Talk:Richard III of England/Archive 3

Peer Review
Here:

Peer review/Current

Thank you. I do not know how this works, can only answer to Tom Riley's question on "The requisite Papal dispensation" – I briefly lost the will to live during this paragraph: do we really need to drag Henry VIII into it? Mention of HVIII's case of first degree consanguinity was included because it was a better known case and could help the unexperienced visitor better understand the terms why in HVIII's there was a case for first degree consanguinity and in Richard's and Anne's there was not. Medieval canon law on affinities, siblings created by carnal union in marriage (so Isabel's marriage to George made Anne sister to George and Richard brother to Isabel, but not Anne sister to Richard), etc. is no easy topic and a comparison with a similar better known case might have helped. I would personally recommend it should be reinstated somehow. Isananni (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * In the past, we've had a lot of debate and disagreement about this topic. I'm all for keeping it concise and perhaps it would be better not to give any examples at all, just to cite reputable sources. Deb (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. It's not very reader-friendly in the current phraseology either? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  11:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, Tim agreed to reinstating the removed entry, which is in itself very concise and supported by the corresponding reputable source (one that was added by Fortuna a few months ago) Isananni (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean he expressed an opinion. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  11:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Like everyone else here. You accepted Tim's opinion when he suggested the entry was redundant and removed it without further questioning, why should Tim's opinion have less weight now that he has changed his mind after I explained the ratio behind the entry? Isananni (talk) 11:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Does that make it consensus? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  11:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It apparently did the first time it was accepted. Does it have to end in fight every time? You actually thanked me yesterday for reinstating the entry after I politely checked the opportunity to do so with the peer reviewer, what has changed overnight? Isananni (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please desist from personalizing the discussion. The point re: TR is that I agreed with his reasoning he first time, and not the second time. If you went to the trouble of comparing what has been listed as questionable under the PR and the edits I recently made, you will find that I haven't actioned a fair number- edits that will require discussion and consensus! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  11:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Following my explanation, Tim and I are of the opinion the 2 lines entry on HVIII (including the source you added) is not redundant. Deb and you are of the opinion it is redundant. That is not consensus either, I would be glad to hear one more opinion Isananni (talk) 12:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I seriously suggest you both lay off the article until the matters have been fully discussed. Possibly Isananni is unaware of the long and bitter history of this article and the constant bickering that has taken place among many contributors - some of whom have thankfully departed - about whether Richard was basically a good guy or not.  Stop and take stock before you rush in to make tiny amendments to wording. Deb (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course. I was working on a few suggestions for actually not major improvements (that did not include assessing Richard's reputation one way or the other). I was thinking of making the changes on the article for better read, highliting the change in the edit summary as "subject to peer review", since they can of course be reversed if deemed worse than the current version, but I will find a way to post them on the talk page (here and the peer review one) and wait for the oter editors' opinion Isananni (talk) 12:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course, some editors also do not realize that for an article to reach GA status it has to be stable and not subject to 'bickering.' Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  12:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you should show more understanding. Do you remember when you were new to wikipedia?  Deb (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Once bitten etc, that's all. This is the second time I have gone through this with the same editor (see September) and I find it hard to AGF when it is not reciprocated (having been accused of ownership and being threatened with ANI etc). But hey, who am I to moan! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  13:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC) (PS sorting out that bibliog would prob go some way towards restoring the aforementioned!)

Come in, Tim riley, Paul Barlow and anyone else who is interested! Deb (talk) 12:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am out of my depth here. My knowledge of the Wars of the Roses is no more than that of the average educated Englishman, and I cannot usefully comment on the edit war raging here. I am so sorry to see it, as it was I who induced Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi to take the page to PR, and I now wonder if my advice was sound. I have the impression, perhaps wrongly, that there is a lot of POV going on, and if so I am too ignorant to squash it.  Tim riley  talk    20:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that there's strictly speaking an edit war, Tim, since people are discussing it on the talk page, but you're right some historians do have strong views for and against him (the pro-Ricardians perhaps being most notable in their approach). The trick, I think, is to make sure that we're using the highest quality sources, and then rigorously citing etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Hchc2009, that is actually what I have always tried to do in the few entries I added, trying to share information that cost me time and money. Time allowing, I would appreaciate it if you and anyone else would like to comment on the suggestions I made below. Isananni (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions on current version dated 28 nov 2014

The reference to HVII’s grant of £ 20 to John of Gloucester lacks citation. I know it’s true, I read it somewhere too, but cannot trace the source (Parliament roll or whatever) to support the statement, maybe someone can help
 * Succession

"Richard was born on 2 October 1452[8] at Fotheringhay Castle, the twelfth of the thirteen children of Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York and Cecily Neville. As a potential claimant to the throne of King Henry VI from birth(ref Dr. Johnson) Richard’s father was the leader of the Yorkist faction that opposed the party supporting the Lancastrian king and played a major role in the first phase of the so called The Wars of the Roses, a period of "three or four decades of political instability and periodic open civil war in the second half of the fifteenth century”(ref Prof. Pollard). At the time of the death of his father and elder brother etc...."
 * Childhood
 * Paragraph on “The War of the Roses” This paragraph was included following user Hchc2009’s suggestions that in its turn followed Tim’s suggestion to add a straightforward attribution in the text to the statement that Richard’s father was a claimant to the throne. In view to improve on conciseness and reader-friendliness, avoid repetitions, etc. my suggestion is to avoid attributions in the text leaving them to the due citation (otherwise all sentences should start with “Kendall, or Hicks, or Ross says, which is not exactly engaging for the average reader) and possibly reword the paragraph with something like:

In this section, this mention shifts focus from childhood to adulthood quite strangely and lacks the link to the change in ownership of the estate. My suggestion is to move this mention to the Estates section as follows: Two months later, on 14 July, he gained the Lordships of the strongholds Sheriff Hutton and Middleham in Yorkshire and Penrith in Cumberland, which had belonged to Warwick the Kingmaker. It is possible that the grant of Middleham seconded Richard’s personal wishes(ref. Kendall, Richard III,p 125 “Richard had won his way back to Middleham Castle”). However, any personal attachment he may have felt to Middleham was likely mitigated in later adulthood, as surviving records demonstrate he spent less time there than at Barnard and Pontefract(related present ref by Pollard)
 * Childhood
 * Mention to change of attitude towards Middleham estate in adulthood

I cannot trace the entry right now, but I remember it speaks of £ 50. The first contract spoke of £ 50, but the actual sum disbursed by HVII to James Keyley in 1495 for Richard’s tomb in 1495 was £ 10 (ref Rhoda Edwards, The Ricardian, Vol. III, No 50, September 1975, pp 8-9), quite a bargain, a discount under duress? :)
 * HVII’s expenses on Richard’s tomb

May I suggest to reinstate the referral brakets to the name Anne Neville in the first sentence? I know it’s a repetition of a referral some 2 upscrolls away, but given the relevance in this specific section it may not be redundant and would make for easier browsing for the user, since the section can be accessed separately from the index and the occasional user may not be aware the referral is in another section
 * Marriage and family relationships – referral to Anne Neville’s article

The Bibliography section mentions 3 books, while the Further reading section mentions 19 (mostly books, but a few articles are also included). I will crossmatch the different citations to check if any further books (not articles) have missed inclusion in this section, but in the meantime, would it not be the case to merge the 2 sections in 1 single Bibliography section? Should the articles be included or not? Should all books that are mentioned in the citations be included e.g. Josephine Wilkinson's "Richard the young king to be"? Some books are strictly on Richard, others are not (e.g. we have 3 on the War od the Roses, 2 on Anne Neville, 1 on George of Clarence, etc.), my opinion is the bibliography should only list books on Richard. Some qualified books on Richard are not listed, e.g. Carson's The Maligned King or Hancock's The murder in the Tower, should we add them? The bibliography section lists works by author/title/publisher/isbn id, the Further reading section lists works by title/by author/publisher in brakets/isbn id in brakets - which criteria should we choose to keep consistency? Furthermore, I do not have the ability to work on sections that impact on the index if we want to merge the bibliography and further reading section, so I hope someone can help there.
 * Bibliography and Further Reading

Looking forward to your opinion Isananni (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a note to Tim. I sympathise with Fortuna, who has done a lot of work to try to improve the article - but (if he/she will forgive me saying so) perhaps a bit too eagerly - and is now becoming frustrated by some of the criticisms. However, I think I went on record some years ago to the effect that this article can never maintain GA status because of the emotionally-charged views of many contributors. Now, personally, I think Richard III was probably not a very nice man - just like most medieval kings. However, over the years, there have been a number of revisionist views expressed in the media, by scholars and amateurs alike, which means that everything does have to be sourced, and reputably sourced. The discovery of the body hasn't helped. Despite the fact that it has proved Richard did suffer from a physical deformity, just like the Tudors claimed, has been interpreted by some as somehow "proving" the opposite. The arguments are guaranteed to continue for many years to come, and every so often we will take a couple of steps backwards in terms of NPOV. Deb (talk) 11:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Many other, more emotionally-charged articles have retained FA status, so I'm perhaps more sanguine! In the meantime, I've taken a quick stab at pulling together the books and article used in the article so far, for the bibliography. I've put them in a sub-section below for the time being. Key tasks (dull, but essential) appear to be:
 * Checking the location, publisher and ISBN/OCLC numbers, and page numbers for articles etc. and getting them all into a common format (e.g. the cite book already used in the article; I've done a couple of these at the top of the list, the ones below have yet to be converted).
 * Checking that they are all indeed high quality, secondary sources, representing the best of the current scholarship. I have my doubts about some of them.
 * Deduping; in some cases we're citing different printings of the same book edition.
 * Checking that we have page numbers for the citations in the original citations (in some cases we don't have them, or the page numbers look awfully like the article page range, rather than the specific page for the fact being cited). Hchc2009 (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Singling out some works compared to others is not good academic practice. All works should be mentioned in one single list in alphabetical order so that repetitions (e.g. Ross, Ashdown-Hill) or omissions (e.g. Weir was included in the Further Reading, should we remove it?), now present, can be more easily traced and removed. I am not sure a fiction novel like Arnand's Crown of Roses should be listed, nor in general works that are not specificallly on Richard (e.g. George of Clarence's page only lists books on George, Edward IV's page only lists quoted works in the references without double mentioning them in a Bibliography section, etc.) or the Bibliography section would end up being a repetition of the References section with no real ratio. As for quotations, I do not think always quoting the precise page is an issue: on one hand, pages will always change from one edition to the other, on the other some quotations derive from a whole book, not from one single page, as is e.g. the case for Baldwin's book on The lost prince where Richard Plantagenet of Eastwell is assumed to be the youngest of the so called Princes in the Tower.Isananni (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Isananni, as I explained above, I'm not singling out works, see the first bullet of my comment above.
 * As I think I've explained before, the MOS says that a Bibliography section should list the works used in the article; the Further Reading section should have any key works that aren't used but are potentially useful to the reader.
 * Citations on the wiki should almost always give the relevant pages in a volume where the argument or statement can be found - quotations should always have the page number; editions are different, which is why location, publisher ISBN and/or OCLC numbers etc. are important to allow other editors to identify which volume is being used.
 * In general I'd agree with you about novels, but you may want to double check which footnote that is supporting.
 * If you fancy doing some of the legwork to fill in the gaps in the works used in the article already and listed below, or to convert them into a common citation template, you'd be very welcome. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, novels should be excluded unless there is some specific reason to quote from or refer to them in the article. We have a separate article for popular culture/trivia, which is where they belong. Deb (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I had already made a list offline so I can help, even if not straight away. Are we agreing the Bibliography should be a single list in alphabetical order with all works mentioned in the article (excluding novels, web links, etc.) and the Further reading should contain additional works, e.g. Carson and Weir, that are not mentioned in the article? Isananni (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

