Jump to content

Talk:List of regicides of Charles I/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Possible inconsistencies in the list

At the moment the article lists the Clerks Andrew Broughton and John Phelpes as dead. What is the source for this because the house of common thought them alive on 14 May 1660

House of Commons Journal Volume 8 14 May 1660: Exceptions from Bill of Pardon

Resolved, That all those Persons who sat in Judgment upon the late King's Majesty, when the Sentence was pronounced for his Condemnation, be forthwith secured.
Resolved, That Mr. John Cooke, Andrew Broughton, John Phelpes, and Edward Dendy, be forthwith secured.

See also House of Commons Journal Volume 8, 28 May 1660 Proceedings against the Regicides "A LETTER from Robert Fowler, from Rochester, of the 26th of May 1660, certifying, that he hath made Stay of Two Trunks, Two Hampers, Thirteen Bundles of Bedding, and Hangings, with some Chairs, in all Twenty-seven Parcels, of the Goods of Mr. Andrew Broughton, one of the Clerks in the High Court of Justice, when his late Majesty was there arraigned, was read. Ordered, That it be referred to the Members of this House, of the Council of State, to take care that the said Goods, and also the Goods of Mr. Phelpes, and Mr. Dendy, be inventoried and secured."

This suggests that Andrew Broughton was alive at the time. Edward Dendy was the sergeant-at-arms at the time of the trial and took part as part of the pomp and circumstance of the affair. He was later, during the Inerregnum, given land in Ireland in lue of pay. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

House of Lords Journal Volume 11 4 June 1660, Proclamation for apprehending the late King's Judges:

  • John Lisle, Alive
  • 48 William Say, Esquires, Alive
  • 11 Sir Hardresse Waller, Alive -- Spelt Hardress Waller in the current list
  • 39 Valentine Wanton, Alive --Spelt Valentine Walton in the current list
  • 4 Edward Whalley, Esquires,
  • 8 Sir John Bourcher Knight, Alive -- Spelt John Bourchier in current list
  • William Heveningham Esquire, Alive -- Spelt William Hevingham in current list
  • Isaac Pennington Alderman of London, Alive, Commisoner -- spelt Isaac Penington in the current list
  • 31 Henry Martin, Alive -- Spelt Henry Marten in the current list
  • 36 John Barkstead, Alive
  • 44 Gilbert Millington, Alive
  • 30 Edmond Ludlow, Alive
  • 13 John Hutchinson, Esquires, Alive
  • 5 Sir Michaell Livesay Baronet, Alive -- spelt Michael Livsey in the current list
  • 22 Robert Titchbourn, Alive -- spelt Robert Tichborne in the current list
  • 25 Owen Roe, Alive -- spelt Owen Rowe in the current list
  • 45 Rob't Lilborne, Alive spelt Robert Lilburne in the current list
  • 27 Adrian Scroope, Alive
  • 6 John Okey, Alive
  • 18 John Hughson, Alive -- spelt John Hewson in the current list
  • 14 Will. Goffe, Alive -- spelt William Goffe
  • Cornelius Holland, -- MISSING not in the current list
  • John Carew, -- DEAD according to the current list
  • Miles Corbett, Alive --spelt Miles Corbet in the current list
  • Henry Smith, Alive
  • Thomas Wogan, Alive
  • Edmond Harvey, -- MISSING not in the current list
  • 57 Thomas Scott, Alive -- spelt Thomas Scot in the current list
  • 35 Will. Cawley, Alive -- spelt William Cawley
  • 55 John Downes, Alive
  • Nicholas Love, Alive
  • 32 Vincent Potter, Alive
  • 29 Augustine Garland, Alive
  • 38 John Dixwell, Alive
  • 45 George Fleetwood, Alive
  • 40 Symon Meyne, Alive -- spelt Simon Mayne in the current list
  • 28 James Temple, Alive
  • 16 Peter Temple, Alive
  • 24 Daniell Blagrave, Alive -- spelt Daniel Blagrave in the current list
  • 56 Thomas Wayte, Esquires, Alive -- spelt Thomas Waite in the current list

