit the article, do so (either all at once on the article, or piece by piece on the talk page, whichever you prefer). Wikipedia does not exclude editors, and anyone who has anything relevant to add should do so. Michaelsanders 02:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not rewritten the article (and will not be doing so) for two reasons. First, until my book is on the shelves and available for each of you to read in full, rewriting the article would only cause lengthy debate. Even the simple task of changing the reference to Jane's date of birth proved problematic since the academic journal will not be publishing my research on that until September, and it is a bit impractical to send an advance copy of it to each person reading this Wiki article. The book really needs to be out, readable, and open to full criticism before this small article is redone. It is my hope that many of those who read the book will understand the full scope of my argument, thereby eliminating the need for much of the debate that would otherwise accompany a premature editing of this article. But getting a book to the shelves takes time, and not everyone has the patience required to await publication. Secondly, I have trouble with Wikipedia's apparent policy of establishing "fact" according to a majority-rule system of review. I understand the Wikiean desire "to have access to a fantastic range of sources." I simply object to the policy's failure to differentiate between reliable and unreliable "sources," between amateurs, novices, and experts. Maybe I'm being a bit too full of myself, but to my mind an undergraduate history student does not and cannot have the same level of expertise and authority on a topic as does a published professor. If he did, university classes would be taught by the students rather than by the faculty. To my way of thinking, Wikipedia should certainly be open to a wide range of input and "sources," but only with a corresponding system for vetting those sources. Majority-rule is not the appropriate system, in my opinion. In the absence of some kind of genuine peer review, Wikipedia will remain unreliable and poorly regarded by educators at the higher levels of the academy.PhD Historian 19:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

- Well, seems to me that we agree at least in part. As I said, it seems futile to me to edit something without being able to back it up and start a tug-of-war. I also agree with you, up to a point, that experts might be able to contribute a bit more than others. However, some enthusiasts, even though they have no degree in anything, know a heck of a lot more about certain subjects than even some of the most renowned scholars. As a student, I've regularly attended classes where I was able to contribute something my teacher didn't know or where I could even correct a teacher. Even though they are experts in their field, they are not all-knowing.

To be perfectly honest, I think that you might be taking the stance: "I'm an expert, so what I say goes." I'm kind of wondering if your name, PhD Historian, is also not a bit of a claim along those lines. But I don't know you, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I'm not pursueing a PhD (yet) but I'd also be proud if I was. ;) But just in case you do see things like that, such a stance is not scientific. Even your well-researched book will have to stand up to scrutiny by other scholars and will, no doubt, in the end be superseded by another work, whether it be an edited version by yourself or a new book by another scholar who just happened to find other sources someplace you haven't looked or were unable to look. That is the way science works, as I'm sure you know.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure you're doing a good job. However, I do feel that it would look better if you made a little more effort to show that even you are human and may make a mistake here or there. Otherwise you are at risk of coming across as someone who, to paraphrase you, might be a bit too full of himself.

That being said, I completely agree with you that majority rules in itself probably isn't the best answer. I also think it doesn't (always) work that way. I think some articles are protected because they are already of a high standard and that a special status may be obtained under certain conditions, thereby safeguarding the hard work that you've done.

One more note: it might help if you write new contributions as a bit of historiography, comparing your version of events with more established ones and giving the pros and cons. If you can do that with enough detachment, then that would surely be a delight to read! It would probably work a lot better than just editing something and replacing it with the facts as you see them, even if you are right and other just have a notion of things which is wrong, but which has existed for quite some time.

