The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 00:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC) [1]. reply
List of regicides of Charles I ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
In January 1649 59 judges signed the execution warrant of Charles I. Those judges, and several others, were the subject of punishment following the restoration of the monarchy in 1660. This list (which has been upgraded from its previous parlous and sub-standard state) is now fully fully sourced and several previous errors removed. Any and all constructive comments are welcome. – SchroCat ( talk) 21:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Support. A few points, too minor to affect my support:
This page reads very smoothly, but I can imagine the research that has gone into it. An excellently comprehensive and well organised survey. – Tim riley talk 10:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors ( talk | contribs) 13:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments Interesting read. I've made a few
changes here, mainly per
WP:CAPFRAG and
WP:NUMNOTES. Please revert if you disagree.
A Thousand Doors ( talk | contribs) 10:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
|
I can see no other issues. This is a great little list and is well worthy of FL status. Cassianto Talk 21:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
This recent edit (a revert) by SchroCat is typical of why this article ought not to be promoted. Before SchroCat edited this article ( 9 April 2016). The section was titled "Commissioners who did not sign" which is factually accurate. To title the section "Non-regicides" (as SchroCat does) inaccurate. Take for example the first person in the list of "non-regicides", Thomas Andrewes, as is made clear in the comment next to his name he was excepted from the General Pardon, so why is he in a list of non-regicides? SchroCat added links to the ODNB articles, but appears not to have read them in any detail. In the case of Thomas Andrewes the ODNB artilce ( 37117) starts "Andrewes, Sir Thomas (d. 1659), financier and regicid.." and in that biography article is a link to the ODNB own regicide article ( 70599) which explains
Nowhere in the act [of Oblivion] did the word ‘regicide’ appear, either to define the crime of killing the king or as a label for those responsible for it. The word itself was unrecognizable in law. Regicide was a sin, but it was not a crime. In English law it never had been. The government therefore eschewed the word, abandoning the debate over its use to the arena of popular discourse, where the allegations of regicide were trumpeted from the pulpit and elaborated in the press.
[snip]
It was left therefore to contemporaries, and later to polemicists and historians, to apply the regicide label as they might choose, and for that reason there has been considerable disagreement about whom to include
[snip]
Later writers have shown less reluctance to number the regicides, but no greater certainty about whom to include. Those taking the most restricted view have been willing to count only those commissioners who signed the warrant for Charles's execution; others have widened the category to add all who sentenced him to death. But because the 1660 act excepted from pardon any who had been ‘instrumental in taking away the [king's] life’ the category of regicide has proved seductively elastic.
Take another example the list before SchroCat edited it included three headings for regicides:
It now has
This is very confusing for various reasons, Most of those listed as "Officers of the court" are not, they were military men involved in the execution. The new section "Associates" includes men such as the first 4 (James Chaloner, John Dove, Thomas Fairfax, John Fry) all of whom were Commissioners. There are lots of other factual inaccuracies in the lists (many of which have appeared this year) so why is anyone suggesting that this list is anything like suitable as a candidate for featured list status? -- PBS ( talk) 09:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
"You said previously that Jordan had nothing to say about Francis Allen". Could you provide a diff? I have no recollection of making anysuch statement and I would like to see the context.
"You said previously that Jordan had nothing to say about Francis Allen". I had made no such claim (that Jordan had nothing to say about Allen): I had said the opposite in fact. My answer above still stands: "His entry in Jordan is not with a list of regicides" . – SchroCat ( talk) 18:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
For those who are getting lost in this conversation, Francis Allen is of just the first of many name in that list and is being used as a sample/example. As I wrote above Francis Allen is unequivocally described as a regicide in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB). SchroCat I think you are being evasive. Please quote what Jordan writes about Francis Allen if anything. But whatever Jordan writes about them the fact that at least one reliable source disagrees with your descriptions (while supporting the previous ones) is a good reason for this current"Featured list candidate" request to fail. -- PBS ( talk) 05:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Right, well, the above conversation is acrimonious and hard to follow, so I'm going to pull out the one issue that I actually would have a question about, and leave the rest- this isn't a review, and the supporting reviewers seem to be fine with this issue, I just don't want lingering bits when I close this.