The above "being deeply guilty of that most detestable and bloody Treason, in sitting upon, and giving Judgement against the Life of, Our Royal Father"

  • John Cooke, Alive.

who was employed therein as Solicitor,

  • Andrew Broughton -- DEAD in the current list
  • John Phelpes -- DEAD in the current list

who were employed under the said Persons as Clerks, and

  • Edward Dendy -- MISSING not in the current list

who attended them as Serjeant at Arms, "have, out of the Sense of their own Guilt, lately fled and obscured themselves" --Philip Baird Shearer 23:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The list above was prepared early in the process so some of them my have been found innocent. But one which crossed checked was John Carew because he was HDQ in October 1660.

House of Commons Journal Volume 8 9 June 1660 Has a list of some of the commissioners who sat in court but were not present at the meeting where the others signed the death warrant:

  • ? James Challener, 20th, 22nd,22nd Afternoon,
  • [51] Thomas Challener, 20th,22nd Afternoon, 23rd, 23rd Afternoon, 26th, 27th, 27th afternoon signed sentence.
  • ? John Dove, 26th
  • ? John Fry. 20th, 22nd, 22nd Afternoon, 23rd, 23rd Afternoon, 25tth Sentence drawn.
  • ? Fra. Lassells,20th, 22nd, 22nd Afternoon,
  • ? Thomas Lister, 20th,
  • ? Sir James Harrington: 23rd, 23rd Afternoon
  • Judge but did not sign: Sir Henry Mildmay: 23rd, 23rd Afternoon, 25th, 26th Sentence greed
  • Judge but did not sign: Wm. Lord Munson: 20th, 22nd, 22nd Afternoon, 23rd Afternoon, 26th
  • ? Sir Gilbert Pickering: 22nd Afternoon, 23rd, 23rd Afternoon
  • Judge but did not sign: Robert Wallop, 22nd, 22nd Afternoon, 23rd Afternoon

The questionmarks indicate that they are currently not included in the article. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

See also [House of Lords Journal Volume 11 7 February 1662 Attainted Persons brought to the Bar]

  • Augustine Garland, Henry Smith, Henry Martin ,Robert Titchborne, James Temple, Thomas Wayte, Peter Temple, Gilbert Myllington, William Heveningham, John Downes, George Fleetwood.
  • Attainted Persons to be carried back to The Tower. The Lieutenant of The Tower gave the House an Account, "That Four of the Persons attainted for the aforesaid High Treason, videlicet, Owen Row, Isaac Pennington, Symon Mayne, and Vincent Potter, are lately dead; and Edmond Harvey, Sir Hardress Waller and Robert Lylborne, are not now in his Custody in The Tower, but are removed to other Prisons. But as for Thomas Wogan, he never was in his Custody."

--Philip Baird Shearer 14:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Regicides?

It might be an exception in this particular case, but doesn't "regicide" mean the killing of a king, not the killers? Not to mention the fact that the people on this list did not directly kill the king at all; they merely signed the death warrant. There are two main problems I have with calling these people "regicides". First, a king can only be killed once, so writing "the regicides of Charles I" is like writing "the murders" or "the killings". It should not be plural. Secondly, as I said, regicide is an act, not a person, so rather than this being a list of killings, it should be a list of killers. No? LordAmeth 18:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

"The broad definition of Regicide is the deliberate killing of a king, or the person responsible for it." (From our article on regicide.) Proteus (Talk) 18:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The use of Regicide to mean a person, as well as the act of killing is widespread and well documented in several dicionaries.