If a novel is being used in a citation, it should be in the bibliography, as an editor is claiming it supports a particular fact (rightly or wrongly). To what extent we should be citing novels in support of particular claims is another matter. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The only example I can think of that might be appropriate is the Josephine Tey book. Deb (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Anand's Crown of Roses novel was mentioned in the cultural depictions section, quite oddly AS ref instead of direct attribution, I moved the mention from ref to direct attribution in text, which leaves all novels out of the Bigliography, hope you agree on the solution. I will work on the single list for biblio and Further reading sections tomorrow Isananni (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've done the bibliography and updated the article, and deduped against the Further Reading, but haven't changed the formatting of the Further Reading (which is probably covered by MOS:CITE and needs to be raised here first). As noted, there's a fair bit of work to be done to sort out the referencing in terms of specific volumes, etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks, i will try and complete refs to publishers and missing isbn ids from my pc tomorrow, please note that - Ross'works are double, Anthony Chhetham should be Cheetham Anthony and listed alphabetically accordingly, Anand's novel need no longer be listed in the biblio ince I replaced the ref with a direct attribution in the article text — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isananni (talk • contribs) 19:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ps why did you add "citation needed" to the mention of Anand's novel in the article? The novel itself is the citation Isananni (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The paragraph compares and contrasts the novel to other fictional material, and suggests that it is pro-Ricardian, all of which needs to be supported by a citation to avoid being original research. More generally, I'd expect a novel relevant to a historical subject to be covered in secondary literature and cited accordingly, which would establish its relevance to the subject of the article. If it helps, think about the question "why are we telling the reader this novel exists?" Some novels, plays, etc. are highly relevant to our understanding of a figure like Richard III; others tell us nothing at all. Typically, reliable secondary sources will exist to explain the significance of the former grouping. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As it happens, I've read Crown of Roses, and although it's true that it is pro-Richard, that's nothing unusual in fiction. I don't recall there being anything notable about it.  I suspect this is just a leftover from the days when we used to have a trivia section within the article. Deb (talk) 11:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Deb. Anyhow, Rohan Maitzen from the English Department at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia has reviewed several pro-Richard fiction novels and also mentions Crown of Roses among them http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/all-the-world-to-nothing/. I guess it can be added as citation, while the mention to the novel itself, now no longer present in the references can be removed from the Bibliography section Isananni (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft bibliography





 * I don't know who posted the above bibliography, but it is filled with typos and errors. I've had a go at straightening the article's version, but it will take a better historian than I. Doesn't anyone check this stuff? 81.159.159.128 (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Several editors are presently involved in improvements on this article, including myself, even though not everybody can devote their entire time as a volunteer in the time frame one would wish. Thank you for your help in amending the typos, I will go on Looking for the missing isbn ids starting tomorrow Isananni (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I did my best with the missing isbns, could not retrieve the isbn of Ross' UK editions, articles from historical reviews are not normally associated with a isbn, which I could not locate in any case. Hope the result stands up to the desired standards. Isananni (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

GA nomination of Exhumation of Richard III of England
I've nominated Exhumation of Richard III of England for consideration as a Good Article in advance of his reburial next March, which will attract a huge amount of interest. The article is in good shape and is quite comprehensive, so I'm sure it will be a good GA candidate. I'd be grateful for any help with the GA review. Prioryman (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidate review for Exhumation of Richard III of England
Please note that I've nominated Exhumation of Richard III of England for consideration as a Featured Article Candidate, with the intention of having it ready to appear on the Main Page on the date of Richard III's reburial in late March. Any input on the nomination would be very welcome - please see Featured article candidates/Exhumation of Richard III of England/archive1. Prioryman (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Lancet citation
Postmortem analysis by Leicester University can be cited to the academic paper in the Lancet. 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60804-7 JFW &#124; T@lk  22:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Reputation
I had misgivings about this line:

'After his death, Richard's image was tarnished by propaganda fostered by his Tudor successors (who sought to legitimise their claim to the throne),[184] '

There are a number of immediate problems I can see with it:


 * 1) The source is the Washington Post, which is a newspaper not a historical work;


 * 2) The actual viewpoint is that of the Richard III Society (spec. Philippa Langley) who is virtually an uncritical admirer of Richard, but this is not made clear;


 * 3) There are modern historians who reject that characterisation of Richard as having his image 'tarnished', therefore that statement is unduly dogmatic. Even David Baldwin, a sympathetic biographer, admitted that the Londoners said of him 'he did evil' and conceded that Richard was not above criticism (p. 217) although he qualified his statement as much as possible. Hicks (p. 247) notes that Richard, when he was forced to suppress placards in York, had to forbid people to read them because he was so scared of what they said. There is also evidence (A. J. Pollard, 209) that the legend of him as a hunch-backed hypocrite, for years dismissed as Tudor propaganda by e.g. Markham, began before Bosworth and was particularly strong in the north (Pollard, of course, was writing before RIII's skeleton was found).

I have therefore made a few alterations, balancing them by mention of Cheetham (p. 198) that the Tudors were happy to see his faults exaggerated (although Cheetham stops short of claiming they deliberately promoted it) and Potter (pages 3-4) who puts the traditional White Boar view. 109.156.156.186 (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Excellent! Deb (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Excuse me Deb, but one thing is adding additional points of view from other historians, quite another is replacing well referenced points of view with others to censor them. I personally agree on additions, not on having one possibly biased view replaced with another one equally biased. I would therefore ask that you or The anonymous user who made THE alterations incorporate the new information without removing the old referenced and well established and long approved edits someone dedicated time to — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isananni (talk • contribs) 18:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, but I agree with the user's assessment of the comment as being highly POV - the word "tarnished" is the worst bit. I think a quotation from a reputable historian is preferable to a dumbed-down newspaper view.Deb (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just let me have a look at my books and we'll replace the reference from the newspaper with something more appropriate and reputable, after all historians under Tudor did manipulate if not straightforwardly tarnish Richard's reputation (think of John Rous who spoke marvels of Richard when he was king and suggested he was a monster born with teeth after a 2 years gestancy when he was dead... and that was one of the edits that got deleted...). I was going to sleep right now and can only look at it starting tomorrow. Can I count on you on the part of mixing the additional references of the anonymous user together with the already approved ones? When you have time, of course. Thank you very much. Isananni (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Cheers. I've similar concerns to others here about relying on newspapers as reliable, high-quality sources for medieval history... :) Hchc2009 (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, that entry must have been missed in the revision process, but in itself we know it's not false, we "simply" need to back it up more consistently inside an article that has been improved considerably. I promise I will see to that specific reference, you will concede I personally never edited anything that was less than supported by acknowledged reliable sources :)Isananni (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I have had a look at the section. My idea to replace the newspaper's citation and avoid present historians' POV from one side or the other as much as possible is to add further citations from primary sources to the single one of John Rous that is actually in the article, specifically Mancini's "The good reputation of his public activities and private life powerfully attracted the esteem of strangers", the record in York City records mourning Richard's death at the risk of facing the new king's wrath and possibly Von Popalaus' account of Richard's physical appearance where no mention of visible deformity is made. Then, I would simply point out a dramatic change (not necessarily tarnishing, but a change cannot be denied) in Richard's descriptions in the accounts of the historians under the new Tudor regime, culminating etc. with John Rous making a U turn, etc. catching up with what is already online. Interpretations of where the truth lies, in the accounts before or after Richard's death or somewhere in between, can be left to the individual visitor to the page, but we cannot help acknowledging and reporting that there was a change in descriptions if we want to provide state of the art information. Controversies over Richard's reputation are probably the most enticing aspect of this very short lived king, and I guess that is what this paragraph is about. Please give me time to gather the precise texts of the primary sources and I will come back with the amendments.Isananni (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NB: I'd advise against using primary sources, as per WP:PRIMARY, and strongly suggest focusing on ensuring that the text reflects reliable secondary sources, including the range of views held by modern professional historians. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Reliable modern professional historians base their work on primary sources, or it would be historical fiction. Of course I will quote primary sources as included and translated into English in the secondary sources, since I do not have access to the original hand written parchments in Latin...Isananni (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm just checking that you're familiar with WP:PRIMARY, that's all. Selecting and choosing primary sources from the medieval period is fraught with difficulties, which is why the wiki relies upon secondary sources. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * :-) Isananni (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Isananni, I think you misunderstood HCHC2009's point. You cannot put primary sources in WP instead of scholarship, because WP exists to summarise the scholarship. Therefore, what you are proposing to do, however well-intentioned, is not in line with WP policy. That holds good for transcriptions as well, which are still primary sources (in fact, it's even worse because they are often not terribly accurate). What you have also done is remove the scholarship, including putting back material that I have pointed out is either unreliable or incomplete (Walpole) and gives a highly misleading view of what actually occurred. The point is that in the version there is a claim that all anti-Ricardian statements are 'Tudor propaganda,' attributed (falsely) to a newspaper, whereas actually it was a disguised quote from an individual with a known and clear bias. Therefore this section fails NPOV. I have reverted. If you can find reliable, secondary sources that state unambiguously that all anti-Ricardian material dates from post 1485 and that therefore it is all Tudor Propaganda, great. But I don't think you will. Even Potter and Baldwin blink before going that far. The fact is there is a substantial body of opinion in scholarship - possibly even a majority opinion, although I have no evidence one way or another on that - that actually, the Tudors had very little need to do more than push Richard's unsavoury reputation a bit. That's not to accept More or indeed Desmond Seward's work at face value, simply to point out that Richard was a very controversial person even before he died. Hope that helps.109.156.156.186 (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC) PS - I'm not quite sure why Isananni thinks I removed Rous's before and after. I left it there, because I thought it was perfectly well presented. There might be a case for a more direct comparison, of course.109.156.156.186 (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It's hard to address an IP, anyhow, asap I will proceed including the scholarly quotations from Mancini, Von Popalau and the York City Records as stated before (in exactly the same way as John Rous' words are quoted) to counterbalance the load of partially wrong entries you added that need amending (e.g. Richard did not prosecute anyone for speaking ill of him in York in 1482, the City Council did while he was fighting the Scots and presumably having more serious troubles to deal with than a noone insulting a prince of the blood in a tavern talk). I will leave your entries confirming Richard suffered attacks during his life (who hasn't? Does Cameron count on universal approval?) but will remove the mention of Richard being a controversial figure during his life time since this is POV and we are reviewing this section to avoid that, right? Should previous scholarly mentions have gone deleted again in your editing, I will reinsert them since they had already been long approved and reviewed and removing them means taking information away to the detriment of the article. BY the way, everyone here has some bias in this article, your sources speak for yours, my sources probably speak for mine, let us all try to deliver information in as neutral or balanced a way as possible, shall we? Hope you and the senior editors will also have time to read My answer to your points in my personal talk page. Will try to get some sleep now. Isananni (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Ps my notes to reverting to "fictional" instead of the later "fictionalised" for Shakespeare's play were cut off: "fictionalised" conveys a meaning of "staged, but true to historical events" that cannot belong to a work presenting a long dead Margaret of Anjou shouting curses against the other characters, or e.g. Richard marrying Anne after Clarence's imprisonment, that is 6 years later than in real life, etc. Coming back with the other additions as soon as I can get to my books and pc, off to real work now. Isananni (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC) Dear Isananni
 * Nothing got deleted, only changed somewhat, so I am not quite sure why you are obsessing about 'deleted material' (and incidentally, that is a fairly serious error of your own, probably due to a lack of careful scrutiny before hurriedly reverting).
 * This is however much better (and I concede your point about York council on a careful reread, although I notice that's the only error you can cite which I think disposes of your rather strange claim of a 'load of partially inaccurate entries'). The two remaining thoughts that occur to me are (1) the question of his physical deformity and (2) Shakespeare. We all know now that he did indeed have a slight deformity, which was generally thought to be the case even before he was dug up (if you look in the printed version of the new ODNB, as the online edition has been emended, Horrox said 'if he had a physical deformity it was likely to have been slight, probably no more than the crooked shoulders noted by Rous'). So this was known in his lifetime and therefore I think that paragraph may need toning down a bit. Second, Shakespeare. It is of course not true to the historical facts. However, it is based on them, albeit with considerable alterations to show the main character in the most unflattering light possible. Therefore it is not 'fiction' (which is something entirely invented) it is 'fictionalised'. Incidentally, I would take that view of Philippa Gregory's work as well.
 * As for Richard being controversial - he was. Kings who are not controversial do not face two major rebellions in the space of twenty-four months. Kings who are uncontroversial do not have to summon their magnates to swear that they will not murder or otherwise molest their nieces. Kings who are are uncontroversial do not have to issue public denials that they have murdered their wives. Indeed, Richard made it remarkably easy for the Tudors to present him as a murderous tyrant. However, if you are unhappy with it, it is hardly important.
 * With regard to your final points:

everyone here has some bias in this article
 * Agreed

your sources speak for yours
 * I'm delighted that the wide range of scholarly sources I cited, both pro- and anti-Ricardian, speak for my determination to uphold scholarship in the face of tendentious statements by non-scholarly amateurs

my sources probably speak for mine
 * Now that is interesting. Are you saying you wrote the original section including the untenable material? And are you, perhaps, again hinting at a sense of ownership of this article? Leaving the speculation aside, I was frankly more concerned with your suggestion that we dump scholarship to 'let people make up their own minds on the basis of primary sources.' As you seem to have rowed back from that position to a great extent, my concerns are somewhat allayed.

let us all try to deliver information in as neutral or balanced a way as possible, shall we?
 * Indeed yes, but there is no need to be either rude or patronising. The problem was that you had removed relevant material in favour of a version that I had pointed was both inaccurate and POV. Now we have sorted that, hopefully we can get on with each other.

Hope that helps.109.156.156.186 (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

109.156.156.186, all your edits are kept even though a few needed to be improved in terms of historical accuracy and timeline (I know, nobody's fault, it's just hard to follow the succession of events when the scholar one refers to seems to rejoice in keeping his knowledge to himself and delivers it at his convenience and hardly dates any citation, not to speak making explicit reference to the document he is referring to, unlike others, should anyone ever have the idea to check for themselves). As everybody can see my additions are all perfectly backed up by reliable scholarly secondary sources and all together deliver the main positive and negative contemporary or near contemporary records on Richard's reputation. No evaluation on who was right or wrong is made. I had never contributed to the "Reputation" section until now, you can check in the history of the article if you do not believe me. I do not claim any ownership of course, simply grow nervous on seeing radical changes by anonymous users without discussion, we have had to revert vandalisms every other day, I think we have sorted that out. As for my sources, I personally prefer to refer to scholars who have their stance but deliver references to primary sources without feeling jealous and therefore let their readers check for themselves, old habit I got at the University. Have a nice day. Isananni (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

ps on a side note. I apologise if I ever gave you the impression I was being rude or patronising, English is not my native language, so culture clashes can occur. However, if you had read both my discussion with our senior editor Deb in this section of the talk page and my answer to you on my talk page, you might have seen that there was not any intention to remove your scholarly entries for good, simply the need for a little time to reestablish a, scholarly supported, balance in a very sensitive section where in the first instance some more entries than just the newspaper citation had gone lost. I do hope we can get along together too, I am sure none of us mean any harm to the article or to each other. Isananni (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK Isananni, apology accepted and all sorted. I have left some comments on the talk page which I hope you find of interest - I hadn't read this at the time and parts of it may be no longer relevant. I fully appreciate why you would be nervous about vandalism, on such a topic, but in future maybe take a little time to check before full reverts? The main thing is, that section looks a whole lot better and when last comes to last, that's all that matters. Best wishes.109.156.156.186 (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, only read more carefully now, answering some points:
 * As for Richard being controversial - he was. Well 109.156.156.186, name one who wasn't... You say kings who are not controversial do not face two major rebellions in the space of twenty-four months, etc. What about Henry VII facing the Lambert Simnel and the Perkin Warbeck uprisings, etc.? What about Edward IV, Henry VI, etc. All I am saying is, we are not delivering real information by naming him "controversial", they all were, only some have been apparently better at masquerading in history
 * "Shakespeare. It is of course not true to the historical facts. However, it is based on them, albeit with considerable alterations to show the main character in the most unflattering light possible. Therefore it is not 'fiction' (which is something entirely invented) it is 'fictionalised'." - mmmh, not sure I can agree "fictional" and "fictionalised" do convey different ideas of closeness to reality, with "fictionalised" being just an inch away from the truth, and you agree this is not the case for Shakespeare.
 * "Incidentally, I would take that view of Philippa Gregory's work as well." - couldn't agree more, even though in her case science fiction or literate raving would be a more appropriate definition
 * the question of his physical deformity - I have checked twice, and there is no mention of physical deformity until that record dating 1491, Rous, Vergil and More, all after Richard's death, hint at a disparity in shoulders but cannot decide which one was higher than the other. Have you seen Channel4's documentary with Richard's "body replica" Dominic Smee who also has a very apparent scoliosis when he takes his clothes off? I met him personally at the Bosworth Heritage center in August 2014 before the documentary was aired not knowing it was him, they were reenacting the Yorkist camp: believe me, I would have never said that man had any deformity, and the same could be said of a personal female friend of mine (in her case she preferred to undergo surgery to prevent problems during gestancy and labour). My personal idea (which I seem to share with Philippa Langley and others from the interviews I heard) is that Richard's crookback image started at Bosworth after he was flung naked over a mule to take him to Leicester, with 2 armies following and the people of all Leicestershire seeing that the dead king's naked back was twisted and, since it was bent forward, apparently hunched. Of course this personal opinion cannot be made part of a wiki article and we can only rely on the records we have reported in the article. Isananni (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

R3's reputation was indeed tarnished by the Tudors and others after 1485. This is not a controversial point. Was R3 criticised during his lifetime? He certainly was, but not like after his death, in which he is made out to be the worst king to have reigned in the middle ages as well as the personification of evil. That's my $0.02.

