Jump to content

Talk:Richard III of England

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.86.131.77 (talk) at 22:28, 8 February 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

University of Leicester's search for Richard III

I've tried to tidy up the new para on the search for Richard III. It's still in progress and therefore changing. it could probably do with its own stub. I'm not a great expert at this so what do colleagues think? A section in this entry or a new section of its own? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich ard (talk • contribs) 18:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally wait for the outcome before attempting a separate article. The results are likely to be inconclusive. Deb (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why 'inconclusive'? The investigating team are confident that DNA samples will be provided from the skeletals remains , which apparently are in excellent condition. The seventeenth great-nephew of Richard III (from Anne of York, Richard's sister) have already been provided. There is every possible chance of a conclusive result here of whether the remains are those of Richard III or not.Ds1994 (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because archaeology is my hobby, I know how unlikely it is that any excavation will pinpoint something like this and come up with the expected result - especially so quickly. It's come as a big surprise to me that they've got this far. Deb (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich ard (talk • contribs) 19:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Category of persons whose deaths, funerals and related post-moretem happenings get their own Wikipedia page.'

Whence the story that Richard's remains were thrown in the river? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you probably mean 'Whither . . . ' :-). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The final monarch to die in battle in England proper?

The text in the article states of Richard III that "He was also the second and final monarch to die in battle in England proper", which is erroneous. James IV of Scotland died at Flodden Field in Northumbria some 28 years later.

Perhaps the text should be "He was also the second and final English monarch to die in battle in England proper"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.46.194 (talk) 10:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is "England proper"? Deb (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I suspect 'England proper' refers to the portion of the Kingdom of England (i.e. post 1284) that does not include Wales. As no English kings have been killed in battle in Wales since the death of Richard III perhaps the 'proper' is unnecessary. Another thing strikes me is that the sentence says Richard III is the second monarch to die in battle in England. This is untrue as Edward the Elder (arguably an English king) died in battle at Farndon in 924. Whether Farndon was part of England at the time is a moot point, but it certainly is now. Additionally, Harold Hardrada famously got his six feet of English soil in 1066 and Malcolm Canmore got done in at the battle of Alnwick in 1093 - so in no way was Richard III the second monarch to die in battle in England, proper or otherwise. Finally, why limit the sentence to England? No other English monarchs were later killed in battle anywhere else and unless devolution takes effect this is unlikely to change. I would now suggest the sentence reads "He was also the final English monarch to be killed in battle." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.46.194 (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I'll make the change. --Dweller (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NB the fuller text in the lead was much less problematic: "Richard fell in the Battle of Bosworth Field, the last English king to die in battle (and the only English king to die in battle on English soil since Harold II at the Battle of Hastings in 1066)." The only problem with that being the unnecessarily metaphorical and misleading "fell", which I'm about to amend. --Dweller (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice One. That reads a lot better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.46.194 (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Positive feedback on Wikipedia is rare and appreciated. If you ever decide to get an account, please do let me know, so I can welcome you properly. --Dweller (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The origin of the tradition that Richard's remains were dumped in the river are uncertain. I ought to point out that it was the archaeologist Matt Morris who found the skeleton which may be that of Richard. Iy was Dr Appleby who examined the remains, thought that they might be those of Richard and exhumed them under the conditions of a Ministry of Justice licence (LCA) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.112.87 (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AN ANALYSIS OF THE CASE FOR AND AGAINST RICHARD FROM A POLICE POINT OF VIEW

I am a former Police Constable in Australia and may I commend to those who may not have read it the book entitled 'Daughter of Time' by Josephine TEY. There is an old adage that goes "Truth is the daughter of time", inferring that that truth will come out no matter how long it takes.

It is fiction I admit but examines facts. A detective, hospitalised after an on-duty accident, begins to look at the evidence and into the case for and against Richard having murdered his nephews. I will not spoil what is a ripping read by saying anything else.

I will however state that I am firmly in Richard's camp and have 'championed' this maligned monarch for some thirty years.

Roger DESHON, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia. Insidivs Fvngvs (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are all thrilled. However, history is not like detective stories. From the overthrow of Edward II on, every single ruler who deposed the previous ruler later killed them in captivity. Edward II (Mortimer); Mortimer (Edward III); Richard II (Henry IV); Henry VI (Edward IV). The only 'exceptions' are the fact that Mortimer was officially executed and that Edward V's death was never acknowledged. But he and his brother disappeared during Richard's reign. Paul B (talk) 10:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've read "Daughter of Time". Very entertaining, but also very dated and written in JT's usual somewhat romanticised style. In none of her books is the chief suspect the actual villain. She was not a historian, still less a detective, she was a writer of fiction. She starts from the premise that "Richard looks nice in his portrait - he must be misunderstood" and tailors the evidence to suit her conclusion. Deb (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The various possibilities include:

  • Richard III ordered their deaths (as they were potential foci of opposition).
  • The Duke of Buckingham (to further his claims/eliminate rivals)
  • Henry Tudor (ie before he became king)
  • Henry VII (after he became king)
  • 'One or several' of the persons in the Tower (possibly trying to second-guess what is required)
  • They died of natural causes in the Tower (but the information was not released as Richard knew he would be blamed).
  • One or both escaped (hence Lambert Simnel, Perkin Warbeck, Richard's 'Third bastard', and several works of fiction)

There are arguments for or against the above - and probably a few fantasy versions (they escape on the Tardis etc).

Any more to add to the list (which I will copy at some point to the Richard III wiki on Wikia)? Jackiespeel (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just one point - you're in the wrong article. See Princes in the Tower. Deb (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was following on from the originator of the thread.
I just didn't want you to do a lot of unnecessary work. Deb (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The RIII wiki is [2] - anybody wishing to pursue OR etc welcome. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret of Anjou

QUOTE: 'beyond the reach of Henry VI's vengeful Queen, Margaret of Anjou'... WAS she vengeful? Probably. Should it be mentioned in an Encyclopedia? Probably not... MY CURRENT SIGNATURE: Admin don't like me mentioning cretins in my signature  ;) (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't fault your logic. Deb (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cretinism, sadly, cannot be cured, however one signs oneself. It's true that we cannot know Margaret's state of mind. Paul B (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Touched a nerve there I think. Only a two-dimensional one of course  :)

MY CURRENT SIGNATURE: Admin don't like me mentioning cretins in my signature  ;) (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think she might have been curable, though :-) Deb (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, I tried to work out a balanced way of keeping a reference to MoA, and couldn't; but to be fair, just erasing it and blending the following sentence seem fine? MY CURRENT SIGNATURE: Admin don't like me mentioning cretins in my signature  ;) (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's quite a reasonable way of achieving NPOV. Deb (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Reign of Edward IV' Section

It occurs to me, this section could probably (i.e., DEFINITELY!!!) say a whole lot more than it does about his life at this time- very approximately, his brother was king for TWO-THIRDS of his life, yet this is a very small section. Hein? Paranoiacs comment on other peoples' sigs, AH-HA !!! (talk) 13:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you can resist the temptation to be quite so childish and just try to live up to your actual user name? Paul B (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you stop banging the drum, you will no longer create the echo! Thanks for your contriBUTTions!!! ;) You Can Act Like A Child (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one but you is banging any drum. Paul B (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. But a lot of hot air from your general direction.You Can Walk Like A'Gyptian  ;) (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Such as? Paul B (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SEE BELOW. You Can Walk Like A'Gyptian  ;) (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's reasonable discussion, not bullying and offensive playground behaviour. In any case, useful conversation develops by evolving points, not by trying to belittle people. Paul B (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC) >>>Feel free to re-write any of your previous remarks as you did here. And not have the necessaries to admit it. I assume you are at war with East Asia. And have never been at war with Eurasia...? :p You Can Walk Like A'Gyptian  ;) (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which you are indulging in with all your little come-backs. You don't actually contribute do you.You Can Walk Like A'Gyptian  ;) (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - it would be good to have more content about his residence in the north, and also about his long-running feud with Clarence, which I think many Richard-lovers are unaware of. Deb (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It admit that it would be slightly bizarre being in love with a dead feller. Like Shakespeare :p It would probably have to have sub-sections, 'Council of the North', 'Relations with Northumberland', File:Queen Eleanor & Fair Rosamund.jpg, 'Scottish wars', 'Patronage' etc? Paranoiacs comment on other peoples' sigs, AH-HA !!! (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have said "Richard-worshippers" :-) Those suggestions of yours, whilst perfectly valid, sound like they'd be quite short sections. If there is to much material, of course, the article can be split - just as there is a separate article on the Battle of Bosworth and a separate one on the Princes in the Tower. Deb (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sections would have to be on stand-alone topics (i.e. the Council of the North is a legitimate stand-alone but '[Richard's] Relations with Northumberland' really isn't. Paul B (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting- his relations with Northumberland in this period had a consequence at Bosworth! You Can Act Like A Child (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but that does not make it a topic for a stand-alone article. It's not of sufficient interest independent of the biography of Richard, nor does it have the internal logic to be an article. Paul B (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A point I address below if you can deign to lower your eyes from your naval-gazing  :) You Can Walk Like A'Gyptian  ;) (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you take, as a parallel, an article like George Frideric Handel (just plucked that out of the air), you'll see that sections such as Handel at Cannons exist as separate articles. There's no hard-and-fast rule. So, whilst I agree that "Richard's relations with Northumberland" doesn't, at first sight, appear viable as a separate article, it depends how much there is to say about it (without turning this into yet another book about Richard III!) Deb (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See the point. I've started in the sadbox, think the length is about right, can add more ref's. Not finished yet, obviously. 'Relations with Northumberland' could maybe be 'Relations with nobility'? I don't think he was particularly good at 'man-management, remember his spat with Stanley? With even more obvious results in 1485!
Here's the thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:You_Can_Act_Like_A_Man/sandbox You Can Walk Like A'Gyptian  ;) (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented there. Deb (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inspired by you both, I have added a section on Richard's marriage and its consequences for his relationship with his brothers. This was very little coverred in the article previously and I think it is quite significant. Deb (talk) 12:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. Yesssssss... it was a pretty grubby business all round with the treatment of Warwick's widow wasn't it... You Can Walk Like A'Gyptian  ;) (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - though this kind of family bickering can still happen in the lives of quite ordinary people.Deb (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah? Parliament revoking legal rights? Being treated as dead?! Now that's some Simpsons-esque dysfunctionality... LOL You Can Walk Like A'Gyptian  ;) (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, old people are frequently treated as though they were dead by those who stand to inherit from them.[1] Deb (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! -although it still doesn't compare with the bickering that goes on on Talk Pages!!! :D You Can Walk Like A'Gyptian  ;) (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ [1]
Actually, I think you could both stop now. You seem to be heading in the same direction, near enough. The only glory will go to the one who doesn't feel he has to have the last word. Deb (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Anyway- HE started it...!!!! ;) You Can Walk Like A'Gyptian  ;) (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, bad luck - you lose. Deb (talk) 12:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...You know what they say; 'In war, there are no winners. In wikipedia, only complete losers'. Now if we could return to the matter in hand. Viz, I have added stuff to the Sadbox, have a gander? You Can Walk Like A'Gyptian  ;) (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, "Estates and titles", "1471 military campaign", "War with Scotland" and "Exile and return" are ready for inclusion although they contain a few typos (they can always be tweaked later). Deb (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot about it- inserted now You Can Walk Like A'Gyptian  ;) (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'The Accession' etc