Good luck on getting your book published, I know what a pain that can be. ;) Skeptic77 20:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the educational note. And thanks for the reassurance that you know I am "doing a good job." I'm glad there is a forum like Wikipedia for would-be historians, future scholars, and other "enthusiasts" to debate various topics and to learn from each other. But I think perhaps it is not an appropriate forum for someone like myself, who has engaged in several years of full-time, advanced-level, archivally-based research and publication on a very specific and narrow topic, to then try to engage in discourse with those who do not have comparable skill and experience. Peer-reviewed academic journals are my appropriate domain, and that is where I shall stay in future. Frankly, I rather resent some undergraduate who has taken a class or two in Tudor history and perhaps read Alison Plowden critiquing my life's work as though he were my academic equal. I would never pretend to correct someone on some other topic in which I was merely conversant and not fully expert. The problem with Wikipedia is that no such reciprocal courtesy exists. Everyone is an "expert" here, and all editors are considered equally qualified to write on any and all topics, regardless of their background or training. If you want to talk about what is and is not "scientific," I'd have to say that absolute equality among all editor-contributors, without some kind of credentialling process, hardly qualifies as "scientific." I could indeed take the time and expend the effort required to produce a review of the historiographic literature on Jane Grey (there being almost none available except from untrained amateur historians), and I could write a lengthy article chock full of footnotes citing nothing but primary source documents. But to what end? So that some high school student could immediately erase the whole thing and replace it with some drivel that he read in a novel or saw in a movie? That would be a very poor use of my time. I'll stick to writing books and being published by peer-reviewed university academic presses and leave Wikipedia to the "enthusiasts." PhD Historian 22:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been following this thread on your userpage. As a fellow academic in the humanities, I just wanted to add my two cents. While it can be frustrating to have your ideas questioned, that is, of course, the essence of scholarship. I view wikipedia more like teaching than I do like scholarship. The editors here, unlike many of our students, really do want to learn and we have much knowledge to offer. Moreover, wikipedia is one of the United States's ten most popular websites. If we as scholars do not make sure that it is accurate, every high school student around the country is going to read the sensationalized story of Jane Gray rather than the accurate story of Jane Gray. I urge you to reconsider, if only for the sake of disseminating knowledge. I find it disheartening that wikipedia is dominated by scientists and that humanities scholars have, as yet, not stepped up to the plate to write pages in their disciplines. The science pages on wikipedia are phenomenal. The literature pages, on the other hand, are dismal. I assure you that if you write an excellent, well-referenced page, no editors will allow it to be deleted by an ignorant student. The editors here recognize quality work when they see it and want to encourage it. At least, I have found this to be the case. Also, I have found it easier to write on topics slightly peripheral to the thesis of my dissertation as, I know you know, one becomes extremely invested in one's thesis and it is sometimes hard, at least for me, to gain distance. Rather than writing on Mary Wollstonecraft's Original Stories (her children's book), a major focus of one my dissertation chapters, for example, I wrote on Wollstonecraft herself. Perhaps you could start by writing pages on other Tudor figures? Awadewit 23:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


Now there's no need to be discouraged and I certainly feel it'd be a loss to just give up and quit contributing to Wikipedia. Why would you? Like Awadewit, I'm sure Wikipedia editors will make sure that, once this article is rewritten in a way that significantly improves its value, it'll be protected in order to prevent ignorant kids from hi-jacking it and turning it into a romantic novel or somesuch.
Moreover, I also agree with Awadewit that Wikipedia is a great way to spread knowledge, for us professional historians to share what we know with a much broader audience. Perhaps a frustrating medium at times, but every medium has its advantages and disadvantages. Your book might very well start a flamewar on a more professional level, resulting in a series of articles in historical magazines or somesuch. In a way, that might also be frustrating, I guess, but perhaps a little less so because it would be a discussion amongst equals who both have access to the same kind of information.
That being said, I also agree with Awadewit that having your ideas questioned is exactly what science is about. We, as scientists, need to be aware of the fact that we can only know so much and that even those of us who are widely respected in our fields can make mistakes. Which I tried to point out by referring to occasions where I was able to add to or even contradict a teacher, whether it be a high-school teacher with a Master's degree, a University lecturer with a PhD or a Professor. They -all- make mistakes, and most of them have actually welcomed my comments and even my corrections. Sometimes I was able to add to their knowledge, because I just happened to have read a book or an article which they hadn't yet come across, sometimes they just misspoke or mistyped something and pointing that out enabled them to correct themselves and make sure they passed on the correct information to their students. To be an expert does not equal being above all criticism. While I myself would shy away from correcting you on assertions regarding Jane Grey, unless I read something I perceived to be a typo or some kind of internal inconsistency that I'd like to correct or at least have it explained, I would have no qualms about correcting "Grye" and turning it into "Grey", if you made a mistake like that. It would then surely not be very wrong of me to assume that you would like your text to look as you had clearly intended. But any such correction or even a wholesale trashing of a contribution would not really be an attack on you. It might be embarrassing to be 'caught' making a mistake like that, it might be frustrating to see your work being undone by someone who's just trying to have fun at other people's expense or who's just not very well-informed, but if any 'corrections' are really destructive in your view, you can always just go back to the history page, check versions against eachother and pretty easily reset the whole page the way you want. That's one of the nifty features of Wikipedia. ;)
Also, please look below this thread. As you can see, there are people here who would really like you and others to contribute, to help out. Wikipedia evolves this way and eventually Wikipedia will be better for it. If I were you, I would not give up now, if ever. Wikipedia is here to stay, so we might as well be in it from as early a point as possible, right? :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skeptic77 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies

Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of [unassessed articles] tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 21:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Guilford Dudley

Hi. The point about this article is that it was moved without discussion from the correct spelling to the alternative spelling. We need consistency, and if you check the links you'll see that most of them remained at the "Guilford" spelling. It may well be true that Guilford's maternal grandfather sometimes spelled his surname "Guildford", though I haven't seen any actual evidence for this. Perhaps you could tell me where to look. Deb 21:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's a fair point, but I notice that on the talk page for Lady Jane Grey, you specifically say that both spellings are "correct". Alison Weir uses the version without the "d", and, like you, I have a high regard for her. Deb 11:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd say to Deb that it's better to avoid calling any surname spelling before the 19th century incorrect. Several of Jane's surviving letters are signed Jane Duddley - so it's hard to see any great objection to that spelling, either. Xn4 21:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Katherine/Catherine Parr

Hi there. I made the edits on Lady Jane Grey to change Katherine (Parr) to Catherine because both spellings were used in the article. I was unsure which was correct, but thought that we need to have one or the other for consistency. I chose to alter the spelling to Catherine after looking at the article for Catherine/Katherine Parr, in which the spelling Catherine is used. I tried to convey this in the edit summary. It appears that both are, to the same degree, inaccurate, but at least now we have consistentcy across the article which is an improvement, I think. If she did spell her name as Kateryn (which I have no reason to doubt - this is not my area of expertise) then we should strive to change it across all articles. I get the impression that you think this would be quite a struggle, and I have to say I would agree. Please edit the article to however you think is best. KingStrato 00:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

May not be the place to mention it, but both Guilford and Guildford are used in the same article. I'm not sure what to put down as his name here. KingStrato 18:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Jane Grey

I was shopping around for a quote that answered some of the [citation needed] tags and I found online a supposed eyewitness account from the British Library's Harlean manuscript collection, The Chronicle of Queen Jane and of Two Years of Queen Mary. However, it contains Jane's famous quote from the Book of Luke, "Lord, into thy hands I commend my spirit", which you say is not present in any eyewitness accounts. I was wondering how reliable a source that text is. Serendipodous 10:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Sorry. Still, it would be better if the quote was directly cited, and its origins explained in the text. Serendipodous 12:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Just give me the information and I'll post it. Serendipodous 06:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trial of Lady Jane Grey