Plantagenet Alliance
Has this body changed its name to Plantagenet Legacy? Jackiespeel (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Related article move discussion
Please see this discussion. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Ebay groat image
What is the copyright status of images on eBay? This is a particularly fine image of a Richard III groat:. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced of its relevancy to be honest; after all, it was the year egg the replace the worm as the lowest form of currency. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  17:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Haha, true. But I thought it would be a useful replacement for the image of the penny currently used in the article. And it is a contemporary "image" of Richard, however stylized. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's far superior to the penny- but is the image on eBay copyrighted to the seller, or has he infringed someone else's copyright in nabbing it? Or neither, and we can use it? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  17:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I really don't know. I would have thought that a seller would have copyright to images of his own coin. But I can't believe eBay either takes over or preserves that copyright. Any image copyright experts about? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I just wondered whether it was his own photo or whether he just lifted it from the .NET-? Either way, carry on! <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  19:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I asked eBay and they confirmed that copyright remains with the image creator, who is generally the seller. They advise all sellers to create their own images, but they do not police this unless someone complains. So I'll ask the seller if it's his image, or if not where he found it. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Right; as for expertise here, is there a copyright noticeboard or something? There's one for everything else! ;) <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  19:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC) (WP:CP etc, but more specific?)
 * BTW, how much is it selling for???
 * A good place would be to start here: Media copyright questions. It's for sale for a mere £3,000. But postage is free. Maybe you'd like to buy it and take a picture? Easier than facing OTRS, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Bet he sells magic beans too... <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  19:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Very likely. But not sure about eggs or worms, though. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The standard clause on the eBAy website says that "When providing us with content, you grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual (or for the duration of any copyright or other rights in such content), irrevocable, royalty-free, sublicensable (through multiple tiers) right to use the content and authorise us to exercise any and all copyright, trademark, publicity, database or other rights you have in or to the content in any media known now or in the future." In theory, then, either eBay or the original copyright holder/photographer could authorise the image's use. In practice, I'd imagine you'd want the original photographer's agreement. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, thanks for that. I failed to find it. That's far removed from what I was told half an hour ago. Maybe I'll go and ask again. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Both statements are probably correct, e.g. the copyright does remain with the photographer, but eBay has the right to exercise the rights to that copyright on their behalf if they wish to. That's not quite the same as the photographer selling or transferring the copyright to eBay, which is why the original photographer could still release the image to the Commons on their own behalf should they choose. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I asked the seller, who requested being credited as the image owner and a link to his eBay shop. I explained that the former was quite normal, at the image file location, but that the later was certainly not. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm pleased to say he has now replied further: "Yes it's fine to use it for non profit and the credit me as the owner". So I'll ask over at OTRS. I'm just hoping there is a standard procedure for eBay images. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be outrageous of me to predict there won't be!! Cheers for your work on that,Martin. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  21:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The seller has now stopped replying to my emails, so it seems he's changed his mind. Oh well. There may be others worth asking about. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Can he withdraw permission anyway, now it's been given? How did OTRS go? <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  17:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We never got that far. I asked for his email address and he vanished. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Spooky. I'll bet it was the ghost of Edward V. Deb (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Jack of Norfolk, be not too bold, For Donon, thy master, is bought and sold. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Empson and Dudley on ebay now, watching the groats....? <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  18:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Reburial controversies
I personally find the latests additions by Proxima Centaury on the controvercies over Richard's reburial place to be both overredundant (controvercies and the judicial review that followed are already mentioned previously in the same chapter) and inadequate, however I would not like to proceed removing them without discussion or senior editors' opinion. What do you think?Isananni (talk) 08:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks reasonable. I think some mention is needed in the lede as it's such a big national event. But I'll try and find a senior editor. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it should not be in the article, all I'm saying is that it is a duplication of what has already been mentioned in the Discovery of remains section, paragraph 6 Isananni (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The lede section is meant to suummarize the entire article. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Martin, I hope you have been promoted to 'Senior Editor' before partaking in the discussion <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna  <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  13:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No way. I'm an annoying and incompetent newbie. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC) (ok, maybe not a newbie)

Thank you Martin, got it now. I have a feeling it's going to be a crazy week for vandalisms on the article if I have to judge from its history since we discussed this genuine good faith edit. Have you all a nice day. Isananni (talk) 06:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that a sentence? <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  12:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and a quite acceptable one from someone whose first language isn't English. Give credit where it's due. Deb (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed a word out. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  14:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Deb. Isananni (talk) 05:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Childhood section: what's in a name? - more clarity for a start?
Summary of events:
 * User WJunkin recently mistakenly changed Anne for Cecily Neville as Richard of York's betrothed in a sentence in a citation of the Childhood section.
 * User Isananni (me) changed it back to the correct partner.
 * Senior editor Deb removed the whole sentence as "misleading"
 * user Isananni (so far offline) asked editor Deb for explanation <I wonder why you removed the sentence on Richard Duke of York and Cecily Neville though. It's something one can cross check from the cited book or from the wiki article on Richard of York and Cecily themselves, but it did not make the article any longer since it was in a reference and removing it forces the visitor to the page to browse further for clarification on what is documented history. Young aristocrats' marriages were often though of in their childhood and arrangements were met so that the bride groom grew to know and hopefully love each other by joining the partner's household - however focused on interest, this does show it was not an entirely barbaric age with awful uncaring parents sacrificing their offspring on the altar of their ambition only. I will leave it to you for now, but since that sentence had survived peer review and a whole year, including your supervision, I think we should keep it.>
 * user Deb replied offline <Yes, but obviously some people have misunderstood what it said, and I can understand why. Richard, 3rd Duke of York was betrothed to Cecily Neville - but the sentence added was meant to demonstrate that Richard junior was in a similar position to his father.  I don't think that kind of extrapolation belongs within a reference.>
 * user Isananni replied offline <Ok, let's just leave the reference to the book, there's plenty of referals to both r3's father and mother to cross check> and simply specified the name of the young dukes's father, since they are not the only dukes mentioned in the article''
 * user Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi removed my entry as "unnecessary detail"
 * user Isananni Reinserted detail as per offline discussion with senior editor Deb. One name does not make the article longer, but makes it a lot clearer
 * user Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi Undid revision 654754665 by Isananni (talk)Rv: offline discussions are irrelevant here as is name-dropping :p
 * I still think the whole sentence that editor Deb removed could have been kept, should have been kept: one single editor mistaking the aunt for the niece should not compromise a text that had already been peer reviewed and survived senior editors' supervision for a whole year so far. I do object to the specification of the name of the young dukes' father being removed as it makes the paragraph less clear for the unexperienced visitor to the page (which I expect to be the average). Furthermore, I do not think Fortuna's intervention on my 3 words edit has anything to do with the good of the article, but with long breeded personal dislike with a person he/she has never met. I am sorry if I have difficulties in applying AGF after I have been made subject of personal mockery over my fluency in the English language, as well as WP:NOT FORUM while relevantly conversing with other editors on the talk page, and all sorts of sarcasm in the space of days and all this in the most blatant impunity.

I would be glad for other editors' opinion on the edit. Isananni (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Examine the ref. The sentence was unsourced. So it has been removed, and thus the article is improved. It was in any case unnecessary detail to repeat his father's name, as we have already been told who that is; and the article is not about him. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  12:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. First of all, I'm not a senior editor. I don't have any more right than anyone else to make edits or change other people's, but I am an admin so it is my responsibility to try to deal even-handedly when there is a content dispute.  I felt that adding the explanation into the reference was both inappropriate and confusing, as it was badly worded.  However, adding the wording into the main sentence was fine with me and I am not sure why FIM thought that it was a good idea to remove it.  It did seem to be an action directed against the person rather than the content, though I'm sure that was not the intention as I know this editor has spent a lot of time and effort on this article.  But WP:OWN.  Perhaps FIM could suggest alternative wording? Deb (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Forget about me. It is not personal. READ THE REF. It was inadequate which = unsourced. Please advise the other editor to refrain from accusations and to remember WP:EW: The editor repeatedly inserts unsourced information. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  12:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The sentence was perfectly sourced though obviously summarized for the sake of being concise and to avoid coyright infringement and it IS personal, or peer reviewers and other editors, including you, would have objected to it long before, you removed it after I took the discussion to the talk page. This personal revenge deprives the visitor to the page of information that may not be vital, but does add to the general understanding of the historical context and we are talking of what? 140 digits in total? I insist on having the opinion of other editors before you insist on your personal fight.Isananni (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Can someone please read the reference to PMK as the editor seems unwilling to do so? READ THE REF as I have asked and stop making accusations.<sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  12:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Is Kendall the problem? Do you prefer other references? Does "Cecily Neville" by Amy Licence meet your tastes? No, I recall Licence does not live up to your standards. Maybe Hicks Warwick the Kingmaker, then? Or Johnson Richard Duke of York? Can you name one single reference that supports evidence contrary to the sentence you keep removing?Isananni (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please desist from attempts at sarcasm. Just READ THE REFERENCE to Kendall. WHAT does it say??? <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  12:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

NB: I don't have access to the volume; could anyone identify the page and perhaps post a sentence or two from it here? I'm happy to read through it as a uninvolved party. In the meantime, can we avoid an edit war - several editors are now over the 3RR etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Until that is done, can we agree that the material is unsourced and should be removed pending sourcing. I should also probably alo recommend a temporary TB for myself and User:Isananni
 * Oh, look - the same statement about Richard being betrothed to Cecily is spelled out in the article about him: Richard_of_York,_3rd_Duke_of_York. If we don't think it is adequately sourced, we should be discussing it on that page.Deb (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should obviously be removed from there too :) <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna  <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  12:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And Cecily Neville? Deb (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I assume you want the material removed from those articles too? I am willing to undertake the task. Of course in the RoY article that is most of it.... <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  12:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that something doesn't appear in the particular source quoted doesn't necessarily mean it's untrue. It would be more constructive to look for alternative sources - or, better still, find something that disproves it.  That's if you have any books to hand; I don't. Deb (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking for sources on Richard of York?Goodman, Anthony The Wars of the Roses Routledge&Kegan 1990 ISBN 0-415-05264-5

Griffiths, R.A., The Reign of Henry VI' ISBN 0-7509-3777-7 Haigh, Philip From Wakefield to Towton Pen and Sword Books 2002 ISBN 0-85052-825-9 Hariss, G.L., The Struggle for Calais: An Aspect of the Rivalry between Lancaster and York, English Historical Review LXXV(1960), 30. Hicks Warwick the Kingmaker ISBN 0-631-23593-0 Hilliam, David Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards Sutton Publishing 2000 ISBN 0-7509-2340-7 Jacob, E.F., The Oxford History of England: The Fifteenth century, 1399–1485 (Clarendon Press, 1961; reprint 1988) ISBN 0-19-821714-5 Johnson Richard Duke of York ISBN 0-19-820268-7 Rowse, A.L. Bosworth Field and the Wars of the Roses, Wordsworth Military Library, 1966 ISBN 1-85326-691-4 Storey, Robin The End of the House of Lancaster Sutton Publishing 1986 ISBN 0-86299-290-7 Wolffe Henry VI ISBN 0-300-08926-0 Isananni (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

A limited selection, but it'll have to do... but we don't need a massive list of books... just ONE page # frm PMK. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  12:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll bet you've got a fantastic library between the two of you. :-) Deb (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sure hers are bigger than mine. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  12:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Gone all electronic, eh? (oops, WP:NOTFORUM) Deb (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

BINGO! See, wasn't difficult, was it... You better add the ref to all those other articles User:Deb mentioned earlier now... Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And you had the source at hand too, since you added page 16 to my reference of page 17, so it was not that difficult for you either, you simply played your vicious little game. What a miserable way to have fun on Holy Friday: as I said before, you are beyond definition. Well, I had my cross to carry and delivered, be my guests in adding the reference to the connected articles.Isananni (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I had to go to some trouble to find the ref. Anyway, I had to pop out earlier and roll a massive stone in front of my neighbour's cave- he's staying in for a few days  <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna  <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  13:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:GRATUITOUS. Deb (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Denial of a Catholic funeral
There wasnt a controversy about his funeral, since he was a Catholic monarch and was given an Anglican funeral? I think this should be mentioned in the entry.Mistico (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Go ahead... 17:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Surely the whole point of Cardinal Vincent Nichols, the Archbishop of Westminster, celebrating Mass in Holy Cross Priory, Leicester, the Catholic parish church (and in Holy Cross Church), on 25 March, was to avoid any such "controversy"? The Prior of Holy Cross was part of the actual funeral procession. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We spoke with Pete Hobson, canon missioner of Leicester Cathedral, and he pointed out, if needed, that this was not a funeral, it was a reinterment, where they strived to give an ecumenical touch that included the presence of Roman Catholic priests. King Richard is not the only prereformation King or Prince to find himself on Anglican ground and I met many Roman Catholics at the service, besides our family, who raised no objection, in fact Roman Catholics can attend Anglican rites. There were controvercies over the opportunity to ask people attending the service to provide their personal data and photographic evidence of their identity as part of the security procedures required for the presence of a member (2 members in this case) of the Royal family, should we include them in the article too?Isananni (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, isn't there a specific article where such in depth edits could be included rather than overload the main one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhumation_and_reburial_of_Richard_III_of_England Just my thoughts Isananni (talk) 05:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would have thought the identity controversies would be more notable. But I'd expect to see such details only at the specific article, as you quite rightly suggest. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Burial and tomb section - picture of new tomb
I was wondering if some more experienced editor than me could include a picture of the new tomb in the section since it's described in detail. I do not know how to do it myself, but I found a gallery on this site, the first picture shows most details described in the section http://news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/king-richard-iiis-monumental-tomb-unveiled-150327.htm Thank you for your help. Isananni (talk) 06:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The image would have to be licensed for our use - preferably donated by someone. Deb (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I should be able to arrange that, even though not right now during Holy Week. I will get back to you when I have a positive answer. Heppy Easter Isananni (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFORUM <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  14:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why my last entry should be chided with a WP:NOTFORUM. Deb made a pertinent remark and I answered that the problem can be overcome in due time, all in the interest of the article. If you have better and quicker means to help improve on the article by providing a license to include the image of the tomb, please feel free to do so Fortuna. With my blessings for Holy Week. Isananni (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Don't be such a Hastings!Deb (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Isananni. This joint could do with the odd bit of levity every once in a while to keep it from resembling a bleak Victorian workhouse.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wot levity? Anyway, this is the room for Midlands tombs, Victorian poorhouses are down the corridor! <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  15:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I uploaded in Wikifiles the picture of the tomb for which license to use for Wikipedia only has been granted by Leicester Cathedral, but I am hopeless at editing. If some other editor could kindly help make a better editing and show the picture in the article, I would be most thankful. Isananni (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Hchc2009 for editing the picture! Isananni (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

CE
Removed some superfluous linkage as per WP:MOS. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  12:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:MOS with regard to Wikilinks states

Make links only where they are relevant and helpful in the context:''' Excessive use of hyperlinks can be distracting and may slow the reader down. Redundant links (like the one in the tallest people on Earth) clutter the page and make future maintenance harder. High-value links that are worth pursuing should stand out clearly. All links recently removed by user Fortuna represented the one and only link of the specific section where the link had been added by the previous editors (not necessarily me in most cases) to allow the reader an easier browsing of the connected information present on Wikipedia. It it true that most links are present in the summary, or in previous sections, but the index allows the reader to "jump" to a specific section where now he does not find e.g. the link to Henry Tudor or the Battle of Bosworth Field in the section "Deeath at the Battle of Bosworth Field" or the link to Anne Neville in the section "Marriage and family relationships" anymore, thus forcing the reader to either scroll up the article in search of the relevant link or retype name/noun/concept in the search string, which is the opposite of the pursued goal of being helpful to the reader and allowing a quick browsing for information. I would kindly ask other editors/admins to look into this issue. I personally recommend reinstating all removed wikilinks as imho they fall in the category of high-value links worth pursuing. Isananni (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  16:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We know your opinion already, Apprentice Editor Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, since you made the changes. I look forward to other opinions. Isananni (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the removal of the links in question is in keeping with the guidance at WP:OVERLINK. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is what WP:OVERLINK says, last paragraph of the section <Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. Duplicate links in an article can be identified by using a tool that can be found at User:Ucucha/duplinks.> Reinstating the links would be perfectly in keeping with this policy as well as the a.m. MOS policy. Isananni (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No it would not. Links in footnotes and info boxes are irrelevant here as none of them were removed. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  16:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed it would, since e.g. Henry Tudor or Leicester Cathedral were, to my best knowledge, the first occurrence after the lead Isananni (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ...which does not apply because they are linked in the lede; and should not be. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  16:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * They can and should according to the already mentioned WP:REPEATLINK Isananni (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The lede should be hardly linked at all. So I will remove all the links from the lede and then you can restore vitally important links to er Anne of York (are you sure???) etc. Compromise! <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  16:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not right. I take the guidance to mean that you should include them in the lead paragraph or, if not in that paragraph, at their first occurrence in the text.Deb (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * One or the other of those interpretations is fine- but not both- which is how it was. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  16:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's somewhere in between given the possibility of duplicate links when helpful for the reader. The lead paragraph can of course be linked and the same link can be repeated later in a specific section where it is relevant to the section. Otherwise there would be no sense in providing a format for duplicate links, would there be? Just my opinion of course, but why take the link away from e.g. The Battle of Bosworth if the previous link is miles away and the guidance allows duplications when helpful to the reader? Isananni (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Likewise though, why do we need to add the link to- say- Anne of York? the thing about removing links is not that it's unhelpful to the reader- but the opposite- that it makes for an easier reading experience.

The policy guidance encourages generally linking once in an article, with potential duplication permitted once in the main text if a link is also used in the lead; one additional use in each of infoboxes, tables, captions etc. is also typically permitted. Looking at a recent version of the article and taking two examples,, Henry Tudor, for example, was being linked in the lead, in Rebellion of 1483, and in Death at the Battle of Bosworth Field - Imperatrix's removal of the third incident is perfectly in line with the guidance. Leicester Cathedral was linked in the lead, a caption, an infobox, twice in Discovery of remains, once again in Burial and tomb; similarly, the removal of several of these was in line with the guidance. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, and Anne Neville is linked in the infobox under the picture of the section Marriage etc. But would it really be overlinking if her name was also linked at the beginning of a section titled Marriage etc. with the first line reading Richard married Anne Neville..." I think we are trying to reach the same goal, from different perspectives. I for one find it a lot easier when links guide me, especially in articles like this one that are over 20 scrolls long on a pc screen let alone the mobile version.. Just the opinion of one who is probably more a reader than an editor of Wiki...Isananni (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Let me put it like this; you are probably right in that there are two types of editor, those who want to read an article for itself, and those who use it to get somewhere else. Which I've done myself- e.g., if you can't remember the name of one of Napoleon's Generals, then he can be reached through his boss's page. But- using that example- if I'm looking for a link to MacDonald et alia, I'm not likely to wait until the reference at the bottom of the page- I'll have clicked the link the moment I come across it: earlier. So, late links like that are surely redundant, or at least orientated to a minute demographic of our constituents (those who only decide they want to find out about his wife at the bottom of the page!). I certainly imagine that to be the purpose of policy. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  17:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I swear I hardly understood a word, I hope you understood my point of poor reader. I think both stances are accettable, so just please take a look at the removed links again if and when you can and see if a couple of them might not deserve reinstating. I personally favoured at least one link to Richard's wife in a paragraph that is dedicated to their marriage, but I can be wrong. At least the double link to Michael Hicks got removed too... Btw, the reference to Hicks' book citing his suggestion Richard's marriage to Anne was invalid lacks # page... No, don't look at me for it, I did not edit that entry... :) Isananni (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out the lack of page number; I'm afraid that- according to policy- I'm going to have to delete the whole article now. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  18:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please tell me you are kidding, I had a bad time already... Isananni (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How about restoring links to contemporary items (his wife, sister etc), but leaving 'secondary' items like Hicks, Leicester etc. Although bearing in mind that interesting diff that Hchc2009 raised...? <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  18:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd call that a good compromise Isananni (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I restored part of the links to contemporary figures/events that were relevant in the section, all other removed links have been left removed. Isananni (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Missing citation by Pollard (not Ross) with reference to Edward of Middleham
I recently removed a statement allegedly by Pollard (not Ross, my fault in editing the summary of edit) with reference to Edward of Middleham being named heir apparent 2 months before dying (that is around February 1484). I never stumbled in such a statement before: Kendall, Hicks, Carson, Baldwin, etc. all only mention Edward's investiture as Prince of Wales on 8 September 1483 (which was at the time itself a sign of acknowledgement as heir apparent, to my best knowledge), no contemporary or semycontemporary account I recall (Crowland Chronicle, etc.) speaks of this 1484 act. Can anyone cite the precise reference/page by Pollard or any other scholar supporting this statement and the relative contemporary document it refers to? Otherwise my opinion is the statement should be removed. Thank you for your help. Isananni (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The reference is there. I'm sorry if that is not clear to you. PS: As per WP:RS, the primary source is irrelevant.<sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  15:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just seen the new reference, my fault I am slow, and it does point to the primary source, the parliament of January-February 1484, probably one of the final acts of Richard III's only parliament. Thanks for improving on the reference. Isananni (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Did my reply sound sufficiently sarcastic? <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  15:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It did :( but the important thing is that the reader has a clear and useful reference now, and not the red warning that spoiled the references list before your amendment :) Isananni (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies for sarcasm. It is just very hot here. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  15:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope it's hot in Italy as well! Deb (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually it's still freezing in the morning over here, well, freezing for our standards...no garden maintenance for new grass yet unfortunately, but hey WP:NOTFORUM :) Apologies accepted. Have a nice day Isananni (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Going to Italy? Nice. PS- temporary policy of WP:DAYTIMEFORUM eh User:Isananni <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna  <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  15:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's unusually perceptive... Deb (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:GUESS... bon voyage! <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  15:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Introduction - too long? Maybe a little
I've just seen the template. May I humbly suggest removing paragraph 5 (reburial) and making paragraph 4 (finding of remains) shorter? I really cannot see how the first 3 paragraphs could be even shorter... I only hope we can find a stable outlook, I was hoping to update the Italian version to the new adds one of these days... Just my thoughts Isananni (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Follow my footsteps and tell me I've trodden in something. I compared it similar articles- Henry V, Henry VI, Edward IV, and Henry VII- and it is much longer- too long I thought. But- I then compared it to Elizabeth I's article. That is about the same length lede (or certainly comparative anyway) as this one: BUT it's a smaller article. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  18:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, take parapraph 4 and 5 away and it will be about the same length as HVII, even though I would not go to such extreme lengths (forgive the pun) since the discovery of the remains does make Richard's case peculiar if not unique and should be mentioned, however shortly, in the lead paragraph. I had already expressed my perplexities over paragraph 5, but then you agreed with Martin it was ok for the lead chapter, so I gave in. I think EI and RIII are pretty much the same size as articles, probably the discovery of remains and reburial sections are an extraordinary feature, but I would not take them away, not entirely at least. EIV is probably too short, but I would personally not venture in editing his article Isananni (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just for info, the exact size (in bytes) of an article can be found via the page information link to the left of the actual article. E.g., here.
 * Thank you, but am I correct in assuming that information also includes the references, the bibliography, etc? And we know how well sourced Richard's article is in comparison with many others, while in terms of article itself my impression was RIII and EI were more or less comparable Isananni (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I moved the whole paragraph on the reinterment to the Reburial and tomb section, leaving only the indication of date and place of reburial at the end of paragraph 4. I tried to think of how paragraph 4 in the lead could be shortened, but however I spin it, something would be lacking in an already rather summarised passage and I feel the discovery of Richard's remains is a unique feature of this monarch that should be kept in the lead paragraph. I personally think the lead paragraph is now rather acceptable, but of course my changes can be reverted. Isananni (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it really too long? I think it's okay.Deb (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The length is consistent with guidelines. Most articles have lead sections that are actually a lot shorter that they should be according to guidelines. Paul B (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Northamptonshire
Richard III was only born in one county, i.e. Northamptonshire, so that Wikiproject has some relevance to him.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * And he died in Leicestershire, and lived in Yorkshire, and London. I guess the real issue is what is the point of these 'projects' being listed. How does it help the article, or the project? What will it achieve? Paul B (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to say I agree with Paul's questioning, but also apologise for deleting the category unilaterally rather than bringing it to talk, as Johnsoniensis has done. Cheers. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  17:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps comments from WikiProject Northamptonshire members could be rquested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Northamptonshire.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 06:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think this has been done. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  18:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did it, but it doesn't look like there's much interest.Deb (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Good result. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  19:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'm at home... Deb (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Latest changes by user User:Charles Sf
May humbly suggest all recent changes by user Charles Sf are amended/reverted to the text as was before his/her intervention? Reasons being: - Most entries are unsourced, whereas to by best knowledge e.g. Rivers being accused of plotting Gloucester's life is reported by Mancini (as reported by Kendall, Carson, even Ross, etc. ). The Council at first did not approve of Anthony Woodville's conviction for treason in May 1483 because technically Richard's role as Protector of the Realm had not been confirmed yet - The Confession of James Tyrrel is a stand alone section/article that has its place in Wikipedia and does not need to be fully reported in this specific article, new findings, if ever (David Starkey has claimed to have found "new" documents that he has not produced and his interpretation of their meaning is as good as any) belong to Tyrrel's article that already had its due referral link when his name was mentioned in Richard's article Looking forward to your opinion Isananni (talk) 07:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Richard III of England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Richard-III-king-tomb-slab-says-online-poll/story-18422157-detail/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 11:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Latest changes by user User:Charles Sf
May humbly suggest all recent changes by user Charles Sf are amended/reverted to the text as was before his/her intervention? Reasons being: - Most entries are unsourced, whereas to by best knowledge e.g. Rivers being accused of plotting Gloucester's life is reported by Mancini (as reported by Kendall, Carson, even Ross, etc. ). The Council at first did not approve of Anthony Woodville's conviction for treason in May 1483 because technically Richard's role as Protector of the Realm had not been confirmed yet - The Confession of James Tyrrel is a stand alone section/article that has its place in Wikipedia and does not need to be fully reported in this specific article, new findings, if ever (David Starkey has claimed to have found "new" documents that he has not produced and his interpretation of their meaning is as good as any) belong to Tyrrel's article that already had its due referral link when his name was mentioned in Richard's article Looking forward to your opinion Isananni (talk) 07:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Richard III of England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Richard-III-king-tomb-slab-says-online-poll/story-18422157-detail/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 11:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits - controversy over primary and secondary sources in DNA research
Could we please keep both references and find a compromise? It's not like the primary source is a text in hand-written Medieval Latin needing extra competence to read and understand... Isananni (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It certainly seems a strange decision to resist inclusion of the peer-reviewed academic paper when it's free-to-view. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My thoughts precisely Isananni (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Can someone summarize what the issue here is? Seraphim System  ( talk ) 02:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

An editor deleted a citation of an article reporting on the results of the cross comparison of Richard III's Y DNA with today's descendants of Edward III (who was also Richard III's ancestor) through the Beaufort line and replaced it with the reference to the original 2015 academic paper and another editor reverted these edits alleging it was against Wiki policy. My suggestion is to end this edit war by keeping both references. Isananni (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Add Josephine Tey, "The Daughter of Time" and maybe edit languageGFHandle (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
To the Further Reading list I'd add Josephine Tey, The Daughter of Time, a detectives story focused on the tower murders.

