![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Here:
Wikipedia:Peer review/Current#Richard_III_of_England
Thank you. I do not know how this works, can only answer to Tom Riley's question on "The requisite Papal dispensation" – I briefly lost the will to live during this paragraph: do we really need to drag Henry VIII into it? Mention of HVIII's case of first degree consanguinity was included because it was a better known case and could help the unexperienced visitor better understand the terms why in HVIII's there was a case for first degree consanguinity and in Richard's and Anne's there was not. Medieval canon law on affinities, siblings created by carnal union in marriage (so Isabel's marriage to George made Anne sister to George and Richard brother to Isabel, but not Anne sister to Richard), etc. is no easy topic and a comparison with a similar better known case might have helped. I would personally recommend it should be reinstated somehow. Isananni ( talk) 19:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Come in, Tim riley, Paul Barlow and anyone else who is interested! Deb ( talk) 12:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Suggestions on current version dated 28 nov 2014
The reference to HVII’s grant of £ 20 to John of Gloucester lacks citation. I know it’s true, I read it somewhere too, but cannot trace the source (Parliament roll or whatever) to support the statement, maybe someone can help
"Richard was born on 2 October 1452[8] at Fotheringhay Castle, the twelfth of the thirteen children of Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York and Cecily Neville. As a potential claimant to the throne of King Henry VI from birth(ref Dr. Johnson) Richard’s father was the leader of the Yorkist faction that opposed the party supporting the Lancastrian king and played a major role in the first phase of the so called The Wars of the Roses, a period of "three or four decades of political instability and periodic open civil war in the second half of the fifteenth century”(ref Prof. Pollard). At the time of the death of his father and elder brother etc...."
In this section, this mention shifts focus from childhood to adulthood quite strangely and lacks the link to the change in ownership of the estate. My suggestion is to move this mention to the Estates section as follows: Two months later, on 14 July, he gained the Lordships of the strongholds Sheriff Hutton and Middleham in Yorkshire and Penrith in Cumberland, which had belonged to Warwick the Kingmaker. It is possible that the grant of Middleham seconded Richard’s personal wishes(ref. Kendall, Richard III,p 125 “Richard had won his way back to Middleham Castle”). However, any personal attachment he may have felt to Middleham was likely mitigated in later adulthood, as surviving records demonstrate he spent less time there than at Barnard and Pontefract(related present ref by Pollard)
I cannot trace the entry right now, but I remember it speaks of £ 50. The first contract spoke of £ 50, but the actual sum disbursed by HVII to James Keyley in 1495 for Richard’s tomb in 1495 was £ 10 (ref Rhoda Edwards, The Ricardian, Vol. III, No 50, September 1975, pp 8-9), quite a bargain, a discount under duress? :)
May I suggest to reinstate the referral brakets to the name Anne Neville in the first sentence? I know it’s a repetition of a referral some 2 upscrolls away, but given the relevance in this specific section it may not be redundant and would make for easier browsing for the user, since the section can be accessed separately from the index and the occasional user may not be aware the referral is in another section
The Bibliography section mentions 3 books, while the Further reading section mentions 19 (mostly books, but a few articles are also included). I will crossmatch the different citations to check if any further books (not articles) have missed inclusion in this section, but in the meantime, would it not be the case to merge the 2 sections in 1 single Bibliography section? Should the articles be included or not? Should all books that are mentioned in the citations be included e.g. Josephine Wilkinson's "Richard the young king to be"? Some books are strictly on Richard, others are not (e.g. we have 3 on the War od the Roses, 2 on Anne Neville, 1 on George of Clarence, etc.), my opinion is the bibliography should only list books on Richard. Some qualified books on Richard are not listed, e.g. Carson's The Maligned King or Hancock's The murder in the Tower, should we add them? The bibliography section lists works by author/title/publisher/isbn id, the Further reading section lists works by title/by author/publisher in brakets/isbn id in brakets - which criteria should we choose to keep consistency? Furthermore, I do not have the ability to work on sections that impact on the index if we want to merge the bibliography and further reading section, so I hope someone can help there.
Looking forward to your opinion Isananni ( talk) 14:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Just a note to Tim. I sympathise with Fortuna, who has done a lot of work to try to improve the article - but (if he/she will forgive me saying so) perhaps a bit too eagerly - and is now becoming frustrated by some of the criticisms. However, I think I went on record some years ago to the effect that this article can never maintain GA status because of the emotionally-charged views of many contributors. Now, personally, I think Richard III was probably not a very nice man - just like most medieval kings. However, over the years, there have been a number of revisionist views expressed in the media, by scholars and amateurs alike, which means that everything does have to be sourced, and reputably sourced. The discovery of the body hasn't helped. Despite the fact that it has proved Richard did suffer from a physical deformity, just like the Tudors claimed, has been interpreted by some as somehow "proving" the opposite. The arguments are guaranteed to continue for many years to come, and every so often we will take a couple of steps backwards in terms of NPOV. Deb ( talk) 11:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
If a novel is being used in a citation, it should be in the bibliography, as an editor is claiming it supports a particular fact (rightly or wrongly). To what extent we should be citing novels in support of particular claims is another matter. Hchc2009 ( talk) 18:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Deb. Anyhow, Rohan Maitzen from the English Department at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia has reviewed several pro-Richard fiction novels and also mentions Crown of Roses among them http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/all-the-world-to-nothing/. I guess it can be added as citation, while the mention to the novel itself, now no longer present in the references can be removed from the Bibliography section Isananni ( talk) 12:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite book}}
: |journal=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: |journal=
ignored (
help)I did my best with the missing isbns, could not retrieve the isbn of Ross' UK editions, articles from historical reviews are not normally associated with a isbn, which I could not locate in any case. Hope the result stands up to the desired standards. Isananni ( talk) 17:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I've nominated Exhumation of Richard III of England for consideration as a Good Article in advance of his reburial next March, which will attract a huge amount of interest. The article is in good shape and is quite comprehensive, so I'm sure it will be a good GA candidate. I'd be grateful for any help with the GA review. Prioryman ( talk) 18:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Please note that I've nominated Exhumation of Richard III of England for consideration as a Featured Article Candidate, with the intention of having it ready to appear on the Main Page on the date of Richard III's reburial in late March. Any input on the nomination would be very welcome - please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Exhumation of Richard III of England/archive1. Prioryman ( talk) 12:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Postmortem analysis by Leicester University can be cited to the academic paper in the Lancet. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60804-7 JFW | T@lk 22:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I had misgivings about this line:
'After his death, Richard's image was tarnished by propaganda fostered by his Tudor successors (who sought to legitimise their claim to the throne),[184] '
There are a number of immediate problems I can see with it:
I have therefore made a few alterations, balancing them by mention of Cheetham (p. 198) that the Tudors were happy to see his faults exaggerated (although Cheetham stops short of claiming they deliberately promoted it) and Potter (pages 3-4) who puts the traditional White Boar view. 109.156.156.186 ( talk) 13:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I have had a look at the section. My idea to replace the newspaper's citation and avoid present historians' POV from one side or the other as much as possible is to add further citations from primary sources to the single one of John Rous that is actually in the article, specifically Mancini's "The good reputation of his public activities and private life powerfully attracted the esteem of strangers", the record in York City records mourning Richard's death at the risk of facing the new king's wrath and possibly Von Popalaus' account of Richard's physical appearance where no mention of visible deformity is made. Then, I would simply point out a dramatic change (not necessarily tarnishing, but a change cannot be denied) in Richard's descriptions in the accounts of the historians under the new Tudor regime, culminating etc. with John Rous making a U turn, etc. catching up with what is already online. Interpretations of where the truth lies, in the accounts before or after Richard's death or somewhere in between, can be left to the individual visitor to the page, but we cannot help acknowledging and reporting that there was a change in descriptions if we want to provide state of the art information. Controversies over Richard's reputation are probably the most enticing aspect of this very short lived king, and I guess that is what this paragraph is about. Please give me time to gather the precise texts of the primary sources and I will come back with the amendments. Isananni ( talk) 16:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Isananni, I think you misunderstood HCHC2009's point. You cannot put primary sources in WP instead of scholarship, because WP exists to summarise the scholarship. Therefore, what you are proposing to do, however well-intentioned, is not in line with WP policy. That holds good for transcriptions as well, which are still primary sources (in fact, it's even worse because they are often not terribly accurate). What you have also done is remove the scholarship, including putting back material that I have pointed out is either unreliable or incomplete (Walpole) and gives a highly misleading view of what actually occurred. The point is that in the version there is a claim that all anti-Ricardian statements are 'Tudor propaganda,' attributed (falsely) to a newspaper, whereas actually it was a disguised quote from an individual with a known and clear bias. Therefore this section fails NPOV. I have reverted. If you can find reliable, secondary sources that state unambiguously that all anti-Ricardian material dates from post 1485 and that therefore it is all Tudor Propaganda, great. But I don't think you will. Even Potter and Baldwin blink before going that far. The fact is there is a substantial body of opinion in scholarship - possibly even a majority opinion, although I have no evidence one way or another on that - that actually, the Tudors had very little need to do more than push Richard's unsavoury reputation a bit. That's not to accept More or indeed Desmond Seward's work at face value, simply to point out that Richard was a very controversial person even before he died. Hope that helps. 109.156.156.186 ( talk) 20:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC) PS - I'm not quite sure why Isananni thinks I removed Rous's before and after. I left it there, because I thought it was perfectly well presented. There might be a case for a more direct comparison, of course. 109.156.156.186 ( talk) 21:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Ps my notes to reverting to "fictional" instead of the later "fictionalised" for Shakespeare's play were cut off: "fictionalised" conveys a meaning of "staged, but true to historical events" that cannot belong to a work presenting a long dead Margaret of Anjou shouting curses against the other characters, or e.g. Richard marrying Anne after Clarence's imprisonment, that is 6 years later than in real life, etc. Coming back with the other additions as soon as I can get to my books and pc, off to real work now. Isananni ( talk) 06:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC) Dear Isananni
everyone here has some bias in this article
your sources speak for yours
my sources probably speak for mine
let us all try to deliver information in as neutral or balanced a way as possible, shall we?