  1. OED, noun 1 the killing of a king. 2 a person who kills a king.
  2. Cambridge Dictionary. A person who kills a king, or the act of killing a king
  3. Merriam-Webster. 1 : one who kills a king, 2 : the killing of a king

--Dmol 18:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Also see the links higher up this talk page to the use of the word "regicides" in Parliament. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Sentences

Does anyone have any information as to why some of these men were sentenced to death, and some only to imprisonment? All were signatories of the document. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it has to do with the Indemnity and Oblivion Act and 1660's politics. You will find the details of those excepted from the general pardon in sections 34–44. See for example sections 35 and 36 for an explanation of most of those excepted from the pardon but "execution of the said ... persons so attainted shall be suspended" unless another act of parliament was passed. Some like Richard Ingoldsby were in favour, so it was politically expedient to find ways to show that they were not as guilty as others. Some were no longer a threat, and some like Thomas Harrison were still seen as such and that is probably why he was the first for HDQ.
I am half way into expanding the Indemnity and Oblivion Act (still in my sandbox). But here are a couple of sources I am using for that expansion that explains it the detail the political machinations of the act's passage through Parliament:
  • David Masson (1822-1907), The life of John Milton: narrated in connexion with the political, ecclesiastical, and literary history of his time (1875), pp. 25–56
  • Henry Hallam, The constitutional history of England, from the accession of Henry VII. to the death of George II., Harper, 1859, Chapter 9, pp. 406–411
--PBS (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clear and thorough explanation. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

3 peers?

We say "The tribunal was composed of three hereditary peers, ..." but is that correct? I assume we are speaking of Thomas, Lord Grey of Groby, William Monson, 1st Viscount Monson, and Archibald Campbell, 1st Marquess of Argyll. But Lord Grey was never actually a peer - his father was Henry Grey, 1st Earl of Stamford, and Lord Grey predeceased his father by a number of years. His title "Lord" was therefore a courtesy title. Am I overlooking something?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Fairfax was named as a commissioner and had inherited the Scottish peerage, Lord Fairfax of Cameron in 1648. - Scribble Monkey (talk) 09:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Thomas Fairfax, 3rd Lord Fairfax of Cameron isn't on this page, though. Should he be? From reading his Wikipedia entry, it seems that he did attend the first meeting but upon realizing that the Death of King was at stake, objected strongly to the proceedings and did not participate further. I suppose he could be listed on this page, but I'm so far from an expert that I wouldn't venture to decide at this time. In any event, if he's one of the three heriditary peers we mean in the introduction, then surely we need him in the list? I'd be a lot happier if this didn't feel like original research though.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The paragraph also mentions "twelve judges of the High Court (who all declined to serve)" who presumably are not included in the article either. The full list of commissioners is listed here. Hopefully, some other editors can shine some light on the issue. - Scribble Monkey (talk) 09:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Rothwod

I found this at http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report. Middlesex Court Rolls 1665 13 February, 17 Charles II.—Recognizances, taken before Sir Philipp Howard J.P., of John Goodchilde carpenter, Richard Street plumer, William Hardy bricklayer, and John England . . . ., all four of St. Margaret's Westminster, John Francis of Allhollowes Stainings winecoper, and Francis Church of . . . . stacioner, in the sum of . . . . each, and of Andrew Rothwod of St. Margaret's Westminster victualler, in the sum of five hundred pounds; For the appearance of the said Andrew Rothwod at the next G. D. for Middlesex, to answer &c. for "being guilty of the murther of Charles the First the late King of blessed memory."—A fragmentary parchment. G. D. R., 19 Feb., 17 Charles II.

Who is he?--Streona (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

George Joyce

William Lilly the astrologer had dinner with Robert Spavin, Cromwell's secretary a week after the execution. Spavin told him the identity of the executioner was George Joyce was exe,pted from the Act of Indulgence & Oblivion and fled, only to return in disguise (as awoman)m and assassinated many years later. Lilly also suggested that the assistant was Hugh Peters. Perhaps this requires a mention. I can source it and I will post it unless anyone has any objection.--Streona (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that such an accusation should be included here. It seems at the restoration that many people who were perceived to be anti Royalist were accused of being involved with the execution of Charles the I without any evidence but hearsay. For example see William Govan who was one of the few Scottish men who were executed just after the restoration for crimes against Charles II during 1650/1651. -- PBS (talk) 08:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Image of Westminster Hall

