Talk:House of Plantagenet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

÷

Featured article House of Plantagenet 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 trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 29, 2016.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject European history (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated FA-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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-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 FA-class, High-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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject France (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Ireland (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Wales (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Former countries / Holy Roman Empire  (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Holy Roman Empire task force.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated FA-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. Featured
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copy edited by Stfg, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 17 June 2015. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.

Re revert of Jbeans 1226 08 June 2016[edit]

Pls let's discuss; I respect any editor's concern if attribution isn't made; but specifics of the complaint were lacking. {*A} Ealdgyth please indicate the "...part of one paragraph [that] was copied without attribution".//Jbeans (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[INSERT: see SUMMARY below]// Jbeans (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC) ++++++++++++++++++++1

Your addition "The Norman conquest (1066) saw the introduction of Anglo-Norman French as the language of the new ruling classes in England, displacing Old English. It is not known how much use of French spread among the native and lower classes, but the demands of trade and basic communication probably meant that at least some Normans and native English were bilingual, especially around market-towns.<ref name=Conquest323>Huscroft ''Norman Conquest'' pp. 323–324</ref> Nevertheless, for perhaps as long as three centuries, the English language was not used, or not well understood, by the rulers of the realm.<ref>Crystal "Story of Middle English" ''English Language''</ref> Still, the dynastic period of the Plantagenets saw the development of successor English languages, one of which eventually replaced the usurper Norman French." compare that to the Norman conquest of England article (section Norman conquest of England#Language - "One of the most obvious effects of the conquest was the introduction of Anglo-Norman, a northern dialect of Old French, as the language of the ruling classes in England, displacing Old English. French words entered the English language, and a further sign of the shift was the usage of names common in France instead of Anglo-Saxon names. Male names such as William, Robert and Richard soon became common; female names changed more slowly. The Norman invasion had little impact on placenames, which had changed significantly after earlier Scandinavian invasions. It is not known precisely how much English the Norman invaders learned, nor how much the knowledge of French spread among the lower classes, but the demands of trade and basic communication probably meant that at least some of the Normans and native English were bilingual.<ref name=Conquest323>Huscroft ''Norman Conquest'' pp. 323–324</ref> Nevertheless, William the Conqueror never developed a working knowledge of English and for centuries afterwards English was not well understood by the nobility.<ref>Crystal "Story of Middle English" ''English Language''</ref>" - you even copied the exact form of the references! (which is how I figured out it came from an article I worked on - I am one of the few editors who use that exact form of references). You need to attribute text that is copied between articles in Wikipedia (leaving aside the issue that you did not import the full references for the short citations). The big concern with your edit, however, was the large amount of information you added that was not sourced. Some of it also is quite POV - look above "Still, the dynastic period of the Plantagenets saw the development of successor English languages, one of which eventually replaced the usurper Norman French." "Usurper" is quite POV and very much not encyclopedic. Or "Here the use of English was symbolic of the Anglicisation of the government of England and an antidote to the Francization which had taken place in the decades immediately before."? Antidote? And another problem is most of this is NOT related to the dynasty/house but is instead pure history. It really has no need to be so detailed here. And "During the 14th century a new style of literature emerged with the works of John Wycliffe and Geoffrey Chaucer" ... Wycliffe was a theologian. Chaucer wrote works of fiction. I'm not sure how the two combined to form a "new style of literature" Too much unsourced and too much not relevant to an article on the dynastic house, which is what this article is about. The history of the medieval English language belongs elsewhere. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The key is Ealdgyth's comment too much not relevant to an article on the dynastic house, which is what this article is about. A lot of work was done on this article to remove periodic history and focus this article on the family, their actions and their impact. The general history went into England in the Late Middle Ages—I think you may have edited the wrong article. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, but England in the Late Middle Ages already has a more concise para on this. Johnbod (talk) 12:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Ealdgyth and Norfolkbigfish: thank you both for responding; I am learning much---as there is much there to assimilate. Please believe I shall be mindful of your concerns even on those points where we disagree; I hope you will feel the same. I seek a mutual exchange of discussion in good faith---and for the possibilities of learning and common ground.
First, to respond, it is important for me to understand you---when you said "...part of one paragraph was copied without attribution". You said "part of", but your response identified a complete paragraph (my lede paragraph re "Norman conquest of England"---see above). {*B} So, please, which is it? Do you mean that the whole paragraph is without attribution? ---or only a part?---if the latter, pls clarify which part; then I can reply accurately. Thank you. // Jbeans (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC) ++++++++++++++++++++2
It's in the part I put above - you can compare the two bits in quotations - one is the edit you made (the first quoted bit) and the second is the paragraph from the Norman conquest article (which I handily linked to the relevant section that was borrowed from). Your edit clearly incorporates several sentences from the Norman conquest article - thus "part of one paragraph" (i.e. part of a paragraph you put in this article). When you copy ANY text from another Wikipedia article you must say in your edit summary that you are taking information from another wikipedia article. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. In this case "attribution" doesn't mean citing a source in the article - it means that you took sentence you did not write and by incorporating them into a paragraph you put here, you were in effect claiming that YOU composed those words. Clearly, this isn't the case (since you also copied the rather unique citation format I use). But THAT is only a very small part of the problem with your edits. I detailed most of them above also. You need to take on board those problems also. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Ealdgyth, thank you for your response, but still: you haven't identified that "...part of one paragraph [that] was copied without attribution"---which is in your stated complaint as posted. I have read your 2nd response (and the 1st again) several times now and cannot spot where you mean the offending flaw is located. OTOH You obviously know which phrase (or phrases) you meant; {*C} so this is request, again, that you simply point out the phrase that was "..copied without attribution".
Here is a suggestion to make it easy: below is the paragraph you have complained of (which I proposed for the lede paragraph of a short subsection on the emergence of "Middle English" under the reign of the Plantagenets). I have 'box'-numbered each sentence to facilitate your fingering---precisely---the flawed part.


|Block-A begin ==============================================================\/

---Middle English---
[1] The Norman conquest (1066) saw the introduction of Anglo-Norman French as the language of the new ruling classes in England, displacing Old English. [2] It is not known how much use of French spread among the native and lower classes, but the demands of trade and basic communication probably meant that at least some Normans and native English were bilingual, especially around market-towns.[1] [3] Nevertheless, for perhaps as long as three centuries, the English language was not used, or not well understood, by the rulers of the realm.[2] [4] Still, the dynastic period of the Plantagenets saw the development of successor English languages, one of which eventually replaced the usurper Norman French.
And for ease off comparing, here is the paragraph in the article Norman conquest of England, qv:
---Language---
[5] One of the most obvious effects of the conquest was the introduction of Anglo-Norman, a northern dialect of Old French, as the language of the ruling classes in England, displacing Old English. [6] French words entered the English language, and a further sign of the shift was the usage of names common in France instead of Anglo-Saxon names. [7] Male names such as William, Robert and Richard soon became common; female names changed more slowly. [8] The Norman invasion had little impact on placenames, which had changed significantly after earlier Scandinavian invasions. [9] It is not known precisely how much English the Norman invaders learned, nor how much the knowledge of French spread among the lower classes, but the demands of trade and basic communication probably meant that at least some of the Normans and native English were bilingual.[1] [10] Nevertheless, William the Conqueror never developed a working knowledge of English and for centuries afterwards English was not well understood by the nobility.[3]

|======================================================================end Block-A


{*D} Please, Ealdgyth, this is to again request of you: which of the numbered sentences [1], [2], [3], or [4] is the one (or more) you feel is ".. copied without attribution"? Thank you. //Jbeans (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC) ++++++++++++++++++++3
@Ealdgyth: {*E} it been some time now since my (above) post to you---with no response from you. Please, in good faith, answer the repeated requests (above): that you specifically identify the one or more sentences(s) that you find are "... copied without attribution". //Jbeans (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC) ++++++++++++++++++++4
  • I think Ealdgyth may think she has already answered you question once and doesn't feel inclined to enter a dialog on this. But all of this content dates prior to when the Plantagenets came to England—therefore it has no place in this article Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
But, Norfolkbigfish: Ealdgyth has not answered my question, even "once"---indeed, she has not answered the (same, repeated) question now four times. And the question doesn't require a (lengthy) "dialog" of her; actually, the opposite is true. This question/request asks simply that she back-up her claim, which is: "...at least part of one paragraph was copied without attribution from Norman conquest of England" (see Revision History, 8 June 2016 Ealdgyth).
  • The request, from the very beginning, has been that she point out the specific sentence, or sentences, whereby she makes her claim.
  • She is merely being asked to point to the specifics of her claim.
  • {*F} And, if @Ealdgyth cares to (finally) answer, this is the fifth request. //Jbeans (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC) ++++++++++++++++++++5
  • I have already answered twice. No need to keep repeating myself. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


@Ealdgyth: I agree: you have "already answered twice";
  • But, I also disagree:
  • Much more important than the question of 'repeating yourself'(?) is the fact that you certainly appear committed to avoiding the question asked of you:
  • 1) Yes, you have already answered twice, but on neither occasion did you answer the question asked of you; instead, you have certainly avoided it---five times now! 2) Indeed, it 'appears' you have replaced it with a substitute question, re-framed to read perhaps: "What can be said that avoids answering the actual question asked, and thereby will enable one to avoid having to discuss the claims one has made---or having to account for them?
I said 'appears' because of course because I may have wrongly guessed your intent; I hope so! (But it certainly appears that you are trying to avoid discussing the claims you have made.) {*G} Now I request of you to own your obligation as a Wikipedia editor "in good faith" to discuss the work made in good faith by another editor; and specifically to answer the questions where? and why? of your claims, especially if you continue to post reckless broadsides and claims that disparage another editor's work.
Ealdgyth: I do not presume to know or publish your reasons or intentions---nor do I need to; I believe you yourself will disclose that information by your acts. And this time---trust you'll be pleased to know---is the last time I will ask you to identify the sentences, specifically, that caused your claims of "... copied without attribution"; if you choose to continue your refusal to identify the sources of your claims and to discuss, then so be it.
Immediately below is the new section---comprising four five short paragraphs---that I originally proposed for this page, and which you immediately attacked. {*H} Please identify the individual sentences you found that are "... copied without attribution"; and from there we can discuss the particulars and other details of your concern.


|Block-B begin ============================================================== |==================================================================================\/

---Middle English---
The Norman conquest (1066) saw the introduction of Anglo-Norman French as the language of the new ruling classes in England, displacing Old English. It is not known how much use of French spread among the native and lower classes, but the demands of trade and basic communication probably meant that at least some Normans and native English were bilingual, especially around market-towns.[1] Nevertheless, for perhaps as long as three centuries, the English language was not used, or not well understood, by the rulers of the realm.[4] Still, the dynastic period of the Plantagenets saw the development of successor English languages, one of which eventually replaced the usurper Norman French.
The Oxford English Dictionary identifies Middle English (ME) as one of the varieties of English that developed after the Norman Conquest displaced Old English; ME was spoken during the period 1150 to 1500.[5] It developed out of Late Old English, introducing dramatic changes in grammar, pronunciation and orthography. Everyday vocabulary remained mostly Germanic, enhanced with Old Norse influence, but pronunciation absorbed significant changes in the Late Middle English period, as English began to undergo the Great Vowel Shift.
After the Provisions of Oxford were ratified in 1258, record copies of the agreement were drafted in Latin, French and, significantly, Middle English and were sent to sheriffs of all the shires in England. Here the use of English was symbolic of the Anglicisation of the government of England and an antidote to the Francization which had taken place in the decades immediately before. The Provisions were the first government documents to be published in English since the Norman Conquest two hundred years before.[6]
During the 14th century a new style of literature emerged with the works of John Wycliffe and Geoffrey Chaucer, whose "Canterbury Tales" remains the most studied and read work of the period.[8] Poets wrote both in the vernacular and courtly English. Official documents began to appear in English, in lieu of French, from about 1430.[9]
The Chancery Standard of written Late Middle English began to emerge: it was based, as was the language of Chaucer, on the East Midlands-influenced London speech. By the mid-15th century, Chancery Standard was used for most official purposes except by the Church, which adhered to Latin, and for some legal legacies in Latin or French law. It was disseminated around England by bureaucrats on official business and slowly gained prestige.[10] [End of proposed section.]

|========================================================================== |============================================================end Block-B


Ealdgyth, I welcome the opportunity to discuss with you the details that concern you, to revise those the details where I can agree with your explication or can compromise to it, and to explicate my own views---and generally to proceed in good faith and with mutual respect for each other and for each other's work---towards finding common ground in editing Wikipedia. // Jbeans (talk) 02:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC) ++++++++++++++++6
@Ealdgyth:: {*I} It has been a week now since my sixth (and final) request of you: to identify those specific sentences that were "... copied without attribution ..."---as you claimed on 8 June 2016 against my edit of that date. As of today, you continue to refuse to answer this question asked of you for some time now; {*J} in fact, you have avoided this (same) question now for three weeks since my original request of you on 09 June 2016; (see lede, this section, above).
Therefore, I can reasonably interpret that you will not answer this question (meaning 'the question asked' , not a substitute question), because you cannot; that is, your claim is baseless, it was made recklessly, with no specific evidence to support such a view. (It may be that you made an honest mistake---which I can accept if you can acknowledge.)

mark-line 6.1 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++6.1

{*K} Now I will address your other claims against my edit, including, "... addition of unsourced information ...". To do so, I must again seek your willingness to specify your vague claim, and to discuss the details it with me .
Therefore, from the copy (of the reverted edit) reproduced above---beginning at "Middle English"---{*L} please specifically identify those sentences you believe are 'unsourced' but should be. I welcome an opportunity to discuss problems, and repair them as needed, if you will point them out. // Jbeans (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC) ++++++++++++++++++++7
Well "It developed out of Late Old English, introducing dramatic changes in grammar, pronunciation and orthography. Everyday vocabulary remained mostly Germanic, enhanced with Old Norse influence, but pronunciation absorbed significant changes in the Late Middle English period, as English began to undergo the Great Vowel Shift." this sentence is without a source. Also "Still, the dynastic period of the Plantagenets saw the development of successor English languages, one of which eventually replaced the usurper Norman French." But that still does not address the main problem, which is the fact that the information added is not directly about the Plantagenet dynasty, rather it is about the English language during the period. It doesn't belong here (as several other editors have also pointed out. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Ealdgyth, for your response. My first reaction---to your naming the two sentences above---is: Why do you feel either sentence needs sourcing? There are no facts or themes presented (in either) that are contradicted elsewhere; there are none (facts/themes) that are controversial or opposed by dissenting groups of historians or scholars. Ealdgyth, pls open the links provided in the sentences: they connect the reader to background and collateral information (already existing on other Wp pages) that support the sentence narratives.
Your phrase, "this sentence is without a source", is insufficient. Probably 99.99+ percent of sentences in Wp are "... without a source". Sentences that actually need sourcing are actually very rare---and are not merely arbitrary. The question for you is: why does this sentence need a source? //Jbeans (talk) 05:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC) ++++++++++++++++++++++8
This is a featured article - every sentence should be sourced. This can be a source after a series of sentences (when the source then covers all the preceeding sentences) but those sentences actually DO need a source. Most folks reading this will not have a clue whether it's factual or not. By providing a source, you allow the reader to follow up and see that it is trustworthy. And whether or not the information is sourced in linked articles, it needs sourcing at the article it is contained in. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean that you shouldn't provide sources for information you add. But all this is really peripheral to the fact that the information doesn't relate to the family/dynasty of the Plantagenets - they didn't enforce or require changes in the language so it's not part of the topic of the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I do not disagree, Ealdgyth, with (the first) two themes you mention, but I am concerned with how "stickily" or arbitrarily they may be applied to edits that were (arbitrarily) dismissed at the get-go---or, so I believe. Both sentences are properly sourced because such is the constraint I have always endeavoured to keep in my years of copy-editing and revising at Wp. But now I am obliged to retrace my work-up of this edit---to recover the connections to source articles---that I (routinely) perform in my work. I shall commence tonight and bring the results back here, I hope, by tomorrow---certainly by the day after.
(Now, let me clarify my intentions re the third point you & others mention frequently: I don't agree with you, and I intend to engage this matter. But, I am no longer---if ever I was---a multi-tasker! So, while I shall not object if you continue to repeat "my-mind-is-already-set" warning---still I cannot engage the matter right now.) // Jbeans (talk) 00:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC) +++++++++++++++++9


|Block-C begin ============================================================== =============================================================================== ==================================================================================\/

{*M} Ealdgyth: re the first pair of sentences you designated: Sentences[1], (see below), does not require attribution, per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. This editing guideline points out where attribution is not needed: as when text is "content rewritten", which is the case here. It reads:
"Not everything copied from one Wikipedia page to another requires attribution. If the re-user is the sole contributor of the text at the other page, attribution is not necessary. Content rewritten in one's own words does not require attribution."---[excepting against material that is creative /copyrightable]; and,
"... even though attribution is not required in these cases, including a link is often useful."
In the present context, Sentences[1] (see below), is not "copy", or "copying", but instead is "content rewritten" per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. I summarized and rewrote this text from narrative found in the lede of the article Middle English, (see below)---which (narrative) is sourced to the body of the article (see section History):
Sentences[1]> "It developed out of Late Old English, introducing dramatic changes in grammar, pronunciation and orthography. Everyday vocabulary remained mostly Germanic, enhanced with Old Norse influence, but pronunciation absorbed significant changes in the Late Middle English period, as English began to undergo the Great Vowel Shift."
---------------------
[Article]> Middle English (ME) refers to the varieties of the English language spoken after the Norman Conquest (1066) until the late 15th century; scholarly opinion varies but the Oxford English Dictionary specifies the period of 1150 to 1500.[5] This stage of the development of the English language roughly followed the High to the Late Middle Ages.
[cf]> Middle English developed out of Late Old English, seeing many dramatic changes in its grammar, pronunciation and orthography. Writing customs during Middle English times varied widely, but by the end of the period, about 1470, aided by the invention of the printing press, a standard based on the London dialect (Chancery Standard) had become established. This largely forms the basis for Modern English spelling, although pronunciation has changed considerably since that time. Middle English was succeeded in England by the era of Early Modern English, which lasted until about 1650. By that time, a variant of the Northumbrian dialect (prevalent in northern England and spoken in southeast Scotland) was developing into the Scots language.
During the Middle English period many Old English grammatical features were simplified or disappeared. This includes the reduction (and eventual elimination) of most grammatical cases, and the simplification of noun, adjective and verb inflection. Middle English also saw a mass adoption of Norman French vocabulary, especially in areas such as politics, law, the arts, religion and other courtly language. [cf]> Everyday English vocabulary remained mostly Germanic, with Old Norse influence becoming apparent. Significant changes in pronunciation took place, especially in the case of long vowels and diphthongs, which in the later Middle English period began to undergo the Great Vowel Shift. [end]
One can (deliberatively) read both items above, and can see that Sentences[1] is summarized "content rewritten" of existing Wikipedia narrative that is itself properly sourced. Thus, Sentences[1] is correct here---as unsourced---per the "content rewritten" guide, Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. It does not require attribution here. The links provide the reader a "follow-up" connection to the sources, and other background material as well; I am agreeable to adding more links, or modifying them for consensus.
Ealdgyth, clearly, in the context of providing attribution to "creative /copyrightable" work this guideline intends to distinguish between "creative /copyrightable" work vs. material that need not be sourced, (eg, "content rewritten"). Do you agree with this point, or no? Please reply, specifically referring to the terms of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. // Jbeans (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC) ++++++++++++++++++++++10

|========================================================================= |====================================================================== |=======================================================end Block-C


@Ealdgyth:: {*N} now it is more than a week since you were given the above question; pls respond. // Jbeans (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC) ++++++++++++++++++++++++11
@Ealdgyth:: {*O} another week+ and still no response re my request of you for specific discussion of your claim of "... unsourced information" .. against my original edit (of 12:26 08 June) ------as you are perhaps aware, it is difficult to achieve good-faith discussion of differences when one editor refuses to respond to difficult questions.
If you have no objection: I will now suspend my unsuccessful efforts pressing you to defend your baseless claims---which efforts would include a detailed discussion with you of your first two broadsides (of 02:43 09 June, and 00:54 10 June) that---instead of providing specific answers to my specific questions---instead just offered additional baseless criticism. And still you cannot respond simply to name the sentences you claim were ".. copied without attribution"! But pls be advised: As my circumstances will permit, I plan to return here (soon) and post a summary report of your performance in defense of your baseless claims against my original edit-------perhaps in a few days---or I hope, certainly within a week. // Jbeans (talk) 06:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC) +++++++++++++++++++++++++12
Interruption, pls pardon---re doctor orders: to stop reading, writing, wikipedia-ing, etc;; &minions---my own family---enforcing agin me, (but I shall return soon.) (Ealdgyth, you are still invited to respond to above discussion). //Jbeans (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC) +++++++++++++++++++++13


  • @Jbeans:—you still need to consider that your edits had nothing to do with the Plantagenets as individuals or a family. This article failed its initial attempt at reaching FA status on the grounds of having too much general history and not enough family. @Sabrebd: did an immense amount or work stripping the general out into the other article and this one subsequently made FA. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I have to agree, regardless of any other problems, this article should not go back to a general one about the period, but needs to stay focused on the house.--SabreBD (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 12:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
===========================================================================================[edit]

SUMMARY (by Jbeans) re the above thread:

N.B.: This thread to date is summarized below re two issues: "... addition of unsourced informaiton", and "... part of one paragraph was copied without attribution"; these two are the only issues covered here. Note the following changes---all on Jbeans' edits---are made to the thread: (1) added narrative-divider lines (=====), as directly above, and below; and (++++++, --------). (2) isolated three existing blocks of narrative: Block-A, Block-B, Block-C, for ease of locating same. (3) bolded, for emphasis, 15 existing statements by Jbeans, and marked: {*A}, {*B}, etc.

