Talk:Magna Carta/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Proposed re-write July 2010

Rather than splitting the article perhaps another solution would be to re-write it? Much of the material, particularly its lengthy historical discursion, could be reduced and links provided to the main historical articles. Perhaps a first start would be simply to remove all unreferenced material? I would propose the shape of the article as follows:

• Articles of the Barons - the current section 'Rebellion and signing of the document' and simply delete everything before it
• The Great Charter - the history of the document 1216 to 1297 - the current section 'Magna Carta re-issued'
• The Charter in later law - a reduced verson of the current section 'Rights still in force today' perhaps just reduce it to current paragraph 'The repeal of clause 26 in 1829, by the Offences against the Person Act 1828 (9 Geo. 4 c. 31 s. 1),[11] was the first time a clause of Magna Carta was repealed. With the document's perceived protected status broken, in 150 years nearly the whole charter was repealed, leaving just Clauses 1, 9, and 29 still in force after 1969. Most of it was repealed in England and Wales by the Statute Law Revision Act 1863, and in Ireland by the Statute Law (Ireland) Revision Act 1872.[11]'
• Copies - as is
• Political interpretations of the Charter and the Rebellion at Runnymede - basically a greatly reduced version of what constitutes the majority of the article as it current is (have links to other sections as required)
• Influences on later constitutions - as is

--Utinomen (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

In general I'm wary of rewrites which cut out large chunks of information. I don't think you should "remove all unreferenced material" (which is most of the article) without making a genuine effort to find sources which support the material, which I think you probably can for a lot of it. Start class articles are frequently under-referenced, not because the information is untrue, but simply because no-one has yet taken the time to find supporting references. I don't particularly disagree with the "citations needed" which you've added, as this makes it a) clearer for readers what doesn't have supporting evidence and therefore may be questionable, and b) clearer for editors where they need to look for references. I do not however think this should be used as an excuse to delete material unless we genuinely can't find references, or it's blindingly obvious that material is just an editor's opinion.

If you want to move large parts of the historical information to more detailed articles, that's fine. I personally think the sections on the 17th century are rather long and detailed, and you probably could delete material here. However the detailed historical background to Magna Carta is something I would expect to be able to find out about Magna Carta in an encyclopedia, especially one without limitations of space such as Wikipedia. I'm also unclear why you think it would improve the encylopedia by deleting most of the section on "rights still in force today", which is surely something many readers would be interested in ("Why is Magna Carta still relevant?"). Arguably the large amounts of detail here could however be better placed in a separate article on Magna Carta in English law.

As I understood the previous discussion, to the extent that we reached any conclusion at all, there seemed to be some support for my proposed splitting into the 13th Century historical background, Magna Carta in the 17th Century (English Civil War), and Magna Carta's effect on later laws and constitutions. I'm not entirely sure why you're now proposing to delete large parts of the information in the article. --Merlinme (talk) 09:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

But then how long should unreferenced material (which may after all be inaccurate or misleading) be left on there? There has to be a cut off point. It is a bit difficult to look for references to someone's opinion. I feel we should start from the basis of referenced material because that is something tangible. I thought the rights in force was too long. Would it be relevant to all readers, surely those readers should be consulting legal works if they are that interested? No definitive agreement was reached on a split - but getting rid of the junk might reduce the article to a manageable size which may then not require a split?--Utinomen (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Something which you think is demonstrably incorrect should be removed immediately. Something which you think is dubious, might be true but needs to be backed up by a secondary source should get a , which basically implies someone who knows more about the subject than you should either provide a reference or delete the material.

A lot of the article reads like a student's essay, which is because a lot of it was written as a student's essay by an editor who hasn't edited in a long time. That doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong, but it does mean that it's not correctly referenced, and may be written in a style which is inappropriate to a Wikipedia article. I've tidied up some of the most glaring examples but there's still a lot of rubbish. If you've made a basic effort to find out whether a particular statement can be backed up, by doing an online search or looking through an appropriate history book, and you can't find supporting evidence, then it probably can be cut, but I'd rather you didn't cut without having made some effort. I routinely leave for six months or more, to give other people the chance to do the research if they wish. After a certain amount of time however, it's probably reasonable to assume that no-one's found a supporting source because there isn't one.

To be honest I think most of the history after the 17th Century could be cut. I'm quite dubious whether Magna Carta was given the level of importance claimed for it in the essay, and perhaps more importantly, it makes the article longer and drier than it needs to be, with long paragraphs which I don't think many people would consider relevant. I'd probably cut it down to a short section, mentioning the Chartists (who did occasionally describe their Charter as a "New Magna Carta"), and mentioning when most of Magna Carta was repealed. Would anyone object if I did this? --Merlinme (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

How about then as a first step that the material be re-ordered as follows:

• First Section: Runnymede 1215 - Background to Rebellion and signing of the document, Participant List, Jews in England
• Second Section: The Great Charter - Magna Carta Re-issued and everything under Content, and great Council
• Third Section: Use in later history - what is currently 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
• Fourth Section: Copies - as is
• Fifth Section: Influences on later constitutions
• Sixth Section: Use of the definitive article
• Seventh Section: Popular Perceptions

(References split between actual inline citations and further reading) --Utinomen (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

As I imagine should be clear from my comments, I don't think the current article is brilliantly written, especially the later parts. For a proper rewrite I'd probably have to buy a few books and spend a day or so on it though, and I kept hoping someone with more knowledge than I have would contribute. If you have the time, I'm sure a good copy edit and reorganisation would be welcomed by other editors (as long as it was sympathetic to our expressed concerns about your interpretation of the material, and especially your belief that the article should concentrate on the 1297 statute).

One specific comment on your proposed reorganisation: the English Civil War needs its own section. Magna Carta, as rediscovered and interpreted by people like Coke, and cited in the Petition of Right, was arguably more important in justifying the rebellion against Charles I than it was in limiting the power of the king in the Middle Ages. As a symbol of a previous rebellion against an arbitrary king it had great power, quite independent of what the 1297 statute actually said (which, for example, didn't include any of the stuff about the Barons' council which is in clause 61 of the 1215 charter). In terms of the evolution of the informal constitution, documents such as the Provisions of Oxford (which has stuff about 24 barons, half selected by the crown) were probably about as important as Magna Carta; but as a much more famous symbol of the "people" rebelling against "Bad King John", Magna Carta had great power when people in the 17th Century were looking for justification for their own rebellion against what they saw as arbitrary and illegal actions by the king. -Merlinme (talk) 08:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, as far as I can tell, the previously mentioned essay which forms most of the article probably had a title something like "Was Magna Carta a statute like any other statute?" Hence all the stuff about whether it could be repealed, whether the liberties it gave were "entrenched" or could be overruled, etc. Personally I find the stuff about whether Parliament or the King could overrule it slightly tangential to a clearly written narrative in the article. --Merlinme (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, as first step I will just reorder the sections then we can discuss the actual material.--Utinomen (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Have reordered. I hope it now clearer than ever that what a vast bloated article this is. I am happy to re-edit some parts (such as the 1216-1297 section, reorder copies section). but comments:

• Opening section - discuss paragraph by paragraph?.
• The Runnymede stuff - c'mon, how can anyone argue that most of this should not be a separate article (participants list!). I accept there should be some comment on the Jews part but this much? Shouldn't there be something here on the committee to uphold the Charter or have I missed that?
• 1216-1297 - needs expanding
• Content - again this does not read like an encyclopedia entry
• the history sections - vast swathes of unreferenced text.
• Influences on later constitutions - it's exclusively about America, did it influence anywhere else? UN, EU?
• Copies - this is a jumble.
• Popular Perceptions - could this not be incorporated elsewhere within article if relevant?

--Utinomen (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The article does now seem to be taking shape. The vast swathes of unreferenced text of the historical interpretations sections, and the content, now seem to be the main issues left.--Utinomen (talk) 09:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

What is this article about

I am requesting comment on what this article is about. Do we have here an article where the issue of perspective is insurmountable?

Magna Carta (latin for Great Charter) is the common name for a UK Statute whose full title is “The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, and of the Liberties of the Forest”, and which entered the English statute in that form in 1297. It was formed of two charters, the Great Charter, and the Charter of the Forest, as issued in the ninth year of King Henry III in 1225. Prior to that a version of the Great Charter had been issued by Henry III in 1216 and 1217, and the Forest Charter had previously been issued in 1217. Henry III's Great Charter of 1216 was based on a document, known by historians as the "Articles of the Barons" but popularly also known as the Magna Carta, that was was forced upon King John of England at Runnymede during the First Barons' War but which did not became an English law. (amended, see below--Utinomen (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC))

The above paragraph represents in a succinct form what I believe this article is about. It is about the Great Charter of English Liberties, went through various stages, its final form entered the statute where is lies today though mostly repealled. Obviously the article would flesh the various points out, have various off-shoots etc but in essence that surely is it. However, I am surmising that some people think that this article is about events at Runnymede 1215, and think that Magna Carta is the Articles of the Barons rather than statute. If you think I'm being pedantic it's to make the point. Anyway, what do you think?--Utinomen (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Your first sentence could be abbreviated to "Magna Carta is a 1297 UK Statute". I dispute that this is what Magna Carta is only, or even mainly, about. I don't really understand why you essentially imply that what happened in 1215 is not Magna Carta. I suspect most people think it is about 1215. Glancing through internet Magna Carta sites they invariably mention King John, Runnymede, etc. Most people might be wrong, but you really need a strong secondary source to take a position which is so out on a limb, and even then I think there might be arguments about whether sufficient weight had been given to the (large) number of secondary sources which deal in depth with 1215. To take one of many examples: [1], from the National Archives website, the opening sentence of which is: "The Magna Carta (Great Charter) was first issued in 1215 by King John." --Merlinme (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree most people think it is about 1215. Here's one from the British Library [2] surely the 'popular' view if there is one - its only concession is half way down the page there is a small paragraph "What does 'Magna Carta' mean?" which indicates that it was not actually called Magna Carta in 1215! The basics indeed. What I am seeking to convey here is that 1215 is not only Magna Carta, all the other dates are as important. 1297 is important because that is, in effect, our legal version. If the MC had not been issued in 1216, if there had not been a history of reissues and confirmations etc, we would not be having this discussion today...--Utinomen (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have two key concerns about the paragraph. First the reverse chronology is rather odd; 1297, 1225, 1216 & 1217 then finally a brief mention of 1215 (King John). It would make much more sense from a reader's perspective to follow from beginning to end 1215 to 1297. My second concern is that you have yet to provide a secondary source for the title "The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, and of the Liberties of the Forest". As has been pointed out repeatedly in the title section above, you are relying on a primary source that makes specific mention that it includes more than just the Magna Carta material; it could be interpreted that the title refers to a group of charters published at the same time or to just Magna Carta. You have chosen to interpret it one way, but have not provided a secondary source to support that interpretation. I too can provide a primary source like this one and interpret the separate mention of Magna Carta and Charter of the Forest to mean that they were still treated as two separate documents than 1 combined document with the title you mentioned. Road Wizard (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph was supposed to be for the opening paragraph of the article because the current paragraph is misleading and is not a summary. I have nothing against a paragraph that was the other way round, just so long as it is complete. Whilst I cannot imagine that any reasonable person would take Britannia.com, an American touristy guide to British history, to be a more authoritative statement of UK law than the UK government (and is it actually a primary source?) it also shows that the Charters are considered together. I have not chosen to interpret what the UK Statute Law database states, I have merely stated what it states - its copy and paste! Are you implying that there is another Magna Carta somewhere in current UK Statute with a different title? I am not claiming they were not separate documents, but they were considered together and the end result is as stated in UK Statute. What I would suggest is that we cannot completely ignore the Forest Charter, the two are historically linked if not least because the Charter of Liberties is only called Magna Carta in contrast to the forest Charter to differentiate when the two were being considered together, but I am not suggesting, that it should in anyway be a predominant or major part of this article. --Utinomen (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Both the text on the UK Statute Law Database and the text on Britannia.com are translations of the 1297 publications. It doesn't matter who republished the text, the fact that it is a copy of the primary source makes the republication a primary source too. For example, if you made an original statement about something then you would be a primary source; if I then reprinted your statement word for word I would also become a primary source as an exact copy of the original. It doesn't matter whether you consider one source more reliable than another as they are both reprinting the primary source text from 1297; but if you think that Britannia.com has printed a mistranslation of the 1297 text then we can look for another primary source translation provided by a different publisher if you want. However, even if we did find another copy of the primary source that wouldn't prove anything as we have to rely on secondary sources for interpretation rather than copies of the primary source material from 1297.

What you are claiming based on the primary source material is that the official title of Magna Carta is really "The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, and of the Liberties of the Forest" but as far as I can tell the source material is saying that the 1297 republication of Magna Carta is called "The Great Charter of the Liberties of England" and the 1297 republication of the Charter of the Forest is separate. Saying that both titles refer to Magna Carta as you have done in the first sentence is your interpretation of the primary source.

From the comments you have made previously you do not see what you are doing as interpreting the source, which puts us at an impasse. I would suggest waiting to see whether any other replies to this RFC comment on this issue. Road Wizard (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that the UK Statute text is not just a republication, that is the current legal version, that is what Magna Carta is now, this very second. It is a living document (what's left of it). Could it be that our impasse is because I am looking at what MC is and you are looking at what MC was? If I have not been making myself clear I apologise. Magna Carta is so called because of the relation of the liberties charter in relation to the forest charter, to differentiate, if that relation did not exist, if they were too entirely unrelated charters which never ever met, it would not be called Magna Carta it would just be Carta, agreed? The words Magna Carta are just the first words of the title, not the whole title, agreed? --Utinomen (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No, as far as I can tell the impasse is not caused by a perspective on the versions of Magna Carta, but rather whether or not you are interpreting a Primary source. It doesn't matter whether Statute Law Database is considered as a primary source of the 1297 text or a primary source of the residual parts of the 1297 text as in force today, it is still a primary source. Unless you can provide a secondary source you will not convince me that you are not interpreting a primary source. However I am willing to be ruled by consensus in this matter so I would suggest waiting to see what other comments are made.

"Magna Carta is so called because of the relation of the liberties charter in relation to the forest charter" - do you have a secondary source to support that? The original 1215 text (written before the forest charter) makes reference to a number of different charters; a secondary source is required to confirm the "Great" was added in relation to the forest charter and not in relation to any of the others.

"The words Magna Carta are just the first words of the title, not the whole title, agreed?" I am not sure what you are asking me with that question. Magna Carta is Magna Carta and the Charter of the Forest is the Charter of the Forest. The title in your paragraph includes both titles and states they both refer to Magna Carta. If you are suggesting a change to your paragraph so that only the Magna Carta title is being used for Magna Carta then that is the point I have been making all along. Road Wizard (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a great deal to add to Road Wizard, except to say a) the disagreement is because you are only looking at the surviving statute on the statute database (should we therefore ignore all except the three clauses still in effect?); we on the other hand are looking at Magna Carta as a whole, from 1215 to the present, as statute and symbol; and b) essentially every secondary source you or we have found has indicated that what happened in 1215 was Magna Carta, and in most people's eyes 1215 is in fact what Magna Carta is mainly about. Debating the exact meaning of the wording of a primary source is not going to make any difference, especially bearing in mind that we shouldn't be attempting to intepret primary sources anyway. --Merlinme (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Outside opinion—I'm not an expert on this subject, but I have read through the debate, and I agree with Road Wizard and Merlinme that this, and all other Wikipedia articles should not be based on an interpretation of a primary source. It might help to compare Wikipedia with what some other tertiary sources have to say on the subject: the Oxford English Dictionary states 'Magna Carta: The charter of English personal and political liberty, obtained from King John in 1215, repeatedly confirmed, and appealed to in all disputes between the sovereign and his or her subjects, until the establishment of constitutional government' and Encyclopedia Britannica states 'Great Charter the charter of English liberties granted by King John in 1215 under threat of civil war and reissued with alterations in 1216, 1217, and 1225.' —Jeremy (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• The definitive note on the name Magna Carta is A.B. White in The English Historical Review 1915 and 1917 in which he notes that the term Magna Carta is being used because "After 1217 it was necessary to speak of the charters instead of the charter." "Magna Carta came into use to distinguish the parent document from its offspring, the charter of the forest." Here's something from Lord Irvine of Lairg 2002 citing White [3] "It was so named to distinguish it from the separate and shorter Charter of the Forest". Also note "The authoritative text, four chapters of which remain on the statute book in England, is Edward I’s inspeximus of 1297". Yes, I accept this is all very academic nit picking and 99.9% will continue to believe that Magna Carta is actually the name of the thing which King John was coerced into conceding at Runnymede. But again, the point I am trying to emphasise that Magna Carta is not just Runnymede 1215. Merlinme talks of "looking at Magna Carta as a whole, from 1215 to the present" and that is my position. Tagging 1216, 1217, 1225 and 1297 on as a minor note as if to say all Henry and Edward did was rubberstamp a finished, complete and unalteratable document of almost Biblical reverance, 'The Magna Carta from 1215' is ahistorical.--Utinomen (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

