Talk:Kett's Rebellion

Biography?

If this article is about a rebellion, why is there a biography project banner here?  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 02:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Deleted. ludahai 魯大海 09:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Oaks?

Reference is made to the "Oak of Reformation." What / where is this? It is not clear if this is the same as Kett's Oak or not. DeadMansShoes (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be/have been a number of different "Kett's oaks" - see http://www.hiddenea.com/norfolkh.htm. It seems that Norfolk County Council are still in possession of an undated drawing of Kett sitting under the "Oak Of Reformation". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Intro/First rebellion context?

Should there not be a mention here what the rebellion was about? What is the relevance of illegally celebrating Thomas Beckett? The first sentence leads directly to "It was here that the anger of the town people came to such a point that violence came to them."

This reads like a quote out of context and doesn't explain WHY the folks were angry. I suggest adding some lines from the entry on Wymondham: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wymondham:

"In 1549, Robert Kett (or Ket) led a rebellion of peasants and small farmers who were protesting about the enclosure of common land. He took a force of almost unarmed men, and fought for and held the City of Norwich for six weeks until defeated by the King's forces. He was hanged from Norwich Castle. Kett's Oak, said to be the rallying point for the rebellion, may still be seen today on the road between Wymondham and Hethersett."

Or something along these lines. Just a thought... Mrs_Cake —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrs cake (talk • contribs) 15:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree, good idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Copy to Wikisource

To copy this text to Wikisource, the source of the information will need to be provided. Also, WS would publish the text as per the work, not as corrected for modern spelling. This does not look to be the spellings of the time of writing. billinghurst (talk) 03:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Bio entry on Kett

I was surprised when clicking on the entry on Kett's Rebellion that there wasn't a separate entry on Robert Kett himself. MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

hmm, 462nd anniversary?

An interesting new image and caption. But it looks a bit stranded without any supporting explanation in the text. In fact, in its current location, is might even be a bit misleading? I guess it should be in an "Popular Culture" section, if there was one. But it would look a bit lonely there too. I fear many people will see this as less of an anniversary and more as political opportunism. I don't wish to remove it, as I think it is interesring and could be moved. What do other editors think? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on my talk. The deletionists and eliteists who are taking over this encyclopaedia hate to see popular culture sections, so I wouldn't advice creating one, except maybe if you can support it with impeccable references.

Per your concerns, I moved the pic down to the death section , and expanded that a little to provide some context and show the link with the Greens. Youre the main editor here, so I think it should be entirely up to you what to do with it – I dont mind at all whether you totally revert or change my contribution. I'll try and explain though; I don't have revelation on whether Kett is able to look down on us,but I feel sure if he can he approves of the green party.

It was quite an interesting little event, which I got invited to apparently by chance, I didn't even know about Kett before my visit to the city, which was on an unrelated business trip. About 50 or so souls were present, mostly Norwich locals, especially from the nearby Occupy camp, with a couple of distinguished visitors including one of the worlds foremost anti tax evasion campaigner, Richard Murphy. Proceedings were kicked off by an impressive ancient WWII veteran who talked about the relevance of Kett to our current times. Then we said some prayers and laid the wreath, and the commemoration was rounded off with a talk from Professor Andy Wood, who told a very similar story to the article. He empahsised especially the brutal way the elite slowly killed him on the castle walls just above where we stood, as an attempt to cow the people. Praise God it didnt work, as he is still remembered to this day. I would have took a pic of the whole gathering, they looked quite spectacular by the castle wall, but the illumination was by large old fashioned flame torches and my little fone isn't all that good at handling that.

The day before the anniversary I was talking to the green party leader, Caroline Lucas, at the Bank of Ideas; you can see the pic I took of her over at Occupy London. I was mainly interested in the Greens championing of deliberative democracy (ways to get the common people involved in making political decisions) but from good Caroline's discussion with other occupiers, it turned out the greens current economic policies are exceptionally sound and much more faithful to the work of Lord Keynes that are Labour's. Not that theres much chance of the Greens taking over parliment for the foreseeable, but if they could Kett would be chuffed to see a much more redistributive society than we had even in the 1950s. Very few people know anything about the Greens excellent economics, this is mainly as they are too poor to get any media attention for them.

Btw its on my TDL to one day add some cites to this article from the good professors work, so the unsightly tags can be removed. I wont make major changes to the article, just maybe add a little more historical context, I think it excellent writing as it is, about as close as you get to a suitably arresting narrative form while still being encyclopaedic. If youre really interested in this topic you could even contact Prof Green Wood, you can get his details from his UEA homepage. Hes very approachable and friendly and loves to talk about Kett. Thanks for your excellent work building this article! FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Feyd - many thanks for such a full response, with so much interesting information. I would be tempted to say "political protest meetings by only 50 people need some kind of nationial news, or at least local press, coverage to make them at all notable". Well I would if I were a "deletionist or eliteist". Personally, I think it's vital that such material is included, as it shows the relevance that an historial figure can still have today. John Frost in Newport is another fine example. So all seems ok to me here. A Popular culture section would be fine by me. In any case, I am far from the main editor here, I'm sure. And I must stress that I decline taking any "ownership" of anything here, even of those articles I have created and to which no-on else has yet thought fit to contribute. Encyclopeadic information, after all, should belong to everyone, and not just whoever presses the keys on the keyboard. Long live Robert Kett. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome. My understanding of our policy is that you're right about the event not being noteable, and therefore it cant have its own article. But Wikipedia:Notability#Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article. If only all had your excellent attitude about ownership, which Im sure Kett would approve of! FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

How about a Legacy section? I have put in a Background section, and will add some more references to the rest of the article. Does anyone know where the text originally came from?Southdevonian (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure a Legacy section would be very welcome. Which text do you mean? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Just the text in general - for example the Arrival in Norwich section. I asked because I am going to put in some sources to protect the article from tagging. But it doesn't really matter - all the sources (or at least the ones I have seen) seem to say much the same thing about the rebellion. There doesn't seem to be much disagreement about Robert Kett. I will add some more detail as well. And look for some more pictures.Southdevonian (talk) 07:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Referencing in the "Attacks on the rebels" section

The "Attacks on the rebels" section lacks sufficient references which is holding this article back from a potential WP:GAN. Otherwise a well-sourced article. Duffit5 (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Location of Dussindale

New paper on the location (among other things)

• http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue38/3/index.html

Specific section:

• http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue38/3/4-1.html

©Geni (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Source added.--AntientNestor (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kett's Rebellion. 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/20101205184033/http://www.rmt.org.uk/files/137977/FileName/83720RMTNewsJULYlo.pdf to http://www.rmt.org.uk/files/137977/FileName/83720RMTNewsJULYlo.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)