User talk:Rjm at sleepers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Contents |
[edit] High Court of Justice for the trial of Charles I
I think your article on the "High Court of Justice for the trial of Charles I" is a useful addition to Wikipedia, thanks for making the contribution. I have fettled it a little, and it might be worth looking at the regicide page to see if anything can be copied over from there. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'll try to find a source for the army council quotation - I copied it from the regicides page where it is similarly unsourced. You've also tagged "this sparked further royalist uprisings which were known as the third civil war" with citation needed. Were you suggesting the need for a citation that the execution sparked royalist uprisings or a citation that confirms the name third civil war? Rjm at sleepers 07:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The Third Civil War can look after its self, no it is the presumption that the execution sparked further royalist uprisings. I think you can build a case for saying that with the execution of Charles the I the crown was then free (no longer imprisoned in England) for the Scots to place it upon the head of Charles II so starting the Third Civil War, but I am not sure one can argue that the execution it sparked further (English) royalist uprisings. Either which way it is drawing a conclusion that ought to be sourced. If one just blandly says that "A year and a half after the execution the Scots proclaimed Charles II king of Scotland, and this ignited the Third Civil War.", then one is on far safer ground as it is a statement of fact not inference. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:-) --Philip Baird Shearer 08:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
You have changed the link in this article to a page that includes the Canadian House of Commons. Surely it s better to link to the British version. (English would have been even better, but it doesn't exist.)
Also, you have included a section on a trial during the interegnum. Was this in anyway connected to the court that tried Charles I? Rjm at sleepers 14:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- (1) Apologies-amended (2) The 1649 'gagging act'(reference section) mentions the existence of a HCJ for the trial of others namely James Earl of Cambridge. Since there had been no further enactments I read the original act to see if it constituted a HCJ with an independent existence outside of Charles I's trial. My first reading concluded that this was indeed possible and that all subsequent HCJs took their authority from the original. A second reading prompted by your comments has convinced me of the opposite. This may explain why they did not want Hamilton's trial publicised!
Anyway I have listed further HCJ Acts found. I hope you agree it is appropriate to mention them in this article. Aatomic1 18:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] ODNB
- "Add Thomas Hammond who is said by ODNB to have attended 14 sessions but did not sign)"
What is ODNB? please put it in as a reference. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reply to your question
Well, firstly, AFD is not a vote, it is a discussion held to measure consensus. While the number of editors arguing for a given position certainly is a factor in weighing the consensus, it is not the sole consideration. In the case of Local history glossary, there were several arguments weighing in favor of deletion.
- The article was a list of dictionary definitions. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
- While the article was pretty well-written, we have more appropriate sister projects for that type of content.
- The article has already been transwikied to Wikibooks, which is better suited to handle it, and has a format much more conducive to writing a great work on it. Since the transwiki had already taken place, no content is lost, simply moved. Some of the definitions also may very well be appropriate for Wiktionary, if it doesn't have a page on the word-Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but Wiktionary is!
In sum, the arguments regarding the fact that the topic was inherently unsuitable for this project and better suited to Wikibooks were just not answered, the content has already been moved to a better home, and most of the "keep" arguments center around the "Other articles like this exist" argument. Unfortunately, we often have articles which are not suitable and haven't been noticed, but that doesn't mean any other article like it is suitable. I'd strongly encourage you to help with the Wikibook if you wish to continue work on the subject, but if you do still disagree, you may also request a deletion review. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Norman Conquest
Hi - I left an edit field note in error, the correct talk page discussion I meant to refer to is [1]. It discusses the difference between the terms "conquest" and "invasion". Historians use the term "conquest" and not "invasion" when referring to this event because it took a generation to conquer the country and remove any remaining resistance. Although there were later invasions, and even symbolic events such as temporary taking the throne, none of them "conquered" (subdued, pacified and fully controlled) England. -- Stbalbach 16:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Irish Famine Book
I read your entry on the talk page and just wanted to let you know that entries on "did you know" have to come from recently (less than 5 days) created or substantially expanded articles. Also, if it's a book, it's probably written from it's author's POV. When you write ABOUT the book, thats when you have to be neutral. In other words you can say something like "this is a book that claims the Irish famine was evil" but not "this is the worst book ever written about the famine".Galf 09:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I said evil above but that was a bad choice of words, because most people agree that the famine was in someway "bad", I should have said something more controversial... I also forgot to say something else, if you feel that the book (not the famine, at least in this article) are misrepresented you can always edit it, fror example, by adding a book review that is critical of it. Just always remember to attribute any opinions you include. Galf 13:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Chadwell
Please do. I can put some details in about the civil parish history too. Thanks. MRSC • Talk 07:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes Chadwell St Mary CP and Tilbury UD occupied the same area from 1912 to 1936. [2] MRSC • Talk 07:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Etchingham
Yes, the James Templer reference was the residency in Etchingham, not a fact I had come acrioss before. ColinBoylett 15:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
