Talk:Richard III of England/Archive 2

Hunch
Hi. I don't think it is fair for the article to continue to claim that Shakespeare made up the hunchback. If you saw the documentary, you saw the initial comment by the archaeologist: "He was a hunchback", which was later toned down to please Philippa Longley of the Richard III Society, into "his deformity might not have been obvious when he had his clothes on". The statement that Shakespeare "added a hunch" is therefore quite misleading. Deb (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * By all means reword, but the current phrasing is not intended to imply that he "made up" anything. It's that the crookedness of the back described by other commentators is emphasised into what he calls a "mountain". I don't know if the limp comes from previous sources, but the arm is mentioned in the True Tragedy and in More, so Shakespeare just took that from sources. Paul B (talk) 11:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it's a bit early to reword, let's see what the written sources are saying about the "hunch". I believe the documentary described it as Scoliosis, whereas I think "hunch-back" is usually connected with Kyphosis. It's interesting that the pre-Shakespeare references are to the more specific "crook-backed" and "one shoulder higher than the right" - both of which seem to better describe the skeleton than "hunch". DeCausa (talk) 11:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * In the archaeological examination of the skeleton both arms were considered to have no evidence of deformity, although both were “gracile”. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well unless we assume Shakespeare had dug up Richard to find out the facts before writing the play, we can only say what he, as it were, 'made up', or 'added', was what differed from the sources he used. The withered arm comes from More, though it's not enmntirely clear what he means by that. Paul B (talk) 12:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It was only the hunch that I wanted to take out, and the sentence clearly implies that Shakespeare invented that, yet the archaeological investigation clearly shows a spinal defect. This was so pronounced that at first the archaeologist thought that the skull must be someone else's because it was unearthed at a different level from the rest of the body. I'd be happy with rewording if someone could point to something else that Shakespeare "added".  Deb (talk) 12:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, did anyone pick up on the hint at the body's transgender features? Deb (talk) 12:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the jaw line, the arms and the pelvis were all mentioned. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * All previous sources say he had a spinal deformity, so there is no question of Shakespeare inventing a deformity. The question is whether he mutated it, as it were, (probably unconsciously) into a different type of spinal deformity. They thought the skull must be someome else's because it was raised up due to the fact that the body was squashed into grave that was too small for it. Paul B (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it was suggested that the curvature of the spine in some way explained why the skull was laying at an "unusual orientation". (I also thought that we saw, in the opening sequences, some damage to the leg bones caused by the initial trench-digging. But this was never mentioned.) The mattock through the skull was a bit of a faux pas, though. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, both factors may have been involved. As for the legs, according to the press conference yesterday the feet had been chopped off at some point in history due to digging/building work over the centuries. As far as I know they are still missing. Paul B (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That definitely was suggested. Deb (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the documentary said the skeleton had Scolosis - that's not a "hunch-back". Prior to Shakespeare the sources talk about some sort of skeletal deformity, but not specifically a hunch-back. Shakespeare seems to be the first to do that. That's what the article currently says so I'm not sure anything needs to change at the moment. DeCausa (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you think that Kyphosis and Scoliosis were recognised as two separate conditions in Shakespeare's time? Deb (talk) 12:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Almost certainly not. But in that time any deformities he did have may have been seen as "punishment by God for wrong-doing". I don't think we'd want to therefore say that about him? Or even that Shakespeare had not invented that (some of Richard's own words in the play suggest that the character thought himself "cursed" by deformity.) Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know - probably not as defined medical conditions. But, AFAIK, one gives the impression of a hump on the back (classic "hunch-back") and one produces a left/right lopsidedness. So I'm guessing they would have been seen as different "deformities". I don't know, and am guessing. My point is it's too close to WP:OR at the moment to launch into saying "Shakespeare was right". Let's wait to report what the WP:RS say: and if an RS says that the deformity would have been considered a "hunch-back" per Shakespeare then no problem. DeCausa (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't go so far as to say "Shakespeare was right". It's just that the idea that Shakespeare invented the hunchback out of thin air seems to me to have been discredited in a fairly blatant way.  When you add to this the fact that all creative writers use poetic licence, even the reference to a "mountain" doesn't seem to justify the suggestion that the playwright made it all up. Deb (talk) 13:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But the article doesn't say that. It gives the earlier descriptions of skeletal deformity and then that S. added the "hunch-back". So there's no suggestion it was "out of thin air". Just had a look at how the papers are treating it - although I suspect newspapers may not be RS for this. This Independent report is certainly making a distinction between Shakespeare and the skeleton. DeCausa (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe so. One could even see that the lopsidedness may well have made the "free hanging" arm seem even thinner than it was, and thus "withered" - this is hinted at in the exagerated gait adopted by Olivier (snippets of whose performance were sprinkled through the Channel 4 documentary.) I think the wardrobe Dept for Olivier's production also helped to accentuate this. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * See my question at Talk:Richard III (play). I hope someone can answer it. Deb (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting, maybe it's all Larry Olivier's fault! DeCausa (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You should see the Anthony Sher version . Paul B (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * In the The Goodbye Girl, R3 is portrayed as a club-footed homosexual.  :)  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems that in Henry VI Part 3 he is referred to as a "crookback prodigy", but the term "crookback" is, I gather, also applied to him by Thomas More. Deb (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've posted a response which may or may not be the explanation. DeCausa (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * p.s. Shakespeare also has Richard himself telling us that he was deformed in the womb, I believe. Again, seemingly, pure dramatic license or a reflection of popular Tudor myth. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * @Deb, I've modified your edit on this. I don't think you can say it's "questionable" - at least that's an unsourced assertion. There's no suggestion in the source that "hunch-back" and "bunch-back" have different meanings. DeCausa (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, perhaps it wasn't a good edit. What I think is important, though, is to make the distinction between Shakespeare "adding" a hunchback to Richard and merely describing what was already known about him.  "Crookback" can clearly apply to someone with scoliosis as well as someone with kyphosis, as (I suggest) could "bunch-backed" - in fact, I find the latter description rather apt.  However, if you look at the picture used to illustrate the wikipedia article on scoliosis, you'd be hard-pressed, as a 16th-century person, to recognise any difference between that and a hunchback either.  So I just think it is misrepresentation to imply that Shakespeare was lying about Richard or that he could have known that Richard wasn't, technically, a hunchback.  That's even without taking poetic licence into consideration. Thus, whilst it is difficult to justify calling Shakespeare's detractors wrong, it is equally difficult to justify calling Shakespeare a liar.  Deb (talk) 10:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that the reason Shakespeare is not a “liar” is that he wrote plays and not accurate historical accounts. He takes all sorts of liberties, with both chronology and geography, in all of the so-called “histories”. Indeed as Paul Barlow has noted, Sher’s portrayal shows him as the “bottled spider” – but I’m pretty sure the archaeological examination proved he had only two legs and not eight. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But to what extent is it fair to call that propaganda rather than artistic licence? Deb (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a good question, which I think is difficult to answer. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, on the one hand it's pretty easy to find sources to say that Shakespeare was a participant in Tudor anti-Yorkist propaganda (eg this. That's not in doubt - nor is it surprising. He was a jobbing playwright and would want to please the powers that be and appeal to popular opnion. Whether he was the "inventor" of the hump is probably the least of it. Shakespeare's Richard III is a thoroughly evil character. So I don't think it's "unfair" on Shakespeare to say that he painted Richard III in a bad light both (a) for the purposes of writing great drama (b) to support the Tudor regime. However, on the other hand the article's statement that he "added" the hump is unsourced. We have pre-Shakespeare sources in the article that refer to deformities (not specifically the hump) and sources for Shakespeare referring to the "hump", but it appears that giving him "credit" for it, absent a specific source, may be WP:SYNTH. DeCausa (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that's a very fair summary and I totally agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This source gives the first instance of R being called a hunch-back - in 1491. Actually the 1491 source uses the term "crook backed" like More, but then here's a secondary source clearly interpreting this use in a primary source to mean "hunch-backed" so I think that's clear enough. On that basis I've taken "added" out. DeCausa (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just as a footnote, Shakespeare could be said in a sense to have added "hunchbacked" as, according to this, he invented the word! DeCausa (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that just supports my argument. If he invented the word, how do we know exactly what he meant by it?  And I think the two secondary sources you have quoted, reputable historians though they may be (or one of them, anyway), are also guilty of taking things at face value.  It wasn't until we knew that Richard suffered from scoliosis that anyone was able to prove that he had any kind of deformity whatsoever.  I realise that this could be termed original research, though to me it's perfectly obvious that you can't call someone a propagandist just because he reported what he believed to be true and got the technical details slightly wrong. Deb (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ...though of course I do accept that he had an interest in blackening Richard's character. Deb (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I think DeCausa's link to Elizabeth Ward suggests that no-one has been able to yet find any earlier written instance of that word. Not sure if that really "proves he invented the word". I think his main interest was in making his own creation look, and sound, as undesirable as possible. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I heard an interesting talk recently, pointing out that everyone in the play does wicked things, and suggesting that it is (Shakespeare's) Richard's self-knowledge rather than his wicked deeds (or his appearance) that make him both more worrisome and more interesting. If Shakespeare was playing to Tudor sympathies, he presumably also used that as a vehicle for the things that interested him more - a chance to show psychological insights. I can't help thinking many of the claims ascribed to a Tudor propaganda machine are a bit overblown, and as stereotyped as the 'traditional' portrayal of Richard. It is the Tudor propaganda bit that is most relevant to this page. Did people believe the caricatured lampooning at the time? Have historians painted him as 'evil personified' since then? Or is that just what Richard apologists claim other people say? The 'Reputation' section of the page answers these questions pretty well already, I would say. RobinLeicester (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that Richard's self-knowledge, (his belief that is "blighted" or "cursed" in some way), is a major factor. Other characters seem to have far more straightforward motives for their deeds. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Profile image
I think it would be really good if there was some way (fair use?) of using one of the 3D reconstruction images as the profile picture. Although commissioned and funded by the Richard III Society the images appear to be copyright Getty for some reason and there isn't a hope of getting an acceptable license from them. -- wintonian  talk  12:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the result is very impressive: . I'm just not sure why I still find the contemporary portraits more convincing. I saw the reconstruction more as a way of validating them, than of presenting the "real face" of Richard. It's just familiarity, I suppose. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I read that the model may eventually be put on public display, so then a Wikimedian (or a Flickr user) could snap a free license picture of it. Getty only holds the copyright on the picture, not the model itself. Targaryen  speak or forever remain silent 00:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That makes sense and I'm glad it is to go public display, so I guess we just wait before thinking too seriously about it. -- wintonian  talk  15:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

