Talk:Ordinances of 1311

'The Problem was threefold'

Only two reasons appear to have been supplied... —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieRCD (talk • contribs) 13:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Passed

I've reviewed this article and I found it to be rather close to GA status in its coverage of the topic, its prose, and its scholarly citations. Two things: the lead section needs a rework. It is much too long and too specific and doesn't quite explain the notability of the subject. What is important to mention in the lead, I think, is that the Ordinances was one of the first attempts to change the King's powers and that, unlike the Magna Carta, included specific administrative reforms (Royal household's use of purveyances,etc.). Second, is this unsourced sentence NPOV?: "In the preamble, concern is voiced with the evil councillors of the king, the precariousness of the military situation abroad, and the danger of rebellion at home over the oppressive prises". I'd like to see it rephrased to make it clear that those were the opinions of the Ordainers or a citation for less subjective version of the sentence,etc. That's about all.--Meowist 18:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've tried to put the Ordinances in a historic context in the lead, and I've changed the sentence that could look POV. It's not sourced because it's simply the preamble to the full text that's referenced in the note to the last sentence. Lampman 20:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I made a slight rewording of the lead. I'm passing it now. --Meowist 22:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Copy edit

I tried a little copy editing of the beginning to try to clarify for myself who was doing what in the article. I probably used the wrong words and made mistakes. Feel free to change or revert. Sincerely, Mattisse 23:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

New Ordinances of 1311 → Ordinances of 1311 — they are widely known in English history as the Ordinances of 1311 —Ewlyahoocom 17:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I originally moved this page from Ordinances of 1311 to New Ordinances of 1311 because the bolded term used in the lede was New Ordinances of 1311 and has been that way since the page was created. Nowhere in the article is the term "Ordinances of 1311" used except for the title of one of the references. I don't care one way or the other, but I thought they should match. Ewlyahoocom 17:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

From User_talk:Ewlyahoocom#New_Ordinances_of_1311:

Why the name change? I can't see any discussion of it at the article talk page. --Dweller 21:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That's how it's called in the article, so why not have the article itself share that name? Ewlyahoocom 21:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. The article seems to call them by both names. I'll ask my favourite historian for some input. --Dweller 21:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see this thread... User_talk:Clio_the_Muse#Ordinances. Can I suggest you move the article back over the redirect and then open a consensus debate at the article talk page if you still wish to move it to the "New" nomenclature? It's usual to debate any potentially contentious major edits before undertaking them. Thanks --Dweller 09:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

From User_talk:Clio_the_Muse#Ordinances:

I noticed that they're up at WP:FAC. Then I noticed... well, see this thread. User_talk:Ewlyahoocom#New_Ordinances_of_1311. Cheers, --Dweller 21:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Dweller, they are widely known in English history as the Ordinances of 1311, a term arising from the Ordainers who compiled the provisions. They may have been new (well, not entirely), but I personally know of no historian who qualifies the baronial charter in this fashion. Therefore, the use of the word 'New' in this context would seem to me to be a quite unecessary- how shall I put it?-neologism! Clio the Muse 22:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... that's what I thought. --Dweller 09:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Are there Old Ordinances of 1311 or Original Ordinances of 1311? In other words, are you distinguishing these ordinances from another set of ordinances of 1311 with which they could be confused? --Mattisse 17:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Gaveston whitewash?

Seems very odd that the article mentions the problems of Gaveston as favourite, without even a reference to allegations that Edward and Gaveston were lovers. --Dweller (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the notes. It's peripheral to the main subject of the article though. Lampman (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Article contains "Gaveston was a Gascon of relatively humble origins, with whom the king had developed a particularly close relationship." a rather banal euphemism. Arguably, the allegations nature of that close relationship inflamed the situation more. It's definitely pertinent to the subject. Probably more pertinent than Gaveston's humble origins. --Dweller (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)