Talk:Magna Carta/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Requested Guild of Copy Editors copy edit

As requested by Rodw, I will be copy-editing this article on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors. I expect the edit to take at least a few days. I will post here if I find things I am unable to resolve. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. The article has been edited by several people since I made the request including several good copy editors, so I hope you will not have too much that needs doing.— Rod ^talk 22:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Some problems I found while copy-editing:

1. The last paragraph of the "1225" section, beginning, "In 1258", is confusing. Why is Louis IX involved?

• I think the intention here is to give a brief overview of the situution after 1225 which lead up to the 1297 statute. The article on Louis IX of France suggests that at this time he "was regarded as "primus inter pares", first among equals, among the kings and rulers of the continent." which may have meant the Barons felt that he could arbitrate or rule over the king for the "baronial-led government". Do others have further detail?

1. The "Great Charter of 1297: statute" section is much rougher than the preceding sections. It looks like it was recently added. It needs someone with knowledge of the topic to refine it and smooth its reference formatting before it can be copy-edited. What is "parva carta"?

• I've tried to explain that parva carta was the king confirming the validity of the earlier Magna Carta & have added refs. What referencing needs "smoothing"?

1. I have placed a few {{clarify}} tags in the text where I couldn't figure out a specific meaning.

• I've only found one "clarify" tag am I missing some?

1. More to come. I have edited through the end of "14th–15th centuries", or about half of the article.

Overall, this article is in fantastic shape. Thanks to all who have worked to improve it recently, and to build it over the years. The references are superbly formatted, and the prose is easy to read. I have found only small problems with the text. And I have learned, even after years of copy editing, that "the King" is a general exception to capitali[zs]ation rules. Good stuff. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this. We all keep on learning.— Rod ^talk 11:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I personally usually find it easier to follow if edits are kept in time order, so I'll answer the questions down here.

1. p. 102 of Jobson 2012 has this: "Lacking the necessary strength for a military response, Montfort (i.e. the leader of the rebel barons) decided to follow the route of arbitration. Mindful of his personal standing at the French court and the positive judgement handed down in September, he was confident of a favourable hearing in France." This is a somewhat obscure and difficult to follow period of English history, but the rebel barons referred to Magna Carta repeatedly, as did the monarchs, so it should arguably have more prominence in an article on Magna Carta.
2. I actually think it's the reverse, rather than being recently added, the 1297 section is largely unchanged from when it was added several years ago. Other sections have been rewritten and tidied up, this section has not been, perhaps because (as previously noted) this is a somewhat obscure period that is not very well understood by most amateur historians. I'll have a go at tidying some of it up now. --Merlinme (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to all. I will continue with my copy edits, starting with the 19th century. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

A couple more copy edit notes:

1. I did a "search inside the book" on both Breay and Hindley for the word "spirurnel", and got no results. Is this word verifiable? Is it useful to have this tidbit in the article?
2. Do we know where the fourth surviving copy of the 1225 charter resides? "Four exemplifications of the 1225 charter survive: the British Library holds one, which was preserved at Lacock Abbey until 1945; Durham Cathedral also holds a copy, with the Bodleian Library holding a third."
3. There are two "clarification needed" tags remaining in the article.

I am done with my copy edits. The 1297 section is more readable now. This article is definitely ready to be a GA, and I think it could pass FA pretty easily. Really great work, everyone. I will keep this page on my watch list for a while if you want to comment on my edits or ask any questions here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Re Spirurnel: I can't find Spirurnel and it is not a word I'm familiar with but I am finding traces of a Sir Edmund Spirurnel knt. of the county of Essex about the right dates =- perhaps this knight was responsible for the sealing rather than it being a specific position - but I couldn't give an RS for that.— Rod ^talk

Thanks Jonesey! (NB: on the fourth copy, I don't think I found a location for it, but the latest publications out this year may give one). Hchc2009 (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

According to Lewis page 494 footnote 107 the fourth copy of the 1225 is in the Public Record Office Museum.— Rod ^talk 20:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It may be worth checking that that isn't the same as the British Library copy though - the PRO moved some of their material there a while back. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Re "spirurnel". This is actually a typo for "spigurnel", from the Latin spigurnellus, meaning the sealer of the King's writs in Chancery. However, the earliest citation for the Latin noted by the OED is 1314, and for the English 1610 (in Philemon Holland's translation of Camden's Britannia); and the OED adds, "It is evident that the word had no real currency in English, and its appearance is due to Camden and Holland, copied by Phillips, Blount, Harris, Bailey, etc." So, wherever it originally came from, it seems pretty dubious, and even if authentic not terribly important, so I'd suggest deleting it. GrindtXX (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe the PRO one went to the National Archives, and it's still listed in their catalogue here. (More context on the museum page). Andrew Gray (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the national archives catalogue is an RS and will add this.— Rod ^talk 22:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed! Hchc2009 (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The cite is from the volume published by the British Library on the Magna Carta in 2010, so I'd argue it's probably from a reliable source. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification tags Looking at the clarification needed tags..

"By the mid-15th century, Magna Carta ceased to occupy a central role in English political life, as monarchs attempted to reassert their sovereignty after its[clarification needed] decline in the previous 150 years." I think "its" relates to the power of the monarchy but advice welcome.

"When American colonists fought against Britain, they were fighting not so much for new freedom, but to preserve liberties and rights that they believed to be enshrined in Magna Carta, and that were later included in the Bill of Rights.[clarification needed][182]" Presumably this should link to United States Bill of Rights?— Rod ^talk 21:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking again it could be Bill of Rights 1689. Ref 182 mentions both.— Rod ^talk 21:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

My sense from the context of that section was that the reference was to the U.S. Bill of Rights, but I could not be sure. Hence the tag. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• I've reorganised the 1297 section and expanded it with additional detail from the references which should hopefully make it easier to follow.
• I've rewritten the "15th century sovereignty" sentence to hopefully clarify it.
• I've deleted the reference to the Bill of Rights. It wasn't completely clear but I think the US Bill of Rights was meant. In any case though I didn't think mentioning the Bill of Rights was particularly helpful. The reference talks at least as much about the US Constitution as the US Bill of Rights. Also, mentioning the Bill of Rights here confuses the historical order, as both the US Constitution and the US Bill of Rights came years after the original revolution. It seems much clearer to me to concentrate on the initial effect of Magna Carta on the beliefs of the rebels. Clearly those beliefs then influenced the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, but I don't think we have to mention that explicitly here. Apart from anything it should be clear from context; the next paragraph goes into much more detail about exactly how Magna Carta influenced the US Constitution. --Merlinme (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their edits and discussion. I believe this article now more than meets the Good article criteria shall we nominate it and hope it doesn't wait too long? Any comments received should be useful in moving towards FA in time for the anniversary.— Rod ^talk 08:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I added a short section on Magna Carta's use in the medieval courts, based on Sandoz 2008, which is a very interesting source which as far as I can tell is impeccably researched. Thank you to those who have already copy-edited it, I was hoping others would jump in. I will have to fiddle with the references somewhat, the current link is to the online version which doesn't have page numbers. I'll add a link to the pdf version (which does have page numbers). Any help correctly formatting my references is gratefully received. --Merlinme (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The Sandoz refs work fine for me - the only thing would be to add the page numbers into the sfn eg {{sfn|Sandoz|2008|p=XX}} but I see what you mean about the html version of the ref. Are you looking at this pdf version in which she only seems to have done the intro?— Rod ^talk 16:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

See the article to see what I've done with these references, but basically I've added a reference to the JC Holt article published in Sandoz, which in fact was the only article I was using for this section. I've linked to the pdf version, which has page numbers. --Merlinme (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I would personally now be happy to see the article nominated as a Good Article, as I think it is a reasonably well-written, informative and well-referenced article which covers what is a very big subject in a sensible amount of detail. --Merlinme (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

OK I've done the nomination for GAN. No idea how long the wait for a reviewer will be; some seem to be waiting for months and others are picked up within a day or two.— Rod ^talk 08:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Copy-editing thanks

I'd just like to say a big thank you to all those who have been helping with the copy-editing of this article. Personally I prefer adding new (well-referenced) material, but I consider myself a reasonable copy editor, and it's fascinating to realise how much you don't know about the English language. I have always spelled "superceded" to agree with "ceded", and I had no idea superceded is considered either a variant or just plain incorrect spelling of superseded. Similarly, it never even occurred to me that British English would use both "judgement" and "judgment", depending on the context. Keep up the good work! --Merlinme (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

surely the most fantastic surrender of any English king to his subjects quote

Seeing the edit summary re: Turner & "surely the most fantastic surrender of any English king to his subjects". Turners footnotes cite this to William Stubbs "Select charters and other illustrations of english constitutional history pages" 277-278 however looked here and here I can't see the phrase.— Rod ^talk 10:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I was slightly confused by your two links, the first is to p.190 of the Turner, which clearly has the phrase. Did you link to the Turner by mistake?

Anyway, I agree I can't find the quote in Stubbs, on pp.277-278 or anywhere else. Does Turner give anything helpful like an edition? He presumably didn't make it up. The Cornell online copy is the ninth edition, "revised throughout by H.W.C Davis".

It's a great quote, but if it can't be properly verified I would probably vote for taking it out. --Merlinme (talk) 10:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry yes copied the wrong link for the first one. Turner cites: Stubbs, W. (ed) (1913) Select Charters and Other Illustrations of English Constitutional History. 9th edn, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 277, 278. This [link] is to the 1870 version of the book which doesn't have it. This link (which is what I meant to copy originally) is the 1921 version but I can't find accessible full text of the 1913 edition.— Rod ^talk 11:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I've given up on the Stubbs. I'm suspicious Turner quoted it from memory and gave a bad reference. However there's plenty in McKechnie, which is actually cited by Stubbs as a good commentary. It's also available online: [1] I'll see if I can find a good quote. --Merlinme (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

My concern with McKechnie is its age; it is very old (over a century) and therefore misses out on all the research that has since occurred on this period. Could I suggest as a more modern source Warren, who notes that it was almost inevitable that the clause would result in civil war, given that the mechanism "was crude in its methods and disturbing in its implications"? (pp.239-420) Hchc2009 (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Well- is McKechnie really that out of date? I'm not aware of anyone having written a 500 page, clause by clause analysis of Magna Carta since. He writes about 12 pages on clause 61 alone. How much illuminating research has been done into clause 61 since? For example, McKechnie was clearly aware of the continental parallels where feudal vassals had the right to defy a lord who had not met his obligations, see pp. 472-473.

I think using older sources should be taken on a case by case basis, and McKechnie's commentary seems to have been considered something of a minor classic at the time. It also has the enormous advantage in terms of verifiability that the whole text is available online, whereas for example with Warren I don't have that book and nothing seems to be available online. We have plenty of more modern writers quoted in the same paragraph, but for the moment at least I think the McKechnie comments add something which the other quotes don't. If you wish to try to add something based on Warren, then by all means go ahead. --Merlinme (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree that older sources should be considered on a case-by-case basis and that it was a classic at the time, but historians' understanding of 12/13th century politics and society is vastly improved on that available in 1914, and you rarely see McKechnie quoted significantly in modern histories. I'll take a stab using the Warren quote, on the basis that it's provisional, and may be reverted. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I've added a couple more references where verification etc were requested one to copies in Salisbury & St Edmundsbury and the "who said" for Robert the Bruce. I note the McKechnie reference in the bibliography section is not used in the references - should I remove it as no longer useful/relevant?

McKechnie is still the most detailed analysis of all the individual clauses that I am aware of. It depends to some extent what the purpose of the Bibliography is; if it is purely to reference material in the article then McKechnie should go. If it can also serve as a Further Reading section then there is a case for including an out of copyright resource which is freely available on the internet. --Merlinme (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

We could always add a "Further reading" section for those that don't have enough from the ones actually used.— Rod ^talk 20:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd support it going into a Further Reading section. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Done.— Rod ^talk 20:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Magna Carta/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 19:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley talk 19:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is going to take long. This article seems to me of extremely high quality, and I hope it will soon be making its appearance at peer review on its way to FAC. There are, needless to say, some niggles at this stage.