In my opinion the image of the heads over Westminster Hall should be next to the paragraph where it is described. Lower down is pointless. -- PBS (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Image placement

Well, we differ in opinion, and as your version breaks into the lower space on a wider monitor, it seems a backwards step. At least the caption in the current version is free of errors in fact and format. – SchroCat (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
After your inital comment, I move the image from the left to the right, so it will not break the format on wide screens. What is the error in fact? -- PBS (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Left to tight makes little difference: the effect is down. There are enough images in the text section as it is. I take it you are not familiar with London? – SchroCat (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I have split the topic into two as we are disagreeing about two issues the first is the placement and the second the caption. Which browser do you think can go wide enough to distort the table? If that is a concern why are the other images not. Also have you looked at the format on a phone? Putting the images just above the relevant text helps to illuminate the text. Placing them away from the text is less helpful more so on a phone. -- PBS (talk) 05:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

What the fuck is the point is disgussing things with you if you edit war to your own personal preference. Your behaviour is beneath contempt. - SchroCat (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
The point of discussing things with me is to justify/explain why you reverted my edits, and for me to justify/explain my edits, because everything you have said in this last posting to this section could also have been said by another editor about your behaviour. It is also the sort of cyomment that makes collegial editing more difficult, so I would appreciate it if you would assume that I am editing this article without base motives (such as simply spending my time wishing to edit war), and that I am trying to improve the article, because I assume that you do not consider that you own this list and that you accept that the list can be improved.
I checked on a very wide screen (to be precise three screens acting as one) and if the image is placed next the the relevant text and on the right-hand side of the text the image simply shunts the first image next to the table down. It has no effect on the table. Given that information do you still have objections to moving the image up next to the text. If so why? -- PBS (talk) 10:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Caption

I am familiar with London and I am well aware that Westminster Hall can not be seen from Tyburn. What is wrong with the wording? -- PBS (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Exactlt that: it's 2.5 miles tween the two. The artist is obviously using artistic licence, but your wording is just misleading. – SchroCat (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
The caption and wording were copied from the Oliver Cromwell's head what was misleading about the wording? -- PBS (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Good grief: as above. It's 2.5 miles between the two, so to state without explanation that the image was of Tyburn and Westminster Hall is deeply misleading. – SchroCat (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
It is of Tyburn and Westminster Hall. You are free to add more if think that artistic licence has to be explained. -- PBS (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
You are free not to re-add something so baldly misleading. – SchroCat (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
It is not misleading in my opinion. -- PBS (talk) 00:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Then I suggest you open an RfC for neutral comment, although I'm sure you're aware of WP:STATUSQUO on this point and the citations too. – SchroCat (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Funny you should being that up. See the next section on citation layout. Also this is a question of adding something, so if you do not like it you can always edit it. But back to this topic. Here is a link to an external site which does not think it necessary to add such details about perspective to the image, nor does the current caption, which states "The execution of the bodies of Cromwell, Bradshaw and Ireton, from a contemporary print". Yet it is also a post execution picture as it show the heads on spike an act that happened after the dismemberment had occurred. The amount of detail needed for such a analysis is much more than is needed for a caption but we could add it to a footnote. The most useful fact to be extracted from the image is the view of the heads on the spikes above Westminster Hall. -- PBS (talk) 05:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@SchroCat I look forward to your comments on the points I have raised. -- PBS (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Citations

From the history of the artile:

"23:19, 27 April 2016‎ SchroCat (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (63,980 bytes) (+13,531)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by PBS (talk): You purport to be an admin: behave like one and stop edit warring. You are introducing errors in these edits. "

