Talk:Cotswold Olimpick Games

Reliable source?
A good portion of this article relies on Haddon 2004. However, Celia Haddon is neither a historian nor particularly qualified to be considered an authority on this matter. Haddon normally writes about cats. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * She's a best-selling author and journalist, and the book is published by a reputable publisher. Who would you suggest knows more about the history of the games? Eric   Corbett  13:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Peter Radford, Judith Swaddling, et al. There are plenty of other good sources already present, but Haddon is leaned on the heaviest despite having the worst credentials. I don't see how Hodder & Stoughton (who are the publishers of primarily fiction books) is considered that reputable. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 14:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Possibly more reputable than you are though, wouldn't you agree? Eric   Corbett  14:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but what does that have to do with anything? I don't really see this revert as necessary since it was just an additional source.  &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a pity,, but around here, we abide by WP:BRD to ensure process. You were Bold, I Reverted, therefore you must Discuss with others the merits of your inclusion. My revert was because this is a Featured Article which went through a pretty extensive source review. Have you checked the source, its content, reliability? You cannot simply add what you like, when you like, to an FA and expect not to get challenged for it.    Cassianto Talk  17:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * [Thank you for the ping] Yeah, I spent about 10-20 minutes vetting the person's credentials. Radford is the author of multiple peer-reviewed articles published several different reputable journals. He's the former chairman of UK Athletics, and his book on Captain Barclay received positive reviews from both the Guardian and the Independent. This may be a FA, but it was last reviewed more than 9 years ago. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

arbitrary break
This is what I've found for Haddon, which I'm sure you'll agree,, is pretty varied and extensive. That should satisfy your concerns that she's, somewhat bizarrely, unreliable for being a writer on feline habits; unless of course you're purely here to grind an axe, that is?  Cassianto Talk  17:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC) In 2010, that guideline used to read Material such as an article or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars. The distinct difference is the inclusion of books (and stronger advisement). &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What? No. I'm just here because I clicked Special:Random and saw it was a FA. Regardless, that is just a list of books Haddon has written. Like I said, it's like 20+ cat books (not even close to historic sporting events). &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So this had no influence then? Of all the millions of articles you could "randomly" find, the one you do find happens to be one of Eric's?   Cassianto Talk  18:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. Eric   Corbett  18:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah.. It's called Special:Random? You click it and get a random article. I've been interested in FAR and decided to check on this one's sources. I really don't care who wrote it. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of it, thanks. You must think I've come down in the last shower.  Cassianto Talk  18:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Last time I clicked Special:Random I ended up finding an article that I expanded for this RFD. Stuff happens. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course, silly me. A complete coincidence, I'm sure.   Cassianto Talk  18:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a hunch, but I'm pretty sure I could predict with some significant accuracy what next "random article" MJL is likely to end up on. Eric   Corbett  18:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well okay then.. so we're openly speculating about my apparent agenda on an article talk page now. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed it does, but just to be clear, is it your argument that in the time since this article went through an FA review that there have been more scholarly sources published than that of Haddon that should now be taken into account? If so, what are they? Do they disagree with Haddon's account? Eric   Corbett  18:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My arguement is simply that since the article was reviewed for FA, our standards have gotten more rigorous when it comes to WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Haddon 2004 specifically fails to meet: Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
 * You still haven't answered my question: what are the new sources that this article ought to take into account? Do any of them disagree with Haddon's account? Eric   Corbett  19:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In the accounts I have read,  all place the motivation for starting the games purely on theological grounds (Dover was a staunch Catholic). I could probably name other examples, but I have privately been advised to find other uses for my time. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 20:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You would be wise to take that advice. But before you go, can you clarify which of these sources either contradict or add to what Haddon says? One of your references is to a newspaper article for instance. Was that written by a professional historian? Eric   Corbett  21:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Second paragraph within the origins section (last sentence is particularly concerning imo) . The newspaper reference isn't from an established historian, but I have just provided three other sources from academics with proper credentials. It's your choice what to do with them. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 02:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

, please be more careful when reverting during an ongoing discussion. You need to be more aware of your surroundings before unilaterally reverting on a featured article. , are you happy for the inserted reference to be used? If so, I'll restore.  Cassianto Talk  09:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Seems like a good source to me, so I've restored it. In general I've got no objection to providing alternative sources for Haddon to reduce the article's dependence on it, but not simply because some clown thinks that Haddon isn't reliable because she doesn't teach history at some academic institution or other. Eric   Corbett  12:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

MJL's comment above about the second paragraph of the origins section demonstrates very clearly to me that he does not take the trouble to read the sources he produces. Eric  Corbett  13:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC) I really don't know if this is the consensus one would hope for... It feels very odd for me that no one wants to help replenish the sources, but I guess I'll start adding my proposed sources to the article once my GAN is done. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 23:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur with that the article is too heavily dependent upon the unreliable source of Haddon and urge the opposing editors to recognize and appreciate historiographical scholarship, prior to choosing and exploiting a source. It's incredibly bizarre when a (self-proclaimed) cat-expert starts shifting into rigid academic disciplines and we start using their writings, because a quasi-reputed house, (mainly specializing in fiction), published that.  &#x222F; WBG converse 20:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also the tag-teaming and edit-warring, as to preventing the addition of a reliable source, seem to be equally dubious and smacks of ownership issues. &#x222F; WBG converse 20:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh dear.  Cassianto Talk  23:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If have some genuine rebuttal to my arguments, I am all ears but the above comment ain't very conducive to a constructive discussion ....  &#x222F; WBG converse 13:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Which reliable source are you referring to? Don't you think it would be a good idea if you took the trouble to read the article? In what sense is the Cotswold Olimpick Games a "rigid academic discipline"? Eric   Corbett  23:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I was pinged here, so it's only fair to respond that is referring to the source Cassianto removed,  re-added, and which you added to dispel this article's reliance on Haddon after the two edit warred over it. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 23:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What MJL says; don't you think it would be a good idea if you took the trouble to glance over the recent history of the article?
 * Historiography is a rigid academic field and sports history is a separate domain thereof featuring a host of eminent scholars like Judith Swaddling, Ramachandra Guha, John Daly, John Hoberman, Simon Inglis et al. I need to see some relevant qualifications of Haddon in/around the field of historiography. Do you have any reviews of the book, at-least? &#x222F; WBG converse 05:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * - I am inclined to assume your silence as the allowance of pruning unreliable sources, (which has the potential to lead to a FAR.) &#x222F; WBG converse 17:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Cassianto, but you may take my silence as meaning that I don't give a damn what you do with the article. It's of no further interest to me and I'll be removing it from my watchlist. Eric   Corbett  17:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ditto. I'm sick of these people and their desire to run roughshod over other people's work. Truly astounding.   Cassianto Talk  18:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I see no reason for your comment about these people. /

arbitrary break
If you want to replace what you consider to be unreliable sources with ones that you consider to be more reliable and which act as a direct replacement for verifying the statement in question then that's a discussion worth having. However, I don't think Haddon is unreliable per se, unless you have sources which contradict her (in which case we would probably need to show both). - Sitush (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * See MJL's comments about the motivations behind starting the event. Haddon is a nobody in this area (or any damn field) and she ought be dismissed, per se rather than creating some false-balance based narrative. &#x222F; WBG converse 20:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw the comment, thanks. I'm still trying to find which source says Dover was a staunch Catholic but cannot see all of the ones that MJL cited and note that neither this article nor his own bio article say it (merely that he was raised in a Catholic family). - Sitush (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * For that matter, MJL says that the four sources they have found stress the theological origins but the Radford source most definitely does not seem to do that. Have I missed something in it? - Sitush (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't recall the specifics (can't acces the pdf, right now) but it was somewhere around the last page, IIRC. &#x222F; WBG converse 20:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, the last page pre-notes section says If so, were Robert Dover's Olimpick Games eventually closed by a puritanically-minded clergyman and his supporters, rather like the "refinèd clergy" that originally inspired Robert Dover to create his Olimpick Games to confront? but there doesn't seem to be anything before that which ties in with it and indeed much of what is said earlier in the paper is referencing the debate about nationhood and the desire to hark back to "traditional England" etc. - Sitush (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The Sian Ellis source listed above also doesn't really support the claim of a theological basis. In an extremely short bullet-pointed paragraph among many other similar paragraphs about British eccentricities, it refers to a possible backlash against Puritanism. But it doesn't say that backlash was for theological reasons and, as Radford seems to make clear, it was because Puritans disliked sport for theological reasons but Dover liked them due to there ability to bind together people, represent the essence of nationhood, tradition etc. Just because the Puritans had a theological objection does not mean that Dover's rationale was theological. The Puritans made everything about religion, dammit, but not everything done despite them was for religious reasons. Also, like Radford, there seems to be no mention of Dover being a staunch Catholic. - Sitush (talk) 04:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Johnson and Fielding p 332 (here) also supports the nationhood theory - Pugilism played a central role in British culture's attempt to identify itself with classical models ... Boxing had first appeared in the Olympic Games in 688 BC, while 'boxing' matches, with prizes at stake, are described in both the Iliad and the Aeneid. A desire to imitate these precedents was apparent in England as early as 1636, when Robert Dover's 'Olimpick Games', held in the Cotswolds, included pugilistic contests modelled on that which took place between Entellus and Dares in the Aeneid ... an enthusiasm for sports more generally spread rapidly in the seventeenth century, despite the Puritans' dislike of activities which appeared to cultivate bodily prowess and beauty for their own sakes. The classical models of societies in which sports were both valued in themselves, and played a part in the development of martial prowess, became increasingly influential, providing a kind of retrospective justification for a social development which was in fact unique and wholly indigenous. So, again, not a theological thing even though it was running (sic) against the Puritans. We have to be careful not to emphasise something by extrapolating motivation, as it increasingly seems that MJL may have done - that would be synthesis/original research. - Sitush (talk) 05:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Kaiser cites Haddon on p 121 here and seems to be describing the Games as an example of "plebian revelry". Although it is a fleeting mention, it is in the context, yet again, of the nationhood idea, extended into the Victorian era. - Sitush (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Harrow does note Dover as being a "Catholic Royalist" (pp 41-45) but doesn't really talk about it in a theological sense, eg: Though it is possible to oversimplify the degree of regulation sought by each side (Catholic versus Protestant, Royalist or Parliamentarian, pleasure-seeking as opposed to the pious) Dover's reimagine Olimpick Games took the title both to secularize and gentrify proceedings. They also drew on much older traditions of the British sportscape, including traditional ales and rural festivities. - Sitush (talk) 05:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Dixon and Gibbons (p 3) makes a passing mention: Brookes, no doubt, inspired by the legend of Robert Dover and the Cotswold Olimpick Games that were established centuries before (as a celebration of the alcohol-fuelled rough play of late sixteenth and early seventeenth century Britain) ... No theology there, although of course the Puritans were opposed to alcohol along with everything else that might be considered as relaxation, entertainment or fun. - Sitush (talk) 05:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * This publication by English Heritage refers to Dover's family as "church papists", meaning that they were Catholic but attended their local parish church, which was why he was accepted at Cambridge. My gut says that a staunch Catholic would be more likely found in a priest-hole than a parish church. - Sitush (talk) 06:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Francis Burns, some of whose writings the article already mentions, says Dover may have wanted to put the Puritans in their place. He may have wanted to extol Catholic virtues. But people are difficult to manipulate, especially Cotswold people, particularly for propaganda purposes. Had his activities been mainly political, they would have been little more than a nine day’s wonder, particularly as Dover was not a native of the area. It seems more likely that Dover gave expression to a feeling that national pride should be reawakened, and that, for many people, was synonymous with an idealistic view of the Greek festivals. here. - Sitush (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

You are free to underrate the importance of Radford as a historical source, but I stand by my claims as to what he is saying. Take a look at Clarke if you have access (or just see the first page which is free), Instituted in 1612, the Cotswold Games were firmly placed within the revivalist tradition which attempted to rescue popular recreations from the clutches of Puritan opposition and to recreate the 'Golden Age', or 'Merrie England'. Robert Dover transformed the traditional Whitsun Ales of Chipping Campden and Weston-Sub-Edge (in Gloucestershire) into a 'civilized' occasion for communal celebration and sporting achievement based on the Greek model of the Olympics. I suppose the best example I can have to explain this (to counter the one you have provided) is the story Stalin, during the Battle of Moscow of having Our Lady of Vladimir flown around the city as the Germans appropoached. The icon is clearly a religious in nature, but its connection to the russian national consciousness and the legacy it has as a palladium meant there was a secular context for which Stalin (a militant atheist) may have done this. It's not so simple as it being one or the other. The politics of the time was religion, and the games merely reflect that fact. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 21:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This also discusses the Games in the context of nationhood, and this is not far off it. Meanwhile, this notes it as a "political act" in support of the Book of Sports, which itself was concerned with nationhood., which of your sources says it was done for theological reasons? I haven't yet found any that say that, including three of the four that you mention (The Times comes closest, calling it an "antidote to Puritanism that was sweeping the land" but that doesn't mean the origins lie in theology). Oh, and for what it is worth, I spotted a 2013 PhD thesis that also cited Haddon - trivial, but there. - Sitush (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ellis says the games were a protest against puritanism, and Shulman says: When Robert Dover, a Catholic Royalist, staged his first Cotswold Olimpicks in 1612 as an antidote to the Puritanism sweeping the land, it made them the first public games to have used the Olympic brand since the ancient celebrations had been abolished more than 1,000 years before. However, the source that discusses the subject the most, and I find to be the most reliable, is Radford (who is more than a former athlete as states below). Radford attributes the narrative of the games in the context of nationhood as a simple part of the religious message with which both Robert Dover and Michael Drayton (who was among the poets to contribute to Annalia Dubrensis). There's no stellar quote that says this, but he connects the Greek imagery of the games rather well with the anti-puritan message that it had set out to make. In asking What is England?, Radford claims that the nation was something of the distant past.. more akin to Greece than the ever growing Puritanical elements which were then sweeping the country.  &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you read my various comments on sources? Did you note the bit about WP:OR/synthesis? Aside from a very brief, almost throwaway, paragraph by one of those journalists you think are unreliable (the "antidote" statement), the sources are talking primarily of nationhood, not theology. That the concept of nationhood flew in the face of Puritan clampdowns on "fun" does not mean that the Games were a theological reaction to it. Nor do most of the sources say that Dover was a "staunch" Catholic - in fact, I think the nearest I have found to that is the statement that he was a "Catholic Royalist". Unless you can indeed find a killer quote, I think you are drawing your own conclusions here. - Sitush (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As an analogy: Jewish people keep kosher for theological reasons but the fact that other people do not keep kosher is not for theological reasons; Jewish and Muslim people practice male circumcision for reasons which may be based on theology (it's a bit of a complex subject), but choosing not to circumcise isn't necessarily a statement of theology. - Sitush (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * - do you understand where I am coming from now? If not, I may have to buy a copy of the 1962 book mentioned in Further Reading because a snippet view of that suggests exactly the same thing. By all accounts, Dover seems to be considered a man who enjoyed a bit of revelry and play down his Catholic beliefs if only for reasons of political expedience. - Sitush (talk) 10:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * - reping - Sitush (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the second ping. I get where you are coming from in part except in a few areas. I didn't say journalists weren't reliable, I said Haddon specifically should not be considered an authority on the subject. Haddon's former employer is the Daily Mail, a publication so notorious for not checking its facts and reporting the truth that we had to depreciate it as a source entirely. It's substantially unfair to compare a journalist actively working for The Times of London to the Daily Mail.
 * I think you are trolling here, sorry. If not, you must be even more incompetent than I thought. For example, there are journalists who have worked for both The Times and Daily Mail, so your attempt yet again to obfuscate with ill-informed irrelevancies falls flat. [T]o rescue popular recreations from the clutches of Puritan opposition and to recreate the 'Golden Age', or 'Merrie England' is precisely my point - it had no theological basis per se but was in reaction to something that did have such a basis. The sources are clear and that you cannot understand them is worrying; perhaps no wonder, then, that a recent GAN in which you have been involved had so many problems. - Sitush (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not one to engage in personal issues on a talk page. It's very irrelevant whether a person's motivations for something were reactionary or proactive when determining their theological basis. The fact there were clear theological motivations for the games have been articulated to the best of my ability. If you would like me to get a third opinion for this aspect of the dispute, I will willingly go ask for one. I'm not looking to get into a pointless debate complete with ad hominem and other trivial logical fallacies. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 02:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My suggestion to you would be to avoid me. However, you clearly have no consensus here (it isn't just me who has objected, as per comments above), so WP:3O is irrelevant. I think you need (yet again) to brush up on policy etc. - Sitush (talk) 02:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

generally what we do when someone disputes a source or a claim, is suggest alternate wording. I've taken a look at the sources, dug through Jstor, found that Haddon is quite well cited on Google scholar, and all I'm seeing a the well-established theme of nostalgic national pride, to paraphrase broadly. Dunno if you've had the pleasure of reading Poly-Olbion (I have, back in the mists of time), and the sentiment at the time was hearkening back to Arthurian England. Please use the talk page to post a suggested edit with appropriate sourcing that validates the claim the games were theological. In other words, we need proof that rather in reaction to Puritanism, which is established, to your claim that there's theology involved. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 17:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

arbitrary break

 * I did some research, trying to ascertain exactly what research MJL had undertaken before starting this dispute concerning Haddon. Here's what I found
 * Haddon and her book have been referenced by Martin Polley (an Olympics expert) in his book "The British Olympics: Britain's Olympic Heritage 1612-2012", by Peter Radford (former athlete) in an academic article "The Olympic Games in the Long Eighteenth Century" and by Richard Wilson (a Shakespeare expert) in his book "Worldly Shakespeare: The Theatre of Our Good Will". The book formed one of the sources used by Jean Williams (another sports historian and academic) in an academic article entitled "The Curious Mystery of the Cotswold ‘Olimpick’ Games: Did Shakespeare Know Dover … and Does it Matter?" in which Williams attempts to answer the question of whether Shakespeare knew Dover (though doesn't necessarily agree with some elements of Haddon's work).

I have to agree with Sitush in this case - Haddon can't be dismissed out of hand. -- Nick (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd spotted a couple of those. Thanks for listing them and more. I'm also concerned more generally that we need to be aware of potential citogenesis after all this time. - Sitush (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * [Placeholder for a detailed rebut, as to how merely being used as source over a peer-reviewed work fails to confer legitimacy on the scholarship.] &#x222F; WBG converse 20:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I assume that his dispute was a typo and you meant this dispute. Can you please make that correction? &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Done Nick (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)