text:
User:Sebastianvattamattam

'Sebastian Vattamattam', is a professor of Mathematics, deeply interested in art, culture and society. Also he does research in Mathematics, as a hobby. Publications: 1. Paristhithi Samskruthi(Ecology & Culture)- Malayalam(Together with S. Kappen) 2. Bhashayum Aadhipathyavum(Language and Hegemony) - Malayalam. 3. Engineering Mathematics – First Year B.Tech Course, Vidyarthimithram, 2006. 4. Prathi-Samskruthiyilekku(On the Thoughts of Sebastian Kappen) Research Papers in Mathematics: 1. “Quadratic Extensions of a Field and their Classification”, presented at the National Seminar on Analysis and Applications, held at U. C. College, Aluva, March 26-28,1999 2. “Associative Algebras via Linear Functionals”, Proceedings of the International Seminar on Mathematical Tradition of Kerala, January 17-19, 2000 3. “A Note on Convolution Algebras”, Chapter 6 in Recent Trends in Mathematical Analysis, Allied Publishers, 2003. 4. ``Non-Commutative Function Algebras", Bulletin of Kerala Mathematics Association, Vol.4, No.2, December 2007. 5.``Transforming Curves by n-Curving, Bulletin of Kerala Mathematics Association, Vol.5, No.2, December 2008. Teaching Experience • Loyola School, Goa, 1972 – 75 [3 years] • St. Berchmans College, Changanachery, 1975 – 82, 1985 – 92, 1993 – 2000 [21 years] • Dutse Teachers College, Kano State, Nigeria, 1982 – 85 [ 3 years] • Pakshama School, Doha, 1992 – 93 . College of Engineering, Kidangoor(CUSAT), 2007-08 Address: Mary Bhavan'' Ettumanoor Kottayam District Kerala, India E-mail ID: vattamattam@dataone.in My Yahoo Group

Sebastian Vattamattam
The Parayas (Sambavas) living in Central Travancore in Kerala, with their distinctive traditions, beliefs, and cultural artifacts, are at the bottom end of the caste hierarchy. In the past the Parayas were traded as slaves by the upper castes. They are noted for their musicality and craftsmanship. Their chief art forms are Kõlam-thullal (mask-dance) as part of their exorcism rituals, and the fertility dance Mudyāttam (hair-dance). This note is based mainly on the Volume Manikkam Pennu (Manusham Publications, Changanacherry, Keralam) of folk songs collected from an eighty-year-old, illiterate woman Mariamma Chedathy (Mrs. Mariamma John). She, belonging to the Paraya community, was converted into Christianity at the age of fifteen. Her former name was Kõtha. As in the case of every organic society of the past, all the collective life experiences of the Parayas found their expression in lyrics, stories, and songs. Myths and symbols, born in this cradle of narratives, became the ‘mythosphere’ from which they breathed the spiritual air that sustained them. An analysis of this mythosphere gives an insight into their systems of beliefs and values. The fertility dance Mudy-ãttam begins with the following hymn: What is there that I shall praise? Who is there that I shall praise? In the East, praise the rising sun; That name, I praise that holy name. In the West, praise the setting sun; That name, I praise that holy name. In the North, praise the Mãvéli;2 That name, I praise that holy name. In the South, praise the Thévéli;3 That name, I praise that holy name. In the High, praise the sky above; That name, I praise that holy name. In the Low, praise the earth below; That name, I praise that holy name. What then is there I shall praise? Who then is there I shall praise? The people of this land I praise The people that have come I praise? [Manikkam Pennu, p. 10] The Parayas found nothing that was unworthy of their praise and admiration; nothing was to them a mere ‘thing’. Everything was invested with a plurality of meanings. Because of this respect as well as concern for all that was, our forbears didn’t allow anything to perish totally. Each tribe preserved and protected its own totem plants and animals. The totem was their god. Theodiversity and cultural diversity went hand in hand. Since gods were mainly plants and animals, theodiversity meant biodiversity as well. Mãranam pidutham is an exorcism ritual. The Paraya shaman who officiates the function is called Velan1. On a plantain leaf he places paddy seeds and ten coins and starts chanting the invocation: 15 The Earth of which I came out, The Earth in which I was, May Earth unite with Earth, May Quarters (dik) unite with Quarters, May land (dè¿am) unite with land, May the unknown (mãyam) unite with the unknown. May the dead (chãv)unite (with me) May my father unite (with me), May my mother unite (with me) May my sisters unite (with me) May Earth shine in unison with Earth, May Quarters shine in unison with Quarters, May land shine in unison with land, The gods shall shine on that land. [Informant: Mariamma Chedathy, but not included in the Book] Velan, representing the whole community, exhorts the four quarters, the unknown spirits, the land, the dead, his  father, mother, and sisters to shine forth in unison with each other. Only in such a land will the gods shine on. Velan knows that the root cause of any malady is the lack of harmony in the social and natural environments. When nations fight with each other one should pray not that his/her land wins but that his land unites with other lands. Here we are reminded of the Brahminic invocation, thamasõ mã jyotir-gamayah, and Newman’s Lead kindly light. Both betray their desire to escape from the surrounding darkness into light. The Parayas do not want to be led from the encircling darkness to light. Instead s/he wants that the darkness be dispelled by the power of the communion of all that is. S/he knows that gods cannot be pleased merely by praising them; they can be pleased only by everything that pleases everything else. The Buddha’s doctrine of universal love and compassion is not likely to have been inspired by the Brahminic philosophy of egoistic unconcern, but by the folk traditions of his times. In the apparent Paraya Advaita, everything merges with everything else, not by losing each one’s identity, but by mutual recognition and concern. Concern not only for fellow beings but also for all beings, living or non-living, gone, born, and to come. In order to appreciate these things we have to give up a number of prejudices. Any religious or scientific claim of monopoly over truth has to be given up. The theologians must realize that the divine (theo) may not  be bottled up in their logical constructs (logos). Scientific rationality must realize the futility of recognizing as real, only what it can manipulate with scientific tools. Many of the Savarna hegemonic interpretations of Indian culture will have thus to be discarded. Marxism, rooted in the hope of the ultimate dis-alienation of Humans and Nature, must recover from the present plague of economic reductionism. Just like the Parayas there are hundreds of other Dalit communities in India, each having its own philosophy of life and system of beliefs. They share certain fundamental  similarities. It is the some total of all these subterranean cultures that truly forms the real core Indian culture, as asserted by Fr. Sebastian Kappen in his Jesus and Cultural Revolution- An Asian Perspective. As an alternative to the predominant capitalist-Savarna culture there should emerge an ecosophic socialist counterculture. We have to look for the constituent elements of this counterculture in the numerous Dalit cultures. 16