PBS has also on the talk page complained about the citation style; turns out there's an easy way to settle this as far as FLC is concerned: the mandatory source review!
Well, I think that is the end of it. Since there's an outstanding oppose, I'll explain my close.
Despite an awful amount of words used, in the end the only points of opposition seem to be: 1) the "non-regicides" subheading is inaccurate (changed, though since it was based on a source that had people divided into "regicides" and... not in that section, then I don't see the original word as that contentious); 2) the groupings in the other 2 subcategories were misleading (now fixed with a brief note); 3) that the citation style is inconsistent (it isn't); and above all and permeating the first 3, that 4) the list was perfectly fine for years before SchroCat started changing it, and no matter how many people disagree with that the list should fail FLC because of it. Which... no, I can look at the history as well as anyone else, it wasn't. It wasn't bad, but it's a lot better now, even if the section headers are a little different. It really smacks of WP:OWN, as others have remarked- when the base of an oppose vote is that "it's been fine for years, there was no need to change it", that's not a vote that really counts for much. Closing as passed. -- Pres N 23:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
@ user:PresN there are no deadlines, on Wikipedia, and your did not ask me if I agreed that my concerns had been addressed in full, instead you expressed an opinions that you thought that they had. Let us look at the next issue on my list using one biography an exaple (the first in the list). James Chaloner was "was appointed to sit as a commissioner at the Trial of Charles I and sat for a total of six sessions and unlike his elder brother Thomas Chaloner he did not sign the royal death warrant" (from the Wikipedia biography article), so why does his name appear in the section commissioners who did not sign? Did you read the biographies in the list? If so how can you consider "the groupings in the other 2 subcategories were misleading (now fixed with a brief note)" to be true?. If you did not read the biographies how do you consider you self well enough read to make a judgement call on the issues? -- PBS ( talk) 11:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 00:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC) [1]. reply
List of regicides of Charles I ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
In January 1649 59 judges signed the execution warrant of Charles I. Those judges, and several others, were the subject of punishment following the restoration of the monarchy in 1660. This list (which has been upgraded from its previous parlous and sub-standard state) is now fully fully sourced and several previous errors removed. Any and all constructive comments are welcome. – SchroCat ( talk) 21:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Support. A few points, too minor to affect my support:
This page reads very smoothly, but I can imagine the research that has gone into it. An excellently comprehensive and well organised survey. – Tim riley talk 10:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors ( talk | contribs) 13:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments Interesting read. I've made a few
changes here, mainly per
WP:CAPFRAG and
WP:NUMNOTES. Please revert if you disagree.
A Thousand Doors ( talk | contribs) 10:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
|
I can see no other issues. This is a great little list and is well worthy of FL status. Cassianto Talk 21:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
This recent edit (a revert) by SchroCat is typical of why this article ought not to be promoted. Before SchroCat edited this article ( 9 April 2016). The section was titled "Commissioners who did not sign" which is factually accurate. To title the section "Non-regicides" (as SchroCat does) inaccurate. Take for example the first person in the list of "non-regicides", Thomas Andrewes, as is made clear in the comment next to his name he was excepted from the General Pardon, so why is he in a list of non-regicides? SchroCat added links to the ODNB articles, but appears not to have read them in any detail. In the case of Thomas Andrewes the ODNB artilce ( 37117) starts "Andrewes, Sir Thomas (d. 1659), financier and regicid.." and in that biography article is a link to the ODNB own regicide article ( 70599) which explains
Nowhere in the act [of Oblivion] did the word ‘regicide’ appear, either to define the crime of killing the king or as a label for those responsible for it. The word itself was unrecognizable in law. Regicide was a sin, but it was not a crime. In English law it never had been. The government therefore eschewed the word, abandoning the debate over its use to the arena of popular discourse, where the allegations of regicide were trumpeted from the pulpit and elaborated in the press.
