Talk:Robin Hood/Archive 3

Robin Hood Red not Green
Robin Hood and his merry men are depicted as wearing red which explains Robin. Lincoln Green is a derivation from the real color Lincoln Graine which was red. Tomgazer (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said in my edit summary, cite it or forget it. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 04:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you cite a specific line? I have already cited the specific poem and if you check the wikipedia article on Lincoln Green it already discusses this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomgazer (talk • contribs) 16:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * An average person reading this article should not be expected to search other Wiki articles, or read through an entire long poem in order to find the one line that supports your contention. The statements made in the article, and especially in the lede, should be clearly cited.  It seems to me, looking at the sources you just provided, that there is disagreement on this matter.  The Lincoln green article says only that he wore scarlet when he went to court, and it does not say that "Lincoln graine" was red.  What it says is that "Graine is the dye-stuff, linguistically unrelated to 'green'."  The beginning of the article goes into great detail as to what Lincoln green is and how the color was created.  It is quite clear that it is not scarlet.  So, it seems to me that your point is not proven.  There is clear disagreement in the sources, and the article should say so. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  23:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed this from overview: Some accounts give the colour worn by Robin as scarlet, which may provide an explanation for the name "Robin."Ohlgen, Thomas H., ed. “The Gest of Robyn Hode.” in Medieval Outlaw: The Tales in Modern English. Gloucestershire, England: Sutton Publishing, 1998. pp. 216-238.

The quote from the Gest refers to Robin Hood's men and does show that in the old materials, contrary to later tradition, not all the outlaws clothing was "Lincoln Green". It is a point worth making if not necessarily in the overview, but that Robin Hood was so-called for wearing scarlet is I think a marginal theory; the cources if hardcopy should at least be quoted, and if this is done it should be mentioned in the text....the association of Robin Hood with the Red Robin is to my knowledge connected to the "mythological" theory of the origins of the legend ("Who killed Cock Robin?" etc), and it would be fine to discuss that further in the article. But "Robin" is as the article notes a very common diminutive of "Robert" and was so especially in the 13th century, and that remains the default theory for the origin of the name. So the sentence deleted is out of palce in the overview. Jeremy (talk) 08:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Again, removed form overview: "Some accounts give the colour worn by Robin as scarlet or red, which may provide an explanation for the name "Robin" as well as "Will Scarlet".  " Again, worth discussing in body of text but doesn't belong in the overview. The matter should be discussed here. My deletion was reverted without apparently any discussion. Do Ohlgen and Pollard really support the assertion made? A quote in the notes would be helpful and good practice in the interests of verifiability.....It would seem odd if either of them thought that Will Scarlet was so called because all the merry men dressed in scarlet, even odder if it was Robin Hood did. Elsewhere the ballads describe the men as dressed in Lincoln green and that was the expected costume of forester, see the Canterbury Tales for example. The Child reference only applies to the men's mantles. "Will Scarlet" is mentioned without introduction, giving the impression that the editor hasn't taken the trouble to read the article to find the right place for a discussion of the men's clothing. Jeremy (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You can only cite one source while I cite many, your evidence in your claim is one line from a poem while I list many. There are two pictures on this very page showing him wearing red and many more which is established by historical documents, do not change something that has already been established by historical evidence. Tomgazer (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Tomgazer, no. It has not "been established by historical evidence" that Robin Hood dressed in scarlet, still less that that was the source of his name "Robin".(!) For one thing it hasn't been "established by historical evidence" that Robin Hood even existed. The tradition however is clear that he and his men dressed like foresters in Lincoln green...as even the "pictures on this very page" bear majority witness. You should not use expressions like "some accounts give.." Which accounts? References shoudl be verifiable so far as possible and it should be clear which precise claim is being verified by which source. And extended quotes in the references would be helpful if the source is not easily obtainable. My own main source is Dobson & Taylor's standard scholarly overview of the Robin Hood legend.

Robin Hood's alleged scarlet clothing which 'may provide an explanation for the name "Robin" as well as "Will Scarlet".' Except that there is fairly strong evidence that it doesn't, even leaving aside Robin's dress habits, as there are better explanations in both cases. 'Robert' was a stock name for a robber in the middle ages, note for example John Ball's reference to "Hobb the Robber" in his Letter to the Essex Commons...."Hobb" is a diminutive of Robert like Bob or Robin. "Scarlet" appears to be corruption of "Scathelock", the character is called "Will Scathelock" or "Scarlock" in ealrier sources. "Scathe" means wound, the name would appear to be rough equivalent to "Scarface" or the like; but to be sure it might be an ironical nickname like "Little John" (or Much, Much is actually a dwarf or midget as a close reading of the Gest makes clear,) so that maybe the real meaning is "Pretty Boy" as tradition would have it. All interesting questions, sometimes I think it is a pity that the OR rule discourages discussing them in the article.....but in any case thy don't belong in the overview.

Tomgazer, I have a pet theories too, for example I think that Robin Hood is based largely on Roger Godberd in a historical sense but that the current scholarly fashion has gone too far in discounting the folklore sources of the legend. I think that the May Games don't get enough credit as sources of the Robin Hood legend. You can see, can't you, that I should not keep pushing these theories willy nilly into the first paragraph or two of the article as the consensus view? Jeremy (talk) 10:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Robin Hood
You can only cite one source while I cite many, your evidence in your claim is one line from a poem while I list many. There are two pictures on this very page showing him wearing red and many more which is established by historical documents, do not change something that has already been established by historical evidence. If you cannot support you claim with evidence do not post it. Tomgazer (talk) 05:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC) This comment is a double of a comment appearing above under its appropriate section where I have answered it.... It would be good if people editing this page took the trouble to get an overview of the scholarship, of which there is much, before pushing one contentious theory or another Jeremy (talk) 11:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Robin Hood the Orthodox Saxon
I have removed the following:

"There is some speculation that Robin Hood was an Orthodox Christian Saxon whose criminal activities were really part of a larger anti-Frankish/anti-Norman resistance. (Source)"

The first para "There is some speculation..." sounds the warning. The source is not a scholarly one.....And if there is any good evidence of the claim made it doesn't appear on the site. Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire just incidentally are in the Danelaw area of England, traditionally not so very Saxon, more Viking, minor point I know. There was a once popular theory that Robin Hood was to be seen as a hero of resistance to the Normans, (it appears in Ivanhoe from memory,) scholarship hasn't backed it up. But hey, it is still worth mentioning in the body of the article, and better references to the theory are available. But it shouldn't be insinuated into the overview. Jeremy (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Norman conquest began in 1066
The second paragraph of the article says that the Normans "... had conquered England in 1066". Historical records tell us otherwise - active resistance continued for at least two decades - so I have edited it to show that their conquest began in 1066. Perhaps a minor point, but worth making.Twistlethrop (talk) 08:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Some 'greenwood marriage' and other material removed from history section.
I've removed the following from the history section:


 * Like the Greeks' Pan, Robin defended unspoiled land against the encroachment of towns. In country districts, each village set aside a plot of raw woodland, which was not to be disturbed, because it belonged to The Goodfellow, or the Good Man. Family names can be found dating back to the "greenwood marriages" performed by heathen shamans, symbolized by the renegade Friar Tuck. Barbara Walker writes that Morrises and Morrisons descended from orgiastic Morris-dancers, also called Marian's morrice-men.  Children conceived from these rites were considered children of the Forest-God, Robin, and were accorded the name Robinson.

The bit about the Goodfellow, sourced to Scott, relates to the theory that RH is to be identified or associated with Robin Goodfellow. A section on this theory is fair enough but it has to be noted as controversial and (rightly or wrongly) out of academic favour at present. It is out of place in this section. Barbara Walkers Encyclopedia is not to be confused with a scholarly source. The bit about heathen shamans conducting greenwood marriages giving rise to modern family names....appears to be a garbled account of some remarks by Robert Graves in his White Goddess. An accurate referenc eto those remarks, and the ref to Barbara W might have a place in some other section. Not this one. Jeremy (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Robert de Vere
I've read in some places that Robert de Vere, 3rd Earl of Oxford is the real Robin Hood, but I don't see his name in the Wikipedia entry. The article should address it, be it correct or incorrect. If this is minority view, please state it and clarify the comparison to the majority view. In the 12th Century, Melusine's descendant, Robert de Vere, 3rd Earl of Oxford, and legal pretender to the Earldom of Huntingdon, was appointed as King Richard's steward of the forest lands of Fitzooth. As Lord of the Greenwood, and titular Herne of the Wild Hunt, he was a popular people's champion, and, as a result, he was outlawed for taking up arms against King John. It was he who, subsequently styled Robin Fitzooth, became the prototype for the popular tales of Robin Hood. Morphh  (talk) 14:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Wasn't it one of his descendants who wrote Shakespeares's plays? .....OK seriously, need a reference for this. It may have a place among theories of origin, but there are many theories of origin Jeremy (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

weapons
The weapons used may help in defining the period of the original Robin Hood.

The legends says that he was both a skilled archer and swordsman. As far as archery is concerned the longbow doesn't seem to have been fully evolved until about a century after the death of Richard lst.

The longbow as a hunting weapon is said in the relevant wikipedia article to have been known for a considerable time. The "warbow" which I think is what you have in mind, with an enormous draw strength and capable, with an appropriate arrow, of bringing down an armoured horse and deployed in battle by cohorts of highly trained men is perhaps of the date you suggest (AIUI). However a heavy hunting longbow would clearly be a very dangerous weapon in a forest where you were unlikely to go about wearing full armour, long before Richard. Drg40 (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

On crusade and elswhere Richard seems to have used the heavy long sword or battleaxe rather than the lighter sword usually associated with Robin Hood.

Overall, on these suggestions, Edward lst seems more likely than Richard lst. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 (talk) 09:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The ballads as we have them clearly do not belong to the time of Richard 1 for numbers of reasons, we can start with the Gest naming the king as Edward. If (as I think) the original of the Robin Hood of the ballads was Robert Godberd there was however an odd real life echo in the Richard legend. Roger Godberd was indeed pardoned by the king on returning from the Crusades; however different king different Crusade and very different circumstances. I would imagine that the tradition that Robin Hood was pardoned on the return of the king from the Crusades survived independently, eventually the identification of the king with Richard enabled that story to be harmonized with the story of the pardon in the Gest. But to discuss this in the article would be independent research I guess. The swords described in the early ballads were mostly the "sword and buckler" combo which was part of archers' equipment, and also much used in recreational fencing and brawling....it has been argued that we should see the Robin Hood use of the combo through the prism of the latter use, and so the first audience of the ballads would not necessarily associate them with lethal force. I don't know. Jeremy (talk) 02:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The story
What's today most accepted story? E.g. He is an outlaw living in the woods with his Merry Men...--200.125.34.244 19:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you reliably cite that, pls? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know which novel featured Robin Hood hiding with dwarfs in their holes while an outlaw, and which ends with Sir Robin fighting the Evil Horde after they kill his wife, Marian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.34.0 (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, but I definitely want to read it! (Jeremy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.25.18 (talk) 05:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This sounds a bit like one part of the life of Túrin, found in Tolkien’s Silmarillion. Leafcat (talk) 04:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Weapons II
Having read the various comments it still seems that the longbow is the the definition for Robin Hood. Somebody has noted that Richard used the broadsword or battle axe in the 3rd crusade. The various archers mentioned in the history of the 3rd crusade seem to be the Moslems.

The heavy bow mentioned as used in hunting also seems unlikely to have been available before Richard Ist, as hunting by nobles involved lances and horses hunting boars and deer, the famous "pig sticking". The horse and lance was also the very emblem of the Knight, not the infantry long or war bow.

The longbow clearly hadn't evolved until after the death of Richard Ist, which still brings the real Robin Hood, if he ever existed, forward to the reign of the Edward mentioned. AT Kunene (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

"Robin Hood in Barnsdale Stood"
I've removed the sentence under 'Connections to existing locations' that read 'Centuries ago, a variant of "as plain as the nose on your face" was "Robin Hood in Barnesdale stood".' for two reasons. The only information I found for the 'Robin Hood in Barnsdale...' saying was that it was used as a response to someone who was speaking with irrelevancies, which is not what '...the nose on your face' means. The sentence had no citation for the usage claimed. If there is a source, however, the sentence might be reinstated although I am unsure where it would best fit. Twistlethrop (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like a good call to remove it. Nev1 (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Robin as a Longbowman
I noticed this article barely mentions Robin's famed use of the bow and arrow at all. It's been my understanding that the primary thing everyone associates Robin Hood with is the bow and arrow, like his well-known ability to split other arrows in two, for instance. But only two times is a bow ever mentioned in the article, and both times it's just in passing, as if it's an already known fact, an assumed point. There should be a section in the article about his reputation as the best bowman in the country. That's my two cents anyway. :) 99.163.22.236 (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I perfectly agree with you.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just noticed this note. I found it interesting that in my youth it was explained to me that one of the sources or themes of the Robin Hood tale was that he, like the longbow, was a great leveller. Indeed I think it is a matter of record that the French took great offence at the English use of well trained bowmen, being bitterly offended that a man of little worth could have in his hands a cheap weapon that (with considerable training) could readily kill an expensively armoured nobleman. Not only did the weapon come from the forest, but in the forest it was a weapon with significant advantage over a man on horseback, however well armed and thus enabled peasant ambush. One other point. Like Robin Hood, the weapon came to be "ennobled" when it was the instrument of defeat of the enemies of the crown at the Battles of Crecy and Agincourt. So I grew up assuming that the legend of Robin Hood was a tale woven round a legendary bowman and his longbow. A bit like Arthur and Excalibur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drg40 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, the Assize of Arms in 1252 required yoemen to arm themselves with, amongst other things, a longbow which Wikipedia calls a warbow, hence the term "yeoman archer". Crecy was in 1346 at which the use of a war bow can be seen to be under devlopment but seemingly without the accompanying sharpened stake, and Agincourt in 1415 at which the weapon appears to have come of age. Playing those dates back through the records identified and dated here suggests to me rather more than co-incidence.Drg40 (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Major episodes of the legend
As with the King Arthur article I feel this article would benefit from at least a brief summary of the most important and influential episodes in the legend. In this case major episodes include the first meeting with Little John, the first meeting with Friar Tuck, the archery contest, and the death of Robin Hood (this last is included, but would be better in a dedicated section). With the present article, it seems these kinds of details are either considered unimportant, or it's assumed that everyone knows them.--ImizuCIR (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In principle, this is a good suggestion. It would make for interesting reading, and helpful for those not familiar with the characters. However, it's problematic as there is not a definitive, established set of events involving the Robin Hood character. Many (if not all) settings of the legend omit at least one of the episodes you've mentioned. I'm not saying you shouldn't proceed with this work; I'm just saying that we want to be sensitive to the way that the suggestion of a canonical story can marginalize the works that don't adhere to it, and may also push the limits of what is acceptable encyclopedic information. Any major episodes list should be well sourced. Ibadibam (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

 * Close your eyes. Now I'm going to say one word and I want you to say aloud to yourself what you first hear. Ready?

Robin Hood


 * What did you see? Did you see a hooded figure, lurking in the woods, waiting for the next rich knight to come riding down the road, sadlebags stuffed with muslim gold straight from the Holy Land? Did you see a kind face, constantly looking for the next poor English citizen to help? Believe it or not, a good percentage of people don't believe that Robin Hood is a real person. Some people, see him as an idea, developed for a stuggling time. In the next few sections, I will explain this and much more.
 * My friends and colleges of history. We are here to help develope more historicle and more acurate views of the great man called Robin Hood. Am I not right? Then here, below this introduction, I have written several sections of new material about Robin, that, I think, should be added to the article. These sections include...


 * Robin Hood and Fuedal Europe
 * More than One Robin Hood?
 * Robin Hood as an Idea
 * The Meaning Behind the Man
 * The Merry Men: A Lesson the World Should Learn
 * Maid Marrian: What Does She Really Mean?
 * Robin Hood in Todays Modern Culture and Current Events
 * The Fact of Fiction
 * An account of how the Legend of Robin Hood Could mirror even earlier historical happenings


 * As you can see, I have a lot to add to this article. So, If you would read and consider what I have to offer, I think it may just prove valuble. So valuble, I dare say, as to put up a good fight for "good artle" or possibly even more.

Robin Hood and Fuedal Europe

 * Some people say that Robin Hoods skills as a swordsman and archer are just too good. True, things in history tend to become a little exaggerated and stories are streched, but Robin Hoods skills may almost be as good as the story relates. If you picture The social class system of midevile period called fuedalism as a iangle, with the king floating above; the small section at the top of the triangle consisted of Kinghts, Lords, Barons, and Vassles. All the rest of the triangle represents the lower class of peasants. Bellow the triangle is where the outlaws or other criminals sat. Around the time that Robin Hood legends first began to be sung, a new class was riseing out of the lower class. The "Yoeman" class or the worlds fist "middle class."
 * These Yoeman were strong individuals who fought in the Crusades. They were highly skilled profesional soldiers, loyall to the crown, but yet not rich enough for the expensive armor and lifestyle of the knights. People in this class sometimes became independent land owners and eventually made up the whole of Europe. This is the class that is beleived to be were Robin Hood came from.
 * When King Richard declared that he was leaving for the crusades, he drew from all of the lower class for strong, fit, and skilled men. These men learned new fighting techniques from the knights and became very skilled in the art of war. With this new knowledge, these people conquerd other castles, claiming them for King Richard. After the castle fell to the soldiers, they would plunder it for any remaining riches. This is how the peasants gained enough wealth to buy land or set up a shop somewhere prominant. The "Yoeman" class then settled down with their families and made up the first "middle class" the world had ever seen.

More than One Robin Hood?

 * One interesting new idea about the legend of Robin Hood is the idea that he could be more than one person. The earliest referance to Robin Hood in the Gest of Robin Hood is far less impressive than stories of him now. Could it be that the character that we know as Robin Hood today is really a combonation of many different outlaws? What if there were not just one Robin Hood, but twenty or even more?

The Meaning of the Man

 * Taking this look on the social class structure of Medieval Europe, we can see that, before the rise of the Yeoman, you were either extremely rich, or extremely poor and still taxed by the rich. The lower class had an extremely hard time holding on to any money they made. This is where the idea of Robin Hood began. With kings collecting their taxes, knights taking their share, then the lords wanting in on it as well, villagers had it pretty hard.
 * When in a situation like this, society as a whole begins wishing for someone to come along and save them from the oppressor. So, if we look at Feudal Europe, we can see society start wishing for a man to rise into the night, arrow at full draw, sword drawn, ready to take down any greedy despot who threatened to plunge civilization into the ground for his own gain. The recent movie Robin Hood (click to see list of other movies and TV series featuring Robin Hood), directed by Ridely Scott and featuring Russell Crowe, said it best, "Rise, and rise again, until lambs become lions."

The Merry Men: A Lesson the World Should Learn

 * Continuing our look at Robin Hood, we come to his band of "Merry Men." With our view of Robin Hood being an idea, generated by society of an "ideal" individual who will come to save them from the hard times of Feudal Europe; the Merry Men could represent the people who notice that what this man is doing is right and decide to follow him. Much like the disciples of Jesus did after Jesus preforming the miracle of the fish and the nets.
 * These men could represent the idea that if one man stands for society against the tyrant, then the others will follow. We need to learn the lesson that we need to stand up for what we think is right. Not fade into the background like a coward.

Maid Marrian: What Does She Really Mean?

 * Maid Marrian is an interesting character. She is Robins true love, his inspiration, his inside source, and his justification to fight. In the legend of Robin Hood, she represents the strength of women and the developing ideas of womens rights in society. Maid Marrian shows herself as a strong individual being able to stand up for herself, even in the ugly face of tyrany. In one form of the legend, the Sherif of Nottingham plans to take Maid Marrian as his wife, even though she is married to Robin. In this situation, Marrian stands up and slaps the sherif across the face and runs away as a page boy the next dawn, right under the noses of the gaurds standing watch.

Robin Hood in Todays Modern Culture and Current Events

 * With today’s hardships, especially in America, the lower class could identify greatly with the peasants of Medieval Europe. Natural disaster, economic hard times, as well as the disaster that is going on in the Gulf of Mexico, we need a person to stand up for the lower class of the world. We also need a "band of Merry Men" or even women as the character Maid Marian tells us through the legend. The arrows figurative, the swords, metaphorical, and the robbing and plundering, rhetorical, we begin to see, Robin Hood could have been real, but he also could have been an idea (unsigned - may have been transferred from the main article)
 * The above paragraph is "BS". America's poor today have food, cars, homes, clothes, big-screen TVs, cell phones, etc. paid for by taxes collected MOSTLY from the so-called "rich".  One could honestly say there's already a "Robin Hood" government in place, robbing the rich to give to the poor, except what’s really happening is the productive are being milked to provide to the unproductive to buy their votes.  Aside from drug dealers and politicians, no one in America is getting rich off the backs of the poor.  Robin Hood took back riches stolen from the people by a corrupt aristocracy.  A “Robin Hood” today would have to rob the government to give money to the upper and middle classes. TodKarlson (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

An Account of How the Legend of Robin Hood Mirrors Other Historic Happenings

 * As This article mentiond before, Robin Hood and his Merry Men could be compared in many aspects to Jesus and his diciples come to liberate the Jews. Could it be that Robin Hood was created to teach people about Christianity along with lessons of selflessnes and kindness? It wasn't long before the fall of the Roman Empire that Robin Hood appears. People were still trying to learn the teachings of Jesus and his deciples. It could be that Robin Hood was created to teach people, not only about Jesus and the apostles, but the teachings of Jesus all at the same time. Therefor, this makes him the fact of fiction. Neither fact, nor fiction, both support the other. Without either of these, Robin Hood fades. He becomes no more and no longer a peice of history. But he will come again, you can be sure of that. For allthough his name may not be Robin Hood, there will always be a character, always ready to rise into the night sword drawn, arrow at full draw, ready to take the next tyrant that treatens the normal mans status as human.

Closeing

 * So as you can see, this is quite a legnthy addition to the article. Please read this carefully and think hard, but let me tell you this. The article is lacking neutrallity. This will balance it much more. This could put us back in the running for good article or even better. So, my collegues, consider carefully.

Referances

 * All of my information came from the Documentary "The Real Robin Hood" that was made for the History Channel.

History, Channel. "The Real Robin Hood — History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts." History.com — History Made Every Day — American & World History. May 2010. Web. 17 June 2010. .


 * Best of Wishes,
 * (StoneStage 19:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

Robin Hood TV Series
For the Robin Hood in the 20th Century media listings, mention should be made of the popular 143 episode B&W British series "The Adventures of Robin Hood" starring Richard Greene, seen widely in the U.S during the 1950's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Robin_Hood_(series)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuahewa (talk • contribs) 02:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

William of Kensham
Posting this here to avoid the opprobrium from the Nottinghamshire/Yorkshire crowd for having stuck it straight into the article without debate. History Today, a fairly esteemed publication, carries an article by historian Sean McGlynn which posits that the Robin Hood legend is based upon the exploits of a Kentish longbow wielder active during the First Barons' War that travelled to Nottingham to join up with the English army but whose activities primarily occurred in the Weald of Kent. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21739820 da nn o _ u k  01:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

