Talk:George Germain, 1st Viscount Sackville
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the George Germain, 1st Viscount Sackville article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Article name
editarticle nenamed to follow wiki Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) FearÉIREANN 22:29 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)
So where on earth should this article be located? He's normally called Lord George Germain (which doesn't even redirect here as I'm writing this, sigh), and his surname changed like two or three times...Before, it didn't even have the "Germain" anywhere in the article title, which is just really bad. At any rate, I'm open to ideas. john k 17:33, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- No clue. On a totally different manner, was he "Secretary of State for the America" (as the article mentions), or "Secretary of State for America", or just Colonial Secretary? ugen64 14:11, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
Cashiered?
editit says after the Battle of Minden he was "cashiered and sent home." What does cashiered mean? I've never heard that term. Maybe it's British English (I'm American) --Awiseman 15:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Minden affair
editThis article is far more negative towards Sackville's actions at Minden than seems appropriate. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article on him seems much more even-handed. It mentions nothing of antipathy towards Granby or a desire to deny him glory. Instead, it basically says that Sackville's failure to take advantage of the opportunity largely arose through a misunderstanding, facilitated by confused orders from Ferdinand. It basically says that Sackville's disgrace was a result of unfair attacks after the battle by Ferdinand, and that the court martial convicting him came as close as possible to acquittal without actually acquitting him (which would have been embarrassing for the king). Should we modify this? john k (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Dangling reference to "Weintraub p.31" in the "References" section
editThis comment is "as of" the "Latest revision as of 10:47, 29 April 2020" version of the article.
confusing entries
editSeveral of the entries -- including 5 of the first 6 entries! -- in the "References" section of the article, say only "Weintraub" followed by a page number, which is confusing to me. The first three, e.g., say "Weintraub p.31".
I could not find the character string "Weintraub" anywhere else in that article.
Is it supposed to be obvious, which author (and which work by that author) named "Weintraub" is meant? (/slash "implied") -- ? --
Any comments?
editThanks for listening. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)