What errors? -- PBS (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

One broken ref and several incorrect dois. Aside from that there is absolutely no need for you to have changed them in the first place. – SchroCat (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Which reference is broken and if it is why not fix it? Which incorrect dois? The reason for changing is that the references are inconsistent as they are at the moment. -- PBS (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I have fixed it: I put it back to the version that's not broken and shouldn't have been dicked around with. – SchroCat (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Which reference was broken? -- PBS (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
One that is now fixed. Again, there was no need for you to have changed these in the first place. – SchroCat (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
You have made three reverts. I have made two. I am asking you in good faith what do you think was the broken reference? -- PBS (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
What does the number of reverts matter? Does that mean you are planning to revert again? Why did you unnecessarily change the format in the first place? – SchroCat (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
To answer your question as to the reason. At the moment the inline citations are a mixture of long and short I homogenised them all to short. The dedicated citation template {{cite ODNB}} removes lots of clutter (it also fixes mismatches between urls and dois). Now please answer my questions. You have stated that one of the references was broken. Which one? you have stated that some of the dois were incorrect which ones? -- 23:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
So no real need then. Nothing that aids readers or editors? I think this has reached the end of any constructive usefulness, and I note, somewhat depressingly, you didn't answer my question as to whether you intend to revert again to the flawed version. – SchroCat (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I have yet to decide. The error in the citation was the UNESCO one, not sure how that one was missed out, as it was the only one that needed a custom {{SfnRef}}. What were the errors in the DOIs? -- PBS (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Try and behave like an admin, for fecks sake: to revert to something based on nothing but your personal choice is mind boggling. Still, thanks for confirming you wish to continue edit warring: that always goes down well at ANI. Your breaking of various citations was not the only backward step: why you felt the need to remove the sub-sections for notes/references/sources I really couldn't imagine, let alone removing the columns for references. Why, for goodness sake? – SchroCat (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Can I ask: have you ever taken an article through FAC or (as I intend to with this one) FLC? – SchroCat (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

FAC is of little interest to me as I believe the process is broken in many ways, but that is an issue for another place.
My choice of Appendix headings is standard used in WP:CITE as examples, and the wording at WP:Layout and las but not least it is a return to what they have been in this article for many years: see for example this version from 19 March 2015, this version Aughst 2010 and this version October 2005. Indeed it remained the same until you changed it on the 111th of this month. So why did you want to add another heading and place a double column in the references section? -- PBS (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, your lack experience and knowledge of high-quality content is evident. The structure was improved along with everything else in the article. It was utterly sub-standard before, with poor, insufficient referencing that was inconsistent. The text was woeful, the images lacking. Why you think it is a good idea to take a backwards step on any of the improvements is bizarre. There are two people who are very active in source and citation reviewing (they have reviewed a number of articles I've taken through FAC, Nikkimaria and Crisco 1492. I'd like to get their opinion on your changes. – SchroCat (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

PBS, You are a disgraceful editor: why on earth are you continue to edit war, despite the open thread on these points. As an admin you should be aware of WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. Do you just ignore them on your own whim? Give one good reason for the changes to the structure of the bottom, apart from "it's been like that for a while"? Fuck me, it's that sort of mindset that makes me wonder how on earth we actually develop and improve things round here. Should we delete the additional citations, text and all the rest, back to the clusterfuck it was when it was your pet article? - SchroCat (talk)

As I said above User:SchroCat your first sentence could just as easily be reversed. However I would never make such comments to an editor with whom I am having a discussion about content because it is not conducive to editors reaching agreement.
  • Do you make such statements to deliberately provoke the other editor?
  • Do you make such statements and think that they will improve the likely hood of furthering the outcome of an agreement on content?
  • Do you make such statements thoughtlessly?
  • Do you ever apologise for making such statements as they assuming bad faith?
-- PBS (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Given your stated intent to continue to edit war, despite the open thread, I stand by what I said. To revert to sub-standard version on no other basis than "it was like that before" is a distinctly poor approach to editing. Your revert to the previous format didn't take into account the change of structure in the article, or the sub-standard state it was in the first place, or the inadequate names used in the section headings. I have little interest in furthering discussions with those who are so obstructive in their approach, and who cover that obstructionism with such scant justification. – SchroCat (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