Hope that helps. 109.156.156.186 ( talk) 18:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
109.156.156.186, all your edits are kept even though a few needed to be improved in terms of historical accuracy and timeline (I know, nobody's fault, it's just hard to follow the succession of events when the scholar one refers to seems to rejoice in keeping his knowledge to himself and delivers it at his convenience and hardly dates any citation, not to speak making explicit reference to the document he is referring to, unlike others, should anyone ever have the idea to check for themselves). As everybody can see my additions are all perfectly backed up by reliable scholarly secondary sources and all together deliver the main positive and negative contemporary or near contemporary records on Richard's reputation. No evaluation on who was right or wrong is made. I had never contributed to the "Reputation" section until now, you can check in the history of the article if you do not believe me. I do not claim any ownership of course, simply grow nervous on seeing radical changes by anonymous users without discussion, we have had to revert vandalisms every other day, I think we have sorted that out. As for my sources, I personally prefer to refer to scholars who have their stance but deliver references to primary sources without feeling jealous and therefore let their readers check for themselves, old habit I got at the University. Have a nice day. Isananni ( talk) 18:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
ps on a side note. I apologise if I ever gave you the impression I was being rude or patronising, English is not my native language, so culture clashes can occur. However, if you had read both my discussion with our senior editor Deb in this section of the talk page and my answer to you on my talk page, you might have seen that there was not any intention to remove your scholarly entries for good, simply the need for a little time to reestablish a, scholarly supported, balance in a very sensitive section where in the first instance some more entries than just the newspaper citation had gone lost. I do hope we can get along together too, I am sure none of us mean any harm to the article or to each other. Isananni ( talk) 18:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, only read more carefully now, answering some points:
R3's reputation was indeed tarnished by the Tudors and others after 1485. This is not a controversial point. Was R3 criticised during his lifetime? He certainly was, but not like after his death, in which he is made out to be the worst king to have reigned in the middle ages as well as the personification of evil. That's my $0.02.
Has this body changed its name to Plantagenet Legacy? Jackiespeel ( talk) 11:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
What is the copyright status of images on eBay? This is a particularly fine image of a Richard III groat: [1]. Martinevans123 ( talk) 17:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The standard clause on the eBAy website says that "When providing us with content, you grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual (or for the duration of any copyright or other rights in such content), irrevocable, royalty-free, sublicensable (through multiple tiers) right to use the content and authorise us to exercise any and all copyright, trademark, publicity, database or other rights you have in or to the content in any media known now or in the future." In theory, then, either eBay or the original copyright holder/photographer could authorise the image's use. In practice, I'd imagine you'd want the original photographer's agreement. Hchc2009 ( talk) 19:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I personally find the latests additions by Proxima Centaury on the controvercies over Richard's reburial place to be both overredundant (controvercies and the judicial review that followed are already mentioned previously in the same chapter) and inadequate, however I would not like to proceed removing them without discussion or senior editors' opinion. What do you think? Isananni ( talk) 08:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Martin, got it now. I have a feeling it's going to be a crazy week for vandalisms on the article if I have to judge from its history since we discussed this genuine good faith edit. Have you all a nice day. Isananni ( talk) 06:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Summary of events:
I would be glad for other editors' opinion on the edit. Isananni ( talk) 11:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
NB: I don't have access to the volume; could anyone identify the page and perhaps post a sentence or two from it here? I'm happy to read through it as a uninvolved party. In the meantime, can we avoid an edit war - several editors are now over the 3RR etc. Hchc2009 ( talk) 12:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Griffiths, R.A., The Reign of Henry VI' ISBN 0-7509-3777-7 Haigh, Philip From Wakefield to Towton Pen and Sword Books 2002 ISBN 0-85052-825-9 Hariss, G.L., The Struggle for Calais: An Aspect of the Rivalry between Lancaster and York, English Historical Review LXXV(1960), 30. Hicks Warwick the Kingmaker ISBN 0-631-23593-0 Hilliam, David Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards Sutton Publishing 2000 ISBN 0-7509-2340-7 Jacob, E.F., The Oxford History of England: The Fifteenth century, 1399–1485 (Clarendon Press, 1961; reprint 1988) ISBN 0-19-821714-5 Johnson Richard Duke of York ISBN 0-19-820268-7 Rowse, A.L. Bosworth Field and the Wars of the Roses, Wordsworth Military Library, 1966 ISBN 1-85326-691-4 Storey, Robin The End of the House of Lancaster Sutton Publishing 1986 ISBN 0-86299-290-7 Wolffe Henry VI ISBN 0-300-08926-0 Isananni ( talk) 12:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
A limited selection, but it'll have to do... but we don't need a massive list of books... just ONE page # frm PMK. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
BINGO! See, wasn't difficult, was it... You better add the ref to all those other articles
User:Deb mentioned earlier now...
