Talk:Robin Hood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Robin Hood was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
April 17, 2007 Peer review Reviewed
July 22, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
August 12, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2015[edit]

92.0.234.227 (talk) 11:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC) heelooooooo


French Robin Hood[edit]

It is hard to know where to start on this article.....but as a small beginning let me note that the "French Robin Hood" is not Thierry the Sling but "Robin des Bois". The Robin Hood legend may or may not have a French origin, Stephen Thomas Knight has argued that it does, but in any case it has an independent life at least since Alexandre Dumas wrote a Robin Hood book....as to the article more generally there is a lot of embarrassing stuff in it. I suggest creating a separate article or theories of origin. Jeremy (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC) An independent French life I mean. Jeremy (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation[edit]

I'm not very good at the IPA, but I think someone should add the UK and US pronunciations of the name, since they differ so much in the way we stress it. The OED gives "Brit. /ˌrɒbɪn ˈhʊd/ , U.S. /ˈrɑbən ˌ(h)ʊd/ ". I reckon that Brits are often very surprised at the US pronunciation. I wonder if that goes the other way too. Myrvin (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2015[edit]

I have serious reservations about the last sentence in the Robin Hood, the high-minded Saxon yeoman section: “And, historians propose the site of Robin's death as being the hospital of St. Nicholas at Saxon Kirkby (modern Pontefract).[20]” Which historians? The footnote [20] provides no reference to any such proposal by any historian. I also have serious reservations about the entire All Saints’ church at Pontefract section which reveals, IMO, dodgy scholarship: Rather than quoting from Drayton the author quotes from an academic – hence footnote [55]. The author then uses this as a precedent to say “historians today indicate that the outlaw is buried at nearby Kirkby.” Which historians? Because the academic in footnote [55] does not say that. The author then quotes from Grafton [56], neglecting to mention that Grafton says RH is buried at Bircklies. The author then quotes from A Gest [57] – wilfully misinterpreting a Middle English spelling of ‘rode’ (rood ie cross) as road! Perdu42 (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done - you didn't make a specific request to change the text in the article, in the form "please change X to Y" as the template suggests. You should discuss your concerns with editors here and determine what specifically needs to be changed in the article before posting an edit request. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Reservations on content[edit]

Being a newb is no excuse so my apologies for the semi-protected edit request. The section ROBIN HOOD, THE HIGH-MINDED SAXON YEOMAN at present consists of three paragraphs – the last two should be deleted. The section ALL SAINTS’ CHURCH AT PONTEFRACT should be removed entirely. I believe both passages violate the guidelines on original research – that is they stem from someone’s MA thesis. If this does not violate said guidelines both passages need tidying in terms of providing verifiable references for the numerous claims of academics and historians supporting the ideas expressed. I would argue the ideas expressed in the two passages form (a really small) minority view such that there are no verifiable references. (Hence, should be considered original research!) Where references are supplied they can be misleading: for example footnote 20 refers to John Paul Davis, Robin Hood The Unknown Templar. Yes, Davis mentions the marriage legend but makes no proposal that the site of Robin's death as being the hospital of St. Nicholas at Saxon Kirkby (modern Pontefract). Perdu42 (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)Perdu42Perdu42 (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC) Yeah, I have made some changes, including some of the cuts recoomended here. A lot more needs to be done on content.Jeremy (talk) 13:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Disney's Robin Hood (1973)[edit]

Walt Disney didn't produce Robin Hood (1973) as he died on December, 15 1966, BEFORE production on Robin Hood began in I believe 1970. Dragon'sLair83 (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Major surgery required.[edit]

This page as it stands is a disgrace to wikipedia....really. I suggest it be reverted to long ago and we start again. In the new article the search for the historical Robin Hood should be separated, and the broadside ballads given proper weight. All sentences beginning "historians indicate" or the lack should be cut. Jeremy (talk) 11:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC) I have, I hope, improved the sequence of the article; but a lot of work still needs to be done in improving content Jeremy (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I've been slowly doing some of the surgery I recommended and trying not to leave the article unsutured after any particular efit, The references to Sword in the Stone and Keats got lost in the shuffle but they are put back, perhaps in a more consistent context. I did have to remove the following references,which were not doing any work but which are obviously useful so I put them here so they won't get lost.....[1][2][3][4] "Can be put back' I meant. Jeremy (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

From another stranded section I deleted, I pit it here to save the ref and in case the English transaltion of the spurious epitaph be thought useful at some later date:

"A reference to Robin as Earl of Huntington is provided by Thomas Gale, Dean of York (c. 1635–1702),[5] but this comes nearly four hundred years after the events it describes:

[Robin Hood's] death is stated by Ritson to have taken place on 18 November 1247, about the 87th year of his age; but according to the following inscription found among the papers of the Dean of York...the death occurred a month later. In this inscription, which bears evidence of high antiquity, Robin Hood is described as Earl of Huntington – his claim to which title has been as hotly contested as any disputed peerage upon record.
Hear undernead dis laitl stean
Lais Robert Earl of Huntingun
Near arcir der as hie sa geud
An pipl kauld im Robin Heud
Sic utlaws as hi an is men
Vil England nivr si agen.
Obiit 24 Kal Dekembris 1247
In Modern English:
Here underneath this little stone
Lies Robert Earl of Huntington
Never archer there as he so good
And people called him Robin Hood
Such outlaws as him and his men
Will England never see again

This inscription also appears on a grave in the grounds of Kirklees Priory near Kirklees Hall (see below). " Jeremy (talk) 12:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Holt, p. 37
  2. ^ Ohlgren, Thomas H. ; Lister M. Matheson (2007) Robin Hood: The Early Poems, 1465-1560 : Texts, Contexts, and Ideology pg 147
  3. ^ Dixon-Kennedy, Mike (2013) The Robin Hood Handbook: The Outlaw in History, Myth and Legend The History Press
  4. ^ Waltz, Robert B. (2013) The Gest of Robyn Hode: A Critical and Textual Commentary pg 267
  5. ^ The Annotated Edition of the English Poets – Early ballads (London, 1856, p. 70)

[1] Sir Walter Scott's historical novel, "Ivanhoe" is certainly well worth familiarizing oneself to as a strikingly similar parallel inspiration for the development of Robin Hood Dlf1wayout (talk) 07:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Dlf1wayout a.k.a. LSDexitOzAmericaDotOrg

Proposed merge with Robyn Hod and the Shryff off Notyngham[edit]

Not notable enough to warrant its own article. Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 03:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Each Robin Hood ballad has its own article and most of them are less notable than this. Dobson and Taylor write "this unique 15th century manuscript can lay claims to being one of the msot historically significant items in the entire corpus of Robin Hood literature". If this was merged so to be consistent would most of the ballads have to be. It is of significance, as well as to the main article, to the Friar Tuck and Guy of Gisbourne articles (both ballads and articles on the characters). If it is to be merged please wait till the main article is less of a mess,right now we need less confusion there not more! Jeremy (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2016[edit]

There's a typo, "Cbildren", under the "The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood" sub-section. It's most likely supposed to say "Children". ChlorideCull (talk) 10:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

thanks, now corrected. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Historicity[edit]

A line here should be considered for removal or heavy revision: "Robin Hood's Yorkshire origins are universally accepted by professional historians." Appeals to universal agreement on a controversial topic are typically false and this is no exception. There might be some general consensus in favor of Yorkshire, especially among Yorkshire historians, but this does not mean it's universally accepted. The issue is unsettled absent irrefutable proof, regardless of how good Yorkshire's claims might be. Ftjrwrites (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2016[edit]

Add Hong Gildong to the "see also" section.

Samiam2424 (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: That is a disambiguation page. — JJMC89(T·C) 17:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I Take it the OP meant Hong Gildong (character). not sure if it belongs, but that may just be my cultural bias showing, so i'll leave it here for consideration. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done given the other entries in that section, adding the "Korean Robin Hood" seems reasonable - Arjayay (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Alexandre Dumas, wrong data[edit]

I think the data:" Alexandre Dumas in Le Prince des Voleurs (1972)" is wrong, it shoud be 1872.--Dafne07 (talk) 08:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

done, thanks IdreamofJeanie (talk) 09:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

peepee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18F:903:2390:D057:DF5:A5DD:D5DD (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/i/ivanhoe/book-summary