I added a few extra facts to this section; but it occured to me that it could warrant an article of its own. It was only a few weeks, but plenty happened within a lot of detail.--Basket Feudalist (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "Queen Elizabeth's armies" in this section is very unclear. Presumably, this is Elizabeth Woodville, but she was never referred to as a Queen prior to this in this article, and could cause confusion since Queen Elizabeth I was obviously not born at this time... It would be mroe appropriate to refer to her as Elizabeth Woodville here, if this is indeed correct (I won't edit, since I don't know the facts well enough!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.5.242 (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do see what you mean. Deb (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary edit

From User:Jabberjawjapan

...adding a 'the' before 'Bishop of Ely'. Not a major malfunction but it adds irrelevant emphasis to his title rather than the man. Nowhere else do we refer to'Henry Stafford, :the: 2nd Duke of Buckingham' or 'Charles the Bold, :the: Duke of Burgundy', etc.

'The Bishop of Ely, John Morton' would be fine though.

Just a thought.

--Basket Feudalist (talk) 14:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it kind of depends on the context. Deb (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But not worth it in this case AND he's taken out the comma! Deb (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps invite him in to discuss it...Basket Feudalist (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I think you're getting the idea :-) But it's hardly worth the effort for one word, so I've just undone it with an explanation. Deb (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't like to do it myself! Although took the liberty of removing one lone parenthesis. PS: re: the IP post below, is 'Strawberry Fields' relevant, or mildly cretinous here?! No offence of course  ;) Basket Feudalist (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As there are various minor digressions on the talk page, John Morton and Strawberry Fields Forever. 80.254.147.68 (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wyllyam Gardynyr

User:Anne-theater made the following addition: "Newer researches dispute these explainations as not covered by facts", referencing, "Lynda Pidgeon in :Who killed Richard III? Ricardian Bulletin, Magazine of the Richard III Society December 2012 p 48f ISSN 0308 4337". I don't think this is helpful for several reasons. I doubt the RIII Soc would count as WP:RS, and the sentence as added doesn't help. We'd need to know why is it not "covered by facts", what the facts do support etc. Having said, that I've been unhappy about this section for quite a while. The citation tags have been there since 2009 for the quotation ""Richard’s horse was trapped in the marsh where he was slain by one of Rhys Thomas’ men, a commoner named Wyllyam Gardynyr." This person even has his own page William Gardner (knight), which is largely uncited and rather confused. I tried to find something out about the sources for this a while back, but could find nothing. If anyone has useful sources for this section it greatly improve that section of the article. Paul B (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that's a very unclear addition, not to mention ungrammatical. Don't know of this Gardynyr - it's not a Welsh name so it would be surprising if he was one of them. Deb (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anything about the mysterious Mr Gardner aka Gardynyr. The only inflormation I can find is about Rhys ap Thomas. The following is from Sir Rhys ap Thomas and his family: a study in the Wars of the Roses and early Tudor politics (1993): "The supreme accolade of striking the blow that killed Richard III has been claimed for several in Henry's army. Guto'r Glyn, in his praise-poem addressed to Rhys after the battle was over, may be taken as implying that it was delivered by Rhys himself - 'killed the boar, destroyed his head'. This might be thought an excess of flattery on the part of an obsequious poet were it not for the fact that the Burgundian writer, Jean Molinet, noted that a Welshman delivered the final stroke with a halberd when Richard's horse was stuck in the marsh of the battlefield. But one can go no further than that." Paul B (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
May be worth pointing out that the user who created the page has had a slew of articles about "famous" Gardners world wide speedy-deleted. I suspect the good Wyllyam should follow them post haste. Ian Dalziel (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are references in reputable sources to William Gardiner being Stephen Gardiner's father, but I have yet to find any support for the idea of this being the same William Gardiner that was credited with killing Richard. Deb (talk) 10:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could find no reliable references to anyone called "William Gardner" (under various possible spellings) being the killer of Richard. There is also the question of whether the man who married Jasper Tudor's daughter is the same person who was the father of the bishop - though that is really a question for the William Gardner (knight) page. Of course where surviving documents are scanty historians often speculate whether a person mentioned in document A is the same person as the one recorded in document B. If that's what's going on so, ideally we should note that, if we can find the sources. Paul B (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: According to this book the Gardner who was the Bury-St-Edmunds cloth-merchant father of the bishop is a completely different person from the London Gardner, a skinner by trade, who married Helen Tudor. The two were apparently conflated by 19th century genealogists and the error has been repeated many times since. No mention whatever is made of any earlier career as a soldier for either of them, let alone something as memorable as killing a king. Both Gardners appear to be stolid middle-class tradesmen. Paul B (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right - I looked in Alison Weir's "Britain's Royal Families", which confirmed that there was such a person but not that his son was the bishop nor what he might or might not have done in the Wars of the Roses. Of course, the one who married Jasper's daughter is likely to have been a Tudor retainer and probably a knight, but that's as far as it goes. Deb (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anne-theater has kindly sent me a copy of the article she refers to. Embarrassingly, it is entirely about Mr. Gardynyr as he appears on Wikipedia. Or rather it is about the fact that the page has been quoted in some newpapers in which the information that William bashed Richard's head in has been repeated as fact. Lynda Pidgeon seems to have come to the same conclusions we discussed on the talk page of the William Gardner (knight) article - that our William is just a conflation of different Gardners, garnering their independent gardens to become one bloated imaginary knight. Paul B (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was his face red! Oh no, can't have been, he doesn't exist! Deb (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He was a sickly gardener green. I've nominated it for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Gardner (knight). Paul B (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fat knight has been deleted. He's in Arthur's bosom. Paul B (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reign itself-

-doesn't really get much of a mention. The sections effectively jumps from Stafford's rebellion in Oct. 1483 to Aug. 1485. Maybe the clocks stopped.

Let's go to work.

Basket Feudalist 15:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, he was so busy killing all the opposition, wasn't he! Seriously, though, his reign was quite short and the personal blows of 1484-1485 (deaths of son and wife) probably made it difficult for him to apply his mind to administrative affairs, so I wouldn't expect too much interesting material just because he happened to be king at the time. Deb (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ross gives about 80 pages to it, Horrox 50, and Hicks- seems to have disappeared temporarilly. Basket Feudalist 15:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is certainly material relating to the reign. The question is more about its relative importance. If you take out all the machinations, you will (I imagine) be left with fairly mundane stuff about how much he spent on improving castles, etc. So, while I have nothing against including it - in fact I'm rather bored with hearing about the more "exciting" events of his life - I think you will need to be quite selective. Deb (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Maybe a new section on his personal toilet at Warwick Castle... Basket Feudalist 16:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fun. I don't suppose they've found any bodies down there? :-) Deb (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. But then, he probably banged his head on the way! -Imagine the U-bend at Warwick ;) Basket Feudalist 21:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of toilets, did you know that his castle at Middleham had 18 toilets? I learned that from a documentary on the castle. Here's a clip: [3]
Are you sure that's not a load of...erm? Deb (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...eighteen loads of...?! Basket Feudalist 07:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's what the documentary said. (Shrug) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Founding of the College of Heralds springs to mind. Jackiespeel (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Latest revelations

I'm puzzling over how far it's possible/advisable to go with re-wording and/or re-interpretation of the article content in the light of the new information. I see an obvious connection between the skull wounds and the contemporary Welsh-language comment that Richard's head was "shaved" - but is it reasonable to make the logical link explicit in the article or should I wait for someone to say it in print (in a reputable source, naturally)? Deb (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What revelations? Basket Feudalist 16:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it's his body they've found in Leicester in what our US friends call "a parking lot". Deb (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(.. these Colonials.... seems they also paved paradise.) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Only the bare facts of the new information can go in the article unless a source makes the type of link such as you suggest with the shaved head. Then that go in. To make the link yourself would be WP:OR. You need to wait until a source does it. DeCausa (talk) 07:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sword up b*hind?

Richard III was also raped/molested by a sword up the back? Our news said so.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.48.122 (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, not quite that. It looks like someone stabbed him in the bum while he was slung over the horse's back after he died. Deb (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Identification remains/archaeological investigation

I'm thinking that this section is too detailed for this article (given that it's mainly about the mechanics of the investigation and not about R himself) and in fact should have its own article. There would then just be a couple of lines on the fact of the investigation here and any new information on R. integrated into the bio. DeCausa (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That seems very sensible. (Although the re-burial in Leicester Cathedral will also have to fit somewhere?) Martinevans123 (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just created Exhumation of Richard III - take a look. I suggest that when he's reburied we rename it as "Exhumation and reburial of Richard III". Prioryman (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Title seems a bit narrow given that the main point is the investigative process rather than the exhumation itself. Presumably the section here should now be cut right down. DeCausa (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hunch

Hi. I don't think it is fair for the article to continue to claim that Shakespeare made up the hunchback. If you saw the documentary, you saw the initial comment by the archaeologist: "He was a hunchback", which was later toned down to please Philippa Longley of the Richard III Society, into "his deformity might not have been obvious when he had his clothes on". The statement that Shakespeare "added a hunch" is therefore quite misleading. Deb (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By all means reword, but the current phrasing is not intended to imply that he "made up" anything. It's that the crookedness of the back described by other commentators is emphasised into what he calls a "mountain". I don't know if the limp comes from previous sources, but the arm is mentioned in the True Tragedy and in More, so Shakespeare just took that from sources. Paul B (talk) 11:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a bit early to reword, let's see what the written sources are saying about the "hunch". I believe the documentary described it as Scoliosis, whereas I think "hunch-back" is usually connected with Kyphosis. It's interesting that the pre-Shakespeare references are to the more specific "crook-backed" and "one shoulder higher than the right" - both of which seem to better describe the skeleton than "hunch". DeCausa (talk) 11:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the archaeological examination of the skeleton both arms were considered to have no evidence of deformity, although both were “gracile”. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well unless we assume Shakespeare had dug up Richard to find out the facts before writing the play, we can only say what he, as it were, 'made up', or 'added', was what differed from the sources he used. The withered arm comes from More, though it's not enmntirely clear what he means by that. Paul B (talk) 12:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was only the hunch that I wanted to take out, and the sentence clearly implies that Shakespeare invented that, yet the archaeological investigation clearly shows a spinal defect. This was so pronounced that at first the archaeologist thought that the skull must be someone else's because it was unearthed at a different level from the rest of the body. I'd be happy with rewording if someone could point to something else that Shakespeare "added". Deb (talk) 12:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, did anyone pick up on the hint at the body's transgender features? Deb (talk) 12:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the jaw line, the arms and the pelvis were all mentioned. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All previous sources say he had a spinal deformity, so there is no question of Shakespeare inventing a deformity. The question is whether he mutated it, as it were, (probably unconsciously) into a different type of spinal deformity. They thought the skull must be someome else's because it was raised up due to the fact that the body was squashed into grave that was too small for it. Paul B (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was suggested that the curvature of the spine in some way explained why the skull was laying at an "unusual orientation". (I also thought that we saw, in the opening sequences, some damage to the leg bones caused by the initial trench-digging. But this was never mentioned.) The mattock through the skull was a bit of a faux pas, though. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, both factors may have been involved. As for the legs, according to the press conference yesterday the feet had been chopped off at some point in history due to digging/building work over the centuries. As far as I know they are still missing. Paul B (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That definitely was suggested. Deb (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the documentary said the skeleton had Scolosis - that's not a "hunch-back". Prior to Shakespeare the sources talk about some sort of skeletal deformity, but not specifically a hunch-back. Shakespeare seems to be the first to do that. That's what the article currently says so I'm not sure anything needs to change at the moment. DeCausa (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that Kyphosis and Scoliosis were recognised as two separate conditions in Shakespeare's time? Deb (talk) 12:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Almost certainly not. But in that time any deformities he did have may have been seen as "punishment by God for wrong-doing". I don't think we'd want to therefore say that about him? Or even that Shakespeare had not invented that (some of Richard's own words in the play suggest that the character thought himself "cursed" by deformity.) Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I don't know - probably not as defined medical conditions. But, AFAIK, one gives the impression of a hump on the back (classic "hunch-back") and one produces a left/right lopsidedness. So I'm guessing they would have been seen as different "deformities". I don't know, and am guessing. My point is it's too close to WP:OR at the moment to launch into saying "Shakespeare was right". Let's wait to report what the WP:RS say: and if an RS says that the deformity would have been considered a "hunch-back" per Shakespeare then no problem. DeCausa (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't go so far as to say "Shakespeare was right". It's just that the idea that Shakespeare invented the hunchback out of thin air seems to me to have been discredited in a fairly blatant way. When you add to this the fact that all creative writers use poetic licence, even the reference to a "mountain" doesn't seem to justify the suggestion that the playwright made it all up. Deb (talk) 13:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the article doesn't say that. It gives the earlier descriptions of skeletal deformity and then that S. added the "hunch-back". So there's no suggestion it was "out of thin air". Just had a look at how the papers are treating it - although I suspect newspapers may not be RS for this. This Independent report is certainly making a distinction between Shakespeare and the skeleton. DeCausa (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so. One could even see that the lopsidedness may well have made the "free hanging" arm seem even thinner than it was, and thus "withered" - this is hinted at in the exagerated gait adopted by Olivier (snippets of whose performance were sprinkled through the Channel 4 documentary.) I think the wardrobe Dept for Olivier's production also helped to accentuate this. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See my question at Talk:Richard III (play). I hope someone can answer it. Deb (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, maybe it's all Larry Olivier's fault! DeCausa (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should see the Anthony Sher version [4]. Paul B (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the The Goodbye Girl, R3 is portrayed as a club-footed homosexual.  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that in Henry VI Part 3 he is referred to as a "crookback prodigy", but the term "crookback" is, I gather, also applied to him by Thomas More. Deb (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted a response which may or may not be the explanation. DeCausa (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. Shakespeare also has Richard himself telling us that he was deformed in the womb, I believe. Again, seemingly, pure dramatic license or a reflection of popular Tudor myth. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Deb, I've modified your edit on this. I don't think you can say it's "questionable" - at least that's an unsourced assertion. There's no suggestion in the source that "hunch-back" and "bunch-back" have different meanings. DeCausa (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, perhaps it wasn't a good edit. What I think is important, though, is to make the distinction between Shakespeare "adding" a hunchback to Richard and merely describing what was already known about him. "Crookback" can clearly apply to someone with scoliosis as well as someone with kyphosis, as (I suggest) could "bunch-backed" - in fact, I find the latter description rather apt. However, if you look at the picture used to illustrate the wikipedia article on scoliosis, you'd be hard-pressed, as a 16th-century person, to recognise any difference between that and a hunchback either. So I just think it is misrepresentation to imply that Shakespeare was lying about Richard or that he could have known that Richard wasn't, technically, a hunchback. That's even without taking poetic licence into consideration. Thus, whilst it is difficult to justify calling Shakespeare's detractors wrong, it is equally difficult to justify calling Shakespeare a liar. Deb (talk) 10:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that the reason Shakespeare is not a “liar” is that he wrote plays and not accurate historical accounts. He takes all sorts of liberties, with both chronology and geography, in all of the so-called “histories”. Indeed as Paul Barlow has noted, Sher’s portrayal shows him as the “bottled spider” – but I’m pretty sure the archaeological examination proved he had only two legs and not eight. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But to what extent is it fair to call that propaganda rather than artistic licence? Deb (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good question, which I think is difficult to answer. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, on the one hand it's pretty easy to find sources to say that Shakespeare was a participant in Tudor anti-Yorkist propaganda (eg this. That's not in doubt - nor is it surprising. He was a jobbing playwright and would want to please the powers that be and appeal to popular opnion. Whether he was the "inventor" of the hump is probably the least of it. Shakespeare's Richard III is a thoroughly evil character. So I don't think it's "unfair" on Shakespeare to say that he painted Richard III in a bad light both (a) for the purposes of writing great drama (b) to support the Tudor regime. However, on the other hand the article's statement that he "added" the hump is unsourced. We have pre-Shakespeare sources in the article that refer to deformities (not specifically the hump) and sources for Shakespeare referring to the "hump", but it appears that giving him "credit" for it, absent a specific source, may be WP:SYNTH. DeCausa (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a very fair summary and I totally agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This source gives the first instance of R being called a hunch-back - in 1491. Actually the 1491 source uses the term "crook backed" like More, but then here's a secondary source clearly interpreting this use in a primary source to mean "hunch-backed" so I think that's clear enough. On that basis I've taken "added" out. DeCausa (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a footnote, Shakespeare could be said in a sense to have added "hunchbacked" as, according to this, he invented the word! DeCausa (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that just supports my argument. If he invented the word, how do we know exactly what he meant by it? And I think the two secondary sources you have quoted, reputable historians though they may be (or one of them, anyway), are also guilty of taking things at face value. It wasn't until we knew that Richard suffered from scoliosis that anyone was able to prove that he had any kind of deformity whatsoever. I realise that this could be termed original research, though to me it's perfectly obvious that you can't call someone a propagandist just because he reported what he believed to be true and got the technical details slightly wrong. Deb (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...though of course I do accept that he had an interest in blackening Richard's character. Deb (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think DeCausa's link to Elizabeth Ward suggests that no-one has been able to yet find any earlier written instance of that word. Not sure if that really "proves he invented the word". I think his main interest was in making his own creation look, and sound, as undesirable as possible. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I heard an interesting talk recently, pointing out that everyone in the play does wicked things, and suggesting that it is (Shakespeare's) Richard's self-knowledge rather than his wicked deeds (or his appearance) that make him both more worrisome and more interesting. If Shakespeare was playing to Tudor sympathies, he presumably also used that as a vehicle for the things that interested him more - a chance to show psychological insights. I can't help thinking many of the claims ascribed to a Tudor propaganda machine are a bit overblown, and as stereotyped as the 'traditional' portrayal of Richard. It is the Tudor propaganda bit that is most relevant to this page. Did people believe the caricatured lampooning at the time? Have historians painted him as 'evil personified' since then? Or is that just what Richard apologists claim other people say? The 'Reputation' section of the page answers these questions pretty well already, I would say. RobinLeicester (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that Richard's self-knowledge, (his belief that is "blighted" or "cursed" in some way), is a major factor. Other characters seem to have far more straightforward motives for their deeds. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Profile image

I think it would be really good if there was some way (fair use?) of using one of the 3D reconstruction images as the profile picture. Although commissioned and funded by the Richard III Society the images appear to be copyright Getty for some reason and there isn't a hope of getting an acceptable license from them. --wintonian talk 12:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the result is very impressive: [5]. I'm just not sure why I still find the contemporary portraits more convincing. I saw the reconstruction more as a way of validating them, than of presenting the "real face" of Richard. It's just familiarity, I suppose. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I read that the model may eventually be put on public display, so then a Wikimedian (or a Flickr user) could snap a free license picture of it. Getty only holds the copyright on the picture, not the model itself. Targaryenspeak or forever remain silent 00:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense and I'm glad it is to go public display, so I guess we just wait before thinking too seriously about it. --wintonian talk 15:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency in lead

It says in the lead:

"There were three major battles against Richard. The first, in October 1483, was led by staunch allies of Edward IV and most notably by Richard's former ally, Henry Stafford... The revolt collapsed and Stafford was executed at Salisbury near the Bull's Head Inn. In August 1485, there was another rebellion against Richard, led by Henry Tudor, 2nd Earl of Richmond (later King Henry VII), and his uncle Jasper...Richard died during the Battle of Bosworth Field, the last English king to die in battle (and the only one to do so on English soil since Harold II at the Battle of Hastings in 1066)

That's two battles - where was the third? Richerman (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a recent mix up or unnoticed vandalism caused by heavy editing of the page. Paul B (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What vandalism? And have a look at these edits here[[6]], I'm not suggesting vandalism by the IP but can't really see the point to them... Basket Feudalist 15:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to trail back over all the edits today and yesterday to find out who changed it. Yesterday morning it said "two rebellions" as it has done for a long time. Today it got changed to something nonsensical ("three battles"). Presumably either that was was "unnoticed vandalism" or an accidental "mix up", as I said. If you want to trail through the edits please feel free. The changes you point to are all copy-editing, certainly not vandalism. Paul B (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said I wouldn't, but I did [7]. Paul B (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spotted. Curious form of vandalism that. Basket Feudalist 17:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, just slightly pointless ones. BTW, two rebellions?! "I can't belive it's not battles! Basket Feudalist 15:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had actually been wondering whether we ought to protect this page temporarily, but there seems to have been surprisingly little vandalism in the past 24 hours. Deb (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea, it would let the ground settle for a week or two, it's so high profile at the moment. Mind you is it within procedure or precedent to protect a page that might-but-hasn't-yet suffered vandalism? Basket Feudalist 16:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be risky for me to do it myself, as I'm so heavily involved, and I don't think I could justify it. Deb (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone did just delete the whole childhood section and replace it with 'Gansta' speak... Basket Feudalist 18:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DNA vs. Mitochondrial DNA

This article should strive always to differentiate between DNA and mitochondrial DNA. Admirably, it does so: only one reference to DNA remains in the article. However, the Footnotes (sources) contain many more.

The difficulty is that reported "DNA test" could be either a real DNA test accurately reported or, alternatively, a mitochondrial DNA test negligently reported as a DNA test by a reporter who believes that their wardrobe and hairstyle are more important than critical distinctions. Such negligent references can also be the work of a malicious prosecuting attorney seeking to convict an innocent person of a crime that was in fact committed by some matrilineal descendant of the defendant's matrilineal ancestors.

The difficulty can be overcome if Wikipedia traces every reference to an alleged "DNA test" and ascertains whether the reference accurately recounts a real DNA test or negligently misidentifies a mitochondrial DNA test. If such test is found to be the latter, quoted text can be amended from "DNA test" to "[mitochondrial] DNA test". If such test is the former, the text is arguably correct as it stands but it would still be useful to amend it from "DNA test" to "[nuclear] DNA test" or "[non-mitochondrial] DNA test". This is because there are so many negligent references to mitochondrial DNA tests as "DNA tests" that, absent the inclusion of an adjective (which, in an ideal world without negligent writers, should be unnecessary) before the term, a reader has no way of knowing whether text referring to a "DNA test" is accurately relating a DNA test or is negligently relating a mitochondrial DNA test. The inclusion of the adjectives "nuclear" or "non-mitochondrial" would make it absolutely clear.

In the present instance, efforts were made seeking a person with the special characteristic of having only females in their line of descent from Richard III's mother. That is a strong indication that the testing used mitochondrial DNA, not DNA. If a mere DNA match had been sought, the pool of living subjects is dozens or even thousands of persons, including the Royal Family (descended from a different sister of Richard III). It may be that a 100% mitochondrial DNA match (barring a mutation unlikely to have occurred in these few hundred years) was better science than a DNA match diluted 50% in every generation, and that could be why the Canadian subject Ibsen needed to be found.

If it really is the case that mitochondrial DNA testing in the matter of this skeleton was supplemented with DNA testing, can someone please edit the article to reflect that in a way that enables readers to know, for sure, that such DNA testing did occur, and not be left wondering if the citations of DNA testing are really just negligent authors reporting what was actually mitochondrial DNA testing?69.86.131.77 (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]

I'm fairly sure from what I've read that only mDNA was used. Since this is a type of DNA I can't see why we shouldn't use "DNA" as a shorthand, especially as sources generally use that acronym, but at the relevant part of the article we should be precise. In fact according to the press conference they identified two separate unbroken female lines, just in case someone's baby got switched at some point in history, messing up the line. All three matched (bones and living female-line descendents of R's mother). The other descendent apparently wished to remain anonymous, so Mr Ibsen has got all the publicity. Paul B (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you familiar with the testability of hypotheses? How do we test, for truth, "this is a type of DNA"? Well, mitochondrial DNA would be a type of DNA if to make a new person you take a random half of the mother's mitochondrial DNA and mix it with a random half of the father's DNA to create a composite that will be the genetic code for each mitochondrion in the new baby (and genetically identical mitochondria only in twins or other single-zygote multiples if such exist). Check that against the facts, and none of it's true. Ergo the assertion "this is a type of DNA" flunks the test and is not true.69.86.131.77 (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]
It was definitely mtDNA (and, I believe, only mtDNA) that was analysed. It's normal practice to include MtDNA analysis within the term "DNA test". If, however, the OP wants to initiate his/her strange crusade against the "negligent" use of "DNA test" s/he'd better start off with the DNA profiling article. DeCausa (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What does OP mean? I've checked en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Alphabet_soup and I don't see "OP" listed. I'm not a member of the Order of Preachers.69.86.131.77 (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]
Original Poster. That is, the person who started the thread/debate. You. Paul B (talk) 09:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shoe trees aren't trees. Koala bears aren't bears. Plastic wood isn't wood. Toe cheese isn't cheese. A shoe horn isn't a horn. And mitochondrial DNA isn't DNA. If the mere placement of the words is what determines the issue, then koala bears ARE bears and pastic wood IS wood. The most common reason to equate mitochondrial DNA with DNA is having a 100% match of mitochondrial DNA from a defendant to mitochondrial DNA at a crime scene, narrowing the pool of possible culprits to perhaps only a few million people, and wanting to convict some poor sap who has got that mitochondrial DNA. Tell the jury it's a match "of DNA", and the defendant is doomed when their 5th-degree female-lines cousin did the crime (because juries know that DNA doesn't lie. Which is correct. DNA doesn't lie. But mitochondrial DNA allows prosecutors to lie.) I seek to oppose crooked prosecutors. Do you? Not only that, but mitochondrial DNA just doesn't work the way that [nuclear] DNA works. It goes by a completely different scheme. Yeah, I know, common usage and all, if enough people (with Ph.D.'s counting twice and published Ph.D.'s thrice) start believing the world is flat, the fact that such belief is undeniably the consensus view will cause the world to flatten, yeah. Um, no it won't. If everyone in the world agrees that mitochondrial DNA is DNA, it'll still won't be. I'm arguing my position on its merits (and the demerits of the contrary), not what someone SAYS are those merits and demerits.69.86.131.77 (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]
The anon should also read Wikipedia:No legal threats. Deb (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, why am I supposed to read Wikipedia:No legal threats?69.86.131.77 (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]
Because you are hinting that the project could be in legal trouble if we don't conform with your view of how we should do things. Deb (talk) 10:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC) (PS. This is my real name)[reply]
I don't see how that could be inferred from my remarks. Suppose you refuse to edit all occurrences of "DNA" to "mitochondrial DNA" or "[nuclear] DNA" case-by-case. I don't believe that there's any power of law that would or could do anything about it.69.86.131.77 (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]
The correct way to refer to me if you have manners, "Deb", is "Mr. Simpson", not "The Anon". (I can't call you by your last name because you didn't sign it.)69.86.131.77 (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Anonymous Christopher L. Simpson, 313 West 92nd Street, New York, NY 10025[reply]
No it it is isn't. You are just a list of numbers. This has nothing to do with Richard III of England, so stop blathering on about it on this page. If you want to debate this issue do so on the DNA or mitochondrial DNA pages. If you wish to discuss the legal use of DNA carry your crusade to the DNA profiling page. Paul B (talk) 09:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please check your browser-installation. When I read this page I see "User talk:69.86.131.77|talk]]) 08:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson". You're not seeing the "Christopher L. Simpson"?. Then something's wrong.69.86.131.77 (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]
By the way, I read in some site run by a British newspaper that the man Ibsen was "the last of Richard III's line". That's ridiculous: Richard III has no "line", and if we expand "line" to mean descendants of siblings, Ibsen is NOT the only one, nor even one of only a few. He's merely one of a very few with no males in the generations. Why does this newspaper say that ridiculous thing? It's because people are not making the distinction between DNA and mitochondrial DNA. This is why it matters. If people in general don't pay attention to these minutiae, then people in general start believing absurd things like Ibsen being Richard III's last descendant or last descendant of a sibling of Richard III. (And at that point you can no longer say "this isn't about Richard III"). I would have thought an aim of an encyclopedia is to prevent just that, the profusion of misinformation. And no, I don't want people to discuss the legal use of DNA. (But of course I want people to discuss the legal (and illegal) use of mitochondrial DNA.)
What IS it with you people? If you're going to respond, why not put in "Oh, I see, that's right. We'll edit this to eliminate any possible confusion between DNA and mitochondrial DNA. Sorry. Good catch, Chris." And if you're not going to respond with THAT, with COMPLIANCE, why respond at all? If you really don't care, what's the use of TELLING me that you don't care? Just say nothing so that I don't have to post again to defend the posting of my original complaint. Just let it die. Why drag me into a fight?69.86.131.77 (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]
If you don't have the decency to create an account here you are a list of numbers and nothing more. If you really don't care, what's the use of TELLING me that you don't care? You are talking rubbish. The newspapers that said Mr Ibsen was a descendent of Richard were just making a simple mistake, an easy one to make. It has nothing to do with DNA mDNA or even MDMA. This page reports using standard terminology. If you really do care about that you'd take it to the appropriate pages instead of leaving your spit-flecked rantings here. Paul B (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You say the newspapers made a simple mistake that's easy to make. But it's NOT merely a typo. It's a mistake that followed logically from their ignorance of the distinction between mitochondrial DNA and DNA. It's a mistake that wouldn't have occurred if the public vocabulary maintained an awareness of the distinction. Encyclopedias are useful tools, if THEY maintain that distinction, for maintaining that distinction in the public mind. If the distinction is not built into our vocabularly then vast numbers of people will believe, for intance, that a person born singleton has mitochondrial DNA that uniquely identifies that person.69.86.131.77 (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]
Dear Christopher L. Simpson, if you wish to make constructive contributions (at the appropriate place) you may find that your position is strengthened if you create an editor account. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I won't. I will explain if you leave this I.P. address one of those messages.69.86.131.77 (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]
I'm not sure he needs to go as far as that; just taking a little water with it would probably help Basket Feudalist 15:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I always take my MDMA on the rocks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is MDMA? I've checked en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Alphabet_soup and it's not listed.69.86.131.77 (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)XTopher "Chris" l. simpson[reply]
Boom Boom! Basket Feudalist 15:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be serious (just for a moment), there is or has been more than one distinct editor using this same IP address (bizarrely, someone else who has also chosen to reveal their full name), so he is only stirring up trouble for himself by declining to create an account. Deb (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My Internet-service-provider rotates I.P. addresses from one subscriber to the other. Any I.P. address from which I send at any one time might be different from the one over which I sent something the day before, if they just changed it, but I think it should be the same for many months on end.69.86.131.77 (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]

I disagree that mtDNA is not DNA, it may not be autosomal DNA but it is still a type of DNA. However, I don't see the harm in being as clear as possible in this article and the exhumation article what type of DNA we are currently talking about pending the Y-DNA analysis which is not as easy to do or as helpful due to the potential of non-paternal events. I don't understand why people complain instead of fixing things. Wikipedia doesn't write itself. WP:SOFIXIT HelenOnline (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Forgot to say I fixed it already. HelenOnline (talk) 11:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a total non-issue and the anon who has raised it just has some bizarre bee in his bonnet and is best ignored. HelenOnLine's recent edit has made it clear it's mtDNA. It's perfectly acceptable and conventional to refer to mtDNA analysis as a "DNA test". Everyone should just move on - the anon's postings amount to little more than trolling at this point. DeCausa (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Perfectly acceptable and conventional"? It's "perfectly acceptable and conventional" to refer to "the Nobel Prize in Economics". Doesn't mean there is such a thing. Perhaps the crux is that I see encyclopedias as correctives to "acceptable and conventional", which is something they can't be if their own standards are BASED on "acceptable and conventional".69.86.131.77 (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]

Reburial in Leicester or York???

In the info box it states that "Burial: Greyfriars, Leicester (reburial to be Leicester Cathedral in 2014)". Isn't thin in violation of WP:FUTURE as the reburial hasn't happened yet, also especially as the City of York will contest this therefore how do we know for certain that this will be the place of the reburial? This is now going to be the subject of debate, saying in the infobox that his reburial will be at Leicester Cathedral in 2014 as opposed to York Minster is also a WP:POV issue. I say we refrain from stating in the infobox where the reburial will be until it is 100% certain. IJA (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The licence under which the body was exhumed specifies Leicester Cathedral as the place of reinterment. See [8] for the specific wording. Prioryman (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to specify it as one of three possible places, including ".. a burial ground in which interments may legally take place"? Does that exclude York Minster? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree - we should put "(proposed)" or something to make it clear. Deb (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I heard on the BBC News last night that York Minster had made a formal request to have the remains re-interred there. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can have your say on UK government e-petitions for Leicester or York. I see that the Leicester petition was created by "Roy Shakespeare", so I suspect a continuing Tudor anti-Yorkist plot. DNA tests should be demanded to determine whether he is a member of the notorious Richard-defaming dynasty. Paul B (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
York is in an overwhelming lead at the moment, I see. Thanks for pointing us to that link. Deb (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, but it's been up for longer. The Leicester on was created in response to it. Paul B (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like an unprecedented leap for democracy. Even worthy of inclusion in the article. Can we nominate a few politicians to join him? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
love the York petition...because he was "fond of York"! There's got to be a Richard III's preferred place of burial article in it. DeCausa (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about adding one in favour of having his ashes scattered in the River Soar? Deb (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"There let him sink, and be the seas on him!
How White-liver'd runagate, what doth he there?"
(lol, re-interment seebs, init bro') Martinevans123 (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_III_of_England&oldid=537295004"