Talk:Runnymede

message: The picture cannot load without the proper plugin.24.14.171.9 06:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture.svg

message: Let's say that a pregnant British woman was visiting the Kennedy memorial and went into sudden labor and gave birth to the child there. Since the US gives citizenship to anyone born in its territory, would that child have a legitimate claim to American citizenship? Thanks in advance for humoring me.  youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 19:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be aware that the above contribution was made by a no longer active editor with an alleged history of attempting to cause controversy on sovereignty issues. In the absence of any cites, it should be treated with respect but not too much confidence. -- Starbois (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypothetical question 

message: It is of course perfectly possible for one country (or strictly the government of one country) to own land in another country's territory without any sovereignty implications, so the statement that the land was given to the United States is ambiguous. I can find lots of cites for the fact that land was given to the United States, but none that explicitly says that this was done in such a way as to make the monument US sovereign territory. Can anybody supply a clarifying cite, and remove the fact tag I've added?. -- Starbois (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it's possible to give something as a gift to someone, but that someone does not necessarily need to legally incorporate themselves as the true owner. This is likely the case here. Britain gave it as a gift which America accepted, and in essence America owns it in the same way they own a military aircraft (let's say). However, for it to be American sovereign territory then it would need to be legally incorporated in the U.S. (which does happen with Embassies no doubt through some standard law). If there is no record of this incorporation its likely that the land is not actually sovereign territory (like the aforementioned aircraft) but is owned. It would be interesting to find out exactly the case though. In short, ownership does not necessarily imply sovereignty. 203.196.81.139 (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I did a bit of cleanup with a solid reference supplied by another editor. -- Beland (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs cite for 'US territory'

message: Can we have some source for this created as an an artificial island? WP:REF specifies that title of work, page number etc are required. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked, but I can't find anything. Deleting, again, as per WP:PROVEIT policy. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

text: The quote from the  National Trust leaflet seems very definite, but I'm still looking. The Burkes (of Burkes' Peerage), writing in 1847, assert that George Simon Harcourt bought the estate in 1829, and describe his island and its "fisherman's hut" as being famous as the place where the deed was signed. No mention of digging the channel or charging, though: perhaps the deception had not yet been uncovered? This 1847 book mentions the building being put up in 1834, but asserts that the island was in existence since at least the time of John Aubrey, and by his account since 1215.--Old Moonraker (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it was called Magna Carta Island in the 18th century as there is a drawing from then called "A Fishing Party Near Magna Carta Island, from Runnymede" in the Egham Museum: see here Perhaps the channel had silted up and they dug it out again in 1834. On a different point, there are far too many pictures in this article and it just looks untidy - shouldn't they be pruned down? For instance - do we really need a picture of every place the Magna Carta may have been signed? They're just odd bits of rather similar looking countryside - what do the pictures tell you about the historical event? Also, what does "Runnymede... is associated popularly with Magna Carta Island" mean? I've changed the rating of this article to C class as it clearly doesn't meet the first criterion for B class as most of it is unreferenced. Richerman (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I think the text makes it clear that there is more to Runnymede than Magna Carta and I can't see how having all the images of the possible places it was signed does anything to dispel that, however, if you're determined to have them in I'm not going to get into an an edit war. I've put the gallery back in and would suggest that they go there, although galleries are not really recommended. If anyone wants to see lots of images they should use the commons link to other media at the bottom. One thing that is definitely not considered good practice is to squeeze the text between two images, so I've moved one of the Lutyens kiosk images to the gallery. Could I suggest that the places infobox (like the one used in Chat Moss) is used at the beginning of the article and one good quality image of the area (like the one from the island) is used as the static image? Richerman (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magna Carta Island 

message: I was looking at a print source for this (from the Design Council magazine): the current one is a Wiki hosted by The National Archives, rather than written by them, and as such may not meet the WP:RS standard. Views? --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I wondered why it looked a bit wiki-ish - I'll replace it with this one Richerman (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the fix: it's not as though there's any doubt or controversy about the material. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref for [[Alan Collins]] 

message: Anyone want to mention the new Diggers who are camped near this area? Information:
http://diggers2012.wordpress.com/
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/08/499235.html
http://ecobrooklyn.com/diggers-2012-making-waste-land/
http://theoccupiedtimes.co.uk/?p=5492
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/diggers-2012/4282262
41.204.74.44 (talk) 12:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diggers 2012 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Runnymede. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722002027/http://ww2.runnymede.gov.uk/business/ImpactAssess/state%20report/Natural.pdf to http://ww2.runnymede.gov.uk/business/ImpactAssess/state%20report/Natural.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090208095822/http://egham.co.uk/info/jfk.html to http://www.egham.co.uk/info/jfk.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150715203823/http://chilstone.com/news/magna-carta-bench/ to http://chilstone.com/news/magna-carta-bench/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is this really needed? Shouldn't it be merged with the Runnymede disambiguation page? WSGB11 (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Namesakes section  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Runnymede. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090120053742/http://millicentlibrary.org/cara2.htm to http://www.millicentlibrary.org/cara2.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello! During late June, July and some of August, I'm working on a paid project sponsored by the National Trust to review and enhance coverage of NT sites. You can find the pilot edits here, as well as a statement and contact details for the National Trust. I am leaving this message when I make a first edit to a page; please do get in touch if you have any concerns. Lajmmoore (talk) 07:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Trust pilot 

message: The "Ceremonial tree plantings" section needs attention. It currently either states or implies that four different trees were all planted in 1987 - except that the plaque for one of them (pictured and quoted) explicitly dates from 1994. No sources given, so who knows how much of the rest is bullshit. GrindtXX (talk) 13:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ceremonial tree plantings