• General
  • Parenthetical dashes – the MoS bids us use either spaced en-dashes or unspaced em-dashes. You have spaced em-dashes, which need changing.
    • Now done. Tim riley talk 19:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Piping of titles: not sure of your reasoning here: Lord So-and-So is piped in full but Sir Whatnot Thingummy has his "Sir" outside the link. And you pipe the job title for "King John" in the lead, but not in the main text. On the wider matter of naming kings, why just "James I" and "Charles I" but "King Henry I", "King Edward I", "King Henry VI" etc? And I am not sure of your policy capitalising the job title: "In one sense this was not unprecedented; other kings had previously conceded the right of individual resistance to their subjects if the king did not uphold his obligations. Magna Carta was however novel in that it set up a formally recognised means of collectively coercing the King". I recommend a quick consultation of MOS:JOBTITLES, though I'm not sure I altogether understand it. As long as you're happy that you're consistent I have no further comment on the matter.

I think that bit is correct as per MOS:JOBTITLES, which requires capitalisation if "the King" is standing in for a specific named king, lower case if it's not. "other kings" are general, so lower case. "the king" is a generic king, so lower case. "coercing the King" refers to John specifically, so is upper case. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I see! Fine, Tim riley talk 21:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

...though I did feel like a medieval cleric arguing about angels and pins as I wrote it (and others may have a different interpretation, of course!) Hchc2009 (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Lead
  • Is it strictly accurate to say that the charter was issued by King John at Runnymede on 15 June 1215? Agreed then but not issued until 19 June according to your main text.

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Great Charter of 1215
  • "Louis claimed the English throne for himself" – if it's possible (perhaps it isn't) could we have a brief footnote explaining the grounds on which Louis reckoned himself entitled to the throne?
    • Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Perfect! Tim riley talk 21:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "List of participants in 1215" – I think this collapsed table is a brilliant device: just what one wants – casual readers can skip over it and more thorough readers have it there if wanted.
• Great Charter of 1217
  • Ignore this if you wish, but though I'm a strong proponent of "Jones's" and "Smithers's" with ess-apostrophe-ess as the possessive form, "Louis's" looks odd to me, and I'd write "Louis'", I think, feeling that "Louis's" would be pronounced "Looeeziz". Just my two penn'orth, and I'm not trying to twist your arm.
    • I'm not confident enough of my grammar to comment on this one but will ask for advice.— Rod ^talk 13:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Following advice at User talk:Eric Corbett#Possessive form of Louis I've changed this.— Rod ^talk 14:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Good. Eric is a tower of strength on drafting prose. Very glad to hear my opinion backed by a competent authority. Tim riley talk 19:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "The French prince" – Perhaps just "He"?
    • I can't see this problem any more - perhaps it has been fixed?— Rod ^talk 12:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Second sentence of second para. Your choice, though: I'm not pressing the point. Tim riley talk 13:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Changed to "He".— Rod ^talk 13:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Great Charter of 1225
  • "Henry gave verbal assurances" – it's tiresome pedantry on my part, but unless he was using semaphore his assurances were certainly verbal – i.e. in words. I suggest "oral" here.

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• • "The charters, however, did not address" – there are 18 "howevers" in the article and one starts to notice them after a time. Most "howevers" can be removed with no damage to the meaning and some gain to readability. Not a sticking point for GAN, but do review if you are going on, as I hope you will, to FAC.

• Some culling done. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Great Charter of 1297: statute
  • "not prepared to concede this, however they agreed" – stronger punctuation than a comma needed here
    • The "however" appears to have been removed does this resolve the issue?— Rod ^talk 12:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Magna Carta's influence on English medieval law
  • "and the Forest Charter, however it was possible" – ditto
    • This has been changed to "but".— Rod ^talk 12:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• 16th century
  • "than other contemporary texts" – potentially ambiguous (contemporary to the Tudors or the Plantagenets?) I'd make this "13th century", if that will work.
    • Changed to 13th-century.— Rod ^talk 12:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Glorious Revolution
  • "which "marked a setback for the course of English historiography."[180]" – if it's worth putting in quotes, it's worth attributing in the text
    • Pocock added.— Rod ^talk 12:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "he cited Magna Carta incessantly" – I'm sure he must have had occasional intervals for rest and refreshment – perhaps "continually"?
    • Continually used.— Rod ^talk 12:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Use in the Thirteen Colonies and the United States
  • "When Englishmen left" – and Englishwomen, too. The men doubtless had all the political power, but you'd be safer with gender-neutral phrasing.

• Changed. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• • "the request was denied by the King" – you might say which king here
    • Changed to Charles I.— Rod ^talk 12:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Sellar and Yeatman published their parody on English history, 1066 and All That" – a parody? I am horrified: this has always been my main reference work for all matters of English history.
  • "In many literary representations of the medieval past, however, Magna Carta remained" – this, in passing, is one example of a "however" you could blitz: it wouldn't spoil the meaning and would improve the flow of your prose.

• As per above, many have now trimmed back. A few, however, remain. :) Hchc2009 (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Celebration of the 800th anniversary
  • This section comes under the heading of WP:DATED. I'm sure you're going to keep it updated as 2015 progresses, but I'd be failing in my duty as a reviewer not to mention the point.
• Physical design
  • "by jurist Sir William Blackstone" – you have generally refrained from using the false title in this article, and I recommend for the sake of good writing that you refrain here too: the addition of a definite article before "jurist" will remove the tabloidese flavour.

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• 1215 exemplifications
  • "great seal attached, albeit badly melted" – this the sixth "albeit", and it's rather outstaying its welcome by now. Once the reader starts to notice an unusual word it begins to be an irritant on repetition.

• Several of them have been trimmed back.

• • "Winston Churchill" – this is the first mention of the great man, and I suppose a blue link should at least be considered
    • Wikilinked.— Rod ^talk 12:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Nothing of any great consequence there. Over to you for consideration. I look forward to completing the formalities once you've addressed these few points. Tim riley talk 20:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Afterthought (sorry about this): It's just occurred to me to run the duplicate link detecting tool, and there are some, not extravagantly numerous, that you might well weed out, viz: sheriff, Edward Coke, Glorious Revolution, Charles I, Lord Coke, James Holt, W L Warren, United States Constitution, William Blackstone and David Carpenter. Unless you have particular reasons for wanting a second link from any of these in the main text I'd blitz them. Again, I do not press the point at GA level. – Tim riley talk 13:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I've removed some where they were fairly close together, but left a few (Edward Coke, William Blackstone and David Carpenter) where the links are several sections apart and I think it is useful for the reader to be able to follow the link for further context. Perhaps others have a thought on whether these should be removed as well?— Rod ^talk 14:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Good. I think we're there. If you care to address my points about titles at the top of my comments well and good, but I have no doubt that the article in its present form meets the GA criteria handsomely. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

On to PR and FAC, please, and pray ping me at each stage. – Tim riley talk 19:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for a helpful and comprehensive review. The article is better as a result and I will put a note on the talk page asking others what else they think is needed to move it forward.— Rod ^talk 19:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Further development

Following the very helpful review this article has now been promoted to Good Article. What do others think is the best way forward - should we ask for a peer review? Can anyone identify further work which is needed to reach the featured article criteria?— Rod ^talk 19:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

See—I told you it would sail through GA! I am doing a little picky cleanup. A few things I've noticed:

• I question the reliability of the Sagamore Institute source (typoed as "Segarmore Institute"). Need a better source for "Over the next 140 years, nearly the whole charter was repealed".

• I've fixed the typo in the name. The about us page of the Segamore Institute says it is a new think tank - I'd be happy to remove that one. The National Archives has the dates when clauses were repealed so could use that which is at the end of the next sentence.— Rod ^talk 09:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• In a couple of cases, an iffy source could probably simply be removed since it is used in combination with other, higher-quality sources:
  1. The sentence "The Charter was confirmed in 1423 by King Henry VI." is cited to the Church of England General Synod, britroyals.com, and historic-uk.com.

• Other possible sources: Diocese of Salisbury, Robison book, Montgomery Book

• 1. A quote from the Confirmatio Cartarum is cited to a book of statutes printed in 1763 and also to 1215.org.
• There are a couple of bare-url citations that need fleshing out.

• Done,— Rod ^talk 09:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• I think the cite to "McGlynn 2013, p. 1307." has a typo in the page number (the book isn't that long).
• There are some single book cites lacking page numbers:
  1. Pocock 1987.

• Done.— Rod ^talk 09:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• 1. Sandoz 2008.

• This should have been Holt p=62. As a result I have moved Sandoz from bibliography to further reading.— Rod ^talk 09:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• 1. Scott 2014.
  2. Stimson 2004.

• Done.— Rod ^talk 11:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Once we clear up the few iffy sources, and ensure verifiability by adding the missing page numbers (or re-sourcing those statements if need be), this is certainly FAC ready. Maralia (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done some of those & suggested alternative sources. I feel a library trip coming on for some of the page numbers, unless those with copies can help?— Rod ^talk 09:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

McGlynn fixed. My remaining concerns about FA review are:

• I'm not convinced about the sourcing for the 18th and 19th century sections, and whether this really reflects the best of current scholarship. Paragraphs like "The development of parliamentary supremacy..." are cited to a 1917 work and a top level summary from a government website; I suspect that there are better, more up to date academic works in this area. I've got similar doubts about how well the Whig revolution is reflected as well.
• I think we do need to get a copy of Carpenter's latest work, which reflects an additional period of intensive research prior to the current commemorative year. I'd also argue that we need Holt's revised edition on Magna Carta, due out in March, if we're going to be able to say that the article reflects the best current literature on this topic. I'll take a look into getting Carpenter.Hchc2009 (talk) 10:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• I will look for further support for "The development of parliamentary supremacy..." but I think there is a balance to be struck between getting it as good as it can be with currently available sources, before nominating it at FAC in time to get it as TFA by 15 June, and waiting for future publications.— Rod ^talk 11:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Possible sources for that paragraph:

• Stoebuck, William B. (1968). "Reception of English Common Law in the American Colonies". William & Mary Law Review. 10 (2): 393–426. OR
• Nelson, William E. (2013). The Common Law in Colonial America Volume II: The Middle Colonies and the Carolinas, 1660-1730. OUP USA. ISBN 978-0-19-993775-2. (but I don't have access to full text of this book) OR
• Benton, Lauren; Walker, Kathryn (2014). "Law for the Empire: The Common Law In Colonial America and the Problem of Legal Diversity". Chicago-Kent Law Review. 89 (3): 937–956. OR
• Starr, J. Barton (1988). The United States Constitution: Its Birth, Growth, and Influence in Asia. Hong Kong University Press. pp. 28–32. ISBN 9789622092013. OR
• Koenig, Thomas; Rustad, Michael; Markets, Julian (2003). In Defense of Tort Law. NYU Press. p. 16. ISBN 9780814747582. and I'm sure there are others.— Rod ^talk 11:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Rod. I guess some of these bear out some of my concerns; Benton and Walker, for example, talk extensively about early colonial law, but never mention Magna Carta; Milton Candor gives a slightly different spin on the constitution and rights than our article does. It's not just that we need to make sure that individual paragraphs are cited, but that we also need to ensure that the article text reflects the current academic consensus etc. I'm not saying our current text is necessarily wrong or in need of change, its just that I'm not confident from the current citation base that it is up to date and high quality. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with both Rod and Hchc2009; Featured Article status seems to largely revolve around being tidily written, having no glaring errors, and having all material cited to a decent source, and I think we could probably pass that with the article as it currently is, or with some fairly minor improvements. As a separate and longer term goal though, personally I am more interested in whether the article is a useful and accurate summary of the subject. At the moment I believe most of the post 17th century part of the history section was added by an editor I've mentioned previously whose edits did not always reflect NPOV and a good sourcing style. It is a slightly obscure part of the history of Magna Carta and I think the recent improvements to the article have bypassed it largely for that reason, because none of the current editors has confidence with the relevant sources. Peer review from people who are knowledgeable about colonial law and 18th/19th century history could be helpful, as could getting to grips with the sources for that period (to the extent that we know what they are). --Merlinme (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Are we sure that's a "King John penny"?

The image currently claiming to be a "King John penny" prominently displays the text "REX HENRICUS", rather suggesting that it isn't. Grover cleveland (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

This was addressed before, further up the page... Hchc2009 (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Magna Carta edition found in Sandwich archive scrapbook

This is a major find,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-31242433 and unfortunately an IP editor (User talk:77.99.8.13) has been struggling to insert this with a reference. Widefox; talk 22:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I can agree it is a major find, but the editor missed the issue in the text. We have increased the number of original editions by one with this, but this is an edition from 1300. Thus, we still have four editions that were from 1215. (Granted, it is only the second time an edition has been found as a pair with an edition of the Charter of the Forest.) --Super Goku V (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I have had some time to read. The only question I have is if a document called the Articuli super Cartas, or The Articles upon the Charters, was with the document. Since that is not address in the source, then it is possible that this is not a complete version of the 1300 edition, but that is a different point. In any case, there is a section called Later exemplifications that looks to be the place where it can be added. I do not see a way to add it in at the present state of the section, but it looks to be the spot that it would fit into the best. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Obiter dicta

Looking in, after the GAN review which I had the pleasure of doing, I see that the second ("Monarchy") info-box, top right, has ballooned from a few lines to a vast screed mentioning everything from the Foundation of the Ottoman Empire to the Nepalese Civil War. I do not think this is an improvement. Can the superfluous material be removed or at least hidden? Having delivered that complaint, may I, on a more positive note, ask if FAC is in prospect? I have read the recent scholarly exchanges above, and I venture to hope so. – Tim riley talk 00:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The monarchy infobox can be loaded in show and hide versions. I have hide so you just see 5 headings without all of the stuff below. I thought this was the default setting but if you are seeing a big list this may not be. As you have seen above there is some reticence about going for FAC as a couple of sections may need further work from experts. It has also been suggested that perhaps we should wait for David Carpenters new book - due out in a couple of weeks.— Rod ^talk 18:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Faulty citation

This edit[2] uses a citation to page 75 of the 1992 edition of Magna Carta by James Clarke Holt as a citation for the following:

Magna Carta (Latin for "the Great Charter"), also called Magna Carta Libertatum (Latin for "the Great Charter of the Liberties"), is an Angevin<

I have checked page 75; it is the first page of Chapter 4 Custom and law. It does not support the text in question. As far as I can tell, the book does not support the uses of the phrase "the Great Charter of the Liberties". As for the issue of the charter being Angevin; well that is obvious - King John was an Angevin king. As far as I can tell Holt's book does not describe it as an "Angevin charter"; but there is no reason why it should.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I see that the note, in the info box, at John, King of England says this: "Historians are divided in their use of the terms "Plantagenet" and "Angevin" in regards to Henry II and his sons. Some class Henry II to be the first Plantagenet King of England; others refer to Henry, Richard and John as the Angevin dynasty, and consider Henry III to be the first Plantagenet ruler." Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Holt's book refers to King John as an Angevin king. However page 75 of the 1992 edition does not.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Either way, the dynasty of the king isn't really relevant to the lead of this article. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

By the way, Magna Carta was not an isolated "one-off"; contemporary kings in other Western and Central European countries also issued them (Holt page 26). Indeed King John's great-grandfather Henry I had issued a charter of liberties (Holt pages 224, 406).-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to second what Hchc2009 notes, accurate or not, I do not see why this needs to be in the opening sentence.--SabreBD (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the important point is that the exact dynasty John belonged to is more-or-less irrelevant. He was an Angevin king, and that probably doesn't need to be cited (although of course any citation should be correct), but the article is enormous enough without unnecessary lines of background colour. In addition, I would personally have said describing Henry II and his sons were Plantagenets was at least as common; so the description might have to be Plantagenet/ Angevin, which is a whole extra level of unnecessary confusion. --Merlinme (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Toddy1, Henry I's charter is mentioned in passing in the current article. It used to have a rather more prominent position, from memory I think it was mentioned in the lead and in the section on the baron's rebellion. I might modify the article slightly to make it clearer that Magna Carta did not spring from nowhere.--Merlinme (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Henry I's Charter of Liberties

The article used to have in the lead: It was preceded and directly influenced by the Charter of Liberties in 1100, in which King Henry I had specified particular areas wherein his powers would be limited. And in the section on the baron's rebellion: They took an oath that they would "stand fast for the liberty of the church and the realm", and demanded that the King confirm the Charter of Liberties that had been declared by Henry I in the previous century, and which was perceived as protecting the rights of the barons. For whatever reason this has been lost in the most recent revisions. Personally I think we need to acknowledge the influence of Henry I's charter; some of the clauses in Magna Carta are virtually identical to Henry's charter. Do others agree that this needs to go back in some form? --Merlinme (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you fancy suggesting some draft text and citations? Hchc2009 (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The previous lead text did not have references. The previous "baron's rebellion" text had "Danziger, Danny; Gillingham, John (2004). 1215: The Year of Magna Carta", pp=256-258; "Turner, Ralph (2009). King John: England's Evil King?" p=174; McGlynn, Sean (2013). Blood Cries Afar: The Forgotten Invasion of England, 1216" pp=131-132. I only have easy access to the Danziger and Gillingham of those three. That particular source is as clear as you like: pp. 257-258 has e.g. the rebels "deliberately looked to the past, to Henry I's charter and what they believed had been a 'golden age' before the more oppressive government of recent kings". It's an interesting question how strong a source that particular book is; it's written in quite a chatty style, with no inline references. However the co-author is John Gillingham, who I believe is this John Gillingham, i.e. Emeritus Professor of Medieval History at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He has written well received books on Richard I, the Angevin Empire, etc. etc. I believe therefore that book is broadly reliable. I would however be happier if it were supported by other sources. --Merlinme (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I've found a publisher page which explicitly links the John Gillingham of the 1215 book to the professor of history at the London School of Economics: [3]. So I think that source can be considered reliable. --Merlinme (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a bit more complex than "1215" presents it there (and Henry I's charter is in itself a complex object). Vincent, for example, notes that "not just the coronation charter of Henry I, but the charters of towns and cities, the laws dispensed by the barons in their own manorial or honour courts, the precedents set by the traditions of diplomacy and diplomatic negotiation, all played a part in Magna Carta's evolution". He also argues that although there is a one piece of documentary evidence showing some linkage between the coronation charter and the Magna Carta, the "chronology and the factual accuracy of the chroniclers'" links between the Henry I coronation charter and the 1215 negotiations have been exaggerated. I'd be keen that we reflect more of this in the main text, but I'm not convinced that the coronation charter link is strong enough on its own for the lead. Hchc2009 (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

(NB: Gillingham is certainly reliable, but I think the analysis he's presenting is nowhere near as simple as the proposed wording about "preceded and directly influenced" would suggest). Hchc2009 (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking at Carpenter (writing pre-Vincent) for comparison, he notes the the Henry I charter directly influenced the "Unknown Charter" (the document that Vincent mentions above), but that "by 10 June, when John agreed the "The Articles of the Barons" as a basis for a settlement, the Coronation Charter had been forgotten". He later goes on to draw out two themes; the first is that "views about government had been developing" since the time of Henry I, with a "far more elaborate" view of law emerging, going on to note the role of urban charters etc. as well as earlier coronation charters, but he also argues that the Henry I charter was important in that it formed the "foundation on which further [baronial] demands were built". I'll see if I can check the latest publications today, but for me this reaffirms my earlier opinion that it doesn't belong in the lead, but we do need a carefully nuanced reference to this issue in the main text. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

From memory, I wrote the original wording of 'They took an oath that they would "stand fast for the liberty of the church and the realm", and demanded that the King confirm the Charter of Liberties that had been declared by Henry I in the previous century'. That is based heavily on the source I had to hand, i.e. Danziger and Gillingham. The direct quote is from Danziger and Gillingham, p.258. I don't remember writing 'and which was perceived as protecting the rights of the barons'. I imagine that was added at about the same time as the other two sources were added. I'm not wild about that wording, to be honest. Perceived by who to be protecting the rights of the barons? Did Henry I's charter protect the rights of the barons? It raises more questions than it answers.

My personal suggestion is that we go back to something close to my original wording (based on Danziger and Gillingham), and then you expand it with additional information based on Carpenter and Vincent (or similar sources). Or if you want to write the whole thing based on other good, up to date sources, that's fine too. As I said, the Danziger and Gillingham seems to be deliberately written as a popular history, to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. I don't think it's wrong, but it's quite hard to pin down exactly which original sources are being used, and sometimes you do wonder if some subtleties are being lost and arguments glided over. However it could still be used as an introduction to the deeper analysis of more academic works.

"foundation on which further demands were built" sounds to me as if Carpenter agrees there is quite a strong link. Look at the text: Clause 1 of the Charter of Liberties concerns church property; Clause 1 of Magna Carta is far longer and more detailed, but also concerns the church. Compare clause 2 of the Charter of Liberties: "If any baron or earl of mine shall die, his heirs shall not be forced to purchase their inheritance, but shall retrieve it through force of law and custom" with clause 2 in the Magna Carta (which is its twin in spirit, although more detailed): "If any earl, baron, or other person that holds lands directly of the Crown, for military service, shall die, and at his death his heir shall be of full age and owe a `relief', the heir shall have his inheritance on payment of the ancient scale of `relief'. That is to say, the heir or heirs of an earl shall pay £100 for the entire earl's barony, the heir or heirs of a knight l00s. at most for the entire knight's `fee', and any man that owes less shall pay less, in accordance with the ancient usage of `fees'". Clause 4 of the Charter of Liberties: "Any wife of my barons, who becomes a widow shall not be denied her dowry." Magna Carta: "At her husband's death, a widow may have her marriage portion and inheritance at once and without trouble." Again from Clause 4: "Barons overseeing the children of a dead baron shall maintain their land and interest in a lawful manner." Magna Carta: "The guardian of the land of an heir who is under age shall take from it only reasonable revenues, customary dues, and feudal services. He shall do this without destruction or damage to men or property." There is an attempt to disafforest land in the Henry I charter, as well.

So I would personally side with those historians who argue the links are clear and strong. However Magna Carta goes far further and is far more detailed than Henry I's charter; and Henry I's charter is almost exclusively about the barons, whereas Magna Carta is explicitly about all free men. "Foundation" seems about right, therefore.

Do you have any thoughts on an appropriate text? I'm happy to help with any word-smithing if you want to make an edit.--Merlinme (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I've given an edit a shot. The key points I've tried to get across are that: a) the Unknown Charter is definitely known to have been directly influenced by Henry I's charter (Vincent, Carpenter, etc.); b) Henry I's charter had an influence, therefore, on the Magna Carta, but doesn't seem to have been discussed directly during the main negotiations, which focused on debating the Articles of the Barons (ditto); c) A wide range of other legal documents and traditions had an impact, but the context of Henry I's charter seems to have been most important (ditto). I've tweaked the language around "perceived" and double-checked it against McGlynn, but it is important that the barons saw it as protecting their specific rights. I'm keen that we avoid getting into the "what did Henry I's charter really mean" debate, as it is a subject in itself with lots of detailed academic articles that have poured over the ambiguities. See what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. The language over perceptions seems much better, I now know whose perception we're talking about. It makes sense that we're considering the barons' perceptions, and looking at the language of the Charter of Liberties, you could see why they would have perceived it as protecting their rights. I agree we don't need to get sidetracked into how much it actually did protect their rights.

I've made a minor edit so that "Henry I's charter" is consistently identified as the Charter of Liberties. Although the references are only a few sentences apart and it might seem obvious to us that "Henry I's charter" is the "Coronation Charter" is the "Charter of Liberties", I think it's helpful to a casual reader to make it as clear as possible that there is only one Henry I charter which we are referring to. --Merlinme (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

800th anniversary publications

One can expect several, perhaps many, publications in 2015 associated with the 800th, although probably not all of them will have any scholarly originality. I'll create this section as reading suggestions for contributors (please add):

Blick, Andrew, Beyond Magna Carta: a Constitution for the United Kingdom (Oxford, Hart, April 2015). Relates Magna Carta and other historical documents to the UK parliament's project for a UK written constitution. Wikiain (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Carpenter, David, Magna Carta (Harmondsworth, Penguin, January 2015). New translation, with commentary. Also this article by Carpenter, noted in Archive 2. Wikiain (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Italicize or not, the age old question, well, seconds old question

Would 'Magna Carta' be italicized throughout and on other templates and articles? The title Magna Carta is italicized for this article, as well as its first mention in the lead and the infobox, and then the style is dropped here and throughout Wikipedia. Is the italicized title here a mistake or the correct style for the name? To italicize or not to italicize, that is the question. Thanks. (and can someone fix the code which creates the blank space at the top of the page, I messed around trying to find it but couldn't. thanks again!) Randy Kryn 10:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

It's never (well, virtually never) italicised in either scholarly or popular literature, and shouldn't be here. It's not a formally published document, so you can't argue for italicisation of its title on those grounds. You could argue for it on the grounds of the name being a Latin phrase (compare habeas corpus), but it's been so widely adopted into the English language (like "referendum" or "cafe") that its "foreign" origins are largely forgotten. However, the alternative name, Magna Carta Libertatum, is less common and should remain in italics. GrindtXX (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi GrindtXX, your analysis seems correct. I unitalicized the title, first mention, and the title of the infobox. Let's see if anyone disagrees, and wants more discussion. Thanks for taking the time to comment. Randy Kryn 1:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Remaining Copies

The article refers to: At least 13 original copies of the 1215 charter were issued by the royal chancery at the time, seven in the first tranche distributed on 24 June and another six later; they were sent to county sheriffs and bishops, who would probably have been charged for the privilege.[245] Variations would have existed between each of these copies and there was probably no single "master copy".[246] Of these documents, only four survive, all held in the UK—two in the British Library, one by Lincoln Cathedral, and one in Salisbury Cathedral.[247] Each of these versions is slightly different in size and text, and each is considered by historians to be equally authoritative.[248] What about the Australian copy? See the Australian copy details here- http://www.magnacarta.senate.gov.au/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.196.2.200 (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The Australian copy is not the 1215 charter, but rather the 1297 one (see the title of the senate page you linked). This is mentioned briefly in the lead of our article, and in more detail in the section "Later exemplifications". Maralia (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

"Angevin charter"

I reported as a technical question here why "Angevin charter" appears prominently under the title in the mobile app version of this article. Because I've now seen the editwarring and discussion of a few weeks ago, I'll draw attention to this here as well. Thincat (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

As pointed out on the village pump discussion this is coming from from Wikidata: d:Q12519 but I don't know enough about how wikidata entries are generated or editied to make any changes to this. Can anyone help?— Rod ^talk 18:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is a permanent link to Wikidata so people can see what has been the position even after someone "corrects" things. I know a slight bit about editing Wikidata but I won't do anything myself because I don't know my angevin from my elbow. Thincat (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Rodw: It's pretty easy. On the Wikidata page (which is also linked on the sidebar of Magna Carta with the text "Wikidata item"), click the [edit] link opposite the title "Magna Carta". The text you want to change is the Description text, which is the 3rd column. --Izno (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Subjective needlework

This WP article was referenced in an article in The Guardian of today's date: Wikipedia page explores the fabric of democracy. A quote assesses it as "fairly subjective". Surely this top-importance piece should be completely objective? Was it a fair comment?

I think you have a proper talk-page template for news mentions, but if so it's too deeply buried for this casual user to find — sorry. --217.155.32.221 (talk) 10:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting article and shows that quite a few people put a lot of work into the art piece. Wonder if they included the italicized title, which is now unitalicized (I can see the person who designed the project hitting their forehead with their hand about now). Thanks for the find. Randy Kryn 11:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Images of the whole embroidery and also the embroideries of particular illustrations can now be found at c:Category:Magna Carta (An Embroidery). It appears the title was not italicised (see right). Jheald (talk) 08:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a useful link — thanks. --217.155.32.221 (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Next steps with the article

There were some thoughts expressed about taking this article to FAC, is this still being considered? Whizz40 (talk) 10:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Last autumn I suggested that it would be good to get this article to FA before the anniversary, and perhaps suggest it could be "today's featured article" on June 15. A lot of improvements have been made since then and GA status achieved. Although I still feel it would be a good idea to try to get it promoted to FA I think it is now too late to achieve this for that date, and several issues which need to be resolved before any nomination have been highlighted. I did spot from Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/June 15 that it has been selected as "today's picture". I did ask whether it is likely/possible to be one of the selected "On this day" items as well.— Rod ^talk 18:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I've now got Nicholas Vincent's new book, so will work through that and see if there any new strands etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Magna Carta (British Library Cotton MS Augustus II.106).jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Magna Carta (British Library Cotton MS Augustus II.106).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 15, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-06-15. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Cotton MS Augustus II.106, one of four surviving exemplifications of Magna Carta. This document, sealed by King John of England on 15 June 1215 (O.S.), was drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury to make peace between the unpopular king and a group of rebel barons. The charter promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown.

The document was reissued and renewed several times over the centuries, though its political impact decreased as later laws were passed. The charter was significant because the king had agreed to limit his power, so that although it dealt predominantly with the king and the barons, since the late 16th century it has been considered a symbol of liberty and the freedom of the individual.Document: John, King of England, his barons and Stephen Langton

Bishop of Hereford

I note from the article history several edits to the "List of participants in 1215" hidden section changing the name of the Bishop of Hereford between Giles de Braose and Hugh de Mapenor. Neither person's article mentions Magna Carta, which sent me back to the sources used as references for the list: one from The Brookfield Ancestor Project and the other National Archives and Records Administration - I'm having problems finding either name in either source. This source from Herefordshire county council and this from the University of East Anglia say it was Bishop Giles de Braose or Giles de Briouze (NB different spelling). Should we change the list in this article - and should we check that all the others are supported by the references given?— Rod ^talk 08:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I also looked and could find neither name in the sources cited. But I didn't try all spelling possibilities. I must admit I thought it was rather too esoteric to be a brand of "sneaky vandalism". Martinevans123 (talk) 08:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, Giles de Braose died in November 1215 and Hugh de Mapenor was elected bishop in February 1216 (and died in 1219), so there's no doubt who was bishop of Hereford in June 1215. Of the two linked sources, the one from the National Archives and Records Administration does include the name of "Hugh", in the form "H(ugh) bishop of Hereford", in the witness list (penultimate paragraph). However, note the source: this is not a translation of the 1215 charter, but of the exemplification held in Washington DC, which is Edward I's 1297 confirmation of the text of Henry III's 1225 charter. "H(ugh) bishop of Hereford" therefore turns out to be Hugh Foliot (bishop 1219–34). The text of the 1215 charter – e.g. here – doesn't include a witness list, but does include a list of those who have "advised" John to issue it (opening para), including several bishops – but no Bishop of Hereford. It does look as if this list of "participants" needs checking and clarification. GrindtXX (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Struggling to see how someone who wasn't Bishop until 1219 could witness something, in that capacity, in 1215. Apologies. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

You've missed my point. The witness list in the NARA text is that from the 1225 charter – when Hugh Foliot was bishop. GrindtXX (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree with Rod - le's get a decent academic source and check all the names against it. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Ouch. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

OK I've been looking for a definitive list but finding this hard..

• This oveview has lists for the different exemplifications (and explains why my searches are turning up different answers)
• This source doesn't have Hereford for 1215, but does have William of Coventry (presumably William de Cornhill) which our list does not.
• This page has an incomplete list (including Giles de Briouze, Bishop of Hereford)
• The appendix Text and Translation of Magna Carta (p342) on this includes a list of signatories below clause 60 but I'm confused by the Latin/French
• This source has a participants list - but I'm not sure if it is RS?

Any others, or any advice on which of these to follow?— Rod ^talk 16:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Your first source seems pretty definitive, but only lists the ecclesiastics, not the secular barons. It also highlights the problems. I think the first thing we need to decide is whether to leave the list where it is, and under its present name, "List of participants in 1215"; or whether to rename it (say) "List of participants 1215–25" (which seems to be more or less what it is at present), and move it to a new place in the article. I'm also unclear on the status or date of the list of 25 "surety barons", sourced to The Brookfield Ancestor Project: the 1215 charter requires the barons to "choose five-and-twenty barons of the kingdom, whomsoever they will", but doesn't name them, and I'm not sure at what point the names do appear. (A bit of googling turns up versions of this list on numerous sites, but none that I can see that look particularly reliable.) Does anyone know anything more about this? GrindtXX (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

We probably want a copy of James Holt's "Magna Carta", which I think provides some useful lists in the appendices. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean page 449 of this?— Rod ^talk 18:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

That's the book; an updated version came out this year. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hereford Cathedral say Giles de Braose. Should probably go with them until we get a solid source.©Geni (talk) 06:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we need to provide sources for each one claimed individually and I have made a start on this. Any help and other sources appreciated.— Rod ^talk 08:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The Magna Carta Bishops site doesn't actually say that Giles witnessed the Magna Carta though; it only states that "The bishops listed below were people who were direct witnesses to these changes, and often involved in the changes themselves." The website's page on Giles himself (http://magnacarta800th.com/schools/biographies/magna-carta-bishops/giles-de-briouze-bishop-of-hereford/) says that he was in the Welsh Marches at the time of Magna Carta being sealed. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

There are names appearing here and p449 of Holt's book (old edition) which we don't have on the list at all ie "William, earl of Salisbury, William, earl of Warenne, William, earl of Arundel, Alan of Galloway, constable of Scotland, Warin fitzGerold, Peter fitzHerbert, Hubert de Burgh, seneschal of Poitou, Hugh de Neville, Matthew fitzHerbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip d’Aubigny, Robert of Ropsley, John Marshal, John fitzHugh" - can anyone help with them?— Rod ^talk 08:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Do we think this is a reliable source (seems to have been adapted from the wp article)?— Rod ^talk 09:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

No, it looks self-published and, as you say, adapted from this article. Are you happy that we remove Giles from the list, since he was fighting in the Welsh Marches at the time and doesn't seem to be referenced elsewhere as having attended? The same webpage linked above for Giles also states that we don't know if the Bishop of Chichester was present, btw. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes I'd be happy for them to be removed (can always be put back if people find other sources). I presume you are looking at this for Richard Poer/Poore? What about Geoffrey de Burgh of Ely? I think the abbots are going to be even harder.— Rod ^talk 09:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I've started naming the abbotts but can't find any RS to back these up. In particular the abbot of Hyde is given in the list however this source (p7) says Walter de Aston (Abbot of Hyde) was witness to the reissue in 1225.— Rod ^talk 11:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

According to this Abbot Alan (of Chertsey) was also a witness in 1225 not 1215.— Rod ^talk 11:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe "Hartstary Abbey" (or Harstary) to be a hoax, in the article since 20 December 2006 added by User:Fejj the ritual with this edit. I wonder if that is the longest lasting hoax on wikipedia (that we have detected so far)? If no one else can find any evidence for this abbey existing (apart from those sites which have copied it from wp) I will remove it.— Rod ^talk 13:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, "Harstary Abbey" or "Hartstary" Abbey does not seem to exist. I've been searching variant spellings but results are nil. Looking at the editor's other contributions, not sure I would call it a hoax (which I always think of as being done with malice and glee), not sure what the motive was but...the information remains unverifiable so it goes. Shearonink (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I spent quite a lot of time looking for sources for this list yesterday (and asked for help from an expert), so wanted to summarise where I think we are at. I think there are enough sources for the names of the 25 surety barons, although I've not seen any sources saying they were necessarily all present at Runneymeade. We have a source for most of the Bishops - with the exception of "Herbert Poore (aka "Robert"), Bishop of Salisbury" (and there seems to be some confusion about this one, possibly involving his brother who was also a bishop). The abbots are much more difficult - I'n some cases I can't even work out what they are called. In others the version they were witness to seems to be very unclear (eg Hugh of Northwold is described here - "It cannot be a coincidence that King John acknowledged Hugh’s appointment five days before agreeing to Magna Carta and that Hugh is listed as a witness to the document" however his ONDB article has him as a witness in 1253.) I would tentatively suggest just having a list of the surety barons (and explaining "surety") but remove the bishop & abbots (as we can not verify them or their presence as witnesses - which is what it says at the head of their colomns), replacing them with a sentence saying that some bishops and abbots were also involved as witnesses of the 1215 and later exemplifications.— Rod ^talk 07:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I have also been looking into this, and am now rather clearer on what we can and can't say. There are two authenticated contemporary lists we can draw on for 1215. The first is the list of 27 "advisers" named in the preamble to the 1215 charter itself; the second is the separate list of 25 barons. We don't know for certain that all these people were present at Runnymede (though most probably were), and we can't describe them as "witnesses" to the charter, because there isn't a witness list. I don't think it's helpful to try to merge the lists (and then add other names), as is done at present: we should be honest, and present the evidence as two separate lists, stating as clearly as possible what they are. There are probably other individuals who, on more or less secure evidence, are known or believed to have played some role in 1215; but unless anyone can come up with an authoritative list, we should resist the temptation to add the names here. This will mean deleting all the abbots, and also (from the foot of the table) Llywelyn and the Welsh princes, and Alexander II of Scotland.

The two lists we do have are:

1) The "advisers": i.e., by implication, those who had forced John to accept the charter. This list comprises the names of the Archbishops of Canterbury and Dublin; 7 bishops (London, Winchester, Bath, Lincoln, Worcester, Coventry, Rochester – i.e. NOT Salisbury or Ely); Subdeacon Pandulf and Aimeric, Master of the Temple (both currently at the foot of the table); and 16 secular barons.

2) The 25 barons. I would avoid using the term "surety" barons, which seems to come from 19th-century sources: modern sources tend to refer simply to "the Twenty-Five Barons of Magna Carta", or perhaps "the commission of twenty-five". The appointment of this commission is specified in Magna Carta (and is already noted in our article), but the names aren't given in the charter itself, and the implication is that the individual appointments were made at a slightly later date. Again, therefore, we can't tie these people directly to Runnymede. 4 versions of the list are known (discussed by Holt, 1992 edn, pp. 478-80), and are identical apart from some incidental errors. We have all the 25 names correctly listed, though we could quibble about the precise form of some of the names.

Does anyone want to dispute these proposals in principle? GrindtXX (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Only comment is to ask if it would be worth recording the stuff you want to remove from the article somewhere else.04:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

NB: sounds sensible GrindtXX. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I have now done this to my satisfaction: a list of the 1215 advisers; another of the Council of 25 Barons; and another of the witnesses to the 1225 charter. I'm not sure that the last of these is really going to be of much interest to anyone, but it was the source of most of the abbots in our original table. Along the way, I've cleared up several misidentifications (some caused by the fact that whoever did this didn't realise they were working from a 1225, not a 1215, list; others for other reasons – e.g. the abbot "de Bello" was rendered as "of Beaulieu", whereas it's actually of Battle). Of course, I may have made a few slips of my own, and I haven't tried to identify the names of the abbots unless the information was immediately to hand. It seemed sensible to arrange the names as straight (hidden) lists rather than on a table or tables, but if anyone wants to play around with the format I'll have no objections. GrindtXX (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Great work. Thank you. Personally I would have put the lists into columns for layout and to reduce the white space but as they are hidden lists I don't think this is vital.— Rod ^talk 07:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair point. I have now added columns.GrindtXX (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Royal Mail stamps

Are a set of Royal Mail stamps issued for the 800th anniversary worth a mention? see BBC report and Royal Mail.— Rod ^talk 09:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I would say yes, although I see it's not just the MC: "The six stamps feature text from Magna Carta, and other charters, bills and declarations that have developed the rule of law around the world." Maybe an opportunity for an image? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

"One of the 3 main documents"

This:

The political myth of Magna Carta and its protection of ancient personal liberties persisted after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 until well into the 19th century.

was today changed to this:

Since the Glorious Revolution, the Magna Carta was amended to be one of the 3 main documents protecting the liberties of human beings under common law though combination with the Oath of Allegiance in the bill of rights "to serve the monarchy" and The first verbal coronation oath made in 1688 (which specifies for the monarchy to abide the "Laws of God, the true Profession of the Gospell and the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law") this notably directs to the gospel teaching; "Do unto others as you'd have done unto you" with "un-" at the time meaning "in return" or denoted fully "unto" means "in return to".

The main problem here is that a sentence about Magna Carta's general influence has been replaced with an assertion that is unsourced and evidences an unduly narrow world view. The sources for the text of the coronation oath and Matthew 7:12 are only tangential here: what would be needed are sources that assert MC "was amended to be one of the 3 main documents protecting the liberties of human beings under common law though combination with the Oath of Allegiance...and the [1688 coronation oath]" as well as sources that correlate the oath with the golden rule, and these sources would need to be of adequate academic and topical stature to support their significance for inclusion here. More specifically:

1. The assertions made in the replacement paragraph (such as "one of the 3 main documents") would need significant reliable sources.
2. The replacement paragraph does not address the influence of MC on the world—only the UK.
3. The correlation drawn between the coronation oath and the golden rule is another assertion that would need sourcing.
4. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. The assertions made in the replacement paragraph are not contained elsewhere in the article, and with the removal of the first quoted sentence, the lead now does not accurately summarize the content of the article either.

I hope this explains why I will be reverting a second time. Happy to discuss further. This is a closely maintained article with very active main editors; I am sure they will chime in here if they have anything to add. Maralia (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The statement highly questionable to me; The political myth of Magna Carta and its protection of ancient personal liberties persisted after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 until well into the 19th century.

- This assumption is half true, I'll begin by addressing the truth that the Magna Carta never did protect the general individual's liberties up until 1688, however the falsehood is in that assertion I've made "up until 1688" which I'm claiming to have sufficiently combated which will be discussed in your points. - The following up assumption cut from the truth stands as an unfalsifiable-hypothesis if there is room for dispute since it is naturally impossible to debunk as to whether a myth is untrue or not. If you can't see it, hear it, feel it, smell it or taste it then is it necessary to include it as a "self-evident statement"? - Occam's Razor would suggest otherwise.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unfalsifiable https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

1. It enlists itself as "main" I can change this to "one of 3 prestigious" and believe would solve the issue since ; I am asserting they cover the "protection" when using the word "main" but "prestigious" is merely suggesting they have a high-status in the matter and if one wished to scrutinise the claim, they'd only have to read the next chapter of it's older history and the original author of the statement I removed even insists it is known by people for this status but hasn't been given the benefit of the doubt as to why and in which I intended to answer. I read in the wikpedia source section that if something appears self-evident in it's nature, it's best to allow it and not give it a source. It appeared self-evident to me because; "if you were to approve of the flexibility, not addressing the other sections of the Bill of Rights, the sections within the Magna Carta and the context of the Gospels (within it's older formats)" since it was not advised to make a full speculation, perhaps I should add here a red-link to solve the problem?

2. This would be a grammatical error, it's noted and should be reworded to "In the UK".

3.The Golden rule is explicit within the Gospels, I have referenced the coronation oath article III which clearly addresses the positioned monarchy must abide the gospels in order to be the positioned monarchy and hence I quoted from the reference. - no further source is required as that would be an assumption within itself to suggest "evidence requires sources, with what authority"?... https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Argument_from_authority ... I can add a red-link to this section but really see no need for one.

4. This argument would be asserting that because authors have made errors, the benefit of the doubt is shifted onto me from their false assumptions or theory arises from a false assumption(s) whether that be my content is right or wrong, and as for the article itself (if it appears I can not be thoroughly refuted), it would need amending overtime due to the assertions made by other authors as they likely didn't fully research the history of the Magna Carta and it's verbal contractual obligations that arose in 1688. (I'd just like to point out we don't have one solid constitution in the UK and it isn't just on paper as there are historical events that took place and surrounding pressure groups.)

- If you wish to remove my next re-edit, please show me any error's I have made based on factual documentations and events that took place that would dispute to be necessarily disagreeable beforehand (remove once you've commented on here for me to address if you really must.), they must not be anti-liberal or anti-authoritarian at the same time but inclusive of the two values at the same time and not be restricted to a neo-traditional world view based on a claim that show original documentation showing otherwise) since that would not be able to stand alone, it must be pro-equality (since proven to be a necessarity to modern society), it must take common law into consideration (everyone is bound by it), and bring whereabouts of popular demand and not restricted to an academic author with an agenda since I do come across this a lot on wikipedia and it misrepresents many individuals - If you have a problem with this criteria I am more than happy to discuss the matter but thought it may save time since I am not filmly inclined to believe I will be shown evidence of something which suggests against that criter. I mean all of this with good intent when I write, I am corely in search for the truth of the matter and after all the research I've personally done feel it's only right to address a contradiction to be fixed if I see one. Thankyou for your message and sorry if there is any errors in this message Lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous573462 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Anonymous573462, you have missed Maralia's most basic point. It is not for you to argue a convincing case: that would be original research, and is one of the cardinal sins of wikipedia. Your job is to back up any statement you wish to make with a reference to a reliable source – and on such a controversial issue it should be a secondary source. A failure to do so will simply lead to your edits being reverted. Please read (and understand) the policies and guidelines I have linked to before you attempt any further edits, especially to such a high-profile, topical and closely watched article as this one. GrindtXX (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I have made references and I've readjust the wording to where references are not necessary, the original author has no references so reventing to his work makes less sense and I do understand the policies of wikpedia... it's down to you to attack my work with criticism rather than reminding me of the policies that are being ignored by other members. - Exactly where requires references as of to date? Please follow a logically consistent debate referencing to logical fallacies in argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous573462 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

As Maralia has explained, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. The original paragraph summarised points which are made at greater length, and fully referenced, in the body of the article. Yours does not. GrindtXX (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I have evidence backing up claims there and then which doesn't require as many references since it's simple. Again, attack my work, and please don't make claims surrounding it. - My work shows a contradiction to his premise and therefore the theory collapses. - This is an argument from ignorance. - It's not quantity, but quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous573462 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It is very naive to start an edit war then accuse me of beginning it. Not one direct criticism has been made to my work and I am being reverted without cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous573462 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

(1) Again, please read WP:BRD. You have made some bold edits; other editors (three of them) have reverted; you have re-reverted before consensus has been reached on the Talk page. You are the one guilty of edit-warring.

(2) If you "have evidence" to support your statements – in the form of secondary sources making the same claims – you should be able to cite it. Citing primary sources, such as a statute, the Bible, and a dictionary definition, doesn't count.

(3) No-one has addressed the content of your edits because we are trying to sort out some rather more fundamental problems first.

GrindtXX (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

1. So if a decision has been made to hang Socrates and I refuse to hang socrates, I am the one found guilty of not hanging Socrates. - Got it. 2. "facepalm" so instead of direct sources (ie; evident ones), we should abide trustees as the basis of truth?? 3. The problem is not my edits but that I am being authorised to present straw-man arguments. If you are seriously suggesting that these are the policies of wikipedia I'm gone. No wonder people say never trust Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous573462 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

More on 800th anniversary

Both the BBC (Magna Carta changed the world, David Cameron tells anniversary event) and Guardian (Magna Carta) have publications related to the 800th anniversary (including the public artwork by Hew Locke) but I'm unsure whether anything else needs to go into this article.— Rod ^talk 14:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Potential blog post

Since this article has undergone a huge amount of work in preparation for the anniversary, I was wondering if some of the main contributors would be interested in writing a short piece about the work they did? I'd like to see it posted on the Wikimedia UK blog to highlight the good work that's been going on. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep, would be up for that. Any particular format in mind? Hchc2009 (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

An angle about working the collaborative work would be interesting, but I think it's very much up to you. About 500 words is a good length, but above or below that works fine. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds possible. I presume you want this by 15 June (ie 3 days time)? If we draft something here can you copy it across? If I start with some text below everyone else could edit until we are happy with it.— Rod ^talk 18:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Everyone knows something about the Magna Carta. Wikipedia's article about the medieval charter has existed since January 2002, when User:F. Lee Horn began a text on what he described as a "landmark document in English history, as well as in the history of democracy". Over the years the article grew and matured, via over 5,000 edits, until in November 2014 this article in the Observer highlighted the forthcoming 800th anniversary of the events of 1215, predicting a surge in interest by the public, schools and the media. As a result several discussions started on the article's talk page about what was needed to make the piece a comprehensive, reliable, high quality reference work for the worldwide users of Wikipedia.

A process of collaborative editing took place over the next few months, with User:Merlinme, User:GrindtXX, User:Hchc2009 and User:Rodw making multiple contributions, although the editing and discussion on the talk page involved many more. Along the way there were extensive discussions about which were the highest quality academic sources to draw upon, getting the balance of the language right on the most sensitive issues, and how to best present the complex details of the medieval legal terms. External help arrived in the form of the British Library, who released some beautiful images of some of the documents, and Hereford Cathedral, who spotted a long standing mistake in part of the article, prompting a fresh flurry of research and discussions. More crowd-sourced assistance emerged through the Guild of Copy Editors's User:Jonesey95, who improved much of the prose. The article was nominated as a good article and reviewed by User:Tim riley, finally passing on 30th January this year.

The national and international interest in Magna Carta has been reflected in the readership of the refreshed article, which has received as many as 10,213 hits a day in recent weeks, which equates to over 1 million page views per year. Wikipedia's 10,000 word article is one of the very few fully referenced, rigorous, general purpose overviews of the charter, complementing specialist academic sites such as the Magna Carta Project and those of museums and cathedrals. With a number of new specialist studies being published in 2015, the article will inevitably require updating during the coming year to keep abreast of the academic literature, and may potentially reach featured article status - but that is one of the wonders of the wiki: anyone can help by editing it!

I can return to this later, but contributions from others would be great.— Rod ^talk 18:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Aiming for the 15th would be great, but if that's too soon any time next week would still be relevant. Once you are happy, I can copy the text across. There will be space for an image (or a gallery). Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Rod - just about to play with the draft text. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Done, cut and pasted in above. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Added a few more tweaks.— Rod ^talk 21:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to disrupt a nicely rounded piece of text, but would it be worth adding (I'm not sure where) a brief mention of Magna Carta (An Embroidery) – perhaps making the point that none of us who contributed to the article prior to 15 June 2014 had any idea that we were also contributing to a major artwork; or perhaps making the point that the artwork effectively fossilises what is now an out-of-date version of the article (but, hey, that's the ever-changing nature of Wikipedia)? GrindtXX (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

You could add a short piece on that but the blog concerned had a piece on the embroidery piece on 9 June (see Cornelia Parker to discuss Wikipedia-inspired Magna Carta artwork with Jimmy Wales).— Rod ^talk 13:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a shame that the British Library didn't think to invite any of the editors who had written the article that Parker then embroidered to the advertised event... As they produced the material in the first place, it would have been a nice touch. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

That's fantastic, I'll get that posted tomorrow morning. On the subject of the tapestry, there is a scan of the front and back from the BL available on Commons, so it's there to use as people see fit. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The post is now live, thank you everyone for your input and not just on the post but the excellent article itself. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 09:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Richard! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Magna Carta NY Times references

Hello Hchc2009, I added 3 NY Times references in the Magna Carta article, for the purpose of providing more outside information to readers.

You deleted them as not needed.

What is the method to add the NY Times articles to the Magna Carta Article?

Usually editors advise to add multiple references to text, for the purpose of giving readers additional info if the reader wishes to read more in depth. Thank you, Jcardazzi (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Jcardazzi

As I noted earlier, the material in these parts of the article are already fully cited. Adding additional references isn't necessary to substantiate the claims in the article, and would, in my opinion, be a form of citation overkill. Your first proposed addition doesn't actually support the information in the sentence it was added to, so would be particularly unhelpful for readers; the sentence is already cited suitably to an academic historian in any case. The next proposed two additional citations to a single sentence aren't necessary either, particularly since the sentence is uncontroversial and is already referenced to the US National Archives. The third paragraph in which you've proposed adding another link is already referenced to the Guardian newspaper; the claim in the sentence is uncontentious and the Guardian site is unlikely to suffer from link rot. Adding multiple, unnecessary references to the New York Times in this way isn't helpful. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Hchc2009. Other editors advised me to add references within their article text, as a technique to build a "reference library", a technique, thinking citations have 2 purposes: 1. substantiate the claims in the article 2.build a reference library for readers. --Jcardazzi (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

Reason for writing in Latin

Would it be worth a brief explanation in the article stating the reason the Magna Carta was written in Latin instead of the native English language? I don't know the exact explanation myself. I believe Latin at the time was the "lingua franca" of Europe, and a status language of nobility. Thank you.Jcardazzi (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

It was in Latin because that was the language used for all legal and formally issued documents in England at that time. The vernacular wasn't really used for any type of formal document between 1066 and the beginning of the 15th century, and Latin remained obligatory for records of law proceedings until 1733 (see Proceedings in Courts of Justice Act 1730). I have made an edit saying that this was conventional: personally I feel it would be excessive to say any more, but others may want to expand. Incidentally, among my other tweaks, I have changed "vellum" to "parchment", as that's the more useful (and often more accurate) umbrella term. GrindtXX (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The cited source in the description section (a British Library volume) says vellum, so I've returned it to that in the lead as well. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

GrindtXX=thank you, your response is informative. I think adding to the body of the article your comments might be helpful. as you and the others think best. "The Magna Carta was written in Latin, Latin being the language used for all legal and formally issued documents in England (Britain)from the years 1066 to 1733"

I tried to find your history in wikipedia, examples:the Latin and Law articles, you might be able to make your response into an enhancement of the existing articles, or a new article!

Thank you,--Jcardazzi (talk) 02:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

Parchment and vellum

I am reverting from "vellum" to "parchment" at both mentions, as that is in fact the term used in both cited sources. Breay 2010, p. 37: "Magna Carta, in common with other medieval charters, was written on sheets of parchment. The parchment was manufactured from sheepskin ...". Hindley 1990, p. 143: "If the four surviving examples of the Runnymede charter are typical, ... the exemplifications were each on a parchment sheet measuring some 15 by 20 inches (38 x 50 cm)". To clarify the distinction (and see further at Parchment#Parchment and vellum), "vellum" refers exclusively to calfskin; "parchment" referred historically to sheepskin or goatskin, but nowadays tends to be used to encompass any animal membrane. GrindtXX (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Page view stats and further work towards FAC

Did anyone else notice that this article had over 600,000 page views on 15 June (see Magna Carta stats), while the TFA for that day (Panama–Pacific commemorative coins) got just over 10,000 (see Panama–Pacific commemorative coins stats]). Magna Carta has received over 1,194,000 views in the last 90 days. In the light of the number of page views it definitely seems worthwhile trying to resolve and improve any outstanding areas and then nominating at FAC. A previous discussion highlighted some issues about: the quality and reliability of some of the sources, some worries about the post 17th century part of the history section, colonial law and 18th/19th century history. Would anyone be willing to list here what they feel are still current issues/barriers to FAC nomination and maybe we can discuss the best way to address them?— Rod ^talk 18:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

That's an incredible one-day viewing statistic...! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

why Runnymede?

Should the choice of the Runnymede site be added to the article? "...Runnymede was originally chosen as the agreed venue because the boggy ground prevented either the king or his barons from bringing their armies for battle." Source: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/15/magna-carta-leaders-celebrate-800th-anniversary-runnymede --Jcardazzi (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

I'd want to see a better source than the Guardian for the claim, to be honest. There are more than a few oddly worded parts/inaccuracies in that article... Hchc2009 (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Good point, the reason given may be a myth.Jcardazzi (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

[4]? However: [5] Although, it's also in his book, so might be added as a claim by him? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not a claim I can remember coming across before, and its not the sort of detail I'd usually turn to Starkey for.... Usually the argument I've seen is simply that it was conveniently located between the two sides' camp. Any other thoughts? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Starkey also makes that point, in both video and book, and that claim seems to be on firmer ground, so to speak. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The geography is already mentioned, so I've tweaked the text to make it clearer that it was half-way between the two camps. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Starkey's boggy ground seems to have had very wide coverage and I'd be tempted to put it in, fully attributed to him of course, but ideally with something stronger that a single tweet to refute it. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I've only seen it picked up in the popular press though - have any other historians adopted it? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I doubt it. But I think they influence of the popular press may be slightly stronger (to most non-specialists). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd be rather inclined to leave it out for now and see if the theory acquires credibility amongst the academic medieval community. I can't see any evidence of the main Magna Carta specialists (e.g. Holt, Vincent etc.) expounding the argument (but happy to be corrected if anyone can find some examples!). If we add it in, we need to be clear that he's (probably) in a minority of one at the moment, which makes for ugly wording. An alternative might be a footnote, again noting that it's not a widely expounded theory. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

No strong views, just an idea. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah ha! Found something. Holt's 2015 volume... "Runnymede was a traditional place for assemblies"; conveniently close to Windsor and Staines; Runnymede was protected by low-lying ground on the east and south, a stream and a sequence of ponds; as a result, "the king could only advance down the southern bank of the river from the west" to reach the location from Windsor - Holt seems to say that not that you couldn't attack it or have a battle there, rather that from the barons' perspective it would be difficult to surprise them at the site. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

There's an interesting short article on precisely the topic of "why Runnymede?" in the current (July 2015) issue of Current Archaeology, by Tim Tatton-Brown (among other things, former consultant archaeologist to St George's Chapel, Windsor). He describes Runnymede as lying in "a sort of 'no man's land', where both sides could 'cover their backs' and feel secure". It was close to the bridge carrying the important London-Winchester road over the Thames at Staines: Staines was the barons' "front line" (their base being in London), and Runnymede was suitably between that at the King's stronghold at Windsor – more or less what we say. It was also close to the meeting points of four counties (Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Middlesex and Surrey), four great dioceses (Salisbury, Lincoln, London and Winchester), and, earlier, of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of Wessex, Mercia, Kent (with Surrey), and the Middle and East Saxons – but he doesn't, as I'd have thought he might, go on from that to say explicitly that it was a traditional place of assembly (as boundary-sites of this kind often were). He talks a bit about the drift geology, and suggests that there may be archaeological traces of the encampment to be found, but he doesn't say anything about the "boggy ground": the barons were camped there for at least three weeks, so (in my opinion) it can't have been that boggy. On a separate issue, he points out that the area we now know as Runnymede, lying on the south bank of the Thames, was originally made up of two meadows, Longmead to the west and Runnymede to the east: the bit now most closely associated with the charter (where the memorial is) was in fact historically Longmead, and it seems likely that the actual place of meeting in 1215 was in (or on) Runnymede proper, further east and closer to Egham and Staines. I will make some tweaks and add the reference later. GrindtXX (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds sensible - Tim's usually pretty good on this sort of thing, and it chimes with Holt. I think it would be good to note a) the halfway point (which we already do); b) the traditional assembly point; c) the defensive geography from the barons' perspective. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Poor old Starkey. Looks like we're leaving him stranded in the bog. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I've added a sentence and the ref. As I say, Tatton-Brown doesn't explicitly mention the "place of assembly" point – so, Hchc2009, can you please add the Holt reference, and, of course, tweak as you think fit. From the Runnymede article, I learn that "The name Runnymede may be derived from the Anglo-Saxon runieg (regular meeting) and mede (mead or meadow), describing a place in the meadows used to hold regular meetings. The Witan, Witenagemot or Council of the Anglo-Saxon Kings of the 7th to 11th centuries was held from time to time at Runnymede during the reign of Alfred the Great" – unfortunately referenced only to a now-dead National Trust page, and too much detail for our purposes, but quite interesting. GrindtXX (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

France John

Regarding: A triumph would have strengthened his position, but in the face of his defeat, within a few months of his return from France John found that rebel barons in the north and east of England were organising resistance to his rule.

A Suggestion

A triumph would have strengthened his position, but in the face of his defeat, within a few months after his return from France, John found that rebel barons in the north and east of England were organising resistance to his rule.

1. change of to after( a more specific preposition for the time following an event), per http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/after

2. add a comma after France

Reason: No comma separating France from John, indicates John returned from the country of "France John" Please See: http://classroom.synonym.com/use-comma-after-prepositional-phrase-beginning-sentence-4012.html --Jcardazzi (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi Thank you

Adding the comma in as suggested, though, implies that the defeat occurred within a few months of his return from France, which would be incorrect. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

How about? A triumph would have strengthened his position, but in the face of his defeat, John found that rebel barons in the north and east of England were organising resistance to his rule, within a few months of his return from France. Jcardazzi (talk) 13:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

Add Origins of the Magna Carta?

In Encyclopedia Britannica there is a section on the Origin of the Magna Carta. The origin information would seem to be valuable to add to this article to give more historical background. Starting from 1066, through the history of charters, to John. Please see http://www.britannica.com/topic/Magna-Carta.

A little dated sadly; Stenton was good in her day, but a lot of the analysis on charters has moved on. Given the length of the article already, I'd advise adding this sort of thing (ideally with more current sources) to the Royal charter article, which definitely needs some help...! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hchc2009 Thank you. too bad the info is dated. D Stenton rewrote the article Apr 30, 2015 per the article history. If interested, Britannica has adopted a partial-Wikipedia approach, contributors can submit updates, if Britannica editors approve, the update is added.

