Talk:Richard III of England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Military / Royalty and Nobility (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the military biography work group (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject English Royalty (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Royalty. For more information, visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject England (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Phillipa Langley[edit]

Reverted an edited that said Philippa Langley had 'dedication and determination'. Just noting that, first and foremost WP:BLP applies to everyone, including Philippa Langley, and I'm not saying she doesn't have those qualities but this kind of addition requires a source. (I checked the source following that addition and couldn't find either word). Without it, its using 'Wikipedia's voice' to say something which is arguably against WP:NPOV. Also, even if additions with sources can be found they may be more appropriate to expand her page than here (this is about Richard III not anyone associated with him, living or not). AnonNep (talk) 10:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely right! Deb (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

How about "passion, vision and determination".  :)

“We will also acknowledge, as we always do, the role of the originator of the project, Philippa Langley, without whose passion, vision and determination the project may never have happened, together with the work of John Ashdown-Hill in identifying one of the living descendants of Richard III’s family and David Baldwin who correctly predicted in published work in 1986 that the remains of the last Plantagenet king might be found on the site of the Grey Friary during the 21st century.”

However, I do agree it belongs more in her article rather than here. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

End of the Middle Ages in England[edit]

currently the article says

"His defeat at Bosworth Field, the decisive battle of the Wars of the Roses, is sometimes regarded as the end of the Middle Ages in England."

which obviously encourages the retort why say "sometimes" and not "often"?[1][2] I suggest that either the wording is altered to remove that type of POV.

One alternative is to use the term "traditional" as is done by Helen Cooper (2006) p. 4 "traditional end of the English Middle Ages at the battle of Bosworth"

"His defeat at Bosworth Field, the decisive battle of the Wars of the Roses, is traditionally used to mark the end of the Middle Ages in England."

But I suggest that the wording is modified to use that by English Heritage in their article on "Bosworth Battlefield"

"The battle symbolised the end of the Middle Ages in England and was a watershed moment in the history of England and Wales."

Then Wikipedia lead would read:

"His defeat at Bosworth Field, the decisive battle of the Wars of the Roses, symbolises the end of the Middle Ages in England."

This gets away from quantifying how many or how much as the current wording forces one to do "sometimes" "often" etc which carry far more of a POV than symbolised. -- PBS (talk) 11:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

There are very few occasions on which it is clear exactly when 'one period ends and the next begins'; most transitions take more than a day and quite often it is only somewhat after the even that the pivot point is clear. (Did 'the Nuclear Age' begin in early August 1945 - or when it was decided to construct and maintain nuclear bombs in general?) Jackiespeel (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the present wording is a bit dodgy. I would personally prefer "traditionally regarded" with the reference quoted rather than "symbolises", which is inexact and itself rather POV. Deb (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Better still, just delete it. It's a very Ladybird History concept. No serious modern historian would have any truck with it (and none are in the linked to searches). DeCausa (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Obviously no historian, serious or trivial, believes that the "Middle Ages" magically ended with the death of Richard, but it is a common reference point and there are many sources for it. There are major changes that happen under Henry, cultural, economic and social that usher in what we call the "Early Modern" and/or "Renaissance". No doubt many of those would have happened under Richard if he had won, so we would not have a clear emblematic 'moment'. But as it is, we do. I'm OK with symbolises, precisely because it's an emblematic moment that also fits with popular ideas of the "Medieval" (murderous warlords with private armies, superstition etc) being replaced by the "modern" (centrally run nation-state etc). Paul B (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't like "symbolises" much, because Henry's accession doesn't really "symbolise" the end of the Middle Ages, it just marks it. To symbolise it, it would have to (to quote just one dictionary definition) "express [the end of the Middle Ages] indirectly by an image, form, or model". I don't really think it does that: you don't think of 1485 and think, "Ah yes, the end of the Middle Ages" in the way you hear of 1066 and think "Ah yes, the start of the Norman period". I realise this is a fine point. Deb (talk) 13:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the problem with "symbolises" is that it conflates representation with reality. Technically, a "symbol" of something is by definition not the thing itself. I suppose it's a synecdoche, since the battle marks a regime change in which the houses of "Plantagenet" and "Tudor" function as metonyms for "Medieval" and "Renaissance". But to put it like that would be way too convoluted! It's not uncommon to use 'symbolises' to stand for the more obscure term synecdoche in this way, e.g. "Florence as a city symbolises the Renaissance"[3]. Also, there is a genuinely symbolic aspect to this. Richard kind-of represents the "medieval" in his popular/literary persona as twisted, back-stabbing warlord, in contrast to the more bland and bureaucratic Henry. I guess an alternative would be "epitomises". It's not the same thing as the Norman period, or the Victorian period, which are defined by specific moments. It's more an emblematic event that roughly lines up with the concepts of Medieval and Renaissance in a way that's unique to English history, but would not apply elsewhere. In 1485 Erasmus is 19; Michelangelo is 10; Leonardo da Vinci is 32. It's a transition moment around Europe in which the Renaissance is coming to fruition. It just so happens that in England this moment maps onto a dynastic change, so the battle comes to represent that cultural shift. Paul B (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

(Reset) The transition period for Europe is probably 'from the end of Christian Constantinople and the development of printing to the first voyage round the world and the 95 theses' - so perhaps William Caxton to Henry VII's trade agreements. What do others think? Jackiespeel (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

1492Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
To 'the average hardworking townsperson and field working peasant' little would change in the short term - apart from the face on the coins and to some extent 'the present persons to whom taxes are paid.' They might well see 'here is an example of this newfangled printing' and 'Byzantium endures no more' (double reference intended) as more significant. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hunchback Distinction Revert[edit]

I just noticed that Paul Barrow reverted an IP edit making a distinction between kyphosis and scoliosis. Was there something wrong with that edit (no explanation for the revert was given)? Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I reverted it because it was in the wrong place and it interrupted the flow of the text. The section is about cultural depictions, not about the specific condition he in fact had. In any case, "hunchback" (and "bunchback") are not scientific terms. The form of scoliosis he had may well have expressed itself in some form of protuberance-like effect [4]. Of course Shakespeare couldn't be expected to know what exact condition he had. He's just using the historical sources that existed at the time. But since he (obviously) never says he had kyphosis rather than scoliosis, I don't think it's appropriate to "correct" Shakespeare in this way. Of course the nature of his condition could be expanded in the biography section, and I think comment could be made about how his alleged deformities seem to increase over time - though that would have to sourced. Paul B (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Good call. Thank you. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible[edit]

Dougweller has added the word "possible" to the heading. I don't see how this is useful. Firstly it's uninformative, since no more information is given (and anyway they weren't "possible remains", they were real remains). But mainly, the argument presented by the scholars quoted are vague. All one (Hicks) seems to be saying is that we can't be 100% certain, which is true, but rather pointless. How much more evidence does he need? The other authority quoted seems to be saying there should be some form of inquest in otder to make it official. Hicks's view could be included in the section. Paul B (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I read that article the other day and I must say that my respect for Hicks has diminished considerably. This is going to hurt his reputation too. His comments, as you said above PB, are pointless. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):I'm not sure you are right about the grammar issue, I don't interpret that as meaning that they were possibly remains. They are possible "remains of Richard". Here's the Guardian's take.[5] It would certainly be nice to see the official report. I know theses things take time but for something this sensational I would have liked to have seen something sooner. It's obvious that there are strong feelings about this. I tagged Exhumation of Richard III of England as NPOV because of the title and my tag was immediately removed as potentially offensive to the article's editors (which is ridiculous as this only happened in the last few days and up until then there was no question about the title) and also because the only thing the critics cast doubt upon was their reputations. I don't think we can assert this as established fact anymore. Dougweller (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you feel that Hicks and Biddle's comments make any difference to the likelihood of the remains being Richard's? I have to say it looks to me like attention-seeking on their part, or maybe the media making a mountain out of a molehill. Deb (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

FA?[edit]

A date for the burial has been announced: March 26, 2015. It'd be really nice if we could have this at FA quality by then, and frontpage it.... DS (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)