Fortuna
Imperatrix Mundi 13:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
There wasnt a controversy about his funeral, since he was a Catholic monarch and was given an Anglican funeral? I think this should be mentioned in the entry. Mistico ( talk) 17:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering if some more experienced editor than me could include a picture of the new tomb in the section since it's described in detail. I do not know how to do it myself, but I found a gallery on this site, the first picture shows most details described in the section http://news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/king-richard-iiis-monumental-tomb-unveiled-150327.htm Thank you for your help. Isananni ( talk) 06:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I uploaded in Wikifiles the picture of the tomb for which license to use for Wikipedia only has been granted by Leicester Cathedral, but I am hopeless at editing. If some other editor could kindly help make a better editing and show the picture in the article, I would be most thankful. Isananni ( talk) 11:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Removed some superfluous linkage as per WP:MOS. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Make links only where they are relevant and helpful in the context: Excessive use of hyperlinks can be distracting and may slow the reader down. Redundant links (like the one in the tallest people on Earth) clutter the page and make future maintenance harder. High-value links that are worth pursuing should stand out clearly. All links recently removed by user Fortuna represented the one and only link of the specific section where the link had been added by the previous editors (not necessarily me in most cases) to allow the reader an easier browsing of the connected information present on Wikipedia. It it true that most links are present in the summary, or in previous sections, but the index allows the reader to "jump" to a specific section where now he does not find e.g. the link to Henry Tudor or the Battle of Bosworth Field in the section "Deeath at the Battle of Bosworth Field" or the link to Anne Neville in the section "Marriage and family relationships" anymore, thus forcing the reader to either scroll up the article in search of the relevant link or retype name/noun/concept in the search string, which is the opposite of the pursued goal of being helpful to the reader and allowing a quick browsing for information. I would kindly ask other editors/admins to look into this issue. I personally recommend reinstating all removed wikilinks as imho they fall in the category of high-value links worth pursuing. Isananni ( talk) 16:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed it would, since e.g. Henry Tudor or Leicester Cathedral were, to my best knowledge, the first occurrence after the lead Isananni ( talk) 16:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
The policy guidance encourages generally linking once in an article, with potential duplication permitted once in the main text if a link is also used in the lead; one additional use in each of infoboxes, tables, captions etc. is also typically permitted. Looking at a recent version of the article and taking two examples, [2], Henry Tudor, for example, was being linked in the lead, in Rebellion of 1483, and in Death at the Battle of Bosworth Field - Imperatrix's removal of the third incident is perfectly in line with the guidance. Leicester Cathedral was linked in the lead, a caption, an infobox, twice in Discovery of remains, once again in Burial and tomb; similarly, the removal of several of these was in line with the guidance. Hchc2009 ( talk) 17:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Let me put it like this; you are probably right in that there are two types of editor, those who want to read an article for itself, and those who use it to get somewhere else. Which I've done myself- e.g., if you can't remember the name of one of Napoleon's Generals, then he can be reached through his boss's page. But- using that example- if I'm looking for a link to MacDonald et alia, I'm not likely to wait until the reference at the bottom of the page- I'll have clicked the link the moment I come across it: earlier. So, late links like that are surely redundant, or at least orientated to a minute demographic of our constituents (those who only decide they want to find out about his wife at the bottom of the page!). I certainly imagine that to be the purpose of policy. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd call that a good compromise Isananni ( talk) 18:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I recently removed a statement allegedly by Pollard (not Ross, my fault in editing the summary of edit) with reference to Edward of Middleham being named heir apparent 2 months before dying (that is around February 1484). I never stumbled in such a statement before: Kendall, Hicks, Carson, Baldwin, etc. all only mention Edward's investiture as Prince of Wales on 8 September 1483 (which was at the time itself a sign of acknowledgement as heir apparent, to my best knowledge), no contemporary or semycontemporary account I recall (Crowland Chronicle, etc.) speaks of this 1484 act. Can anyone cite the precise reference/page by Pollard or any other scholar supporting this statement and the relative contemporary document it refers to? Otherwise my opinion is the statement should be removed. Thank you for your help. Isananni ( talk) 15:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I've just seen the template. May I humbly suggest removing paragraph 5 (reburial) and making paragraph 4 (finding of remains) shorter? I really cannot see how the first 3 paragraphs could be even shorter... I only hope we can find a stable outlook, I was hoping to update the Italian version to the new adds one of these days... Just my thoughts Isananni ( talk) 17:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I moved the whole paragraph on the reinterment to the Reburial and tomb section, leaving only the indication of date and place of reburial at the end of paragraph 4. I tried to think of how paragraph 4 in the lead could be shortened, but however I spin it, something would be lacking in an already rather summarised passage and I feel the discovery of Richard's remains is a unique feature of this monarch that should be kept in the lead paragraph. I personally think the lead paragraph is now rather acceptable, but of course my changes can be reverted. Isananni ( talk) 12:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Richard III was only born in one county, i.e. Northamptonshire, so that Wikiproject has some relevance to him.-- Johnsoniensis ( talk) 17:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
May humbly suggest all recent changes by user Charles Sf are amended/reverted to the text as was before his/her intervention? Reasons being: - Most entries are unsourced, whereas to by best knowledge e.g. Rivers being accused of plotting Gloucester's life is reported by Mancini (as reported by Kendall, Carson, even Ross, etc. ). The Council at first did not approve of Anthony Woodville's conviction for treason in May 1483 because technically Richard's role as Protector of the Realm had not been confirmed yet - The Confession of James Tyrrel is a stand alone section/article that has its place in Wikipedia and does not need to be fully reported in this specific article, new findings, if ever (David Starkey has claimed to have found "new" documents that he has not produced and his interpretation of their meaning is as good as any) belong to Tyrrel's article that already had its due referral link when his name was mentioned in Richard's article Looking forward to your opinion Isananni ( talk) 07:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Richard III of England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
May humbly suggest all recent changes by user Charles Sf are amended/reverted to the text as was before his/her intervention? Reasons being: - Most entries are unsourced, whereas to by best knowledge e.g. Rivers being accused of plotting Gloucester's life is reported by Mancini (as reported by Kendall, Carson, even Ross, etc. ). The Council at first did not approve of Anthony Woodville's conviction for treason in May 1483 because technically Richard's role as Protector of the Realm had not been confirmed yet - The Confession of James Tyrrel is a stand alone section/article that has its place in Wikipedia and does not need to be fully reported in this specific article, new findings, if ever (David Starkey has claimed to have found "new" documents that he has not produced and his interpretation of their meaning is as good as any) belong to Tyrrel's article that already had its due referral link when his name was mentioned in Richard's article Looking forward to your opinion Isananni ( talk) 07:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Richard III of England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Could we please keep both references and find a compromise? It's not like the primary source is a text in hand-written Medieval Latin needing extra competence to read and understand... Isananni ( talk) 21:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
An editor deleted a citation of an article reporting on the results of the cross comparison of Richard III's Y DNA with today's descendants of Edward III (who was also Richard III's ancestor) through the Beaufort line and replaced it with the reference to the original 2015 academic paper and another editor reverted these edits alleging it was against Wiki policy. My suggestion is to end this edit war by keeping both references. Isananni ( talk) 06:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
To the Further Reading list I'd add Josephine Tey, The Daughter of Time, a detectives story focused on the tower murders.