I think D Stenton is a good writer, example, her description of the Magna Carta evolving into a symbol in defense of liberty. "By the time of the 1225 reissue, the Magna Carta had become more than a sober statement of the common law; it was a symbol in the battle against oppression. It had been read so many times in shire courts throughout the land that memorable phrases would be invoked ...whenever liberty seemed in danger, men spoke of the charter as their defense." (the actual words and revisions...)"have made no difference in the collective memory of this venerable document'. --Jcardazzi (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

...btw, I doubt if the historian Doris Stenton did rewrite it in April this year, as she died in 1971, aged 77! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Britannica gave her credit, maybe as an original author, not as an actual "ghost writer" http://www.britannica.com/topic/Magna-Carta/article-history Type Description Contributor Date Updated text Article thoroughly revised. Doris Mary Stenton, Michael Ray Apr 30, 2015 --Jcardazzi (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

heavily abbreviated Latin?

Can the word "heavily" be deleted? The lead has the phrase "heavily abbreviated Latin" the body has the phrase "abbreviated Latin". "Heavily" is subjective, and is inconsistent with the body text. --Jcardazzi (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

• "Heavily" isn't subjective per se, and is used in the main sources. I've made the body consistent with the lead. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

forms -> is ?

A fine point, could "form" be changed to "is" in:

Magna Carta still forms an important symbol of liberty today

Magna Carta still is an important symbol of liberty today per verb exaplanation: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/form

Reason: It seems Magna Carta has become and is a symbol of liberty today, where the forming of the symbol has already been completed in the past centuries. I do not know if there is a difference in British and American use of the verb "forms". Thank you, --Jcardazzi (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

It's being used in the sense of "a particular way in which a thing exists or appears". Hchc2009 (talk) 06:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Added video section

I added a Video section, and saved the addition before I made the comment on the save. I tried to add a starting set of documentaries, recordings, et al of Magna Carta I could find which I think are relevant for readers of the article for additional learning. There are probably many more videos which could be added. I thought an organized section would be better than adding more external links. (I wish a reader could just click on the link to go to the video, instead of the 2 step process, click on the link to go to the reference, then click on the reference link to go to the video.) --Jcardazzi (talk) 03:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

I don't think that this is the right way to go - if a work is important enough to qualify as Further reading, it should go into that section, or if important enough as an external link, into the External links section. There are many, many hundreds of books, videos etc. about Magna Carta that could be listed out - but that's not the purpose of an encyclopaedia article. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hchc2009, do you have any advice which section a videos documentary section would go Further reading or External Links? The WP:MOS discusses an external link section, but I did not find a discussion on further reading section. I checked other articles, but there doesn't seem to be any consistency of use. The WP documents are often subjective. I thought listing "important" video documentaries would be useful as an extension of the article, "important" being subjective. Thank you, --Jcardazzi (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

Wikipedia:Further reading gives guidance on selecting items, emphasising that high-quality reliable sources, ideally notable in themselves, that provide additional and more detailed coverage of the subject of the article, should be listed. WP:External links suggests that websites that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, or information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, be potentially listed. It depends, therefore, on why we think a given video is important, and what its contents add to those of the article as it stands. A work that provided considerable academic detail on a particular point might be most appropriate, IMHO, as a Further reading item; a website that provided attractive pictures which we couldn't use here because of copyright, might fit well as an External link.Hchc2009 (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Lede section

I'm satisfied that the intro adequately helps readers acknowledge the topic more and more. Napoleon article has five paragraphs in the intro. Does the Magna Carta article need one or two extra paragraphs in the intro, totaling to six or seven? --George Ho (talk) 05:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

George, articles on the wiki should have a maximum of four paragraphs, to keep them succinct, so this one shouldn't be expanded. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Why is Napoleon allowed get extra paragraph, not this? George Ho (talk) 09:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd encourage editors to have a go at "boiling down" the lede in the Napoleon article. Often the bigger articles are the hardest to write the leads for, but a good lead makes a real difference to the casual reader. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The lead here seems unusually comprehensive to me. They should be reasonably short. What do you think is actually missing? Napoleon is certainly a far more complex subject. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I am not pushing for extra paragraph. As someone said, it is comprehensive. Meanwhile, I need help on shortening intro of War in Afghanistan (2001–14), which has five paragraphs (used to be eight before I merged them). --George Ho (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

No you don't. You need to approach leads by seeing what they say, and how well they summarize the subject rather than by counting paras. Johnbod (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section says that the lead should ideally be not more than four paragraphs. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I finished reading the lead. To your question, Johnbod, I didn't miss anything much from the intro. In fact, it is already well written as is. I apologize for impression that I desire for extra paragraph. I'm not. I tried the comparison-and-contrast mixed with question, but it might have executed poorly. I have been advocating enforcement to follow standard ideals for introductions (see Talk:Napoleon, Talk:Euromaidan and my edit at Viktor Yanukovych), but I learned that "common sense" is usually misused to ignore rules on introductions to more recent and current topics but appropriately used on intros to historical complex topics. As a result, I see bad writing on portions of collection but good writing on other portions. Of course, I wasn't confident about writing a lede because I would be bad at it. There is central discussion at WT:LEAD, but I see opposition to having a discussion on what was "already" discussed. --This is George Ho actually (Talk) 20:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Article Protection

I requested article protection because of vandalism. An administrator put: "Semi-protected indefinitely" https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Rolling_archive CuriousMind01 (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

typo

In the Great Charter of 1297 section, it says "Magna Carta and the Forest Charter were to be issued to the sheriff of each country". Shouldn't that be 'county'? 108.114.1.146 (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Well spotted. I have corrected it.— Rod ^talk 16:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! 108.114.1.146 (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I would feel a lot better

if this sentence:

"It influenced the early American colonists in the Thirteen Colonies and the formation of the American Constitution in 1787, which became the supreme law of the land in the new republic of the United States.[b]"

were referenced. Carptrash (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

It has a whole section with many refs in the main text. Johnbod (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

"The political myth of Magna Carta and its protection of ancient personal liberties persisted after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 until well into the 19th century." - can it really be called a myth when was probably accompanied with the coronation oath? I feel like this needs to be re-written somehow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.234.244 (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

I think the recent copy edits need expert checking. Most of them look fine to me, but a few seem wrong or dubious, e.g. change from "complementary" to "complimentary", "great council" to "high council" (great council could be linked to Magnum Concilium at first mention), "strictly enforce Magna Carta" to "enforce strictly Magna Carta", "important" to "famous" (is this in the source?). Dudley Miles (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there are a range of problems with them - I've reverted. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC: References vs. Bibliography

It was proposed in the discurion below to change the References and/or Bibliography section of this artical. In this disscution it is difficult to tell what the consensis is. If you have an idea please add a sub-section below with your idea. If you see an idea you like Support it; if not Deny it. Feel free to edit this header as you see fit. Thanks Hungryce (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why there is a references and bibliography section on the same page. Should there not be only one section? (most likely references due to the recommendation in WP:MOS) If no one replies for a couple of days I might try and fix it myself or start an RFC. Thanks Hungryce (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems the method used to build the article, is the references are the short name reference citations to verify the text in the article. If you click on a link in a short name reference item in the reference section, you jump to the complete long name of the reference in the bibliography section. You could try to combine the two sections into 1, but I estimate it will be 40+hours of work and have to be careful not to create errors.--CuriousMind01 (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Or fiddle with the headings. Since "Notes" is already used, it might be better to change references to "citations" and bibliography to "references". I don't myself like using "bibliography" for a particular set of sources used, even if they are fairly comprehensive. Johnbod (talk)

CuriousMind01 unless I am interpreting you reply wrong then I think that for most articles you have the references or citations section that has the links from the place where it is used. The bibliography section does not have its entry in the references section. It is also hard to tell what part of the text uses the book. The bibliography section uses the standard cite book template that is usually put in ref tags where the reference is used. I know it would take a long time so maybe I should put out an RFC for post on some notes boards to try and get some help. Thanks Hungryce (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure I understand your concern, Hungryce. Is it that the article uses a short name citation system (where you'll see "Jones 1988, p.4" in the citation, with "Jones, Arthur, 1988, 'A History Book' etc." in a separate list afterwards), or is it the section headings themselves? The use of short citations is very common in both real-world publishing and the wiki. As Johnbod says, we can always play with the headings if we agree what they should be changed to. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I find the short form notation system useful where there are several citations to the same book but with different pages as it makes the references section smaller and reduces unnecessary duplication of detail. Help:Footnotes and MOS related pages don't seem to specify what the sections are called so I would go with consensus on this, but have seen a references section and a bibliography section on many articles.— Rod ^talk 08:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

My concern is with the Bibliography section. I find it confusing where in the article the book is used and it is different from many other pages which just use inline references. Thanks Hungryce (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it is useful to keep the 2 sections separate in this article for the reason stated, there are several citations to the same book, but each citation is to a different page in the book.

A suggestion" 1. Keep "Notes" as "Notes" because they are notes. 2. Change "References" to "Short Name Reference Citations" 3. Change "Bibliography" to "References". The name "Short Name Reference Citations" seems clumsy to me, but I cannot think of, or find, a better name, maybe an editor can.CuriousMind01 (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

If someone is proposing changing the citation style, we need to make that clear with a new section heading on this talk page... NB: I'm happy with the short citation system being used, and I'd oppose retitling a section "Short Name Reference Citations": I've never seen a title like used in a professional publication. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the 2 section citation style is alright in this article. I think the use of the word Bibliography is confusing. Per https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Bibliography one type of Bibliography is a enumerated list of "works cited". Per a suggestion to experiment with the headings, another suggestion: rename the Bibliography heading to: "Works Referenced" or "Documents Referenced" and using the word "Referenced" in the heading so to correlate the to the "References" section above.CuriousMind01 (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not see that "Bibliography" is confusing. It is a standard heading for lists of sources. Alternative headings such as "Works cited" sound a bit odd for online sources. I would marginally prefer "Citations" as a heading instead of "References", as this is sometimes used as the heading for the list of sources as in William the Conqueror. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

What about Per JohnBod, change references to "citations" and bibliography to "references" or "citation references"?CuriousMind01 (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I take Johnbod's point that "bibliography" can be taken to imply comprehensiveness, but I do not like "references" as it is used in some articles to mean citations, and in others to mean sources. How about Notes, Citations and Sources as the headings of the three sections? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

In WP: references, citations and sources are the same items. There is no consistent use of terms that I read. English WP uses the words: footnotes,notes, citations, references, and sources interchangeably per https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources "A citation, also called a reference, uniquely identifies a source of information:" "Words like citation and reference are used interchangeably on the English Wikipedia...Footnote may refer specifically to citations using ref tag formatting or to explanatory text. ..."endnotes specifically refers to citations placed at the end of the page." "3.1.1 How to create the list of citations: This section, if needed, is usually titled "Notes" or "References", and is placed at or near the bottom of the article."

I vote for Note, Citations, References. (though I prefer Notes, Short Reference, Reference for consistent use of words) What do others think? CuriousMind01 (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hungryce, if you want this discussion to proceed, you're going to have to do a lot better at explaining what it is you don't like about the present arrangement, and what your proposed alternative is. Do you just want to change the titles of the three sections currently headed "Notes", "References" and "Bibliography" , as most of those commenting above seem to think? Or do you want something much more radical, and to abandon the present system of short author-date citations in the "References" section, and replace it with a full bibliographical reference in every note – something which would make the section about five times longer than it currently is. Or do you want something else entirely? Personally, I think the present set-up is fine, but it's difficult to marshal a defence when I don't know what I'm arguing against. GrindtXX (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

GindtXX, after looking a bit more at the sections I realize that no change is needed. The people above seem to think that a change is needed, and so I wanted to give them the ability to say what they want to be changed and for others to support it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hungryce (talk • contribs) 19:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• This is one of the accepted citation styles on Wikipedia. Among those, it's perhaps the least common, but it's still in quite frequent use. Per WP:CITEVAR, there would need to be a real consensus to change it if a) anyone objects to the change and b) the current system is stable and consistent throughout the article (which seems to be the case). I personally detest this citation style, as unnecessarily fiddly and complicated, and confusing to readers. However, switching to the usual style would require using {{rp}} a lot, to avoid massive amounts of redundancy in the refs section. By moving the page numbers into the article like this, it would eliminate the need for the short references a.k.a. citation section, but at the cost of, well, having the page numbers in the content, and some people don't like that. To see an article that makes heavy use of the {{rp}} system, see Glossary of cue sports terms; the entry "pocket template" illustrates multiple uses of it in the same paragraph.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I have now removed the WP:FRC because I like the current style rather than the one you are suggesting now that I have looked at it more. It is also apparent that although there are many suggestions for changes no one actually wants to change anything. Hungryce (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Links

Is it just me or does the "content" link in the menu link to the top of the page instead of the "content" section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.38.60 (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not just you. I can't see what's causing it, though. GrindtXX (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

revise to today? " myth of Magna Carta...persisted .. into the 19th century. Comment

Regarding: Should the "well into the 19th century" be revised to "today"?