DNA vs. Mitochondrial DNA
This article should strive always to differentiate between DNA and mitochondrial DNA. Admirably, it does so: only one reference to DNA remains in the article. However, the Footnotes (sources) contain many more.

The difficulty is that 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 reporting what was actually mitochondrial DNA testing?69.86.131.77 (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson


 * I'm fairly sure from what I've read that only mDNA was used. Since this is a type of DNA I can't see why we shouldn't use "DNA" as a shorthand, especially as sources generally use that acronym, but at the relevant part of the article we should be precise. In fact according to the press conference they identified two separate unbroken female lines, just in case someone's baby got switched at some point in history, messing up the line. All three matched (bones and living female-line descendents of R's mother). The other descendent apparently wished to remain anonymous, so Mr Ibsen has got all the publicity. Paul B (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you familiar with the testability of hypotheses? How do we test, for truth, "this is a type of DNA"? Well, mitochondrial DNA would be a type of DNA if to make a new person you take a random half of the mother's mitochondrial DNA and mix it with a random half of the father's DNA to create a composite that will be the genetic code for each mitochondrion in the new baby (and genetically identical mitochondria only in twins or other single-zygote multiples if such exist). Check that against the facts, and none of it's true. Ergo the assertion "this is a type of DNA" flunks the test and is not true.69.86.131.77 (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson


 * Umm, no, not even close. DNA is deoxyribonucleic acid, and is the polymer of deoxyribonucleotides strung together via 5' - 3' phosphate bonds.  It doesn't matter if it is from the nuclear genome, from a mitochondrial genome, from a chloroplast genome, or made in a tube.  It doesn't matter if it is inherited or in a dead cell that is never going to reproduce.  It is the chemical structure that determines what is and what is not DNA, full stop.  mtDNA is mitochondrial DNA - DNA from mitochondria, and it is just as real as any other DNA. Agricolae (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It was definitely mtDNA (and, I believe, only mtDNA) that was analysed. It's normal practice to include MtDNA analysis within the term "DNA test". If, however, the OP wants to initiate his/her strange crusade against the "negligent" use of "DNA test" s/he'd better start off with the DNA profiling article. DeCausa (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If the reports I heard were accurate, testing of nuclear DNA is ongoing, but no results have been reported (and it's a lot harder to analyze for a host of reasons). Agricolae (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * What does OP mean? I've checked en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Alphabet_soup and I don't see "OP" listed. I'm not a member of the Order of Preachers.69.86.131.77 (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
 * Original Poster. That is, the person who started the thread/debate. You. Paul B (talk) 09:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Shoe trees aren't trees. Koala bears aren't bears. Plastic wood isn't wood. Toe cheese isn't cheese. A shoe horn isn't a horn. And mitochondrial DNA isn't DNA. If the mere placement of the words is what determines the issue, then koala bears ARE bears and pastic wood IS wood. The most common reason to equate mitochondrial DNA with DNA is having a 100% match of mitochondrial DNA from a defendant to mitochondrial DNA at a crime scene, narrowing the pool of possible culprits to perhaps only a few million people, and wanting to convict some poor sap who has got that mitochondrial DNA. Tell the jury it's a match "of DNA", and the defendant is doomed when their 5th-degree female-lines cousin did the crime (because juries know that DNA doesn't lie. Which is correct. DNA doesn't lie. But mitochondrial DNA allows prosecutors to lie.) I seek to oppose crooked prosecutors. Do you? Not only that, but mitochondrial DNA just doesn't work the way that [nuclear] DNA works. It goes by a completely different scheme. Yeah, I know, common usage and all, if enough people (with Ph.D.'s counting twice and published Ph.D.'s thrice) start believing the world is flat, the fact that such belief is undeniably the consensus view will cause the world to flatten, yeah. Um, no it won't. If everyone in the world agrees that mitochondrial DNA is DNA, it'll still won't be. I'm arguing my position on its merits (and the demerits of the contrary), not what someone SAYS are those merits and demerits.69.86.131.77 (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson


 * The anon should also read No legal threats. Deb (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Just curious, why am I supposed to read No legal threats?69.86.131.77 (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson


 * Because you are hinting that the project could be in legal trouble if we don't conform with your view of how we should do things. Deb (talk) 10:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC) (PS. This is my real name)


 * I don't see how that could be inferred from my remarks. Suppose you refuse to edit all occurrences of "DNA" to "mitochondrial DNA" or "[nuclear] DNA" case-by-case. I don't believe that there's any power of law that would or could do anything about it.69.86.131.77 (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson


 * The correct way to refer to me if you have manners, "Deb", is "Mr. Simpson", not "The Anon". (I can't call you by your last name because you didn't sign it.)69.86.131.77 (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Anonymous Christopher L. Simpson, 313 West 92nd Street, New York, NY 10025


 * No it it is isn't. You are just a list of numbers. This has nothing to do with Richard III of England, so stop blathering on about it on this page. If you want to debate this issue do so on the DNA or mitochondrial DNA pages. If you wish to discuss the legal use of DNA carry your crusade to the DNA profiling page. Paul B (talk) 09:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please check your browser-installation. When I read this page I see "User talk:69.86.131.77|talk]]) 08:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson". You're not seeing the "Christopher L. Simpson"?. Then something's wrong.69.86.131.77 (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
 * By the way, I read in some site run by a British newspaper that the man Ibsen was "the last of Richard III's line". That's ridiculous: Richard III has no "line", and if we expand "line" to mean descendants of siblings, Ibsen is NOT the only one, nor even one of only a few. He's merely one of a very few with no males in the generations. Why does this newspaper say that ridiculous thing? It's because people are not making the distinction between DNA and mitochondrial DNA. This is why it matters. If people in general don't pay attention to these minutiae, then people in general start believing absurd things like Ibsen being Richard III's last descendant or last descendant of a sibling of Richard III. (And at that point you can no longer say "this isn't about Richard III"). I would have thought an aim of an encyclopedia is to prevent just that, the profusion of misinformation. And no, I don't want people to discuss the legal use of DNA. (But of course I want people to discuss the legal (and illegal) use of mitochondrial DNA.)
 * What IS it with you people? If you're going to respond, why not put in "Oh, I see, that's right. We'll edit this to eliminate any possible confusion between DNA and mitochondrial DNA. Sorry. Good catch, Chris." And if you're not going to respond with THAT, with COMPLIANCE, why respond at all? If you really don't care, what's the use of TELLING me that you don't care? Just say nothing so that I don't have to post again to defend the posting of my original complaint. Just let it die. Why drag me into a fight?69.86.131.77 (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
 * If you don't have the decency to create an account here you are a list of numbers and nothing more. If you really don't care, what's the use of TELLING me that you don't care? You are talking rubbish. The newspapers that said Mr Ibsen was a descendent of Richard were just making a simple mistake, an easy one to make. It has nothing to do with DNA mDNA or even MDMA. This page reports using standard terminology. If you really do care about that you'd take it to the appropriate pages instead of leaving your spit-flecked rantings here. Paul B (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You say the newspapers made a simple mistake that's easy to make. But it's NOT merely a typo. It's a mistake that followed logically from their ignorance of the distinction between mitochondrial DNA and DNA. It's a mistake that wouldn't have occurred if the public vocabulary maintained an awareness of the distinction. Encyclopedias are useful tools, if THEY maintain that distinction, for maintaining that distinction in the public mind. If the distinction is not built into our vocabularly then vast numbers of people will believe, for intance, that a person born singleton has mitochondrial DNA that uniquely identifies that person.69.86.131.77 (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson


 * Dear Christopher L. Simpson, if you wish to make constructive contributions (at the appropriate place) you may find that your position is strengthened if you create an editor account. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I won't. I will explain if you leave this I.P. address one of those messages.69.86.131.77 (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
 * Why not? Which messages? Both this page and that are equally public - did you not realise? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure he needs to go as far as that; just taking a little water with it would probably help  Basket Feudalist 15:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I always take my MDMA on the rocks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What is MDMA? I've checked en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Alphabet_soup and it's not listed.69.86.131.77 (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)XTopher "Chris" l. simpson
 * Boom Boom! Basket Feudalist 15:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * To be serious (just for a moment), there is or has been more than one distinct editor using this same IP address (bizarrely, someone else who has also chosen to reveal their full name), so he is only stirring up trouble for himself by declining to create an account. Deb (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My Internet-service-provider rotates I.P. addresses from one subscriber to the other. Any I.P. address from which I send at any one time might be different from the one over which I sent something the day before, if they just changed it, but I think it should be the same for many months on end.69.86.131.77 (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
 * You live in an apartment block, which is bound to increase the risk. But it's your risk.  I wonder what the legal position is? Deb (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that mtDNA is not DNA, it may not be autosomal DNA but it is still a type of DNA. However, I don't see the harm in being as clear as possible in this article and the exhumation article what type of DNA we are currently talking about pending the Y-DNA analysis which is not as easy to do or as helpful due to the potential of non-paternal events. I don't understand why people complain instead of fixing things. Wikipedia doesn't write itself. WP:SOFIXIT HelenOnline (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Forgot to say I fixed it already. HelenOnline (talk) 11:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a total non-issue and the anon who has raised it just has some bizarre bee in his bonnet and is best ignored. HelenOnLine's recent edit has made it clear it's mtDNA. It's perfectly acceptable and conventional to refer to mtDNA analysis as a "DNA test". Everyone should just move on - the anon's postings amount to little more than trolling at this point. DeCausa (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Perfectly acceptable and conventional"? It's "perfectly acceptable and conventional" to refer to "the Nobel Prize in Economics". Doesn't mean there is such a thing. Perhaps the crux is that I see encyclopedias as correctives to "acceptable and conventional", which is something they can't be if their own standards are BASED on "acceptable and conventional".69.86.131.77 (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
 * The crux is your personal predilections are not relevant to anything here and are of no interest. DeCausa (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Classic. Homer J Simpson... you got yourself some competition!!! Basket Feudalist 13:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Reburial in Leicester or York???
In the info box it states that "Burial: Greyfriars, Leicester (reburial to be Leicester Cathedral in 2014)". Isn't thin in violation of WP:FUTURE as the reburial hasn't happened yet, also especially as the City of York will contest this therefore how do we know for certain that this will be the place of the reburial? This is now going to be the subject of debate, saying in the infobox that his reburial will be at Leicester Cathedral in 2014 as opposed to York Minster is also a WP:POV issue. I say we refrain from stating in the infobox where the reburial will be until it is 100% certain. IJA (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The licence under which the body was exhumed specifies Leicester Cathedral as the place of reinterment. See for the specific wording. Prioryman (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to specify it as one of three possible places, including ".. a burial ground in which interments may legally take place"? Does that exclude York Minster? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I agree - we should put "(proposed)" or something to make it clear. Deb (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I heard on the BBC News last night that York Minster had made a formal request to have the remains re-interred there. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You can have your say on UK government e-petitions for Leicester or York. I see that the Leicester petition was created by "Roy Shakespeare", so I suspect a continuing Tudor anti-Yorkist plot. DNA tests should be demanded to determine whether he is a member of the notorious Richard-defaming dynasty. Paul B (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * York is in an overwhelming lead at the moment, I see. Thanks for pointing us to that link. Deb (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yea, but it's been up for longer. The Leicester on was created in response to it. Paul B (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This seems like an unprecedented leap for democracy. Even worthy of inclusion in the article. Can we nominate a few politicians to join him? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * love the York petition...because he was "fond of York"! There's got to be a Richard III's preferred place of burial article in it. DeCausa (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * How about adding one in favour of having his ashes scattered in the River Soar? Deb (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "There let him sink, and be the seas on him!
 * How White-liver'd runagate, what doth he there?"
 * (lol, re-interment seebs, init bro') Martinevans123 (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(Reset) Perhaps this discussion could be continued on the Richard III wiki (and could someone sort out the references at the end of the article on RIII himself there please). Jackiespeel (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I have started on the wiki mentioned above, so the subject can be discussed as it develops, and be summarised on WP. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a spelling error in reference 97
'Doubt' is 'douby'. Small thing, but I thought I'd mention it anyway.114.75.35.13 (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed thanks HelenOnline (talk) 07:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Parliamentary appearance
Just in case you hadn't heard..... Gosh these witty politicians, eh? One wouldn't see that kind of a cheap jibe in the earnest debate of a Wikipedia Talk Page, would one. Frankly I'm outraged. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Although fair play on taking the p*ss out of ATOS, who need to be nailed to the wall at every opportunity. On a lighter note, at least they didn't start banging on about mDNA  Basket Feudalist 16:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there's a standing select sub-committee for that. Does parliamentary mention merit inclusion in the article (or perhaps over at Exhumation of Richard III of England)? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose strictly anything that gets 'discussed' at Excetuve level is worthy of inclusion, even though it was really just an excuse for levity-? Even so... Basket Feudalist 16:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll add a note on the Talk Page over there. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you could... I won't... anyone who can't spell Executive shouldn't be allowed near a Talk Page  Basket Feudalist 16:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Nor anyone who didn't even notice! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not to mention "interment". Deb (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and apparently, "he may have talked with a West Midlands twang": Martinevans123 (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That is interesting. Whilst I have every respect for that type of research, I find it hard to figure out why he would have spoken like that rather than, say, like someone from Middleham or York.  The family did have big estates in the Marches but I can't see that even Richard senior would have picked up that particular accent. Deb (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware his "brummie" accent is just a journalistic way of describing speech patterns a scholar has speculatively deduced from his spelling tics (it's a common technique when recreating what Shakespeare, Chaucer etc would have sounded like to early audiences). It's not that Richard was influenced by vernacular West Midlands lingo, just that's the nearest modern speech - at least in the mind of some publicity person - to a 15th century northern noble. Paul B (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What a let down. I had already imagined Benny's "Now is the winter of our disco-tent, Mrs. Richardson...." But I think you are quite right. Probably a bit too speculative for the article. If only he'd left us a voice-mail. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Being the brilliant and utterly immaculate character that he was, I imagine he has done so and we just haven't found it yet. It probably says, "It's a fair cop". Deb (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Radio 4's 'Broadcasting House' got Noddy Holder to read one of the letters Richard wrote, which he did very impressively. RobinLeicester (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Who thesedays, ironically enough, looks like he's been buried under tarmac for some time. Basket Feudalist 17:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sadly Noddy's version seems to be no longer available, but you can hear the scholarly reconstruction, somewhat lacking in Noddy's glam-rock charisma. He still sounds a bit slurry though. One too many in the Shaved Boar Tavern down Walsall way, probably. Paul B (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Are we sure it was actually one of his letters anyway? Bet it was a Morton/More forgery  Basket Feudalist 17:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Noddy's career could do with a fillip. I wonder what the chances are of him releasing it as a single? Deb (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Has he had a hit since 1483? Paul B (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * All is not lost. Noddy's rendition (letter and Shakespeare) is at, 28.30 minutes in. RobinLeicester (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What's next, one wonders...
 * Gudbuy T'Jasper?
 * My Friend Baron Stan?
 * Get Ashdown-Hill and Get With It?
 * Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe it's a duet with P. Langley: Mama Weer All Ricardians Now. Deb (talk) 10:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

GA?
Has this ever been nominated? If not, it would still be interesting to have the faults identified via a Review, even though it would undoubtedly fail. Basket Feudalist 16:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * And....? Basket Feudalist 12:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure it would fail, too, but I still would like to know how to go about improving it. Is it permissible to nominate an article for GA even though we are all pretty sure it will fail?  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll be honest, I don't believe it can ever achieve that status, simply because it is permanently under pressure from contributors who epitomise the saying "A little learning is a dangerous thing". It's virtually impossible to maintain NPOV. Deb (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As epitomised by you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.245.164 (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I wonder if this IP geolocates to Barnet. Paul B (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't think so - it's probably someone whose articles I've deleted some time back. Or maybe more than one - London's a big place with lots of semi-literate people in it.  :-)

Confusing Sentence Structures
There are a number of confounding sentences in this article. Admittedly, I know little of this monarch which is why I read the Wiki page. This article is not easy to understand for the unaquainted. This does happen to be the most poorly written Wikipedia entry I've seen to date.

Here is a good example:

"So, for a second time in his youth, Richard was forced to seek refuge in the Low Countries, which were then part of the realm of the Duchy of Burgundy, where in 1468 his sister Margaret had become the wife of Charles the Bold. Only 18 years old, Richard played crucial roles in the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury[11] that resulted in Edward's restoration to the throne in spring 1471."

Sentences or segments such as that read as if the composer was far too interested in spewing knowledge that he/she stopped to consider whether the audience had any prior knowledge or need to know extraneous details beyond the immediate subject matter. What does the location where Margaret married Charles have to do with finding out about Richard III? How does this advance our understanding? If it does, why does it? And, if it comes into play later, how is it tied in?

I found the rest of the article fine to read, but the top couple of sections were exhausting and frustrating as a reader. It was, to some extent, incomprehensible.

I would appreciate someone with some skill, knowledge, and time cleaning up this article.

