Talk:William Hastings, 1st Baron Hastings

incomplete sentence

"Richard intercepted the young king, who also was on his way to London, whom his Woodville relatives."

It was probably supposed to end with "were escorting to London for his coronation as Edward V." Deviantgoods (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Mother of Alice Camoys

Hi 72.204.15.86,

I notice you replaced the statement that Alice Camoys was the daughter of Thomas de Camoys, 1st Baron Camoys, by his first wife, Elizabeth Louches, the daughter and heiress of William Louches. However that's what the sources cited in the article state, i.e. that Alice was the daughter of Baron Camoys' first marriage, and that his first wife was Elizabeth Louches. I've therefore put those details back. If you have other reliable sources which state the contrary, please post them here so that the article can be revised according to those reliable sources, or a note inserted stating the disagreement among reliable sources on that point. NinaGreen (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a random collection of facts

NinaGreen "Added material back to article (it's significant in terms of family connections, and there should be discussion on the Talk page before deletion"

Articles are added to Wikipedia if the subject is notable (which means for historical biographies are historically notable). Wikipedia is not a random collection of facts (WP:NOT). Under what criteria does the unrelated second wife of this man's paternal grandfather warrant inclusion in this article? -- PBS (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a world of difference between the Wikipedia requirement that the subject of the article be notable, and the requirement you're personally imposing, which is not a Wikipedia requirement, i.e. that every person mentioned in the article be independently notable. NinaGreen (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Under what criteria does the unrelated second wife of this man's paternal grandfather warrant inclusion in this article? -- PBS (talk) 07:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Since it's your personal requirement, and not a Wikipedia requirement covered under policy, it's incumbent on you to find a Wikipedia policy which would justify your deletion of material which has been cited to reliable sources. There are far better ways for you to spend your time on Wikipedia than deleting material which has in-line citations to reliable sources. For example, there are hundreds of Wikipedia articles for biographies of persons who lived during this particular period which completely lack inline citations to any sources whatsoever, and which have citation needed tags. I think any reasonable person would agree that your time could be more profitably spent supplying inline citations to reliable sources in those articles, rather than deleting material for which other editors have already supplied inline citations to reliable sources, thereby wasting those other editors' time in these Talk page discussions. NinaGreen (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not just my personal requirement see for example what user:Agricolae had to say on Talk:Christopher Hatton#Deletion Of Factual Material From A Reliable Source. The information I have placed in a footnote is of marginal relevance until such time as an article on "Sir Leonard Hastings (c.1396 – 20 October 1455)" is written in which case the information should be moved to there, but there is no justification in including information on the second wife of his mother's father this is a biography about William_Hastings and his notability not about his distant relations. As I have made clear to you before if a brother or a sister takes a notable part in a person's career then that will come out in the text in the way that all people mentioned in a biography appear, there is really no need to list the siblings at the start of a biography. -- PBS (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The fact that both you and Agricolae delete sourced information from articles doesn't make it Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy is that unsourced material can be deleted. Neither of you should be deleting sourced material without opening a discussion to all interested editors on the Talk page; if there is consensus among all interested editors that the material should be deleted, it can be done then. Deletion of sourced material should definitely not be done unilaterally prior to consensus being reached among all interested editors on the Talk page, and I'd appreciate it very much if you would refrain from doing so in future. It takes hours of work to locate that sort of material, and it is both counterproductive and uncollegial for you to delete it on page after page unilaterally. NinaGreen (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I should also add that Wikipedia has a known problem with editor retention, and in addition to all the other pitfalls of Wikipedia editing, the deletion of sourced material from an article when an editor has worked hard to find and cite the sources for that material is virtually a guarantee that that editor will quickly lose interest in Wikipedia editing and drop out. There are a mere handful of editors now creating new biographies and substantially editing existing biographies for this historical period. Why discourage that handful of editors by deleting their work according to your personal preferences when there is, in fact, no policy governing what is to be included in Wikipedia biographies? For example, many Wikipedia biographies list the actors who have portrayed personages from this historical period in modern films and TV miniseries, and novelists who have included them as characters. One would never find such material in a standard biography such as the ODNB, but no Wikipedia policy prevents such material being included in a Wikipedia article, and although I find it odd when I run across it, I never delete it because there is no Wikipedia policy which prevents its inclusion, and my personal preferences are irrelevant, as are yours. NinaGreen (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Protector

After the death of Edward IV on 9 April 1483, the Dowager Queen appointed family members to key positions and rushed to expedite the coronation of her young son Edward V as king, circumventing Richard, Duke of Gloucester, whom the late king had appointed Lord Protector.

That should be allegedly appointed.

There was only Richard's word that his brother had nominated. There was no trace of any proof the King chose him, official or otherwise *.

Besides which, Edward did not expect sudden death and his son once old enough could immediately succeed; as indeed he did -- acknowledged at once by Richard in York Minster. The first Royal Council after the event was split between Hastings urging Richard as Protector and the rest for a quick coronation, which was what was decided.

The Woodvilles had just as much right as Richard to be regents: he was an uncle, they were mother and uncle.

.

The usurper, after arresting some people and repeatedly postponing Edward's coronation, then began murdering some other people and discovered that either the King ( or the King's father according to choice ) was a bastard, and therefore however reluctantly, no-one more surprised than himself, Richard was the only legitimate heir. The King was locked up with his brother, and not heard of again.

.

He was not a good protector.

.

• Mancini / A. J. Pollard : Richard III & the Princes in the Tower

Claverhouse (talk) 12:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)