From the history of the article:

@user:Dr. Blofeld did you read this talk page before reverting my edit? If so why the comment. As I had been discussing changes on the talk page and unlike User:SchroCat I did not simply revert reverts but each time made new edits or modified the edits made I had previously in light of the conversation on this talk page. This can be seen easily by comparing the comments in the history and the differences in the edits

  • Diff between "Revision as of 21:19, 27 April 2016 (edit) SchroCat" and "Latest revision as of 07:07, 28 April 2016 ... Dr. Blofeld" (no difference).
  • Diff between my major change Revision as of 23:07, 27 April 2016 and my last change of Revision as of 06:25, 28 April 2016

So please explain your comment "Discuss this on the talk page without warring....". -- PBS (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


@user:Dr. Blofeld before 07:07, 28 April 2016 you had never edited this article, or its talk page, so how did you become aware of the disagreement between myself and SchroCat over the content of this article? Did you look at the content of my edit, if so what are your objections to the content of the edit I made that you reverted? -- PBS (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

  • I was asked to give my opinion as a disinterested third party, though I will not discuss the section headings, as I am unfamiliar with British terminology related to this matter. I believe WP:CITEVAR supports maintaining the citation style implemented by SchroCat during his rewrite of the article. The previous version could not be said to be consistent (there's a mix of SFN and long form for books, and the formatting of the LF citations is all over the place). SchroCat's update introduced a consistent SFN for books, LF for web references variant of citation. Though I personally prefer SFN throughout, I recognize that community consensus (at shown through reviews of such FAs as Great Stink, Terry-Thomas, and Albert Ketèlbey, as well as reviews of such FLs as List of works by Leslie Charteris, Poet Laureate of the United Kingdom, and Works of Keith Floyd) has considered this a consistent citation style within the demands of WP:CITEVAR. As such, any proposed changes to citation styles (i.e. standardizing all references as SFN) should have had consensus beforehand. I should hope that both parties can discuss the question of "SFN for books" vs "all SFN" civilly. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Chris Woodrich "I believe WP:CITEVAR supports maintaining the citation style implemented by SchroCat during his rewrite of the article". I think you are wrong because the style introduced by SchroCat is not consistent. What is it in the last edit I made that is not further homogenising the citations into one style (diff)? Also of all the edit I have made recently which one do you think goes against your suggestion? -- PBS (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it may be time to drop the stick PBS. This is beyond anything constructive that I can see, or most other people, I suspect. – SchroCat (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes PBS, boor off and go and do something constructive with your time. CassiantoTalk 19:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @PBS: As I specifically pointed out, there has been consensus at previous featured content reviews that "SFN for books, long form for web" is consistent. Otherwise those articles, and the dozen + others that use the same referencing style, would never have been promoted. If you believe so strongly that it is not consistent, then you should bring it up elsewhere; consensus building regarding a relatively common form of reference formatting should be made in a more visible place than "Talk:List of regicides of Charles I".
Schro and Cass: Guys, that's not helping. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
This article is the one under discussion, so this is the appropriate place to discuss changes to this article. The distinction you are making between web and books are completely artificial and do not meet the requirements of citation guideline's definition of style. For example your argument could just as easily be taken to mean that as the ODNB is online it is a web entry, and are you suggesting that if Kirby's paper is no longer accessible on line the entry should be moved from being a long inline citation into a short citation? -- PBS (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing in CITEVAR that debars the format we have here. If so, please quote the relevant wording of the guideline. CITESTYLE says to "follow a consistent style", which is what we have here. I,also have to agree with Crisco that if you want to amend the citation style to bar use of the format we have here, which will affect numerous articles (hundreds? Thousands?) this one small backwater of the project is not the place to be so increasingly disruptive. – SchroCat (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Most citation styles draw some kind of distinction between web and book references; this "artificial" idea is nothing new, and nothing that contravenes CITE so long as it is done consistently. I agree with Crisco's remarks above; if you want to argue that this format is not acceptable, you will need to do it in a broader forum, because it isn't unique to this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Do you really consider that you are a non-biased commentator here Nikkimaria? -- PBS (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Given the OWN behaviour you've exhibited about this page, pbs, do you really consider that you are a non-biased commentator here? – SchroCat (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I would point out to you that WP:OWN states "Accusing other editors of owning the article may appear aggressive, and could be perceived as a personal attack. Address the editor in a civil manner, with the same amount of respect you would expect". To date since you staerted to edit this article, I have made some edits which you have reverted. Other than to revert your reverts I have not reverted any of the changes which you made to the article and I have been altering my edits as we have been discussing things on the talk page. Do you consider that the following taken from WP:OWN applies to all editors?
Extended content
Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia. A few editors will even defend such material against others. It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about − perhaps you are an expert, or perhaps it is just your hobby; however, if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia.
Once you have posted it to Wikipedia, you cannot stop anyone from editing text you have written. As each edit page clearly states:

Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone

Similarly, by submitting your ideas (for article organization, categorization, style, standards, etc.) to Wikipedia, you allow others to challenge and develop them.
-- PBS (talk) 13:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Give your attempt to bully Cassianto out of the argument for him only having made one comment and you having been active on this page for eleven years, yes, I fully believe that this continued (and increasingly tendentious) thread is because you have feelings of OWNership. You are not acting in any rationally constructive manner in prolonging this discussion when the consensus is against you. You have behaved disgracefully at many points, well below the standards considered normal for an admin. – SchroCat (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll also point out that your claim that "I have not reverted any of the changes which you made to the article" isn't entirely truthful, given your ridiculous attempts to edit war on bizzare points (the edit summary of "Section headers back to what they were for the bast part of a decade") points to both the truth of that, and if one of the 'examples of OWN behaviour' on WP:OWN. – SchroCat (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
OK lets agree to differ of what is usually meant by a revert, as it will not help build a consensus. So let us get back to the content issues. -- PBS (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Yep. I was invited here as a source reviewer, and from that perspective my answer would be the same no matter who was arguing what side - the format used in the article is compatible with CITE, and anyone who thinks it shouldn't be should raise the issue in a broader venue. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
You were not invited here by a source reviewer, by a party who has been adding text to an article and from their accusations of ownership clearly perceive themselves to be in a dispute with another editor. As you and I still not resolved our own positions for what is best for different article do you really think that that your comments are likely to help resolve the perceived dispute? -- PBS (talk) 13:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
"You were not invited here by a source reviewer" - which is why I said as, not by. I'm here to comment, as someone who has never edited the article but who has experience reviewing sources, on a disagreement regarding source formatting, and in my opinion the position you've taken is wrong regardless of who holds that position. The fact that we disagreed about something completely unrelated over a year ago has no bearing on that determination. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
My mistake. -- PBS (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Precisely. PBS, you are saying that "the style introduced by SchroCat is not consistent" despite evidence (put forth by both myself and Schro) that it has been accepted elsewhere as a consistent citation style, in line with WP:CITEVAR—despite your disdain for the FA and FL processes, an article succeeding in a venue where a stray full stop is noticed and commented upon clearly has an implicit consensus regarding the consistency of its citation style. As such, your statement that "the style introduced by SchroCat is not consistent" goes far beyond the scope of "is X citation style appropriate in the article List of regicides of Charles I?". If consensus were to agree with you, it would impact dozens, if not hundreds, of articles, and overturn dozens, if not hundreds, of local consensuses. As such, any discussion about the inherent consistency or inconsistency of a particular citation style should be focused in a more central area. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Just because an irregular format is used in other articles does not mean it is binding across all articles. @Chris Woodrich: Let us examine this further I stated "For example your argument could just as easily be taken to mean that as the ODNB is online it is a web entry, and are you suggesting that if Kirby's paper is no longer accessible on line the entry should be moved from being a long inline citation into a short citation?" have you an an answer? If so what is it? -- PBS (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
The answer, still, is that this is not the right place for this particular discussion, which has much wider implications than this one article. – SchroCat (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
The correct place to discuss changes to an article is on the article's talk page. "The answer, ..." If that is so then how do you explain the sentence in the lead of the MOS that states "Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia."? -- PBS (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
So far three experienced editors are saying the opposite. At what point are you going to start listening to the advice to seek a wider consensus? – SchroCat (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
What is your metric for "experienced editors"? Is the MOS guidance not a wider consensus? -- PBS (talk) 13:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

