Talk:Robin Hood/Archive 4

I have found yet another instance where user Sebastian Garth has listed incorrect information on the article
Under the sub-heading 'Yorkshire', 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 only stated that the Gest 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, such as East Anglia. Prior to user Sebastiangarth's intervention the article clearly and accurately stated this information. Hence the user has once again perverted the article so that it gives incorrect information.

Addition to external links section
I am webmaster of http://www.irhb.org, a large website on the Robin Hood tradition. I would be glad if you would add it to your external links section.

Henrik Thiil Nielsen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.233.234.215 (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Needs Proofreading!
This article has a duplicated sentence (search for "universally known" in the text) and a misspelling "pwed". I'd make the edits but I don't have access apparently. Seekingcats (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2015
92.0.234.227 (talk) 11:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC) heelooooooo

French Robin Hood
It is hard to know where to start on this article.....but as a small beginning let me note that the "French Robin Hood" is not Thierry the Sling but "Robin des Bois". The Robin Hood legend may or may not have a French origin, Stephen Thomas Knight has argued that it does, but in any case it has an independent life at least since Alexandre Dumas wrote a Robin Hood book....as to the article more generally there is a lot of embarrassing stuff in it. I suggest creating a separate article or theories of origin. Jeremy (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC) An independent French life I mean. Jeremy (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

A plausible beginning is based on the Romance of Fouke le Waryn. After Foulk's death he became the subject the famous "ancestral romance" known as Fouke le Fitz Waryn, which contains a highly embellished account of his life and family history. The biography of Fulk III survives in a French prose "ancestral romance", extant in a manuscript containing English, French and Latin texts, which is based on a lost verse romance. As a young boy, Fulk was sent to Royal Court and grew up with the King's younger son, the future King John (1199–1216). John became his enemy after a childhood quarrel during a game of chess. As an adult, King John retained his animosity toward Fulk whom he stripped of his ancestral holdings. Fulk thereupon took to the woods as an outlaw and lived a life of adventure. The romance of Fulk FitzWarin is noted for its parallels to the legend of Robin Hood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul J Evans (talk • contribs) 09:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation
I'm not very good at the IPA, but I think someone should add the UK and US pronunciations of the name, since they differ so much in the way we stress it. The OED gives "Brit. /ˌrɒbɪn ˈhʊd/, U.S.  /ˈrɑbən ˌ(h)ʊd/ ". I reckon that Brits are often very surprised at the US pronunciation. I wonder if that goes the other way too. Myrvin (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree Martina2002niall (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2015
I have serious reservations about the last sentence in the Robin Hood, the high-minded Saxon yeoman section: “And, historians propose the site of Robin's death as being the hospital of St. Nicholas at Saxon Kirkby (modern Pontefract).[20]” Which historians? The footnote [20] provides no reference to any such proposal by any historian. I also have serious reservations about the entire All Saints’ church at Pontefract section which reveals, IMO, dodgy scholarship: Rather than quoting from Drayton the author quotes from an academic – hence footnote [55]. The author then uses this as a precedent to say “historians today indicate that the outlaw is buried at nearby Kirkby.” Which historians? Because the academic in footnote [55] does not say that. The author then quotes from Grafton [56], neglecting to mention that Grafton says RH is buried at Bircklies. The author then quotes from A Gest [57] – wilfully misinterpreting a Middle English spelling of ‘rode’ (rood ie cross) as road!

Perdu42 (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done - you didn't make a specific request to change the text in the article, in the form "please change X to Y" as the template suggests. You should discuss your concerns with editors here and determine what specifically needs to be changed in the article before posting an edit request. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Reservations on content
Being a newb is no excuse so my apologies for the semi-protected edit request. The section ROBIN HOOD, THE HIGH-MINDED SAXON YEOMAN at present consists of three paragraphs – the last two should be deleted. The section ALL SAINTS’ CHURCH AT PONTEFRACT should be removed entirely. I believe both passages violate the guidelines on original research – that is they stem from someone’s MA thesis. If this does not violate said guidelines both passages need tidying in terms of providing verifiable references for the numerous claims of academics and historians supporting the ideas expressed. I would argue the ideas expressed in the two passages form (a really small) minority view such that there are no verifiable references. (Hence, should be considered original research!) Where references are supplied they can be misleading: for example footnote 20 refers to John Paul Davis, Robin Hood The Unknown Templar. Yes, Davis mentions the marriage legend but makes no proposal that the site of Robin's death as being the hospital of St. Nicholas at Saxon Kirkby (modern Pontefract). Perdu42 (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)Perdu42Perdu42 (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC) Yeah, I have made some changes, including some of the cuts recoomended here. A lot more needs to be done on content.Jeremy (talk) 13:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Disney's Robin Hood (1973)
Walt Disney didn't produce Robin Hood (1973) as he died on December, 15 1966, BEFORE production on Robin Hood began in I believe 1970. Dragon&#39;sLair83 (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Major surgery required.
This page as it stands is a disgrace to wikipedia....really. I suggest it be reverted to long ago and we start again. In the new article the search for the historical Robin Hood should be separated, and the broadside ballads given proper weight. All sentences beginning "historians indicate" or the lack should be cut. Jeremy (talk) 11:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC) I have, I hope, improved the sequence of the article; but a lot of work still needs to be done in improving content Jeremy (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I've been slowly doing some of the surgery I recommended and trying not to leave the article unsutured after any particular efit, The references to Sword in the Stone and Keats got lost in the shuffle but they are put back, perhaps in a more consistent context. I did have to remove the following references,which were not doing any work but which are obviously useful so I put them here so they won't get lost.....   "Can be put back' I meant. Jeremy (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

From another stranded section I deleted, I pit it here to save the ref and in case the English transaltion of the spurious epitaph be thought useful at some later date:

"A reference to Robin as Earl of Huntington is provided by Thomas Gale, Dean of York (c. 1635–1702), but this comes nearly four hundred years after the events it describes:


 * [Robin Hood's] death is stated by Ritson to have taken place on 18 November 1247, about the 87th year of his age; but according to the following inscription found among the papers of the Dean of York...the death occurred a month later. In this inscription, which bears evidence of high antiquity, Robin Hood is described as Earl of Huntington – his claim to which title has been as hotly contested as any disputed peerage upon record.


 * Hear undernead dis laitl stean
 * Lais Robert Earl of Huntingun
 * Near arcir der as hie sa geud
 * An pipl kauld im Robin Heud
 * Sic utlaws as hi an is men
 * Vil England nivr si agen.
 * Obiit 24 Kal Dekembris 1247


 * In Modern English:
 * Here underneath this little stone
 * Lies Robert Earl of Huntington
 * Never archer there as he so good
 * And people called him Robin Hood
 * Such outlaws as him and his men
 * Will England never see again

This inscription also appears on a grave in the grounds of Kirklees Priory near Kirklees Hall (see below). " Jeremy (talk) 12:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Sir Walter Scott's historical novel, "Ivanhoe" is certainly well worth familiarizing oneself to as a strikingly similar parallel inspiration for the development of Robin Hood Dlf1wayout (talk) 07:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Dlf1wayout a.k.a. LSDexitOzAmericaDotOrg

Proposed merge with Robyn Hod and the Shryff off Notyngham
Not notable enough to warrant its own article. Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 03:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Each Robin Hood ballad has its own article and most of them are less notable than this. Dobson and Taylor write "this unique 15th century manuscript can lay claims to being one of the msot historically significant items in the entire corpus of Robin Hood literature". If this was merged so to be consistent would most of the ballads have to be. It is of significance, as well as to the main article, to the Friar Tuck and Guy of Gisbourne articles (both ballads and articles on the characters). If it is to be merged please wait till the main article is less of a mess,right now we need less confusion there not more! Jeremy (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think they should merge, each of these primary sources is likely to have had significant scholarship contributed to them and it is helpful to readers to have articles about these. Sometimes that scholarship is hard to access, but in a case of a major literary work where reliable sources describe this is one of the "most historically significant" of the Robin Hood poems, its a reasonable assumption that those sources do exist (they may be offline, etc.) And this article is certainly long enough with additional content being merged in.SeraphWiki (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2016
There's a typo, "Cbildren", under the "The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood" sub-section. It's most likely supposed to say "Children".

ChlorideCull (talk) 10:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks, now corrected. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Historicity
A line here should be considered for removal or heavy revision: "Robin Hood's Yorkshire origins are universally accepted by professional historians." Appeals to universal agreement on a controversial topic are typically false and this is no exception. There might be some general consensus in favor of Yorkshire, especially among Yorkshire historians, but this does not mean it's universally accepted. The issue is unsettled absent irrefutable proof, regardless of how good Yorkshire's claims might be. Ftjrwrites (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2016
Add Hong Gildong to the "see also" section.

Samiam2424 (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: That is a disambiguation page. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 17:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I Take it the OP meant Hong Gildong (character). not sure if it belongs, but that may just be my cultural bias showing, so i'll leave it here for consideration. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ given the other entries in that section, adding the "Korean Robin Hood" seems reasonable - Arjayay (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Alexandre Dumas, wrong data
I think the data:" Alexandre Dumas in Le Prince des Voleurs (1972)" is wrong, it shoud be 1872.--Dafne07 (talk) 08:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * done, thanks IdreamofJeanie (talk) 09:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Tax Resister
Robin Hood was no violent redistributor, but a tax resistor. Those "rich" were actually net tax recipients, while the poor were tax payers. --105.1.163.145 (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * If you read the article, and its sources, you'd see that we're talking about centuries of stories, songs, and legends.
 * There is no single canonical answer to what he was or wasn't. But it's pretty clear that in many stories, he and his gang acted as highwaymen. That is absolutely a type of violent thief.
 * ApLundell (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2018
Please replace lead section with:

Robin Hood is a legendary heroic outlaw originally depicted in English folklore and subsequently featured in literature and film. According to legend, he was a highly skilled archer and swordsman. In some versions of the legend he is of noble birth, and had fought in the Crusades before returning to England and finding his lands taken by the Sheriff of Nottingham. In other versions this is not the case and he was born a yeoman. Traditionally depicted dressed in Lincoln green, he is said to have robbed from the rich and given to the poor.

In the legend, and subsequent retellings, he fights alongside his band of Merry Men, a group of outlaws who live in Sherwood Forest and disrupt the activities of the Sheriff of Nottingham, who is depicted as an evil tyrant, generally shown as plotting to overthrow Richard I, to whom Robin Hood is loyal. A common theme of the story is that Robin is a champion of the common people fighting against injustice, whilst remaining loyal to the rightful ruler. He became a popular folk figure in the Late Middle Ages, and the earliest known ballads featuring him are from the 15th century.

There have been numerous variations and adaptations of the story over the last six hundred years, and the story continues to be widely represented in literature, film and television. Robin Hood is considered one of the best known tales of English folklore.

The Historicity of Robin Hood is not conclusively proven, and has been debated for centuries. There are numerous references to historical figures with similar names that have been proposed as possible evidence of his existence, some dating back to the late 13th century. There have been at least eight plausible origins to the story put forward based on historical sources, of which none are proven or agreed upon. It has also been suggested that "Robin Hood" was a stock alias used by outlaws in general who did not want to reveal their identity.

This is more inclusive than the existing lead, and summarises more information from the body of the article. Everything I have summarised is stated somewhere in the article already.

Thanks. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Replacing lead sections of protected, stable articles requires discussion among the interested editors and is not handled within a simple edit request.  You will need to start a new discussion giving not only the text you wish to use and the sources, but also give the reasons why you think your proposed text is a better summary of the article than the current text.  The Manual of Style gives information on what is considered a good lead section and the Request for Comment page gives information about soliciting a new consensus.  This explanatory supplement on consensus is likely also relevant.  Thank you for your understanding and good luck.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

ok will do. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The lead of this article (Robin Hood) is too short and has been tagged as needing improvement since July 2017. I am starting this request for comment to get consensus to make the lead longer. This would likely involve something similar to what I wrote above, though any improvements would be good since I don't mention Maid Marian at all, don't go into detail on versions or specifics of the story, ballads and some other details in the article are not mentioned etc. So feel free to rewrite. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Alternative text
I am proposing the following rewritten text which synthesizes the original proposal from with the suggestions below from  and myself so that everyone is looking at the same text. Pinging previous respondents:. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC) Robin Hood is a legendary heroic outlaw originally depicted in English folklore and subsequently featured in literature and film. According to legend, he was a highly skilled archer and swordsman. In some versions of the legend he was of noble birth, and had fought in the Crusades before returning to England and finding his lands taken by the Sheriff. In other versions this is not the case and he born a yeoman. Traditionally depicted dressed in Lincoln green, he is said to have robbed from the rich and given to the poor.

Through retellings, additions, and variations a body of familiar characters associated with Robin Hood have been created. These include his paramour, Maid Marian, his band of outlaws, the Merry Men, and his chief opponent, the Sheriff of Nottingham. The Sheriff is often depicted as assisting Prince John in usurping the rightful but absent King Richard, to whom Robin Hood remains loyal. A common theme of the story is that Robin is a champion of the common people fighting against injustice, whilst remaining loyal to the rightful ruler. He became a popular folk figure in the Late Middle Ages, and the earliest known ballads featuring him are from the 15th century.

There have been numerous variations and adaptations of the story over the last six hundred years, and the story continues to be widely represented in literature, film and television. Robin Hood is considered one of the best known tales of English folklore.

The historicity of Robin Hood is not conclusively proven and has been debated for centuries. There are numerous references to historical figures with similar names that have been proposed as possible evidence of his existence, some dating back to the late 13th century, and at least eight plausible origins to the story put forward. Historians and folklorists do not agree that any of these have been sufficiently proven to be correct. It has also been suggested that "Robin Hood" was a stock alias used by outlaws in general who did not want to reveal their identity.

Comments on the lead RfC

 * Support in general. What's drafted above is more in keeping with MOS:LEAD, though some of that could be compressed a little. Marian  should be mentioned, though ApLundell's approach below would also work. I have no objection to copyedits suggested by Eggishorn and Dbrote. I would  add "detail on versions ..."; that's what the body is for. Also, move the citations to the body; neither dressing in green not the from-rich-to-poor are controversial assertions about the legend. One exception on copyediting: for "of which none are", use "but none are".  (Using "is" here is a Victorian prescriptivism hobgoblin, an assertion that zero must logically be singular somehow, no matter what; it violates the vastly more important agreement between the plurality of the referents and what we're saying about them, which makes the material both more stilted and harder to understand) .  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC); updated: 20:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support the draft above. I don't think bringing in Marian or any of the other ancillary characters is necessary, except to mention, as you have done, that he usually appears with a cast of characters. Best to keep it general. ApLundell (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support but I would change the first sentence of the second paragraph to: "Through retellings, additions, and variations a body of familiar characters associated with Robin Hood have been created. These include his paramour, Maid Marian, his band of outlaws, the Merry Men, and his chief opponent, the Sheriff of Nottingham.  The Sheriff is often depicted as assisting Prince John in usurping the rightful  but absent King Richard, to whom Robin Hood remains loyal."  I think that reads better, breaks up the run-on, and is more complete. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with Eggishorn's proposed changes. I would also recommend: fixing the tenses of "robbed" and/or "give" in "he is said to have robbed from the rich and give to the poor"; making "Historicity" lowercase and deleting the comma in that sentence; changing "he is of noble birth" to "he was of noble birth" in conformance with the other verbs in the lead; and changing "of which none are" to "but none is" (although that's more personal preference). Dbrote (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I like the improvements to what I originally drafted that have been suggested. The rewritten version posted above by Eggishorn seems to me to be perfectly good. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Although consider changing "heroic outlaw" to social bandit. Other than that good work.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 06:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * GPRamirez5 the only trouble with that is he is almost universally depicted in media as an outlaw, but generally not as a bandit. Though the concept of social bandit can definitely be applied to him, it might be better to discuss this in detail in the body before adding it to the lead. Prince of Thieves (talk) 09:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The lead should use "heroic outlaw", not "social bandit". Even if there was a real guy, he is primarily a hero of legend and literature, "Heroic outlaw" is much more appropriate. "Social bandit" doesn't seem to be widely used, anyway, except when discussing the works of the particular historian who coined the phrase. ApLundell (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support w/o social bandit. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  13:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. I support as it is, although I'd like to voice that the last paragraph doesn't quite sit right to me. I feel it could be worded less awkwardly and made more concise. I'm not versed on the sources but I've had a go at rewording it here:


 * 'Historical figures with similar names have been proposed as synonymous with Robin Hood, furthering the evidence of his existence. The historicity of Robin Hood is not conclusively proven however and has been debated for centuries, including suggestions that "Robin Hood" was a stock alias used by outlaws in general who did not want to reveal their identity.'
 * In my suggestion I've removed 'possible' from in front of 'evidence'. I don't think that qualifier is necessary. Evidence just points to a conclusion, not necessarily the truth. Cesdeva (talk) 12:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In my suggestion I've removed 'possible' from in front of 'evidence'. I don't think that qualifier is necessary. Evidence just points to a conclusion, not necessarily the truth. Cesdeva (talk) 12:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Cesdeva makes a good point, I think personally think that reword is a slight improvement. It sounds different (maybe sounds more academic), but seems to me to cover the facts well. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Implementation
Since there hasn't been any opposition to the idea, I have gone ahead and added the new lead section without getting someone to formally close the discussion, I have used all the best suggestions, and if anyone has more ideas to improve it that is good. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , Neither the Lincoln green clothing nor the taking from the rich and giving to the poor are controversial statements that need cites (indeed, the latter is one of the Robin Hood mythology's defining features) and I apologize if my rewritten text above gave you the impression they were required. Also, the final paragraph was quite reiterative so I have stripped it back to the essential elements that are given in the body text. Thanks for your initiative on this.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)