Talk:Exhumation and reburial of Richard III of England/Archive 1

DNA Analysis

Great work on the article. It definitely needs the space to bring out the details in an article of its own.

I think the DNA stuff needs sorting out (But I don't know enough to sort it out). The 'second strand' descendant is a descendant of John of Gaunt, and is entirely through the male line. If I have understood it correctly, it cannot therefore have been Mitochondrial DNA that was used. All three samples must have been from the same stuff, as they all matched. Hopefully something with a proper explanation will emerge in the next few days. RobinLeicester (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The unnamed Lineage 2 match in this week's results is a mitochondrial DNA match. The male line descendants will feature in the YDNA testing which is still in its early stages. You can read more about the DNA testing here. HelenOnline (talk) 11:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

If the maternal line for Richard III and Michael Ibsen (through Joy Ibsen and Anne St Leger) both trace back to Lady Cecily Neville as a common maternal ancestor, then the relevance of mtDNA can be made. The use of the names Joy Ibsen and Anne St Leger is not necessary except as links in the chain, no more critical than any other of the mothers.

It should be made clear that the match for mtDNA is of the same order of magnitude as blood type match; a mismatch would deny the link but a match does not confirm a link. Malchemist (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly the same order of magnitude, a mtDNA match is much more precise than a blood type match (the chance of a random match is much lower). Furthermore, this was a rare mtDNA haplogroup match. To give you some idea I have quite a rare mtDNA haplogroup (Haplogroup V (mtDNA)) and not a single high resolution match (on HVR1 and HVR2 panels, which is not even the full mtDNA sequence) in a database of over 150,000 individuals tested at Family Tree DNA. HelenOnline (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

So Cecily Neville got her allegedly "rare" mitochondrial DNA from her mother Joan Beaufort, who got it from her mother Katherine Swynford. Now go and have a look at how many participants in the Battle of Bosworth were descendants of those two, and would have the same mitochondrial DNA.Eregli bob (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I have not suggested the mtDNA sequence is unique and the mtDNA match is not the only evidence here, it confirms what all the other circumstantial evidence points at. Regardless this is not the place for disputing the findings of the investigation, only presenting the results without bias. HelenOnline (talk) 12:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You both make good points. I am a bit concerned as to how we are going to ensure that ignorance and/or misrepresentation by the media does not hamper our efforts to maintain accuracy and NPOV in this whole set of articles. NPOV has always been an issue but it will be worse now that the "history books have to be rewritten". Deb (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Reinterment: location, ceremony

How is such a thing decided? Is there any precedent, constitutional or otherwise?--Mongreilf (talk) 13:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

According to Reuters, the skeleton will be interred at Leicester Cathedral "in line with guidelines about burying bodies close to where they are exhumed". HelenOnline (talk) 13:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't find a text ref for it yet, but at the 4th Feb Press conference, somebody (I think the Leicester Cathedral Canon Chancellor) said that the terms of the exhumation licence from the Ministry of Justice - issued before the bones could be lifted - specified re-burial in the nearest consecrated ground - which happens to be the Cathedral. What I don't know is whether that is a normal or unusual requirement.RobinLeicester (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a normal requirement, apparently. The specific wording of the licence is: "The remains shall, no later than August 31, 2014, be deposited at Jewry Wall Museum or else be reinterred at St Martin's Cathedral, or in a burial ground in which interments may legally take place."[1] Prioryman (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

And ceremony? It's not everyday that a king is buried. --Mongreilf (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

There are now two competing UK government e-petitions for Leicester and York. The Leicester petition was created by "Roy Shakespeare", apparently! - thanks to Paul B for spotting this. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

DNA vs. Mitochondrial DNA

This article should strive always to differentiate between DNA and mitochondrial DNA. To a certain extent it does, but to a greater extent it doesn't. For instance, under the heading "DNA Evidence" (in the article's state as of Feb 5, 2013) every single occurrence of the text "DNA" is preceded by the word "mitochondrial". So this section of the article doesn't discuss DNA evidence at all, only mitochondrial DNA evidence. Why not edit the heading "DNA Evidence" to "Mitochondrial DNA Evidence" so that it is not at odds with the paragraphs it heads?

The difficulty, in the media in general, is that a reported "DNA test" could be either a real DNA test accurately reported or, alternatively, a mitochondrial DNA test negligently reported as a DNA test by a reporter who believes that their wardrobe and hairstyle are more important than critical distinctions. Such negligent references can also be the work of a malicious prosecuting attorney seeking to convict an innocent person of a crime that was in fact committed by some matrilineal descendant of the defendant's matrilineal ancestors.

The difficulty can be overcome if Wikipedia traces every reference to an alleged "DNA test" and ascertains whether the reference accurately recounts a real DNA test or negligently misidentifies a mitochondrial DNA test. If such test is found to be the latter, quoted text can be amended from "DNA test" to "[mitochondrial] DNA test". If such test is the former, the text is arguably correct as it stands but it would still be useful to amend it from "DNA test" to "[nuclear] DNA test" or "[non-mitochondrial] DNA test". This is because there are so many negligent references to mitochondrial DNA tests as "DNA tests" that, absent the inclusion of an adjective (which, in an ideal world without negligent writers, should be unnecessary) before the term, a reader has no way of knowing whether text referring to a "DNA test" is accurately relating a DNA test or is negligently relating a mitochondrial DNA test. The inclusion of the adjectives "nuclear" or "non-mitochondrial" would make it absolutely clear.

In the present instance, efforts were made seeking a person with the special characteristic of having only females in their line of descent from Richard III's mother. That is a strong indication that the testing used mitochondrial DNA, not DNA. If a mere DNA match had been sought, the pool of living subjects is dozens or even thousands of persons, including the Royal Family (descended from a different sister of Richard III). It may be that a 100% mitochondrial DNA match (barring a mutation unlikely to have occurred in these few hundred years) was better science than a DNA match diluted 50% in every generation, and that could be why the Canadian subject Ibsen needed to be found.