[snip]
It was left therefore to contemporaries, and later to polemicists and historians, to apply the regicide label as they might choose, and for that reason there has been considerable disagreement about whom to include
[snip]
Later writers have shown less reluctance to number the regicides, but no greater certainty about whom to include. Those taking the most restricted view have been willing to count only those commissioners who signed the warrant for Charles's execution; others have widened the category to add all who sentenced him to death. But because the 1660 act excepted from pardon any who had been ‘instrumental in taking away the [king's] life’ the category of regicide has proved seductively elastic.
Take another example the list before SchroCat edited it included three headings for regicides:
It now has
This is very confusing for various reasons, Most of those listed as "Officers of the court" are not, they were military men involved in the execution. The new section "Associates" includes men such as the first 4 (James Chaloner, John Dove, Thomas Fairfax, John Fry) all of whom were Commissioners. There are lots of other factual inaccuracies in the lists (many of which have appeared this year) so why is anyone suggesting that this list is anything like suitable as a candidate for featured list status? -- PBS ( talk) 09:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
"You said previously that Jordan had nothing to say about Francis Allen". Could you provide a diff? I have no recollection of making anysuch statement and I would like to see the context.
"You said previously that Jordan had nothing to say about Francis Allen". I had made no such claim (that Jordan had nothing to say about Allen): I had said the opposite in fact. My answer above still stands: "His entry in Jordan is not with a list of regicides" . – SchroCat ( talk) 18:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
For those who are getting lost in this conversation, Francis Allen is of just the first of many name in that list and is being used as a sample/example. As I wrote above Francis Allen is unequivocally described as a regicide in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB). SchroCat I think you are being evasive. Please quote what Jordan writes about Francis Allen if anything. But whatever Jordan writes about them the fact that at least one reliable source disagrees with your descriptions (while supporting the previous ones) is a good reason for this current"Featured list candidate" request to fail. -- PBS ( talk) 05:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Right, well, the above conversation is acrimonious and hard to follow, so I'm going to pull out the one issue that I actually would have a question about, and leave the rest- this isn't a review, and the supporting reviewers seem to be fine with this issue, I just don't want lingering bits when I close this.
PBS has also on the talk page complained about the citation style; turns out there's an easy way to settle this as far as FLC is concerned: the mandatory source review!
Well, I think that is the end of it. Since there's an outstanding oppose, I'll explain my close.
Despite an awful amount of words used, in the end the only points of opposition seem to be: 1) the "non-regicides" subheading is inaccurate (changed, though since it was based on a source that had people divided into "regicides" and... not in that section, then I don't see the original word as that contentious); 2) the groupings in the other 2 subcategories were misleading (now fixed with a brief note); 3) that the citation style is inconsistent (it isn't); and above all and permeating the first 3, that 4) the list was perfectly fine for years before SchroCat started changing it, and no matter how many people disagree with that the list should fail FLC because of it. Which... no, I can look at the history as well as anyone else, it wasn't. It wasn't bad, but it's a lot better now, even if the section headers are a little different. It really smacks of WP:OWN, as others have remarked- when the base of an oppose vote is that "it's been fine for years, there was no need to change it", that's not a vote that really counts for much. Closing as passed. -- Pres N 23:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
@ user:PresN there are no deadlines, on Wikipedia, and your did not ask me if I agreed that my concerns had been addressed in full, instead you expressed an opinions that you thought that they had. Let us look at the next issue on my list using one biography an exaple (the first in the list). James Chaloner was "was appointed to sit as a commissioner at the Trial of Charles I and sat for a total of six sessions and unlike his elder brother Thomas Chaloner he did not sign the royal death warrant" (from the Wikipedia biography article), so why does his name appear in the section commissioners who did not sign? Did you read the biographies in the list? If so how can you consider "the groupings in the other 2 subcategories were misleading (now fixed with a brief note)" to be true?. If you did not read the biographies how do you consider you self well enough read to make a judgement call on the issues? -- PBS ( talk) 11:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply