Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of regicides of Charles I/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC).

List of regicides of Charles I

 * Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

In January 1649 59 judges signed the execution warrant of Charles I. Those judges, and several others, were the subject of punishment following the restoration of the monarchy in 1660. This list (which has been upgraded from its previous parlous and sub-standard state) is now fully fully sourced and several previous errors removed. Any and all constructive comments are welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Oppose "List of regicides of Charles I" suggests a list of monarchs killed by Charles I. If there's a reason why I'm misunderstanding this, though, or the article name is changed, I'll switch my !vote to "Support" (upon being pinged as I'm not likely to check back here). Aside from that, the list is quite nice. LavaBaron (talk) 05:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , That would be "List of regicides committed by Charles I, I think, or even List of regicides by Charles I rather than of Chrles I. – SchroCat (talk) 06:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, changed. LavaBaron (talk) 06:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's great: thanks very much. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 06:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Support. A few points, too minor to affect my support: This page reads very smoothly, but I can imagine the research that has gone into it. An excellently comprehensive and well organised survey. –  Tim riley  talk    10:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * I thought the numeral "3" looked a bit odd. A modern convention (not one I follow, but I'm 4,000 years old) is to write out the numbers between one and ten and use numerals for 11 onwards, and that would, perhaps, look smoother here.
 * Background
 * "The monopoly of the Church of England on Christian worship in England ended with the victors consolidating the established Protestant Ascendancy in Ireland" – this reads as though the second part of the sentence was the consequence of the first, which I don't think you mean. I'm not sure you need the sentence at all for present purposes, though I daresay the Regicides were a glumly Proddy lot.
 * "Following the death of Oliver Cromwell" – as you don't mention Cromwell fils (a sensible omission here, I think) I doubt if you need repeat Oliver's forename here.
 * Dover – you might consider linking the name. It seems unnecessary to me, but the MoS guidance points that way.
 * Treatment of the regicides
 * "according to Howard Nenner, writing for the Dictionary of National Biography" – strictly, the ODNB is a different publication from its predecessor the DNB, and I think you should include the "Oxford" in the title here.
 * Last para – I'm sure the difference in capitalisation between the English and Scottish acts in the first sentence is deliberate, but I just mention it.
 * "However most of the Scottish exceptions were pecuniary, only four men were executed" – comma splice. And if you feel you must start the sentence with "however" (which I'd blitz, personally) you need a comma after it.
 * Tables
 * A few WP:OVERLINKs: the MoS bids us refrain from linking "the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, nationalities and religions", and I think that should be read as including Germany (row 39), Switzerland (row 48), Brussels and England (row 57), and the Netherlands (row 59).


 * Many thanks Tim. Your eagle eye is as welcome as always, and I've altered in line with all your suggestions. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * @User:Tim riley you write "An excellently comprehensive and well organised survey." How do you know that this is true? -- PBS (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!  Tim riley  talk    12:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Great list! A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 13:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. - SchroCat (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose There are many inaccuracies in it, and the list is not stable as there is an ongoing dispute on the talk page. The innacuricies are difficult to fix because all the recent edits to improve the page have been reverted by SchroCat. The major problem is that if this page is given a "Featured list" status I suspect that SchroCat will be even more likely to resist change. -- PBS (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You really are not a very good editor, are you. There are not "many inaccuracies", and your tendentious and disruptive approach is disgusting, and the delegates will see your petty and vindictive oppose here as little more than it is: a shabby attempt at retaining OWNership of an article that you have kept in a parlous state for too long. I am getting close to dropping you into ANI for your utterly unconstructive approach and sub standard behaviour. – SchroCat (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from comments like "you really are not a very good editor"; I understand that the discussion may be frustrating, but it's not helpful.
 * What is wrong with having the opinion that someone is "not a very good editor"? And seeing as we are on the subject of being "helpful", it might be helpful if the person who wrote the comment above could actually sign it?  Cassianto Talk   21:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest you have a look at the tendentious and obstructive balls he's been trying to put over on the talk page. This guy is supposed to be a bloody admin, FFS, and I've never come across such an unconstructive editor before. There is a consensus on the talk page that his approach has not been good, and that the one point he's tried to push (about changing citations) is not a point for discussion on this article, but more centrally. PBS is too arrogant to accept this, and wants to be as disruptive as he can on this. There have been massive signs of OWNership throughout the discussion, and it boils down to him being unhappy that the substandard article on which he has been sitting, has been changed. Take a look at the long and tedious talk page thread (and another in the archives) to get a grip of just why I have lost patience and refer to him as 'not very good'. To be honest, I'm being charitable with that description, given just how disgusting his behaviour has been. – SchroCat (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Speaking as one of the delegates here, your oppose is likely to be discounted as you didn't actually give any examples of what the problems are. "Many inaccuracies" doesn't tell the other reviewers/the nominator/the closers what they are, so it doesn't come across as a valid review. From looking at the talk page, it seems like you don't like the citation style, some of the headings, and one of the images? Mainly the citations? If so, please state clearly what it is you don't like about them. Don't bother "fixing" the problems, just say what they are. -- Pres N  18:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's my understanding of PBS' objection to the article, yes. He's already been given feedback, by multiple editors, regarding the acceptability of the citation scheme used here, but has refused to drop the stick. I can't wear my delegate hat here, given my own involvement in the talk page discussion, but I do second PresN's view of PBS' comments. — Chris Woodrich (talk)


 * Note -- has an axe to grind and their oppose should not be counted.  If I were to go through their contributions, I doubt I'd find any other involvement at FLC or FAC.  Their oppose here is a pathetic show of contempt at not getting their own way.   Cassianto Talk   21:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is some involvement at the featured article process. See here and here for comments by the user on an FA criterion, and here for a review at FAC. I'll leave it to others to determine the merits of the commentary. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * WoW. A few talk page comments on one thread from 2012 and troublesome appearance the previous year. Hardly a regular, are they?   Cassianto Talk   21:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I can see no other issues. This is a great little list and is well worthy of FL status.  Cassianto Talk   21:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support with one comment:
 * "Their heads were placed on spikes the end of Westminster Hall" -- missing word? Would it be "at Westminster Hall" or "at the end of Westminster Hall"?
 * Thanks Cass; I've tweaked the line. – SchroCat (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Your source for end? The image shows them on the side of the Hall. -- PBS (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * From the source quoted, not from a picture, which would not be reliable. – SchroCat (talk) 09:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

This recent edit (a revert) by SchroCat is typical of why this article ought not to be promoted. Before SchroCat edited this article (9 April 2016). The section was titled "Commissioners who did not sign" which is factually accurate. To title the section "Non-regicides" (as SchroCat does) inaccurate. Take for example the first person in the list of "non-regicides",Thomas Andrewes, as is made clear in the comment next to his name he was excepted from the General Pardon, so why is he in a list of non-regicides? SchroCat added links to the ODNB articles, but appears not to have read them in any detail. In the case of Thomas Andrewes the ODNB artilce (37117) starts "Andrewes, Sir Thomas (d. 1659), financier and regicid.." and in that biography article is a link to the ODNB own regicide article (70599) which explains "Nowhere in the act [of Oblivion] did the word ‘regicide’ appear, either to define the crime of killing the king or as a label for those responsible for it. The word itself was unrecognizable in law. Regicide was a sin, but it was not a crime. In English law it never had been. The government therefore eschewed the word, abandoning the debate over its use to the arena of popular discourse, where the allegations of regicide were trumpeted from the pulpit and elaborated in the press. [snip] It was left therefore to contemporaries, and later to polemicists and historians, to apply the regicide label as they might choose, and for that reason there has been considerable disagreement about whom to include [snip] Later writers have shown less reluctance to number the regicides, but no greater certainty about whom to include. Those taking the most restricted view have been willing to count only those commissioners who signed the warrant for Charles's execution; others have widened the category to add all who sentenced him to death. But because the 1660 act excepted from pardon any who had been ‘instrumental in taking away the [king's] life’ the category of regicide has proved seductively elastic."

Take another example the list before SchroCat edited it included three headings for regicides: It now has This is very confusing for various reasons, Most of those listed as "Officers of the court" are not, they were military men involved in the execution. The new section "Associates" includes men such as the first 4 (James Chaloner, John Dove, Thomas Fairfax, John Fry) all of whom were Commissioners. There are lots of other factual inaccuracies in the lists (many of which have appeared this year) so why is anyone suggesting that this list is anything like suitable as a candidate for featured list status? -- PBS (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Commissioners
 * Commissioners who did not sign
 * Associates
 * Others [which was not a table list (like the rest of the list), but the names of a few people who were tried for treason immediately after the Restoration but are not usually labelled regicides but might be confused as being so.]
 * Commissioners
 * Regicides
 * Non-regicides [see my comments above (PBS)]
 * Others
 * Officers of the court
 * Associates


 * We make very clear the background to the use of the word regicide (particularly its non use in the acts, and the lack of legal definition) in the opening line of the final para of the lead. If the use of the term "regicide" is verboten, can you explain why it has been the article title for so many years? I see no complaints about the title from you on the talk page, or any previous discussion, so I guess it's not been that much of problem until now? – SchroCat (talk) 09:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * As to the "incorrect" labels, these broadly follow the terminology used in one of the sources (Jordan, The King's Revenge, rather than anything a Wikipedian has invented. – SchroCat (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing invented in a section heading that says "Commissioners who did not sign" it is a statement of fact. It is also a statement of fact that people you have listed in the section "Associates" were also Commissioners. Taking Francis Allen as an example (because he tops you list of "Non-regicides") the ODNB starts with "Allen, Francis (c.1583–1658), politician and regicide, ..." , where does Jordan, The King's Revenge explicitly state that Francis Allen was not a regicide (quote please with page number)? -- PBS (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * He is in a table on our page titled "The commissioners who did not sign". His entry in Jordan is not with a list of regicides. – SchroCat (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Currently Francis Allen is top of a list with a section title "Non-regicides". Not as section called "Commissioners who did not sign", and this is because you changed the title and then reverted my recent change to "Commissioners who did not sign" back to "Non-regicides". Are you stating that Jordan does not explicitly state that Francis Allen was a non-regicide? If so then you are making a SYN, which is reinforced by the fact the the ODNB biography article on the man states in its first sentence, that he was a regicide. Please quote the title of Jordan's list of regicides (is it exclusive of others), and what make you think that Francis Allen was a non-regicide contrary to the ODNB?


 * The point here is that this list is not in a suitable state for promotion to a featured list, if section headers are questionable and members of different sections have been moved around since the beginning of the year without any discussion on the talk page or agreement among secondary sources to back up the moves. -- PBS (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The title of the table here reflects the title in Jordan. – SchroCat (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Which title? You said previously that Jordan had nothing to say about Francis Allen (has he anything to say about any of the others in that section)?
 * You state in the artilce "Their heads were placed on spikes at the end of Westminster Hall, facing in the direction of the spot where Charles I had been executed." inline citation to a secondary source please, because the primary source in the article shows the three heads mounted on the side of the building facing what is now Parliament Square. -- PBS (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "You said previously that Jordan had nothing to say about Francis Allen". Could you provide a diff? I have no recollection of making anysuch statement and I would like to see the context.
 * I have told you before (probably more than once) that artistic interpretation means the pictures are not reflections of the events. See WP:PRIMARY for further information. – SchroCat (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I am aware of artistic licence which is why I requested "inline citation to a secondary source" (WP:BURDEN). -- PBS (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In the citation at the end of the line, which is where it's supposed to be. – SchroCat (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no citation at the end of the statement which you reverted (as can be see in the diff) -- PBS (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is. It's in the column at the end of the row (right next to the statement). I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to grasp. – SchroCat (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In response to me asking "where does Jordan, The King's Revenge explicitly state that Francis Allen was not a regicide (quote please with page number)?" you replied on this page at 16:52, 3 July 2016: "His entry in Jordan is not with a list of regicides" (diff). -- PBS (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a very different thing from "You said previously that Jordan had nothing to say about Francis Allen". I had made no such claim (that Jordan had nothing to say about Allen): I had said the opposite in fact. My answer above still stands: "His entry in Jordan is not with a list of regicides" . – SchroCat (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So if not Jordan, what is the reliable source you are using that states (contrary to the ODNB) that Francis Allen belongs in a section of "Non-regicides" instead of a section of "Commissioners who did not sign"? -- PBS (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought I had made this clear: Jordan does not list Allen as a regicide. – SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

For those who are getting lost in this conversation, Francis Allen is of just the first of many name in that list and is being used as a sample/example. As I wrote above Francis Allen is unequivocally described as a regicide in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB). SchroCat I think you are being evasive. Please quote what Jordan writes about Francis Allen if anything. But whatever Jordan writes about them the fact that at least one reliable source disagrees with your descriptions (while supporting the previous ones) is a good reason for this current"Featured list candidate" request to fail. -- PBS (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What makes you think anyone is following this? We've all supported and would be happy to see this as a FA, regardless of the rubbish that you are peddling.   Cassianto Talk   06:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The entry for Allen in Jordan does not list him as a regicide; hat we have is a reflection of what is there. It's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. – SchroCat (talk) 06:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, to end this tendentious stupidity I have changed the title. Not because the previous one was in any way wrong, but because your tendentious and inflexible approach is too disruptive to have to deal with. You are obviously not going to drop the stick on this, and the delegates will draw their own conclusions from your poor approach to this whole affair. – SchroCat (talk) 06:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Right, well, the above conversation is acrimonious and hard to follow, so I'm going to pull out the one issue that I actually would have a question about, and leave the rest- this isn't a review, and the supporting reviewers seem to be fine with this issue, I just don't want lingering bits when I close this.
 * "Officers of the Court" includes both court positions and military officers; "Associates" includes both non-commissioners and commissioners that did not participate in the trial the same way as the regicides/non-signers but did show up at least once or were associated with the regicides anyway.
 * Honestly, this is a little confusing without explanation, mainly the second one- I get why you split them up that way, and I agree that those 4 categories make sense, but I think it would help to have a little explanation before the tables the same way you do for regicides/non-signers, just a sentence saying what the table includes (what counts as an "officer of the court", since the term isn't defined in the list; note that non-participatory commissioners count as "associated")

PBS has also on the talk page complained about the citation style; turns out there's an easy way to settle this as far as FLC is concerned: the mandatory source review!


 * Source review
 * Spotchecks: I think we can take this as writ, seeing as there's an intense discussion between multiple editors about what the sources are actually saying. Also, I'm not from the UK, so I can't see the online sources.
 * Completeness: No obvious sources appear to be missing, and I'm sure PBS would have mentioned if you were leaving out an important source.
 * Formatting: Fun fact, the only requirement for citation formatting at FLC/FAC is that it's consistent and contains all of the pertinent information. Any style that meets those two requirements is allowed, and as a result there's several dozen styles running around even our best articles/lists. PBS has stated that, unlike the prior style, that the current one is not consistent. Did some digging, and the only point of contention seems to be that the online website citations are in "references" and not "sources". (refs 1, 2, etc.) The fact that the ODNB is online, so every article has it's own source + reference makes it a bit odd- I personally only put actual books in "sources", and leave all online references of any type in "references" even if they're kind of an online book– but SchroCat's style here is internally consistent, and not something that would fail a source review. So... pass. -- Pres N  17:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks PresN. I'll draft something up to explain the tables shortly . - SchroCat (talk) 07:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, now added for clarity. I hope that should be the end of it, but we will see! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think that is the end of it. Since there's an outstanding oppose, I'll explain my close.

Despite an awful amount of words used, in the end the only points of opposition seem to be: 1) the "non-regicides" subheading is inaccurate (changed, though since it was based on a source that had people divided into "regicides" and... not in that section, then I don't see the original word as that contentious); 2) the groupings in the other 2 subcategories were misleading (now fixed with a brief note); 3) that the citation style is inconsistent (it isn't); and above all and permeating the first 3, that 4) the list was perfectly fine for years before SchroCat started changing it, and no matter how many people disagree with that the list should fail FLC because of it. Which... no, I can look at the history as well as anyone else, it wasn't. It wasn't bad, but it's a lot better now, even if the section headers are a little different. It really smacks of WP:OWN, as others have remarked- when the base of an oppose vote is that "it's been fine for years, there was no need to change it", that's not a vote that really counts for much. Closing as passed. -- Pres N  23:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

@user:PresN there are no deadlines, on Wikipedia, and your did not ask me if I agreed that my concerns had been addressed in full, instead you expressed an opinions that you thought that they had. Let us look at the next issue on my list using one biography an exaple (the first in the list). James Chaloner was "was appointed to sit as a commissioner at the Trial of Charles I and sat for a total of six sessions and unlike his elder brother Thomas Chaloner he did not sign the royal death warrant" (from the Wikipedia biography article), so why does his name appear in the section commissioners who did not sign? Did you read the biographies in the list? If so how can you consider "the groupings in the other 2 subcategories were misleading (now fixed with a brief note)" to be true?. If you did not read the biographies how do you consider you self well enough read to make a judgement call on the issues? -- PBS (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)