Jump to content

Talk:Cotswold Olimpick Games

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eric Corbett (talk | contribs) at 23:13, 11 August 2019 (→Reliable source?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleCotswold Olimpick Games is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 31, 2013.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 16, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 18, 2005.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Cotswold Games were organized by Robert Dover as a protest against Puritanism in the early 17th century?

Comment

From The Games Today section: "A 20th century "Robert Dover""...

The games are still going on, right? Shouldn't that be a 21st century Robert Dover or is there someting I'm missing? - Hessef 07:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should Shin Kicking redirect here? It seems a sport in it's own right, and even though it is a highlight of games, isn't just done there, is it? wraith808 (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change page name to "Cotswold Olimpick Games"

Why is the page "Cotswold Games", not "Cotswold Olimpick Games" - I suggest a swift change of name!93.96.154.200 (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking any objections, I shall ask for this to be done.93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Next Games in Lede

This has recently been removed twice without explanation. I am reinstating it, as I believe it to be important information. Please explain here why it should not be included.93.96.148.42 (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because wikipedia is not a what's on or travel guide. You don't see dates in the lead of Olympic Games --Simple Bob (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But you do in 2012 Summer Olympics etc. I think adding it to the end of the lead would be acceptable here - Since 1963 they have taken place on the Friday after the Spring Bank Holiday, in 2010 this will be ... - Basement12 (T.C) 11:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added to lede, as per discussion93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Start date

  • Antick Dispositions and the Perilous Politics of Culture: Costume and Culture in Jacobean England and America - Roger D. Abrahams

This book claims that the first games was on "Whitsuntide, 1611". Parrot of Doom 20:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is certain when the Games began. Haddon says that various documents suggest anything from 1601 to 1612, with 1612 the likeliest date, just after Dover moved to the Cotswolds. Malleus Fatuorum 20:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, probably best to say then that "sources disagree on the starting date" or similar? Parrot of Doom 21:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. I'll knock something up. Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a paragraph explaining a bit more about Dover. There's more to be said yet, as the source starts talking about links to royalty etc. In adding this paragraph though I've orphaned the first part of that section from its sources. I don't suppose you know which cite covers that, do you? Parrot of Doom 22:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, added. Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ta. Off to bed now, long day tomorrow. The pdf is in the references section, it makes interesting reading actually. I used the image therein to replace the article's image. Parrot of Doom 22:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Dover

The material on the early life of Dover seems excessive for this article, so I have copied it, with due attribtion, to Robert Dover (Cotswold Games). That leaves freedom of manoeuvre to thin out the Dover material here. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's just not going to happen. Malleus Fatuorum 12:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motivation

It has been said that "even Dover himself said that he didn't know why he started the Games". That being so, should there be an unsourced statement Dover's motivation in organising the Games was his belief that physical exercise was necessary for the defence of the realm, but he may also have been attempting to bring rich and poor together in the intro? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, there shouldn't. Now changed. Malleus Fatuorum 18:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whitsun vs Whitsuntide

Whitsuntide may redirect to Whitsun but they're not the same thing. Standardising on one term is all very well, but not when it changes the meaning of the text. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are exactly the same thing according to my dictionary. "Whitsun" is an abbreviation of "Whitsuntide". Malleus Fatuorum 17:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OED seems to suggest that Whitsun means "belonging to or occuring at Whitsuntide". Parrot of Doom 17:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say is that if Kenilworth Terrace feels strongly about this, which I don't, then he should change whichever occurence of "Whitsun" that offends him to "Whitsuntide". Malleus Fatuorum 18:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia, "Whitsun" is a religious festival and "Whitsuntide" is the week following Whit Sunday. I'm not going to change the entry, since I don't claim to know which one is correct in this context. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a reliable source, of course, but that's an interesting distinction. I'll take another look through the article to see which is appropriate where. Malleus Fatuorum 18:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably just a case of overlapping words. It certainly isn't something to worry about, although maybe some of those 13th century bishops might object :) Parrot of Doom 19:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Parrot means that s/he isn't worried about it. FAC reviewers and those of us interested in accuracy, overlapping classes not entirely composed of mediaeval bishops, might still do so. Fowler, not a 13th century bishop, writes "Whit. The word Whitsun is a curtailment of Whit Sunday. [1]. Brand and Ellis, 19th century non-bishops, refer to Whitsun-Ales as being usual in the country at Whitsuntide [2]. See also [3] or [4] for post-13th-century sources which distinguish the two words. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to work on that sense of humour mate. Anyway, when it comes to the exact meaning of a word I tend to refer to the online edition of the OED, which states:
Whitsun - Used attrib. to denote something belonging to, connected with, or occurring at the season of Whit Sunday or Whitsuntide: as Whitsun air, contribution, fair, holiday, market, morn, morris-dance, pastoral; Whitsun ale Hist. [ALE 3], a parish festival formerly held at Whitsuntide, marked by feasting, sports, and merry-making; Whitsun eve, even [EVE n.1 2, EVEN n. 2], the day before Whit Sunday; Whitsun farthing = PENTECOSTAL n.; Whitsun gillyflower, local name for a double-flowered variety of rocket (Hesperis matronalis); Whitsun lady, lord, titles of the leading or presiding personages at a Whitsun ale; Whitsun week, the week beginning with Whit Sunday, Whit-week. Also occas. in names of the days of Whit-week, as Whitsun Sunday (obs. or dial.) = WHIT SUNDAY, Whitsun Monday, etc. = Whit Monday, etc.
Whitsuntide - The season of Whit Sunday; Whit Sunday and the days immediately following. Parrot of Doom 20:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you miss out a bit before the "Used attrib." that you quoted which gives the substantiative meaning? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In any case I think you quoted enough already to support my point: "Whitsun" and "Whitsuntide" mean different things. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So change them, then! And no I missed nothing. Parrot of Doom 20:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temporal Confusion

The article seems to take a very historical view of what is an existing event. The lede is very long, but hardly describes the current games at all, while the passage ludicrously entitled the present day deals with the last 60 years in very few words, without even a proper list of the games played. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is ludicrous is your own confusion. Why not go try bothering someone else for a change? Eric Corbett 16:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many words?

"Motor cycle" is two words in British English? Sca (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. Do you think we should change that, or do we need to have a full UN Security Council meeting first? Eric Corbett 16:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Far be it from me to dictate usage to Albion. Sca (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FA Nightmare

The "protection template" didn't do much good! Congratulations to Eric Corbett and others for keeping the show on the road. Davidships (talk) 06:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cotswold Olimpick Games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cotswold Olimpick Games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source?

A good portion of this article relies on Haddon 2004. However, Celia Haddon is neither a historian nor particularly qualified to be considered an authority on this matter. Haddon normally writes about cats.[5] –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She's a best-selling author and journalist, and the book is published by a reputable publisher. Who would you suggest knows more about the history of the games? Eric Corbett 13:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Radford, Judith Swaddling, et al. There are plenty of other good sources already present, but Haddon is leaned on the heaviest despite having the worst credentials. I don't see how Hodder & Stoughton (who are the publishers of primarily fiction books) is considered that reputable. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly more reputable than you are though, wouldn't you agree? Eric Corbett 14:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but what does that have to do with anything? @Cassianto: I don't really see this revert as necessary since it was just an additional source. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pity, MJL, but around here, we abide by WP:BRD to ensure process. You were Bold, I Reverted, therefore you must Discuss with others the merits of your inclusion. My revert was because this is a Featured Article which went through a pretty extensive source review. Have you checked the source, its content, reliability? You cannot simply add what you like, when you like, to an FA and expect not to get challenged for it. CassiantoTalk 17:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cassianto: [Thank you for the ping] Yeah, I spent about 10-20 minutes vetting the person's credentials. Radford is the author of multiple peer-reviewed articles published several different reputable journals.[6][7][8] He's the former chairman of UK Athletics, and his book on Captain Barclay received positive reviews from both the Guardian[9] and the Independent.[10] This may be a FA, but it was last reviewed more than 9 years ago. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I've found for Haddon, which I'm sure you'll agree, MJL, is pretty varied and extensive. That should satisfy your concerns that she's, somewhat bizarrely, unreliable for being a writer on feline habits; unless of course you're purely here to grind an axe, that is? CassiantoTalk 17:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cassianto: What? No. I'm just here because I clicked Special:Random and saw it was a FA. Regardless, that is just a list of books Haddon has written. Like I said, it's like 20+ cat books (not even close to historic sporting events). (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So this had no influence then? Of all the millions of articles you could "randomly" find, the one you do find happens to be one of Eric's? CassiantoTalk 18:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly. Eric Corbett 18:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah.. It's called Special:Random? You click it and get a random article. I've been interested in FAR and decided to check on this one's sources. I really don't care who wrote it. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of it, thanks. You must think I've come down in the last shower. CassiantoTalk 18:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I clicked Special:Random I ended up finding an article that I expanded for this RFD. Stuff happens. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, silly me. A complete coincidence, I'm sure. CassiantoTalk 18:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just a hunch, but I'm pretty sure I could predict with some significant accuracy what next "random article" MJL is likely to end up on. Eric Corbett 18:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well okay then.. so we're openly speculating about my apparent agenda on an article talk page now. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it does, but just to be clear, is it your argument that in the time since this article went through an FA review that there have been more scholarly sources published than that of Haddon that should now be taken into account? If so, what are they? Do they disagree with Haddon's account? Eric Corbett 18:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My arguement is simply that since the article was reviewed for FA, our standards have gotten more rigorous when it comes to WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Haddon 2004 specifically fails to meet: Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. [emphasis added]
In 2010, that guideline used to read Material such as an article or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars. The distinct difference is the inclusion of books (and stronger advisement). (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't answered my question: what are the new sources that this article ought to take into account? Do any of them disagree with Haddon's account? Eric Corbett 19:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the accounts I have read,[1][2][3][4] all place the motivation for starting the games purely on theological grounds (Dover was a staunch Catholic). I could probably name other examples, but I have privately been advised to find other uses for my time. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You would be wise to take that advice. But before you go, can you clarify which of these sources either contradict or add to what Haddon says? One of your references is to a newspaper article for instance. Was that written by a professional historian? Eric Corbett 21:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Second paragraph within the origins section (last sentence is particularly concerning imo). The newspaper reference isn't from an established historian, but I have just provided three other sources from academics with proper credentials. It's your choice what to do with them. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeni, please be more careful when reverting during an ongoing discussion. You need to be more aware of your surroundings before unilaterally reverting on a featured article. Eric, are you happy for the inserted reference to be used? If so, I'll restore. CassiantoTalk 09:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Radford, Peter (2014). Kluge, Volker (ed.). "Robert Dover's Olimpick Games" (PDF). Journal of Olympic History. 22 (2): 40–49. OCLC 906733279. Retrieved 6 August 2019.
  2. ^ Shulman, Calvin (3 December 2011). "Our Olympic spirit from the Cotswolds to Much Wenlock". The Times. United Kingdom. EBSCOHost: 7EH54388698 Paid subscription required. Retrieved 6 August 2019 – via EBSCOHost MainFile.
  3. ^ Clarke, Simone (7 March 2007). "Olympus in the Cotswolds: the Cotswold games and continuity in popular culture, 1612–1800". The International Journal of the History of Sport. 14 (2): 40–66. doi:10.1080/09523369708713983. ISSN 0952-3367. OCLC 16314947. Retrieved 6 August 2019.
  4. ^ Ellis, Sian (1 September 2011). "Those Great British World championships: it's the taking part that counts". British Heritage. 32 (4). Kliger Heritage Group, LLC: 46+. Gale: A260582367. Retrieved 6 August 2019 – via Gale In Context: Biography.
Seems like a good source to me, so I've restored it. In general I've got no objection to providing alternative sources for Haddon to reduce the article's dependence on it, but not simply because some clown thinks that Haddon isn't reliable because she doesn't teach history at some academic institution or other. Eric Corbett 12:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MJL's comment above about the second paragraph of the origins section demonstrates very clearly to me that he does not take the trouble to read the sources he produces. Eric Corbett 13:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I concur with MJL that the article is too heavily dependent upon the unreliable source of Haddon and urge the opposing editors to recognize and appreciate historiographical scholarship, prior to choosing and exploiting a source. It's incredibly bizarre when a (self-proclaimed) cat-expert starts shifting into rigid academic disciplines and we start using their writings, because a quasi-reputed house, (mainly specializing in fiction), published that. ∯WBGconverse 20:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Also the tag-teaming and edit-warring, as to preventing the addition of a reliable source, seem to be equally dubious and smacks of ownership issues. ∯WBGconverse 20:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear. CassiantoTalk 23:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Which reliable source are you referring to? Don't you think it would be a good idea if you took the trouble to read the article? In what sense is the Cotswold Olimpick Games a "rigid academic discipline"? Eric Corbett 23:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cotswold_Olimpick_Games&oldid=910414979"