![]() | Richard Roose is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa ( talk) 20:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Murders of Richard Roose → Richard Roose – Richard Roose is the original article. It has an substantive page history and was redirected to this new article without discussion. The old title is more in line with typical naming conventions – we don't have articles titled Murders of Ted Bundy or Murders of H. H. Holmes, for example. Surachit ( talk) 05:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 14:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Nothing is known of his life or career until the events of 1531, and the scholarship reflects that. Historians who have discussed the case have not done so in the context of Rooose himself; they have done so re. what the events demonstrate wrt relations between the Court and Fisher, the medieval view of poison, new forms of punishment and the relationship between Henrician legislation and the Reformation (etc). Not on Roose the man, for the simple reason that there is (almost) nothing to say—which was also reflected in the original misleading title. The article title should reflect that its topic is a series of events rather than an individual (WP:NDESC).Wrt Ted Bundy, Holmes etc, well, obviously other murderers exist. In those cases (as with the majority of modern criminals), enough is known from reliable sources as to allow us to create a biography, on which their crimes—while being the primary reason for their notability—can be draped. To re-emphasise: clearly this is not the case with Roose, and comparisons with modern murderers is a false equivalence. Ironically, a better example from the proposer's perspective would probably be this guy; since no-one knows who he was, it's arguably even less of a biography than Roose. Having said that, the difference is obvious: Hundreds of books, amounting to, what, thousands? millions? of words have been expounded on him, which is as far from the case with Roose as could possibly be.For the record, I oppose the move, but I'd agree that the title could need tweaking. I originally plumped for the most obvious one that sprang to mind, but a cogent argument could be made that, since we can't be sure that Roose even committed the crime, another title might be needed to reflect this ( 1531 Lambeth palace poisonings, perhaps?). —— SN 54129 12:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
this episode is primarily notable for the nature of his execution, well, 180 words out of 4524 —about 5%—are about his execution; the vast majority of the article is the series of events. —— SN 54129 12:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
pointless philosophising; you may be mistaken as attempting to be deliberately offensive.The title does not reflect the topic's notability, it accurately summarises the page. I have already explained how comparing this case with Bundy et al. is as apples to oranges; reiteration does not make it less so. But I agree that Lambeth Palace poisonings is probably the most accurate and concise title we can find. Cheers! —— SN 54129 15:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role.John Fisher was a significant religious leader whose attempted assassination by Roose would seem to allow for the move and the separate article being named after him. StonyBrook ( talk) 09:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I have drafted the Theories section, Serial Number 54129 at this page. It has the same content as the current article, but is reorganized a bit... and I added subsections to the Legal proceedings section.
There are also two potential image for the intro section, but they aren't quite as relevant as I'd like. What do you think?–
CaroleHenson (
talk)
03:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | Richard Roose is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa ( talk) 20:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Murders of Richard Roose → Richard Roose – Richard Roose is the original article. It has an substantive page history and was redirected to this new article without discussion. The old title is more in line with typical naming conventions – we don't have articles titled Murders of Ted Bundy or Murders of H. H. Holmes, for example. Surachit ( talk) 05:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 14:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Nothing is known of his life or career until the events of 1531, and the scholarship reflects that. Historians who have discussed the case have not done so in the context of Rooose himself; they have done so re. what the events demonstrate wrt relations between the Court and Fisher, the medieval view of poison, new forms of punishment and the relationship between Henrician legislation and the Reformation (etc). Not on Roose the man, for the simple reason that there is (almost) nothing to say—which was also reflected in the original misleading title. The article title should reflect that its topic is a series of events rather than an individual (WP:NDESC).Wrt Ted Bundy, Holmes etc, well, obviously other murderers exist. In those cases (as with the majority of modern criminals), enough is known from reliable sources as to allow us to create a biography, on which their crimes—while being the primary reason for their notability—can be draped. To re-emphasise: clearly this is not the case with Roose, and comparisons with modern murderers is a false equivalence. Ironically, a better example from the proposer's perspective would probably be this guy; since no-one knows who he was, it's arguably even less of a biography than Roose. Having said that, the difference is obvious: Hundreds of books, amounting to, what, thousands? millions? of words have been expounded on him, which is as far from the case with Roose as could possibly be.For the record, I oppose the move, but I'd agree that the title could need tweaking. I originally plumped for the most obvious one that sprang to mind, but a cogent argument could be made that, since we can't be sure that Roose even committed the crime, another title might be needed to reflect this ( 1531 Lambeth palace poisonings, perhaps?). —— SN 54129 12:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
this episode is primarily notable for the nature of his execution, well, 180 words out of 4524 —about 5%—are about his execution; the vast majority of the article is the series of events. —— SN 54129 12:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
pointless philosophising; you may be mistaken as attempting to be deliberately offensive.The title does not reflect the topic's notability, it accurately summarises the page. I have already explained how comparing this case with Bundy et al. is as apples to oranges; reiteration does not make it less so. But I agree that Lambeth Palace poisonings is probably the most accurate and concise title we can find. Cheers! —— SN 54129 15:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role.John Fisher was a significant religious leader whose attempted assassination by Roose would seem to allow for the move and the separate article being named after him. StonyBrook ( talk) 09:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I have drafted the Theories section, Serial Number 54129 at this page. It has the same content as the current article, but is reorganized a bit... and I added subsections to the Legal proceedings section.
There are also two potential image for the intro section, but they aren't quite as relevant as I'd like. What do you think?–
CaroleHenson (
talk)
03:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)