If it really is the case that mitochondrial DNA testing in the matter of this skeleton was supplemented with DNA testing, can someone please edit the article to reflect that in a way that enables readers to know, for sure, that such DNA testing did occur, and not be left wondering if the citations of DNA testing are really just negligent authors mis-reporting something that was actually mitochondrial DNA testing?69.86.131.77 (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

The 'main point' of the article is Richard III's remains - and that 'DNA tests of some sort' were used as one component of the identifying his remains. 'Reversing the significance' - ie an article on 'the specific DNA material and tests' as the main topic and 'proving who this particular owner of the DNA was' is an equally interesting topic, but probably slightly too obscure for Wikipedia. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Mitochondrial DNA evidence is still DNA evidence and I believe the article clearly distinguishes what type of DNA we are talking about. At this stage, the researchers have only presented the mitochondrial DNA analysis but a Y-DNA analysis using different male line descendants for comparison is also in the pipeline so the section will hopefully be expanded later to include other DNA evidence. HelenOnline (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Male-line descendants of who ? The agnatic Plantagenet lines were all wiped out.Eregli bob (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Per the University of Leicester website: "Despite this exciting find, we should not forget the male line. A number of the men identified as descendents of Edward III through his son John of Gaunt (who would both have shared the same y chromosome as Richard III) have been kind enough to donate their DNA to our project. For the reasons given above it is significantly harder to obtain Y chromosome data from skeletal remains than mitochondrial DNA. As such this side of the work is still on-going, and may indeed prove inconclusive, but we are hopeful that, if it's possible to conduct a full analysis, it will provide a complete picture on both the male and female lines." HelenOnline (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

For those who are interested, here is some further info per John Ashdown-Hill: "Interestingly, the direct male-line descendants of the house of Plantagenet are not all extinct. Through Edmund, Duke of Somerset (one of the grandsons of John of Gaunt), and through his eldest son, a continuous male line has been perpetuated to the present day, albeit through an illegitimate link. Fortunately, DNA takes no account of illegitimacy, so that the Plantagenet Y Chromosome should be alive and well today in the male members of the house of Somerset: the family of His Grace the Duke of Beaufort. If it were possible to persuade a male member of the Somerset family to give a DNA sample, this would provide a record of a Y Chromosome sequence to set alongside the mtDNA sequence which is already available for Richard III." HelenOnline (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Channel 4 Documentary

Nice work Prioryman! I watched the documentary on TV last night and couldn't stop asking myself why the parking space under which the king was buried was marked with an "R". Surely someone knew the location or was this just coincidence? Also, does the documentary not deserve a mention in the article? --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 20:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It probably does, as soon as I can work out the role that Channel 4 played in this. The funding and organisation of this dig appears to have been rather unusual; the Richard III Society raised the funds for it, and it seems that Channel 4 must have part-funded it through buying the television rights. I should be able to get hold of some more info on this from the Society's journal, The Ricardian, which I can get access to. Prioryman (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Sorry, I know the article's only just been written ;) --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 21:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I would steer away from the 'R' in any context other than coverage of Phillipa Langley - which itself should probably be based on better citations than the news reports we are reliant on at present. You can see a picture at [2]. It was long-standing paintwork, that clearly relates to the parking bay. RobinLeicester (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe someone was just "R'sing" around... Prioryman (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

"R" I believe means the spot is reserved. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the inclusion of the documentary (and the R sign, and the freak tempest when the bones were unearthed, and Ms Langley's premonitions, and the apparent arrow in the back, and the mattock through the skull .... ) I think more might be made of that fact that purely by coincidence the very first bones found, in the very first excavation, in the very first trench, on the very first day, proved to be Richard's. Truth really is stranger, sometimes it seems. 19:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there a free image of the skeleton? It is used at the 4oD website [3]. The curvature of the spine is very pronounced and can be fully appreciated really only by means of an image. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I've already made enquiries about the use of the skeleton image (which is copyrighted by the University of Leicester) but haven't heard back from them yet. Prioryman (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Well done. I see that Facebook is already quite awash with images, including one of the spine. For those who like a good bit of bone, there are also some detailed skull images at HeritageDaily: [4] Martinevans123 (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the exact role played by Channel 4, I too am surprised there is no mention of it in the article. Even something as bland as "The exhumation was the subject of the Channel 4 documentary The King in the Car Park on 4 February 2013" etc, as it was so widely watched and reported. Mention might also be made of Dr John Ashdown Hill who, the documentary seems to say, was independently researching the theory of the burial at Greyfriars. Or is he just a Richard III Society "hired hand"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

John Ashdown-Hill is mentioned in the DNA evidence section, he is the one who tracked down the maternal line descendant for DNA testing (in 2004 already) for the purposes of trying to identify some remains found in Belgium thought to belong to Richard's sister Margaret of York. HelenOnline (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, so he is. I was wondering what was his part in the Greyfriars investigation, and for how long he had pursued this before the archaeology was commissioned. Has be published anything on this? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, The Last Days of Richard III was published in 2010. He also has a website Plantagenet DNA which can presently only be viewed Cached. HelenOnline (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see that the book is cited at the main article re Joy Ibsen's DNA (or is it mDNA, haha). I guess he's devoted a great deal of time to this work, having published that book three years ago. Maybe he deserves his own article. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Remains of the "Princes in the Tower"

The follow-on discussion on the investigation of the remains buried as the Princes in the Tower should be mentioned here. (One aspect of the case being that there are 'too many' ambiguously identified royal remains buried - including all those in Winchester Cathedral) Jackiespeel (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment

Good article! Thanks to the editors. Wanderer57 (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Reburial

It is too early to create a separate page for the reburial (to which much of the discussions of where and why - including Catholic locations - will no doubt be copied): but mention of the use of the Sarum Rite then in use (rather than the modern Catholic Tridentine Rite) as being in use in Richard's time has been made in a news program. (ie posting the mention here for convenience) Jackiespeel (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting! I imagine we will have a page for the funeral/burial/service, etc, sooner or later. Perhaps the Poet Laureate and Master of the Queen's Musick will also be asked to produce something :-) Deb (talk) 13:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps someone might wish to donate a sandbox area where an article could be prepared, with contributions by anyone interested? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

To clarify 'possible Catholic sites for his burial': and the issue of the two rites was mentioned on a radio program (? news) which is why I know about it.

'The point is' - at the moment there is more speculation than fact: beyond that 'Leicester Cathedral is the nearest appropriate place for reburial, Westminster Abbey has been ruled out, and York Cathedral would like to be considered.' Also 'a reinvestigation of the tomb of the stated Princes in the Tower has been ruled out' (and probably which royals are buried in which tombs in Winchester Cathedral). Jackiespeel (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Replying to Martinevans123 - there is [5] which could serve the purpose. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

There is also [6] (which seems to be quiet).

Contributions to the wiki I set up welcome - including OR and 'putting Richard in his historical period.' Jackiespeel (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I have started [7] on the wiki mentioned above, so the subject can be discussed as it develops, and be summarised on WP. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

"Richard III: York Minster receives 'abusive' letters": [8]: And York Outer MP Julian Sturdy argues: "Richard III burial 'should not be finders keepers'": [9]. Note: "More than 7,500 people have signed an online petition in favour of keeping the King's remains in Leicester, but nearly 25,000 have signed up to support re-interring his remains in York Minster." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Ooh, I wonder if they'll scratch each other's eyes out... :-)

I predict a pick-axe in the skull (no wait, that's been done...) or maybe even an death by ballot. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Parliamentary appearance

Just in case you hadn't heard.... [10]: "Jonathan Ashworth thanked the Ministry of Justice for granting the University of Leicester the licence to exhume the remains that have proven to be those of Richard III... Many congratulations were offered to all who had been involved. Chris Grayling, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice said ‘I hope everyone will come together for a proper service to mark the occasion, and for a formal interrment in the cathedral." - maybe worth a note in the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Skepticism, further research

I think this recent edit intentionally or otherwise questions the University's findings or makes them seem preliminary, based on news reports not any official statement from the University and I think this is a slippery slope for the Identification section. I propose a new article section for criticism of the findings and/or further research in the pipeline. HelenOnline (talk) 06:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Reading the NY Times article, this seems more of a "your DNA research will (probably) not be as good as my DNA research"-type statement. As such, the recent addition needs to be cleaned up and the quotes given more context. FallingGravity (talk) 06:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I have moved the factual part about further research to the DNA evidence section for now. If people want to include third party quotes about skepticism or criticism I think they should start a new section for that. HelenOnline (talk) 06:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure a debate involving mDNA and a New York based editor was seen here not so long ago. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

This article is really misleading, which is probably why the headline was changed from More DNA tests to confirm skeleton is Richard III (see url) to Tracing a Royal Y Chromosome. Yes a Y-DNA mismatch could cast doubt on the findings but as far as I can tell they are not waiting for it to confirm anything. HelenOnline (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't find the New York Times piece misleading. I think it advances the view of one geneticist that a simple mitochondrial match is nebulous. What it misses is the overwhelming circumstantial evidence which points compellingly to these being the remains of Richard III. In any case, I agree with the inclusion of the mention of Dr. Turi King's ongoing work on the Y-Dna link to John of Gaunt, which was the primary reason I added my text. MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Caroline Wilkinson

Have just created a new article on this well-known scientist. Cannot find much biographical information on her though. Deb (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

mtDNA haplogroup

In an effort to pre-empt edit warring I will cover what the public knows about the mtDNA haplogroup here so we can refer editors here in rv edit summaries.

1. The Ashdown-Hill reference cited, which was published in 2010, includes some mtDNA markers and an mtDNA haplogroup (J) for Joy Ibsen, the mother of Michael Ibsen who was tested for the project. Mother and son should have the same mtDNA sequence, and based on their genealogy so should Richard III.
2. Genetic genealogist James Lick (and others using his program) have used this information to derive a more refined haplogroup for her, J1c2c. The program link does not include the results, so it is not a source. James Lick has posted these results on his blog, which is not an ideal Wiki source. I do not believe it is necessary to include this as a reference as thanks to James we found a citation for that haplogroup when we knew what we were looking for (see next point).
3. There is one newspaper reference to haplogroup J1c2c in connection with Michael Ibsen and the remains identified as Richard III which has been cited in this Wiki article.
4. The University of Leicester has repeatedly responded to public requests for further info by saying that it will be published in their academic paper: "The haplotype is known and will be in the academic paper."
5. There is no Wiki page for mtDNA haplogroup J1c2c (only J) and any redlinks to it should be reverted.

I don't think there is any rule that red links should be reverted? Deb (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:REDNOT: "Do not create red links to articles that will likely never be created" I am not aware of any Wiki articles or plans for Wiki articles for the many mtDNA haplogroup subclades. HelenOnline (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

P.S. J1c2c is not even mentioned in the broader Haplogroup J (mtDNA) article which is nevertheless more useful than a red link (I mention this because a recent edit replaced the J link with a red link). HelenOnline (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, if it's not an important topic. Just wanted to clarify. Deb (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The editor who added this to the main RIII page cited it to this article. Paul B (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It is the same article mentioned in point 3 above and is the source we have used here. HelenOnline (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

So why did you delete it? Paul B (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I did not delete the (incorrect) source (you did), I deleted the (unsourced) fact. That source does not relate to Joy Ibsen but her son Michael and the remains identified as Richard III. Joy Ibsen died in 2008 so was not involved in the LE project. We can infer it is the subclade for Joy Ibsen by relationship to her son but we do not have a source for it. We can also speculate it is the subclade for Joy Ibsen based on this blog post, which is not an ideal Wiki source, but do we really need to if we already have a newspaper source for the subclade of the remains? HelenOnline (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The information is better documented in this article than the RIII article, but isn't that the point of this article? HelenOnline (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I was intending to move the source, but you cut in. My point is that is you knew that the statement could be sourced, why did you delete it? If the source is "incorrect" why do you you say it is the one "we have used here"? The last part of your comment is unintelligable to me. Surely it is obvious that the mtDNA of Joy will be the same as that of Michael and (it was to be hoped, as it turned out) the remains. It is surely taking literal reading of sourcing to the point of absurd pedantry to say that we can "only speculate" that it applies to Joy. It must apply to both if it is to make any sense at all. The alternative scenario woukld be utterly fantastical. Paul B (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

We could duplicate everything we write in this article, including the sourced subclade for Michael Ibsen and the remains, in the RIII article but I think that defeats the point of this article. If others feel it is necessary, I have no problem with it. HelenOnline (talk) 06:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Please note that the editor Photohistorian, who presumably also identifies as 71.201.155.116, posted the gratuitous details "Genetic Genealogist George Jones" in three Wiki pages (here, here and here). He has confirmed on my talk page that he is in fact George Jones and has therefore violated the WP:No original research and WP:NOTPROMOTION rules. HelenOnline (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

He clearly shouldn't be doing that. Please cease, Photohistorian. Prioryman (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that at least partly justifies any deletion of content he added. Deb (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm the author of the blog article mentioned in point 2 above. The article was in reference to Joy Ibsen's DNA results as published by Ashdown-Hill (point 1). It does not make any claims to Richard III's haplogroup except by implication. In addition, the article referenced in point 3 is also vague on the point. The exact quote is "The DNA signature shared by the skeleton, Ibsen and the third individual, called haplotype J1c2c, is quite rare, says King, making the match a strong argument for relatedness." (Ibsen in this quote refers to Michael Ibsen.) This can be read a number of ways, and is not a direct quote from Dr. King, making it all incredibly unclear as to what exactly was said. In addition, as Joy Ibsen's results were incomplete, it is possible that it may be a subgroup of J1c2c, though it is commonly accepted practice to make haplogroup determinations based on incomplete results this way. I do believe that the Leicester skeleton will also turn out to be J1c2c, but until the complete results are published it isn't possible to say so with complete certainty. As per my previous blog item, the sequencing trace previously published by U of Leicester only gets us to JT (or three other possibilities). --Jlick (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Updates

A few updates for you all: we may have a skeleton photo coming soon, so watch this space! I've added more information on Philippa Langley's role, which appears to have been absolutely central; I've also covered the Channel 4 programme. Things left to do: we need more in the "Reactions" section (I've got some material ready to go there) and more on the reinterment plans. When the promised scientific research is released we'll need to add that. There will also no doubt be some useful coverage in the forthcoming issues of British Archaeology, Current Archaeology and the Ricardian Bulletin.

Later in the year, when things have calmed down a bit, I plan to nominate this article for Good Article and then Featured Article status. If at all possible, it would be nice to have it run on the Main Page on the day Richard III is reinterred next year. Prioryman (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. :) FallingGravity (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

As there are discussions about original research etc, and some topics may go into more depth than WP is interested in, anyone wishing to decamp to the Richard III wiki to develop 'non-technical details', is welcome - [11] - and link as appropriate. There is also Richard III dig wiki [12] (not mine). Jackiespeel (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

This is already, in my opinion, a very good article. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, there is one thing that could be added to the article. A description of what prompted the archeological investigation. Other than that, I can't think of anything else to add. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't the "Looking for Richard" section explain that? Deb (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so I'm an idiot.  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Richard III's epitaph

My English translation of Richard III's epitaph is quoted correctly in the article, but unfortunately the Latin text contains some mistakes (perhaps because it was copied by scanning from Buck's old published version?) Anyway, the correct version of the Latin text as published by Buck reads:

Epitaphium Regis Ricardi tertii, Sepulti apud Leicestriam, iussu et sumptibus Sancti Regis Henrici Septimi

Hic ego quem vario tellus sub marmore claudit Tertius a iusta voce Ricardus eram. Tutor eram patriae, patruus pro iure nepotis Dirupta, tenui regna Britanna fide. Sexaginta dies binis dumtaxat ademptis Aestatesque tuli tunc mea sceptra duas. Fortiter in bello certans desertus ab Anglis Rex Henrice tibi septime succubui. At sumptu pius ipse tuo sic ossa decoras Regem olimque facis regis honore coli Quattuor exceptis iam tantum quinque bis annis Acta trecenta quidem lustra salutis erant. Anteque Septembris undena luce Kalendas Reddideram rubrae iura petita rosae. At mea, quisquis eris, propter commissa precare, Sit minor ut precibus poena levata tuis.

In my book THE LAST DAYS OF RICHARD III I also show that Buck's is only one of three surviving versions of the epitaph.The oldest MS copy dates from before 1530. All three Latin texts are very similar but there are small variations.86.25.22.218 (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I have only just got back to focus on this, but would like to point at that, as was referenced, it was a faithful transcription (not a dodgily scanned ocr) of the latin text as recorded by Nichols. The text above is as published by Ashdown Hill, (after saying there is not a single authoritative version). But can he confirm that the ligatures and various diacritical marks which Nichols includes (and removal of which are the main 'corrections' suggested here) are absent from the manuscripts - ? Thanks, RobinLeicester (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Academic papers published

• Buckley, Richard (2013). "'The king in the car park': new light on the death and burial of Richard III in the Grey Friars church, Leicester, in 1485". Antiquity. 87 (336): 519–538. Retrieved 24 May 2013. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Helen (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

New curioisty

Nothing to do with Richard III, apparently. But I thought editors might be interested, as it's at the same site:[13] A coffin within a coffin. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Apparently "It could be one of two leaders of the English Grey Friars order - Peter Swynsfeld, who died in 1272, and William of Nottingham, who died in 1330." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

King's reburial row goes to judicial review

Today at bbc: [14]. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what members of his "family" are buried in York minister. Certainly his father, brothers, son and wife aren't. So who are these family members he "wished" to be buried with? If there is a Yorkist Mausoleum, it's at Fotheringhay, not York. This fantasy seems to derive simply from the fact that his faction are referred to as "Yorkist", but that's just because "Duke of York" was the most senior title held by his father, not because they were somehow based in the city of York. The War of the Roses wasn't a fight between the people of Lancashire and Yorkshire! It would be nice to get some more info about this bizarre group and their claims. Paul B (talk) 17:26, 23 Aougust 2013 (UTC)

York was an important place for Richard - his son was invested as Prince of Wales there because he knew he could rely on the support of the townspeople. On the other hand, his son is buried at Sheriff Hutton and his wife in Westminster Abbey. You'd think he'd have wanted to be with them, if anyone. I have to admit I find all this in-fighting rather entertaining. Deb (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it might be interesting to get more info about them, even if not that nice! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

And where on earth does this claim come from (on the BBC report) that "Richard is said to have planned to build a chapel at York Minister for him to be buried in"? As we say on wikipedia, "citation needed"! GrindtXX (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe someone remembers hearing him say that. lol. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There could be a record of him setting money aside for a chantry chapel (I'm guessing). He gave my local market town of Cowbridge a charter enabling them to have a permanent priest appointed to the church, and some of the locals think this means he actually knew or cared where Cowbridge was! Deb (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, this is the very issue. I know of no evidence that York was of any personal importance to Richard. But this notion does seem to have some significance to the people of the town. It had never occured to me why this might be until I visited my elderly parents in Liverpool recently. My father made what was, to me, a strange comment. He said that people wondered how there could have been a major war between York and Lancaster, since Lancashire is so very much smaller than Yorkshire. He then said that, of course, Lancashire used to be much bigger. He was referring to the Local Government Act 1972 which massively reduced the size of both Lancashire and Yorkshire (removing Liverpool from the former, a sore point at the time). The 1972 act was very controversial for people who treasured local history. But what my father's comment revealed was that he believed, in essence, that the Wars of the Roses was a Yorkshire/Lancashire battle - as though people from Barnsley were fighting people from Wigan. He had no idea that "Lancaster" and "York" were ducal titles that had little or no direct connection to the territories controlled by the competing factions; to the pre-1972 counties, or even to the towns of York and Lancaster.
As far as I can see the current claim by York to be the personal "home" of Richard derives from a similar strange misunderstanding of history. They want to believe that York is some sort of alternative "capital" of England: the neglected northern home of the English people. King's Manor is heavily promoted in York as the home of the Council of the North, but that was in the Tudor period, when the Council had a major political role. Under Edward and Richard it was much less significant and was mostly administered from Sheriff Hutton. Sure, Richard visited York. Sure, it was significant in his attempt to secure the borderlands; to rid the area of Lancastrian supporters; and to build a personal power-base. But there's nothing more to it than that; at least I know of no evidence that there was. He had no especial personal connection to the place. Middleham, Sheriff Hutton and Fotheringhay have stronger claims, but we hear nothing from the "Plantagenet Alliance" about them. Paul B (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Paul, that's very enlightening. What's next, a York Parliament? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Thank you for that; a very interesting view point. I have to say, I always found the arguments that a York burial was his wish, hollow. His wife predeceased him and Richard had her buried in Westminster Abbey. One would surely presume his intention was to be buried with his wife? If we think of him as a human-being, human decency would be to bury a man with his wife. But a burial in Westminster Abbey is barely considered (probably because of the connotations of burying a usurper in what is basically a holy shrine of English monarchy).

As a resident of Leicester, I have to say I am ashamed. The only concern seems to be for money and tourism; and the Mayor's quotes in the article and the media show little consideration for what Richard may have wanted. The arguments for tourist revenue are deluded- Any tourism pull would only be very short term. 3, 5, 10 years down the line, there's not going to be people flocking and any expensive large-scale museum will quickly prove unsustainable (and Leicester City Council has already been looking at closing its museums because it can't afford to keep them open). Look at Gloucester -Edward II is buried within the Cathedral- How many tourists does that really pull in?

But the real crux of it- the public at large actually don't care. Look at how many people have signed the official petitions: 28,000 support York; 9,800 support Leicester. Yes York is a clear favourite but with 3 times as many supporters, BUT collectively less than 40,000 have bothered to express an opinion. The petitions need 100,000 signatures before the government even looks at them. The public don't care.

And even with the judicial review, I don't think there's any chance of a reasoned debate about burial. Those involved don't seem to see Richard in terms of a body of a human being; he's a prize to be won, a commodity to be cashed in on (both monetarily and in terms of reputation and civic pride). Too many people are too self interested. Just look this article: near constantly changed and reverted with people trying to claim the "glory" for every discovery. Go to the websites of the organisations involved in the exhumation (deliberately not naming names) and you'd think they were the only organisation involved.

The whole situation is sad. There will be no winners in the end, and the whole thing has shamed everyone and every organisation involved.--Rushton2010 (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I admit I would personally favour York, though not for any reasons of emotional attachment, but I wouldn't want the "honour" to be taken from Leicester like this. The visitor centre at Bosworth gets quite good numbers, I believe, and they would naturally move on to Leicester, which could probably do with some kind of fillip to its tourist industry, whereas York has plenty to attract visitors. I don't think you can compare it with Edward II, though, or indeed with a cathedral - Richard III and Henry VIII are probably England's two best-known kings (for all the wrong reasons), and people would, at least for a time, flock to see the reconstructed face even though they can see it just as well on TV or in a photograph. There's nowt so queer as folk, eh? Deb (talk) 08:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I've always favoured Leicester, mainly because that's where he was originally buried and it is close to the battle site, but also because York is a smug, rich town with an overblown sense of its own importance. I mean, there's a huge statue of Constantine the Great in the middle of the town with an alleged statement from the great man carved on the base saying something like "from here we can control the whole of Britain". Leicester has so much less to make it special. The fact that York has more votes on the government petitions probably reflects differences in population demographics between the two towns and the simple fact that Leicester already seemed to have it in the "bag", so there was less motivation to vote (there was also quite a campaign in the Yorkshire Post). The Plantagenet Alliance, it seems, was set up by Stephen Nicolay, who says he's "17th great nephew" of King Rick, and who regularly tweets on PA issues [15]. He can also be heard on YouTube on a radio show [16]. It has its own rather cheesy website [17]. They refer to themselves as the king's "descendents", which is somewhat misleading, though "collateral descent" is the correct legal term. Paul B (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I see that, on the website (which actually is surprisingly well-written), they refer to Richard having "intended a College of unequalled size in York, of 100 priests to pray for his soul and that of his family", so I'm right about the chantry. Deb (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

That's quite interesting Deb. My area of interest is English Monasticism and I've come across quite a few situations where families or individuals have made donations to monasteries to found chantries and pay for priests/monks to pray for their souls for eternity. In fact many of the monasteries themselves were founded by the nobility with the proviso that the monks/nuns pray for their souls. But the majority were not buried within those monasteries -they were buried with their families and ancestors (usually the parish church near to their manor house). These donations were not made to secure burial, but secure their place in heaven through prayer.

Which makes me think IF (and I've yet to see anyone with a historical document proving so) but IF Richard intended to found a college to pray for his soul... it was probably just that -with no intention of a burial.

If I look back to Leicester for examples, the 1st Earl of Leicester founded a college of 12 priests in Leicester, to pray for his soul... but I don't think he was buried there. His son the 2nd Earl of Leicester founded 3 Abbeys and a Priory -all with the pray for his soul proviso -did he intend to be buried in all 4? Henry II is well known for his chantries, but he's not buried in them.

The Richard III society are renowned for their poor grasp of history. Especially romanticising and picking and choosing what history suits them. This York burial seems to just fit into that -they seem to have completely misunderstood what a chantry is/was. --Rushton2010 (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Have they expressed a preference for York (just going by what's in the article now, I can't keep up with who's promoting who or what in this article)? There are several Ricardian societies, including the Richard III Society and the Society of Friends of King Richard III who initially wanted a York burial according to the article. HelenOnline 15:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree on the chantry front! Helen, I have seen various people here who obviously have some interest, of whom the most obvious are User:Ptstone (admits to being Chair of the Richard III Society), User:Victoria Russell (admits to editing on behalf of the University of Leicester), and Dr. John Ashdown-Hill who edits under an IP address but admits to being himself. However, we've had numerous Ricardians and anti-Ricardians "at" some of the related articles at various times in the past, and it's sometimes hard to tell who's on which side. One thing that's quite clear is that Ms Philippa Langley has upset a few people by claiming to have been single-handedly responsible for finding Richard's grave! Deb (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It's the "Plantagenet Alliance" who want the burial in York, not the RIII Society, which is a separate organisation (they historically have celebrated Richard at Fotheringhay, but I don't think they have a "party line" on the burial site). The "Plantagenet Alliance" were formerlly called the "King Richard the Third Campaign" [18], and their website still uses that name, which causes potential confusion with the RIII Society. They seem to be motivated more by a sort of "Yorkshire nationalist" ideology than love of Richard. "The Society of Friends of King Richard III" is a relatively minor group which happens to be based in York, so they unsurprisingly wanted York. Paul B (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It's all getting very incestuous now, isn't it? The RIII Society promoted the dig, and appear to have made a deal that Leicester could have the body, so they have to go along with it, but Leicester University don't seem to be very happy that the RIII is getting all the credit for the excavation, and there are at least two other historians who claim to have identified the site long before Philippa Langley did! Deb (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I suppose it could be worse. We could have the conspiracy theorists disputing the fact that the body is Richard's (some were pretty vocal on the newspaper article comments). HelenOnline 16:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Protected to stop edit war

I've put short-term protection on this page to prevent the edit war that's been going on (and restored it to where it was at the point when I made the decision). I haven't got any axe to grind on this particular topic, but I would advise anyone with a personal interest in the subject to ensure that any additions or amendments are accompanied by references - particularly when referring to any of the leading individuals who have been involved. Deb (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have carried on editing it, btw - this edit seems to be adding new material (my apologies if it's not!). I'd advise against using phrases like "is now uncertain", both on the MOS grounds that a wiki article may be read at any point in the future (and it may no longer be "now" when it gets read!) and because the source you've added, as far as I can tell, dates back to 2004: your wording implies that this is a recent change in opinion, particularly in the context of an article about recent archaeological discoveries and the preceding paragraphs. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

"Now" refers to the current state of knowledge. The only development since 2004 has been the discovery of Richard himself. There have not been other disinterments. This isn't AIDS research or a Crime Scene investigation. Recent history for research of this sort is measured in decades, not years or months. The rest of this is bound up with two issues: the wish to promote the role of a person called Philippa Langley and the fantasy that York had some special status in Richard's life, for which see the section above. Paul B (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

That's why the wording of the change is poor - it implies a recent change in knowledge against the context of a recent archaeological dig ("it is now uncertain"), when the dating of the published scholarship it is citing was nine years ago. I'd amend it to make it clearer, but I'm not an admin. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how it implies that. That implication seems to me to exist only in your mind. I can see nothing in the sentence itself to suggest it. However, if you can find clearer wording, please do so and edit accordingly. Paul B (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I would do, only the page is protected... Hchc2009 (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes. I can't argue with that! Point conceded. Suggest an edit then. Paul B (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Surely it can wait 15 minutes (only protected for 3 hours)? HelenOnline 19:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

But Wikipedia Talk pages transcend history and are ETERNAL. Paul B (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest:

• "Richard's wife Anne Neville is buried within Westminster Abbey. It is uncertain where their only child Edward of Middleham, Prince of Wales, is buried; theories have included Sheriff Hutton Church, or Middleham in North Yorkshire.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/printable/38659 | title=Edward [Edward of Middleham], prince of Wales (1474x6–1484) | website = Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, online edition| publication-date = September 2010 | date = 2004 | last = Pollard| first = A. J. | accessdate=24 August 2013 | doi = doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/38659 | publisher=Oxford University Press}}</ref>"

That reflects the original source better, I think, which goes: "The elaborate but badly worn alabaster effigy of a young man, in civilian dress, in the north chapel of St Helen's Church, Sheriff Hutton, might be his tomb. However, it has also been argued, from the heraldic detail recorded in the seventeenth century by Roger Dodsworth, that the effigy is more likely to represent a son of Richard Neville, earl of Salisbury (d. 1460). Moreover Rous records a report that he had been buried at Middleham. Edward's place of burial, like his date of birth, is uncertain." Hchc2009 (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

You don't need to wait for less than 15 minutes for your Wiki fame. Paul B (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you reckon they'll build me a statue? :) Hchc2009 (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

They are designing it now. It looks just like "Hchc2009". Paul B (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

:) Cheers, thanks Paul - reckon that's all good. Agree with you about the "special status" bit above, btw. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, all, apologies if I got it wrong, but p stone pointed out to me that the effigy at Sheriff Hutton is no longer considered to be that of Edward - which it was last time I looked - and the reference I quoted said that his place of burial was uncertain, so I put the two together. Yes, I did edit after the protection because editing by admins was still allowed, and I didn't want to leave a known error in place once I was aware of it. Deb (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Clear Up

OK I've finished a first run through of clearing up. The big obvious things have been dealt with; long quotes not relevant here moved to relevant pages etc.. I've tried to improve the neutrality of the article and reduce the puffery, and in the process (hopefuly) I've cut back the non-relevant parts and made the article a bit more readable. --Rushton2010 (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It amused me that the Mayor of Leicester said that the bones would leave Leicester over his dead body, because Sir Rhys ap Thomas is alleged to have told Richard III that Henry Tudor would have to walk over his body to get his invasion force into Wales - then, legend has it, he lay down under a bridge so that Henry could walk over it. Deb (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

What a wonderful idea. The mayor crawling threw through the mud and sewage of the River Soar to lie under the bridge as the body leaves the city. --Rushton2010 (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

-that was tongue in cheek... just incase it didn't come across that way--Rushton2010 (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Lancaster Y-DNA

So, what's the Y-DNA of the Lancasters? YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Well they were all related to each other. That's why there was a dispute about who was the 'true' heir. Or at least that was the justification for the dispute. Paul B (talk) 12:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. They now tested 4 Lancasters for Y-DNA, but if I get it right, they still conceal the haplogroup. YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Who is they? And who are these "Lancasters" being tested? Paul B (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/media-centre/richard-iii/press-conference-4-february/presentations-by-speakers-at-the-press-conference-monday-4-february-1/geneticist-dr-turi-king-and-genealogist-professor-kevin-schurer-give-key-evidence-on-the-dna-testing http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-vital-DNA-evidence-came/story-18050565-detail/story.html#axzz2KhTXk5R3 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/science/more-dna-tests-to-confirm-skeleton-is-richard-iiis.html?_r=1& YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Descendants of John of Gaunt, apparently. Deb (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's a matter of "concealing" the haplogroup, more likely an embargo before publication. Such unsupported allegations should not be made here in any event. HelenOnline 15:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I in no way meant any accusations of bad intentions. I actually meant the same thing as you. That's why I used the word "still". YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

They have not published it yet. I am also waiting for it, patiently. :) HelenOnline 15:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Alfred the Great

As it is specifically mentioned on that page that 'remains which were thought or claimed to be those of Alfred the Great were dug up in the wake of RIII's exhumation' (paraphrasing) should there be a mention on this page? Jackiespeel (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't see any connection or any reason to mention it here. Deb (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

As there is a causal relationship between RIII's exhumation and 'investigations into Alfred' (see [19] and [20] for example) there is a case for a mention. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at, and I see why that's relevant for Alfred, but not for Richard. Furthermore, there's far less evidence for the bone being Alfred's than there is for for the remains mentioned in this article being Richard's. Deb (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Until 'more is made of it' this discussion probably suffices - and there is much less debate as to the status of Alfred and where the commemorative service/reburial will take place.

Should there be a WP article for '(Rediscovery of and) Reburial of long-dead Monarchs'? Jackiespeel (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Have you got a list? :-) Deb (talk) 18:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Category of things added to the list of 'the proverbial someone.' :)

A distinction would have to be made from 'reburying predecessor bar one in a better grave.' For now - 'wait on developments' to see whether to promote from a mention on the talk page to the actual article. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

Hopefully not a big deal, but given Richard III expert: The skeleton in the car park may not be missing monarch after all in which the historian Michael Hicks and the archaeologist Martin Biddle cast doubt upon the certainty of the identification, the title of the article needs to be reconsidered. At the moment I have no suggestions, just raising the issue. Dougweller (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Adding a POV tag seems to be rather OTT and potentially offensive to the editors involved. No-one has cast doubt on the findings until this report, which is barely more than a series of vague remarks. All one (Hicks) seems to be saying is that we can't be 100% certain, which is true, but rather pointless. How much more evidence does he need? The other authority quoted seems to be saying there should be some form of inquest in order to make it official. Hicks's view could be included in the section. Frankly, I have to admit that I find his arguments rather ridiculous and desperate. He is a genuine RIII expert, but not, of course, an expert on DNA, skeletal remains etc. Paul B (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Not trying to be mean but the only thing those two (Hicks, Biddle) cast doubt upon is their reputations. Removing NPOV tage - being bold. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised at you here, especially the peremptory removal of the tag and the suggestion it was aimed at the editors of this article, which is ridiculous as this has only just occurred. Up until this week there was no serious challenge and thus no NPOV issue. Now there is, and you say that despite that the title can still state as fact that these are RIII's remains? And attacking Hicks and Biddle doesn't make this any less of a challenge to stating as fact that these are his remains. Dougweller (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm also not sure WP:BRD applies here. Dougweller (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a case for changing the title of this article? Deb (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I think so. Editors' opinions on the reputation of reliable sources aren't relevant here, the fact is that this has been challenged. That's why I added the NPOV tag. Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the NPOV tag is the way to do it. If the article simply makes it clear that people have challenged the assumption that they are Richard's remains, surely that would be enough to make the content neutral? I would (personally) go for changing the introduction - not sure what to do about the title. Deb (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

This "challenge" consists of some remarks reported in a newspaper. It does not in any meaningful sense make the article POV. Putting such a tag on an article is in my view an implicit criticism of editors who have worked on it, because that's what POV tags are for. They alert the reader to bias. Adding the views of Hicks and Biddle to the content would have been productive, putting a tag on it was not, IMO. And, BTW, challenging the credentials of persons quoted as sources is wholly legitimate. You do know this. But essentially, all Hicks appears to be saying is that we can't be absolutely certain. And these are not published statements in a peer-reviewed journal, they are comments reported in a newspaper
Just to review the facts: various historians, archaelogists and enthusiasts had concluded on the basis of surviving evidence that Richard's body was probably in the car park. They looked in the spot where thy thought it would be and they found a body. Just one. It was of the right age, with battle wounds and a crooked back! They did DNA tests and discovered thst the MtDNA matched Richard's maternal line. They did a facial reconstruction of the skull, and the face looked exactly like portraits of Richard III! I'm not a medievalist, but I am a historian and I must say it seems to me to be completely irrational to disregard this overwhelming evidence. Of course, Hicks and Biddle are entitled to their view, and it should be represented, but these assertions contain no new evidence, just a kind of generic scepticism. There's no evidence that these statements represent a significant alternative viewpoint, and they do not challenge any facts or evidence. They amount to the assertion "we can't be absolutely sure", Doug, I just think you are wrong about thiis one. Paul B (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I may well be wrong, but I the tag cannot possibly have been a comment on editors who edited this article before the recent news. Changes in circumstances can surely make the present state of an article NPOV without that being a criticism of anyone who has edited the article. You can challenge credentials but that's not what was being done. I don't know Hicks but Biddle is a perfectly respectable archaeologist and attacks on him such as the one above are not called for. If we are going to judge credentials we should do it properly. Dougweller (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the NPOV tag is needed or a change of title. It says in the notes for the template "This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public." I don't think there is a prevalence of perspective that it is not Richard - quite the opposite in fact. All it needs is a few sentences to report what seems to be a minority point of view. Richerman (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Both Hicks and Biddle are very well known in their respective fields (I'm surprised the wikipedia articles on both aren't longer), and their views certainly deserve consideration, but that's not really the point. They are both expressing admirable scholarly caution, and saying that the case is not proven. Yes, we want a new, short section towards the end of the article headed "Doubts over identification" (or similar), and a new sentence in the lede saying "Some scholars, however, have questioned whether the remains really are those of Richard III" (or similar), and that's it. The article as it stands is in fact already quite cautious in its wording: "the University of Leicester announced ... that it believed the skeleton was that of Richard III" (my emphasis) etc. The scholarly consensus is still strongly in favour of the remains being RIII, so there's certainly no need to change the article title yet. I agree with editors above (Paul Barlow, Deb, Richerman) that the NPOV tag was overkill: such a tag effectively puts a red flag at the head of the article saying "Reader be warned: the contents of this article are dodgy, and probably not to be trusted", which is really not appropriate in this case. The necessary changes are relatively minor, and would take any of us a few minutes to make: they would certainly take considerably less effort than has already been put into arguing over the issue here. GrindtXX (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree that the tag was unnecessary and appreciate your constructive approach. I hope that one of the editors who are most involved with this article will make it. Dougweller (talk) 07:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Y Done. That's all that was required - now behave yourself Weller and write 100 times "I will not add silly tags to articles". Richerman (talk) 09:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Can't find a 'trout me' template for non-userspace, but I consider myself trouted. Small niggle about the new edit - refuted? or disputed? Dougweller (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not too happy about the last edit at all. First of all an unnecessary citation has been added to the addition I made - there is already a citation in the main text, and secondly it talks about 'refuting these claims' - what claims? none are mentioned. Richerman (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why my edits were reverted but I'll discuss the matter here instead as I don't want to start an edit war. I didn't realise that references are not supposed to be included in the lead. However, we now have a problem because the lead includes a speculative unsourced statement that two academics suggest the body is not necessarily that of Richard III. I added this reference to support the statement. This reference does not appear to be included anywhere else in the article as far as I can make out, but it needs to go in somewhere, even if it's not supposed to go in the lead. The claim by Hicks and Biddle is made in a news article on the BBC History extra website. It is an opinion piece not a peer-reviewed article. The lead now gives this misinformed statement undue weight. I don't think it's even appropriate to include this sentence in the lead. However, I think it is very important for the sake of balance to include this response to the claims from Hicks and Biddle from the University of Leicester which sets the record straight and clarifies that the academic papers have not yet been published but will be in the near future, which was my reason for editing the lead accordingly. I think it's important to include a reference to the University of Leicester's statement for the sake of balance. What do others think? Dahliarose (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I reverted it because 1/ the reference doesn't belong in the lead and 2/ as I hadn't actually said anything about why they were saying that the remains found weren't Richard's, it didn't make sense to say they were "refuting these claims". I have no objection to adding that they are refuting the claims but you would need to expand that bit of the article to say what they are refuting and then the point you are making would fit in properly. It's not surprising that you put the reference in the lead as that was how it was already constructed but I have since removed nearly all of them for the reasons given below - not just yours. Richerman (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

How about deleting the sentence about Hicks and Biddle from the lead, and adding the counter-balancing statement from Leicester Uni to the section on the "Identification of Richard III and other findings"? I don't think it's appropriate to include uninformed speculative opinion in the lead, especially when the scientific papers haven't even been published yet.Dahliarose (talk) 08:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

As the work hasn't been published the whole article is based on drawing conclusions from unpublished work so I don't think that it is premature to say in the lead that, so far, some fellow academics aren't convinced. I would expand the part in the 'Identification of Richard III and other findings' section to say that the Leicester University team have said "Papers on the DNA and on other aspects of the investigation are in the pipeline, and will be appearing in journals over the next few months. We anticipate that these will address the issues raised by Professor Hicks and Professor Biddle". I would then add a bit to the lead to say that the Leicester team believe that when their results are published Hicks' and Biddle's concerns will be addressed. Richerman (talk) 10:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, they are not "refuting the claims". Refuting means disproving. Thay are at most questioning the certainly expressed by the Leicester team. Biddle's complaints don't even seem to be primarily about identification. He suggests that the missing feet were removed by a "mechanical digger", implicitly accusing the Leicester team of lying, and he complains about the alleged fact that the skull was removed and replaced. All this reeks of some sort of personal vendetta and has nothing to do with identification of the remains. Paul B (talk) 10:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Paul, you've got the wrong end of the stick with "refuting these claims". Dahlirose added "The University of Leicester issued an official statement refuting these claims" - although I agree that Leicester wasn't refuting any claims. I think accusing an academic of a personal vendetta is a BLP violation, by the way. I suspect that Biddle and Hicks are wrong, but the sentence in the lead belongs there so far as I'm concerned. We shouldn't just bury a dispute in the body. No pun intended. Dougweller (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I sort of knew that (at least some part of my brain did, the other part clearly didn't). It somehow got mixed up in the transmission. I do still think refuting is rather too strong, even for the Leicester people. BTW, I remember watching the excavation, and it seemed obvious that the feet has been missing for some time, because you could see that all the exposed bone was discoloured, whereas the accidental damage to the front of the skull during the excavation was clearly new, because the exposed bone was white. "Vendetta" is probably OTT, but there's clearly a lot of fault-finding that has nothing to do with central issue: "anyone viewing the Channel 4 documentary on the dig will see that the lower legs were hit and moved by a mechanical digger." This never happens. I have the documentary and I've seen it several times. Paul B (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Corpsing! :-) Deb (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Lead section

I have done some serious pruning of the lead section, moving information and references to the main body of the article in line with WP:MOS. According to WP:LEAD the lead section should be a summary of the article and there should not be any information there that isn't in the main body of the article unless it is something trivial that won't fit elsewhere. Also, references aren't usually needed in the lead if they are given elsewhere in the article, except for direct quotations or if they are are verifying something particularly contentious that is likely to be challenged. You may disagree with some of my changes, and I'm happy to discuss them, but the way the lead was constructed before was just not right. Richerman (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)