So you've found a secondary source which says that Magna Carta is separate from the Charter of the Forest, and has been called by the name Magna Carta since about 1217? Doesn't this call into question your first sentence above, which concentrates exclusively on the 1297 statute (even if we accept your interpretation of the primary source)?

It's fairly clear that what King John signed was not called Magna Carta when he signed it. It didn't have a title. However that doesn't change the fact that according to your source, it was commonly known as Magna Carta within a few years of it being signed, and has been ever since. The White Album is actually called "The Beatles", the White Album was a descriptive name given to it later. That doesn't make it incorrect to call it The White Album, if that's the name it's commonly known by, although a good encylopedia article will discuss briefly how it came to get its commonly used name.

I'm not sure why you're saying that the revisions are "tagged on as a minor note". The opening sentence says it was "originally issued" in 1215. The lead later says "Various amended versions of Magna Carta appeared in subsequent years however, and it is the 1297 version which remains on the statute books of England and Wales". There is also an entire section "Magna Carta re-issued" which clearly summarises the different versions. And when we discuss "Rights still in force today", we use the clauses from the 1297 version, as that is the one which is still legally in effect.

If you wish to highlight the different versions more, say how, and we can discuss it. The later versions are essentially the original with fewer clauses, however, so it surely makes sense to start with the original. You have been arguing that we should start with the last version, and I really don't think you've found any support for that. --Merlinme (talk) 08:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been arguing we should start with the last version, I accept chronological arrangment for the article, what I have been arguing is for what it is as compared to what it was. The fact that the "it is the 1297 version which remains on the statute books of England and Wales" comment is relegated to almost an afterthought at the 6th paragraph is indicative that is is just tagged on as a minor note. I don't agree with your comments about its commenly used name. --Utinomen (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

As my suggested opening paragraph appears to have been too complicated, I withdraw it. How about this then for the first sentence-

"Magna Carta is a law in UK stature which originates in thirteenth century England".

Simple and direct. It states what it is, and indicates it has a history which I the reader will find out about as I read on. (And just out of interest the current first paragraph includes "The usual English translation of Magna Carta is Great Charter." is there then an unusual translation?)--Utinomen (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Your proposed change still emphasises the statute to the exclusion of the other elements. Can I suggest that we are wasting an awful lot of time on the opening paragraph, which you have not achieved consensus to change? Your reorganisation on the other hand was constructive. I've made some edits. On re-reading, I think most of the material about 1215 could be folded into the King John of England article. I'll do this when I have time if someone hasn't already done it.

On the specific point about Magna Carta = Great Charter, the point I was trying to make was that I believe the literal translation of Magna Carta would actually be "Big Document". --Merlinme (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Utinomen, I've heavily rewritten the article, hopefully meeting some of your concerns. It's shorter, with a lot of extraneous material removed, and it should be clearer that there are multiple versions of the charter. I've quite extensively rewritten the lead along these lines. My version does not however say that Magna Carta is a statute, which all your versions did, because I think it's clear that Magna Carta is a lot more than just a statute, and also a lot more than just a 1297 document.

I've not finished editing, but that's all I have time for right now. Any time you have to help in making the article shorter, better referenced and more coherent would be much appreciated. --Merlinme (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I can see you have started the work here Merlinme. I hope to contribute at some point. One concern I should've mentioned above is the history detailed here is two-fold: history of the MC itself (13th century, bit about repeal etc), and then history of its use/interpretation (sections 4-8). I feel that the latter is ridiculously overblown, almost an attempt to catalogue every time it was mentioned by someone, and it seems to be merely repetitions of other articles which can be found on Wikipedia. For example 'Parliament Sovereignty' here seems longer and denser than its own relevant article Parliamentary_sovereignty ! If retained should not these sections be briefly summarised and with the usual link to the relevant article? --Utinomen (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A lot of good editing done, thank you. Some specific points:

• I thought you were wrong to remove the reference to Magna Carta being part of the uncodified constitution. You stated that the reference was unreliable; I don't see why. Even if it is, I am sure we could find other references which say very similar things. Could we discuss changes like that on Talk first, please?
• I agree that the history sections after the Civil War are far too long. I was thinking of deleting most or all of them myself, with links where necessary; feel free to do so if you have the time.
• You have three references from Poole 1963, pp. 478-479 to support your edits that the barons viewed Magna Carta as a "mere subterfuge". Although it clearly became quickly about overthrowing John, and I'm reluctant to remove referenced material from a not well referenced article, I'm also reluctant to place so much faith in one source. Clearly the whole country did not support Louis; did all the barons see Magna Carta as a cover for treason? I don't know much about the Barons' War, but I would be happier if there were a second source here. Poole is clearly of the view that the barons were planning to be treacherous, but I would be surprised if no other historian has ever taken a different view.
• I'll answer your point about content below. --Merlinme (talk) 08:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The bold claim that it is a "A key statute of the uncodified British Constitution" would imply to the reader that is a fact which would seem to warrant an official legal or critical historical source which quite clearly the reference is not. The referenced website is making a contention which gives no indication of how it arrived at that conclusion; it is only by degree different from a blog.

Poole's is a 'standard' history text. I accept other references would prove greater elucidation--Utinomen (talk) 07:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Re: uncodified constitution: have you searched for a source which supports the claim? Or directly contradicts it? To completely remove the statement requires more than saying "it could do with more support". It requires you to say the statement is wrong; which in itself needs support. And in my opinion you should not delete referenced material which could do with more support without searching for a reference which better supports the statement. For example, it's taken me about five minutes to find Magna Carta specifically mentioned four times in Constitution of the United Kingdom, including a reference to [4], which is the 2002 Thoburn Case ruling by Lord Justice Laws; the ruling specifically mentions Magna Carta as a "constitutional statute". The existence of "constitutional statutes" is itself legally controversial, but it surely makes the point very well that Magna Carta is considered by an eminent legal source to be as much a part of the uncodified constitution as the Bill of Rights 1689 or the 1832 Reform Act.
• Re: Poole, he may well be a standard text, but that doesn't mean he's right about everything, it just means he covers a broad area and is not wrong about most things. The reference you've got from Carpenter seems to be much more nuanced than Poole, which rather makes my point. Carpenter seems to be saying that because the barons knew John wouldn't agree to be bound by Magna Carta except under extreme duress, they needed a new king. Could you clarify the reference, please? Is Carpenter saying that John "could never be restrained by Magna Carta" in the sense: a) in practice John would ignore or find loopholes in it; or b) it had no basis in law and would be overruled by the Pope. The latter implies that they were attempting to illegally impose their will on the monarch; the former implies that they were trying to restrain John, but in practice recognised that war was the probable next step. --Merlinme (talk) 08:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: uncodified constitution: Then the line should state instead "according to (whoever) it is..." or "it has been been claimed that..."

Being a standard text though means its unlikely to be controversial. In both senses is I suppose the answer to your question. Both John and the Barons distrusted each other. They both knew each others past behaviour. John had "little intention of keeping to it [Magna Carta]. Distrust between the two sides was overwhelming" "When the papal letter arrived in England at the end of september, the country was already at war. The rebels realized that John could never be restrained by Magna Carta. The only solution was his replacement" (Carpenter) --Utinomen (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You only want it to say "x claims that it is part of the uncodified constitution" because you disagree with the claim and want to lessen its authority. Have you actually found a source yet which would say its not part of the uncodified constitution? I would have thought that almost everyone who accepts the existence of an uncodified constitution would accept Magna Carta is part of it. I therefore don't see the need to attribute it to one source only, especially as I don't think it's particularly controversial to say that Magna Carta is part of the uncodified constitution.

Re: John and the barons, could we have more balanced quoting, then please? At the moment it's all "the barons broke faith with John". Carpenter's quote that John had "little intention of keeping to it. Distrust between the two sides was overwhelming" would seem to provide balance to the current quotes that it was all the barons' fault. --Merlinme (talk) 09:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

But it is you who not provided sources which incontrovertibly verify the claim made. Indeed having now seen what the second reference is I am removing the claim as it refers to a case Thoburn_v_Sunderland_City_Council the ruling of which by Judge Laws was considered controversial. --Utinomen (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I am happy for John and Barons part to be amended as you suggest.--Utinomen (talk) 09:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• I do not see what all the fuss is about. Strictly Magna Carta is not a statute, but a grant by the king to his subjects in 1215, and reissued several times during the 13th century, the final reissue being trated as a statute. How effective it would have remained if John had not died soon afterwards leaving an heir who was too young to rule must be questionable. Yes, I suppose it is part of the constitution. A few of the many clauses of the Charter remain part of English law, but most have been repealed by being replaced by later statute law. However, nothing should minimise its historical importance. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Content

This section is a mess. I think it was someone writing about the 1215 Charter as if it were the current Magna Carta so it is not clear at all what clause is being referred to. It might be interesting to have comparisons with the 1215 and later versions, it might be interesting to have a brief note on what the clauses, but it cannot be claimed that the 1215 clauses are the definitive ones because legally they are not. --Utinomen (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree it's a mess. The problem is that it makes sense to concentrate on the 1215 Charter, as that contains substantial amounts of material not in the other charters. However this then confuses things when you look at the Charter in English law, which is basically 1297. Perhaps the sensible thing would be to separate the two out entirely? i.e. Content of 1215 Charter (perhaps after the history of Runneymede?) and Content of 1297 Charter (concentrating on its place in English law). --Merlinme (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Have attempted to re-order material relating to the content, basically the old clauses from the 1215 charter. May need checking for accuracy. Have used 1215 numbering as the basis for clauses no longer in effect. The 3 clauses still in law use 1297 numbering (section:Clauses still in force today). The most I can hope for I suppose is that the material is is now clearer to editors!--Utinomen (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"A key statute of the uncodified British Constitution"

This claim have been removed because it is unsubstantiated by the references. The claim gives the impression to the reader of being definitive, a fact. The first reference is WP:POORSRC. It is a website whose aim is to designate what it believes are English 'icons'. Whilst Magna Carta is undoubtedly an English icon the website is clearly not a criticial historical or legal source. The second reference, to a legal source, does not actually make the claim suggested but makes a different claim. The reference is to a case where Justice Laws was proposing that that there is a "hierarchy of acts" in the UK (as in some other states), the judgement was controversial because the claim is new, though over time it may become accepted. If wiki editors feel it is a point worth adding why not then: "It has been suggested by Judge Laws in the Thoburn v Sunderland City Council case that Magna Carta is an example of a 'Constitutional Statute' rather than an 'Ordinary Statute' "? --Utinomen (talk) 10:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Slow motion edit war

Utinomen and I appear to be engaged in a slow-motion edit war. I would prefer not to just be reverting changes, however we do seem to be making quite significant changes without significant discussion. The two biggest disputes are:

1) Is the statement that Magna Carta is "A key statute of the uncodified British Constitution" supported by the references? I would argue that it largely is. I'd be happy to discuss changing the form of words, which might water it down somewhat, but I strenuously object to the implication that Magna Carta is not part of the uncodified British Constitution. It's one of the oldest written forms of it which we have; it may have largely written down what had been part of common practice before, but it's significant that it was written down, and it's significant that the king received a check to his power. Even if other kings largely ignored it, it was an important part of the process in establishing the limits to the monarch's power (most notably when it was rediscovered in the 17th Century). On any sensible definition of the uncodified British Constitution, Magna Carta is in. For example:

"The British Constitution comes from a variety of sources. The main ones are:
Statutes such as the Magna Carta of 1215 and the Act of Settlement of 1701.
Laws and Customs of Parliament; political conventions
Case law; constitutional matters decided in a court of law
Constitutional experts who have written on the subject such as Walter Bagehot and A.V Dicey."

That's from history historylearningsite.co.uk: [5]. I suspect Utinomen will again argue that it not a reliable source; given that I now have two history websites which state that Magna Carta is part of the uncodified constitution, plus a legal opinion that Magna Carta is a "constitutional statute", I'm not sure what Utinomen would accept as a good reference. The complaint about Thoburn is that it is controversial (which I accept), and also that Thoburn doesn't say that Magna Carta is part of the constitution, he says that it is a constitutional statute. However in combination with the other references I think the Thoburn reference is helpful, because it fits the definition above for British Constitution (i.e. a constitutional statute is one which forms part of the constitution); and also because it is clearly placed with other statutes such as the Bill of Rights etc. which surely also form part of the uncodified British constitution. What does "constitutional statute" mean except "statute which is part of the constitution"?

historylearningsite mentions Dicey and Bagehot; I don't know what Dicey says (if anything) about Magna Carta, but Bagehot discusses Magna Carta/ the Great Charter briefly; his thought processes are fairly complex, but to quote his conclusion:

"The right of self-taxation was justly inserted in the “great treaty; but it would have been a dead letter, save for the armed force and aristocratic organization which compelled the king to make a treaty; it was a result, not a basis — an example, not a cause." p. 207; [6]

That could be interpreted in a number of ways, but I take it to mean that Magna Carta was the result of long processes which had been going on beforehand, which I would not disagree with. But Magna Carta is still important as a written record of what those processes were, at that point in time. Bagehot spends approximately 1 out of 3 pages which talk about the pre-Tudor constitution in discussing "the Great Charter". He thinks it is "an example, not a cause", but it is still important enough an example to be discussing it in some depth in his (definitive) book on the British Constitution, six centuries later. A right to due process and a fair trial are derived directly from Magna Carta; it surely matters that these rights still exist using wording from over 700 years ago.

I'll break here but I'll talk about the second disagreement, about the "title of the document", when I have more time. --Merlinme (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

2) The title of the document. Utinomen wants: "whose full title is The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, and of the Liberties of the Forest". I was disagreeing, for reasons previously discussed, but on reflection, we now have additional secondary sources which explain how the name Magna Carta evolved from what would previously been the Articles of the Barons/ Runneymede Charter / (new) Charter of Liberties, and how Magna Carta was used to refer to the document which contained both the Charter of Liberties and the Charter of the Forest. (I am assuming of course that the references support the article, as they're not direct quotes and I don't have access to the books.) I still think the "Editorial Information" on the statute database primary source is open to interpretation, but the statute's full title does seem clear; I still think the full name needs clarification however, as the article clearly notes in several places that the 1215 document was not given any title at all, let alone such a long title. I would therefore be happy with something which clarifies that its full name on the UK statute database is... I'll make an edit accordingly. --Merlinme (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It occurred to me that "The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, and of the Liberties of the Forest" cannot have been the "full title" used in 1297, because the 1297 title would have been in 13th Century Latin or English. (I take the statue database Editorial Information to mean that the 1297 text is in 13th century English.) Surely this demonstrates the dangers of relying on primary sources? The long title is at the very least a translation of what the 1297 document would have said; and it may in fact have been added some time later to describe several different Charters confirmed at the same time, that's certainly one way of interpreting the Editorial Information. Anyway, I've made my edit, noting what appears to be the statute database's modern English long title/ descriptive text. --Merlinme (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

1) Obviously I am going to disagree with an individual's website as a reliable secondary source - I mean, I could set such a website up, would you be happy to use it as a source? If you did I like to think that as a wiki editor I would object to its use! I am happy with the Justice Laws reference but it should be made clear that is what it is as it is contentious. 2)"the 1215 document was not given any title at all" exactly! And thus the current opening line of the article "Magna Carta is an English charter, originally issued in the year 1215" is not entirely correct then is it? It should say then something like "King John, King Of England, issued a Charter in 1215 which would retrospectively be called Magna Carta".--Utinomen (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

how about as a compromise something along the lines of "It is generally regarded as a 'constitutional statue', however, it can be repealed like any ordinary statute: indeed by the second half of the 19th century most clauses had been repealed from English law."?--Utinomen (talk) 07:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the article; it doesn't need to get into every academic complexity. It's not incorrect to say that Magna Carta is an English charter, originally issued in 1215, is it? The 1215 document is Magna Carta; as is the 1297 document.

It would be incorrect to say that's what the document was called in 1215, but we don't actually say that. We could I suppose say something like: "In 1215 King John of England issued a Charter which later became known as Magna Carta. It was reissued in smaller versions later in the 13th century, omitting certain temporary provisions..." and then as before. However my main problem with that approach is that it arguably over-emphasises King John, which I thought we'd been trying to move away from. It also seems strange to essentially be using narrative in the first sentence.

Any statute can be repealed, which is why its debatable in what sense we have a constitution. The distinction Lord Laws was making was that constitutional statutes cannot be "impliedly repealed", i.e. that Parliament should explicitly decide to repeal a constitutional statute. I would be happy with something like: "Despite its recognised importance, by the second half of the 19th century nearly all of its clauses had been repealed in their original form. Three clauses remain part of the law of England and Wales, however, and it is generally considered part of the uncodified constitution. In a recent (somewhat controversial) ruling Lord Laws used Magna Carta as an example of a constitutional statute, one which could only be repealed by a later statute with that clear intention (as opposed to being implicitly repealed)." --Merlinme (talk) 08:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Er, why would you be trying to move away from emphasising King John? He was one who issued the Runnymede charter; laws don't just pop into existence, some government issues them and enforces them.

I am so happy with your proposed wording that I will add it now.--Utinomen (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Glad we were able to reach a compromise. --Merlinme (talk) 09:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Improve this article: Add information about the Latin text itself

I can see from looking at the Magna Carta that the long s is used in some places and the short s in other places.

But, beyond that, it's hard for me personally to tell what other "odd" (at least by modern standards) qualities manifest in the text, given the style of writing, and my general lack of knowledge concerning Latin.

It would be interesting to read more about the Latin text itself. Why did they choose to write it in Latin? Was that the language they all spoke, or was Latin chosen for a different reason? Was the handwriting seen in the document a fairly standard "font" for that time period, or does it embody unique stylistic qualities? Were there any other letters or ligatures used in the text? Is there anything regarding the punctuation that is of interest?

The addition of this sort of information would greatly improve the quality of the article.

98.117.49.203 (talk) 07:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

According to Legal English, Latin was the form used for legal documents until the 17th Century; it was apparently actually spoken in court until the 14th Century. (Bear in mind that early medieval scholars would almost certainly have been educated by the Church, which used Latin, as the language of Rome; the Bible was not translated into English until John Wycliffe in the 1380s.)

I'm not sure I can enlighten you much more about the text than that, as I don't know Latin, let alone English medieval Latin. We could add a short section to explain, e.g. "Why the Charter was written in Latin", but I'd prefer if someone who knew more about it(or had access to good references) added it, rather than relying on my limited knowledge and other Wikipedia references. --Merlinme (talk) 08:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Great Council

I have deleted this section for the following reasons: Clauses 14 and 61 only relate to the 1215 charter and do not feature in the later issues. Counsel for the King existed irrespective of Magna carta, it is misleading to imply that Magna Carta created it (the problem was King John did not seek counsel, or at least not from the barons hence one of their grievances). The section does not appear to understand that common counsel does not refer to an actual institution like modern day parliament. In short the Great Council portrayed in this section never actually existed. Anything that might be of any factual relevance in this section would be better placed elsewhere.--Utinomen (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Hello there, and thank you for your edits in this article and all .. but what about you give it a little bit of a chance. You have something to say, add it in the article (hopefully with references). But don't delete text that you don't like or agree with, unless it stays really for long, and without any references. You have made a great deal of edits in this article, now please move on to another, perhaps, and leave sometime for other editors to come and check your own work on it. Best, Maysara (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't have anything to say in the article and I hope other editors don't either. Can any reason be given for retaining this material?--Utinomen (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• YES .. people just like you added it(.) Maysara (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If you'll hang on two seconds, I was just about to add some references to the article from "1215: The Year Of Magna Carta". If this area is a particular bone of contention, I'll concentrate on it first. --Merlinme (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Continuing tidy-up; where does the 1215 numbering system come from

I've made some changes. The Great Council section has been rewritten to emphasise which parts of the charter were removed or modified because of the threat to the monarch's authority, and also to briefly touch on the continuity (such as it is) with Parliament and the Provisions of Oxford from the Second Barons' War. The section "Clauses in Runnymede Charter and 1225/1297 Charter but since repealed" still needs work. The first couple of sections were quite confused, I'm not completely sure I've got the clause numbers as intended, and I haven't got time to check right now.

• Does anyone know where the 1215 numbering system which we use now comes from? I think the numbering system can actually be misleading, for example the 'Jewish debt' clauses 10 + 11 may well have been considered as a whole (in which case the last sentence regarding "other debts" applies to both 'clauses'). I've not been able to find out where the numbering system comes from though. I found one statement that there was actually more than one numbering system that had been used, but no further detail. --Merlinme (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe the numbering used today originated with William Blackstone.--Utinomen (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Habeas Corpus section

The original text (before the recent reorganisation) read:

"Clauses 36, 38, 39 and 40 collectively define the right of Habeas Corpus. Clause 36 requires courts to make inquiries as to the whereabouts of a prisoner, and to do so without charging any fee. Clause 38 provides that a person could not be put on trial by the mere word of an official. Clause 39 gives the courts exclusive rights to punish anyone. Clause 40 disallows the selling of or delay to justice. Clauses 36 and 38 were removed from the 1225 version, but were reinstated in later versions. The right of Habeas Corpus as such was first invoked in court in the year 1305."

For comparison, here are the mentioned clauses in full:

(36) In future nothing shall be paid or accepted for the issue of a writ of inquisition of life or limbs. It shall be given gratis, and not refused.

(38) In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.

(39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

(40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

• Whoever wrote this section appears to have been making it up, not to put too fine a point on it. I've checked the text of the 1297 charter, and there's still nothing like the claimed clause 36, which seems to be an invented clause which is essentially a paraphrase of habeas corpus. 38 has nothing to do with habeas corpus, as far as I can tell. Clauses 39 + 40 could be taken to indirectly support habeas corpus, in that no-one should be imprisoned without a trial, and justice should not be delayed (i.e. you can't imprison someone and put off their trial indefinitely). However it is rather indirect. Does anyone else have any views on this?

• Is there any truth to "Clauses 36 and 38 were removed from the 1225 version, but were reinstated in later versions"? Unless I'm missing something it can't have been reinstated in later versions, as later versions are essentially identical to 1225. I suppose it's possible that these clauses were lost in one of the intermediate charters between 1215 and 1225, and then reinstated in 1225. Does anyone know? --Merlinme (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

According to the habeas corpus article, Magna Carta's support for it is generally taken from clause 39. --Merlinme (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone again trying to read more into Magna Carta than it merits and deliberately confusing the Runnymede Charter with the legal Charter, surely not? I think your last comment gives the clue - there is no clause 39 in Magna Carta. There is a clause 39 in the 1215 Charter. The clauses were not removed they were renumbered: 39 became 29, 36 became 26, and 38 became 28 in 1225. Could it be the usual 17th century suspects and such as William_Searle_Holdsworth later who tried to tie Habeas Corpus to Magna Carta, presumably because they erroneously believed Magna Carta to be some sort of fundamental law with special constitutional status?--Utinomen (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Ralph Turner Magna Carta p 156: "Selden was the first person to link habeas corpus with the Great Charter", in connection with Darnel's Case.--Utinomen (talk) 08:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Britannica is quite interesting on Darnel's Case: "The knights demanded that the crown show cause for their imprisonment or that they be released on bail. In November 1627 their appeal for a writ of habeas corpus was argued before the King’s Bench. Counsel for the knights appealed mostly to medieval precedents, including clause 39 of the Magna Carta, which stipulated that no man should lose his liberty without due process of law. On Tudor precedents the crown argued that it had a large discretionary power of arrest. The judges refused bail but did not decide that the crown could always commit without cause." So Magna Carta was used in support of a habeas corpus application. Certainly you can see how the requirement not to imprison without due process could be seen as closely linked to habeas corpus. Does anyone know what "a writ of inquisition of life or limbs" actually was? Perhaps clause 36 could be related to an early form of habeas corpus, but I'm reluctant to accept the intepretation of a Wikipedian who's already been shown to be somewhat inaccurate. --Merlinme (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

confirmatio merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I'm proposing merging this little sub-article into section 2.4.1. The Confirmation of the Charters article is a stub relating to an issue in the history of Magna Carta. It would save duplicating material by simplying merging. --Utinomen (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The other article is so short I agree there doesn't seem an awful lot of point keeping it separate. --Merlinme (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Momentous Discovery!

I have discovered that the vast swathes of unreferenced text are in fact lifted from this book: [7]

But according to one reviewer on Amazon uk [8] the book is lifted from - wait for it - wikipedia!

Here's a link with some info on the publishers [9]

Well. With that news I am going to re-edit. Rest assured I will be WP:Bold--Utinomen (talk) 01:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you're confusing causation. I assume a book was published which basically copied the Wikipedia article and then charged people for it. (I'm aware of at least one other example of this.) However I don't particularly object to you removing vast swathes of the later history, I've said before that I think there was far too much. I may re-edit a little for balance (you've very much given the view of the early 20th Century reaction against Magna Carta), but on the whole I think your edits are a great improvement.

One specific point: does the source you're quoting use the word "fraudulent" with regard to the traditional view of Magna Carta? That's a pretty emotive word. --Merlinme (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I've re-worded, based on your comments. He didn't hold it in high regard and called it a "venerable fraud" but not in the actual essay as far as I recall.--Utinomen (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes to later history

The new sections on later history are a vast improvement. I've made some minor edits. A few specific points:

• The distinction between "individual liberty" and "liberties" is probably rather obscure to most readers. As I understand it, "liberties" in the medieval period meant something like "granted concessions", e.g. "THE City of London shall have all the old Liberties and Customs which it hath been used to have". Does anyone have a reference for an explanation of "liberties"?
• "The judgement of 1387 confirmed the supremacy of the Royal Prerogative within the constitution" needs expansion (or possibly a link) as it doesn't make sense on its own. Most importantly, it needs to be explained why this is relevant to Magna Carta.
• I'm not sure what: "Charles I however, did not grant it as law and he was under no legal restriction" means (regarding the Petition of Right). Charles did approve it, apparently after advice it could not affect his prerogative. But presumably the Petition still became law, even if Charles didn't feel bound by it? --Merlinme (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The 1387 is Richard II's questions to the judges, whose answers effectively assured him that the King could do as he liked and that the Lords_Appellant were treasonous, which leads to Charles I who faced a similar problem and who as you indicate received much the same advice. The point I was trying to make was that the Kings were never "bound by the law" - that's why they had to keep overthrowing them instead! However, if its not clear I'm happy for you to re-edit.--Utinomen (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Pope annulled the confirmation of the charters?

Why? What effect (if any) did this have on how they were viewed, by the king and others? I think this needs to be expanded by a sentence or two. --Merlinme (talk) 07:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem with dates on this article

There is a problem with the dating in the first section of this document. I am not an avid historian so i will not correct them myself, but it doesn't make sense that they say the magna carta was signed in 1955. 86.23.9.254 (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That was vandalism that has been corrected. Some people sadly have nothing better to do. Ferrous55882 (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Better summary in the lede

One of the criteria for Good and Feature articles is that a clear, simple definition/synopsis/summary of the topic is expressed in the introduction. This is not the case with the MC. It's a huge article, and readers shouldn't have to read and absorb the entire thing before getting a basic understanding of the topic. 209.121.209.52 (talk) 07:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you want; the lead does its best to summarise a complex topic in five paragraphs, covering King John, the different charters, the effect on the Civil War and the US Constitution. If you have specific improvements which you wish to make, please do so. --Merlinme (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

magna carta

How did magna carta affect the criminal justice system —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.178.209 (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Rebellion and creation of the document

The third paragraph of this section begins: John prevaricated.

Prevaricate means to lie, to speak an untruth.

The rest of the paragraph does not seem to support this word. Is it possible that the word "procrastinated" is meant? Or something else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.134.141 (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

As I remember this was a paraphrase of the source. Prevaricate in this context means "3.Evasiveness as a means of playing for time; procrastination; hesitancy.", as defined on wiktionary: [10]. Or if you prefer a non Wiki source, Oxford says: "The verbs prevaricate and procrastinate have similar but not identical meanings. Prevaricate means‘ act or speak in an evasive way’, as in he prevaricated at the mention of money. Procrastinate, on the other hand, means‘ put off doing something’, as in the Western powers will procrastinate until it is too late. The meanings are closely related — if someone prevaricates they often also procrastinate — and this can give rise to confusion in use." [11] So, if we assume that the source wasn't just using the word incorrectly, the meaning is basically that John was being deliberately evasive, playing for time. He was hoping (for example) to get the Pope to intervene. After six months of negotiations though, the barons forced his hand. --Merlinme (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Which Magna Carta is in DC

I see no mention of this copy of the Magna Carta in D.C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.127.227 (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Shakespeare

In the article introduction, third paragraph, it states that "William Shakespeare created some of the words and also helped the King create it." This is historically impossible, as Shakespeare lived centuries later. For some reason, this sentence does not appear when one attempts to edit the document. What is the issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.78.62 (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

nevermind, was fixed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.78.62 (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Location of the Magna Carta

Good day,

I suggest that some additional information could be useful, if only to satisfy the curiosity of people like myself.

No mention is made of the existence of the original Magna Carta with the seal of John. If it does exist, where is it located?

There is a copy at the Cathedral in Salisbury, and a copy in the Parliament Buildings in Canberra, Australia. Are they the only copies still in existence? Is one of the them the original?

Just wondering about the status of the actual physical artifacts themselves.

I'll thank anyone who can provide that information.

Thanks for considering this request.

Cheers, Carl New Zealand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.62.95 (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/basics/basics.html

Go to the section 'Why is there more than one Magna Carta?'

109.154.240.229 (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

That section seems to have bene removed. User:Frankymole 00:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.94.78 (talk)

Carta or Charta?

Was it or is it ever called 'The Magna Charta'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.216.132 (talk) 06:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes it was, see Magna Carta#Usage of the definite article, spelling "Magna Carta". --Merlinme (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be added that in principle, charta is the normal spelling of the word in Latin (and ch is the normal rendering of Greek kh). The codified version "carta" is, I think, basically the result of the decay of spelling skills in medi(a)eval times. --91.148.130.233 (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

John prevaricated?

Regarding this edit; is it not fairly obvious to folks why starting a paragraph with the sentence "John prevaricated." is a bit silly? If not, allow me to explain -

1) "prevaricated" is odd language

2) Real sentences are generally longer than two words.

3) Articles should be written in formal, non-narrative tone.

4) The sentence doesn't seem to mean anything within the context of the paragraph.

All in all this is a pretty simple example of poor writing/English, and I see essentially no benefit in keeping it around. Are there any arguments to the contrary? NickCT (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I added the text, it's essentially a direct quote from the source I was using at the time. I'm perfectly persuadable that there is a better way to put it. However, I don't find any of your reasons particularly persuasive.

1) Why is it odd language? Because it's a rarely used word? This doesn't seem an incredibly strong reason to me.

2) Again, why is this a problem, exactly? It's a perfectly grammatically correct sentence; compare with the well-known example "Jesus wept."

3) I'm not an English language grammar expert, but it's not immediately obvious to me that this is narrative. It's a description of John's actions, which seems perfectly reasonable in this context.

4) A different version of this was "John played for time." The information that the sentence is trying to convey is that John is considered by some/ many historians to have not been negotiating in good faith; he was essentially stringing things out with the hope that the rebellion would fall apart and/or that the Pope's intervention would prove decisive.

If you can come up with a different way of phrasing this which imparts the information intended, I would be very glad to hear it; I really had no idea that this sentence would prove so problematic when I added it. --Merlinme (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Responses -

1) Because it's a rarely used word? - Yes. Wikipedia articles should be written in plan English as far as possible. "Prevaricate" isn't wildly difficult vocab, but it's up there on the list of tough words.

2) grammatically correct sentence - Lots of stuff which is "grammatically correct" is not good English or good writing style.

3) not immediately obvious to me that this is narrative - Anything that describes the personal actions of John (e.g. John ate some noodle soup) is narrative. Narrative is not always bad. It works in articles which describe discrete events (e.g. a famous robberies), but probably should appear in articles which are about things.

4) John is considered by some/ many historians to have not been negotiating in good faith - Is that supported by the source? Can you provide a quote from the source? I'm guessing the source did not use language like "John prevaricated."

I really had no idea that this sentence would prove so problematic - Hey, it's OK. We've all used crumby language before. One of the wonderful things about WP is that we can help each other produce clearer English. NickCT (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

In case I wasn't clear when I wrote "essentially a direct quote from the source I was using at the time", the source says "John prevaricated". I'm afraid I still therefore don't find any of your reasons persuasive. If you have a better way of saying the same thing, please let me know what it is; but please don't just delete this sentence. --Merlinme (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments. On the whole, I'm on the side of Merlinme. This passage is an account of events leading to the sealing of Magna Carta, so a narrative voice is the only one possible; and "John prevaricated" is perfectly good, and not particularly challenging, English (I think even David Cameron might cope with that one). On the other hand, I would agree that short, punchy two-word sentences are perhaps more appropriate for "dramatic" narratives than for neutral, dispassionate encyclopedia articles; and, given that this sentence is now revealed to be a direct but unattributed quote, there's also a side-issue of WP:COPYVIO (though, for only two words, not one that need cause us excessive concern). I'd suggest that the problem could be satisfactorily resolved with a colon: "John prevaricated: during negotiations between ...". If you still really don't like "prevaricated", what was the problem with "John played for time"? GrindtXX (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

@Merlinme - re I wasn't clear when I wrote "essentially a direct quote from the source I was using at the time" - Woops! Missed that. The source actually says "prevaricated"? Ok. Well, perhaps the source is poorly written. But listen, do you really think that two word sentence adds any value to the paragraph? I don't see how it adds any useful information. Why not just delete it?

@GrindtXX - re (I think even David Cameron might cope with that one) - Awww.... Poor Cameron. Remember it could be worse. You could be in the states where politicians generally stumble over words that contain more than three syllables.

re punchy two-word sentences are perhaps more appropriate for "dramatic" narratives than for neutral, dispassionate encyclopedia articles - I think that's really my main point. This language just strikes me as dramatically "unencyclopedic".

re what was the problem with "John played for time" - Again, it sort of strikes me a fruity, meaningless language. It seems to pose more questions than answers. Why did John play for time? How did he play for time? Until when did he play for time?

I'm not really going to push this, b/c an argument of this nature could very quickly risk getting WP:LAME, but I can pretty much guarantee you that if I'm finding this language a tad odd, a bunch of readers are going to as well. NickCT (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

NickCT, I think my main complaint with your approach is that I do not think you should not delete content for reasons of style. You should fix the style. I (and also now apparently GrindtXX) think the sentence conveys useful information, so if you have a problem with the way that the information is expressed, please suggest a better way; do not just delete it. Given the number of times that this sentence has been modified or deleted since I added it, I am more than happy to agree that people find it "odd", however that is not a reason for deleting; that is a reason for improving. (Also please try to avoid "unencyclopedic" as an argument, as it essentially means you think this shouldn't be in an encyclopedia, which we already knew.)

GrindtXX, originally the attribution was fairly clear, as there was one reference at the end of the paragraph to the source I was using, which was Danziger & Gillingham, 1215: The Year of Magna Carta, and I think it was pp.256–258, although I don't have a copy to hand. However the paragraphs and references were rearranged, making this rather less clear. I agree unattributed direct quotes are to be avoided, but it actually expresses extremely pithily the intended meaning.

Re: your two solutions, I think either 1) "John prevaricated:" or 2) "John played for time:" (with colons) work fine. "John played for time:" requires less knowledge of the English language (and in particular doesn't lead people to endlessly assume that what was actually meant was procrastinated, which although very close in meaning in this case, is not the same thing; procrastinated would suggest he was wasting time by being indecisive, prevaricated suggests he was quite deliberately wasting his enemies' time as a tactic. I don't really know why the "played for time" version was deleted. Possibly the language seemed too "colloquial" for an encyclopedia?

Perhaps "John played for time:" would be less likely to be deleted if it was immediately referenced to the correct page in Danziger & Gillingham? This would also fix the potential copy vio. Would everyone else be happy with that approach? --Merlinme (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Update: I've found the relevant part of Danziger & Gillingham; it's p. 258, and the sentence is actually "John played for time." So I assume my memory must have been faulty; I actually use "John prevaricated" to avoid a copy vio of using "John played for time".

If people want to look at the source, p. 258 can be seen using Amazon Look Inside, search for "golden age".--Merlinme (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I've rewritten the section after going back to the source. "Prevaricated" is no more! --Merlinme (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

"you should not delete content for reasons of style" - That depends on how stylistically deficient something is. When you reach a certain point, it's better to adopt a "Burn. Do not attempt repair" mentality.

avoid "unencyclopedic" as an argument - I was rephrasing my original opinion in response to Grind's punchy two-word sentences are perhaps more appropriate for "dramatic" narratives than for neutral, dispassionate encyclopedia articles comment, which was basically him saying the language was "unencyclopedic".

"adopting various expedients"?? Really? I think we may be struggling a bit with plain English. NickCT (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

SO CHANGE IT! For goodness' sake. This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, yes? I've even told you how to find the source. Please stop criticising without improving; I find it very wearing. --Merlinme (talk) 09:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

point of view

'i learnt the magna carta in school and it is very interesting' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.205.231 (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Magna Carta and women bishops

To what extent does the 'independence of the Church' clause affect any parliamentary attempt to impose women bishops on the Anglican Church? (As distinct from legislation enabling the process to happen) Jackiespeel (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Um, I would have thought you'd be better off asking a church law expert. The language in Magna Carta (which is still technically law) does seem pretty unambiguous, but then how would it interact with, say, sex discrimination law? A quick web search suggests that this is a real topic of debate; the priesthood was originally exempt from sex discrimination law because all single sex occupations were exempt, but clearly the priesthood is no longer single sex. See, for example: [12] But that same Guardian article on a 2009 parliamentary debate brings me to my second point: Is there any real suggestion that parliament is considering imposing anything on the Anglican Church? Parliament may not much like the outcome of the women bishops vote, but then neither did the Archbishop of Canterbury; I can't see any real appetite in getting into a legal power struggle with the Church over it.