Geoff918 (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Mmm, well, I read this bit ("the Duchy of Burgundy, where in 1468 his sister Margaret had become the wife of Charles") as an explanation of why Richard was seeking refuge there - in other words, his sister was the wife of the person who ruled it, so it's far from irrelevant, although I can see that for someone who doesn't know anything about the period, it might not be self-explanatory. Incidentally, are you aware of the existence of the Simple English wikipedia?  You might find simple:Richard_III_of_England an easier read. Deb (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The sentences in question have wikilinks for key names etc. The reader has to put a bit of effort in to read the links to understand. Life is tough. As far as the English is concerned, i don't see any problem with the second sentence. The first sentence is slighly convoluted but I don't think any special knowledge of the topic (having followed the wikilinks) is needed to improve that. Therefore, Geoff918: WP:SOFIXIT. DeCausa (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think I'm responsible for that sentence, and my ability to write "Two-Times The Duchy of Burgundy" is well known  Basket Feudalist 12:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've already made a few minor amendments to your wording. If you remember, I checked all the content in your sandbox before you uploaded it to the article, so I'm equally responsible.  But we knew it wasn't perfect.  It's a sad fact that, however well one writes, ambiguities will always creep in, and it's a particular problem when US readers are trying to read British English and vice versa.  For example, I only discovered through wikipedia that "professors", in other countries, don't have the high academic status they have in the UK, and also that, when Americans "protest" things, they mean they are protesting against them rather than confirming them! Deb (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for addressing my concerns. I was not previously acquainted with the Simple English Wiki. I failed to be "bold in editing" because I'm unfamiliar with the subject matter outside of Wikipedia itself. Therefore, my sourcing would be poor (Wikipedia verifying Wikipedia). I suppose my question relates more to the question of audience. I'm usually fairly familiar with any Wikipedia topic I look up. In this case, the subject matter is outside of my purview. I'm woefully ignorant of Richard III and found the content to be difficult to get a simple, good overview of his life. I appreciate the quick response from the contributors to this Wiki entry. As a community, I find it impressive. Geoff918 (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Over categorization?
Why was Paul Barlow's edit reversed? The categories seem to be accurate and relevant. Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that's what happened, but "Dukes of Gloucester" is already a subcategory of "Dukes in the Peerage of England" so it was a kind of duplication. It's normal practice to remove the more general category when that happens. Deb (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Head reconstruction
His head is now off on tour, so if people can go along and take their cameras with them we can consider replacing the profile image. Personally I think it would be rather good to have it here as the profile, or at least on Exhumation of Richard III of England. -- wintonian  talk  04:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. That would not only be the most accurate depiction of Richard, but also a notable one, since photographs of the reconstruction of his head have been published and seen by many. In fact, I am fairly certain that most people already think of that head reconstruction when they think of him. Surtsicna (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thinking a bit further ahead (no pun intended) I reckon it could be nominated for WP:TFP when we get a good one, I can't see how it would not meet the crteria at WP:FPC namely; "images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well,". -- wintonian  talk  12:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll be monitoring Flickr, in case someone uploads it there. Surtsicna (talk) 13:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Give us a heads up, bro. Basket Feudalist 13:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * let's face it, it's all a bit of skullduggery... Martinevans123 (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. I wouldn't want'ya to get shocked. Surtsicna (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A very good idea. Except that no-one will never know if it really looks like him or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Tis the spit.. --Elizabeth Woodville
 * Isn't it very likely that it resembles him more than the 1520's portrait does? The reconstruction is based on CT scans and photographs of his skull. I am not sure what the portrait was based on. Surtsicna (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we can all be sure that the head is exactly the right size and shape. But I think we're all still relying on the portraits to show us that he didn't have green skin, scales and a teardrop tattoo. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Or a hunch and withered arm I guess classic one-liner anove, ME, luvved it!  Basket Feudalist 14:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hobsons choice
Did Richard have much choice in taking the throne? Edward the V was a protegee of the Woodvilles and sooner or later the Woodvilles would have turned Edward against Richard to eliminate a serious political rival. AT Kunene (talk) 09:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * There's no evidence that the Woodvilles had any plans to "eliminate" Richard, though it's highly likely that his power would have been curtailed. He was, in effect, running a quasi-independent kingdom of his own in the north. Of course once he arrested Rivers and Grey and told young Edward they were "traitors", he was nominally relying on the support of Edward for his actions. If Edward had expressed unqualified approval, it's possible that Richard would not have felt the need to remove him, but since Edward clearly sympathised with his mother's family, it would probably be only a matter of time before the young king felt secure enough to turn against Richard. At that point Richard's options were limited. That's not exactly an excuse for killing a load of people on trumped up charges and secretly murdering children. Paul B (talk) 10:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree, his options were limited. That's one of the strongest arguments for his having had his nephews "removed".Deb (talk) 11:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You are historians... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.130.111 (talk) 09:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Notwithstanding WP:CURRENT etc...
Interesting link re: Towton. PB can get us a photo!

Basket Feudalist 14:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Thanks for the link.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * And I never even knew he'd lost one! Deb (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Elvis... Crying in the Chapel [[Image:Shade.png|20px]]  Basket Feudalist 17:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Crookback Dick?
So, any evidence one way or the other to settle the argument about whether he did indeed have a hunchback, one shoulder higher than the other, etc. etc. Paul Magnussen (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, you could read the article. Paul B (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Mea culpa. I missed it first time through. Paul Magnussen (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Blimey! -are these articles actually for reading?!?!?! Basket Feudalist 09:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Any truth to the story that he often used a heavy mace in battle, which caused one of his arms to be quite a bit more developed than the other--hence, the hunchback legend? --The_Iconoclast (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a myth that was invented by the RIII society to explain the sources, which said that one of his shoulders was higher than the other. It also helps to create the impression that he was some sort of warrior-hunk. The discovery of his body proved it was nonsense. Of course if it were true, it wouldn't just apply to him but to any warrior, so it was never really a plausible explanation of why he was said to have this abnormality. The claim used to be on an FAQ at the RIII Society website. I don't suppose it's there anymore. Paul B (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, the RIII Soc used have a lot stuff on their website about how he couldn't possibly have been a "hunch-back"/one shoulder-above-the-other etc because he wouldn't have fitted into armour, fought in battle etc etc Now it just says "Was Richard deformed? The stories of Richard's deformities emerged after his death. A contemporary record by a Silesian knight, who visited Richard in 1484, gives no indication of any deformity but declares he had 'a great heart'. Other men who had seen Richard told the historian John Stow that he was 'comely enough' but of low stature. It has now been confirmed that Richard suffered from scoliosis and that his right shoulder was higher than his left. Tudor propaganda used his 'deformity' to 'prove' his guilt in committing the crimes of which he was accused. In those times it was believed that a deformed body meant the mind was also deformed and evil." It always struck me that the latter accusation was as much applicable to the RIII Soc as to Tudor propagandists in an inverted sort of way. DeCausa (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Everyone's keeping rather quiet about the skeleton's other features, too - the "gracile" nature of his bones, implying a, well, rather feminine appearance. Deb (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Whodunnit?
Interesting interview in the latest BBC History magazine with Philippa Langley and Michael Jones. He admits to thinking that Richard probably did murder the princes in the Tower! Deb (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Difficult to see how that conclusion can be arrived at, without evidence...

Freedom1968 (talk) 05:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There's quite a lot of evidence. Paul B (talk) 09:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

There's absolutely none, not a single shred. All we know is that there was no further mention of the princes in history. The usurping Tudors, the most evil dynasty in English history, are an extremely unreliable source about their enemies, especially those with more legitimate rights to the throne.

You mean like: DNA samples, fingerprints, sworn statements, eye witnesses, valid confessions, bodies? I don't think there is. There is rumour, hearsay and theorizing - but that isn't evidence. Freedom1968 (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course rumor, hearsay and inference are evidence. For instance, all historical chronicles are hearsay by definition. Without these sources it would be very hard to come with any historical analysis at all. The historian's job is not to secure a conviction in a court of law, it is to try to piece together a narrative of the most likely train of events, making it clear what doubts exist. --John Price (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That's exactly the reply I expected. And it's a completely silly argument, because you are making the mistake of comparing history to current-day court-cases. The evidence is of the same type that exists in almost every other historical example. By your logic there is no "evidence" that Brutus and Cassius killed Julius Caesar, since all we have is "hearsay": third-party reports of events. And yet no historian doubts it happened. Of course if Brutus and Cassius could be transported to the present day and put on trial the case would be dismissed, since none of the evidence that exists would be valid for a prosecution, but that's irrelevant to the assessment of historians, who can never expect that sort of evidence, and it's absurd to suggest that they should. Paul B (talk) 10:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Really? I don't think so. You think Brutus and Cassius would have got off scot-free if tried in a modern court? Let's see:

a) They admitted killing Caesar, indeed where proud of it (valid confession - n.b unlike in the case of the princes). b) All the Senators present on the day not only saw them do it but happily joined in as well (valid witnesses - unlike in the case of the princes). c) Caesar's bloody corpse was left on the Senate floor (a body - n.b unlike in the case of the princes). d) Octavian and Antony chased Cassius and Brutus halfway across the Roman world until they were killed. Not a very friendly act for fellow Senators, unless of course you had pissed them off badly in some manner (valid motive - unlike in the case of the princes).

