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 | Archive 4 |
As requested by Rodw, I will be copy-editing this article on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors. I expect the edit to take at least a few days. I will post here if I find things I am unable to resolve. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 22:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Some problems I found while copy-editing:
Overall, this article is in fantastic shape. Thanks to all who have worked to improve it recently, and to build it over the years. The references are superbly formatted, and the prose is easy to read. I have found only small problems with the text. And I have learned, even after years of copy editing, that "the King" is a general exception to capitali[zs]ation rules. Good stuff. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 19:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
A couple more copy edit notes:
I am done with my copy edits. The 1297 section is more readable now. This article is definitely ready to be a GA, and I think it could pass FA pretty easily. Really great work, everyone. I will keep this page on my watch list for a while if you want to comment on my edits or ask any questions here. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 20:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The cite is from the volume published by the British Library on the Magna Carta in 2010, so I'd argue it's probably from a reliable source. Hchc2009 ( talk) 21:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Clarification tags Looking at the clarification needed tags..
Thanks to everyone for their edits and discussion. I believe this article now more than meets the Good article criteria shall we nominate it and hope it doesn't wait too long? Any comments received should be useful in moving towards FA in time for the anniversary.— Rod talk 08:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd just like to say a big thank you to all those who have been helping with the copy-editing of this article. Personally I prefer adding new (well-referenced) material, but I consider myself a reasonable copy editor, and it's fascinating to realise how much you don't know about the English language. I have always spelled "superceded" to agree with "ceded", and I had no idea superceded is considered either a variant or just plain incorrect spelling of superseded. Similarly, it never even occurred to me that British English would use both "judgement" and "judgment", depending on the context. Keep up the good work! -- Merlinme ( talk) 20:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Seeing the edit summary re: Turner & "surely the most fantastic surrender of any English king to his subjects". Turners footnotes cite this to William Stubbs "Select charters and other illustrations of english constitutional history pages" 277-278 however looked here and here I can't see the phrase.— Rod talk 10:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I've added a couple more references where verification etc were requested one to copies in Salisbury & St Edmundsbury and the "who said" for Robert the Bruce. I note the McKechnie reference in the bibliography section is not used in the references - should I remove it as no longer useful/relevant?
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tim riley ( talk · contribs) 19:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Starting first read-through. More soonest.
Tim riley
talk 19:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this is going to take long. This article seems to me of extremely high quality, and I hope it will soon be making its appearance at peer review on its way to FAC. There are, needless to say, some niggles at this stage.
Nothing of any great consequence there. Over to you for consideration. I look forward to completing the formalities once you've addressed these few points. Tim riley talk 20:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Good. I think we're there. If you care to address my points about titles at the top of my comments well and good, but I have no doubt that the article in its present form meets the GA criteria handsomely. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
On to PR and FAC, please, and pray ping me at each stage. – Tim riley talk 19:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Following the very helpful review this article has now been promoted to Good Article. What do others think is the best way forward - should we ask for a peer review? Can anyone identify further work which is needed to reach the featured article criteria?— Rod talk 19:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
See—I told you it would sail through GA! I am doing a little picky cleanup. A few things I've noticed:
Once we clear up the few iffy sources, and ensure verifiability by adding the missing page numbers (or re-sourcing those statements if need be), this is certainly FAC ready. Maralia ( talk) 01:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Rod. I guess some of these bear out some of my concerns; Benton and Walker, for example, talk extensively about early colonial law, but never mention Magna Carta; Milton Candor gives a slightly different spin on the constitution and rights than our article does. It's not just that we need to make sure that individual paragraphs are cited, but that we also need to ensure that the article text reflects the current academic consensus etc. I'm not saying our current text is necessarily wrong or in need of change, its just that I'm not confident from the current citation base that it is up to date and high quality. Hchc2009 ( talk) 09:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The image currently claiming to be a "King John penny" prominently displays the text "REX HENRICUS", rather suggesting that it isn't. Grover cleveland ( talk) 17:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
This is a major find, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-31242433 and unfortunately an IP editor ( User talk:77.99.8.13) has been struggling to insert this with a reference. Widefox; talk 22:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Looking in, after the GAN review which I had the pleasure of doing, I see that the second ("Monarchy") info-box, top right, has ballooned from a few lines to a vast screed mentioning everything from the Foundation of the Ottoman Empire to the Nepalese Civil War. I do not think this is an improvement. Can the superfluous material be removed or at least hidden? Having delivered that complaint, may I, on a more positive note, ask if FAC is in prospect? I have read the recent scholarly exchanges above, and I venture to hope so. – Tim riley talk 00:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
This edit [2] uses a citation to page 75 of the 1992 edition of Magna Carta by James Clarke Holt as a citation for the following:
I have checked page 75; it is the first page of Chapter 4 Custom and law. It does not support the text in question. As far as I can tell, the book does not support the uses of the phrase "the Great Charter of the Liberties". As for the issue of the charter being Angevin; well that is obvious - King John was an Angevin king. As far as I can tell Holt's book does not describe it as an "Angevin charter"; but there is no reason why it should.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The article used to have in the lead: It was preceded and directly influenced by the Charter of Liberties in 1100, in which King Henry I had specified particular areas wherein his powers would be limited. And in the section on the baron's rebellion: They took an oath that they would "stand fast for the liberty of the church and the realm", and demanded that the King confirm the Charter of Liberties that had been declared by Henry I in the previous century, and which was perceived as protecting the rights of the barons. For whatever reason this has been lost in the most recent revisions. Personally I think we need to acknowledge the influence of Henry I's charter; some of the clauses in Magna Carta are virtually identical to Henry's charter. Do others agree that this needs to go back in some form? -- Merlinme ( talk) 20:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I've given an edit a shot. The key points I've tried to get across are that: a) the Unknown Charter is definitely known to have been directly influenced by Henry I's charter (Vincent, Carpenter, etc.); b) Henry I's charter had an influence, therefore, on the Magna Carta, but doesn't seem to have been discussed directly during the main negotiations, which focused on debating the Articles of the Barons (ditto); c) A wide range of other legal documents and traditions had an impact, but the context of Henry I's charter seems to have been most important (ditto). I've tweaked the language around "perceived" and double-checked it against McGlynn, but it is important that the barons saw it as protecting their specific rights. I'm keen that we avoid getting into the "what did Henry I's charter really mean" debate, as it is a subject in itself with lots of detailed academic articles that have poured over the ambiguities. See what you think. Hchc2009 ( talk) 07:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
One can expect several, perhaps many, publications in 2015 associated with the 800th, although probably not all of them will have any scholarly originality. I'll create this section as reading suggestions for contributors (please add):
Would 'Magna Carta' be italicized throughout and on other templates and articles? The title Magna Carta is italicized for this article, as well as its first mention in the lead and the infobox, and then the style is dropped here and throughout Wikipedia. Is the italicized title here a mistake or the correct style for the name? To italicize or not to italicize, that is the question. Thanks. (and can someone fix the code which creates the blank space at the top of the page, I messed around trying to find it but couldn't. thanks again!) Randy Kryn 10:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
The article refers to: At least 13 original copies of the 1215 charter were issued by the royal chancery at the time, seven in the first tranche distributed on 24 June and another six later; they were sent to county sheriffs and bishops, who would probably have been charged for the privilege.[245] Variations would have existed between each of these copies and there was probably no single "master copy".[246] Of these documents, only four survive, all held in the UK—two in the British Library, one by Lincoln Cathedral, and one in Salisbury Cathedral.[247] Each of these versions is slightly different in size and text, and each is considered by historians to be equally authoritative.[248] What about the Australian copy? See the Australian copy details here- http://www.magnacarta.senate.gov.au/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.196.2.200 ( talk) 03:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I reported as a technical question here why "Angevin charter" appears prominently under the title in the mobile app version of this article. Because I've now seen the editwarring and discussion of a few weeks ago, I'll draw attention to this here as well. Thincat ( talk) 17:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
This WP article was referenced in an article in The Guardian of today's date: Wikipedia page explores the fabric of democracy. A quote assesses it as "fairly subjective". Surely this top-importance piece should be completely objective? Was it a fair comment?
I think you have a proper talk-page template for news mentions, but if so it's too deeply buried for this casual user to find — sorry. -- 217.155.32.221 ( talk) 10:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
There were some thoughts expressed about taking this article to FAC, is this still being considered? Whizz40 ( talk) 10:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Magna Carta (British Library Cotton MS Augustus II.106).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 15, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-06-15. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich ( talk) 23:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The document was reissued and renewed several times over the centuries, though its political impact decreased as later laws were passed. The charter was significant because the king had agreed to limit his power, so that although it dealt predominantly with the king and the barons, since the late 16th century it has been considered a symbol of liberty and the freedom of the individual.Document: John, King of England, his barons and Stephen Langton
I note from the article history several edits to the "List of participants in 1215" hidden section changing the name of the Bishop of Hereford between Giles de Braose and Hugh de Mapenor. Neither person's article mentions Magna Carta, which sent me back to the sources used as references for the list: one from The Brookfield Ancestor Project and the other National Archives and Records Administration - I'm having problems finding either name in either source. This source from Herefordshire county council and this from the University of East Anglia say it was Bishop Giles de Braose or Giles de Briouze (NB different spelling). Should we change the list in this article - and should we check that all the others are supported by the references given?— Rod talk 08:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
OK I've been looking for a definitive list but finding this hard..
Any others, or any advice on which of these to follow?— Rod talk 16:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I spent quite a lot of time looking for sources for this list yesterday (and asked for help from an expert), so wanted to summarise where I think we are at. I think there are enough sources for the names of the 25 surety barons, although I've not seen any sources saying they were necessarily all present at Runneymeade. We have a source for most of the Bishops - with the exception of "Herbert Poore (aka "Robert"), Bishop of Salisbury" (and there seems to be some confusion about this one, possibly involving his brother who was also a bishop). The abbots are much more difficult - I'n some cases I can't even work out what they are called. In others the version they were witness to seems to be very unclear (eg Hugh of Northwold is described here - "It cannot be a coincidence that King John acknowledged Hugh’s appointment five days before agreeing to Magna Carta and that Hugh is listed as a witness to the document" however his ONDB article has him as a witness in 1253.) I would tentatively suggest just having a list of the surety barons (and explaining "surety") but remove the bishop & abbots (as we can not verify them or their presence as witnesses - which is what it says at the head of their colomns), replacing them with a sentence saying that some bishops and abbots were also involved as witnesses of the 1215 and later exemplifications.— Rod talk 07:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Are a set of Royal Mail stamps issued for the 800th anniversary worth a mention? see BBC report and Royal Mail.— Rod talk 09:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
This:
was today changed to this:
The main problem here is that a sentence about Magna Carta's general influence has been replaced with an assertion that is unsourced and evidences an unduly narrow world view. The sources for the text of the coronation oath and Matthew 7:12 are only tangential here: what would be needed are sources that assert MC "was amended to be one of the 3 main documents protecting the liberties of human beings under common law though combination with the Oath of Allegiance...and the [1688 coronation oath]" as well as sources that correlate the oath with the golden rule, and these sources would need to be of adequate academic and topical stature to support their significance for inclusion here. More specifically:
I hope this explains why I will be reverting a second time. Happy to discuss further. This is a closely maintained article with very active main editors; I am sure they will chime in here if they have anything to add. Maralia ( talk) 16:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
1. So if a decision has been made to hang Socrates and I refuse to hang socrates, I am the one found guilty of not hanging Socrates. - Got it. 2. "facepalm" so instead of direct sources (ie; evident ones), we should abide trustees as the basis of truth?? 3. The problem is not my edits but that I am being authorised to present straw-man arguments. If you are seriously suggesting that these are the policies of wikipedia I'm gone. No wonder people say never trust Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous573462 ( talk • contribs) 22:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Both the BBC ( Magna Carta changed the world, David Cameron tells anniversary event) and Guardian ( Magna Carta) have publications related to the 800th anniversary (including the public artwork by Hew Locke) but I'm unsure whether anything else needs to go into this article.— Rod talk 14:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Since this article has undergone a huge amount of work in preparation for the anniversary, I was wondering if some of the main contributors would be interested in writing a short piece about the work they did? I'd like to see it posted on the Wikimedia UK blog to highlight the good work that's been going on. Richard Nevell (WMUK) ( talk) 12:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Everyone knows something about the Magna Carta. Wikipedia's article about the medieval charter has existed since January 2002, when User:F. Lee Horn began a text on what he described as a "landmark document in English history, as well as in the history of democracy". Over the years the article grew and matured, via over 5,000 edits, until in November 2014 this article in the Observer highlighted the forthcoming 800th anniversary of the events of 1215, predicting a surge in interest by the public, schools and the media. As a result several discussions started on the article's talk page about what was needed to make the piece a comprehensive, reliable, high quality reference work for the worldwide users of Wikipedia.
A process of collaborative editing took place over the next few months, with User:Merlinme, User:GrindtXX, User:Hchc2009 and User:Rodw making multiple contributions, although the editing and discussion on the talk page involved many more. Along the way there were extensive discussions about which were the highest quality academic sources to draw upon, getting the balance of the language right on the most sensitive issues, and how to best present the complex details of the medieval legal terms. External help arrived in the form of the British Library, who released some beautiful images of some of the documents, and Hereford Cathedral, who spotted a long standing mistake in part of the article, prompting a fresh flurry of research and discussions. More crowd-sourced assistance emerged through the Guild of Copy Editors's User:Jonesey95, who improved much of the prose. The article was nominated as a good article and reviewed by User:Tim riley, finally passing on 30th January this year.
The national and international interest in Magna Carta has been reflected in the readership of the refreshed article, which has received as many as 10,213 hits a day in recent weeks, which equates to over 1 million page views per year. Wikipedia's 10,000 word article is one of the very few fully referenced, rigorous, general purpose overviews of the charter, complementing specialist academic sites such as the Magna Carta Project and those of museums and cathedrals. With a number of new specialist studies being published in 2015, the article will inevitably require updating during the coming year to keep abreast of the academic literature, and may potentially reach featured article status - but that is one of the wonders of the wiki: anyone can help by editing it!
I can return to this later, but contributions from others would be great.— Rod talk 18:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
That's fantastic, I'll get that posted tomorrow morning. On the subject of the tapestry, there is a scan of the front and back from the BL available on Commons, so it's there to use as people see fit. Richard Nevell (WMUK) ( talk) 21:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello Hchc2009, I added 3 NY Times references in the Magna Carta article, for the purpose of providing more outside information to readers.
You deleted them as not needed.
What is the method to add the NY Times articles to the Magna Carta Article?
Usually editors advise to add multiple references to text, for the purpose of giving readers additional info if the reader wishes to read more in depth. Thank you, Jcardazzi ( talk) 19:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Jcardazzi
Thank you, Hchc2009. Other editors advised me to add references within their article text, as a technique to build a "reference library", a technique, thinking citations have 2 purposes: 1. substantiate the claims in the article 2.build a reference library for readers. -- Jcardazzi ( talk) 22:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi
Would it be worth a brief explanation in the article stating the reason the Magna Carta was written in Latin instead of the native English language? I don't know the exact explanation myself. I believe Latin at the time was the "lingua franca" of Europe, and a status language of nobility. Thank you. Jcardazzi ( talk) 14:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi
GrindtXX=thank you, your response is informative. I think adding to the body of the article your comments might be helpful. as you and the others think best. "The Magna Carta was written in Latin, Latin being the language used for all legal and formally issued documents in England (Britain)from the years 1066 to 1733"
I tried to find your history in wikipedia, examples:the Latin and Law articles, you might be able to make your response into an enhancement of the existing articles, or a new article!
Thank you,-- Jcardazzi ( talk) 02:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi
I am reverting from "vellum" to "parchment" at both mentions, as that is in fact the term used in both cited sources. Breay 2010, p. 37: "Magna Carta, in common with other medieval charters, was written on sheets of parchment. The parchment was manufactured from sheepskin ...". Hindley 1990, p. 143: "If the four surviving examples of the Runnymede charter are typical, ... the exemplifications were each on a parchment sheet measuring some 15 by 20 inches (38 x 50 cm)". To clarify the distinction (and see further at Parchment#Parchment and vellum), "vellum" refers exclusively to calfskin; "parchment" referred historically to sheepskin or goatskin, but nowadays tends to be used to encompass any animal membrane. GrindtXX ( talk) 12:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Did anyone else notice that this article had over 600,000 page views on 15 June (see Magna Carta stats), while the TFA for that day ( Panama–Pacific commemorative coins) got just over 10,000 (see Panama–Pacific commemorative coins stats]). Magna Carta has received over 1,194,000 views in the last 90 days. In the light of the number of page views it definitely seems worthwhile trying to resolve and improve any outstanding areas and then nominating at FAC. A previous discussion highlighted some issues about: the quality and reliability of some of the sources, some worries about the post 17th century part of the history section, colonial law and 18th/19th century history. Would anyone be willing to list here what they feel are still current issues/barriers to FAC nomination and maybe we can discuss the best way to address them?— Rod talk 18:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Should the choice of the Runnymede site be added to the article? "...Runnymede was originally chosen as the agreed venue because the boggy ground prevented either the king or his barons from bringing their armies for battle." Source: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/15/magna-carta-leaders-celebrate-800th-anniversary-runnymede -- Jcardazzi ( talk) 13:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi
Good point, the reason given may be a myth. Jcardazzi ( talk) 17:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi
I'd be rather inclined to leave it out for now and see if the theory acquires credibility amongst the academic medieval community. I can't see any evidence of the main Magna Carta specialists (e.g. Holt, Vincent etc.) expounding the argument (but happy to be corrected if anyone can find some examples!). If we add it in, we need to be clear that he's (probably) in a minority of one at the moment, which makes for ugly wording. An alternative might be a footnote, again noting that it's not a widely expounded theory. Hchc2009 ( talk) 19:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Regarding: A triumph would have strengthened his position, but in the face of his defeat, within a few months of his return from France John found that rebel barons in the north and east of England were organising resistance to his rule.
A Suggestion
A triumph would have strengthened his position, but in the face of his defeat, within a few months after his return from France, John found that rebel barons in the north and east of England were organising resistance to his rule.
1. change of to after( a more specific preposition for the time following an event), per http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/after
2. add a comma after France
Reason: No comma separating France from John, indicates John returned from the country of "France John" Please See: http://classroom.synonym.com/use-comma-after-prepositional-phrase-beginning-sentence-4012.html -- Jcardazzi ( talk) 02:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi Thank you
How about?
A triumph would have strengthened his position, but in the face of his defeat, John found that rebel barons in the north and east of England were organising resistance to his rule, within a few months of his return from France.
Jcardazzi (
talk) 13:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi
In Encyclopedia Britannica there is a section on the Origin of the Magna Carta. The origin information would seem to be valuable to add to this article to give more historical background. Starting from 1066, through the history of charters, to John. Please see http://www.britannica.com/topic/Magna-Carta.
Hchc2009 Thank you. too bad the info is dated. D Stenton rewrote the article Apr 30, 2015 per the article history. If interested, Britannica has adopted a partial-Wikipedia approach, contributors can submit updates, if Britannica editors approve, the update is added.
I think D Stenton is a good writer, example, her description of the Magna Carta evolving into a symbol in defense of liberty. "By the time of the 1225 reissue, the Magna Carta had become more than a sober statement of the common law; it was a symbol in the battle against oppression. It had been read so many times in shire courts throughout the land that memorable phrases would be invoked ...whenever liberty seemed in danger, men spoke of the charter as their defense." (the actual words and revisions...)"have made no difference in the collective memory of this venerable document'. -- Jcardazzi ( talk) 17:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi
Thank you, Britannica gave her credit, maybe as an original author, not as an actual "ghost writer" http://www.britannica.com/topic/Magna-Carta/article-history Type Description Contributor Date Updated text Article thoroughly revised. Doris Mary Stenton, Michael Ray Apr 30, 2015 -- Jcardazzi ( talk) 17:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi
Can the word "heavily" be deleted? The lead has the phrase "heavily abbreviated Latin" the body has the phrase "abbreviated Latin". "Heavily" is subjective, and is inconsistent with the body text. -- Jcardazzi ( talk) 12:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi
A fine point, could "form" be changed to "is" in:
Magna Carta still forms an important symbol of liberty today
Magna Carta still is an important symbol of liberty today per verb exaplanation: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/form
Reason: It seems Magna Carta has become and is a symbol of liberty today, where the forming of the symbol has already been completed in the past centuries. I do not know if there is a difference in British and American use of the verb "forms". Thank you, -- Jcardazzi ( talk) 17:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi
I added a Video section, and saved the addition before I made the comment on the save. I tried to add a starting set of documentaries, recordings, et al of Magna Carta I could find which I think are relevant for readers of the article for additional learning. There are probably many more videos which could be added. I thought an organized section would be better than adding more external links. (I wish a reader could just click on the link to go to the video, instead of the 2 step process, click on the link to go to the reference, then click on the reference link to go to the video.) -- Jcardazzi ( talk) 03:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi
Hchc2009, do you have any advice which section a videos documentary section would go Further reading or External Links? The WP:MOS discusses an external link section, but I did not find a discussion on further reading section. I checked other articles, but there doesn't seem to be any consistency of use. The WP documents are often subjective. I thought listing "important" video documentaries would be useful as an extension of the article, "important" being subjective. Thank you, -- Jcardazzi ( talk) 13:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi
I'm satisfied that the intro adequately helps readers acknowledge the topic more and more. Napoleon article has five paragraphs in the intro. Does the Magna Carta article need one or two extra paragraphs in the intro, totaling to six or seven? -- George Ho ( talk) 05:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I finished reading the lead. To your question, Johnbod, I didn't miss anything much from the intro. In fact, it is already well written as is. I apologize for impression that I desire for extra paragraph. I'm not. I tried the comparison-and-contrast mixed with question, but it might have executed poorly. I have been advocating enforcement to follow standard ideals for introductions (see Talk:Napoleon, Talk:Euromaidan and my edit at Viktor Yanukovych), but I learned that "common sense" is usually misused to ignore rules on introductions to more recent and current topics but appropriately used on intros to historical complex topics. As a result, I see bad writing on portions of collection but good writing on other portions. Of course, I wasn't confident about writing a lede because I would be bad at it. There is central discussion at WT:LEAD, but I see opposition to having a discussion on what was "already" discussed. -- This is George Ho actually ( Talk) 20:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I requested article protection because of vandalism. An administrator put: "Semi-protected indefinitely" /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Rolling_archive CuriousMind01 ( talk) 11:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
In the Great Charter of 1297 section, it says "Magna Carta and the Forest Charter were to be issued to the sheriff of each country". Shouldn't that be 'county'? 108.114.1.146 ( talk) 15:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
if this sentence:
were referenced.
Carptrash (
talk) 17:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
"The political myth of Magna Carta and its protection of ancient personal liberties persisted after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 until well into the 19th century." - can it really be called a myth when was probably accompanied with the coronation oath? I feel like this needs to be re-written somehow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.234.244 ( talk) 13:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I think the recent copy edits need expert checking. Most of them look fine to me, but a few seem wrong or dubious, e.g. change from "complementary" to "complimentary", "great council" to "high council" (great council could be linked to Magnum Concilium at first mention), "strictly enforce Magna Carta" to "enforce strictly Magna Carta", "important" to "famous" (is this in the source?). Dudley Miles ( talk) 12:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
It was proposed in the discurion below to change the References and/or Bibliography section of this artical. In this disscution it is difficult to tell what the consensis is. If you have an idea please add a sub-section below with your idea. If you see an idea you like Support it; if not Deny it. Feel free to edit this header as you see fit. Thanks Hungryce ( talk) 03:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand why there is a references and bibliography section on the same page. Should there not be only one section? (most likely references due to the recommendation in WP:MOS) If no one replies for a couple of days I might try and fix it myself or start an RFC. Thanks Hungryce ( talk) 03:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
It seems the method used to build the article, is the references are the short name reference citations to verify the text in the article. If you click on a link in a short name reference item in the reference section, you jump to the complete long name of the reference in the bibliography section. You could try to combine the two sections into 1, but I estimate it will be 40+hours of work and have to be careful not to create errors.-- CuriousMind01 ( talk) 03:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
CuriousMind01 unless I am interpreting you reply wrong then I think that for most articles you have the references or citations section that has the links from the place where it is used. The bibliography section does not have its entry in the references section. It is also hard to tell what part of the text uses the book. The bibliography section uses the standard cite book template that is usually put in ref tags where the reference is used. I know it would take a long time so maybe I should put out an RFC for post on some notes boards to try and get some help. Thanks Hungryce ( talk) 05:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure I understand your concern, Hungryce. Is it that the article uses a short name citation system (where you'll see "Jones 1988, p.4" in the citation, with "Jones, Arthur, 1988, 'A History Book' etc." in a separate list afterwards), or is it the section headings themselves? The use of short citations is very common in both real-world publishing and the wiki. As Johnbod says, we can always play with the headings if we agree what they should be changed to. Hchc2009 ( talk) 07:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I vote for Note, Citations, References. (though I prefer Notes, Short Reference, Reference for consistent use of words) What do others think? CuriousMind01 ( talk) 23:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
{{
rp}}
a lot, to avoid massive amounts of redundancy in the refs section. By moving the page numbers into the article like this[1]: 37 , it would eliminate the need for the short references a.k.a. citation section, but at the cost of, well, having the page numbers in the content, and some people don't like that. To see an article that makes heavy use of the {{
rp}}
system, see
Glossary of cue sports terms; the entry "
pocket template" illustrates multiple uses of it in the same paragraph. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Is it just me or does the "content" link in the menu link to the top of the page instead of the "content" section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.38.60 ( talk) 14:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Regarding: Should the "well into the 19th century" be revised to "today"?
"The political myth of Magna Carta and its protection of ancient personal liberties persisted after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 until well into the 19th century."
From what I read the myth still persists today. -- CuriousMind01 ( talk) 18:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Magna Carta has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
187.127.200.163 ( talk) 19:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Bruno Gonçalves Pirajá
Claire Breay states that "only three clauses of Magna Carta still remain on statute in England and Wales". Perhaps Claire Breay would like to clarify what instrument was used to delete all of the other articles. Certainly no statute (a government instrument) can ever trump a Constitutional statement and to suggest it can is very dangerous language indeed. All Articles still exist and are in force. It is of paramount importance that this type of nonsense is eradicated and that the people learn to value what the Great Charter does for our liberty and freedom from despots and tyranny. Common Law and Trial By Jury provides us with the mechanism to judge not only a defendant but that the law being used to make a prosecution is itself fair. It always has been our security. For a judge to direct otherwise is treason. No judge, who is after all only a member of the Jury, can direct a jury to consider "only the facts of the case". The jury must consider whether the law is valid as a the only free way we have to stop bad laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigorniensis ( talk • contribs) 13:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
As per the main text and the cited reference, "Magna Carta is generally considered part of the uncodified constitution of the United Kingdom" - I think Denning's phrase captures this well. There's no conflict in that and the "political myth" citations that explain why the claims that the Magna Carta "protected ancient personal liberties" were, of course, completely wrong. Hchc2009 ( talk) 17:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Hchc2009 please note that Magna Carta does not have a definite article so no need to put 'the' in front
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Magna Carta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Magna Carta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.sagamoreinstitute.org/library-article/magna-carta/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Magna Carta has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Porsha.schultz ( talk) 09:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
The Prince of Wales, Llywelyn the Great, put the English king in position to force him to sign the Magna Carta. Where is the mention of him in this article? The English were put down by the Welsh and so the true reasoning behind the signing should be spoken about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.116.71 ( talk) 02:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
The image on the right shows King John signing Magna Carta, and says as much. The caption contextualises the image by saying it's a 19th romanticised image. The one wrinkle is that John sealed the charter rather than signed it. I'm in two minds about what to do, is it worth removing the image or adjusting the caption to say that while John is shown signing, that's not what would have happened? Richard Nevell ( talk) 13:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Not sure where else to put this, but I have been reading Coke's Institutes, and while some of his stuff is quaint, he does cite, in the Proeme to the Second Part of the Institutes, his commentary on Magna Carta,
"... and it was no new declaration: for king John in the 17 yeare of his raigne had granted the like, which also was called Magna Charta, as appeareth by a record before this great charter made by king H. 3
Home ne fuer' mordanc' apud Westmonasfterium des terres in auter countie, car ceo fer encont' lestatut de Magna Charta sinon que illa assisa semel interminata suit coram justic" (Pasch. 5 H. 3. tit' Mordaunc' f. 53)" (2 Inst, Proeme, p. 4) ( https://books.google.ca/books?id=G6PDvgEACAAJ&pg=PP14#v=onepage&q&f=false)
So, here it seems that we have Magna Carta made in 17 John cited as late as 4 years before the Magna Carta of H. 3 that was eventually confirmed---and we see it called a statute in this judgment. The view that the Charter can be cancelled, etc. is part of the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy, which is nowhere legislated, it is basically something that university professors like Dicey have cooked up. The UK's Interpretation Act still says "In any Act a reference to the Sovereign reigning at the time of the passing of the Act is to be construed, unless the contrary intention appears, as a reference to the Sovereign for the time being." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7A3C:9100:34A4:C0C7:B5E2:127D ( talk) 06:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
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 | Archive 4 |
As requested by Rodw, I will be copy-editing this article on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors. I expect the edit to take at least a few days. I will post here if I find things I am unable to resolve. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 22:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Some problems I found while copy-editing:
Overall, this article is in fantastic shape. Thanks to all who have worked to improve it recently, and to build it over the years. The references are superbly formatted, and the prose is easy to read. I have found only small problems with the text. And I have learned, even after years of copy editing, that "the King" is a general exception to capitali[zs]ation rules. Good stuff. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 19:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
A couple more copy edit notes:
I am done with my copy edits. The 1297 section is more readable now. This article is definitely ready to be a GA, and I think it could pass FA pretty easily. Really great work, everyone. I will keep this page on my watch list for a while if you want to comment on my edits or ask any questions here. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 20:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The cite is from the volume published by the British Library on the Magna Carta in 2010, so I'd argue it's probably from a reliable source. Hchc2009 ( talk) 21:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Clarification tags Looking at the clarification needed tags..
Thanks to everyone for their edits and discussion. I believe this article now more than meets the Good article criteria shall we nominate it and hope it doesn't wait too long? Any comments received should be useful in moving towards FA in time for the anniversary.— Rod talk 08:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd just like to say a big thank you to all those who have been helping with the copy-editing of this article. Personally I prefer adding new (well-referenced) material, but I consider myself a reasonable copy editor, and it's fascinating to realise how much you don't know about the English language. I have always spelled "superceded" to agree with "ceded", and I had no idea superceded is considered either a variant or just plain incorrect spelling of superseded. Similarly, it never even occurred to me that British English would use both "judgement" and "judgment", depending on the context. Keep up the good work! -- Merlinme ( talk) 20:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Seeing the edit summary re: Turner & "surely the most fantastic surrender of any English king to his subjects". Turners footnotes cite this to William Stubbs "Select charters and other illustrations of english constitutional history pages" 277-278 however looked here and here I can't see the phrase.— Rod talk 10:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I've added a couple more references where verification etc were requested one to copies in Salisbury & St Edmundsbury and the "who said" for Robert the Bruce. I note the McKechnie reference in the bibliography section is not used in the references - should I remove it as no longer useful/relevant?
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tim riley ( talk · contribs) 19:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Starting first read-through. More soonest.
Tim riley
talk 19:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this is going to take long. This article seems to me of extremely high quality, and I hope it will soon be making its appearance at peer review on its way to FAC. There are, needless to say, some niggles at this stage.
Nothing of any great consequence there. Over to you for consideration. I look forward to completing the formalities once you've addressed these few points. Tim riley talk 20:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Good. I think we're there. If you care to address my points about titles at the top of my comments well and good, but I have no doubt that the article in its present form meets the GA criteria handsomely. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
On to PR and FAC, please, and pray ping me at each stage. – Tim riley talk 19:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Following the very helpful review this article has now been promoted to Good Article. What do others think is the best way forward - should we ask for a peer review? Can anyone identify further work which is needed to reach the featured article criteria?— Rod talk 19:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
See—I told you it would sail through GA! I am doing a little picky cleanup. A few things I've noticed:
Once we clear up the few iffy sources, and ensure verifiability by adding the missing page numbers (or re-sourcing those statements if need be), this is certainly FAC ready. Maralia ( talk) 01:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Rod. I guess some of these bear out some of my concerns; Benton and Walker, for example, talk extensively about early colonial law, but never mention Magna Carta; Milton Candor gives a slightly different spin on the constitution and rights than our article does. It's not just that we need to make sure that individual paragraphs are cited, but that we also need to ensure that the article text reflects the current academic consensus etc. I'm not saying our current text is necessarily wrong or in need of change, its just that I'm not confident from the current citation base that it is up to date and high quality. Hchc2009 ( talk) 09:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The image currently claiming to be a "King John penny" prominently displays the text "REX HENRICUS", rather suggesting that it isn't. Grover cleveland ( talk) 17:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
This is a major find, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-31242433 and unfortunately an IP editor ( User talk:77.99.8.13) has been struggling to insert this with a reference. Widefox; talk 22:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Looking in, after the GAN review which I had the pleasure of doing, I see that the second ("Monarchy") info-box, top right, has ballooned from a few lines to a vast screed mentioning everything from the Foundation of the Ottoman Empire to the Nepalese Civil War. I do not think this is an improvement. Can the superfluous material be removed or at least hidden? Having delivered that complaint, may I, on a more positive note, ask if FAC is in prospect? I have read the recent scholarly exchanges above, and I venture to hope so. – Tim riley talk 00:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
This edit [2] uses a citation to page 75 of the 1992 edition of Magna Carta by James Clarke Holt as a citation for the following:
I have checked page 75; it is the first page of Chapter 4 Custom and law. It does not support the text in question. As far as I can tell, the book does not support the uses of the phrase "the Great Charter of the Liberties". As for the issue of the charter being Angevin; well that is obvious - King John was an Angevin king. As far as I can tell Holt's book does not describe it as an "Angevin charter"; but there is no reason why it should.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The article used to have in the lead: It was preceded and directly influenced by the Charter of Liberties in 1100, in which King Henry I had specified particular areas wherein his powers would be limited. And in the section on the baron's rebellion: They took an oath that they would "stand fast for the liberty of the church and the realm", and demanded that the King confirm the Charter of Liberties that had been declared by Henry I in the previous century, and which was perceived as protecting the rights of the barons. For whatever reason this has been lost in the most recent revisions. Personally I think we need to acknowledge the influence of Henry I's charter; some of the clauses in Magna Carta are virtually identical to Henry's charter. Do others agree that this needs to go back in some form? -- Merlinme ( talk) 20:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I've given an edit a shot. The key points I've tried to get across are that: a) the Unknown Charter is definitely known to have been directly influenced by Henry I's charter (Vincent, Carpenter, etc.); b) Henry I's charter had an influence, therefore, on the Magna Carta, but doesn't seem to have been discussed directly during the main negotiations, which focused on debating the Articles of the Barons (ditto); c) A wide range of other legal documents and traditions had an impact, but the context of Henry I's charter seems to have been most important (ditto). I've tweaked the language around "perceived" and double-checked it against McGlynn, but it is important that the barons saw it as protecting their specific rights. I'm keen that we avoid getting into the "what did Henry I's charter really mean" debate, as it is a subject in itself with lots of detailed academic articles that have poured over the ambiguities. See what you think. Hchc2009 ( talk) 07:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
One can expect several, perhaps many, publications in 2015 associated with the 800th, although probably not all of them will have any scholarly originality. I'll create this section as reading suggestions for contributors (please add):
Would 'Magna Carta' be italicized throughout and on other templates and articles? The title Magna Carta is italicized for this article, as well as its first mention in the lead and the infobox, and then the style is dropped here and throughout Wikipedia. Is the italicized title here a mistake or the correct style for the name? To italicize or not to italicize, that is the question. Thanks. (and can someone fix the code which creates the blank space at the top of the page, I messed around trying to find it but couldn't. thanks again!) Randy Kryn 10:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
The article refers to: At least 13 original copies of the 1215 charter were issued by the royal chancery at the time, seven in the first tranche distributed on 24 June and another six later; they were sent to county sheriffs and bishops, who would probably have been charged for the privilege.[245] Variations would have existed between each of these copies and there was probably no single "master copy".[246] Of these documents, only four survive, all held in the UK—two in the British Library, one by Lincoln Cathedral, and one in Salisbury Cathedral.[247] Each of these versions is slightly different in size and text, and each is considered by historians to be equally authoritative.[248] What about the Australian copy? See the Australian copy details here- http://www.magnacarta.senate.gov.au/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.196.2.200 ( talk) 03:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I reported as a technical question here why "Angevin charter" appears prominently under the title in the mobile app version of this article. Because I've now seen the editwarring and discussion of a few weeks ago, I'll draw attention to this here as well. Thincat ( talk) 17:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
This WP article was referenced in an article in The Guardian of today's date: Wikipedia page explores the fabric of democracy. A quote assesses it as "fairly subjective". Surely this top-importance piece should be completely objective? Was it a fair comment?
I think you have a proper talk-page template for news mentions, but if so it's too deeply buried for this casual user to find — sorry. -- 217.155.32.221 ( talk) 10:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
There were some thoughts expressed about taking this article to FAC, is this still being considered? Whizz40 ( talk) 10:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Magna Carta (British Library Cotton MS Augustus II.106).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 15, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-06-15. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich ( talk) 23:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The document was reissued and renewed several times over the centuries, though its political impact decreased as later laws were passed. The charter was significant because the king had agreed to limit his power, so that although it dealt predominantly with the king and the barons, since the late 16th century it has been considered a symbol of liberty and the freedom of the individual.Document: John, King of England, his barons and Stephen Langton
I note from the article history several edits to the "List of participants in 1215" hidden section changing the name of the Bishop of Hereford between Giles de Braose and Hugh de Mapenor. Neither person's article mentions Magna Carta, which sent me back to the sources used as references for the list: one from The Brookfield Ancestor Project and the other National Archives and Records Administration - I'm having problems finding either name in either source. This source from Herefordshire county council and this from the University of East Anglia say it was Bishop Giles de Braose or Giles de Briouze (NB different spelling). Should we change the list in this article - and should we check that all the others are supported by the references given?— Rod talk 08:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
OK I've been looking for a definitive list but finding this hard..
Any others, or any advice on which of these to follow?— Rod talk 16:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I spent quite a lot of time looking for sources for this list yesterday (and asked for help from an expert), so wanted to summarise where I think we are at. I think there are enough sources for the names of the 25 surety barons, although I've not seen any sources saying they were necessarily all present at Runneymeade. We have a source for most of the Bishops - with the exception of "Herbert Poore (aka "Robert"), Bishop of Salisbury" (and there seems to be some confusion about this one, possibly involving his brother who was also a bishop). The abbots are much more difficult - I'n some cases I can't even work out what they are called. In others the version they were witness to seems to be very unclear (eg Hugh of Northwold is described here - "It cannot be a coincidence that King John acknowledged Hugh’s appointment five days before agreeing to Magna Carta and that Hugh is listed as a witness to the document" however his ONDB article has him as a witness in 1253.) I would tentatively suggest just having a list of the surety barons (and explaining "surety") but remove the bishop & abbots (as we can not verify them or their presence as witnesses - which is what it says at the head of their colomns), replacing them with a sentence saying that some bishops and abbots were also involved as witnesses of the 1215 and later exemplifications.— Rod talk 07:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Are a set of Royal Mail stamps issued for the 800th anniversary worth a mention? see BBC report and Royal Mail.— Rod talk 09:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
This:
was today changed to this:
The main problem here is that a sentence about Magna Carta's general influence has been replaced with an assertion that is unsourced and evidences an unduly narrow world view. The sources for the text of the coronation oath and Matthew 7:12 are only tangential here: what would be needed are sources that assert MC "was amended to be one of the 3 main documents protecting the liberties of human beings under common law though combination with the Oath of Allegiance...and the [1688 coronation oath]" as well as sources that correlate the oath with the golden rule, and these sources would need to be of adequate academic and topical stature to support their significance for inclusion here. More specifically:
I hope this explains why I will be reverting a second time. Happy to discuss further. This is a closely maintained article with very active main editors; I am sure they will chime in here if they have anything to add. Maralia ( talk) 16:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
1. So if a decision has been made to hang Socrates and I refuse to hang socrates, I am the one found guilty of not hanging Socrates. - Got it. 2. "facepalm" so instead of direct sources (ie; evident ones), we should abide trustees as the basis of truth?? 3. The problem is not my edits but that I am being authorised to present straw-man arguments. If you are seriously suggesting that these are the policies of wikipedia I'm gone. No wonder people say never trust Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous573462 ( talk • contribs) 22:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Both the BBC ( Magna Carta changed the world, David Cameron tells anniversary event) and Guardian ( Magna Carta) have publications related to the 800th anniversary (including the public artwork by Hew Locke) but I'm unsure whether anything else needs to go into this article.— Rod talk 14:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Since this article has undergone a huge amount of work in preparation for the anniversary, I was wondering if some of the main contributors would be interested in writing a short piece about the work they did? I'd like to see it posted on the Wikimedia UK blog to highlight the good work that's been going on. Richard Nevell (WMUK) ( talk) 12:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Everyone knows something about the Magna Carta. Wikipedia's article about the medieval charter has existed since January 2002, when User:F. Lee Horn began a text on what he described as a "landmark document in English history, as well as in the history of democracy". Over the years the article grew and matured, via over 5,000 edits, until in November 2014 this article in the Observer highlighted the forthcoming 800th anniversary of the events of 1215, predicting a surge in interest by the public, schools and the media. As a result several discussions started on the article's talk page about what was needed to make the piece a comprehensive, reliable, high quality reference work for the worldwide users of Wikipedia.
A process of collaborative editing took place over the next few months, with User:Merlinme, User:GrindtXX, User:Hchc2009 and User:Rodw making multiple contributions, although the editing and discussion on the talk page involved many more. Along the way there were extensive discussions about which were the highest quality academic sources to draw upon, getting the balance of the language right on the most sensitive issues, and how to best present the complex details of the medieval legal terms. External help arrived in the form of the British Library, who released some beautiful images of some of the documents, and Hereford Cathedral, who spotted a long standing mistake in part of the article, prompting a fresh flurry of research and discussions. More crowd-sourced assistance emerged through the Guild of Copy Editors's User:Jonesey95, who improved much of the prose. The article was nominated as a good article and reviewed by User:Tim riley, finally passing on 30th January this year.
The national and international interest in Magna Carta has been reflected in the readership of the refreshed article, which has received as many as 10,213 hits a day in recent weeks, which equates to over 1 million page views per year. Wikipedia's 10,000 word article is one of the very few fully referenced, rigorous, general purpose overviews of the charter, complementing specialist academic sites such as the Magna Carta Project and those of museums and cathedrals. With a number of new specialist studies being published in 2015, the article will inevitably require updating during the coming year to keep abreast of the academic literature, and may potentially reach featured article status - but that is one of the wonders of the wiki: anyone can help by editing it!
I can return to this later, but contributions from others would be great.— Rod talk 18:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
That's fantastic, I'll get that posted tomorrow morning. On the subject of the tapestry, there is a scan of the front and back from the BL available on Commons, so it's there to use as people see fit. Richard Nevell (WMUK) ( talk) 21:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello Hchc2009, I added 3 NY Times references in the Magna Carta article, for the purpose of providing more outside information to readers.
You deleted them as not needed.
What is the method to add the NY Times articles to the Magna Carta Article?
Usually editors advise to add multiple references to text, for the purpose of giving readers additional info if the reader wishes to read more in depth. Thank you, Jcardazzi ( talk) 19:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Jcardazzi
Thank you, Hchc2009. Other editors advised me to add references within their article text, as a technique to build a "reference library", a technique, thinking citations have 2 purposes: 1. substantiate the claims in the article 2.build a reference library for readers. -- Jcardazzi ( talk) 22:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi
Would it be worth a brief explanation in the article stating the reason the Magna Carta was written in Latin instead of the native English language? I don't know the exact explanation myself. I believe Latin at the time was the "lingua franca" of Europe, and a status language of nobility. Thank you. Jcardazzi ( talk) 14:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi
GrindtXX=thank you, your response is informative. I think adding to the body of the article your comments might be helpful. as you and the others think best. "The Magna Carta was written in Latin, Latin being the language used for all legal and formally issued documents in England (Britain)from the years 1066 to 1733"
I tried to find your history in wikipedia, examples:the Latin and Law articles, you might be able to make your response into an enhancement of the existing articles, or a new article!
Thank you,-- Jcardazzi ( talk) 02:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi
I am reverting from "vellum" to "parchment" at both mentions, as that is in fact the term used in both cited sources. Breay 2010, p. 37: "Magna Carta, in common with other medieval charters, was written on sheets of parchment. The parchment was manufactured from sheepskin ...". Hindley 1990, p. 143: "If the four surviving examples of the Runnymede charter are typical, ... the exemplifications were each on a parchment sheet measuring some 15 by 20 inches (38 x 50 cm)". To clarify the distinction (and see further at Parchment#Parchment and vellum), "vellum" refers exclusively to calfskin; "parchment" referred historically to sheepskin or goatskin, but nowadays tends to be used to encompass any animal membrane. GrindtXX ( talk) 12:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Did anyone else notice that this article had over 600,000 page views on 15 June (see Magna Carta stats), while the TFA for that day ( Panama–Pacific commemorative coins) got just over 10,000 (see Panama–Pacific commemorative coins stats]). Magna Carta has received over 1,194,000 views in the last 90 days. In the light of the number of page views it definitely seems worthwhile trying to resolve and improve any outstanding areas and then nominating at FAC. A previous discussion highlighted some issues about: the quality and reliability of some of the sources, some worries about the post 17th century part of the history section, colonial law and 18th/19th century history. Would anyone be willing to list here what they feel are still current issues/barriers to FAC nomination and maybe we can discuss the best way to address them?— Rod talk 18:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Should the choice of the Runnymede site be added to the article? "...Runnymede was originally chosen as the agreed venue because the boggy ground prevented either the king or his barons from bringing their armies for battle." Source: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/15/magna-carta-leaders-celebrate-800th-anniversary-runnymede -- Jcardazzi ( talk) 13:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi
Good point, the reason given may be a myth. Jcardazzi ( talk) 17:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi
I'd be rather inclined to leave it out for now and see if the theory acquires credibility amongst the academic medieval community. I can't see any evidence of the main Magna Carta specialists (e.g. Holt, Vincent etc.) expounding the argument (but happy to be corrected if anyone can find some examples!). If we add it in, we need to be clear that he's (probably) in a minority of one at the moment, which makes for ugly wording. An alternative might be a footnote, again noting that it's not a widely expounded theory. Hchc2009 ( talk) 19:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Regarding: A triumph would have strengthened his position, but in the face of his defeat, within a few months of his return from France John found that rebel barons in the north and east of England were organising resistance to his rule.
A Suggestion
A triumph would have strengthened his position, but in the face of his defeat, within a few months after his return from France, John found that rebel barons in the north and east of England were organising resistance to his rule.
1. change of to after( a more specific preposition for the time following an event), per http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/after
2. add a comma after France
Reason: No comma separating France from John, indicates John returned from the country of "France John" Please See: http://classroom.synonym.com/use-comma-after-prepositional-phrase-beginning-sentence-4012.html -- Jcardazzi ( talk) 02:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi Thank you
How about?
A triumph would have strengthened his position, but in the face of his defeat, John found that rebel barons in the north and east of England were organising resistance to his rule, within a few months of his return from France.
Jcardazzi (
talk) 13:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi
In Encyclopedia Britannica there is a section on the Origin of the Magna Carta. The origin information would seem to be valuable to add to this article to give more historical background. Starting from 1066, through the history of charters, to John. Please see http://www.britannica.com/topic/Magna-Carta.
Hchc2009 Thank you. too bad the info is dated. D Stenton rewrote the article Apr 30, 2015 per the article history. If interested, Britannica has adopted a partial-Wikipedia approach, contributors can submit updates, if Britannica editors approve, the update is added.
I think D Stenton is a good writer, example, her description of the Magna Carta evolving into a symbol in defense of liberty. "By the time of the 1225 reissue, the Magna Carta had become more than a sober statement of the common law; it was a symbol in the battle against oppression. It had been read so many times in shire courts throughout the land that memorable phrases would be invoked ...whenever liberty seemed in danger, men spoke of the charter as their defense." (the actual words and revisions...)"have made no difference in the collective memory of this venerable document'. -- Jcardazzi ( talk) 17:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi
Thank you, Britannica gave her credit, maybe as an original author, not as an actual "ghost writer" http://www.britannica.com/topic/Magna-Carta/article-history Type Description Contributor Date Updated text Article thoroughly revised. Doris Mary Stenton, Michael Ray Apr 30, 2015 -- Jcardazzi ( talk) 17:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi
Can the word "heavily" be deleted? The lead has the phrase "heavily abbreviated Latin" the body has the phrase "abbreviated Latin". "Heavily" is subjective, and is inconsistent with the body text. -- Jcardazzi ( talk) 12:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi
A fine point, could "form" be changed to "is" in:
Magna Carta still forms an important symbol of liberty today
Magna Carta still is an important symbol of liberty today per verb exaplanation: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/form
Reason: It seems Magna Carta has become and is a symbol of liberty today, where the forming of the symbol has already been completed in the past centuries. I do not know if there is a difference in British and American use of the verb "forms". Thank you, -- Jcardazzi ( talk) 17:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi
I added a Video section, and saved the addition before I made the comment on the save. I tried to add a starting set of documentaries, recordings, et al of Magna Carta I could find which I think are relevant for readers of the article for additional learning. There are probably many more videos which could be added. I thought an organized section would be better than adding more external links. (I wish a reader could just click on the link to go to the video, instead of the 2 step process, click on the link to go to the reference, then click on the reference link to go to the video.) -- Jcardazzi ( talk) 03:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi
Hchc2009, do you have any advice which section a videos documentary section would go Further reading or External Links? The WP:MOS discusses an external link section, but I did not find a discussion on further reading section. I checked other articles, but there doesn't seem to be any consistency of use. The WP documents are often subjective. I thought listing "important" video documentaries would be useful as an extension of the article, "important" being subjective. Thank you, -- Jcardazzi ( talk) 13:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi
I'm satisfied that the intro adequately helps readers acknowledge the topic more and more. Napoleon article has five paragraphs in the intro. Does the Magna Carta article need one or two extra paragraphs in the intro, totaling to six or seven? -- George Ho ( talk) 05:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I finished reading the lead. To your question, Johnbod, I didn't miss anything much from the intro. In fact, it is already well written as is. I apologize for impression that I desire for extra paragraph. I'm not. I tried the comparison-and-contrast mixed with question, but it might have executed poorly. I have been advocating enforcement to follow standard ideals for introductions (see Talk:Napoleon, Talk:Euromaidan and my edit at Viktor Yanukovych), but I learned that "common sense" is usually misused to ignore rules on introductions to more recent and current topics but appropriately used on intros to historical complex topics. As a result, I see bad writing on portions of collection but good writing on other portions. Of course, I wasn't confident about writing a lede because I would be bad at it. There is central discussion at WT:LEAD, but I see opposition to having a discussion on what was "already" discussed. -- This is George Ho actually ( Talk) 20:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I requested article protection because of vandalism. An administrator put: "Semi-protected indefinitely" /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Rolling_archive CuriousMind01 ( talk) 11:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
In the Great Charter of 1297 section, it says "Magna Carta and the Forest Charter were to be issued to the sheriff of each country". Shouldn't that be 'county'? 108.114.1.146 ( talk) 15:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
if this sentence:
were referenced.
Carptrash (
talk) 17:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
"The political myth of Magna Carta and its protection of ancient personal liberties persisted after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 until well into the 19th century." - can it really be called a myth when was probably accompanied with the coronation oath? I feel like this needs to be re-written somehow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.234.244 ( talk) 13:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I think the recent copy edits need expert checking. Most of them look fine to me, but a few seem wrong or dubious, e.g. change from "complementary" to "complimentary", "great council" to "high council" (great council could be linked to Magnum Concilium at first mention), "strictly enforce Magna Carta" to "enforce strictly Magna Carta", "important" to "famous" (is this in the source?). Dudley Miles ( talk) 12:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
It was proposed in the discurion below to change the References and/or Bibliography section of this artical. In this disscution it is difficult to tell what the consensis is. If you have an idea please add a sub-section below with your idea. If you see an idea you like Support it; if not Deny it. Feel free to edit this header as you see fit. Thanks Hungryce ( talk) 03:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand why there is a references and bibliography section on the same page. Should there not be only one section? (most likely references due to the recommendation in WP:MOS) If no one replies for a couple of days I might try and fix it myself or start an RFC. Thanks Hungryce ( talk) 03:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
It seems the method used to build the article, is the references are the short name reference citations to verify the text in the article. If you click on a link in a short name reference item in the reference section, you jump to the complete long name of the reference in the bibliography section. You could try to combine the two sections into 1, but I estimate it will be 40+hours of work and have to be careful not to create errors.-- CuriousMind01 ( talk) 03:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
CuriousMind01 unless I am interpreting you reply wrong then I think that for most articles you have the references or citations section that has the links from the place where it is used. The bibliography section does not have its entry in the references section. It is also hard to tell what part of the text uses the book. The bibliography section uses the standard cite book template that is usually put in ref tags where the reference is used. I know it would take a long time so maybe I should put out an RFC for post on some notes boards to try and get some help. Thanks Hungryce ( talk) 05:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure I understand your concern, Hungryce. Is it that the article uses a short name citation system (where you'll see "Jones 1988, p.4" in the citation, with "Jones, Arthur, 1988, 'A History Book' etc." in a separate list afterwards), or is it the section headings themselves? The use of short citations is very common in both real-world publishing and the wiki. As Johnbod says, we can always play with the headings if we agree what they should be changed to. Hchc2009 ( talk) 07:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I vote for Note, Citations, References. (though I prefer Notes, Short Reference, Reference for consistent use of words) What do others think? CuriousMind01 ( talk) 23:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
{{
rp}}
a lot, to avoid massive amounts of redundancy in the refs section. By moving the page numbers into the article like this[1]: 37 , it would eliminate the need for the short references a.k.a. citation section, but at the cost of, well, having the page numbers in the content, and some people don't like that. To see an article that makes heavy use of the {{
rp}}
system, see
Glossary of cue sports terms; the entry "
pocket template" illustrates multiple uses of it in the same paragraph. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Is it just me or does the "content" link in the menu link to the top of the page instead of the "content" section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.38.60 ( talk) 14:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Regarding: Should the "well into the 19th century" be revised to "today"?
"The political myth of Magna Carta and its protection of ancient personal liberties persisted after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 until well into the 19th century."
From what I read the myth still persists today. -- CuriousMind01 ( talk) 18:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Magna Carta has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
187.127.200.163 ( talk) 19:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Bruno Gonçalves Pirajá
Claire Breay states that "only three clauses of Magna Carta still remain on statute in England and Wales". Perhaps Claire Breay would like to clarify what instrument was used to delete all of the other articles. Certainly no statute (a government instrument) can ever trump a Constitutional statement and to suggest it can is very dangerous language indeed. All Articles still exist and are in force. It is of paramount importance that this type of nonsense is eradicated and that the people learn to value what the Great Charter does for our liberty and freedom from despots and tyranny. Common Law and Trial By Jury provides us with the mechanism to judge not only a defendant but that the law being used to make a prosecution is itself fair. It always has been our security. For a judge to direct otherwise is treason. No judge, who is after all only a member of the Jury, can direct a jury to consider "only the facts of the case". The jury must consider whether the law is valid as a the only free way we have to stop bad laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigorniensis ( talk • contribs) 13:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
As per the main text and the cited reference, "Magna Carta is generally considered part of the uncodified constitution of the United Kingdom" - I think Denning's phrase captures this well. There's no conflict in that and the "political myth" citations that explain why the claims that the Magna Carta "protected ancient personal liberties" were, of course, completely wrong. Hchc2009 ( talk) 17:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Hchc2009 please note that Magna Carta does not have a definite article so no need to put 'the' in front
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Magna Carta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Magna Carta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.sagamoreinstitute.org/library-article/magna-carta/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Magna Carta has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Porsha.schultz ( talk) 09:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
The Prince of Wales, Llywelyn the Great, put the English king in position to force him to sign the Magna Carta. Where is the mention of him in this article? The English were put down by the Welsh and so the true reasoning behind the signing should be spoken about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.116.71 ( talk) 02:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
The image on the right shows King John signing Magna Carta, and says as much. The caption contextualises the image by saying it's a 19th romanticised image. The one wrinkle is that John sealed the charter rather than signed it. I'm in two minds about what to do, is it worth removing the image or adjusting the caption to say that while John is shown signing, that's not what would have happened? Richard Nevell ( talk) 13:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Not sure where else to put this, but I have been reading Coke's Institutes, and while some of his stuff is quaint, he does cite, in the Proeme to the Second Part of the Institutes, his commentary on Magna Carta,
"... and it was no new declaration: for king John in the 17 yeare of his raigne had granted the like, which also was called Magna Charta, as appeareth by a record before this great charter made by king H. 3
Home ne fuer' mordanc' apud Westmonasfterium des terres in auter countie, car ceo fer encont' lestatut de Magna Charta sinon que illa assisa semel interminata suit coram justic" (Pasch. 5 H. 3. tit' Mordaunc' f. 53)" (2 Inst, Proeme, p. 4) ( https://books.google.ca/books?id=G6PDvgEACAAJ&pg=PP14#v=onepage&q&f=false)
So, here it seems that we have Magna Carta made in 17 John cited as late as 4 years before the Magna Carta of H. 3 that was eventually confirmed---and we see it called a statute in this judgment. The view that the Charter can be cancelled, etc. is part of the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy, which is nowhere legislated, it is basically something that university professors like Dicey have cooked up. The UK's Interpretation Act still says "In any Act a reference to the Sovereign reigning at the time of the passing of the Act is to be construed, unless the contrary intention appears, as a reference to the Sovereign for the time being." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7A3C:9100:34A4:C0C7:B5E2:127D ( talk) 06:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)