First line grammatical error
"Robin Hood (spelled Robyn Hode in older manuscripts) is an heroic outlaw in English folklore, a " Where it is supposed to be "a heroic" because "heroic" has a hard "H" sound, as opposed to a vowel sound as in "hour". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theocelotisme (talk • contribs) 20:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there a manuscript of the Gest?
This is to explain my edit of the Gest section, including the addition of the reference to Ohlgren's book. While several very reputable sources, including Holt, do say that there is a manuscript of the Gest, none cite one. There is in I think the Bodleian, Oxford a later manuscript, but both Ohlgren and Knight are emphatic that the printed editions - both Wynkyn de Worde's and the Lettersneijder (sp?) edition in the National Library of Scotland are much earlier. I tried to make this claim a few months ago, but got distracted until today, when I looked at Ohlgren's new book - mostly a collection of previously-published essays, some of which you can get from his website, but some new and important work as well. I don't think any other scholar working on Robin Hood today has his authority on textual issues. Besides, and as I said before, where is this manuscript supposed to be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.54.168 (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Maybe you should take a look around for it - maybe its stuck between the cushions of an old sofa or something... ;) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, there is no known manuscript of the Gest, in the Bodleian or elsewhere. And frankly, if you are not aware of that fact I do not think you should edit the Wikipedia article on Robin Hood. Henryhood (talk) 09:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Now, now. The above editor was looking for help. We don't tell someone to quit Wikipedia just because they lack some specialized knowledge. This is a collaborative process. That said, the above comment is almost six years old and I don't think it's an open issue at this point. Ibadibam (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Article organisation; objectivity
The article contains a wealth of relevant material, but presentation is jumbled. The "History", "Early references" and "Sources" sections have no clear division of content. Also, could people please avoid editorializing to support their pet views? Standard "neutral" Wikipedia style may be bland and boring, but we are not writing an essay, we are just here to provide a summary of information. Don't write in the vein of "Hypothesis X has very little sholarly support (author A, p. 55), even though authors B, C and D refrain from dissmissing it altogether". Just state that your favourite author A rejects hypothesis X, don't try to conjure up a false impression of scholarly consensus where there is none.

Also, don't set up false dichotomies such as "Robin Hood may derive from tales about historical outlaws or he may derive from some pagan May Day sprite or wood elf". In folklore, these sources just run together and mix, it is never just one or the other. --dab (𒁳) 09:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Distance from Sherwood to Barnsdale?
The distance quoted in the article is 50 miles. Sherwood (Northernmost extreme at Worksop) and Barnsdale (Southernmost extreme at Doncaster) are no more than 15 miles apart. The proximity of the two forests is important to note, given the petty controversy over the location of the legend. To exaggerate this distance is misleading and needs to be revised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noisepolice (talk • contribs) 14:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Just a mistake for "50 miles north of Nottingham" I think, in any case that is how I have amended it....but Noisepolice, you could have done that. Jeremy (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Just one forest

Not only are Donny and Worksop only 15 miles apart (if that), in those days the two forests, Barnsdale and Sherwood would have run into one another. Incidentally just south of Bawtry is the "Dukeries", and Clumber Park; all would have no doubt been part of Robin's stomping ground - or the stomping ground of some of those different people who contributed to the composite Robin DrWhoFan (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Flag of Nottinghamshire
Perhaps it could be mentioned somewhere in the article that Robin Hood features in the flag of Nottinghamshire. Zacwill16 (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2014
Replace the word "interesting" with "notable".

TPLewis (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Thanks for note. I have made the change for you. Keith D (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2014
Enhancement of the listing under the subtitle 'Robin Hood, the high minded Saxon yeoman'.

90.245.36.135 (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

A widely acclaimed academic paper, entitled The Origins and Development of the Legend of Robin Hood, written by Mr Scott La' Chance for the award of Master of Arts by Research degree, at the University of Leeds, reexamines the evidence for the genesis of the Robin Hood legend and concludes that in all probability, the Robin Hood legend stems from the social and political turmoil that beset northern England between the years 1065-70. That is to say that, contrary to accepted academic opinion, Robin Hood was an Anglo-Saxon freedom fighter. Mr La' Chance draws attention to two pieces of historical evidence in order to validate his thesis. Firstly, attention is drawn to the fifteenth century ballad entitled A Gest of Robin Hood, which cites that Robin Hood lived during the reign of an unidentified king named 'Edward'. Next, Mr La' Chance points to the King’s Remembrancer’s Memoranda Roll of Easter 1262, which records that the Prior of Sandleford had been pardoned of the offence of seizing without warrant the chattels of a William Robehod, fugitive. Similarly, the Roll of Justices on Eyre in Berkshire of 1261 records that a William, son of Robert Le Fevre (Smith), was outlawed for committing acts of robbery with his criminal gang. The document reveals that William’s chattels had been seized by the Prior of Sandleford, so it can be said with absolute certainty that the William Robehod of the Memoranda Roll and William, son of Robert Le Fevre of the Roll of Justices on Eyre were one and the same person. Such evidence proves that the legend of Robin Hood dates from at least a decade before the coronation of Edward I (1272-1307), and probably a considerable period before that date. Mr La' Chance concludes that, under the assumption that both pieces of evidence are historically accurate, the monarch that is featured in the fifteenth century Robin Hood ballads can only have been Edward the Confessor, the penultimate monarch of Anglo-Saxon England.

The Origins and Development of the Legend of Robin Hood paints a frightening picture of the robberies that were conducted in the mid-to-late eleventh century by forest bandits operating on the arterial roads of northern England, such as Watling-Street in Barnsdale, Yorkshire, where the original versions of the Robin Hood story set the legend. Attention is brought to a passage in The Life of King Edward, which notes that even parties of twenty or thirty men could scarcely travel without being either killed or robbed by the multitude of robbers in wait’. Building upon this detail, Mr La' Chance draws attention to the fact that a period of social turmoil began in 1051, which was initiated by the appointment of Tostig Godwinson to the Earldom of Northumbria. A northern rebellion, aimed at resisting the wrongful authority of the southern monarchy, saw Tostig expelled from the earldom in 1065. However, the Norman Conquest in 1066 and the crowning of a new king, William the Conqueror, saw the north rise in arms once again, with the same objective. The near success of the northern rebellion of 1067-70 prompted William I to respond savagely with the Harrowing of the North. Thereafter, the rebels took to the forests and lived as outlaws, much in the manner of Robin Hood. The deeds of post-conquest outlaws such as Hereward the Wake and Edric the Wild became the stuff of medieval legend, and Mr La' Chance argues that, in a similar fashion, the collective deeds of England's northern outlaws contributed to a legend that was to become known to history as The Adventures of Robin Hood. Enticingly, Mr La' Chance offers historical candidates for the literary characters of Robin Hood, the Sheriff of Nottingham and the evil Roger of Doncaster, all of which are characters who appear in the earliest medieval ballads.

If there is one thing that historians are unanimously agreed on, it is that the original fifteenth century Robin Hood ballads are predominantly set in the county of Yorkshire. Drawing on this factor, Mr La' Chance draws attention to the fact that in 1069 William the Conqueror travelled across Yorkshire in order to put down an uprising which had sacked York, but that upon his journey to the city he discovered that the crossing of the River Aire at what is modern-day Pontefract had been blockaded by a group of local insurgents. The Anglo-Danish rebels had broken the bridge which forded the river and held the opposite bank in force. After being held up for three weeks, the king finally managed to ford the river far upstream, most probably at Ferry Fryston. From here he continued his journey along the road to York. The Yorkshire rebels do not seem to have made any preparations in case the Normans forded the river and when this event occurred all organized resistance vanished instantly. The insurgents who had guarded the crossing adopted the standard northern military tactic of retreating to the nearby hills and forests for sanctuary. Given the immediacy of the Went Valley to the River Aire at Pontefract it is probable that the Anglo-Danish rebels who had blockaded the river fled to the forest of Barnsdale for protection, as was their age-old custom. Such an act would place these outlaws in the very heart of traditional Robin Hood country. Notably, the Gest states that Robin Hood was joined in Barnsdale by seven score outlaws. It is surmised that this must have been a consequence of a common calamity of some kind, such as the insurrection of the Anglo-Danes, for it is difficult to believe that each and every one of these men had had been individually convicted of a capital offence. The defeat of the rebels at Pontefract would certainly help to explain why a Saxon Robin Hood should have been joined in the Went Valley at Barnsdale by so many men. Mr La' Chance argues that, without question, the Went Valley is ideally suited to serve as an outlaw encampment because despite its remoteness, it contains everything necessary to support life, for the presence of a stream ensured both fresh water and fish; the river plain and the Brockadale Wood ensured ample wildlife for food. Moreover, the site of the Saylis, located on high ground overlooking the Went Valley, would have served as a perfect sentry point from which to lookout for approaching Norman soldiers. Therefore it is probable that many outlaws inhabited the Went Valley in Barnsdale in the late eleventh century, right in the heart of Robin Hood country. Yet this factor invites further questions, particularly, who were these men and what do we know of their deeds? Mr La' Chance posits that one of these men could have been the original Robin Hood.

The legend of Robin Hood owes its origins to memories of a ‘strong thefe’ who inhabited Barnsdale. Though it would seem that many brigands inhabited Yorkshire’s forests during the late eleventh century, the only direct quote in relation to the deeds of these men pertains to one Swein-son-of-Sicga, within whose gang resided a ‘cursed villain’ who robbed Abbot Benedict of Saint Mary’s and Saint German, Selby. The outlaw Swein-son-of-Sicga is a colourful figure. The Coucher Book of Selby Abbey records that,

‘At that time there was a certain Prince of Thieves by the name of Swain, son of Sigge, who constantly prowled around the neighbouring (Yorkshire) woods with his band on perpetual raids’.

Mr La' Chance suggests that Swein must have been a particularly notorious figure in his own age to warrant both the attentions of contemporary commentators and the title of the‘ Prince of Thieves’. Pointedly, Mr La' Chance indicates that Abbot Benedict’s tormentors are said to have made their home in the neighboring Yorkshire woods. Ostensibly, this indicates the nearby forest of Barnsdale, where the Anglo-Danish rebels are believed to have been holed up, for the topography of the Yorkshire landscape dictates that the abbey at Selby is just over a dozen miles from Barnsdale Bar on the route to York. In addition to Barnsdale, Mr La' Chance surmises that, on occasions, Swein must have frequented the royal Forest of Galtres near York, Sherwood Forest in Nottinghamshire and perhaps even Inglewood Forest in Cumbria, because it was very common for fugitives from justice to move around greatly, often from one forested county to another. And this factor raises the question of whether Swein had been one of the notorious Yorkshire highwaymen that disturbed the peace in northern England during the reign of Edward the Confessor? Judging by Swein’s later reputation, Mr La' Chance believes that this is so, but accepts that there is no proof of this and that this is because the records that refer to Swein’s deeds no longer exist, leaving a paucity of evidence as to his outlaw career. As indicated, Swein-son-of-Sicga was just one of a number of outlaws who inhabited the forests of northern England in the late eleventh century. It is unfortunate that the particulars of Swein's outlawed peers have been lost to history because, though the copious records of the eleventh and twelfth centuries make it apparent that such men existed, it is impossible to say more of them and their deeds. However, Mr La' Chance suggests that perhaps at that time there lived a particularly infamous outlaw who went by the name of Hadd, Hadd being a common Anglo-Danish name, that is not too dissimilar from Hood in its pronunciation. He accepts that we simply cannot know. Nevertheless, it is certain, says Mr La' Chance, that outlaws such as Swein-son-of-Sicga fulfill the role of Robin Hood as it is depicted in the fifteenth century ballads.

At the heart of the tales of Robin Hood lies a simple adventure story recording the deeds of an outlaw who robbed travellers as they passed through Barnsdale upon the Great North Road, and who for these crimes was hunted by the Sheriff of Nottingham. That said, Mr La' Chance points to Hugh fitz Baldric, the late eleventh century Sheriff of Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire, as the archetypal Sheriff of Nottingham. 'Hugh fitz Baldric', says Mr La' Chance, 'is a particularly interesting historical personality because he fits to quite some degree the role of the Sheriff of Nottingham as he is depicted in the ballads'. Born in France c.1045 to Baldric, a Saxon thegn, Hugh served as the Sheriff of Nottingham from 1068 until 1086, and held the position in Yorkshire from 1069 until c.1080. Therefore, Hugh fitz Baldric held the sheriffship in Nottinghamshire for three turbulent years before he took the position in Yorkshire, which suggests that his contemporaries would have become accustomed to referring to him by the title of the Sheriff of Nottingham, a practice that may have still been employed whilst he simultaneously served in Yorkshire. In his capacity as the sheriff Hugh fitz Baldric held responsibility for arresting the North’s outlaws and bringing them to justice. The battle between Yorkshire’s forest renegades and the agencies of Norman law enforcement has a stark resemblance to the tales that were later told of Robin Hood and the Sheriff of Nottingham, because it is chronicled that Hugh fitz Baldric needed to travel around the county of Yorkshire in the company of a small army due to the threat that was posed to his safety by the region’s outlaws. Therefore, Hugh fitz Baldric matches the role of the Sheriff of Nottingham. Mr La' Chance also draws attention to Roger de Busli, who held lands at Tickhill, Doncaster, as a grant from William I, at which he established his powerbase and stronghold, as the exemplar of the Sir Roger of Doncaster of the Gest and of the ballad of Robin Hood's Death. 'The castle at Tickhill in Doncaster was built on the Nottinghamshire / South Yorkshire border, and Roger de Busli also held lands at Blyth', says Mr La' Chance. Notably, the Gest twice mentions the towns of Doncaster and Blyth in the same breath, with both the monks of York and the poor knight informing Robin Hood that their purpose was to ‘have dyned to day At Blith (Notts) or Doncastere’. So could Sir Roger de Busli have been the villain of the Gest? Mr La' Chance admits that, unfortunately, the truth is that we shall never know for certain. Yet it may be significant that William I granted Roger de Busli great judicial powers that included infangthief, which constituted the right to have a gallows, the right to the possessions of the condemned fugitives, the assize of bread and ale and finally, the return of writs except for pleas of the crown. Taken as a whole, these powers amounted to effective police power and were granted in order to enable the restoration of law and order in the region. Such powers provided all the authority that Roger de Busli needed to be a terror to outlaws and thieves. As a result, both Roger de Busli and Hugh fitz Baldric would have played a significant role in the persecution of those outlaws who, like Swein-son-of-Sicga, inhabited both Barnsdale and Sherwood Forest during the late eleventh century, and this factor might be reflected in the narrative of the Gest.

Sadly, the daily activities of men such as Hugh fitz Baldric and Roger de Busli were not gaudy enough to attract the attention of the chroniclers, and nothing further is known of them. Indeed, the chroniclers would have us believe that next to nothing happened in the North outside of the ecclesiastical sphere in the late eleventh century. There were no murders or revolts and Norman authority went unchallenged, or at least, it did during the daytime and away from the forests. However, the probability remains that amongst the woodland glades stood an outlaw whose fame and infamy gave birth to the legend that is Robin Hood.

A full-length version of The Origins and Development of the Legend of Robin Hood, a 30, 000 word thesis authored by Mr Scott La' Chance for the Award of the Master of Arts research degree, can be obtained from the Brotherton library at the University of Leeds.


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 01:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Changes need to be made to the Robin Hood page
Dear administrators,

The Robin Hood page is currently a badly organized mish-mash of inaccurate and poorly cited material. I could edit the page so that it is not to a substandard quality, but the page is currently semi-protected. Would somebody please either remove the protection, or agree to spend a considerable period of time making a number of changes to the page so that it is to an acceptable standard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princessdelilah (talk • contribs)
 * Hi Princessdelilah. You can edit the article yourself when you become autoconfirmed or suggest changes here and I will look at them. --Neil N  talk to me 22:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

If you would Neil, there are so many and the page needs a major clean-up job. Oh, you are a gent. Firstly, I note that the subheading 'References to Robin Hood as Earl of Huntington’ begins with the words… ‘Another reference’. This evidently grammatically incorrect as it is the beginning of a new sub-heading.

How do I become auto-confirmed?
 * Text fixed and as per the autoconfirmed link above: "English Wikipedia user accounts that are more than four days old and have made at least 10 edits are considered autoconfirmed." --Neil N  talk to me 22:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey Sis, Thanks for that. My protection has been lifted now so I can edit it. Will do it later. If you notice any other glaring others let me know and I will clean it up.

Changes to Robin Hood page
Dear All Administrators,

I am going to tidy up the Robin Hood page, because like my sister has pointed out, its an unkempt mess that needs properly citing. I will start with the topography, bringing together all of the topographical details that are currently listed on the page under the one sub-heading 'Topography of the Legend'. It is my intention to provide hyper-links to Wikipedia's pages which pertain directly to the places cited, though I must point out that I am not tech savvy and therefore will probably make a mistake in writing the hyper-links. If I do, could you be kind enough to explain how to do this properly,

Scott

Sorry, I should have signed that, I forgot...Siggasonswein (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You can link by putting square brackets on either side of the item you want to link: i.e., Merry Men produces a link to Merry Men. There are other options if you want to get fancy. By the way, administrators have no special role in content, so "Dear All Administrators" isn't really relevant. "Dear experienced editors" might be more appropriate, as there are plenty of regular editors who can give good (or better) advice. In the meantime, take it slow and build consensus for your changes on this talkpage. We're not in a hurry.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

RAF Finningley location
The article appears to be claiming that RAF finningley is actually in Nottinghamshire

Finningley is in South Yorkshire (i know ...i live their) and the border is a fair way south east of the town (Harworth and Bawtry are closer)

The airport used to be known as robin hood doncaster sheffield & nottingham but both sheffield and nottingham appear to be no longer used in print ...the airport is simply reffered to as robin hood doncaster airport in media now

Suggest an amendment to the article to clear this up

Tony Spike (talk) 09:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect / misleading information
I shall edit the information which states that the trait of 'robbing the rich to give to the poor' was not a part of Robin Hood's original character because such a statement is simply incorrect, and derives from the late J.C. Holt who provided misleading information. In A Gest Robin Hood actually stole from rich monks working at St. Mary's abbey at York and gave the money in the form of a loan to a destitute knight in order to repay a crippling debt. When the knight returned to repay the loan to Robin the outlaw refused repayment, thus to all intents and purposes giving the money to the knight.

It is more factual to state that in the closing passage of A Gest the ballad states that 'Robin Hood did poor men much good' and this has come to be interpreted by modern story tellers as stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, of which there is but one instance in the original ballads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siggasonswein (talk • contribs) 12:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunate need to revert to an older version of the article
It looks like User:Siggasonswein has deleted of a lot of important content in this article. It's going to take some time to sort through the whole mess, so for now I'm just restoring the page to a more sane version... Sebastian Garth (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The French Origin Theory and Stephen Knight
Fairly recently Stephen Thomas Knight gave a talk in Melbourne (at the "free university") on the Robin Hood legend. He is a scholar of some standing. He argued quite strongly for the theory that the origin of Robin Hood lies in the French pastourelles and they came to Britain via the French wine trade; hence their early appearance in Scotland. By this theory Robin Hood appeared in the May Games before the ballads. He thinks that Roger Godberd was in large part a model for the Robin Hood of the Geste. This is all oral from his lecture, I don't know how much has put in print yet. I'll see what I can chase up.

The article is very long and diffuse with bits of undigested POV everywhere, eh! Jeremy (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Quick edit request on 15 July 2014
First line, change "a heroic" to "an heroic." Traditionally, "a" is used before words beginning with "h" only if the stress falls on the first syllable. In all other cases, "an" is used. For example: a hilly countryside; an hysterical laugh.
 * I'd oppose this change. It's bad enough people saying "an hotel", but seriously, who says "an hysterical".  I have never heard of it, and it doesn't sound right.--Dmol (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd support the proposed change. 'An hotel', 'an hysterical laugh' seem perfectly natural to me.VapourGhost (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2014
Please change:

The following lines occur with little contextualisation under the year 1283:

Lytil Jhon and Robyne Hude Wayth-men ware commendyd gude In Yngil-wode and Barnysdale Thai oysyd all this tyme thare trawale.

to:

Wyntoun's Chronicle provides some context for its description of Robin Hood. It is dated 1283 and therefore is placed by Wyntoun in the reign of Edward I. Edward is described in this context as involved in 'tyrandry' (W:VII:x:3464) and is represented as callous inn his attitudes to the losses suffered by his own noblemen during his wars of conquest in Wales. During much of this time he is presented as a King who is absent from England. He is said to lack 'tenderness' and 'pyte' (W:VII:x:3466-7). Robin is presented by way of contrast as 'commended bud' so that there are a number of features in context that link to other aspects of the Robin legend.

Jimboland6 (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Make 1 more edit anywhere on Wikipedia and you'll be able to edit the article yourself. Stickee (talk)  03:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Recent Reversion of Content Addition
I've removed the content (again, same stuff) added by User:Siggasonswein. In my opinion the material is awkward, POV-laden, and just doesn't seem to improve the article much (if at all). The page is already unruly and overly-long - edits such as this only make matters worse. Besides that, important content was deleted at the same time. My advice to the editor would be to make smaller, more focused edits before trying to move into totally revamping the page. Anyway, sorry for the incovenience! Sebastian Garth (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, regarding those amendments!
Hi,

Firstly, let me state that the page is, I agree, unruly and overly long, and so needs to be refined. I guess that that is why it has been semi-protected. That said, the content of the page does need to be correct, with full and accurate citations to published works.

In the matter of your commentary, I ought to start by noting, to my surprise, that you find my amendments to be awkward, POV-laden and just basically of little intrinsic value. It is strange that you should reach this conclusion, given that the page to which you have reverted the article now not only similarly contains POV, but worse still, wrong information. Let me explain...

The introduction now contains the line,

'Although such behaviour was not part of his original character, since the beginning of the 19th century he (RH) has become known for "robbing from the rich and giving to the poor", assisted by a group of fellow outlaws known as his "Merry Men".

Already, in this one line, there are a number of errors which need to be corrected. Initially, I note that the statement that the theme of, "robbing the rich and giving to the poor originated in the nineteenth century" represents a point of view. Worse still, it is wrong. It is a fact that the Geste contains a story in which Robin Hood gave money to a destitute knight who was to lose all of his landholdings. And Robin attained that money by robbing a rich and greedy cleric of Saint Mary's Abbey, York. You will, I trust, be aware of that story. Yes, the late historian Sir Professor J.C. Holt noted that this is but one story out of many, and so questioned exactly how prominent the trait was in the outlaw's original character. But it nevertheless remains a fact that the theme was present in the earliest printed ballads, sources which date from the fifteenth century. And so the theme of 'robbing the rich and giving to the poor' was certainly in existence long before the nineteenth century, as is further evidenced by the great Scottish antiquarian and historian John Major. In 1520 Major wrote of Robin’s humanitarian nature in his book, Historia Majoris Britanniae, stating that,

'He would allow no woman to suffer injustice, nor would he spoil the poor, but rather enriched them from the plunder taken from abbots. The robberies of this man I condemn, but of all robbers he was the most humane and the Prince of Thieves'. Benedictine Abbots were amongst the richest people in medieval Europe, and were famed for their greed, lax morals and hypocritical lifestyle. Therefore, Major's statement makes it plain for all to see that the theme of 'robbing the rich and giving to the poor' was a fundamental element of Robin Hood's character as early as the Tudor period, and certainly far, far earlier than the nineteenth century. In consequence, you have amended the Wikipedia page so that it not only demonstrates POV, but now cites incorrect material.

I am not at all sure what you mean by the statement that I have deleted important information, but I can assure users that if I have there was a perfectly valid reason for doing so. Perhaps you could inbox me and we can discuss the matter in greater detail. I am going to assume (and of course, I really shouldn't assume, and no doubt you know why!) that in this instance you mean to indicate that I have removed the footnote which states that,

'"Merry-man" has referred to the follower of an outlaw since at least the late 14th century. See Online Etymology Dictionary'

I am afraid that this is yet another significant error. The Online Etymological Dictionary is a piece of original research, written by a non-specialist who speaks without reference to published materials. Thus the citation to the etymological website violates Wikipedia's very own terms and conditions. Incidentally, on the matter of etymology, I note that you have called into question whether or not Wood = Hood, this is in regards to the mythological aspect of Robin Hood's nature. I do not know who initially wrote this into the Wikipedia article, but I am in a position to clarify that this is in not "rubbish", but is rather factually correct. Siggasonswein (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your demand for accuracy, but do please keep in mind that we are not writing a book here either; we don't have to cram every single detail into the article, after all. And as far as your "wood" == "hood" claim goes, I wasn't able to find any such linkage myself - can you please provide some sort of supporting reference for that? Sebastian Garth (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Wood = Hood
In answer to your question, Yes, I would be able to provide such a citation if I still had access to the Brotherton library at the University of Leeds, which holds a splendid collection of academic texts. Alas, I have now graduated with my MA and as such my ability to access these sources has come to an end. And unfortunately, etymology is not a subject which you will find listed on the shelves of the local library. I will shortly take a Phd, and will be able to address the matter properly at that time.

The initial suggestion that Robin Hood had mythological origins, and that Robin Hood = Robin of the Wood(Hood = Wood) stems, I believe, from Sir Sidney Lee, who wrote a biography of Robin Hood for the original edition of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. This has since been revised by the late great historian Sir Professor J.C. Holt. Today, in order to attain greater knowledge on the subject of Robin Hood's mythological origins (and thereby see for yourself that in etymological terms, Wood does indeed equal Hood), I would suggest that you would be best to either read Sir Professor J.C. Holt's acclaimed work, 'Robin Hood' or Professor Maurice Keen's work entitled 'Outlaws of Medieval Legend'. Both works discuss, and in so doing, ultimately dismiss, the possibility that Robin Hood is a mythological figure akin to the pagan Green Man. In addition, is it possible that Professor Dobson and Mr Taylor's work entitled, 'The Rhymes of Robin Hood' raises the issue of etymology, but without having direct access to the text I cannot be certain. Nonetheless, I assume (given that you have taken it upon yourself to edit the Wikipedia Robin Hood page), that you are personally familiar with the academic texts that I have cited, and you should therefore be able to locate the citation for yourself. After all, and as I am sure that you will agree, one should only write(and edit) on subjects of which one has an understanding, and where one can readily refer to published works. As I recollect, the accepted academic principle is that, in one sense, yes, Hood = Wood, as Wikipedia states (certainly, that was J.C. Holt's interpretation), but that it's principle meaning was that of a head covering. From reading the Wikipedia article, it would seem as though whosoever initially wrote the passage had indeed read one of the aforesaid texts, and has paraphrased, omitting to include a citation. In consequence, if you insist on reverting this section of the article, you will be once again diluting its accuracy and in so doing, reducing the credibility of Wikipedia.
 * Well, looking through Sidney Lee's works and 'The Rhymes of Robin Hood' I still have yet to find anything alluding to that particular etymological link. Let me know if you find anything yourself... Sebastian Garth (talk) 04:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You will find the citation explaining the etymology of Wood = Hood on the following pages...
R. B. Dobson and J. Taylor, Rymes of Robyn Hood (London: Heinemann, 1976) p.12

&

J. C. Holt, Robin Hood (London: Thames and Hudson, 2011) p.57.

I ought to enter the provision that I do not have the cited works to hand, and therefore cannot be certain that the page numbers which I have provided are 100% accurate. Nevertheless, I believe them to be so, as I made a careful notation of the etymology when researching my thesis. Either way, both works certainly explain the etymology of Wood = Hood, and I would therefore suggest that you carefully re-read the texts. On that note, have you read Maurice Keen's 'Outlaws of Medieval Legend'? I would strongly recommend that you do, as that work deals with the mythology of the legend at length, and thereby its accompanying etymology. I tried to find an etymological definition of 'Wood' on the University of Michigan's Online MED, but unfortunately it is not listed.

Having re=read my thesis, I have found that it was Thomas Wright who in 1846 originally suggested that the outlaw’s name was a derivation of ‘Robin of the wood’, which he submitted was suitable for the mounds and stones which ‘our peasantry always attributed to the fairies of their popular superstitions’. In consequence, I have provided a full citation to his work, the work from where the etymology is originally referenced. Sir Sidney Lee followed Wright's lead when he wrote the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Otherwise, I believe that the works which I have cited should suffice for the purposes of Wikipedia. I trust that that satisfies your curiosity.

Siggasonswein (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Once again, I will agree that the Robin Hood page is currently overly long and contains too much information, information which is either often irrelevant or better suited to being incorporated under a single sub-heading. That said, and having written a 30, 000 word thesis on the subject of Robin Hood for the award of a Master of Arts by Research Degree, I resent the accusation that my own contributions read as though I am posting a book onto the article. My latest revision only contained one sentence, and yet you found fault with it and subsequently immediately altered it. I fail to see how writing one simple sentence constitutes 'writing a book'. Furthermore, I feel that I must openly state at this juncture that I believe that you are wrong to constantly refine other people's work in the manner that you are. The beauty of Wikipedia is that it is a work which is free for your average Joe to contribute to, so long as they do so in a manner which provides correct information listed in a published work, accompanied with a full and accurate citation to that said work. So long as that criteria is met, it is not for overzealous editors to take it upon themselves to correct any single contributors efforts. Rather, it is better to work in unison with other contributors in order to produce a finished product, as I myself have endeavored to do, with both yourself and other users. Since you refuse to work in this manner, I will revert the page to my earlier posting, and in so doing, fully expect an edit war to commence. In order to avoid this, I once again request that you work cooperatively with other users in order to work towards producing a better finished product.

90.245.41.64 (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you're letting your ego get in the way here. I have no ownership issues with this or any other article. I simply wound up on the page one day, read it, hated it, and decided to be WP:BOLD and tidy things up a bit. And that I did. I have tried to work with you on this, offering my opinions and recommendations, even incorporating into the article points that you've made here and there. I don't enjoy removing content from articles either, but when it adds little value, makes WP:POV or WP:SYNTH claims, or just plain reads badly, I feel compelled to amend things. Anyway, the bottom line is that the article should be:
 * (1) Factually correct
 * (2) Neutral
 * (3) Well-written/easy-to-read
 * If we can just focus on these things, I think we'll be able to work out the rest...Sebastian Garth (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Following on from our previous conversation
Hi,

Thanks once again for your contributions. I commend your boldness, and overall, I have found your efforts to have benefited the Wikipedia Robin Hood page.

I too feel compelled to act where the article is of little value, makes WP:POV or WP:SYNTH claims, or just plain reads badly. And, ultimately, I am in agreement with you that the article should be:

(1) Factually correct (2) Neutral (3) Well-written/easy-to-read

However, sadly, it is apparent that you are failing to meet the first of these stated objectives. To that end, my biggest contention is that until I pointed out the error of your ways, you perverted the article so that it displayed factually incorrect and inadequately cited information, and unnecessarily reverted correct information (I trust that I have now adequately demonstrated where you have made errors). Perhaps you should therefore heed your own advice and make 'more focused edits before trying to move into totally revamping the page'. Moreover, technically speaking, we should both voice our concerns on the Robin Hood Talk Page so that all users can reach a consensus of opinion before any drastic changes to the article are made, changes which are either awkward, POV-laden, just don't improve the quality of the article much (if at all), and most important of all, are plain wrong! Otherwise, you should refrain from editing on a subject of which you apparently have little intrinsic knowledge. I can see why you might think me to be egotistical, and I don't know, perhaps I am? But there again, I can hardly be found to be at fault for defending my own work, when you publically announce that it is of little value and continually undermine my efforts to enhance the article, can I?

Siggasonswein (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Please explain how and where I have inserted "factually incorrect and inadequately cited information"? Furthermore, I have been posting on the talk page here to discuss and seek consensus with fellow editors. That said, I am sorry if I offended you and apologize if I was a little too blunt. Cheers! Sebastian Garth (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I must disagree. You have not posted on the Talk Page to say where you have found fault with the article and thereby received consensus of opinion from editors to make said alterations. Rather, you have posted that you have found faults, without clarifying in detail what they are, and thereafter immediately took it upon yourself to make amendments as you alone saw fit! It would almost seem that you posted on the Talk Page after the fact! Certainly, you did not have the consensus of opinion that the article was in any way faulty and warranted being altered. If you dispute this, tell me, where are the replies stating that the previous editions were inadequate? As far as I am aware, there are none!!! In taking this approach, what you actually did was to revert the article to an earlier edition and, in so doing, you (inadvertently it would seem) posted factually incorrect and inadequately cited information. I have explained where your revision left the page containing such material, and I can see that following my intervention you have made the suggested alterations. Nevertheless, I will recap for the benefit if all users:

On several occasions you reverted the article so that it stated that the concept of Robin Hood 'robbing from the rich and giving to the poor' originally developed in the C19, which I have demonstrated to be factually wrong. The citation which accompanied the afore statement was also inadequate, as it violates Wikipedia's 'No Original Research Policy'. It is perfectly possible that you were not the one who originally wrote these statements into Wikipedia, but by reverting the page to one which predates my revision without consensus, you have produced an article which cites wrongful information. Also, as discussed, you have deleted the section which states that "Wood = Hood" on the grounds that you alone believed such information to be wrong. You are mistaken in this, and therefore should not be taking it upon yourself to amend the work of other editors until you have verification that it is wrong, accompanied with group consensus to make those changes. Certainly, you should not be taking it upon yourself to "call it rubbish" without knowing all of the facts.

At this juncture I have only read the introduction, but I fear that by adopting such a strategy you will have reintroduced a myriad of other mistakes without being privy to the full facts! Please refrain from doing this. I will shortly demonstrate how you should have gone about raising any concerns regarding the article, by raising concerns of my own regarding what I believe you have recently written.

Siggasonswein (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Amendments need making to the article
1)

Footnote 1 needs to be fully cited to the Child ballads, including the fytte and stanza where the referenced information can be found. Also, is it not better to quote from Dobson and Taylor, Rhymes of Robin Hood, as this is a modern work which the public can readily obtain?

2)

Under the sub-heading 'Character portrayals', ought we not to make it apparent that in the earliest stories Robin was depicted as a rough and ready villain? After all, the character of the original Robin was vastly different from that of the modern outlaw who prances around Sherwood Forest wearing tights! In the ballad Robin Hood and Guy of Gisbourne, RH cuts of his enemy's head, defaces it with an Irish Knife and places atop his bow. This is a gruesome outlaw that we are dealing with here, and that ought to be made clear!

3)

The section entitled 'Historicity' is, I believe, factually wrong, as there are not '"many", "such as Victorian folklorist Francis James Child", who insist that the RH legend is merely a product of the verse and ballads of the times. Rather, I do believe that Child was the only published writer to make such a claim! If I am wrong and there are indeed others, then name them and give citation details! Indeed, the footnote to Child's own work is here missing.

In addition, rather than write 'Some have even claimed...', it would be better to precisely state who (Holt, Baldwin, Pollard, Maddicott?)'has claimed'. To that end, it would be a good idea at some point to include a footnote to the work of notable writers who have written of RH's historicity, including antiquarians, historians and mythologists, in order to direct the readers attention to suitable secondary reading. After all, it is not the purpose of Wikipeda to "write a book". What is more, I note that footnote no.3 simply states 'Holt, p.62'. This is insufficient, the footnote needs to clearly state which of J.C. Holt's many published works it is referring to, with full citation details! Likewise with footnote 5!!! Finally, I note that the closing paragraph of that section opens with the words, 'Another theory is that...'. Technically, you really should state which academics propose that theory. And at the very least, you should give full and accurate citation details for Dobson and Taylor, who are cited at footnote 6, but hitherto have not been mentioned!

4)

The introduction to the sub-section entitled, 'Claims of a historical Robin Hood' reads very poorly. Consider re-writing. Also, the introduction is missing at least two footnotes, as it makes two separate claims, neither of which are supported by citations to published works!!! In addition, on what evidence do you have it that the name (and all of its variants - "Robyn Hode", for example) appear to be in fairly common use during the Middle Age??? I know that statement to be true, but alas, you need to support it with a footnote.

And enough already with the "some" and "others" statements, say who you mean, and back-up the point with a footnote to their published works!!!

5)

The section which is entitled 'Robert as the Earl of Huntingdon' reads,

'It should be noted that David of Scotland (1144-1219) did indeed have a son named Robert, but he is believed to have died at an early age'. Why should this be at all relevant? It is in fact irrelevant, as it has not been mentioned earlier in the article. Suggest removal of such irrelevant material in order to reduce the articles length!

I believe that this will be sufficient to be going on with... Siggasonswein (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Randomly following on the list of amendments which need making in order to bring the article up to an acceptable standard...
Initially, I note that user Sebastiangarth has inserted incorrect information into the article under the sub-heading 'Yorkshire', as the page now reads,

'According to linguist Lister Matheson, many of the original literary sources (such as with Gest of Robyn Hode) are written in dialects associated specifically with the Yorkshire area'.

In actual fact, Lister Matheson stated that the Gest alone is written in a definite northern dialect, probably that of Yorkshire. Of the other fifteenth century ballads, Matheson stated that they were written in the dialects of other regions of England, such as East Anglia. Prior to user Sebastiangarth's intervention the article clearly and accurately stated this information. In addition, under the sub-heading 'Yorkshire' user Sebastiangarth has provided a rather random footnote (no.37) which lists a whole host of academic works, none of which have any connection to the information to which the footnote relates. Footnote 36 is in itself sufficient to cite the listed information pertaining to the work of Lister Matheson, or alternatively, on might cite Professor Jim Bradbury, 'Robin Hood'. In consequence, inserting footnote 37 at this juncture is just plain stupid!!! I note further that under the sub-heading 'Nottingham' the information listed lacks an adequate citation, as despite attempts to improve the topographical listing of the article, user Sebastiangarth has provided a footnote that leads to a 'page not found' listing on the Edwinstowe Parish Council website. Suggest deletion of such inadequately cited information, or at the very least, that it be replaced with an accurate citation to Dobson and Taylor, which details the locations associated with Robin Hood.

I have raised numerous concerns with the manner in which user Sebastiangarth has edited the page, in regards to the listing of incorrect and inadequately cited information. This circumstance has arisen because the editor has not worked collaboratively with other editors and sought group consensus prior to making alterations to the page. It is going to take an awful lot of effort to trawl through the article in order to discover every error that the editor has introduced, and therefore I suggest that the article be reverted to an earlier edition which precedes these anomalies.


 * Well, there's no point in bickering about it. The article is at least in a more manageable state, now all we have to do is:
 * (1) Fix any inaccurate information currently in the article.
 * (2) Restructure the article, if necessary, to reflect the overall consensus of the subject.
 * (3) Find and include good citations for all facts covered.
 * (4) Ensure that the overall flow and style of the article is cohesive.
 * Furthermore, everyone here should feel free to expand upon or even modify the edits of others as they see fit. There's no need to discuss things here unless/until there's some sort of contention. Let's just focus on the task at hand and get it done. Agree? Sebastian Garth (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, is THAT all we have to do???

No, I am afraid that I cannot "agree" with you
To coin a phrase, I'm afraid that you are now clutching at straws. All of a sudden you have gone from decreeing that you HAVE discussed the changes that you wish to make to the Robin Hood article with other editors, and that you have thereby received consensus to make said alterations; to announcing that "there is no need to discuss things here unless/until there's some sort of contention". The very fact that you wish to make amendments to the work of others implies that there is a contentious issue, or else why would you seek to make amendments to the article in the first place? What is more, despite having agreed that the page is unruly and overly-long - other editors have found the work to be of an exceptional standard and in consequence, the article has attained the status of being a level -4 vital article in Art. In consequence, it is of paramount importance that any changes that need making to the article are first discussed on the Talk Page in order to prevent people from perverting the article. After all, the entire point of having a Talk Page in the first place is to provide a forum where editors can freely discuss and seek consensus for amendments that need to be made without spoiling the article, is it not? And, by carefully examining the history of the Talk Page, you will note that Wikipedia has a proud tradition of valued contributors seeking consensus from other editors prior to making alterations.

I agree that people should feel free to expand upon the article in a structured manner. Please remember that my contention is not that you are contributing new material to the article, as everyone has a right to do. Rather, in the final analysis, my overriding concern is, as I have demonstrated on multiple occasions, that without obtaining group consensus, you have continuously perverted a level-4 vital article in Art so that it displays inaccurate and inadequately cited information. Sadly, it is apparent that you do not have the expertise to comprehend the errors that your amendments are incurring within the article, and therefore you really ought to cease making alterations to the article until you have the consensus of other editors in support of your actions.

In closing, I once again implore you to follow your own advice and 'make smaller, more focused edits before trying to move into totally revamping the page'. I will revert the page to an earlier edition and request that any future alterations which you make to the article follow the established code of practice.

Siggasonswein (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)