So that seems pretty definitive to me and to other historians. We know all this, not just because of Shakespeare who sourced a lot of his "historic" plays, including "Richard III" (you know the one about the malevolent hunchback King?), on classical sources, but because reputable and contemporary Roman historians also recorded these events.

Now, were Richard III tried in a modern day court in England (or Scotland) I think that a modern day prosecution would have great difficulty in making a credible case. If the "bones" of the "princes" were DNA tested and found to be real EVEN then all that could be established was that both princes had disappeared, PRESUMED dead, NOT that they died in Richard's custody or EVEN during his reign.

There remains the question of the "confession" of Sir James Tyrell. Tyrell was arrested in 1501, tried in 1502 for treason and executed in 1504. If Henry VII had known he was the murderer or implicated in it, why wait for 16 years and in the meantime give Tyrell positions of responsibility? A jury and prosecution would have great difficulty finding Tyrell culpable of anything (bar treason for rebellion) from his "confession" - if indeed there was one as we only have Sir Thomas More's word there was one - for Tyrell was said to have stated he didn't even know where the bodies were. That would have been the time to reveal the location as that just might have earned him a less hideous death from Henry VII.

I am not a member of the Richard III society, but I do admire the way that they refused to accept the "historic/traditional" accounts of the fate of Richard's body. Which begs a question anyone interested in the fate of princes must continue to ask, why don't we go back to the "evidence" as it exists and test that, that is those bones? A test on those bones will almost certainly lead to a new perspective whatever the results. Until then, and however much fun theorizing is, it is not going to get us any nearer to the truth. Freedom1968 (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a truly spectacular example of double-think. First you assert that "DNA samples, fingerprints, sworn statements, eye witnesses, valid confessions, bodies" count, in your mind, as "evidence". There are none of those things in the case of Caesar. None whatever. There are no "confessions" of Brutus and Cassius in existence. There are only reports written decades later by people who narrate events - i.e. hearsay. If they were transported to the present day and chose to deny their actions you are living in cloud-cuckoo land if you think they could be convicted, because there is no evidence whatever that would be useable in a court of law. The evidence against Richard is of the type that historians use - knowledge of the cultural and political context; the previous behaviour of kings who had their deposed predecessors in captivity; the timeline; the bones that were discovered; the evidence of contemporaries. Of course, none of this is cast-iron proof, but it is historical evidence. And by the way, the RIII society were not the ones who challenged the supposedly "traditional" account of the loss of Richard's body. That was David Baldwin (historian). Paul B (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well that's a first, so Caesar's murder is myth? So every Historian, ancient and modern has got it wrong and you are the only one to know what really happened? Is that part of the technique you claim Historians have which allows you to state that Richard III was a child killer? If people say Richard III was evil and deformed he must have been right, people don't lie or indulge in character assassination do they? Ah no! it must be the "bones" you quote..the bones NO ONE has yet been able to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt are those of the princes, but which you seem to infer are the real deal.

Freedom1968 (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It was the Butler, in the Library, with a Candlestick. More seriously, I admire the Richard III Society's efforts over the decades to convince the world he wasn't a 'crookback' devil and it was all part of a fiendish re-write of history. This, in turn, may have influenced the interpretation of evidence on the murders. But one out of two is now ashes, so far, and the second continues to have some merit (it always did). Sources on the 'alleged' murder do need to be considered in terms of pre & post skeleton discovery - if it wasn't a bad PR job 'back then', maybe the facts do stand alone. Sources are likely to revisit this over time, and so should the article, as sources become available. AnonNep (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I doubt that there will ever be anything but circumstantial evidence. Having said that, I also doubted that they would ever find Richard III's body!  And I certainly wasn't expecting the hunchback story to be proved correct! Deb (talk) 12:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that we will probably not ever have anything but circumstantial evidence (which, ironically, is what makes this topic so fascinating!). At any rate, with regards to his "hunchback", I suppose it depends on what one means by the term.  Scientifically, however, archeologists say he didn't have a hunchback.  The last paragraph of the article in the link says,


 * Richard III – not a hunchback- The University of Leicester archaeologists have made clear that the remains thought to be Richard III did not have a condition known as kyphosis. This is the curving of the spine that would have caused a bowing or rounding of the back, causing a hunchback appearance. Generally speaking, kyphosis is a forward curvature of the spine, whereas scoliosis is a curve from side to side and doesn’t result in a hump.


 * And back in the middle ages, a hunchback, or any deformity was considered a sign that a person was morally corrupt, which is hardly a scientific claim. That's my $0.02.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's true that, technically, according to the medical definition we use today, he wasn't a hunchback. But by any contemporary definition he was.  Even Philippa Langley admits this now.Deb (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...I didn't know that. Thanks.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The only piece of "evidence" that remotely comes close to discovering what really happened are the "bones" of the "princes" "discovered" during Charles II reign at the tower. In the unlikely scenario of the current monarch ever giving permission for modern DNA tests to be done on them, we are still most unlikely to know anything more than a) The princes were imprisoned in the tower in 1483 b) That they were never conclusively heard of again. Even if any DNA test showed a near match it would never be able to determine the exact order of events, cause of death or murderer/murderers. For the sake of historical completeness it would be interesting to find them, just as the search for the body of Richard III was, but I fear the odds are heavily stacked against all efforts. Freedom1968 (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, the odds are indeed stacked heavily against. However, here is one scenario that can vindicate R3.  Take DNA samples on E4, Elizabeth Woodville, and the bones of the children found in the 17th century (good luck on that since QE2 doesn't seem to be inclined to permit it).  Compare with E4 and EW.  If not a match, find the burial place of Perkin Warbeck (good luck on that since the Nazi's bombed the crap out of his grave in WW2) and then take a sample of his DNA.  Compare with E4 and EW and if a match, then R3 didn't murder them (at least not the younger one, Richard).  If that turns out to be the case, then H7 is indeed the killer.  But, like I said, the likelihood of all those requirements taking places mean we'll most likely never know, one way or the other.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Re Perkin Warbeck burial place. Not sure that is factually accurate, as he suffered a traitors death which meant hanging (but not until dead), drawing (dragged to the execution table) and quartering (chopped up into four parts with the head placed on the gate on London Bridge. Persons executed in that manner tended not to get a grave, and I suspect that no trace of the body would ever be found. Though that said after Cromwell's posthumous execution his head did eventually get saved so maybe somewhere someone has a piece of Warbeck squirrelled away in a dusty attic!

Did you ever get around to reading "The Winter King"? what did you think about it? Freedom1968 (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. I got through 2/3 of the book before giving up.  It's not that his prose wasn't good.  It was good.  It was that he skipped around too much.  I was looking for a book that would take his life sequentially.  So I picked up Yale English Monarchs - Henry VII (The English Monarchs Series) by S. B. Chrimes.

RE Bill the Cat 7: There is one very significant argument against the bones being the remains of "the princes in the tower" - they were buried ten feet (ca.3,5 metres) under the ground level of 1674 directly in front of a flight of stairs in a highly frequented part of the tower. It is impossible nobody would have noticed the digging. --79.193.88.163 (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It's impossible nobody would have noticed the murder! It doesn't follow that they recorded what they saw or that their account survives. Deb (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Phillipa Langley
Reverted an edited that said Philippa Langley had 'dedication and determination'. Just noting that, first and foremost WP:BLP applies to everyone, including Philippa Langley, and I'm not saying she doesn't have those qualities but this kind of addition requires a source. (I checked the source following that addition and couldn't find either word). Without it, its using 'Wikipedia's voice' to say something which is arguably against WP:NPOV. Also, even if additions with sources can be found they may be more appropriate to expand her page than here (this is about Richard III not anyone associated with him, living or not). AnonNep (talk) 10:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely right! Deb (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

How about "passion, vision and determination". :)


 * ''“We will also acknowledge, as we always do, the role of the originator of the project, Philippa Langley, without whose passion, vision and determination the project may never have happened, together with the work of John Ashdown-Hill in identifying one of the living descendants of Richard III’s family and David Baldwin who correctly predicted in published work in 1986 that the remains of the last Plantagenet king might be found on the site of the Grey Friary during the 21st century.”

However, I do agree it belongs more in her article rather than here. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hunchback Distinction Revert
I just noticed that Paul Barrow reverted an IP edit making a distinction between kyphosis and scoliosis. Was there something wrong with that edit (no explanation for the revert was given)? Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I reverted it because it was in the wrong place and it interrupted the flow of the text. The section is about cultural depictions, not about the specific condition he in fact had. In any case, "hunchback" (and "bunchback") are not scientific terms. The form of scoliosis he had may well have expressed itself in some form of protuberance-like effect . Of course Shakespeare couldn't be expected to know what exact condition he had. He's just using the historical sources that existed at the time. But since he (obviously) never says he had kyphosis rather than scoliosis, I don't think it's appropriate to "correct" Shakespeare in this way. Of course the nature of his condition could be expanded in the biography section, and I think comment could be made about how his alleged deformities seem to increase over time - though that would have to sourced. Paul B (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Good call. Thank you.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

End of the Middle Ages in England
currently the article says
 * "His defeat at Bosworth Field, the decisive battle of the Wars of the Roses, is sometimes regarded as the end of the Middle Ages in England."

which obviously encourages the retort why say "sometimes" and not "often"? I suggest that either the wording is altered to remove that type of POV.

