Talk:Robert Fitzwalter

message: The lead needs to be separated into paragraphs, it's a big block that doesn't lend itself well to reading. Hekerui (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. You might want to know most of the text is copied off of old public-domain references, and verified mostly by Ronay's book. (I also refferred to more modern sources, but found nothing not in here, and didn't bother to add citations. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: CL Kingsford in his notes on Stow p65 states that Fitzwalter died in 1234. I have no reason to suppose he's wrong, but 1235 is the date commonly given in older texts and I don't know the ins and outs - anyone? Le Deluge (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be inclined to believe the 1235 date more, as it is given, sometimes with detail, in all the sources, old or recent, I've looked at. If you're looking for someone who "knows the ins and outs", here is probably not the place to ask. —innotata 23:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I'd believe the 1234 date more.  Democracy doesn't work in these cases, if someone like Stow says 1235 then you get legions of later writers who just copy him, and I know from experience that Stow is not 100% reliable especially on dates.  A modern scholar like Kingsford knows Stow's faults well, and for him to contradict Stow so explicitly makes me think that he's seen a MS that says 1234. But it would be nice to know why Kingsford is contradicting Stow. Le Deluge (talk) 09:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought Kingsford's notes where somewhat old too. Again, I don't know much about this, but I should note I just noticed Gabriel Ronay, who drew mostly on primary sources, says Fitzwalter was buried on 9 December 1235. —innotata 14:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

text: The old DNB gives the 9 December 1235 date, citing two contemporary monastic chronicles; the An Historical Essay on the Magna Charta of King John  gives 1234, like Kingsford giving no further comments; the 1911 Encyclopædia Brittanica gives 1235; some recent books I haven't got now or cited here yet give 1235 without comment. I think citing all these sources and giving both dates would make sense. —innotata 14:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good detective work.  It's not surprising that 1235 has propagated widely if it's in the DNB. Presumably there's at least one manuscript somewhere that says 1234, and it's just a question of you pays your money and takes your choice. Be nice to know exactly what the source is though, there must have been a decent reason for Kingsford to go with the earlier date. I wouldn't dismiss him so lightly - for these purposes  the 20th century is "recent" :-) and he was a proper specialist in this kind of stuff; with the greatest respect to Ronay AIUI he was a Central/Eastern European specialist who had to dip into British history to pad out his book. Le Deluge (talk) 14:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it would be good to get the original source for the earlier date. The sources for the old DNB include Matthew Paris, who has often been considered highly inaccurate recently, though Ronay, looking mostly at his account of an embassy by King John to Morocco, disputes this; and the Annales Monastici (the old DNB is being proofread at Wikisource, if you want to see it). —innotata 14:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

text: It's his Historia Minor, after a 17th century printing; the chronicle apparently has less detailthan others. I've had a hard time finding anything so far, but I'll keep looking. —innotata 21:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Sources cited in ODNB: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1258519, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3679123. —innotata 17:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Death date

message: this partial revert by user:Innotata with no comment and this one also by user:Innotata with the comment "citations not needed in lead"
:See WP:PLAGARISM.  If the text is copied from another source then we have a moral obligation to note that it is a copy. It applies wherever it is in the article including the lead. -- PBS (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you're right—thought not for the bits not copied from the old sources. —innotata 16:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a copyright/legal issue as the text is out of copyright. It is a moral issue and it is the consensus at WP:PLAGARISM, as summed up in the lead, that although they "carry no legal requirement for attribution, but most articles in Wikipedia that are derived from such external works attribute the text to the public domain source".  -- PBS (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I saw. Some parts are not copied off of a source, but each paragraph has copied text around the end, hence citations on every one. —innotata 23:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

text: See WP:CITESHORT (Notes and References) and see WP:FNNR ""Bibliography" may be confused with a list of printed works by the subject of a biography." -- PBS (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure about this one, but I won't argue it further. —innotata 16:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I have renamed the WP:FNNR section headings to "Notes" and "References" as  used in WP:CITESHORT. -- PBS (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The MOS says that what I originally used for section headers is fine; other parts of Wikipedia:Citing sources page says to keep things as they originally were. I don't care that much, but there was no reason to change the original arrangement. —innotata 16:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

text: The attribution templates were at the bottom, below the ext links, because of the template arrangement at the time. —innotata 15:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

text: This was since I saw the opinion that "Bibliography" (which I don't quite get, though Fitzwalter probably obviously enough was not an author) is usual in history etc. articles, and "Literature cited" in science etc., probably at an Oryzomyini FAC. —innotata 17:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

text: What's wrong with "Literature cited"? The idea that the space with the footnotes linked down should be called "References" was originally there; I changed it to something that at least to me seems more intuitive after leaving it as you altered it, citing pages as saying something they do not. I'll just leave the headers in this article as they are now; but "References" and "Works cited" or similar makes more sense to me, and the MoS doesn't say anything about them being incorrect. —innotata 15:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What matters is, you changed the citation style for no reason (also adding , which I don't care about myself). The attribution templates had been improved, but that was no reason to change a consistent citation style. Sorry for carrying on the little edit war; but why did you cite the MoS and suchlike as saying things they don't? Now though, I think I'll keep it as it is; my only concern is what to do if it looks like a "Footnotes" section containing actual notes, separate from the references (as at Charles Darwin) should be added. I'd like to see what you think about this. —innotata 17:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The simplest way to do it is to change the section name of "Notes" to "Footnotes" and place two bold lines called Notes and Citations (like Attribution in the References section). The reason why References is the best name for the "general reference" section is because that is how it is described in WP:CITE. Personally I prefer having a Footnotes section at the very bottom of the page, as it means that the "References", "Further reading" and "External links" can then also contain reference tags (something that can not be done if  comes first), but that was not the standard that has been adopted. I did not change the citation style, it was already using shorted footnotes, all I did was put in templates that tie the short citation to the general reference. As to why I got involved in this article it was because not all the attributed sources were not in the correct section. Saying that it was not in the External links section but below it may be how you saw it, but you must agree that others could be confused by that as "External links" is the last section name in the TOC and usually one see text in a section named in the TOC as being in that section. -- PBS (talk) 05:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't entirely agree with your characterization of what you changed, but I'll let it go. I'll do at least roughly what you said (using the format on Darwin's page, with Footnotes and Citations as TOC sections would make more sense as I see it). This doesn't make as much sense to me, but it makes sense. —innotata 15:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  September 2010 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Robert Fitzwalter. 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/20141016212001/http://monologues.co.uk/Magna_Carta.shtml to http://monologues.co.uk/Magna_Carta.shtml
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) 01:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified