Talk:Robin Hood/Archive 1

message: I feel there is no need for a paragraph about objectivism in this article. Compared to the other interpretations cited in this paper, objectivism is extremely obscure, and given the vast amount of interpretations of the Robin Hood saga in modern day literature and culture I would say it's better to refrain from mentioning them at all in the main paper. It would be better to just put the objectivist view of Robin Hood into an independent article.
Esthurin 11:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Objectivist view of Robin Hood is, to my knowledge, the only one that casts the Robin Hood of legend in a less-than-favorable light.  NPOV requires that an article refrain from making value judgments (value judgments are important--without them our actions would be random and pointless--but encyclopedia articles are there to provide us with the information so we each make our own value judgments, not to make the judgments for us).  Kurt Weber 15:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objectivism 

message: Not sure I agree with the translation for "I can (i.e. 'ken') 'rimes of Robin Hood." From what I recall "ken" means "know", not "can". This is at least true of Scottish dialect, though as Langland wasn't Scottish I guess it could be different. I doubt it though, as "know" makes more sense. -R. fiend 07:59, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I fixed it a while ago. In my mind the original was clearly wrong. -R. fiend 16:41, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't understand the 1st quote, but I think I got the 2nd, here's a rewriting: 
 Lytil Jhon and Robyne Hude
 Wayth-men ware commendyd gude:
 In Yngil-wode and Barnysdale
 Thai oysyd all this tyme thare trawale.
 Little John and Robin Hood 
 ? were commanded good:
 In ?ng?lwood and B?rn?sdale
 they used all this time there travel. (or maybe "their travail")
Frankly, doesn't make much sense to me, might contain archaic vocabulary, the other one was easier, though, I think I got it:
 Hear undernead dis laitl stean
 Lais Robert Earl of Huntingtun
 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
 Here underneath this little stone
 Lays Robert, Earl of Huntington
 (There was) no archer as good as him
 And people called him Robin Hood
 Such outlaws as he and his men
 Will England never see again.
But I haven't studied enough Middle English to be sure I interpreted it all correctly, especially the 3rd line. 85.226.122.222 10:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ken" 

message: I read that the first Robin Hood film dates from 1908. Does anyone have any information about this film, such as title or country of origin? I'm working on a historiography of the middle ages and this is a key example of the early portrayal of the middle ages in film. Nothing mentioned in the article though. --Stbalbach 20:20, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated with title. --Stbalbach 16:20, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robin Hood film 1908 

message: I'd like to get some feedback from others before inserting such a segment.  I do believe that some of these myths & legends may provide a more "fleshed out" article. Topics could include: Robin as Herne's Son (the Lord of the Hunt), the Merry Men as (Maid) Marion's Men & the group as anti-Christian, anti-establishment rebellion. I can write on this extensively and provide numerous references, if desired.  Please let me know your opinion, and if there are any specific legends/myths I should address.--ghost 14:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  neo-Pagan reinterpretations of Robin Hood 

message: The following was added on 7/15 by 80.47.185.51:
:It is simply not possible to locate the historical Robin Hood with any certainty. The literary corpus very firmly locates the activities of the outlaw in the north, around the Barnsdale area and Sherwood Forest.
:This possibly indicates that the legend as we have it already derives from two separate sources, probably two separate 'Robin Hoods'. The Scottish historian John Major, writing in 1521, maintained that Robin Hood was active in 1193-4, at the time of John's attempted coup against Richard, and it is possible to construct an argument which supports this.
:On 25th July 1225, the royal justices held an assize at York. When the penalties were recorded in the Michaelmas roll of the Exchequer, they included 32s. 6d. for the chattels of one Robert Hod, fugitive. The account was carried forward into the following year, when he had acquired the nickname of 'Hobbehod', and indicates that he had been a tenant of the archbishopric of York.
:'His fame and popularity were such that within a generation his true identity had been obscured by legend.'
:This is the only possible original bearing the name of Robin Hood who is know to have been an outlaw (there are other Hoods in Wakefield, but none of them seem to have been fugitives). An epitaph recorded by Thomas Gale in 1702 recorded that a grave purporting to be that of Robin Hood lay at Kirklees (where the legend claims he was killed), dated to 1247.
:On this flimsy evidence, it is possible to construct a chronology: Robin active in the 1190s, an outlaw by 1225, dead by 1247 and a legend by 1261. Quite frankly, I wouldn't stake my reputation on it. John Major's dating is purely arbitrary, and two of his contemporaries give Robin's dates as 1283-5 or 1266; while the full date on the Kirklees gravestone, 25 Kalends Decembris 1247, is impossible as there is no 25 Kalends in the Roman calendar.
:The only thing to be said in favour of Major's dating is that it fits well with the only two firm pieces of evidence we have, the court rolls of 1225 and 1261. On this basis, I think we would be fully justified in saying that Robin Hood was active during the reign of King John, but that his fame and popularity were such that within a generation his true identity had been obscured by legend.
There's good content here, but alot seems to be original research.  Can we review this please?--ghost 19:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. And this line "Quite frankly, I wouldn't stake my reputation on it", is interesting from an anonymous author, makes me suspect it may be from another source; theres a tone to it that underscores an unspoken knowledge of the authors authority on the subject. Stbalbach 19:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was right, copyvio of this page from BBC. Stbalbach 20:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locations edit by 80.47.185.51 

message: Robin Hood appears in the fictional The Once and Future King - he is also mentioned as possibly being a character in King Arthur's life by  Norma Lorre Goodrich's books in the search for the historical King Arthur... can we get and word on this concept?  This would place Robin Hood in the late 4th or early 5th century.
:Considering that Merlin talks plentifully about the Normans and the Saxons in The Once and Future King -- conscious anachronism, I would say.  Goldfritha 00:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Once and Future King 

message: "...named the Merry Men for their famed jollity..." 
I'm not sure this is right - "merrie" in medieval English didn't mean "jolly", and "merrie England" wasn't a place with a well-developed comedy industry. Someone with more energy than I can muster might like to find out what it really did mean. PiCo 01:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hesitate to check how long that had been in there.  Jkelly 01:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that a number of Child ballads refer to a noble's retinue as their "merry men" Goldfritha 23:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of "merry" 

message: Someone please look at , all work done by 85.147.146.217.  Much of what was changed over those many edits seems suspect, and the ellipsis that survives into the current version is certainly out of place.  Is this all nonsense that needs reversion, or does it just need copyediting? --Tardis 02:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd just remove it.  There doesn't seem to be anything of value.  Would you mind?  Jkelly 02:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed some of it, but haven't the time to finish just now. I'll catch the rest later. Tony Fox (speak) 22:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wakefield edits, etc. 

message: It's getting long, or so I'm warned.  Maybe the lists of Robin Hood appearances should be split off.Goldfritha 00:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Size

message: If you read the traditional accounts -- see the ballads articles -- he did very little good for the poor.  And robbing tax collectors for their benefit does not appear.  Goldfritha 23:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The poor and tradition

message: I thought in the Robin Hood stories, King John's tax collectors came by and pried money from the population, then Robin and his men ambushed the gold going back to the castle and gave it back to the peasants who paid the taxes in the first place. Isn't this the accurate telling of the Robin Hood story?
Well, it's a fairly accurate telling of the Victorian versions, especially those of Howard Pyle. The earliest surviving Robin texts, however, from the end of the medieval period, contain none of these details at all. Firstly, Edward is the king, not John; secondly, Robin is a far from altruistic figure, with little interest in the poor; thirdly, his crimes are not restricted to robbery, as he breaks prisoners from gaol, kills foresters, steals from clergymen, and extorts money from riders passing through his domain (for his own profit, incidentally). Anyway, there are a number of shaky points in your account. Assuming that Robin Hood was active in the reign of John, peasants, or bondsmen, wouldn't even be paying taxes in that period, not until the Poll Tax was briefly introduced in 1381 - their 'payments' took the form of labour duties to the lords whose tenants they were. So, none of the medieval stories feature any of the events or characters you have described, I'm afraid. Ben Parsons 20:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who did he steal from?  

message: I was watching QI and it mentioned that the first Robin Hoods were based on William Wallace and his first title was Rabbie Hood, not Robin Hood.
This seems unlikely. The name is used in England to describe outlaws (and it is invariably in England) from 1227 onwards - Wallace was not born until c.1270. It may be that in Scotland the legends of the two figures were conflated and confused - both of them were outlaws, both were minor noblemen, both lost their property, and both led guerilla-style bands against figures in authority (at least, in popular fictional sources, such as Blind Harry's Actes and Deidis of Waleis). In fact, an early Scottish chronicle does place Robin Hood in the late 1280s and 90s, which is roughly when Wallace was active, and it is true that Scottish authors in particular (Major, Wyntoun, Bower) were keen to historicise the stories. So it may be that one figure was superimposed upon the other, or identified with him, at least in Scotland. But the Robin Hood figure certainly predates even the historical Wallace, so claiming him as a source is fairly implausible. Ben Parsons 11:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rabbie Hood

message: I question the use of this word in the opening. It seems an attempt on part of the author to sound smart, or perhaps elevate the article for honors it does not otherwise deserve.
It's use makes the meaning of the sentence, (already a victim of poor diction) less understandable to a general reader. In addition, the validity of the metaphor is highly questionable to begin with. Even if it as a valid metaphor technically, in context here it is at best highly archaic. At worst, it is confusing and silly.
At either end of that spectrum, the article it better without it. Any thoughts?
MergeCar 05:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the original 'author' attempting (and consistently failing) to 'sound smart', I'm forced to admit that amalgam is much better in terms of clarity. Good edit.
Ben Parsons 09:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palimpsest? 

message: Would anyone object if I deleted the Popular Culture section? It adds very little that is not said elsewhere, and its talk of 'phrasings' seems embarrassingly sophomoric. Is such stuff genuinely important to the legend? Or integral to the political schools that are mentioned? And if so, why are no specific writers or works cited? The section reads like an undergraduate's attempt to 'read' the legends from a particular standpoint, rather than a reflection of anything concrete or factual. So, to reiterate: would anyone mind if I got rid of this section altogether? Ben Parsons 19:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I might suggest that it would be better to thin it down and maybe poke around to see if there are sources available to back it up. It is linked to the separate article there, I see; perhaps just leaving that in place might be a good route to go. There's definitely a popular culture aspect to the legend, though, so it's probably a good idea to have it mentioned here. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Popular Culture' 

message: Hi, sorry I have just come to this page, helping my 7 year old do his homework, and I have noticed some awful words at the start of the page. I Have never posted and dont have account, so with so many posts by people genuinely editing information I hope someone can fix it.
Kind regards,
Natalie —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.189.35.204 (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swearing 

message: I'm sure I'm going to get laughed out of town by everyone for this but does Robin Hood have any connection with Stretford in Manchester.  
I have reacently started working in Stretford and have noticed a few businesses called Robin Hood, there's Taxis, beds and a pub at the very least.  
Why?
I've been looking for any link between Robin and Stretford but i can't find it, i'm new to Wikipedia so go easy.
Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.176.150.53 (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robin Hood in Stretford? 

message: I'm sure we all remember Disney's take on Robin Hood ("Get to the point!") Okay, shouldn't we categorise this under fictional foxes? - 82.42.162.112 14:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, is there such a category? Arcayne 14:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. Look at the bottom of Fox McCloud. - 82.42.162.112 16:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, ain't that an interesting bit of cruft? lol :)  Arcayne 18:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional Foxes 

message: Noticing that most of the edits have been vandalism and clearing it up -- does anyone think it's not ready for a peer review?  Goldfritha 23:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm putting it up.  Anyone at all can respond to comments made.  Goldfritha 23:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Click on "a request has been made", at the top, to see the comments. Goldfritha 23:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone's made A LOT of comments.  I started in, but anyone else would have my gratitude for chipping in.  Goldfritha 00:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: Okay, so I made a minor edit which I wanted to explain and there wasn't a place for me to do so amongst all the (perfectly legitimate) scholarly discussion.  Now there is.  :o)
I took out the sentence "Robin was not a real person who lived, he was a fictional character and still is one" from the first paragraph.  It's unencyclopaedic, for one thing, and from what I've read about vandalism I wonder if it wasn't just someone being a smartar... being clever.  Whatever the case, I'm quite sure that "...and still is one" was redundant: a fictional character doesn't become any more real with time, as a rule.  The reason I wanted to explain is because (to me) it wasn't obvious vandalism, so someone might have wanted to know why.  - Shrivenzale 21:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, nice post. Clearly, uncited information can't be left on the page. If we aren't sure of the citability of the statemetns, I've seen in other articles where they move the info to the talk page under the heading "Uncited statemetns" or some such. I don't know if that's applicable here, but it looks like you did the right thing here. Good job! :) Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Very Minor Edits

message: This follows from discussion in the comments on the edit page: apologies for not taking it here earlier. My contention is that "Also in manuscript is A Gest of Robyn Hode (c.1475)" is wrong. While several sources say that there is a manuscript of Geste (Holt, Dobson and Taylor, Pollard if I recall), this is flatly contradicted by Knight and Ohlgren. Knight and Ohlgren I take to be authoritative in this instance as being the most recent and compendious of critical editions of the core Robin Hood texts; further, none of those that attest to their being a manuscript prior to the printed editions of c.1500 give a reference to that manuscript (it is true that there is a later manuscript). So I'd argue that saying the Gest exists in manuscript in the same way as does Robin Hood and the Monk is not right. 68.6.51.226 04:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted a message on the other user's Talk page, inviting him to respond. He usually posts towards weeks' end, so let's wait until next Sunday night. If no counter argument is forthcoming, we shall consider the argument without challenge and reinstate it. I hope that arrangement is acceptable to you; I was aiming at making sure the article remains stable. Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manuscript of A Geste of Robyn Hode