In the interpretation of myths, woman and nature are often identified. There is a beautiful lyric representation of this identity in the Paraya Folklore: Father dug up the ground, Mother cleared the pits. In that pit and in this pit, Kochèri-kanni4 planted a Kõtheri-plantain. One shoot for our Kõtheri-plantain, One month for our Kochèri-kanni. Two shoots for our Kõtheri-plantain, Two months for our Kochèri-kanni. Three shoots for our Kõtheri-plantain, Three months for our Kochèri-kanni. Four shoots for our Kõtheri-plantain, Four months for our Kochèri-kanni. Five shoots for our Kõtheri-plantain, Five months for our Kochèri-kanni. Six shoots for our Kõtheri-plantain, Six months for our Kochèri-kanni. Seven shoots for our Kõtheri-plantain, Seven months for our Kochèri-kanni. Eight shoots for our Kõtheri-plantain, Eight months for our Kochèri-kanni. Nine shoots for our Kõtheri-plantain, Nine months for our Kochèri-kanni. A big bunch for our Kõtheri-plantain, A little baby for our Kochèri-kanni. [Informant: Mr. C. J. Kuttappan] These lines reflect the belief that a plantain tree and a woman have the same period of pregnancy. Both are treated with the same care and concern. The boundary line between the human and the non-human, vanishes. It is this holistic view of all creatures on earth that we have lost sight of, in our historic march to ‘progress.’ According to the Creation Myth of the Parayas, everything started from Pooyinkal Tharavad5, the primal family of the Parayas. The earth and then Pooyinkal Tharavadu came to be as follows: Once when there was no Pooyinkal house, Fluttering flew up seven6 dragonflies. From the south-west7 corner (Kanni-ma-kõne) of the sea, Did they take seven balls of clay, And moulded the earth, the dragonflies. Two trees there sprouted, Chittãl8 and Pèral.9 What was next, the next to be? Darbha10 grass was the next to be. What was next, the next to be? Poovan-kurunnal11 was the next to be. What was next, the next to be? 17 Munda-varikka12 was the next to be. What was next, the next to be? Then came Pooyinkal house, all of its own, Pooyinkal house for Pooyinkal-amma. Pooyinkal-amma lived with Pooyinkal-appan. Then began Pooyinkal-amma to speak: Why no cock to herald the dawn? Why no chatter-birds to wake up the world? Cock came to herald the dawn, Chatter-birds came to wake up the world; Perched they on the branches of the trees. [Manikkam Pennu p. 11-12] The earth was created not by some god beyond and above Nature. It is seven dragonflies that made the earth with clay collected from the south-west corner of the sea. Then everything just started emerging from the earth. The last of them was Pooyinkal house for Pooyinkal-amma to live. But from where did Pooyinkal-amma come? She might be the primordial Mother of everything that is, the Mother Goddess of all the primitive societies. Though Pooyinakl-appan is likewise mentioned; nothing more is said about him. It is significant that a powerful primordial father figure is absent in Paraya mythoshere. It is such a conception of a Father-God, that paved the way for all authoritarian social formations such as the Jewish community and the Catholic Church. It is that God who gave Man (Woman was yet to be created ) dominion over the Earth and everything in it (Genesis: 1.26) Man uses this to legitimize his destructive practices leading to the ecological disaster we are in today. If the earth is the handiwork of the dragonflies that flew up from the corners of nothingness, then who is its real owner? If humans have the sole ownership of the earth then they alone have the right and duty to worship God. In the Paraya folklore we can hear the parrots praying to Parama-Siva, a prominent god of the Parayas: Thitharo thiki-tharo thaka-thiki-thara Thitharo thiki-tharo thaka-thiki-thara Give us two eyes to see and eat, Give us two beaks to peck and eat, Give us two legs to scratch and eat, Give us two wings to fly above. [Manikkam Pennu, p. 16] The parrots do not ask for their ‘daily bread’, but only for the capacity to work for it. Never did the Parayas cherish the selfish belief that humans were the only children of God, and among humans they  were specially chosen by God. Is it not such an exclusive belief that made the West conquer all other peoples with the Word of their God and their Sword? There is an interesting interaction between a girl and the fishes in a brook. The girl wants to collect some water from a shallow stream. Then starts the trouble: She broke a twig, and  dug a pool; She waited till the water was clean. 18 Vatton fish came and dirtied the water; She waited till the water was clean. Pallathy fish came and called her names; Stunned she waited till the fish vanished. Karingana fish looked at her with burning eyes; Stunned she waited till the fish vanished. Kolachi fish came with an angry look; Stunned she waited till the fish vanished. [Manikkam Pennu, p. 28] These lines show the recognition that the humankind have no exclusive control over the resources of this planet. Taking water from a brook by violently digging a hole in it is an aggression on the brook and its natural inhabitants. If so what about the big dams that we build with no concern even for the humans around? In the Paraya mythology there is no authoritarian God who has absolute power and control over everything. But they find a tinge of the divine in everything that they come into contact with – on the tree they are going to climb, on the sword they are going to fight with. In everything they find a spark of the Unutterable, and show respect and reverence to it. All their forbears, the gone and the killed, would come to their help in their need, they believe. That is why whenever their great heroes like Chengannur-athi and Kamacha-velan, were about to leave the house for a fight or a mate, they prayed: May the Churika-god abide in my churika (sword), May the Paricha-god abide in my paricha (shield). May the killed forbears abide in my hair, May the dead and the departed come to my help. Theology and scientific rationality have gathered all the elements of the divine and the sacred from all in Nature, and cast  them out. [This unholy alliance between the two avowed antagonists can be symbolized by the White Man with the Bible in one hand and the Sword in the other.] This has paved the way for the human, to enter every nook and corner of this world as an elephant does into a plantain grove. The search for a new Echo, Dalit, or Feminist theology ought to be a sort of remorseful attempt to retrace the steps.  	May be the Velluvan (Paraya) priest at the court of the Pallava kings. [Sharad Patil, Dasa-Sudra Slavery, p. 85]  The Mahãbali, a mythical benevolent ruler.  	Sree-devi, an ancient Mother Goddess  	A newly married girl  A matrilineal joint family  The mother goddesses are said to be seven in number. [Sharad Patil, Dasa-Sudra Slavery, p. 30]  Nirurti, the ancient mother goddess, is supposed to be in the south-west region. [Sharad Patil, Dasa-Sudra Slavery, p. 86]. South-west direction has a synonym Kanni-disa, in Malayalam, where kanni means unmarried or newly married  girl. Kannyakumari is at the south-west region.  Chit-arayãl: A tree smaller than Arayãl (Pipal tree), having medicinal powers. 19  Banian tree  	A kind of sacred and medicinal grass, Poa cynosuroides.  One of the ten sacred and medicinal flowers, associated with the goddess Sree-devi of prosperity.  Jack fruit tree

=
================ Curves in the Complex Plane Let C denote the field of Complex numbers. A continuous function γ from the closed interval [0, 1] of real numbers to the field C is called a curve. The complex numbers γ(0) and γ(1) are, respectively, the initial and terminal points of the curve. If they coincide, the curve is called a loop. The set C[0, 1] of all the curves is a vector space over C.

We can make this vector space of curves into an algebra by defining multiplication as above. Choosing $$e(t) = 1 $$ for all t in [0, 1] we have for α,β in C[0, 1],
 * $$ {\alpha} \cdot {\beta} = {\alpha}(0){\beta} + {\beta}(1){\alpha} - {\alpha}(0){\beta}(1)e $$

Then, C[0, 1] is a non-commutative algebra with e as the unity.

We illustrate this with an example.

Example Let us take (1) the unit circle with center at the origin and radius one, and (2) the line segment joining the points (1, 0) and (0, 1). As curves in C[0, 1], their equations can be obtained as
 * $$u(t)=\cos(2\pi t)+i\sin(2\pi t)$$ and $$ f(t)=1-t +it $$

Since $$ u(0)=u(1)=1$$ the circle u is a loop. The line segment f starts from $$f(0)=1 $$ and ends at $$f(1)= i $$

Now, we get two f-products u\middot f and f\middot u given by
 * $$(u\cdot f)(t)=[1-t - \sin (2\pi t)] +i[t-1+\cos(2\pi t)]

$$ and
 * $$(f\cdot u)(t)=[-t+\cos (2\pi t)]+i[t+\sin(2\pi t)]$$

Observe that $$ u\cdot f \neq f\cdot u$$ showing thet multiplication is noncommutative.

title: User:Sebastianvattamattam


text:
Atlantic Union Bank

Atlantic Union Bank is an American regional bank based in Richmond, Virginia. Formerly known as Union Bank & Trust, Union First Market Bank and First Market Bank, FSB, the bank was established in 1997. Atlantic Union Bank's parent company is bank holding company, Atlantic Union Bankshares Corporation.

, Atlantic Union Bank was the largest regional bank headquartered in Virginia, also operating in Maryland and North Carolina. , the bank had 109 branches, as well as $20.6 billion in assets and $15.7 billion in deposits. Atlantic Union Bank has offered loans for automobiles, commercial real estate, construction, and housing.

History
First Market Bank, FSB (FMB) was established in Memphis, Tennessee in 1997. In February 2010, the holding company Union Bankshares Corporation completed its acquisition of FMB. In March 2010, the holding company merged its subsidiary Union Bank & Trust, founded in Bowling Green, Virginia in 1902, into FMB, with FMB as the surviving institution. FMB simultaneously changed its name to Union First Market Bank (UFMB). Later in 2010, the holding company merged Northern Neck State and Rappahannock National into UFMB.

UFMB acquired StellarOne Bank in 2014, and in 2015, UFMB rebranded to Union Bank & Trust (UB&T). Following the acquisitions of Access National Bank and Middleburg Bank (which merged in 2017), as well as Xenith Bank, UB&T then rebranded and became known as Atlantic Union Bank in 2019, in order to reflect the geographic expansion.