Second, the entry asserts simply that "rumors circulated" about the murders at the time. Tey claims rumors existed only in Morton's trail and that there is no evidence of general rumors of the murders at the time. (If she is right, the article leaves a false impression.) --GFHandle (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * We have an article on Tey's 1951 The Daughter of Time. It's already cited, and wiki-linked from this article, in so far as needs be. It's based on the author's readings of scholarly and historical critiques - and it's a cracking good read - but is not in itself a scholarly work on the topic, so I don't think it qualifies for inclusion in Further reading. Haploidavey (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have never read it, but I tend to agree that a detective novel is probably not best suited to the "Further reading" section of such an important historical figure. Perhaps I'm just being elitist. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Richard III of England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120831071828/http://www.canada.com/technology/Canadian+family+holds+genetic+Richard+puzzle/7151179/story.html to http://www.canada.com/technology/Canadian+family+holds+genetic+Richard+puzzle/7151179/story.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140524043912/http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Richard-III-Leicester-win-battle-bones/story-21132993-detail/story.html to http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Richard-III-Leicester-win-battle-bones/story-21132993-detail/story.html
 * Added tag to http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/LIVE-UPDATES-Richard-III-DNA-results-announced/story-18041484-detail/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Richard III of England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140927005934/http://home.cogeco.ca/~richardiii/statutes.html to http://home.cogeco.ca/~richardiii/statutes.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141119012257/http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Richard-III-dig-R-marks-spot-skeleton-Leicester/story-18030925-detail/story.html to http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Richard-III-dig-R-marks-spot-skeleton-Leicester/story-18030925-detail/story.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140912135934/http://www.richardthethirdlincs.org/richard-3rd-judgment-.pdf to http://richardthethirdlincs.org/richard-3rd-judgment-.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303211922/http://kingrichardinleicester.com/tomb-design/ to http://kingrichardinleicester.com/tomb-design/
 * Added tag to http://leicestermercury.co.uk/Richard-III-Tomb-design-does-meet-Leicester/story-18391233-detail/story.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140328221916/http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Richard-III-Stone-slab-mark-final-resting-place/story-18402860-detail/story.html to http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Richard-III-Stone-slab-mark-final-resting-place/story-18402860-detail/story.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130721071924/http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Richard-III-buried-tomb-says-Leicester-Cathedral/story-19536774-detail/story.html to http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Richard-III-buried-tomb-says-Leicester-Cathedral/story-19536774-detail/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Titles
It is said Richard was made a Knight of the Order of Bath - but according to the linked page that order was 'founded by George I on 18 May 1725.' What is the correct link? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a "Knight of the Order of Bath"—just a Knight of the Bath, the latter beng the former's medieval predecessor. Á sarum! Á Warwycke! :)  ...SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 11:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Could the text be clarified slightly for others likely to be equally puzzled? Jackiespeel (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've piped a link to the most relevant section of the Order of the Bath article. Don't know is this is sufficient. Haploidavey (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably will solve the problem - and, if there are other such queries add something along the lines of '(since 1725 the...)' for clarity. Jackiespeel (talk) 12:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Accession against usurpation
I think 'accession' is the wrong word. With the slightly problematic exception of Baldwin, all historians use 'usurped' - Horrox, Ross, Pollard, Hicks in particular. The other point is of course that however you look at it Richard wasn't next in line, and clearly didn't even believe that himself given the different justifications he came up with for seizing power. So it was a usurpation whatever his motives and however he set about it. This is of course also true of Henry IV, Edward IV and Henry VII, so it wasn't exactly uncommon. Have also somewhat altered the wording in the lead, which seemed to miss several key facts (e.g. the arrest of Rivers and Grey, the fact that only Richard and his allies declared the Princes illegitimate, not a properly constituted court) which definitely presented a pro-Ricardian slant to events I do not think is justified.The Irish Question (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I changed the wording back to Accession per WP:NEUTRAL Not only Baldwin, but other eminent historians like Paul Murray Kendall, MBE John Ashdown-Hill, Josephine Wilkinson, etc. hold a more positive view of Richard's motivations and legitimization to accept the offer of the throne that was placed by the three Estates of the realm on 25 June 1483. Plus, the adds to the lead without all the details of the circumstances of the arrest of Lord Rivers, etc. is again against WP:NEUTRAL and will be accordingly removed. Isananni (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Isannani, I am afraid that 'Accession' itself is not a neutral term. This is for two reasons. First, it implies that Richard became king legally, which he clearly did not. Even he clearly did not believe it given the number of increasingly bizarre excuses he found, including accusing his own mother of adultery. Secondly, whatever you may think it goes against the views of professional scholars - all three you name being either experts in other fields or amateurs. Paul Murray Kendall was not an historian but a professor of literature (and a very good one) John Ashdown-Hill is a genealogist and whatever the merits of his popular work has never held a university post (which is hardly surprising given on page 16 of his biography he appears to suggest Edward V connived at his own deposition) Josephine Wilkinson I know little of so can't comment but does not on a quick search to hold an academic post. Against that we have to set the following: I think that makes the academic consensus (and I would remind you that is what Wikipedia is here to summarise) pretty clear. On that basis it should be called a usurpation. I can see from your history that you have a significant emotional investment in this page, but I am afraid you are simply wrong here and presenting a very distorted view of Richard's reign in consequence. I have students to teach and they were finding this page is presenting confusing, which is why I made slight adjustments in the first place to tone it down. I could have gone a lot further as the whole thing reads like a propaganda exercise from the Richard III society, but for the moment I am contenting myself with getting rid of blatant lies. I have put it back the way it was and I would advise you if you cannot deal with facts and scholarship, to stay away from this page.The Irish Question (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A. L. Rowse, former Sub-Warden at All-Souls and a Research Fellow at The Huntington Library, in Bosworth Field and the Wars of the Roses (1966) chapter 10: 'Richard's usurpation of the throne'.
 * Michael Hicks, Emeritus Professor of Medieval University at the University of Winchester, in Richard III (2000) chapter 3, 'Richard III's usurpation of the throne.'
 * A. J. Pollard, Emeritus Professor of Medieval History at the University of Teesside, The Wars of the Roses (2000) 'an act of usurpation' (p. 85)
 * Pollard again, Richard III and the Princes in the Tower (1991) p. 139 'the throne he had usurped.'
 * Christine Carpenter, Professor of Medieval History at the University of Cambridge, The Wars of the Roses: Politics and the Constitution in England (2008) p. 209 'Hastings' death was a precondition for a usurpation against a family he had served loyally all his life.'
 * Dr Rosemary Horrox, Fellow of Medieval History at Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, in the ODNB (free to anyone with a UK library card) 'These reservations derived from Richard's inability to deliver the continuity and stability that he had promised—the tacit justification of his usurpation' (there is a whole section called 'the usurpation of the throne').
 * If you want those who work a little outside the field, or who may be considered not fully professional, Trevor Royle, author on military history, The Wars of the Roses: England's first Civil War (a strange title - do Stephen and Matilda not count?) (2010) p. 388 somewhat anachronistically refers to Richard's accession as a 'coup' (which it should be noted is also the phrase used by the late Charles Ross, Professor of Medieval History at the University of Bristol, in his biography of Edward IV). Or cf Anthony Cheetham, former chairman of Quercus Publishing, who wrote a biography of Richard in 1972 and called chapter 4 'The Usurper.'
 * Even if we go to primary sources, although for Wikipedia that's not technically relevant, Domenic Mancini called his entire work 'the usurpation of Richard III.'
 * As for your comments on Stony Stratford, are you suggesting that Richard did not meet the party, arrest the escort and take Edward V to London himself? Because that is the only way it could have been non-neutral. Incidentally your claim that Parliament ratified the illegitimacy allegations is wrong. They did pass Titulus Regius ex post facto, but Parliament was not in session at the time, and it was an assembly of commoners and Londoners that proclaimed Richard king.
 * My point on the necessity to respect the guidelines of WP:NEUTRAL is perfectly supported by the mention of scholars that are equally relevant in the study of the historical figure of Richard III as the ones you mention. Starting from the late 16th century/early 17th century we have George Buck, William Camden, Francis Bacon, Horace Walpole, Clements Markham, as well as the already mentioned Paul Murray Kendall, MBE John Ashdown-Hill, Josephine Wilkinson, etc. If you cannot think out of your tiny box and do not follow the WIKI rules, maybe you are the one who should stay away from this page. Isananni (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, this article does not exactly come out of nothing and nowhere. All sections are the product of endless discussions on the talk page, as you may be able to appreciate if you have a look at the archived topics, and especially the wording of the different sections is the result of the consensus eventually reached amongst the erstwhile editors, that I am unfortunately not able to boast I was part of. The wording "Accession" instead of "Usurpation" in particular has been carefully selected to respect WP:NEUTRAL. Isananni (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Seeking consensus here, and offering a third opinion: It seems clear enough to me that there are legitimate historians to support the term accession. User:The Irish Question seems to be acting as though the word accession implies some WP:FRINGE theory, which is not the case. Reviewing the definitions, one can hardly find a more WP:NEUTRAL term for taking a throne than accession. That's the middle ground here. At one extreme, legitimacy would be implied by succession; at the opposite extreme, the absence of legitimacy would be implied by usurpation. In response to this incipient edit war (which I hope can be avoided), I support using the term accession. <span style="color:#000;border-width:0;font-weight:normal;padding:0 1px 0 1px;text-shadow:1px 4px 8px #F70,-8px -6px 10px #ee7f2d,1px 1px 1px #FFF,2px 2px 1px #AAA;">Lwarrenwiki (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I find myself in agreement with User:Lwarrenwiki on this matter, per their definitions. There is no reason that usage of this word should somehow prohibit mention / discussion of the fact that his accession has been / can be considered a userpation, but it need not be primary (I note, for instance, that Hicks (WotR (2012) uses the terms almost interchangeably). Current policy is, of course that consensus of sources outweighs the Cherrypicking of the same. Cheers, &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  19:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Lwarrenwiki and Fortuna. As an addendum to what The Irish Question accuses me of, may I just point out that when I removed the Stony Stradford entries from the lead, I did so specifying the episode was fully covered with aboundant citations in the Accession section (see history of the article for reference) which I did not amend further than restoring the Accession vs Usurpation wording. We had a discussion on this talk page that the lead was already too long, any editor may appreciate the related discussion in the archived topics section. Isananni (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wholly agree with Lwarrenwiki. As a section heading "Accession" is not inaccurate and is much to be preferred. But I think The Irish Question should be allowed to elaborate slightly on the large number of historians who describe it as "usurpation". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That is in the "Reputation" section Martinevans123. Again, should anyone wish to add further mentions of differing views on the perception of Richard III's actions, it should encompass both sides to keep the article neutral. Isananni (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I guess that's all covered there, in some detail. I searched for the word "usurp" and couldn't find it. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You will not find the word "saint" either, whatever The Irish Question thinks, LOL Isananni (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - If it was up to me, I'd just look for some alternative paragraph heading that meets the neutrality requirement from both points of view - "Richard becomes King" or something like that.Deb (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * No objection. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Deb, no objections to your recent changes. Isananni (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - According to the Cambridge dictionary here, to ascend the throne means "to become queen or king". I not sure what the problem with the word ascend is because it seems perfectly neutral to me.  That is, ascending the throne can be legal or illegal.  "Usurp", on the the other hand, always has negative connotations.  I say to leave it as "ascend".  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem word wasn't "ascend", Bill, it was "accede" (as in "accession"). Deb (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd certainly give your correction my assent. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)<//small>
 * It should read "Ascension to the throne", true. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna (Currently not receiving (most) pings, sorry) 17:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you probably mean "ascent". I've undone it so you can fix it yourself. :-) Deb (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I know that Isannani is obsessive on this subject and that people like quiet lives but this is simply wrong. I have pointed out that reputable scholarship characterises the accession of Richard as a usurpation - that is to say, he illegally took the throne from the rightful king. There is pretty well no dispute about that now. Wikipedia exists to summarise scholarship and therefore removing the mention that the throne was usurped is itself a violation of neutrality. It is very telling that in order to find any sort of doubt Isananni has to go back to the eighteenth century or work with the likes of Ashdown-Hill, an intriguing but very minor figure. Of course Richard wasn't in any way unusual in being a usurper - every adult male king in the fifteenth century other than Henry V was a usurper of one sort or another. What made Richard slightly unusual was that he took the throne from a child, and not from an adult by war, which is why I think he is so much more controversial. I would add that the mischaracterisations of me and my motives by Isannani are unpleasant but seem mostly to be because he(?) feels unable to argue convincingly against the point I was making. This seems to explain the poor quality of this article, which reads in places more or less like an advert for the Richard III society. I teach on this subject and the poor quality of this article is a real issue. That's why I was trying to get rid of some of its worse features. Would it be better if I rewrote the whole thing from guts up based on scholarship to correct all these mistakes? It would take a while as at the moment between family matters and teaching plus my current research 24 hours just aren't enough, but I don't mind doing it if it would help. Until or unless agreement is reached on this I have tagged the article - non-neutral and factually inaccurate. This also serves as a warning to my students (and others, of course). I have to say Isananni might also benefit from a short break to calm down.The Irish Question (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC) I think before anyone responds to that point they should look at this exchange. However, if @Isananni cannot work with others over scholarship on this topic - and clearly s/he cannot - without getting so abusive there seems little more to be said. However, again it does raise the issue of whether the whole article needs a guts up rewrite.The Irish Question (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC) One thought does occur, however. While 'accession' is a doubtful word - it implies legality, which goes against current scholarship on the subject - could we not just rename the section 'King of England'? That is entirely neutral in the sense that nobody disputes that he became King.The Irish Question (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The level of personal attack against my person as well as of preposterous possessiveness on the article when all other editors agree on the present shape of the article is abismal. Isananni (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you'd probably be well advised to keep your guts intact. I'd agree, though, that there's "little more to be said". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Fact 1) Neutral point of view is one of the founding policies of the article, please check the headline of this talk page
 * Fact 2) Irish Question has repeatedly violated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks
 * Fact 3) Irish Question has gone to the length of stalking me on my talk page as a means of side threat to intimidate me and avoid confrontation on this article talk page where all other editors contributing to this discussion have disagreed with him but I am the only one under personal attack. I wish I could say my modest contribution to this article were worthy of such obsession with my person, but I would welcome anyone dissuading this user from ever addressing me personally again. Isananni (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Would everyone just stop, please, and pause for breath? We've been here before (lots of times). Why get into an argument about semantics when alternative phrases can be used to achieve a compromise? Deb (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to TIQ's suggestion to "just rename the section 'King of England'". I agree that it's wholly neutral and not disputable. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not think TIQ's main goal is to simply rename the section "King of England", which in itself is just as neutral as Deb's Progress to the throne, or the present Ascent to the throne.However, as long as WP:NEUTRAL is respected, and we agree Usurpation is NOT neutral and should only be mentioned in the Reputation section with mention of the scholars supporting this view alongside the scholars supporting the opposite view in equal and balanced measure, I have no objections, but I do expect support against the harassment I was made subject to. Isananni (talk) 09:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that did not look pleasant. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe everyone here needs to calm down and listen to what Shakespeare's Queen Margaret - the widow of the (murdered?) Lancastrian King Henry VI, the grandson of the (usurper?) King Henry IV - called them all: "You wrangling gang of pirates!" There's scientific neutral objectivity for you. O Murr (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, pretty much:
 * "Hear me, you wrangling pirates, that fall out
 * "In sharing that which you have pill'd from me!" --Richard III, Act I, Scene 3. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Marriage
Between 1272 and 1603, Richard III seems to be the only English monarch to be married at the time of accession. Is this worth a mention? Robin S. Taylor (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. I do not see the point in that claim. Also, some might bring up Jane. Surtsicna (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have a reliable source that says so, then go ahead and add the information, please. Someone might have; a book of Royal marriages, perhaps, but that's not really my bag I'm afraid. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 17:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Claim to French throne

 * Category:English pretenders to the French throne
 * 1) There is no assertion within the article that Richard was a claimaint or pretender to the French throne, so this category prima facie fails WP:CATV.
 * 2) English claims to the French throne (which I checked carefully before making the edit here) reads: "" This is the period of Richard III. This section is wholly unsourced.
 * The same problem exists in Edward V of England. Edward IV of England is not a member of this category at all. Henry VII of England, well, "" - doesn't seem to be the kind of way they'd treat a pretender. Henry VIII of England, same situation. I found all claims to the French throne were renounced in the Treaty of Brétigny.
 * This source (dunno its reliability, I won't question it for sake of argument) says from "Castillon in 1453" until 1802 the claim was "increasingly academic" and "theoretical" (but nonetheless real). So if it is a real claim, why isn't it documented in any of these articles? 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Poor argument. We have article Style of the British sovereign, which specifies that thr titles of Richard III were: "Rex Angliae et Franciae et Dominus Hiberniae (King of England and of France and Lord of Ireland)." And the claim to France ends in 1800/1801. Dimadick (talk) 09:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Catholic

 * Now despite lack of discussion, the maintenance template requesting a source for Richard's religious affiliation has been deleted, twice. This article is in categories which require compliance with WP:EGRS and WP:V. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't know who removed it, but I would think it's because they didn't understand why Richard III's religious affiliation would be questioned in the first place and likely thought the request was made in error. All English monarchs pre-Reformation were Catholic back to the Conquest and before. Richard III was christened according to Catholic rites, attended Mass regularly, owned his own Book of Hours which he personally wrote prayers in, set up at least one chantry chapel for Masses to be celebrated for the dead of both sides of the Battle of Towton in 1461, got dispensation from the Pope for his marriage, had his own son christened... Are you questioning whether he was a Catholic or are you asking for sources to prove his Catholic acts? If so, are you asking that we provide such sources for each English monarch all the way back to the Conquest? Or for every monarch in medieval Europe? No sarcasm - it's an honest question because it would set a precedent.  ~History Lunatic  — Preceding unsigned comment added by History Lunatic (talk • contribs) 23:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

A suggestion
Re Section: Discovery of Remains. Just 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," ande later calling him "Richard." As the paragraph is still building evidence for this wretch being Richard, shouldn't it still read "the man" or "the skeleton" at this point, so as not to jump to the conclusion and derail the argument? (The ideal phrase would be "the subject," but that word is somehow antithetical to a ruler (as it turns out) and would thus be a distraction.) I'm not arguing for spoiler-avoidance, but rather for a logical progression of ideas. WHPratt (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a reasonable amendment. Deb (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. Have gone ahead and made a change there, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, this is good, but there are a couple more references to a "king" and a couple of mentions of "Richard" in the paragraph. I don't think that, in this section, the identity should be assumed until the point where the authority declares that it's probably His Ex-Majesty.  After that, call him by name all you want. I'm not arguing for drama or mystery (everyone reading this knows who it is), just the citing of the facts before the conclusion. Thanks for your patience! WHPratt (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no objections if you wish to make the changes you suggest. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll do that. WHPratt (talk) 13:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Reference section tidy-up
Hi all. Just a quick note to explain what I've been up to over the last week or so. Substantively, I made five changes to the article references:


 * 1) I applied a consistent style, as previously there were a few different conventions being used.
 * 2) I added as much bibliographic data to the sources as I could find.
 * 3) Where possible, I switched references to paper books to freely-available online editions.
 * 4) If a source was not actually referenced by an inline citation, I removed it (this was only actually the case for one source).
 * 5) I tried to make sure that bibliographic data for a source was only given in one place, to avoid duplication/redundancy. (For long sources like books and academic articles which might generate multiple citations to different pages etc., I put the bibliographic data in the list of sources and ensured the individual citations link to their source. Shorter sources like news articles and web pages which are unlikely to generate multiple distinct citations are just given in the list of citations.)

Note that I've made heavy use of the WP:CS1 templates, in addition to Template:Sfnp. That choice is more-or-less arbitrary, so if editors don't approve of these it shouldn't be much work to switch to something else now that the data is all in a tidy format. I also assumed from the presence of a bibliography that it should be used (rather than giving a source's bibliographic data in its first occurrence in the citation list), and I've included "long" sources in the list of sources, even if they are only cited once. But both of these judgments are also easily changed, if required.

I hope that's overall a helpful intervention. Let me know if I've made any missteps and I'll happily correct them. Also sorry for monopolising the edit history, I've been making lots of small edits while taking breaks from working on something in the real world... Charlie A. (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Pronoun Trap
The following sentence from #Exile_and_return appears to have suffered over time from cutting and pasting clauses and whole sections, and I can't seem to back-trace the intended meaning.

Following Warwick's 1470 rebellion, in which he (1) made peace with Margaret of Anjou and promised the restoration of Henry VI to the English throne, Richard, William, Lord Hastings and Anthony Woodville, Earl Rivers (2) ''escaped capture at Doncaster by Warwick's brother, Lord Montague. On 2 October they (3) sailed from King's Lynn in two ships; Edward landed at Marsdiep and Richard at Zeeland.''

(1) He, Richard? He, George? He, Warwick? Grammatically, the antecedent would be Warwick and that makes no sense at all.
 * Yes, it was Warwick who made peace with Margaret, and I've amended the wording to make that clearer.Deb (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

(2a) The fact that George was omitted in this list makes me think that (1) is "George". If not, did George escape elsewhere or from someone else? (2b) If Anthony Woodville is 'Earl Rivers', we need a comma after the title. Arthur, the English king, went to bed has a different meaning than Arthur, the English king went to bed.

(3) As constructed, this would mean that Edward and George (they) left everyone else behind.

I would have simply edited the phrase, but I'm as likely to destroy the meaning as I am to improve it. Last1in (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Removal of out of place image
Hi, I would like to remove this image, it is obviously an artist's artistic imagination which shouldn't be in that section, at the very least. At best, I can see that it's an x-ray, but the crown symbolism and all that, it feels out of place. Richard almost certainly did not still have his crown at Bosworth when his skeleton was discovered. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 07:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Good idea to post here, as the image has been in place for some while. I thought the article was Featured; but it was demoted some time ago. I'm not sure what one might expect in the section concerned. I'm not enamoured - mostly because it's very modern indeed, all rather self-consciously sparse and entirely process-driven. But let's see who joins the discussion. Haploidavey (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Suggest it should be in not in the "In culture" section (and certainly at Cultural depictions of Richard III of England) but not in the "Discovery of remains" section. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes (if I understand you correctly) it would be better suited to the cultural depictions article. Its current placing too easily causes confusion (it looks, for all the world, like a mortuary lab image. Plus crown) Haploidavey (talk) 09:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It could go here in the "In culture" section. But that might still be unjustified by WP:WEIGHT, and it would certainly require some explanation in the text. The best place for it would probably be the Cultural depictions of Richard III of England article. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Per Martinevans.  SN54129  11:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The image is already accompanied by some explanatory, nearby text, with links and source commentary. I agree that the image already carries rather too much weight in this article, and needs explanatory text. I'll leave it as is for a couple of days, and if there are no objections interim, will transfer image and text to Cultural depictions of Richard III of England. Haploidavey (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, this image was created a good four years after the discovery of the remains. It's an artwork, not a scientific or historical record. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree - let's get rid of it. Deb (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * All done and gone. Haploidavey (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)