Hi, PhD Historian. It was mostly from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. You were right to prompt me, I've added all the references to the Lady Jane Grey article. regards, Xn4 14:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. The online version of the ODNB does not contain that bit of info, but the entry for LJG in the online version was written by Alison Plowden. I wonder whether the article in the current print version of the ODNB might have been written by someone else? Anyway ... My interest stems from my current work on an academic biography of LJG. I've been working recently on transcribing and translating the Latin court documents that survive from her trial, and they seem to contradict the ODNB article you cited. But that is not big issue for right now. My work thus far suggests that much of what we think we "know" about LJG today is in fact the product of myths and legends and is not borne out by the primary source evidence. Plowden's biography of Jane relies heavily in secondary sources, I might note. Re-writing the ODNB entry on LJG will be a future project of mine, as soon as the bio is published (2008). Thanks! Keep up the good work! PhD Historian 00:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
You'll see that I added the reference to Alison Plowden's article earlier today, and (indeed) wikilinked her name. But I'm puzzled - which particular bit of info which I have cited from ODNB does the article not contain?
I'm glad to hear that someone, at least, is working on Jane from the original sources. I'm curious, where are the MS trial documents? When you publish something, I hope you'll post some details on your talk page. regards, Xn4 01:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The online version of the ODNB, in regard to Jane's trial, says simply "Jane, together with Guildford Dudley and two more of his brothers, stood trial for treason on 19 November. The proceedings were brief and formal and the accused duly condemned, but the emperor's ambassador reported that Jane's life would be spared." You may note first that the date is incorrect, though perhaps Ms Plowden amended it to New Style. But there is no mention in the online version of Plowden's article of Thomas White or Edward Stanley, the location of the trial, etc. But upon checking your footnotes, I see that you obtained that information from other articles, not the LJG article. That makes more sense, since I knew that Plowden had not examined the original manuscript trial records. They are in the National Archives Public Record Office at Kew, filed with the records from the Court of King's Bench. And I do indeed plan to post something on my Talk page as soon as the book becomes available. There will also be a posting placed on my personal website, www.somegreymatter.com. If you have not seen that site, you might be interested in having a look at it. As soon as the September issue of OUP's "Notes and Queries" comes out, I will be adding a page to my site on the subject of LJG's date of birth, arguing that the traditional date in October 1537 is quite wrong. PhD Historian 02:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! I wish you success. (You'll see from my references that White's and Stanley's involvement in Jane's trial are drawn from their separate ODNB articles.) regards, Xn4 02:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 2nd Marquess of Dorset

Just a note to draw your attention to my new article Thomas Grey, 2nd Marquess of Dorset. Regards, Xn4 01:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Mary I and Edward VI

I've seen the great contributions you've put on here and tudorhistory.org and was wondering if you could have a look at the articles on Edward and Mary, especially about Edward's will. I think the information conflicts with what I've read from you elsewhere.Boleyn (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jane

For the record, I have no doubt that you are right—but that isn't the point, which is just that both dates should be referenced. And if you feel that Taylor is not reliable, we can simply find another source that gives the traditional date, which is not peculiar to him. If you do not wish to rewrite the article, then I suggest taking it easy on criticising it at the moment, terrible though it is, because your implication is that someone should be working on it, and that is a large job since we are volunteers. I plan sooner or later to rewrite the Edward VI and Mary articles, and so I would be prepared one day to rewrite Jane based on your book, when it has come out. In the short term, though, I cannot lay my hands on a decent book about Jane, and I do not fancy picking my way through Plowden et al sorting the wheat from the chaff. My advice to you is to de-watchlist the article for the time being, to save yourself pain; let me know when your book comes out and I will buy it (much needed), and we can then see what we can do. qp10qp (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just read your comments on Jeanne's page, and although much of Wikipedia is certainly a mess, do remember that it's a giant project in a very early stage of development. There are already some good articles and some good people working here. Robert Peake the Elder, for example, is an article I am proud of: it puts together, I am sure for the first time, Strong's research on the paintings with Mary Edmonds' on the life, plus scattered information from galleries on some of the less well-known works—check the talk page for collaboration at its best. An article I enjoyed reading this week was Mounseer Nongtongpaw: just as the Peake page is the best one-stop article on or offline on the subject, so the Nongtongpaw article is the best place for an overview of the scholarship on that poem, which is contradictory (this article can save a student hours of scratching about for fragmentary information). At its best, Wikipedia can be the best, but the really good articles are few and far between as yet, I admit.
At the moment, I am helping to copyedit and format King Arthur. The chap who has written this article, is, like you, a published PhD historian, concerned to extricate history from myth. This is potentially a terrific article, which, unusually, provides up-to-date information on the contribution of Welsh mythological sources to the Arthur story. Have a look, too, at Nostradamus, which keeps a tight rein on the mythologising in a topic rife with it. It can be done.qp10qp (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] DoB article

I have just read your article. I am convinced by your discovery that there are no documentary sources for the October date at all. This reminds me of the fact that the traditional birthdate for Shakespeare goes back no further than the mid-eighteenth century. On the other hand, I can think of one objection to the Aylmer letter, which on the face of it sounds like conclusive evidence. Sometimes age was given as the year of that age. So, for example, "fourteen" might be "fourteenth year". Turning to Shakespeare again, I note that Samuel Schoenbaum comments in his biography: "On the tablet in the poet's monument in Stratford Church, the inscription reads ' obit aetatis 53 '. As he died on 23 April 1616, these words seemingly imply that his birth took place no earlier than 24 April 1563, or later than 23 April 1564; if not, Shakespeare would have expired in his fifty-second or fifty-fourth year". However, on balance, I accept that your deductions are convincing and place the October date seriously in question. qp10qp (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Talk Pages

Star Lady here. My my historian, what big teeth you have! Ooh, I'm still recovering from the verbal thrashing you gave me yesterday, complete with outdated 1960's jargon and all. You are truly an embarassment to us all here. Oh I need to point out that Jane Grey was not a member of the British Royal family but the English. The Royal Family only became British following the Act of Union. As for reading my talk pages, they are really none of your business and are you sure you understood what you read? Instead of insulting in your pathetic way us editors who do create articles here, why not re-write the Jane Grey article as it needs your expert hand? But remember, you will need to employ British English, not dialogue clearly out of an episode of Happy Days. It's people like you who lower the tone here with your false pretensions. If you are a teacher, no wonder the American school system is in such a sorry state. Now as I said before, get out of my face-oh teacher I don't have pigtails perhaps you confused me with one of your students.jeanne (talk) 04:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh and another thing, don't lob the Latin "quod erat demonstrandum" at me. PhD, I happen to reside in a Latin country, I hear Latin spoken every week when I attend Mass and what's more I've a good friend who is a Catholic priest who speaks fluent Latin. So try your pathetic tactics to someone less street-wise. I've known your game from your first arrogant message to my talk pages. Try to bully editors such as myself who clearly state that they've no university education by insulting our contributions-made in our spare time may I remind you. What you are doing is using a deplorable type of class system in which people who come from working-class backgrounds such as myself-QED- are not-so-gently pushed aside so that you "intellectuals" by dint of your PhD's and "published works" (which nobody will ever read save your friends and family) get your own way so's to make Wikipedia into a dry, boring encyclopedia instead of the vibrant, exciting community project it is at the moment.jeanne (talk) 06:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

I am extremely, extremely hesitant to get involved here, but I have been watching this dispute from the sidelines for the past few days. There seems to have been a certain degree of incivility on both sides here, but could I gently ask both of you to try to let it go? Perhaps take a break from Lady Jane Grey for a short period, or simply agree not to attack each other either on talkpages or in edit summaries? I do understand how frustrating historical editing can be, and even better how unpleasant it feels to have one's work dismissed, but I don't see that such hostile exchanges can solve anything. I apologise if I seem to be butting in, but I am just trying to help and would truly like to see this unpleasantness end. Kafka Liz (talk) 10:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citizendium

Hello. Having read your departure statement, I wonder if instead Citizendium may be more suited to you than Wikipedia. Rockpocket 19:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't say that. We don't want to lose editors like PhD: his knowledge of Lady Jame Grey is exceptional. It's a matter of finding the right people, PhD, and the right channels to work through, like peer review, FA, etc. Excellence is possible here, but you need support, and I was intending to help with that. qp10qp (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)