One alternative is to use the term "traditional" as is done by Helen Cooper (2006) p. 4 "traditional end of the English Middle Ages at the battle of Bosworth"
 * "His defeat at Bosworth Field, the decisive battle of the Wars of the Roses, is traditionally used to mark the end of the Middle Ages in England."

But I suggest that the wording is modified to use that by English Heritage in their article on "Bosworth Battlefield"
 * "The battle symbolised the end of the Middle Ages in England and was a watershed moment in the history of England and Wales."

Then Wikipedia lead would read:
 * "His defeat at Bosworth Field, the decisive battle of the Wars of the Roses, symbolises the end of the Middle Ages in England."

This gets away from quantifying how many or how much as the current wording forces one to do "sometimes" "often" etc which carry far more of a POV than symbolised. -- PBS (talk) 11:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There are very few occasions on which it is clear exactly when 'one period ends and the next begins'; most transitions take more than a day and quite often it is only somewhat after the even that the pivot point is clear. (Did 'the Nuclear Age' begin in early August 1945 - or when it was decided to construct and maintain nuclear bombs in general?) Jackiespeel (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that the present wording is a bit dodgy. I would personally prefer "traditionally regarded" with the reference quoted rather than "symbolises", which is inexact and itself rather POV. Deb (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Better still, just delete it. It's a very Ladybird History concept. No serious modern historian would have any truck with it (and none are in the linked to searches). DeCausa (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Obviously no historian, serious or trivial, believes that the "Middle Ages" magically ended with the death of Richard, but it is a common reference point and there are many sources for it. There are major changes that happen under Henry, cultural, economic and social that usher in what we call the "Early Modern" and/or "Renaissance". No doubt many of those would have happened under Richard if he had won, so we would not have a clear emblematic 'moment'. But as it is, we do. I'm OK with symbolises, precisely because it's an emblematic moment that also fits with popular ideas of the "Medieval" (murderous warlords with private armies, superstition etc) being replaced by the "modern" (centrally run nation-state etc). Paul B (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't like "symbolises" much, because Henry's accession doesn't really "symbolise" the end of the Middle Ages, it just marks it. To symbolise it, it would have to (to quote just one dictionary definition) "express [the end of the Middle Ages] indirectly by an image, form, or model".  I don't really think it does that: you don't think of 1485 and think, "Ah yes, the end of the Middle Ages" in the way you hear of 1066 and think "Ah yes, the start of the Norman period".  I realise this is a fine point.  Deb (talk) 13:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the problem with "symbolises" is that it conflates representation with reality. Technically, a "symbol" of something is by definition not the thing itself. I suppose it's a synecdoche, since the battle marks a regime change in which the houses of "Plantagenet" and "Tudor" function as metonyms for "Medieval" and "Renaissance". But to put it like that would be way too convoluted! It's not uncommon to use 'symbolises' to stand for the more obscure term synecdoche in this way, e.g. "Florence as a city symbolises the Renaissance". Also, there is a genuinely symbolic aspect to this. Richard kind-of represents the "medieval" in his popular/literary persona as twisted, back-stabbing warlord, in contrast to the more bland and bureaucratic Henry. I guess an alternative would be "epitomises". It's not the same thing as the Norman period, or the Victorian period, which are defined by specific moments. It's more an emblematic event that roughly lines up with the concepts of Medieval and Renaissance in a way that's unique to English history, but would not apply elsewhere. In 1485 Erasmus is 19; Michelangelo is 10; Leonardo da Vinci is 32. It's a transition moment around Europe in which the Renaissance is coming to fruition. It just so happens that in England this moment maps onto a dynastic change, so the battle comes to represent that cultural shift. Paul B (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

(Reset) The transition period for Europe is probably 'from the end of Christian Constantinople and the development of printing to the first voyage round the world and the 95 theses' - so perhaps William Caxton to Henry VII's trade agreements. What do others think? Jackiespeel (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1492Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  17:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * To 'the average hardworking townsperson and field working peasant' little would change in the short term - apart from the face on the coins and to some extent 'the present persons to whom taxes are paid.' They might well see 'here is an example of this newfangled printing' and 'Byzantium endures no more' (double reference intended) as more significant. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

FA?
A date for the burial has been announced: March 26, 2015. It'd be really nice if we could have this at FA quality by then, and frontpage it.... DS (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it even at GA yet? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  15:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No, it's not, so I nominated it simply to get some input if it doesn't pass. In my opinion, this article needs two more things.  First, a clear distinction between scoliosis and kephosis such that readers are made aware that the Shakespearean portrayal is not accurate.  And add a picture of the two so people can see the difference.  Second, it would be really nice if we can find a picture of his reconstructed head.  Not sure if it is available yet, though.  That's my $0.02.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * An image of scoliosis might be twisting the article a bit? But I think kephosis as well might give quite a few readers the hump. Just a hunch of course. (Seriously, one image might be good). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Since Shakespeare never says he had "kephosis", I don't see why that would prove anything about the "Shakespearean portrayal". The reconstructed head is in copyright, of course, though it might be useable per freedom of panorama, if it were photographed in context. Neither of those things are, IMO, important for good article status as they are marginal to main determinants of quality in an article about an historical individual - a good account of his life and its significance. Paul B (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to imply that "Shakespeare said...", as if he were an historian. It's that his play, as performed for the last few hundred years depicts him with severe deformities which we now know are not true.  For, example, here and here.  Also, I don't think the pictures mentioned above are necessary for GA but I do think they would be necessary in an FA.  It's not every day we get to see the real face of a medieval king.  At any rate, I hope we can get several people to review it because I don't think this article has very far to go to become an FA.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The possibly real face of a medieval king... acc. the BBC, the reconstruction is how he "may have looked." Just saying! Fortuna  Imperatrix Mundi  18:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * All WS left us was the text. Hard to know how contemporary productions were staged. And so hard to know exactly how deformed he intended Richard to appear. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC) "The remains found in a Leicester car park have been confirmed to be those of Richard III. Closer examination has revealed that he wasn't a hunchback at all. It appears the claims may have originated simply because he was buried under a disabled space."

Richard III - The New Evidence
Interesting video for those who are interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDHDvnnK4nI&feature=youtu.be

Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * If you are in the UK it can't be seen on Youtube, but can be seen at the Channel 4 website . Paul B (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Until 4 September anyway (note: if you run AdBlocker, you may need to tweak). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I must admit that having to watch the advert for vagisil four times was a bit too much for me. Paul B (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * ROFL!! Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, If I'd only known, I would have bought shares in it... Fortuna  Imperatrix Mundi  18:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm really not sure that Richard had much use for products like that. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure I'm getting the 'Vagisil' joke. Would it be funnier if there were ads for condoms: small, extra small & wikipedian? AnonNep (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Once a knight, always a knight", I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Where's the Spanish Infanta...?! Fortuna  Imperatrix Mundi  18:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you mean my mate Miriam Margolyes? (Just realised I can't link to the Facebook page photo of me sitting next to her.) Deb (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Possible
Dougweller has added the word "possible" to the heading. I don't see how this is useful. Firstly it's uninformative, since no more information is given (and anyway they weren't "possible remains", they were real remains). But mainly, the argument presented by the scholars quoted are vague. 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 otder to make it official. Hicks's view could be included in the section. Paul B (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I read that article the other day and I must say that my respect for Hicks has diminished considerably. This is going to hurt his reputation too.  His comments, as you said above PB, are pointless.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure you are right about the grammar issue, I don't interpret that as meaning that they were possibly remains. They are possible "remains of Richard". Here's the Guardian's take. It would certainly be nice to see the official report. I know theses things take time but for something this sensational I would have liked to have seen something sooner. It's obvious that there are strong feelings about this. I tagged Exhumation of Richard III of England as NPOV because of the title and my tag was immediately removed as potentially offensive to the article's editors (which is ridiculous as this only happened in the last few days and up until then there was no question about the title) and also because the only thing the critics cast doubt upon was their reputations. I don't think we can assert this as established fact anymore. Dougweller (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you feel that Hicks and Biddle's comments make any difference to the likelihood of the remains being Richard's? I have to say it looks to me like attention-seeking on their part, or maybe the media making a mountain out of a molehill. Deb (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Re Section: Discovery of Remains. A suggestion. It reads "Forensic pathologist, Dr Stuart Hamilton stated that this injury would have left the King's brain visible ...," with another later reference to "the King." As the paragraph is still building evidence for this wretch being Richard, shouldn't it still read "the subject" or "the skeleton" at this point, so as not to jump to the conclusion and derail the argument? WHPratt (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

little choice
Richard may well have had little choice in usurping the throne. It is possibly while he was arranging his nephews coronation that he realised that the Woodville indoctrinated Edward would eventually turn on his uncle.