Second, the entry asserts simply that "rumors circulated" about the murders at the time. Tey claims rumors existed only in Morton's trail and that there is no evidence of general rumors of the murders at the time. (If she is right, the article leaves a false impression.) -- GFHandle ( talk) 19:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC) [1]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Richard III of England. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/LIVE-UPDATES-Richard-III-DNA-results-announced/story-18041484-detail/story.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Richard III of England. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://leicestermercury.co.uk/Richard-III-Tomb-design-does-meet-Leicester/story-18391233-detail/story.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Iazyges ( talk · contribs) 16:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
GA Criteria
|
---|
GA Criteria:
|
@ Iazyges: I added the requested ref to the motto and personal device part. I could not trace the dead link, would you be so kind to mention the section where the dead link is located so that I can see if I can replace it with a new one or if it is redundant and we can do without it? There are several references to both the Visitor Centre and the burial site in the article and the other ones do not seem to be dead. Thanks in advance for your feedback. Isananni ( talk) 10:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Iazyges: Done. Isananni ( talk) 15:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Iazyges: Done almost entirely. Likely and probably are very similar and probably is more common, whereas "he is believed to have met" sounds a bit heavy with respect to a more straightforware "he probably met". I included the rest of your suggestion. Isananni ( talk) 15:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
It is said Richard was made a Knight of the Order of Bath - but according to the linked page that order was 'founded by George I on 18 May 1725.' What is the correct link? Jackiespeel ( talk) 10:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I think 'accession' is the wrong word. With the slightly problematic exception of Baldwin, all historians use 'usurped' - Horrox, Ross, Pollard, Hicks in particular. The other point is of course that however you look at it Richard wasn't next in line, and clearly didn't even believe that himself given the different justifications he came up with for seizing power. So it was a usurpation whatever his motives and however he set about it. This is of course also true of Henry IV, Edward IV and Henry VII, so it wasn't exactly uncommon. Have also somewhat altered the wording in the lead, which seemed to miss several key facts (e.g. the arrest of Rivers and Grey, the fact that only Richard and his allies declared the Princes illegitimate, not a properly constituted court) which definitely presented a pro-Ricardian slant to events I do not think is justified. The Irish Question ( talk) 18:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Isannani, I am afraid that 'Accession' itself is not a neutral term. This is for two reasons. First, it implies that Richard became king legally, which he clearly did not. Even he clearly did not believe it given the number of increasingly bizarre excuses he found, including accusing his own mother of adultery. Secondly, whatever you may think it goes against the views of professional scholars - all three you name being either experts in other fields or amateurs. Paul Murray Kendall was not an historian but a professor of literature (and a very good one) John Ashdown-Hill is a genealogist and whatever the merits of his popular work has never held a university post (which is hardly surprising given on page 16 of his biography he appears to suggest Edward V connived at his own deposition) Josephine Wilkinson I know little of so can't comment but does not on a quick search to hold an academic post. Against that we have to set the following:
I think that makes the academic consensus (and I would remind you that is what Wikipedia is here to summarise) pretty clear. On that basis it should be called a usurpation.
I can see from your history that you have a significant emotional investment in this page, but I am afraid you are simply wrong here and presenting a very distorted view of Richard's reign in consequence. I have students to teach and they were finding this page is presenting confusing, which is why I made slight adjustments in the first place to tone it down. I could have gone a lot further as the whole thing reads like a propaganda exercise from the Richard III society, but for the moment I am contenting myself with getting rid of blatant lies. I have put it back the way it was and I would advise you if you cannot deal with facts and scholarship, to stay away from this page. The Irish Question ( talk) 17:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I know that Isannani is obsessive on this subject and that people like quiet lives but this is simply wrong. I have pointed out that reputable scholarship characterises the accession of Richard as a usurpation - that is to say, he illegally took the throne from the rightful king. There is pretty well no dispute about that now. Wikipedia exists to summarise scholarship and therefore removing the mention that the throne was usurped is itself a violation of neutrality. It is very telling that in order to find any sort of doubt Isananni has to go back to the eighteenth century or work with the likes of Ashdown-Hill, an intriguing but very minor figure. Of course Richard wasn't in any way unusual in being a usurper - every adult male king in the fifteenth century other than Henry V was a usurper of one sort or another. What made Richard slightly unusual was that he took the throne from a child, and not from an adult by war, which is why I think he is so much more controversial. I would add that the mischaracterisations of me and my motives by Isannani are unpleasant but seem mostly to be because he(?) feels unable to argue convincingly against the point I was making. This seems to explain the poor quality of this article, which reads in places more or less like an advert for the Richard III society. I teach on this subject and the poor quality of this article is a real issue. That's why I was trying to get rid of some of its worse features. Would it be better if I rewrote the whole thing from guts up based on scholarship to correct all these mistakes? It would take a while as at the moment between family matters and teaching plus my current research 24 hours just aren't enough, but I don't mind doing it if it would help. Until or unless agreement is reached on this I have tagged the article - non-neutral and factually inaccurate. This also serves as a warning to my students (and others, of course). I have to say Isananni might also benefit from a short break to calm down. The Irish Question ( talk) 19:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I think before anyone responds to that point they should look at this exchange. However, if @Isananni cannot work with others over scholarship on this topic - and clearly s/he cannot - without getting so abusive there seems little more to be said. However, again it does raise the issue of whether the whole article needs a guts up rewrite. The Irish Question ( talk) 20:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC) One thought does occur, however. While 'accession' is a doubtful word - it implies legality, which goes against current scholarship on the subject - could we not just rename the section 'King of England'? That is entirely neutral in the sense that nobody disputes that he became King. The Irish Question ( talk) 20:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Would everyone just stop, please, and pause for breath? We've been here before (lots of times). Why get into an argument about semantics when alternative phrases can be used to achieve a compromise? Deb ( talk) 09:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Maybe everyone here needs to calm down and listen to what Shakespeare's Queen Margaret - the widow of the (murdered?) Lancastrian King Henry VI , the grandson of the (usurper?) King Henry IV - called them all: "You wrangling gang of pirates!" There's scientific neutral objectivity for you. O Murr ( talk) 18:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Between 1272 and 1603, Richard III seems to be the only English monarch to be married at the time of accession. Is this worth a mention? Robin S. Taylor ( talk) 16:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Poor argument. We have article Style of the British sovereign, which specifies that thr titles of Richard III were: "Rex Angliae et Franciae et Dominus Hiberniae (King of England and of France and Lord of Ireland)." And the claim to France ends in 1800/1801. Dimadick ( talk) 09:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Re Section: Discovery of Remains. Just a suggestion. It reads "Forensic pathologist, Dr Stuart Hamilton stated that this injury would have left the King's brain visible ...," with another later reference to "the King," ande later calling him "Richard."
As the paragraph is still building evidence for this wretch being Richard, shouldn't it still read "the man" or "the skeleton" at this point, so as not to jump to the conclusion and derail the argument? (The ideal phrase would be "the subject," but that word is somehow antithetical to a ruler (as it turns out) and would thus be a distraction.) I'm not arguing for spoiler-avoidance, but rather for a logical progression of ideas.
WHPratt (
talk)
14:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi all. Just a quick note to explain what I've been up to over the last week or so. Substantively, I made five changes to the article references:
Note that I've made heavy use of the WP:CS1 templates, in addition to Template:Sfnp. That choice is more-or-less arbitrary, so if editors don't approve of these it shouldn't be much work to switch to something else now that the data is all in a tidy format. I also assumed from the presence of a bibliography that it should be used (rather than giving a source's bibliographic data in its first occurrence in the citation list), and I've included "long" sources in the list of sources, even if they are only cited once. But both of these judgments are also easily changed, if required.
I hope that's overall a helpful intervention. Let me know if I've made any missteps and I'll happily correct them. Also sorry for monopolising the edit history, I've been making lots of small edits while taking breaks from working on something in the real world... Charlie A. ( talk) 12:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
The following sentence from #Exile_and_return appears to have suffered over time from cutting and pasting clauses and whole sections, and I can't seem to back-trace the intended meaning.
Following Warwick's 1470 rebellion, in which he (1) made peace with Margaret of Anjou and promised the restoration of Henry VI to the English throne, Richard, William, Lord Hastings and Anthony Woodville, Earl Rivers (2) escaped capture at Doncaster by Warwick's brother, Lord Montague. On 2 October they (3) sailed from King's Lynn in two ships; Edward landed at Marsdiep and Richard at Zeeland.
(1) He, Richard? He, George? He, Warwick? Grammatically, the antecedent would be Warwick and that makes no sense at all.
(2a) The fact that George was omitted in this list makes me think that (1) is "George". If not, did George escape elsewhere or from someone else? (2b) If Anthony Woodville is 'Earl Rivers', we need a comma after the title. Arthur, the English king, went to bed has a different meaning than Arthur, the English king went to bed.
(3) As constructed, this would mean that Edward and George (they) left everyone else behind.
I would have simply edited the phrase, but I'm as likely to destroy the meaning as I am to improve it. Last1in ( talk) 19:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to remove this image, it is obviously an artist's artistic imagination which shouldn't be in that section, at the very least. At best, I can see that it's an x-ray, but the crown symbolism and all that, it feels out of place. Richard almost certainly did not still have his crown at Bosworth when his skeleton was discovered. Yourlocallordandsavior ( talk) 07:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Here:
Wikipedia:Peer review/Current#Richard_III_of_England
Thank you. I do not know how this works, can only answer to Tom Riley's question on "The requisite Papal dispensation" – I briefly lost the will to live during this paragraph: do we really need to drag Henry VIII into it? Mention of HVIII's case of first degree consanguinity was included because it was a better known case and could help the unexperienced visitor better understand the terms why in HVIII's there was a case for first degree consanguinity and in Richard's and Anne's there was not. Medieval canon law on affinities, siblings created by carnal union in marriage (so Isabel's marriage to George made Anne sister to George and Richard brother to Isabel, but not Anne sister to Richard), etc. is no easy topic and a comparison with a similar better known case might have helped. I would personally recommend it should be reinstated somehow. Isananni ( talk) 19:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Come in, Tim riley, Paul Barlow and anyone else who is interested! Deb ( talk) 12:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Suggestions on current version dated 28 nov 2014
The reference to HVII’s grant of £ 20 to John of Gloucester lacks citation. I know it’s true, I read it somewhere too, but cannot trace the source (Parliament roll or whatever) to support the statement, maybe someone can help
"Richard was born on 2 October 1452[8] at Fotheringhay Castle, the twelfth of the thirteen children of Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York and Cecily Neville. As a potential claimant to the throne of King Henry VI from birth(ref Dr. Johnson) Richard’s father was the leader of the Yorkist faction that opposed the party supporting the Lancastrian king and played a major role in the first phase of the so called The Wars of the Roses, a period of "three or four decades of political instability and periodic open civil war in the second half of the fifteenth century”(ref Prof. Pollard). At the time of the death of his father and elder brother etc...."
In this section, this mention shifts focus from childhood to adulthood quite strangely and lacks the link to the change in ownership of the estate. My suggestion is to move this mention to the Estates section as follows: Two months later, on 14 July, he gained the Lordships of the strongholds Sheriff Hutton and Middleham in Yorkshire and Penrith in Cumberland, which had belonged to Warwick the Kingmaker. It is possible that the grant of Middleham seconded Richard’s personal wishes(ref. Kendall, Richard III,p 125 “Richard had won his way back to Middleham Castle”). However, any personal attachment he may have felt to Middleham was likely mitigated in later adulthood, as surviving records demonstrate he spent less time there than at Barnard and Pontefract(related present ref by Pollard)
I cannot trace the entry right now, but I remember it speaks of £ 50. The first contract spoke of £ 50, but the actual sum disbursed by HVII to James Keyley in 1495 for Richard’s tomb in 1495 was £ 10 (ref Rhoda Edwards, The Ricardian, Vol. III, No 50, September 1975, pp 8-9), quite a bargain, a discount under duress? :)
May I suggest to reinstate the referral brakets to the name Anne Neville in the first sentence? I know it’s a repetition of a referral some 2 upscrolls away, but given the relevance in this specific section it may not be redundant and would make for easier browsing for the user, since the section can be accessed separately from the index and the occasional user may not be aware the referral is in another section
The Bibliography section mentions 3 books, while the Further reading section mentions 19 (mostly books, but a few articles are also included). I will crossmatch the different citations to check if any further books (not articles) have missed inclusion in this section, but in the meantime, would it not be the case to merge the 2 sections in 1 single Bibliography section? Should the articles be included or not? Should all books that are mentioned in the citations be included e.g. Josephine Wilkinson's "Richard the young king to be"? Some books are strictly on Richard, others are not (e.g. we have 3 on the War od the Roses, 2 on Anne Neville, 1 on George of Clarence, etc.), my opinion is the bibliography should only list books on Richard. Some qualified books on Richard are not listed, e.g. Carson's The Maligned King or Hancock's The murder in the Tower, should we add them? The bibliography section lists works by author/title/publisher/isbn id, the Further reading section lists works by title/by author/publisher in brakets/isbn id in brakets - which criteria should we choose to keep consistency? Furthermore, I do not have the ability to work on sections that impact on the index if we want to merge the bibliography and further reading section, so I hope someone can help there.
Looking forward to your opinion Isananni ( talk) 14:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Just a note to Tim. I sympathise with Fortuna, who has done a lot of work to try to improve the article - but (if he/she will forgive me saying so) perhaps a bit too eagerly - and is now becoming frustrated by some of the criticisms. However, I think I went on record some years ago to the effect that this article can never maintain GA status because of the emotionally-charged views of many contributors. Now, personally, I think Richard III was probably not a very nice man - just like most medieval kings. However, over the years, there have been a number of revisionist views expressed in the media, by scholars and amateurs alike, which means that everything does have to be sourced, and reputably sourced. The discovery of the body hasn't helped. Despite the fact that it has proved Richard did suffer from a physical deformity, just like the Tudors claimed, has been interpreted by some as somehow "proving" the opposite. The arguments are guaranteed to continue for many years to come, and every so often we will take a couple of steps backwards in terms of NPOV. Deb ( talk) 11:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
If a novel is being used in a citation, it should be in the bibliography, as an editor is claiming it supports a particular fact (rightly or wrongly). To what extent we should be citing novels in support of particular claims is another matter. Hchc2009 ( talk) 18:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Deb. Anyhow, Rohan Maitzen from the English Department at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia has reviewed several pro-Richard fiction novels and also mentions Crown of Roses among them http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/all-the-world-to-nothing/. I guess it can be added as citation, while the mention to the novel itself, now no longer present in the references can be removed from the Bibliography section Isananni ( talk) 12:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite book}}
: |journal=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: |journal=
ignored (
help)I did my best with the missing isbns, could not retrieve the isbn of Ross' UK editions, articles from historical reviews are not normally associated with a isbn, which I could not locate in any case. Hope the result stands up to the desired standards. Isananni ( talk) 17:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I've nominated Exhumation of Richard III of England for consideration as a Good Article in advance of his reburial next March, which will attract a huge amount of interest. The article is in good shape and is quite comprehensive, so I'm sure it will be a good GA candidate. I'd be grateful for any help with the GA review. Prioryman ( talk) 18:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Please note that I've nominated Exhumation of Richard III of England for consideration as a Featured Article Candidate, with the intention of having it ready to appear on the Main Page on the date of Richard III's reburial in late March. Any input on the nomination would be very welcome - please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Exhumation of Richard III of England/archive1. Prioryman ( talk) 12:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Postmortem analysis by Leicester University can be cited to the academic paper in the Lancet. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60804-7 JFW | T@lk 22:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I had misgivings about this line:
'After his death, Richard's image was tarnished by propaganda fostered by his Tudor successors (who sought to legitimise their claim to the throne),[184] '
There are a number of immediate problems I can see with it:
I have therefore made a few alterations, balancing them by mention of Cheetham (p. 198) that the Tudors were happy to see his faults exaggerated (although Cheetham stops short of claiming they deliberately promoted it) and Potter (pages 3-4) who puts the traditional White Boar view. 109.156.156.186 ( talk) 13:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I have had a look at the section. My idea to replace the newspaper's citation and avoid present historians' POV from one side or the other as much as possible is to add further citations from primary sources to the single one of John Rous that is actually in the article, specifically Mancini's "The good reputation of his public activities and private life powerfully attracted the esteem of strangers", the record in York City records mourning Richard's death at the risk of facing the new king's wrath and possibly Von Popalaus' account of Richard's physical appearance where no mention of visible deformity is made. Then, I would simply point out a dramatic change (not necessarily tarnishing, but a change cannot be denied) in Richard's descriptions in the accounts of the historians under the new Tudor regime, culminating etc. with John Rous making a U turn, etc. catching up with what is already online. Interpretations of where the truth lies, in the accounts before or after Richard's death or somewhere in between, can be left to the individual visitor to the page, but we cannot help acknowledging and reporting that there was a change in descriptions if we want to provide state of the art information. Controversies over Richard's reputation are probably the most enticing aspect of this very short lived king, and I guess that is what this paragraph is about. Please give me time to gather the precise texts of the primary sources and I will come back with the amendments. Isananni ( talk) 16:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Isananni, I think you misunderstood HCHC2009's point. You cannot put primary sources in WP instead of scholarship, because WP exists to summarise the scholarship. Therefore, what you are proposing to do, however well-intentioned, is not in line with WP policy. That holds good for transcriptions as well, which are still primary sources (in fact, it's even worse because they are often not terribly accurate). What you have also done is remove the scholarship, including putting back material that I have pointed out is either unreliable or incomplete (Walpole) and gives a highly misleading view of what actually occurred. The point is that in the version there is a claim that all anti-Ricardian statements are 'Tudor propaganda,' attributed (falsely) to a newspaper, whereas actually it was a disguised quote from an individual with a known and clear bias. Therefore this section fails NPOV. I have reverted. If you can find reliable, secondary sources that state unambiguously that all anti-Ricardian material dates from post 1485 and that therefore it is all Tudor Propaganda, great. But I don't think you will. Even Potter and Baldwin blink before going that far. The fact is there is a substantial body of opinion in scholarship - possibly even a majority opinion, although I have no evidence one way or another on that - that actually, the Tudors had very little need to do more than push Richard's unsavoury reputation a bit. That's not to accept More or indeed Desmond Seward's work at face value, simply to point out that Richard was a very controversial person even before he died. Hope that helps. 109.156.156.186 ( talk) 20:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC) PS - I'm not quite sure why Isananni thinks I removed Rous's before and after. I left it there, because I thought it was perfectly well presented. There might be a case for a more direct comparison, of course. 109.156.156.186 ( talk) 21:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Ps my notes to reverting to "fictional" instead of the later "fictionalised" for Shakespeare's play were cut off: "fictionalised" conveys a meaning of "staged, but true to historical events" that cannot belong to a work presenting a long dead Margaret of Anjou shouting curses against the other characters, or e.g. Richard marrying Anne after Clarence's imprisonment, that is 6 years later than in real life, etc. Coming back with the other additions as soon as I can get to my books and pc, off to real work now. Isananni ( talk) 06:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC) Dear Isananni
everyone here has some bias in this article
your sources speak for yours
my sources probably speak for mine
let us all try to deliver information in as neutral or balanced a way as possible, shall we?
Hope that helps. 109.156.156.186 ( talk) 18:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
109.156.156.186, all your edits are kept even though a few needed to be improved in terms of historical accuracy and timeline (I know, nobody's fault, it's just hard to follow the succession of events when the scholar one refers to seems to rejoice in keeping his knowledge to himself and delivers it at his convenience and hardly dates any citation, not to speak making explicit reference to the document he is referring to, unlike others, should anyone ever have the idea to check for themselves). As everybody can see my additions are all perfectly backed up by reliable scholarly secondary sources and all together deliver the main positive and negative contemporary or near contemporary records on Richard's reputation. No evaluation on who was right or wrong is made. I had never contributed to the "Reputation" section until now, you can check in the history of the article if you do not believe me. I do not claim any ownership of course, simply grow nervous on seeing radical changes by anonymous users without discussion, we have had to revert vandalisms every other day, I think we have sorted that out. As for my sources, I personally prefer to refer to scholars who have their stance but deliver references to primary sources without feeling jealous and therefore let their readers check for themselves, old habit I got at the University. Have a nice day. Isananni ( talk) 18:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
ps on a side note. I apologise if I ever gave you the impression I was being rude or patronising, English is not my native language, so culture clashes can occur. However, if you had read both my discussion with our senior editor Deb in this section of the talk page and my answer to you on my talk page, you might have seen that there was not any intention to remove your scholarly entries for good, simply the need for a little time to reestablish a, scholarly supported, balance in a very sensitive section where in the first instance some more entries than just the newspaper citation had gone lost. I do hope we can get along together too, I am sure none of us mean any harm to the article or to each other. Isananni ( talk) 18:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, only read more carefully now, answering some points:
R3's reputation was indeed tarnished by the Tudors and others after 1485. This is not a controversial point. Was R3 criticised during his lifetime? He certainly was, but not like after his death, in which he is made out to be the worst king to have reigned in the middle ages as well as the personification of evil. That's my $0.02.
Has this body changed its name to Plantagenet Legacy? Jackiespeel ( talk) 11:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
What is the copyright status of images on eBay? This is a particularly fine image of a Richard III groat: [1]. Martinevans123 ( talk) 17:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The standard clause on the eBAy website says that "When providing us with content, you grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual (or for the duration of any copyright or other rights in such content), irrevocable, royalty-free, sublicensable (through multiple tiers) right to use the content and authorise us to exercise any and all copyright, trademark, publicity, database or other rights you have in or to the content in any media known now or in the future." In theory, then, either eBay or the original copyright holder/photographer could authorise the image's use. In practice, I'd imagine you'd want the original photographer's agreement. Hchc2009 ( talk) 19:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I personally find the latests additions by Proxima Centaury on the controvercies over Richard's reburial place to be both overredundant (controvercies and the judicial review that followed are already mentioned previously in the same chapter) and inadequate, however I would not like to proceed removing them without discussion or senior editors' opinion. What do you think? Isananni ( talk) 08:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Martin, got it now. I have a feeling it's going to be a crazy week for vandalisms on the article if I have to judge from its history since we discussed this genuine good faith edit. Have you all a nice day. Isananni ( talk) 06:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Summary of events:
I would be glad for other editors' opinion on the edit. Isananni ( talk) 11:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
NB: I don't have access to the volume; could anyone identify the page and perhaps post a sentence or two from it here? I'm happy to read through it as a uninvolved party. In the meantime, can we avoid an edit war - several editors are now over the 3RR etc. Hchc2009 ( talk) 12:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Griffiths, R.A., The Reign of Henry VI' ISBN 0-7509-3777-7 Haigh, Philip From Wakefield to Towton Pen and Sword Books 2002 ISBN 0-85052-825-9 Hariss, G.L., The Struggle for Calais: An Aspect of the Rivalry between Lancaster and York, English Historical Review LXXV(1960), 30. Hicks Warwick the Kingmaker ISBN 0-631-23593-0 Hilliam, David Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards Sutton Publishing 2000 ISBN 0-7509-2340-7 Jacob, E.F., The Oxford History of England: The Fifteenth century, 1399–1485 (Clarendon Press, 1961; reprint 1988) ISBN 0-19-821714-5 Johnson Richard Duke of York ISBN 0-19-820268-7 Rowse, A.L. Bosworth Field and the Wars of the Roses, Wordsworth Military Library, 1966 ISBN 1-85326-691-4 Storey, Robin The End of the House of Lancaster Sutton Publishing 1986 ISBN 0-86299-290-7 Wolffe Henry VI ISBN 0-300-08926-0 Isananni ( talk) 12:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
A limited selection, but it'll have to do... but we don't need a massive list of books... just ONE page # frm PMK. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
BINGO! See, wasn't difficult, was it... You better add the ref to all those other articles
User:Deb mentioned earlier now...
Fortuna
Imperatrix Mundi 13:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
There wasnt a controversy about his funeral, since he was a Catholic monarch and was given an Anglican funeral? I think this should be mentioned in the entry. Mistico ( talk) 17:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering if some more experienced editor than me could include a picture of the new tomb in the section since it's described in detail. I do not know how to do it myself, but I found a gallery on this site, the first picture shows most details described in the section http://news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/king-richard-iiis-monumental-tomb-unveiled-150327.htm Thank you for your help. Isananni ( talk) 06:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I uploaded in Wikifiles the picture of the tomb for which license to use for Wikipedia only has been granted by Leicester Cathedral, but I am hopeless at editing. If some other editor could kindly help make a better editing and show the picture in the article, I would be most thankful. Isananni ( talk) 11:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Removed some superfluous linkage as per WP:MOS. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Make links only where they are relevant and helpful in the context: Excessive use of hyperlinks can be distracting and may slow the reader down. Redundant links (like the one in the tallest people on Earth) clutter the page and make future maintenance harder. High-value links that are worth pursuing should stand out clearly. All links recently removed by user Fortuna represented the one and only link of the specific section where the link had been added by the previous editors (not necessarily me in most cases) to allow the reader an easier browsing of the connected information present on Wikipedia. It it true that most links are present in the summary, or in previous sections, but the index allows the reader to "jump" to a specific section where now he does not find e.g. the link to Henry Tudor or the Battle of Bosworth Field in the section "Deeath at the Battle of Bosworth Field" or the link to Anne Neville in the section "Marriage and family relationships" anymore, thus forcing the reader to either scroll up the article in search of the relevant link or retype name/noun/concept in the search string, which is the opposite of the pursued goal of being helpful to the reader and allowing a quick browsing for information. I would kindly ask other editors/admins to look into this issue. I personally recommend reinstating all removed wikilinks as imho they fall in the category of high-value links worth pursuing. Isananni ( talk) 16:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed it would, since e.g. Henry Tudor or Leicester Cathedral were, to my best knowledge, the first occurrence after the lead Isananni ( talk) 16:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
The policy guidance encourages generally linking once in an article, with potential duplication permitted once in the main text if a link is also used in the lead; one additional use in each of infoboxes, tables, captions etc. is also typically permitted. Looking at a recent version of the article and taking two examples, [2], Henry Tudor, for example, was being linked in the lead, in Rebellion of 1483, and in Death at the Battle of Bosworth Field - Imperatrix's removal of the third incident is perfectly in line with the guidance. Leicester Cathedral was linked in the lead, a caption, an infobox, twice in Discovery of remains, once again in Burial and tomb; similarly, the removal of several of these was in line with the guidance. Hchc2009 ( talk) 17:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Let me put it like this; you are probably right in that there are two types of editor, those who want to read an article for itself, and those who use it to get somewhere else. Which I've done myself- e.g., if you can't remember the name of one of Napoleon's Generals, then he can be reached through his boss's page. But- using that example- if I'm looking for a link to MacDonald et alia, I'm not likely to wait until the reference at the bottom of the page- I'll have clicked the link the moment I come across it: earlier. So, late links like that are surely redundant, or at least orientated to a minute demographic of our constituents (those who only decide they want to find out about his wife at the bottom of the page!). I certainly imagine that to be the purpose of policy. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd call that a good compromise Isananni ( talk) 18:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I recently removed a statement allegedly by Pollard (not Ross, my fault in editing the summary of edit) with reference to Edward of Middleham being named heir apparent 2 months before dying (that is around February 1484). I never stumbled in such a statement before: Kendall, Hicks, Carson, Baldwin, etc. all only mention Edward's investiture as Prince of Wales on 8 September 1483 (which was at the time itself a sign of acknowledgement as heir apparent, to my best knowledge), no contemporary or semycontemporary account I recall (Crowland Chronicle, etc.) speaks of this 1484 act. Can anyone cite the precise reference/page by Pollard or any other scholar supporting this statement and the relative contemporary document it refers to? Otherwise my opinion is the statement should be removed. Thank you for your help. Isananni ( talk) 15:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I've just seen the template. May I humbly suggest removing paragraph 5 (reburial) and making paragraph 4 (finding of remains) shorter? I really cannot see how the first 3 paragraphs could be even shorter... I only hope we can find a stable outlook, I was hoping to update the Italian version to the new adds one of these days... Just my thoughts Isananni ( talk) 17:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I moved the whole paragraph on the reinterment to the Reburial and tomb section, leaving only the indication of date and place of reburial at the end of paragraph 4. I tried to think of how paragraph 4 in the lead could be shortened, but however I spin it, something would be lacking in an already rather summarised passage and I feel the discovery of Richard's remains is a unique feature of this monarch that should be kept in the lead paragraph. I personally think the lead paragraph is now rather acceptable, but of course my changes can be reverted. Isananni ( talk) 12:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Richard III was only born in one county, i.e. Northamptonshire, so that Wikiproject has some relevance to him.-- Johnsoniensis ( talk) 17:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
May humbly suggest all recent changes by user Charles Sf are amended/reverted to the text as was before his/her intervention? Reasons being: - Most entries are unsourced, whereas to by best knowledge e.g. Rivers being accused of plotting Gloucester's life is reported by Mancini (as reported by Kendall, Carson, even Ross, etc. ). The Council at first did not approve of Anthony Woodville's conviction for treason in May 1483 because technically Richard's role as Protector of the Realm had not been confirmed yet - The Confession of James Tyrrel is a stand alone section/article that has its place in Wikipedia and does not need to be fully reported in this specific article, new findings, if ever (David Starkey has claimed to have found "new" documents that he has not produced and his interpretation of their meaning is as good as any) belong to Tyrrel's article that already had its due referral link when his name was mentioned in Richard's article Looking forward to your opinion Isananni ( talk) 07:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Richard III of England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
May humbly suggest all recent changes by user Charles Sf are amended/reverted to the text as was before his/her intervention? Reasons being: - Most entries are unsourced, whereas to by best knowledge e.g. Rivers being accused of plotting Gloucester's life is reported by Mancini (as reported by Kendall, Carson, even Ross, etc. ). The Council at first did not approve of Anthony Woodville's conviction for treason in May 1483 because technically Richard's role as Protector of the Realm had not been confirmed yet - The Confession of James Tyrrel is a stand alone section/article that has its place in Wikipedia and does not need to be fully reported in this specific article, new findings, if ever (David Starkey has claimed to have found "new" documents that he has not produced and his interpretation of their meaning is as good as any) belong to Tyrrel's article that already had its due referral link when his name was mentioned in Richard's article Looking forward to your opinion Isananni ( talk) 07:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Richard III of England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Could we please keep both references and find a compromise? It's not like the primary source is a text in hand-written Medieval Latin needing extra competence to read and understand... Isananni ( talk) 21:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
An editor deleted a citation of an article reporting on the results of the cross comparison of Richard III's Y DNA with today's descendants of Edward III (who was also Richard III's ancestor) through the Beaufort line and replaced it with the reference to the original 2015 academic paper and another editor reverted these edits alleging it was against Wiki policy. My suggestion is to end this edit war by keeping both references. Isananni ( talk) 06:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
To the Further Reading list I'd add Josephine Tey, The Daughter of Time, a detectives story focused on the tower murders.
Second, the entry asserts simply that "rumors circulated" about the murders at the time. Tey claims rumors existed only in Morton's trail and that there is no evidence of general rumors of the murders at the time. (If she is right, the article leaves a false impression.) -- GFHandle ( talk) 19:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC) [1]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Richard III of England. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/LIVE-UPDATES-Richard-III-DNA-results-announced/story-18041484-detail/story.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Richard III of England. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://leicestermercury.co.uk/Richard-III-Tomb-design-does-meet-Leicester/story-18391233-detail/story.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Iazyges ( talk · contribs) 16:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
GA Criteria
|
---|
GA Criteria:
|
@ Iazyges: I added the requested ref to the motto and personal device part. I could not trace the dead link, would you be so kind to mention the section where the dead link is located so that I can see if I can replace it with a new one or if it is redundant and we can do without it? There are several references to both the Visitor Centre and the burial site in the article and the other ones do not seem to be dead. Thanks in advance for your feedback. Isananni ( talk) 10:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Iazyges: Done. Isananni ( talk) 15:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Iazyges: Done almost entirely. Likely and probably are very similar and probably is more common, whereas "he is believed to have met" sounds a bit heavy with respect to a more straightforware "he probably met". I included the rest of your suggestion. Isananni ( talk) 15:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
It is said Richard was made a Knight of the Order of Bath - but according to the linked page that order was 'founded by George I on 18 May 1725.' What is the correct link? Jackiespeel ( talk) 10:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I think 'accession' is the wrong word. With the slightly problematic exception of Baldwin, all historians use 'usurped' - Horrox, Ross, Pollard, Hicks in particular. The other point is of course that however you look at it Richard wasn't next in line, and clearly didn't even believe that himself given the different justifications he came up with for seizing power. So it was a usurpation whatever his motives and however he set about it. This is of course also true of Henry IV, Edward IV and Henry VII, so it wasn't exactly uncommon. Have also somewhat altered the wording in the lead, which seemed to miss several key facts (e.g. the arrest of Rivers and Grey, the fact that only Richard and his allies declared the Princes illegitimate, not a properly constituted court) which definitely presented a pro-Ricardian slant to events I do not think is justified. The Irish Question ( talk) 18:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Isannani, I am afraid that 'Accession' itself is not a neutral term. This is for two reasons. First, it implies that Richard became king legally, which he clearly did not. Even he clearly did not believe it given the number of increasingly bizarre excuses he found, including accusing his own mother of adultery. Secondly, whatever you may think it goes against the views of professional scholars - all three you name being either experts in other fields or amateurs. Paul Murray Kendall was not an historian but a professor of literature (and a very good one) John Ashdown-Hill is a genealogist and whatever the merits of his popular work has never held a university post (which is hardly surprising given on page 16 of his biography he appears to suggest Edward V connived at his own deposition) Josephine Wilkinson I know little of so can't comment but does not on a quick search to hold an academic post. Against that we have to set the following:
I think that makes the academic consensus (and I would remind you that is what Wikipedia is here to summarise) pretty clear. On that basis it should be called a usurpation.
I can see from your history that you have a significant emotional investment in this page, but I am afraid you are simply wrong here and presenting a very distorted view of Richard's reign in consequence. I have students to teach and they were finding this page is presenting confusing, which is why I made slight adjustments in the first place to tone it down. I could have gone a lot further as the whole thing reads like a propaganda exercise from the Richard III society, but for the moment I am contenting myself with getting rid of blatant lies. I have put it back the way it was and I would advise you if you cannot deal with facts and scholarship, to stay away from this page. The Irish Question ( talk) 17:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I know that Isannani is obsessive on this subject and that people like quiet lives but this is simply wrong. I have pointed out that reputable scholarship characterises the accession of Richard as a usurpation - that is to say, he illegally took the throne from the rightful king. There is pretty well no dispute about that now. Wikipedia exists to summarise scholarship and therefore removing the mention that the throne was usurped is itself a violation of neutrality. It is very telling that in order to find any sort of doubt Isananni has to go back to the eighteenth century or work with the likes of Ashdown-Hill, an intriguing but very minor figure. Of course Richard wasn't in any way unusual in being a usurper - every adult male king in the fifteenth century other than Henry V was a usurper of one sort or another. What made Richard slightly unusual was that he took the throne from a child, and not from an adult by war, which is why I think he is so much more controversial. I would add that the mischaracterisations of me and my motives by Isannani are unpleasant but seem mostly to be because he(?) feels unable to argue convincingly against the point I was making. This seems to explain the poor quality of this article, which reads in places more or less like an advert for the Richard III society. I teach on this subject and the poor quality of this article is a real issue. That's why I was trying to get rid of some of its worse features. Would it be better if I rewrote the whole thing from guts up based on scholarship to correct all these mistakes? It would take a while as at the moment between family matters and teaching plus my current research 24 hours just aren't enough, but I don't mind doing it if it would help. Until or unless agreement is reached on this I have tagged the article - non-neutral and factually inaccurate. This also serves as a warning to my students (and others, of course). I have to say Isananni might also benefit from a short break to calm down. The Irish Question ( talk) 19:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I think before anyone responds to that point they should look at this exchange. However, if @Isananni cannot work with others over scholarship on this topic - and clearly s/he cannot - without getting so abusive there seems little more to be said. However, again it does raise the issue of whether the whole article needs a guts up rewrite. The Irish Question ( talk) 20:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC) One thought does occur, however. While 'accession' is a doubtful word - it implies legality, which goes against current scholarship on the subject - could we not just rename the section 'King of England'? That is entirely neutral in the sense that nobody disputes that he became King. The Irish Question ( talk) 20:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Would everyone just stop, please, and pause for breath? We've been here before (lots of times). Why get into an argument about semantics when alternative phrases can be used to achieve a compromise? Deb ( talk) 09:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Maybe everyone here needs to calm down and listen to what Shakespeare's Queen Margaret - the widow of the (murdered?) Lancastrian King Henry VI , the grandson of the (usurper?) King Henry IV - called them all: "You wrangling gang of pirates!" There's scientific neutral objectivity for you. O Murr ( talk) 18:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Between 1272 and 1603, Richard III seems to be the only English monarch to be married at the time of accession. Is this worth a mention? Robin S. Taylor ( talk) 16:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Poor argument. We have article Style of the British sovereign, which specifies that thr titles of Richard III were: "Rex Angliae et Franciae et Dominus Hiberniae (King of England and of France and Lord of Ireland)." And the claim to France ends in 1800/1801. Dimadick ( talk) 09:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Re Section: Discovery of Remains. Just a suggestion. It reads "Forensic pathologist, Dr Stuart Hamilton stated that this injury would have left the King's brain visible ...," with another later reference to "the King," ande later calling him "Richard."
As the paragraph is still building evidence for this wretch being Richard, shouldn't it still read "the man" or "the skeleton" at this point, so as not to jump to the conclusion and derail the argument? (The ideal phrase would be "the subject," but that word is somehow antithetical to a ruler (as it turns out) and would thus be a distraction.) I'm not arguing for spoiler-avoidance, but rather for a logical progression of ideas.
WHPratt (
talk)
14:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi all. Just a quick note to explain what I've been up to over the last week or so. Substantively, I made five changes to the article references:
Note that I've made heavy use of the WP:CS1 templates, in addition to Template:Sfnp. That choice is more-or-less arbitrary, so if editors don't approve of these it shouldn't be much work to switch to something else now that the data is all in a tidy format. I also assumed from the presence of a bibliography that it should be used (rather than giving a source's bibliographic data in its first occurrence in the citation list), and I've included "long" sources in the list of sources, even if they are only cited once. But both of these judgments are also easily changed, if required.
I hope that's overall a helpful intervention. Let me know if I've made any missteps and I'll happily correct them. Also sorry for monopolising the edit history, I've been making lots of small edits while taking breaks from working on something in the real world... Charlie A. ( talk) 12:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
The following sentence from #Exile_and_return appears to have suffered over time from cutting and pasting clauses and whole sections, and I can't seem to back-trace the intended meaning.
Following Warwick's 1470 rebellion, in which he (1) made peace with Margaret of Anjou and promised the restoration of Henry VI to the English throne, Richard, William, Lord Hastings and Anthony Woodville, Earl Rivers (2) escaped capture at Doncaster by Warwick's brother, Lord Montague. On 2 October they (3) sailed from King's Lynn in two ships; Edward landed at Marsdiep and Richard at Zeeland.
(1) He, Richard? He, George? He, Warwick? Grammatically, the antecedent would be Warwick and that makes no sense at all.
(2a) The fact that George was omitted in this list makes me think that (1) is "George". If not, did George escape elsewhere or from someone else? (2b) If Anthony Woodville is 'Earl Rivers', we need a comma after the title. Arthur, the English king, went to bed has a different meaning than Arthur, the English king went to bed.
(3) As constructed, this would mean that Edward and George (they) left everyone else behind.
I would have simply edited the phrase, but I'm as likely to destroy the meaning as I am to improve it. Last1in ( talk) 19:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to remove this image, it is obviously an artist's artistic imagination which shouldn't be in that section, at the very least. At best, I can see that it's an x-ray, but the crown symbolism and all that, it feels out of place. Richard almost certainly did not still have his crown at Bosworth when his skeleton was discovered. Yourlocallordandsavior ( talk) 07:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)