Talk:James Tyrrell

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 20:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

"is supposed to have confessed" ???

what does that mean? Was he supposed to, but he didn't? Does it mean he supposedly confessed? i don't get it. Kingturtle 07:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I would take this as Tudor propaganda. There has only been one reference that I have found which mentions the "confession" by Tyrell and this was after the date in question in Henry Tudor's reign.

See Susan Leas' article: "As the King gave out". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smlark (talk • contribs) 19:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC) <ref>pp.2-4, The Ricardian, March 1977 <ref>

Torture?

Aside from More's History of Richard III, I have seen no other sources stating that Tyrrell was questioned/tortured by anyone in order to obtain a confession. What's more, in More's history, it only says Tyrrell was interrogated, but not tortured. I will concede that in Tudor times (as well as before), interrogation and torture often went hand-in-hand, but More's history does not mention actual torture, and thus Tyrrell's inferred torture should not be stated as fact in this article. If there is another primary source available that mentions torture, please list it. Otherwise, the article needs to be altered out of fairness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.168.106 (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion section and Carson's dispute of Starkey's speculations

Accordin to WP policy Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: 1.the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; 2.it does not involve claims about third parties; 3.it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; 4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5.the article is not based primarily on such sources

Carson's reference applies to at least points 1, 4 and 5 and simply remarks what has been stated as facts (contemporary records on HVII and EoY's whereabouts at the time of Tyrrell's trial which was held at the Guildhall, etc.). It is simply a qualified point of view of 190 digits against a whole section dedicated to dubious speculations expressed in a tv programme. Should we delete the whole section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isananni (talk • contribs) 20:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Annette Carson is an amateur/popular writer not an academic historian. Her opinion is not notable and SELF-PUB applies. DeCausa (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Had it been for most academic historians we would still be searching for Richard III's remains in the river Soar, David Baldwin being the only one among them suggesting he might be found where he actually was, though without pursuing the search. However, I will abide until a serious rebuttal is eventually published in something more dignified than a blog.Isananni (talk) 05:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

More's account of Tyrell's confession: NPOV

In addition to some minor edits for clarity, I have removed the following text from the "Career" section: "At a time when the Tudor succession hang by the thread of the future Prince Henry's survival and the Spanish needed assurances before agreeing to the marriage of the Tudor Prince to Catherine of Aragon it seems highly likely that a confession relating to the murder of the two princes would have been made public by Henry VII. Its absence suggests that More's story of a confession by Tyrell is incorrect."

That text clearly violates NPOV policy, since it consists entirely of an argument that is not backed up by any citation of a reliable source. I understand that such arguments have been made by the Ricardians, but any neutral discussion of More's account would need to include both the pros and the cons, with reliable sources cited.

On a more general note, the whole Tyrell page as it exists is odd, because the most interesting thing about him, and very likely the only reason he has a Wikipedia page, is his alleged responsibility for the murders of Edward V and Richard of York: yet the page mentions that only briefly, and (prior to this edit) only in order to dismiss it. The page would be greatly improved by a dispassionate discussion of Tyrell's claim to fame, but I don't have time for that at present.Davidiank (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

While I agree with the deletion of the edits that were not backed up by reliable sources, I find it positive that James Tyrrel's page does not focus on unproven facts and on the contrary expands on what he documentedly did, which seems to be a lot even compared to pages that have been set up for less infamous historical figures. Isananni (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

As I noted, his claim to fame is the murder of the Princes in the Tower. That fame is controversial, but it is possible to produce a complete discussion of the controversy. Davidiank (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Wiki pages have been created regardless of fame. As far as I am aware a page dedicated to the general controversy over the so called "Princes in the Tower" already exists, a referral link to that page can be added without aggraviating this page with unnecessary duplications. Isananni (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The location of his trial, the Guildhall, is a matter of public record. That Henry VII and his wife were at the Tower is a matter of public record, as cited by Starkey himself. They could not, therefore, have heard a "confession", which is only referred to after Henry's death.Smlark (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)