The nobility probably heaved a sigh of relief at Richards actions as the potential situation between Edward and Richard may well have led to a resumption of the Wars of the Roses. AT Kunene 123 (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, Are you the same person as AT Kunene? Deb (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yea, they heaved such a sigh of relief that there were almost immediate rebellions. Paul B (talk)
 * So true. He was such a good guy - who cares if he murdered a few people on his way to the top? Deb (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As I have said variously - if Richard had survived Bosworth he would have been regarded as 'just another medieval monarch, who supported the arts (and possibly exploration).' Compared to Cesare Borgia and Vlad the Impaler he was a good guy. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Compared to Adolf Hitler and Genghis Khan, Jack the Ripper is a good guy. It's not exactly much of an endorsement to say that some people were worse. Paul B (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * One has to compare like with like and consider Richard III in the context of his own times - and dealing abruptly with threats was a recognized component of ruling. Is there a WP page on 'medieval concepts of power and its maintenance' where this discussion should now decamp? Jackiespeel (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Was he a "saint"? Hardly.  However, compared to H2, John, or pretty much any of the Tudors, R3 doesn't fare badly.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No, at Wikipedia at the moment it'll be a choice between the Psychopathy Checklist and How to Win Friends and Influence People. But you could always create a stub. ;) AnonNep (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

(reset) The Borgias and Vlad were contemporaries - and some of the other rulers in the mid-late 15th century were 'robust in their actions': Richard did patronize the arts - and the good burghers did see fit to write that he was piteously slain and murdered to the great heaviness of the city.

Does this conversation belong here or here ? Jackiespeel (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The link (now corrected) is to keep this talk page from wandering too much from its intended purpose of discussing how to improve the actual article in discussions of 'Comparative good and bad monarchy in the Middle Ages' and similar interesting subjects (whether or not in the style of 1066 and All That. (Though such discussion will always take place on this page.) Jackiespeel (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Isananni
...seems determined to disrupt the article (again), and s/he refuses to discuss it here. A curious individual displaying occasional bouts of possessiveness it seems. The section on the age of the actors in comparison to R3's own age is impossible to source- those I added (and that are being reinserted) only make the point that a certain actor is in a certain show; not about his age relative to that of his subject. It also seems irrelevant to the notability of the subject himself- I suggest that it would be better of solely in the 'cultural depictions' article.Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  09:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Why "impossible", exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, too difficult for me anyway! I tried to source them yesterday, but sleeping on it, I realise they do not say what I thought they said- they report the fact of an actor in a series (etc) but not the pertinent point that that paragraph is making, viz the ages of the actors compared to R3 when he died. Which frankly seems a rather pointless comparison anyway- isn't that what actors do? (Change their appearance and our impressions of them?!) Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  09:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest a compromise along the lines of removing the references to Olivier, McKellan and Pacino, because their ages aren't sourced but their roles have been referenced in a para above; but keeping the section from 'In September' which is sourced? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  09:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If all the actors who have played Richard are noticeably older or younger than he was, the audience may well get a mistaken impression of him. Actors are very clever, of course, but sometimes physical attributes can distract. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Good one! Please insert that as a source immediately. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna  <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  10:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you two aren't careful, a Red Pen will be turning up here shortly to accuse you of original research and synthesis! :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deb (talk • contribs)
 * "Aye, we're all doomed, I tell you." Martinevans123 (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Accusing ME of possessiveness, Fortuna, is like the pot calling the kettle black, AND I was merely defending sensible entries other editors had made in the long past where I had merely improved on the references. All actors'names were linked to their wiki page or could be referenced and their age at the time of performance could be easily checked (should the reader NOT believe the entry) based on their date of birth, like I did in the case of Cumberbatch. I personally think the past editor who pointed out how the distortions in Richard III's mass perception also relied on the wrong age he had been made appear to have in Shakesperean performances (where Shakespeare actually does depict him far older than he his and have him kill the Duke of Somerset in one Henry VI, can't remember which part right now, when in reality he was 3 years old, quite a naughty boy mixed with Hercules...) had made s good point for a section called "In culture". On this assumption, I think reinstalling the actors'age issue would be relevant, however I agree the most important thing is that mention of the different performances is kept and the section is not depleted. I may not be so skilled with templates and talk pages, but I hope all editors and users can see my point in refusing those entries to be called irrelevant. Editor isananni 25 Nov 2014 12.40 Greenwich time


 * Is there any reason why your content could not just be included in the Cultural depictions article, where it would seem to be more relevant? Deb (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't have any major problem with the inclusion of this here, and I don't think the calculation of age should be an OR issue in itself. The alleged fact that actors are too often too old may be an OR issue, and it's doubtful whether it's very informative in any case. After all, in, for example, Olivier's Richard III film, Edward IV (died age 40) is played by Cedric Hardwicke (age 62) and The Duke of Buckingham (died aged 28) is played by Ralph Richardson (age 53). It very common for Shakespearean characters to be played by actors who are the "wrong" age, simply because they are classic roles that actors of all ages aspire to play. Paul B (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * But why would you want it in this article rather than the "cultural depictions"? Deb (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Did I say I did? I have no problem with it being either here or in the Cultural depictions one. Paul B (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Does that mean you agree it shouldn't be in both? Deb (talk) 14:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I personally have no problems in the actors'age issue being tackled in the "cultural depictions" provided it does not disappear since the editor who wrote the entry in the past had dedicated time and commitment to it and had made, imho, a good point. I do object at entries onesidedly being considered trivial or irrelevant as editor Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (nomen omen) called them simply because one user out of the thousands who visited the page and maybe gained from it suddenly thinks he/she is cleverer than all the others. Furthermore, the section had been almost completely depleted, I understand it MUST be shorter than the "cultural depictions" article, but IT cannot disappear either, if only for the sake of inviting people to discover more in the "cultural depictions" I suffered the same treatment with another entry (for the Childhood section) which I dared add only after I had researched for days and supported it with references that made it relevant to the specific section. Being harassed is always unpleasant, but even more so when you are working for free for the sake of sharing information with users who may not have thr means to access all the books I went through for a couple of sensible lines. If you feel the actors'age issue is preferably to be moved to the "cultural depictions" it sounds reasonable to me, but since I was not the one who took the liberty to delete this issue in the first place, I expect the editor responsible will take charge of reinstalling the issue there. Editor isananni, 25 nov 2014 14.20 Greenwich time
 * BTW the nomen is a quotation from Carmina Burana.Deb (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I knew the source for the very preposterous pen name "Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi", thank you. In exchange for the courtesy, may I remind you (I am sure you already knew), "nomen omen" is a Latin idiomatic phrase meaning "the name speaks for itself". Editor isananni, 25 nov 2914, 15.23 Greenwich time


 * You're implying this contributor is female, which I don't think is the case. Does your user name mean you are a nanny? Deb (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You mentioned the genre issue, I did not. I am implying that I think the choice of the pen name Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Latin for "Fate is emperor of the world" - empress actually, since "fate" or better Fortuna is female in Latin) might, just might, strenghten the impression this contributor thinks he/she can treat this space as his/her private realm, like the rest of the world possibly: can he/she? As for my user name, which I am not obliged to comment upon, the very fact that this thread was started under my user name instead of e.g. "Issues in "In culture" section" makes it clear that this contributor was more interested in a personal attack than in understanding how to solve the issues/contributing positively to the article. Must I assume you are backing up this contributor in personally attacking me by questioning my user name? Is that the real issue of this thread as the title (again, nomen omen) seems to be pointing at? If not, article related issues seem to have been dealt with already. Editor isananni, 25 nov 2014 16.16 Greenwich time
 * Ah-ha! Just as I thought - yet another example of the stiffling wiki Nanny state! (But I never knew that Ray was keen on Latin!? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh for heaven's sake, isananni, get a grip. Deb's comment was a joke. Obviously the name does not mean you are a nanny. It was intended to draw attention to the weakness of your own argument that one can extrapolate personalities from user names. To claim that that Deb was "personally attacking me by questioning my user name" not only misses the point, it demonstrates astounding double standards, since you have chosen to berate someone for having a username that means "Lady Luck Rules the World". I've no idea how you can deduce from that any claim that Wikipedia is the editor's private realm (and since Fortune is essentially the deification of luck or chance, that wouldn't even make sense). Is "Luck be a Lady Tonight" a song about controlling the world? Paul B (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * p.s. you could learn to sign your posts using tildes. That way we won't get messages such as the one dated "25 nov 2914". Your lucky year, perhaps. Paul B (talk) 19:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Be opposite all planets of good luck
 * To my proceedings, if, with pure heart's love,
 * Immaculate devotion, holy thoughts,
 * I tender not thy beauteous princely daughter!" Act IV, Sc. IV.
 * Martinevans123 (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Anyhow, I've moved the content and all are welcome to check that I've got the latest versions of everything. Deb (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Referrals, consistency and general contributors' transparency
Talking about disruptions and possessiveness, user Fortuna  has been removing referral brakets that made it possible to link a name mentioned in the sentence to the corresponding article, e.g. Anne Neville from the first sentence in "Marriage and family relationship" section. I understand it is common practice that in ordinary articles referrals are only used once, the first time anything is mentioned in the article, but here we have a 25 downscrolls long article with 18 sections and 6 subsections, all of which are accessible separately, do you find it reasonable to reinstall the referrals so that the subject has a referral once in a section and not just once in the whole article thus enabling easier browsing for the users?

Another change our a.m. contributor made was amending the word "Earl" to "earl" (section Childhood, 3rd paragraph, sentence "During the earl’s life only George married Isabel...). All titles are in capital letters in the section. Should we keep consistency?