The MoS guidance is what is under discussion. You, an experienced editor, are interpreting it one way, three experienced editors are interpreting it another. The consensus on this page is against you. If you wish to get a different view on how the MoS guidance should be interpreted, the have a central discussion. This is another point on which three editors are in agreement and you are in dispute. – SchroCat (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

You should not put this forward for any good or featured article status until the artilce is stable. At the the momentthe only reasons I have not reverted your reverts is because I think it necessary to reach a consensus on the talk page, which at the moment does not exist. -- PBS (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • There is a consensus, it's just that you don't like it. See the comments from Nikkimaria and Crisco 1492 and from me. There is the consensus, and stability exists. If you want to make a meal of this, do so centrally, not here, as your comments are nothing but WP:tendentious and WP:disruptive. It's time for you to drop the stick and be 'constructive' elsewhere. And an oppose at the FLC because you are trying to make it unstable? That's about par for the course here, unfortunately. SchroCat (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I have to agree here with PBS. In order to move forward we need the article to be stable which it's not. Furthermore it's important to have a true consensus which we do not seem to have here. Caden cool 05:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Seriously Caden? You are trying to stir things up now? This article is a long way from your comfort zone, and I wonder how you came to find this discussion. This is not a constructive move on your part. – SchroCat (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • What, pray tell, is "true consensus"? For close to two months now there was a clear consensus: four editors (SchroCat, Dr Blofeld, Cassianto, and myself) supporting the use the disputed citation method in this article, one editor (Nikkimaria) stating that the citation style used here is consistent (and thus protected by WP:CITEVAR), and one editor (PBS) who considers the citation method used inappropriate and inconsistent. There is a consensus for this page. That PBS has not dropped the stick is worrisome. That PBS has disrupted the FLC process is even worse. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Crisco 1492 are you seriously suggesting that an list should be promoted when there are clearly issues that are not supported by the reliable sources that are used to support the text. Using just the first example in the section "non-regicides" (as it was when you wrote your comment on the 4th) we have the inline cited source (ODNB) stating in the fist sentence that the man was a regicide. Finally after days of obstruction SchroCat has on 5 July changed the section header to "Commissioners who did not sign" with a editorial comment of "Non-regicides: ending the tendentious idiocy". -- PBS (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
We can now move onto the next section header which is also inaccurate. -- PBS (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Time for you to move on to somewhere else PBS. – SchroCat (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Schrocat. PBS, your WP:OWN issues with this article are not befitting an admin. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@User talk:Crisco 1492 Which issues do you think I WP:OWN? -- PBS (talk) 11:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think you own issues. I think you have WP:OWN issues. Why I think that should be patently clear when consensus has been consistently against you (including the recent FLC), and yet you hammer away to "protect" (i.e. maintain in a relatively poor state) the project you've been working on inconsistently over ten years. If you think Schro's citation style is inconsistent, despite the numerous people who have expressed a different opinion, then go start an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Otherwise, drop the stick. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Matthew Thomlinson

Matthew Thomlinson rightly appears in two different places, but a casual observer might not realise that this is the same individual - might it be worth doing something to denote that this is the same person, particularly as the notes sections do not exactly match? Dunarc (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Well spotted User:Dunarc. As he never sat as a commissioner, I have removed his name from that list, but I have added to the notes that he was appointed as one in the other entry. -- PBS (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks PBS. Dunarc (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_regicides_of_Charles_I/Archive_1&oldid=1235845392"