In 2019, the bank created a division focused on financing for commercial equipment, and donated a building acquired in the 1990s to the town of Bowling Green. Atlantic Union Bank sold its registered investment adviser subsidiary in 2022. In 2022, the bank had approximately 2,000 employees, primarily in Virginia, and adopted a hybrid work model. Approximately 1,000 employees work a hybrid schedule as of 2023.

In 2023, Atlantic Union Bank's parent company announced plans to transfer its stock listing from Nasdaq to the New York Stock Exchange, using the ticker symbol 'AUB'. Additionally, Atlantic Union Bank's parent company announced plans to acquire American National Bankshares Inc., the Danville-based owner of American National Bank and Trust Co. The acquisition expanded Atlantic Union Bank into Virginia's Southside, New River Valley, and the Roanoke metropolitan area, as well as North Carolina, particularly in the Piedmont Triad metropolitan region and Raleigh.

Atlantic Union Bank has naming rights for the Atlantic Union Bank Center, a multi-purpose arena on the James Madison University campus in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The venue was previously called the Union Bank & Trust Center as part of a ten-year name sponsorship agreement worth $2.25 million. The bank also has naming rights for the Atlantic Union Bank Pavilion in Portsmouth, which was previously known as the Union Bank & Trust Pavilion. Atlantic Union Bank has sponsored Roanoke's certified 5K run, called the Drumstick Dash, as well as the 10K Mini run for children in Richmond. Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the bank co-organized a fundraiser in support of Ukraine. Atlantic Union Bank has also funded grants allowing community groups and non-profit organizations to hire summer interns.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Atlantic Union Bank


text:
Talk:Jane Seymour/Archive 1

Requested move
Jane Seymour would never have been known as "Lady Jane Seymour". Her father was not a duke, a marquess or an earl so she would therefore not have been entitled to style herself "Lady" and would have been Mistress Jane Seymour before her marriage.
 * I noticed that this page had been moved to "Lady Jane Seymour" without consensus or even consultation. I have moved it back to the correct title. I can understand why "Lady" Jane Seymour may seem to be correct according to the naming conventions, but Jane Seymour, the queen, is never referred to in this way, and in any case it would be wrong to do so because, if a title is used, it must be the highest one she ever possessed, which of course would be queen. Deb 17:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Very well, so I will post this onto WP:RM and propose the new title as "Queen Jane Seymour" and let other chime in. But I will explain my originally intention here: I think "Jane Seymour" should be a disambig page because many editors and users would expect Jane Seymour the actress instead of Queen Jane Seymour. In my opinion, they are roughly equal in popularity, and thus under Disambiguation, the Queen should not be the primary topic. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The exact line am I referring to in Disambiguation is "where there is no such consensus, disambiguation pages are named after the topic itself" Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~

 * Support as the nominator. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose. To suggest that more people are familiar with the actress than with the queen is... shall we say, unrealistic? "Jane Seymour queen" gets twice as many google hits as "Jane Seymour actress".  The actress only took the name "Jane Seymour" because the name was already so famous.  Furthermore, the inclusion of "Queen" in the title would be in contravention of the naming conventions. Deb 21:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Support Support this move. Neutral. True, she was born as "Jane Seymour" but was "Queen Jane" not "Queen Jane Seymour". I was going to propose a similar solution like User:Angr proposed. Gryffindor  22:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstain because I don't like the choice. I agree Jane Seymour should be a disambig page, but I'm not convinced the queen consort was even known as "Queen Jane Seymour". How about Jane Seymour (queen)? --Angr/undefined 19:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments

Can someone delete that "Im a idiot" on the biography for Seymour?

Perhaps "Instead she was taught in needlework and household management, which was popular at that time for women" gives the wrong impression. "Household management" for a noblewoman often meant training to manage a sizable and complex family and communal business. Though I do not know if that was the case with Jane Seymour.RMcPhee (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Discision
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved.

Request was:
 * Talk:Jane Seymour - Jane Seymour → Queen Jane Seymour I think "Jane Seymour" should be converted to a disambig page because many editors and users would expect Jane Seymour the actress instead of Queen Jane Seymour. In my opinion, they are roughly equal in popularity, and thus under Disambiguation, the Queen should not be the primary topic. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Ryan Norton T 20:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Links
The link for the Seymour family home seems rather dubious to me. The house is in Somerset, not Wiltshire, and the website states only that it is a 15th century farmhouse commissioned by the family of Sir Thomas Seymour. Can anyway elaborate?? Paul75 02:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

New image
I recently uploaded the image to the right, an engraving of Queen Seymour by Wenceslas Hollar. Feel free to use it or not. Dcoetzee 22:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Grammar and style
This article is in need of some grammar and style editing. There are lots of run-on and otherwise poorly constructed sentences. 18.173.1.125 (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Her Religion
I suppose that she kept the Roman Catholic faith even after swearing the Act of Supremacy. I think the article seems to implicate that. I ask someone who knows better the England 16th century History to please explain that, since there is no mention of it in the article.213.13.245.246 (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I am not aware of a shred of evidence for believing this. PatGallacher (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I was asking to someone who knows better the England 16th century History to explain this. The article states explicitly that she followed the "old faith" and wanted to have Princess Mary rights to the throne reinstated.213.13.245.246 (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

From the article:

"Jane was of the Roman Catholic faith, known as the "old faith". It is believed, because of this and her loyalty to her former mistress, Catherine of Aragon, Jane put forth much effort to restore Henry's first child, Mary Tudor, to court and heir to the throne behind any children that Jane would have with Henry. Jane brought up the issue of Mary's restoration both before and after she became Queen. While Jane was unable restore Mary to the line of succession, Jane was able to reconcile Henry with his daughter Mary. Chapuys wrote to Charles V of Jane's compassion and strive for Mary's return to favour. A letter from Mary to Jane shows that Mary was grateful to Jane. While it was Jane who first pushed for the restoration it would not be until Henry's sixth wife convinced him to reinstate Mary and Elizabeth. [5]"213.13.245.246 (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a work entitled "A Treasure of Royal Scandals" can be regarded as a reliable source. There is a large amount of material on the Tudors and the wives of Henry VIII, I don't remember anything about this in e.g. Fraser's work. PatGallacher (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

From a link to the article: "ane's religious convictions made her a popular figure among commoners and courtiers alike who hoped she would return the king to the Church. Jane, an ardent and pious Catholic, would try to do just that. First, she secured a reconciliation between Henry and his elder daughter, Mary, who shared her religious views (see Role as Queen). Then, in October 1546, just months after the reconciliation, rebellions rocked the kingdom."213.13.240.141 (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Funeral
What is this sentence supposed to mean?: "...Henry was buried beside her in the grave he had sent to make." Filmfluff (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Birth date
This edit of 24 May 2011 brought to light that we've had her birth date in the infobox as 10 October 1508, ever since this edit of 6 December 2010 by anon user 81.132.40.13.

But in the lede it's still just "c. 1508".

There is no documentary evidence of a birth date of 10 October or any other particular date, is there?