  • 1. 12:26, 06 June 2016 (see> Article.): editor Jbeans (Jb) posted a new sub-section, "Middle English", to article House of Plantagenet (HP); see> Block-B above;
  • 2. 12:35, 06 June 2016 (see> Article.): editor Ealdgyth (Ea) reverted, leaving this message: "(revert addition of unsourced informaiton - also at least part of one paragraph was copied without attribution from Norman conquest of England)";
  • 3. 09 June 2016 (see> Talk--and the same hereinafter): Jb requests that Ea specify: the "...part of one paragraph [that] was copied without attribution". (see> {*A}, above).
  • 4. 09 June 2016: Ea replies at length, but does not identify any specific phrase or sentence that "...was copied without attribution".
  • 5. 10 June 2016: Jb again requests that Ea identify a specific part, or such a phrase or sentence, or "...whole paragraph".(see> {*B}).

  • 6. 10 June 2016: Ea replies: "In this case "attribution" doesn't mean citing a source in the article - it means that you took sentence you did not write and by incorporating them into a paragraph you put here, you were in effect claiming that YOU composed those words." Ea implies that Jb is, in effect, plagiarizing.
Ea still avoids identifying specific phrase(s) or sentence(s) that "... was copied without attribution".
  • 7. 11 June 2016: Jb provides a copy of the offending paragraph, with sentences numbered (see> Block-A above), again requesting that Ea simply identify the phrases or sentences she sees and claims are flawed (see> {*D}).
Ea ignores responding. Jb repeats the request twice more.
  • 8. 16 June 2016: Ea posts that she has no more to say re this matter.
  • 9. 30 June 2016: After pressing Ea to identify the flawed sentences, Jb writes: "Therefore, I can reasonably interpret that you will not answer this question ... because you cannot; that is, your claim is baseless ..."; (see> immediately above line-mark ++++++6.1).
  • 10. 4 July 2018: Jb turns to Ea's second claim---re "...addition of unsourced information"---and requests Ea specify what she claims. (see> {*K}, {*L}). Useful dialog ensues; however, both Jb and Ea appear to sometimes use the word "sourcing" when they may have in mind the activity "attribution".

"Not everything copied from one Wikipedia page to another requires attribution. If the re-user is the sole contributor of the text at the other page, attribution is not necessary. Content rewritten in one's own words does not require attribution." [emphasis added]; (see> {*M}, above).
Jb requests if Ea agrees that his post is not "copying" that needs attribution, but is "content rewritten" that does not need attribution; (see> Block-C, immediately above ++++++10). Ea ignores responding.
  • 12. 13 July 2016: Jb presses Ea for reply (see> {*N}); Ea ignores responding.
  • 13. 24 July 2016: Jb final request for reply (see> {*O}); Ea ignores responding to date.

=================================================================================================

@Ealdgyth: Please reply below; pls do not interweave your comments into mine above---which are list-numbered for ease of reference to them; thank you. /// Jbeans (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth:---Sorry; I had intended to ping-notice you with the above posting./// Jbeans (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

You've already pinged me several times with the above. I've already stated all I'm going to. Please do not ping me again about this or take up more of the talk page with this issue. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b c Huscroft Norman Conquest pp. 323–324
  2. ^ Crystal "Story of Middle English" English Language
  3. ^ Crystal "Story of Middle English" English Language
  4. ^ Crystal "Story of Middle English" English Language
  5. ^ a b "Middle English–an overview - Oxford English Dictionary". Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved 2016-01-04. 
  6. ^ English and its Historical Development, Part 20 (English was re-established in Britain)
  7. ^ Carlson, David. "The Chronology of Lydgate's Chaucer References". The Chaucer Review, Vol. 38, No. 3 (2004), pp. 246-254. Accessed 6 January 2014.
  8. ^ The name "tales of Canterbury" appears within the surviving texts of Chaucer's work.[7]
  9. ^ Wright, L., "About the evolution of Standard English", in Studies in English Language and Literature, Routledge 2012, pp. 99ff.
  10. ^ Nevalainen, Terttu; Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (2008). "Chapter 5. Standardization". In Richard Hogg, David Denison. A History of the English Language. Cambridge University Press. pp. 271–311. ISBN 978-1-139-45129-1.