User Fortuna  made over 30 changes in the last 24 hours, none of them is described, nor is any change this editor ever makes, at least on this article. Do you agree an editor one-sidedly deciding to put up a template that "This article is actively undergoing a major edit" should at least declare the changes he/she makes thus allowing peer reviewers to check the changes more easily and possibly suggest improvements and/or undoing of edits?


 * Thank you for this display of pique. You are welcome to my opinion. If you look at the top of this page, you will see a template that shows this article is up for peer review, with the eventual aim of achieving GA-status. There is no ownership (except, ironically, from you, who seems to think other editors have to ask you permission to edit). My changes are the product of advice- not factual, but WP:MoS- from other editors. I am not going to bother explaining each and every one to you- if you are not capable of following a link (or willing to) then you probably shouldn't be wasting your time here. BTW, Earl is a personal noun; earl impersonal. Feel free to look it up. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  14:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

"Thank you for this display of pique" - again the pot calling the kettle black "I am not going to bother explaining each and every one to you" I guess "you" is in the plural, this is a public page, as is the article, this is a talk page, do you feel above explanations and community standards? Earl is a personal noun; earl impersonal - in this case it is used to refer to a person, that is the Earl of Warwick (where Earl is the title) - maybe we should replace the entire word with "Kingmaker's" and close the dispute?Isananni (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, he or she should use the edit summary. However, you may not be aware that you can see all his or her edits at the same time by going into the history and selecting "cur" from the first edit, which will show you all differences between that edit and the current article. Deb (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I am aware, and that is what I did, but as you can imagine it turns out a hunt, wonder if it's deliberate, but we have to assume good faith, don't we? What about the other issues?Isananni (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * FIM is correct on the "earl" question - see MOS:JOBTITLES. Deb (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

"earl question" - I stand corrected, thank you Deb. However, since "earl" without capital letter is odd in that specific position, what do you think of replacing it with "the Kingmaker", since this is the person the word "earl" refers to?Isananni (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion.Isananni (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If you assumed good faith, you would not tell people (actually, LIE) you are reporting them to 'Wikimedia managers' etc, whoever they may be. You lost your AGF privileges there. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  14:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * No one ever loses their AGF privileges, even you! :-) Take it easy, please. Deb (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Deb, thought it was just me perceiving a moiety of aggressivenessIsananni (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to make any further changes, it might be wise to wait until FIM has finished his/her edits; they might include the amendment you have suggested above. Or not. Deb (talk) 15:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not against the notion. But it might read more stodgily, rather than varying the name? <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  15:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I saw you replaced "earl's" with "Warwick's". Since "Warwick" is also present in the previous sentence, I personally would have used "the Kingmaker's" to avoid repetition. I'll leave it to you. Can we tackle the issue of referrals? I am just thinking from the point of view of a visitor to the page with less experience in the topic who jumps down from the index directly to a specific section and has to copy and paste in the search string names of people/events he does not know and would like to learn more about because the once in an article referral is some x scrolls away. Isananni (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: You could both bung a copy in a sandbox somewhere and edit it jointly... Deb (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean... :-( Isananni (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Consistency again: section Succession. We have a "Michael Hicks and Josephine Wilkinson have suggested " and now the following "Dr Ashdown Hill suggests" has been replaced by "It is possible that" with the attribution left to the citation only. Can we decide on one standard? Do we leave attribution to the citations (my personal preference) or do we declare in the text of the article? Otherwise it sounds like some historians are given preference and more visibility than others. The same has happended, the other way round, with an attribution to Hicks that was already mentioned in the citation in the marriage section. Sounds kind of biased... glad to hear what you think Isananni (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's true - some historians are given preference. Ashdown-Hill is rather controversial. Deb (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And of course we can't give everyone equal weight. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  16:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For the benefit of newish contributors, though, you could explain your reasoning here. Deb (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not like everyone is given equal weight. Michael Hicks has 2 visible mentions, 1 of which on an issue where he has been proved wrong, Ashdown-Hill has none, at least as far as down to the Succession section. Furthermore, by replacing the direct attribution with a generic "It is possible" in that specific context, it looks like that assumption (John of Gloucester being fathered during Richard's first solo expedition) still belongs to Hicks/Horrox and it is simply reported in Ashdown-Hill's book, whereas it is Ashdown-Hill's original research and speculation and I do not think it is fair to have it taken for someone else's work. Isananni (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Not accurate description of results
Currently, under the ancestry section, the article states: "In December 2014, further DNA study confirmed the identity of Richard III's body, but indicated that there were discrepancies in his accepted male lineage shown above." Neither of the two references state this, nor is it possible to corroborate at this time. There could be a problem with Richard III's male-line ancestry being incorrect, but it could just as easily (and more likely, given the large number of generations) have been an NPE in the generations between Edward III and the 5th Duke of Beaufort. I will reword the sentence to be more clear.PohranicniStraze (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added a basic explanation 'but this could also involve 'false paternity' in the Beaufort family, who provided the comparison DNA' (as per source). Wording/detail can always be improved but substantial updates would be more appropriate in Exhumation of Richard III of England with a sourced summary here in the bio. AnonNep (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree. Deb (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have tried to improve the grammar/ style of the passage added to the section "Discovery of remains", but I'm now unsure if that passage should be there at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

"The lack of such links could involve 'false paternity' in the Beaufort family, who had provided the comparison DNA." This is a very ambiguous explanation of the results. The results bring into question the bloodline legitimacy of Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI and the rulers of the Tudor dynasty. If the 'false paternity' occurred after Elizabeth I then it involved only the Beaufort family. This is notable and warrants a paragraph for clarification rather than a sentence. Of interest is that the DNA study found two 'false paternity' events, not one. The second was positively identified within the Beaufort line. Wayne (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what "two 'false paternity' events" means. Please can you clarify? Deb (talk) 08:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * From what I understood from the Leicester University study (here is the link to the original text http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141202/ncomms6631/full/ncomms6631.html) it means they identified 2 cases of "break in the male line" or, for non experts, 2 cases of adultery leading to the birth of male descents with a biological father that was not the recorded husband of the mother. They also stated these cases more probably referred to a period following the 18th century Isananni (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * How about:

''In November 2014 the results of the testing were announced, confirming that the maternal side was as previously thought. The paternal side, however, demonstrated some variance from what had been expected, with the DNA showing no links to the purported descendants of Richard's great-grandfather John of Gaunt through Henry Somerset, 5th Duke of Beaufort. This could be the result of paternity that does not reflect the accepted genealogies between Richard and Gaunt or between Gaunt and the 5th Duke of Beaufort. ''


 * Adding missed sig - sorry! AnonNep (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * John of Gaunt was not Richard's great-grandfather, Edward III was the common ancestor of John of Gaunt and Richard III being John of Gaunt's father and Richard III's great-great-grandfather (but I could have missed a great, Edward III was grandfather to Richard III's grandfather), the only male living descendants that were found were linked to Edward III throught John of Gaunt and his 3rd wife Katherine Swynford's line of descent. Isananni (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have a look at the Ancestry chart John of Gaunt is Richard's great-grandfather but Edward III is his great-great-grandfather twice. The male DNA testing is through the House of Beaufort and they're only using the common male line shown here (only one of Richard's Edward III links and not the Gaunt one which involves female ancestors) so a rephrase of the above would be:
 * In November 2014 the results of the testing were announced, confirming that the maternal side was as previously thought. The paternal side, however, demonstrated some variance from what had been expected, with the DNA showing no links to the purported descendants of Richard's great-great-grandfather Edward III of England through Henry Somerset, 5th Duke of Beaufort. This could be the result of paternity that does not reflect the accepted genealogies between Richard and Edward III or between Edward III and the 5th Duke of Beaufort. 


 * Adding missed sig - sorry! AnonNep (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for raising the issue of the ancestry published on Wikipedia being wrong. Edward III had 6 sons, John of Gaunt was the 3rd one and through his first wife was father to Henry of Bolingbroke later king Henry IV, who in his turn was father to Henry V in his turn father to Henry VI, all Lancastrian Kings. Edward IV's 4th son was Edmund of Langley, first duke of York and ancestor to Richard of York, Richard III's father, who ultimately rebelled against his COUSIN (not brother) Henry VI. John of Gaunt's children from his 3rd wife Katherine Swynford were called Beaufort (from one of John of Gaunt's estate in France) and their living male descendants claim Edward III as ancestor through that line. You may check further sources and they will confirm what I have just stated, have been involved in this genealogy for quite a time. Isananni (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I now see what you mean, yes, John of Gaunt was Richard III's great-grandfather through John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford's daughter Joan Beaufort, but since they are discussing Y chromosome which only involves direct male line, that female line does not count in this specific issue

As for your phrasing, it is not correct to say that Richard's maternal line was as thought. The mitochondrial DNA was extracted from living descendants of a female line deriving from Anne of York, Richard III's sister, who shared Richard's mta dna from their common mother Cecily Neville. So maybe it would be more correct to say "the female ancestorship deriving from Richard III's mother Cecily Neville was confirmed", for the rest youur rephrasing sounds fine, you may want to replace a recent change in this topic by an unknown user where I only specified ancestorship. Your phrasing and references sound more accurate Isananni (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * On a second thought, "maternal line" sounds fine after all if we need to keep it concise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isananni (talk • contribs) 16:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)