User 81.132.40.13 does not have an extensive record of accurate edits. I AGF and ascribe it to a well-meaning but erroneous edit. --  Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Fixed now. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  23:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Why the Percy's mentioned and not the Mortimers, de Burghs, Wentworths and all the others?
I can understand why the article mentions that Jane was descended from Edward III (through Lionel Plantagenet), but I do not know why one set of her lineal ancestors should be singled out, above the others. She has Neville as well (far more famous). So I'm deleting the Percy part.69.108.25.101 (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism
==This article has been vandalised but I cannot seem to revert it even with rollback. Can someone please fix it?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move (2013)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved per the long-term significance aspect of the primary topic policy, and the warranted incredulity seen below to the assertion that there is any parity between the subjects on that issue.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

– The historical figure has the same numbers as the well-known actress of titular courageous, brave character of Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman. However, I still believe that people are looking for the actress. In fact, when the queen is disambiguated, the numbers of the queen page will go down drastically. I'm not proposing that either woman be a primary topic of the same name. In fact, I will let readers decide whether to read about the queen or the actress in the disambiguation page. As for "long-term significance", both actress and queen equally weigh to be remembered for a long time. I recently learned that she appeared in Smallville as a villain, while the queen died of childbirth. George Ho (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Jane Seymour → ?
 * Jane Seymour (disambiguation) → Jane Seymour
 * Oppose - Joyce Frankenberg's stagename (who?) is not as encyclopaedic as a major queen of England. It won't do television addicts any harm to discover that a villian in a Superman TV show has named herself after a historical figure. They might "learn" something, we are an encyclopedia not IMDB 2.0. George, seriously. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is an actress called Jane Seymour? Surtsicna (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support disambiguation, Jane Seymour, Queen of England (if it isn't moved, then a redirect should exist) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment "Lady Jane Seymour" also needs to be renamed, since the Queen was a Lady prior to being Queen. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, she was never styled as "Lady Jane Seymour". Surtsicna (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support move to Jane Seymour, Queen of England: A page move be should be made based on "usage" aspect WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As I stated in the previous 2005 page move discussion, many editors and users may be expecting Jane Seymour the actress instead of Jane Seymour, Queen of England. This is backed up by the traffic stats that the nominator cited. And regarding the long-term significance aspect, I'm not convinced that one has greatly more than the other. Thus, there should be no primary topic. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Definitely not "Jane Seymour, Queen of England". She was the wife of a king, and a Queen Consort.  She may have been styled "Queen Jane" in her time, but she was never "Queen of England".  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  08:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What nonsense! Of course she was "Queen of England" (regina Angliae), as were wives of all English kings. Do you even need proof of that? It makes no sense to attempt to distinguish between queens consort and queens regnant that way; up to the 21st century, queens consort were the norm and queens regnant were the anomaly. Surtsicna (talk) 10:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The Queen of England, one of the six wives of Henry VIII (himself one of history's most notable monarchs) and the mother of his heir, against an actress of fading notability. No contest. Claims that the actress will have as much long-term notability as the queen, about whom much is still written more than 400 years after her death, are frankly laughable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The actress deliberately adopted the stage name "Jane Seymour" as homage to the undeniable notability and historic importance of the queen. So should we. Moriori (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Hans Holbein the Younger - Jane Seymour, Queen of England - Google Art Project.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Hans Holbein the Younger - Jane Seymour, Queen of England - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 24, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-10-24. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Caesarian Section?
Walter Pyle in Anamolies and Curiosities of Medicine speaks of a possible c-section. Any truth in this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabbycatlove (talk • contribs) 03:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There has been some discussion of it in the literature, but the current consensus seems to be against it. See https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160932716300540. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

 * I don't know whether that article would be properly called pseudoscience or pseudohistory. possibly both. (not that i think there was, but I do think that any claims one way or the other purporting to be anything other than fanciful speculation to be unworthy of any credibility) Firejuggler86 (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 14 November 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus, defaulting to status quo. While some editors were convinced by the page views, others were more concerned with long-term historical significance. There is no clear consensus to make any changes at this point in time. (closed by non-admin page mover) Brad  v 🍁 05:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

– Well, it’s been about 5 years since the last move request (see Talk:Jane Seymour), so let’s give this another try. Comparing the |Jane_Seymour_(actress) page views between “Jane Seymour” and “Jane Seymour (actress)”, it is impossible to distinguish a primary topic. In fact, I would go to lengths to state that in the Americas, the primary topic for “Jane Seymour” is the James Bond/Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman actress (Jane Seymour (actress)), and arriving at the page for the queen when looking up “Jane Seymour” is a WP:SURPRISE. Steel1943 (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Favonian (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)  --Relisting. B dash (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Jane Seymour → Jane Seymour, Queen of England
 * Jane Seymour (disambiguation) → Jane Seymour
 * Disagree because of longevity. Jane Seymour was a queen, and is written about regularly nearly 500 years after her death. It is unlikely in 30 years if there will be anyone that interested in an actress who named herself after the queen. Boleyn (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but that’s a prediction 30+ years out, which doesn’t apply to present day. I’d even believe that in present times, some readers would not even know about the queen’s existence of it weren’t for the actress using the queen’s name as a stage name. From what I see, moving these pages into a configuration that better accommodates the readers of today is the best service Wikipedia can provide. In addition, the actress has had a career that has spanned several decades, so I’d hardly say that there will not “...be anyone that interested in an actress who named herself after the queen.”. Also, longevity doesn’t necessarily hold water to declare a primary topic in some cases: For examples, see Gouda and Angus. Steel1943  (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, compare this to Bill O'Reilly; the aforementioned disambiguation page is the result of two conflicting views on a primary topic, both of which seem to be the result of opposing view points from different sides of the world. I see the same here; even though both subjects have English roots, the actress is more prominent as the potential primary topic in parts of America (and possibly worldwide), whereas the queen consort’s notability may be endemic to English history for reasons that seem to include her short tenure as a queen consort (about a year). Steel1943  (talk) 05:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

 * Oppose Queen of England from 1536 to 1537 as the third wife of King Henry VIII. Or a supporting actress in a 1973 film? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Queen for only a year? I see the reason for that was death due to childbirth, but still. The actress has done a lot more in her career after James Bond, including starring roles (Dr. Quinn), and has established notability for a longer period of time than a year. That, and it makes me believe that in addition to all that has been said so far, I could see editors erroneously linking to the article about the Queen when they are actually trying to link to the article about the actress. Steel1943  (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In fact, I just found and corrected an erroneous link, so there are probably more. Steel1943  (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ...And here’s some more links that I fixed:, , , , . Steel1943  (talk) 03:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ...And again, some more links I fixed:, , , , . Steel1943  (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - per WP:NOPRIMARY. |Jane_Seymour_(actress) Long-term page view stats show there is an equal interest in both topics (as close as any two topics I've seen: 3,998,763 vs 3,815,412 views over 3 years), and under the current naming we don't know how many of the primary topic views are due to people seeking info on the actress. I think this represents a WP:SURPRISE situation in both cases, and en exemplary application of NOPRIMARY. -- Netoholic @  08:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It would have to be Jane_Seymour,_queen_consort of_England. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Netoholic's data. Note that there should also be disambiguation with Lady Jane Seymour, the Queen's namesake niece and co-author of the Hecatodistichon.Dimadick (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Boleyn. The fact that we are discussing the queen 500 years after her life is a very strong argument for long-term significance. She will still be in the history books 100 years from now—no crystal ball needed. The actress? Who knows. Srnec (talk) 12:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No primary topic. Old does not make for long term significance. Introduction from https://englishhistory.net/tudor/monarchs/jane-seymour/ "Henry VIII had six wives .... She was Henry’s third wife and seems never to have made much of an impression upon anyone except the king."  She was lady in waiting to the late second wife, was never crowned, her the next king died a child king.  Her serving family, the guardians of the orphan boy king, their's decisions made much more long term impact than any of Jane's active contributions.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment "seems never to have made much of an impression upon anyone except the king" Rather accurate assessment. Among Henry VIII's consorts. 1) Catherine of Aragon is remembered mostly because her (two) marriages secured an alliance between the House of Tudor and the House of Trastámara, because of her close connection to the House of Habsburg (who would use their influence on the Popes to deny a marriage annulement to Henry VIII), because she served as regent of England and took military initiative against the Kingdom of Scotland), and because seeking annulement from their marriage is what led pious Catholic Henry VIII to join the Reformation. 2) [[Anne Boleyn is remembered for her controversial trial and death, because the Boleyn family reached the [peak of their political influence thanks to her, and because she was closely related to the already politically influential House of Howard (who used the marriage to further expand their influence). 3) Anne of Cleves is remembered because the marriage secured an alliance of the House of Tudor with the Schmalkaldic League (and implicitly against the Holy Roman Emperor), because of Henry VIII's peculiar reasons for the annulerent of their marriage, because of her (accidental) role in the political downfall and swift execution of Thomas Cromwell (who was blamed for the failed marriage), and for suspicions that she was affiliated with Wyatt's rebellion (1554) and conspired to have her step-daughter Elizabeth I of England rising on the throne. 4) Catherine Howard is remembered for being another member of the House of Howard and a cousin of Anne Boleyn, for her supposedly scandalous sexual history, and for her controversial imprisonment and execution. 5) Catherine Parr is remember for serving as Regent of England, influencing the Third Succession Act (1543) which allowed her stepdaughters to eventually rise to the throne, for being a published author, for being Elizabeth I of England's legal guardian following Henry VIII's death, for tutoring Lady Jane Grey in her household, and because she served as a stepping stone in the ambitions of power for her last husnand, Thomas Seymour, 1st Baron Seymour of Sudeley. By comparison, Jane does not stand out in the group of Queens consiort and has not attracted much attention attention by historians of the era, or by historical novelists. Dimadick (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

 * Support - per WP:NOPRIMARY. Dolphx (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - per nom, some others above, WP:ASTONISH, WP:NOPRIMARY. I proposed the disambiguation back five years ago, which the consensus opposed. I guess consensus has been changing? The Queen was one of Henry VIII's six wives (other wives are more primary topic as of date) and a queen for one year until complications of childbirth; her biography is very astonishing to read for those very interested in the British history. However, despite her long-term significance, I'm not convinced that the queen herself is the primary topic per Wikipedia standards. Less-than-accurate statistics of the Queen article shows that the Queen is probably not in the best interest to most readers, including those searching for the actress article. Also, the statistics of the queen article are less than accurate at best, compared to five years ago. I can predict that, once the Queen article is disambiguated, the view counts would tremendously decline. Furthermore, I've not yet heard one world history teacher mentioning the Queen; probably historians specializing in the British history have done so. I can conclude that the Queen is significant to just one country. The actress herself, successful she has been, doesn't meet standards of primary topic probably because she didn't receive enough awards. However, the actress has been well praised throughout her career, aside from one Razzie nomination, especially because her role as titular character in Dr. Quinn, which lasted five years, made her more than just one of mere James Bond supporting actresses. Moreover, the show was probably internationally distributed, and she also appeared in theatrical films that have been internationally distributed, making her more globally significant, though most of her roles in films and television post-Dr. Quinn are supporting and/or guest characters, including one in Wedding Crashers. --George Ho (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment "most of her roles in films and television post-Dr. Quinn are supporting and/or guest characters" She isn't getting any younger. When Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman ended in 1998, Seymour was 47-years-old. There aren't that many film roles available for middle-aged women. By 2018, Seymour is 67-years-old and had to pose for Playboy (for the 3rd time) to get some publicity. Dimadick (talk) 09:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The two main criteria listed in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC are usage and long-term significance. Usage is evenly split, according to the stats someone posted earlier, so significance ought to tie-break. On that count I don't think there can be any doubt that Jane Seymour, Queen is far more significant in the long-term than a mildly-famous actress. Atchom (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I can sympathize the long-term significance argument. However, do you think that the statistics are very accurate on counting readers? Also, do you think most readers would want to read the whole article about the Queen? The statistics must also counted those who briefly read the introduction or the infobox and then used the hatnote to go to dabpage and then clicked "(actress)". George Ho (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly, articles of other wives have thousands of daily view counts. The Queen article is on the par with Anne of Cleves or Catherine Parr. Nevertheless, I can't be certain whether the stats are very accurate; I can predict that the Queen article will be viewed less than the other two queens. George Ho (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't be certain, no, but respectfully, neither can you. Tudor history is 'sexy', an Henry VIII's wifes occupy a pretty prominent position in people's general historical consciousness. Even accepting that some of the traffic to Jane Seymour (Queen) is meant for Jane Seymour (actress), in the absence of quantifiable evidence one way or the other, plus one's clear long-term notability, I think the case is strong to keep the current arrangements. Atchom (talk) 06:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Jane Seymour, Queen of England, is far more notable. Numerous history books and novels about this person. Clear long-term significance. This proposal is extreme WP:RECENTISM. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing that the queen is not notable, but the queen is just not notable enough, compared to other queens of her time, to be more notable than the actress. Since this discussion started, I e been looking and researching a bit to prove myself wrong in that the queen is just so extraordinarily notable that she is the primary topic for her name, but I am just not able to find that proof. There have been arguments made that the actress may lose notability after her eventual passing or disappearing from the spotlight for whatever other reason. But, there is no way to prove that at this time. Of course the actress will most likely never be the "first" subject all readers will be expecting to find, but it certainly doesn’t seem that the queen is what every reader is expecting to find either. Above, I’ve even shown examples of even improper links caused by editors who linked to the queen when they meant to link to the actress. The current situation benefits less readers than the amount that would benefit from the disambiguation page being moved to the ambiguous title so they can decide for themselves what subject they are trying to find, in addition to a bot recommending to editors to fix an erroneous link to a disambiguation page when linking to the ambiguous title expecting the ambiguous title to link to the actress’ article. Steel1943  (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support some move. All the evidence shows that there is no primary topic. Criteria for primary topic are rather stringent, and no, they do not work as Atchom would like: a primary topic ought to be something that is the first thing in most people's minds. No such user (talk) 13:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Does it matter if those minds are British or American? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not basing my claim on "what I would like", but to the Primary Topic guideline, which specifically refers to "enduring notability and educational value" as part of its criteria. A very cursory search turns up three full-length bios of the queen published in the last four years (for someone who died five centuries ago). If that's not clear evidence of "enduring notability" I don't know what is. Atchom (talk) 06:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

 * Oppose per Atchom, who summarises my thoughts on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC better than I could have. Iffy★Chat -- 09:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Clear primary topic as far as long-term significance is concerned. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, clear absence of a primary topic in light of the unusually robust 50 year film, television, and stage career of the actress, which makes her far more instantly recognizable to substantial regions of the world than the brief occupant of the royal position. bd2412  T 03:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per long-term historical significance, but add the well-known actress to the hatnote. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. I most often edit articles about historical rulers. I am therefore partial; I would much love to pretend that the queen is the primary topic, but I cannot fool myself. Having lived five centuries ago does not translate to "long-term significance". WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY says so quite clearly. It also suggests that the actress naming herself after the queen does not determine that the queen is the primary meaning. We are not writing Wikipedia for people who will look up these women in 30 years or 100 years, as has been suggested here. We are writing it in 2018, and in 2018, the living actress whose career has spanned 50 years is at least as notable as the woman who was queen for one year in the 16th century. For what it's worth, Queen Jane is the dullest of King Henry VIII's wives; no other has attracted less interest from biographers. The article about the queen, under its undisambiguated title, attracted 144,780 views, while the article about the actress, to which readers probably get only after coming to the queen's biography and following the link to the disambiguation page, got 141,343 views. This suggests that the actress is looked up much more often. I suspect that many of the people coming to this article are not looking to read about the queen, and that will become apparent when the article is moved and the views recede significantly. Surtsicna (talk) 13:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that English schoolchildren grow up (or, at least, did when I was at school) learning the names of Henry VIII's wives and what happened to them. For English people, I would say that the queen is almost certainly the primary topic (even though the actress is herself English!). She was the wife of one of the most famous kings in history (and one of the few whose wives' names are almost universally known in his home country), whose reign has been written about, analysed and depicted on film countless times, and the mother of another king. I would say that is why she has long-term significance, not because she lived five centuries ago. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I would not be so sure that the queen is the primary topic for English people either. I am not English, but the web pages from the UK seem to be slightly more interested in the actress than the queen. Yes, Jane Seymour was the wife of one of the most famous kings, but only one of six wives, and the dullest of them. One was queen for over 20 years and sometimes regent, one was a heroine of the Reformation, one provided yet another drama, one was active in the Reformation and also a regent... And then there is Queen Jane, who is usually treated as a footnote in King Henry's life. Queen Jane is notable, but I think it is naive to think that everyone is as interested in history as we are. Surtsicna (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * She doesn't sound that dull on my copy of the album. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that dismissing her as "dull" may be a little POV and not really relevant to her notability! Trust me, the actress barely registers in Britain these days. I doubt whether most people even recall who she is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. There's no question that the vast majority of readers landing on this article who do not want the queen, want the actress. I've therefore added the actress directly to the hatnote, as suggested above. That way, if this article is not moved, those wanting the actress will be spared the unnecessary step of going through the dab page in order to get to the article they want. Station1 (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support WP:NOPRIMARYTOPIC that the unadorned title should lead to the DAB page. No opinion on the correct form for the title of the article about the third wife of King Henry VIII who may or may not have been regarded as the Queen of England. --Scott Davis Talk 01:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Jane Seymour definitely was regarded as Queen of England, Scott Davis. You may have confused her with Lady Jane Grey. Surtsicna (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I just have plenty of other Wikipedia things to devote attention to, and noted that she had never been crowned, so thought she may not have been Queen Jane. I thought someone else objected to the title "Queen of England". I have no objection to moving the article to Jane Seymour, Queen of England if that is accurate. I just know the limits of my expertise. I've learned that any headline about "Kate Middleton" or "Meghan Markle" is not worth reading. The ones about the duchesses of Cambridge or Sussex might be. --Scott Davis Talk 02:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Relevance
What is the relevance of this "Sir Laurence or Lawrence Cheney or Cheyne"? Why is he mentioned in the article? Or "Margery or Marjory Wadham"? Or any of the subject's great-great-grandparents? What do these names tell readers? Surtsicna (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Excessive detail tag
This tag in in the ancestry section is inappropriate. The section, added by Hedwig0407 on 27 Octover 2007 is a fairly standard genealogical chart. It doesn't provide "excessive detail"; it contains only the names of the article subject's ancestors, which is the exact level it's necessary to provide in an ancestry chart. Furthermore, since it's a drop-down menu, only interested readers even need to see this information.

As FactStraight pointed out in similar discussion about Lady Jane Grey, "ahnentafels are a compact way to provide interested readers allusions to that data which they can readily pursue according to their interests by clicking links, where they exist. ...The near ubiquity of ahnentafels in dynastic bios is indicative that they have not heretofore been truncated as 'trivia,' and that label in this case is a debatable opinion." There's no need for this tag. Flyte35 (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It isn't useful or necessary to know whether her great-great-grandparents were Sir John Croker of Lineham and Elizabeth Fortescue, or Sir Robert and Joan Coker of Lydeard St Lawrence, none of whom had any impact on her life. It's a trivial disputed detail that can easily be avoided by simply cutting the table down to the nearer, undisputed generations. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there a policy or guideline you can cite? or is your opinion based on experience? What makes you think that readers won't be interested in the ancestry as it is presently depicted? Are we reader-motivated or editor-motivated?  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there  13:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The policy is at What Wikipedia is not: 'Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic.' Celia Homeford (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is certainly within reason for you to question whether or not the ancestry here presented is "appropriate to support the reader's understanding" of Jane Seymour. That, however, sounds like a very general policy statement with subjective overtones that would require a consensus among interested editors to apply to each notable subject. If you seek more of an RfC type reading of the policy, then why treat this peacemeal with this one article? Has there already been an RfC? If not, then why not start one at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not? Looks like it's already been bandied about a bit. Or is your idea to treat all of these genealogical questions on an individual-article basis? In any case, you haven't given an opinion on exactly what changes you would make.  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there  00:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Celia Homeford has given an opinion on changes that should be made: "simply cutting the table down to the nearer, undisputed generations". Surtsicna (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that in the past five centuries no biographer of Jane Seymour has ever mentioned Joan Coker of Lydeard St Lawrence assures me that Jane Seymour's connection to this woman is neither relevant nor interesting. Wikipedia biographies should be based on published biographies, i.e. secondary sources. WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Since no independent source elaborates on the importance of Jane's descent from these people, their names provide no encyclopedic value. Surtsicna (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A genealogical chart is not a violation of these standards. This is not a family history (family history is narrative and, in this case, is presented at the beginning of the article); this is a genealogical chart. This is also not an indiscriminate collection of information. This information is put in context and references independent sources. Considering how common ahnentafels are in dynastic bios on Wikipedia, your interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines here is, well, unique. Flyte35 (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree with you. And to Surtsicna, your valid opinion sounds like a subjective assessment; however, I'm sure you don't mean to imply that all readers share your opinion, necessarily. Is it that you don't consider this source to be reliable?  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there  00:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am referring to secondary sources and policies, so my stance is anything but a subjective assessment. It is also not solely my opinion, but that echoed by the subject's biographers. The book you cited may be a reliable source for genealogy, but it is not a biography of Jane Seymour. As WP:INDISCRIMINATE says, " merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." If biographies of Jane Seymour do not mention any Joan Coker in any context, neither should we. Flyte35, please do tell me what "context with explanations" (per WP:INDISCRIMINATE) relates to this ahnentafel. I honestly do not see any. Surtsicna (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe that you honestly don't see any way in which this information provides context for or value to an understanding of Jane Seymour. The point is that others among your fellow editors do see sufficient context and value, to offer it for Wikipedia's readers to determine if they find it worth accessing. The clause quoted from WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not ban such material, but says that it is not "automatically" suitable for inclusion. But this Ahnentafel, and others like it, are being discriminately selected as suitable for inclusion, because of the inobtrusive way the info is presented (compactly yet comprehensively, with links where available, in a drop-down menu labeled "Ancestry" that readers must choose to access in order for it to become visible) and because it is not included in the vast majority of Wikipedia articles, but is almost exclusively inserted only in bios about historical dynastic figures. Nor do Wikipedia policies restrict sources to biographies of the subject: If the ancestry of the article subject has been published in a reliable source, it is appropriate to draw information therefrom. The contribution to "understanding of the subject" offered by the Ahnentafel is that it is a visually intuitive summary of relatively recent genealogical information, especially familiar and suitable for royalty and families whose influence derived from hereditary position, because the chief notability of members of such families habitually lies in their kinships rather than their individual deeds. Readers are more apt to expect to find some background on ancestry indicative of contributors to the person's status, origin, order in the succession, multi-nationality, familial rise, degree of pedigree collapse, etc. Ahnentafels are a compact way to provide interested readers allusions to that data which they can readily pursue through links or independent research. Thus the assertion that this Ahnentafel's info should be excluded because it is "of no interest", "irrelevant" or "trivial" is a finding of opinion, not fact: some do find it of relevant, non-trivial interest. FactStraight (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * In many cases a 5 generation ahnentafel is useful. In many cases it presents relevant information. As far as I can tell, this is not such a case. If there is valuable information to be gathered from the names of Jane Seymour's great-great-grandparents, something that helps readers understand the topic, then put it into prose. Do not leave readers to come up with their own interpretations of a bunch of unlinked names. If the point is that Jane Seymour's ancestry was mostly minor gentry, that is what we should say. Merely tossing out the name "Joan Coker of Lydeard St Lawrence" is ridiculously unhelpful. I also have to point out that you are directly contradicting WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Surtsicna (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What is unhelpful is dismissing the opinions of your fellow editors here as ridiculous. We are discussing a disagreement about how Wikipedia's guidelines are to be interpreted and applied to this article. Treating the views of others as frivolous is neither persuasive nor respectful. FactStraight (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No-one is disputing that some description of family background is beneficial. However, remote ancestors that have no bearing at all on the article's topic and that are never discussed in relation to the topic in reliable sources about the topic should be excluded. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it looks like that source is self-published. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting here that Celia Homeford recently reverted the removal of the tag in question by Paine Ellsworth on the grounds that "it's not the inclusion of the family tree that is in dispute, it's the excessive number of generations." Really? Because all of the discussion above here seems to have to do with what Wikipedia considers appropriate for inclusion. As far as I can tell Wikipedia guidelines say nothing about the number of generations genealogical charts should include. Flyte35 (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. They do not, which is why I am puzzled by your insistence to include as many as five, and even in cases where the great-great-grandparents are disputed or obviously irrelevant to the understanding of the subject. Surtsicna (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This discussion above seems to be somewhat ambiguous. "Excessive" is an inherently vague adjective. But the tag should probably be reserved for material that is objectively excessive. If your real argument is just that genealogical charts in Wikipedia should include only four generations, well, OK. You can go ahead and make that argument. It's an arbitrary cut-off point, however, and not supported by Wikipedia guidelines. Flyte35 (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If "excessive" is an inherently vague adjective, then surely there can be no such thing as objectively excessive. My argument is that each article should contain only relevant and useful information; in some cases it would be beneficial to have six generations, in some only four, and in some no ahnentafel is needed. This is supported by the above mentioned policies and guidelines. Your one-size-fits-all 5 generation cut-off point is not supported by any guideline. Surtsicna (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither 4 nor 5 generations is explicitly supported or deprecated by any guideline, and each side believes its point of view falls within them. The article's editors are engaging in a discussion about how to apply guidelines and editorial judgment here. The guideline won't decide that. We will. FactStraight (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well it seems to me if the real question here is about the number of generations genealogical charts in Wikipedia should contain this discussion is, as User:Paine Ellsworth says above, really more appropriate for an RfC. Considering the 5 generation ahnentafel is quite common in articles about historical dynastic subjects, the overly detailed tag here seems essentially arbitrary. Flyte35 (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Often when a few editors cannot agree, getting input from more editors results in consensus one way or another. Just be aware that the ensuing discussion and consensus might not always be to your liking; however, whether or not I've liked it, I've always respected the consensual outcome.  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there  16:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Here in this discussion thus far I've seen "no consensus", and that usually means that the status quo should reign free. An RfC gives those who want to effect a change the opportunity to garner consensus for the change. Best to everyone!  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 17:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2021
The article states, “By Christmas 1536, Jane was pregnant, but she lost the child.” Delete this or say something like “some historians suspect Jane may have been pregnant and lost a child.”

There is no evidence to suggest Jane Seymour was ever pregnant more than once or that she ever suffered a miscarriage. Her only known pregnancy was with Edward VI, who was born in October 1537. There is supposition that Jane may have conceived earlier in her marriage and suffered miscarriages, but no evidence beyond a select few historian’s pondering. 2601:1C2:1:800:5CDB:F785:5F60:F1A7 (talk) 08:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

 * ❌ The source is this: "The Manuscripts of His Grace the Duke of Rutland: Letters and papers, 1440–1797 (v.3 mainly correspondence of the fourth Duke of Rutland). v.4. Charters, cartularies, &c. Letters and papers, supplementary. Extracts from household accounts. H.M. Stationery Office, 1888, p 310". Are you saying this unreliable? I must admit I do not have a copy to hand. But who are those few historians? If they are notable, perhaps their ponderings could be clearly attributed? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2021
Suggest changing:

 * She died of postnatal complications less than two weeks after the birth of her only child, later King Edward VI.

to

 * She died of postnatal complications less than two weeks after the birth of her only child, the future King Edward VI.

which reads better to me. 109.152.42.225 (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jane Seymour/Archive 1


text:
Talk:Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology

Directorates
Do we really need to mention the directorates, never mind the directors? And is Jesus Villasante important enough to be mentioned? --Drdan 15:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

 * It may be interesting to see how people a moving - when a director becomes a director-general, or member even head of cabinet, commissioner or the other way around.
 * But in principle, it may be too much details there, indeed. Alexandr Snajdar (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Mowstyle

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I 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 have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! andy 16:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:Mowstyle


text: User talk:157.91.59.227

title: User talk:157.91.59.227


text:
File:HymnoftheSeventhGalaxy.jpg

Fair use rationale
This image is a cover of the audio recording Hymn of the Seventh Galaxy by Return to Forever. Its inclusion in the article Hymn of the Seventh Galaxy is claimed as fair use because:

 * The image is the primary means of visual identification of the album Hymn of the Seventh Galaxy.
 * It is a low resolution image (33 kilobytes).
 * The image is only a small portion of the commercial product.
 * It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value.
 * The use of the cover does not affect the value of the original work or limit the copyright holder's rights or ability to distribute the original.
 * It illustrates educational articles about the sound recording from which the cover illustration was taken.

The use of the cover illustration is in good faith, and its inclusion enhances the educational quality of the article without reducing the commercial value of the recording from which it was drawn.

title: File:HymnoftheSeventhGalaxy.jpg


text:
Wisden Australia's Cricketer of the Year

Each year from 1998 to 2005 Wisden Australia selected one Australian cricketer as Wisden Australia Cricketers of the Year. The award recognised that player's contribution to cricket in Australia in the previous season, in a similar manner to the Wisden Cricketers of the Year, selected by Wisden Cricketers' Almanack based on their influence on the game in England.

The first award was made to a women's cricketer, Belinda Clark. Until Claire Taylor was nominated by Wisden in 2009, no other woman had been a Cricketer of the Year in any format of the almanack.


text:
Neil Ferreira

Neil Robert Ferreira (born 3 June 1979) is a Zimbabwean cricketer.

Having also tried his hand at sports including tennis, squash, and hockey, he made his name as a left-handed opening batsman for the academy and for Manicaland. He is also a wicket keeper. His first Test involvement was in the August 2005 Test against New Zealand.

Prior to playing for his country, Ferreira also played first-class cricket for Manicaland C.C., scoring an impressive 501 runs in the 1999–2000 season and also being the leading run scorer in the 2001–02 season with 650 runs. On 8 August 2005 Ferreira received his Zimbabwean test cap being the 70th cricketer to represent Zimbabwe. Ferreira opened the batting for Zimbabwe's first innings but only managed 5 runs off 9 balls, Zimbabwe was then dismissed for just 59 and New Zealand captain Stephen Fleming enforced the follow on and once again Ferreira opened the batting and was dismissed for 16 runs off 90 balls, Zimbabwe were then all out for 99.

Ferreira has raised three sons two of which were playing B-Grade for Great Southern Grammar School. Matthew Ferreira was an all-around right-hand batsman and right-arm leg spinner and Michael Ferreira is a top-order left-hand batsman and a handy right-arm medium pace. His third son Colin Ferreira partakes in other activities than cricket and plays numerous instruments.

title: Neil Ferreira


text:
Talk:Complete set of Boolean operators

Still some doubts
Can someone here tell me whether the term "complete Boolean algebra" is in fact used for the concept defined in this article? In Googling the only references I can find to it seem likely to have derived either from an old article at Complete Boolean algebra (before I changed that article to the mathematical notion), or from the following site, http://users.senet.com.au/~dwsmith/concept1.htm, which frankly does not inspire confidence. If the dwsmith article simply made up the term, we should probably remove Complete Boolean algebra (computer science), though the content might be recreated under a different name. --Trovatore 17:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

You know, having done a bit of googling myself, I can quite see your point. Especially since all I have to back it up with is memories of a university lecturer who certainly used that term... but some rather intense googling has turned up http://www.southwestern.edu/~shelton/REU02/Presentations/Miller.ppt (do you know how little effect and, or and not have on a google search? Too little...) I don't expect that to help much either, but I'll go home, find my old textbook, check on its definition of the term, and come back here tomorrow with a quote and the name, author and ISBN of the textbook. 196.36.80.163 06:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * This is definitly defined in the Essence of Logic by Kelly. I don't know if he defined this as complete though and I gave away my copy. --R.Koot 16:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Good, corroboration... especially since after having had a good look, I have come to the conclusion that I think I sold that textbook... nonetheless, it has a title (Digital Design Principles and Practices), an author (John F. Wakerly), and a website (http://www.ddpp.com/). Unfortunately, the table of contents page does not explicitly list "complete boolean algebra" (or "boolean algebra, complete" or even "switching algera, complete"). I have managed to locate a page that describes NAND and NOR as "complete functions" (http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:6XCQU2HYotoJ:lapwww.epfl.ch/courses/archord1/intro.pdf+%22Digital+Design+Principles+and+Practices%22+%22a+complete%22+boolean+algebra+%22and%22+%22or%22+%22not%22&hl=en&client=opera) - I'm not sure whether or not this helps or hinders my case. So far, I have two websites that use the term and my own memories of a university lecturer who does similarly, tied in with R. Koot's collaboration. But if you're still unsure, feel free to tag this page as disputed... 196.36.80.163 09:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

 * No, I believe you. However it would be good to find the texts. Neither you nor Rudy seems to be sure what the concept should actually be called; we ought to find that out before we forget about it. --Trovatore 18:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get hold of someone who's still got the book... 196.36.80.163 13:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I've got it! Kelly calls a connetive sufficient if it can represent all propositional logic forms. --R.Koot 01:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * So does he have a name for a collection of Boolean functions that can do that, even if no one does it by itself? --Trovatore 01:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No. Also I moved the article to Sufficiently connected because that was the name of the paragraph in which this was mentioned. I don't think this name is right either. —R. Koot 01:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't come back - I'm the same IP address from earlier, there is an ISP that seems to randomly alter the address it uses and it hit a banned (open proxy) IP for a few days recently. I found someone with Digital Design - Principles and Practices and it says nothing about a complete Boolean algebra, at least not under that term. I'm seriously beginning to wonder what the correct term is - or even if there is an officially recognised one. The concept is certainly a fairly important one, so I think there should be a general name for it... somewhere... 196.34.166.250 07:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Complete set of Boolean operators


text:
Talk:Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services

Changed to redirect
I changed this page to a redirect because the Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services agency is the same as the the Food and Nutrition Service Agency.

Google Search for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services - Selecting the Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services search result redirects to the Food & Nutrition Service Home Page.

Epolk 17:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
Eastwood (UK Parliament constituency)

Eastwood was a county constituency represented in the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1983 until 2005. It elected one Member of Parliament (MP) by the first-past-the-post system of election.

History
The constituency was created for the 1983 general election, when it partially replaced the former East Renfrewshire constituency, following changes in 1975 to local government boundaries.

The East Renfrewshire constituency was re-established for the 2005 general election, with the same boundaries as the Eastwood constituency. Despite the change of name, it is the only constituency in mainland Scotland whose boundaries were unchanged by the 2005 revision of Scottish constituencies.

In 1999, an Eastwood Scottish Parliament constituency was created with the name and boundaries of the Eastwood Westminster constituency. However, while this constituency still exists, its boundaries are now different from the East Renfrewshire UK Parliament seat.

Boundaries
The constituency lay to the south of Glasgow and included Clarkston, Newton Mearns, Eaglesham, Barrhead and Neilston. It has the exact same boundary as the modern East Renfrewshire constituency.

title: Eastwood (UK Parliament constituency)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Ingram

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Jack Ingram
I don't feel there's enough info to warrant a proper article, nor is there an introduction to give the reader a good idea of what the article is about.--D-Day 17:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep--he's a country music singer with at least one charting single and several major-label albums. I've expanded the article somewhat, based on his allmusic profile. Meelar (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets the WP:MUSIC criteria with several albums on WB and Sony. I would however kill the reference to his single (#60 on the U.S. Country charts isn't really much of an accomplishment) and replace that section with a chronolgical discography as well as a general cleanup and wikification.--Isotope23 18:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll change my vote to a keep then. I just wanted the article to be expanded some. If we get a few more votes that meet consensus, I'll remove the tag, ane everything will be fine. --D-Day 18:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, has a charting single. Kappa 19:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Meelar, notable enough for inclusion. Hall Monitor 21:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand including full discography and charting performances as that helps establish notability as per WP:music. Capitalistroadster 01:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above. BD2412  talk 05:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
User talk:Crrj

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I 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 Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Jkelly 17:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:Crrj


text: User talk:Marmot454

title: User talk:Marmot454


text:
User talk:KeeganB

Cycle helmets
Why the change of spelling from sceptical to skeptical? As far as I can tell sceptical is an acceptable alternative US spelling and the normal British spelling. - Just zis Guy, you know? 17:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Reference desk
Please don't remove stuff even if you asked the question. Others may be interested in it. The only thing that should be removed is if a user asks the same question twice in a row. Thanks. 10:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 11:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:KeeganB


text: User talk:Marmot455

title: User talk:Marmot455


text:
Talk:Modern language

[Untitled]
As for the proposal to merge this with Modern Languages, at the moment they're on two different topics. This article is on modern languages as a linguistic concept, the other is about modern languages as an academic discipline. Still, the two should probably be merged, if only because people looking for information on one of these topics might otherwise wind up at the wrong page. I suggest that they merged here, to Modern language, because Wikipedia style is to have lowercase and singular form. --Angr/undefined 17:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Ironically, (on the same day), I have suggested a merge from Modern language to Modern Languages. Though this is not you're way of doing, (you would prefer it to be the other way around). Thanks, -- Kilo-Lima 17:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

For the merge
 * 1) I think we should merge to modern language as standard WP style. The current "linguistics" article is mostly about the use as an academic categorization, anyway. —  brighterorange  (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Do not merge

Abstain

Comment(s)

Merged into Modern Languages
I've merged into Modern Languages since it had more content to work with. If we prefer the singular form for Manual of Style reasons, then let's get an admin to delete the redirect here (on Modern Language) and we can do a move. Jamie 09:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Modern language <- Modern Languages move
This move should probably have been done with the "move" function (get a admin to delete the redirect first), rather doing a copy-and-paste over the redirect... in order to preserve the article history. Jamie 05:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, that's what I get for thinking when half asleep. Reverted my changes and put up an afd on the redirect page to get this started.  Thanks! Thaagenson 12:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * ...and I've reverted the afd. Not only does afd not deal with redirects, which usually go to WP:RFD, but rfd itself sends requests for deletion for this reason to Requested moves.  Please list it there.  (Furthermore, Modern language has history that was merged into Modern languages, so it can't simply be deleted.) —Cryptic (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, here is the situation when reviewing this article. Modern language and Modern Languages used to be separate articles that were merged into one at Modern Languages.  Due to naming convention reasons, these was an incorrect merge and should have been merged to Modern language.  My initial thoughts was that it should just be moved through copy paste to Modern language and the redirect be added to Modern Languages.  Please respond with any other thoughts or suggestions.  Thanks! Thaagenson 16:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Copy-paste moves are almost never the right thing to do. (Though you make a good case for one here.)  Do please list it at WP:RM; the admins who maintain that page deal with this sort of situation all the time, and can help you figure out the correct solution. —Cryptic (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Another note, the only history actually at Modern Languages appears to be just the merge history. There was also some history at Modern languages that has since been deleted and this page just links to Modern Languages
 * We should be having this discussion on Talk:Modern language or Talk:Modern Languages, not here. I'm the one who did the merge, and I chose the merge direction incorrectly.  (I was looking at the content of the two articles, rather than on the naming convention. )  Go ahead and propose the merge as per WP:RM (including starting a discussion in the article talk page), and I'll happily support the move.  Jamie 05:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Languages most studied in schools?
I don't understand this section. Most studied where? I cannot believe that Dutch or (modern) Greek would ever appear in any 'most studied' list and certainly not in the Top 12 which we have here. Some clarification, rectification and sourcing would be appreciated.

Incidentally, I have altered the reference to KS4 in the UK section: the government decided two years ago that pupils could give up MFL at the end of KS3, with the result that entries for GCSE in languages plummetted this year. Emeraude 12:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree and I have added a tag inviting citation for this content. Abtract 00:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Artificial and natural languages
The following sentence was removed from the section about auxilliary languages:
 * Notice that although these are artificial languages, not natural languages, they are still modern i.e. living languages.

I think this is a useful addition, in that it clarifies any doubts the reader may have, and adds useful terminology and links. Could the reasons for its removal be explained? BrainyBabe 09:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Latin is in Use - also for day to day talk! <- what a criterion!?
As long as texts are written in Latin, as long as books are translated into languages and as long as those who love Latin itself as a vivid, beautiful and effective language(potentially every Latin learner - if there was not the stupid pure use of the analytic method, that is not suitable to all of us, in Latin classes !) still keep talking in voice and writing - How can you call it dead? Old Greek might be near to extinction - but it, too, can be brought to life again! Though they are or won't be, respectively, exactly the same languages as in their beginnings as "fixed languages" - but who cares?

And, as for the learning(not cramming) method suitable to reduced time and for real "Spracherwerb", there is -among others- an effective possibility is at hand, that needs only a tiny but crucial addition: the "Birkenbihl-method for language learning" (‡ cramming in vocabulary and grammar rules without understanding) (and is for free!) Ūnus ē Latīnīs novīs (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Modern language and living language
1. The lead begins by saying

 * A modern language is any human language that is currently in use.

But e.g. Latin is still in use, by the Catholic Church. Is it really a "modern language"? The problem here is that the lead sentence's wording  "in use" is too vague, and needs to be clarified by being made more specific.

2. Living language redirects here, but the term does not appear in the article. Is it a synonym of "modern language"? According to dead language, the latter is one with no native speakers, so presumably a living language is one with native speakers. E.g. Latin does not fall into that category. So if Latin is a modern language because it is in use, then "living language" is not synonymous with "modern language". In any event, since it redirects here,  "living language" needs to be mentioned in boldface and defined in the lead.. Loraof (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I've added "living language" to the lead. Its relation to "modern language" still needs to be explained, and "currently in use" still needs to be clarified. Loraof (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Modern language