"The political myth of Magna Carta and its protection of ancient personal liberties persisted after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 until well into the 19th century."

From what I read the myth still persists today. --CuriousMind01 (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The cited sources state the 19th century; if it is to be revised, it needs a suitable reliable secondary source. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Is this an adequate source?

http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-in-the-modern-age Joshua Rozenberg

"Magna Carta ...stands for human rights and democracy. It stands for trial by jury. It stands for free speech, the rule of law and personal liberty. Except it doesn’t mention any of these things — even in translation."

"Lord Bingham, former chief justice, wrote in 2010, ...‘The significance of Magna Carta,’ ‘lay not only in what it actually said but, perhaps to an even greater extent, in what later generations claimed and believed it had said. Sometimes the myth is more important than the actuality.’ "It is an 800-year-old myth of which we may all be proud" CuriousMind01 (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The site doesn't suggest that people necessary still agree with the concept of an ancient English Constitution though - it is just saying that it is a modern day symbol, which the lead already notes. My advice would be to have a look at some of the published works that came out last year, and see if they've got any articles on this. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

To What political myth is this lead sentence referring? "The political myth of Magna Carta and its protection of ancient personal liberties persisted after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 until well into the 19th century."

I understood the sentence to mean the 1. myth of the Magna Carta document itself protecting personal liberty, not the other 2. myth of an ancient English Constitution. CuriousMind01 (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

It is referring to the material in the previous paragraph, expanded in the main text in the sections from the 16th century onwards. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The "myth" thing is properly referenced in the article body, and it refers to the false assumption that the document restores pre-Conquest personal liberties. This is no longer believed by anyone, even though the document remains an important symbol. Use of "myth" in this specific context isn't wrong, but it is certainly misleading, and it shouldn't be in the lead section. The lead section should just summarize the situation in the briefest way possible, i.e. 16th to 19th century: widespread belief in "Magna Charta restored Anglo-Saxon personal liberties", 19th to 21st century: "remains an important symbol for its role in 'prefiguring' modern personal liberties". It doesn't help to bring up an ambivalent term like "myth" in such a summary even if you can point to relevant sources using the term, because the term can be misunderstood if it is plucked out of its proper context. --dab (𒁳) 08:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

There seem to be multiple myths about Magna Carta per http://www.gold.ac.uk/news/magna-carta/
CuriousMind01 (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2016

187.127.200.163 (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Bruno Gonçalves Pirajá

No action taken as no request was made. Mindmatrix 21:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Only three Clauses (articles) still exist

Claire Breay states that "only three clauses of Magna Carta still remain on statute in England and Wales". Perhaps Claire Breay would like to clarify what instrument was used to delete all of the other articles. Certainly no statute (a government instrument) can ever trump a Constitutional statement and to suggest it can is very dangerous language indeed. All Articles still exist and are in force. It is of paramount importance that this type of nonsense is eradicated and that the people learn to value what the Great Charter does for our liberty and freedom from despots and tyranny. Common Law and Trial By Jury provides us with the mechanism to judge not only a defendant but that the law being used to make a prosecution is itself fair. It always has been our security. For a judge to direct otherwise is treason. No judge, who is after all only a member of the Jury, can direct a jury to consider "only the facts of the case". The jury must consider whether the law is valid as a the only free way we have to stop bad laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigorniensis (talk • contribs) 13:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Your argument might hold water if Magna Carta were indeed "a Constitutional statement", but it wasn't and isn't. That is part of the "myth" of Magna Carta, which you seem to have bought into in spades. Magna Carta was a pragmatic instrument issued by the Crown – effectively a statute – formulated to address various quite specific contemporary concerns; and as such most of its provisions could be, and have been, repealed ("trumped") by later statutes. See the "Clauses in detail" section for the specifics. The only sections which might be considered to hold broader, "constitutional" implications are the three clauses still in force (most notably, the right to due legal process), which, however, constitute a tiny fraction of the overall document. GrindtXX (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Could this lead statement be clarified to explain Magna Carta is not a constitution? "...Lord Denning describing it as "the greatest constitutional document of all times". I think the statement can cause confusion that Magna Carta is a Constitution.
Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 10:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you have an alternative phrasing in mind? Hchc2009 (talk) 10:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not know what Denning means by "constitutional document", but the statement seems to state Magna Carta is a Constitutional document, and there is no political myth that Magna Carta is a Constitutional statement/document, as explained by GrindtXX above, and explained in the article. 2 Ideas: leave the words out of the lead, or add a note explaining Magna Carta is not and never was a Constitutional statement, but actually is considered part of the Constitution of the United Kingdom being "the sum of laws and principles..of the UK"- for the 3 remaining clauses considered statues. Given my understanding is correct that the UK constitution is an uncodified constitution, not 1 document like the American Constitution or the political myth that Magna Carta is a constitution document itself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CuriousMind01 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

As per the main text and the cited reference, "Magna Carta is generally considered part of the uncodified constitution of the United Kingdom" - I think Denning's phrase captures this well. There's no conflict in that and the "political myth" citations that explain why the claims that the Magna Carta "protected ancient personal liberties" were, of course, completely wrong. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hchc2009 please note that Magna Carta does not have a definite article so no need to put 'the' in front

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Magna Carta. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070905014018/http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1517519 to http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1517519
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/printable/12950

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) 05:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Magna Carta. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141106070809/http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Research_and_Education/pops/pop39/lairg to http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Research_and_Education/pops/pop39/lairg
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sagamoreinstitute.org/library-article/magna-carta/

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) 17:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2018

Porsha.schultz (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done No identifiable request. Iffy★Chat -- 10:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

No mention of Llywelyn the Great

The Prince of Wales, Llywelyn the Great, put the English king in position to force him to sign the Magna Carta. Where is the mention of him in this article? The English were put down by the Welsh and so the true reasoning behind the signing should be spoken about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.116.71 (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

19th-century image used in the article

Caption as of 2 March 2020: A romanticised 19th-century recreation of King John signing Magna Carta

The image on the right shows King John signing Magna Carta, and says as much. The caption contextualises the image by saying it's a 19th romanticised image. The one wrinkle is that John sealed the charter rather than signed it. I'm in two minds about what to do, is it worth removing the image or adjusting the caption to say that while John is shown signing, that's not what would have happened? Richard Nevell (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

In principle, I do dislike the overuse of anachronistic and inaccurate images (see e.g. Edward the Black Prince), which might easily mislead the naive and unwary reader. In the present instance, however, I think it's probably acceptable. It's the only such image in the article, it's within a section about the C19 interpretation of MC, and it's described as "romanticised". By all means tweak the caption to highlight the specific error of "signing", but I think the image itself should probably stay. (Incidentally, what on earth is the significance, if any, of the cloak worn by John, bearing a white splayed cross on the shoulder? It looks like the mantle of a Knight Hospitaller, which seems unlikely on multiple grounds.) GrindtXX (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I've finally got round to updating the caption. Similarly, I usually prefer not to use anachronistic images especially if it's a lead image as those tend to get picked up by Google so no matter how much info the caption is it'll end up getting taken out of context. With this image, I think it's worth including as it gives the chance to address this issue. And it does help show how the event has captured the imagination through history. As for the cross, I don't know what the significance is. I'm not aware of the white cross being particularly associated with John, though it's hardly my specialist subject. My hunch is the artist probably though it made a nice piece of decoration and looked medieval. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I think its fine, as it now is. The MC was notoriously more important to later centuries than it was at the time... I suspect there are better images to make this point, though. I suppose as King John might have been given some sort of honorary Hospitaller role/title, or its just ornamental, as you say. Johnbod (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect view of 1215 Charter

Not sure where else to put this, but I have been reading Coke's Institutes, and while some of his stuff is quaint, he does cite, in the Proeme to the Second Part of the Institutes, his commentary on Magna Carta,

"... and it was no new declaration: for king John in the 17 yeare of his raigne had granted the like, which also was called Magna Charta, as appeareth by a record before this great charter made by king H. 3

Home ne fuer' mordanc' apud Westmonasfterium des terres in auter countie, car ceo fer encont' lestatut de Magna Charta sinon que illa assisa semel interminata suit coram justic" (Pasch. 5 H. 3. tit' Mordaunc' f. 53)" (2 Inst, Proeme, p. 4) (https://books.google.ca/books?id=G6PDvgEACAAJ&pg=PP14#v=onepage&q&f=false)

So, here it seems that we have Magna Carta made in 17 John cited as late as 4 years before the Magna Carta of H. 3 that was eventually confirmed---and we see it called a statute in this judgment. The view that the Charter can be cancelled, etc. is part of the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy, which is nowhere legislated, it is basically something that university professors like Dicey have cooked up. The UK's Interpretation Act still says "In any Act a reference to the Sovereign reigning at the time of the passing of the Act is to be construed, unless the contrary intention appears, as a reference to the Sovereign for the time being." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7A3C:9100:34A4:C0C7:B5E2:127D (talk) 06:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

What are you proposing needs to be changed in the article? Richard Nevell (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a line from the playbook of a Freeman or Sovereign Man - Magna Carta is sometimes pleaded to defend court proceedings over breaches of COVID restrictions, and that requires MC to be in full force for the purpose of a certain libertarian interpretation - of clause 61, I believe. Canadian court decision describes the phenomenon.Shtove (talk) 13:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

No, that would be if I were saying that Magna Carta could get you out of parking tickets, which I am not. The Article says that "the charter was annulled by Pope Innocent III." Edward Coke's Institutes are taken to be an authority for the law in his day. Much of what he says is archaic, but if he says that he saw a Judgement in 5 Henry 3 citing Magna Carta (the 1215 Magna Carta) as "statute" then we can trust that (1) he saw such judgment and transcribed it accurately and (2) that the notion that the Pope annulled the 1215 Magna Carta is false. He even gives the particular citation of the case, so someone with a really good law library could drag out the Paschae 5 Henry 3 Year-Book and check if Coke's citation exists at fol. 53. That court case you cite, if it is the one I am familiar with, simply makes bald assertions, likely from some lay history book---it's not as though he considered Coke's position and dismissed it. I am more interested in the accuracy of the assertions made in the wikipedia article, to my mind the quality of the statement "the pope annulled it" is on a par with the roman catholic notion that "henry VIII split with the roman church" even though every act concerning that states quite clearly that the Church is simply being restored its ancient jurisdiction---he doesn't create the Church of England, which is mentioned in Magna Carta (the part of it still on the statute book), he simply legislates an English translation, "Church of England." Ecclesia Anglicana is granted rights in Magna Carta (1215 and the Edward I confirmation of H. 3's Charter), Henry did not form any new body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7A3C:9100:5D61:7A59:6C9A:570 (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

How does the papal bull issued by Innocent III fit then? Richard Nevell (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Innocent III died by July 1216, and 5 H. 3 is the year of Coke's record, which is about 1221, so this is several years after Innocent III's death, so, it is clear that Innocent III may have attempted to annul the Magna Carta (as have many impudent people!) but it clearly did not take effect. It really strikes me as one of these "learned English History from a Roman Catholic" things, e.g. "Henry VIII created the Church of England to get a divorce"---indeed, the Pope's Bull not taking effect against Magna Carta 1215 is good evidence that the Roman Catholic interpretation of England's history, e.g. "your King was the Pope's subject until Henry VIII!" is wrong, because if that were the case, why would Coke find a record several years after the death of Innocent III calling magna carta statute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7A3C:9100:C2D:D1FA:B413:5785 (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Reading over the article itself, it says that the bull simply threatened excommunication, so it didn't "anull" the magna carta, what it did was say that if you don't behave as though it is annulled by my bull, I excommunicate you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7A3C:9100:C2D:D1FA:B413:5785 (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)