The reporting of the 2009 debate suggests a fair amount of reluctance by parliament to get involved, however much they might berate from the sidelines. I would be staggered if parliament did anything other than exhort the Church to do what it considered "the right thing", especially as it seems almost certain that the measure on women bishops will be passed by the Church within the next five years anyway. --Merlinme (talk) 09:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe the government were quite quick to state, after the vote, that while they were disappointed with the result they didn't intend to legislate to overturn it (the "we'll see what happens in five years" part was probably silent) Andrew Gray (talk) 09:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

There was talk of imposing change, and no mention of the MC clause, so I wondered. And to what extent would 'Catholic Church then, and Henry VIII's repatriation of church authority to start what would become the Church of England' be used as an argument? 'An interesting discussion where the OR should be developed elsewhere and referred to from here' ? Jackiespeel (talk) 13:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

As is noted in the article, nearly all the other clauses in Magna Carta have been repealed by parliament, often because they were replaced by more up-to-date and specific legislation. If parliament tried to force the matter and the Church appealed to the courts and Magna Carta, I can imagine the Church winning round one, as lawyers place a lot of weight on Magna Carta. It could potentially create a bit of a constitutional crisis. However in practice where there has been a clear majority in parliament, especially in the Commons, in all the examples I can think of parliament has eventually got its way. There is no written constitution, and there are no clearly defined limits to parliament's power to create laws; the only reason the British system of checks and balances works at all is that a free press, independent judiciary, and occasionally rebellious backbenchers, lords and public, mean that in practice there are limits to how far a government is allowed to go in changing long-standing laws and precedents. Similarly in this case, the weight of tradition (including Magna Carta, if you like), is against parliament getting involved. And I imagine most of the electorate would view it as a massive distraction from sorting out the economy.

If the Anglican Church was refusing to take any steps, then that could get interesting; I can imagine a test case being brought using sex discrimination law, and if the judges ruled against the applicant on the grounds of Magna Carta, then possibly parliament would get involved, to clarify the Church's position in the modern UK. The Magna Carta clause does say the liberty of the Church is confirmed "for ever", however the rest of the clauses were supposed to stand "for ever" and in perpetuity as well, but I'm not aware (for example) of any obligation under modern English law for fines to not be so heavy as to deprive a man of his livelihood, and the right to a trial of lords by other lords was specifically abolished in 1948. If the relevant part of Magna Carta is repealed and replaced by more up-to-date legislation with clear majorities in both Houses and the support of the electorate, the new legislation saying (for example) that the Church is free but must abide by sexual discrimination and employment law, then the precedents seem pretty clear to me: clause 1 of Magna Carta can be repealed just like anything else.

In any case though, why would anyone want to get into a constitutional battle, when the Anglican Church is expected to change its policy in the next five years anyway? There was a clear majority in favour in all three Synod houses, however failing to reach the required 2/3 level in the laity. As I understand it, reversing six no votes or getting 12 no voters to abstain would change the result. Given the amount of pressure from politicians and bishops, I'd be startled if they couldn't find another six votes in five years' time.--Merlinme (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Female bishops will eventually happen (and there may well be a successor to The Vicar of Dibley involving the two Archbishops being married to each other).

Was MC invoked when Prime Ministers ceased being involved in the selection of bishops? Or in discussions about disestablishment? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Asking if there was anything on the topic/overlap is within WP's remit: to go any further into the subject is probably wandering into OR. ('Hint to "proverbial someone" to take it on.')

As the octo-centenary (is this the right word?) of its first issuing is coming up 'in the not too distant future' can development of the article ahead of time be suggested? Jackiespeel (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Exemplification / example?

The caption to the first image refers to "exemplifications", but should that not be "examples"? I suspect that it should be "examples", but professional historians might differ. --Wikiain (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

No, an exemplification is a technical term meaning a formally attested copy of a legal or other document. Maybe someone should write a wikipedia article about it. GrindtXX (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Exemplified copy? Road Wizard (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you - just seen this. --Wikiain (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

"Influences on later constitutions"

Should this section be removed, subject to possible eventual replacement? It is very poorly sourced and sorely misleading. As the Clark article makes clear, the significance of Magna Carta for Australia and New Zealand is merely symbolic - indeed, Australia is so far from following Magna Carta that it is the only western-style democracy without a national bill of rights. The 1922 ref for Canada is wildly out of date - there have been, after all, the Canadian Bill of Rights 1960 and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 1982, both of them applying throughout Canada. And the Union of South Africa, Southern Rhodesia??!! The final ref, to a broad and complex history, seems to be to just a couple of comments in an introduction. --Wikiain (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Picture of ABA monument

There must be better pictures available of the American Bar Association's monument. The current one appears to be just an artist's impression. ----Ehrenkater (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

an English translation of the original text

I came to this page in order to 'read the Magna Carta'. Instead I found myself 'reading about the Magna Carta'. I understand that the document has undergone frequent revision, and was originally written in Latin, but surely there is an English translation of the original text out there somewhere? It seems odd that this page refers to a bunch of clauses from the document, but no comprehensive list of clauses is available here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickJLByrne (talk • contribs) 12:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

There are several translations listed under External links, of which the soundest is probably the one from Fordham University here. There's also a text on Wikisource at s:Source Problems in English History/Appendix/Magna Carta. 1215. It isn't the most rivetting or accessible of reads, which is why the emphasis here is on interpretation rather than direct quotation. GrindtXX (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

....no more slanderiing or libel please

Did not the charter grant the Nobility immunity from slandering? The King could be tempted for cooking up a conspiration against a Nobleman. If so, I should assume that today's cases on gagging orders are a bi-product to the events of 1215. --85.165.30.220 (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The article lists all the clauses in all the charters; I'm not aware of anything about slander in any of them. Slandering the nobility was a high-risk occupation in the middle ages, as they would have retinues of fighting men and servants and others who owed allegiance to them who could be expected to defend their honour. I would imagine the chance of being beaten up would have been high. If you had powerful protectors yourself then it might end up in court, but the nobles had their own local manor courts and could afford to hire lawyers, so I can't imagine it would have gone particularly well there either, unless you were a noble yourself. Even if it was a case involving the King's law rather than the manor law, for example because someone had ended up seriously hurt, that depended enormously on the strength of the King and the courts of the time. The Paston family sent decades trying to secure their lands during the Wars of the Roses; more powerful local nobles were not averse to using force to evict them from lands they claimed, and unless you could interest the King or another powerful noble in your case then your options were very limited. Armed confrontations involving the death or serious injury were not unknown. Without very powerful friends, publicly slandering a noble would tend to rather curtail your prospects in the middle ages, and possibly curtail your life, regardless of what the law did or didn't say. --Merlinme (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Link for 'English Church'

Curious that the English Church is not wikilinked anywhere despite its mention in Clause 1. Clearly the Church of England as currently constituted didn't yet exist; but the Church then was clearly its forerunner. To link or not to link, that is the question. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Eslewhere, I think I've used Christianity in England as an option. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference formats etc

I have made a start on standardising the formatting of references adding publishers & isbns to book details & filling out bare URLs for web links. I have also identified quite a few deadlinks. Before I go too far with this process would anyone object to me using Template:Sfn to help readers navigate the sources particularly as some of the book and journal article sources are used multiple times?— Rod ^talk 10:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've had a go at tidying up references, but there are some outstanding issues:

• I've converted the comment about dates before 1752 into a note - not sure this is formatted properly
• There are mutliple deadlinks to web references (currently 7, 109, 110, 114, 116, 117, 120, 121, 125) and possibly more
• Current ref 87 just says Volume 6 1862 pV - any ideas what this refers to? removed
• I have moved books etc which are not cited in the text out of the bibliography into a "further reading" section - I'm not sure if these are needed?

Any help with these appreciated.— Rod ^talk 16:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Will take a look. I can probably clean up the text on the 13th-14th centuries tomorrow, as I've got the relevant works to hand here. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I've dealt with the deadlinks & added some refs.— Rod ^talk 22:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I've gone through and reused some material from the King John and Henry III articles, plus some other bits, and I think the initial sections are now looking more robust. I'll take a look at the 1216-1225 bits next. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

NB: footnote 98 is coming up as a "You do not have permission to access this document." error message when I click on the link... Hchc2009 (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Weird - I think it is the square brackets in the URL try [3AN-APPEAL-TO-THE-HOUSE-OF-COMMONS-1649-Diggers.pdf http://www.diggers.org/diggers-ENGLISH-1649/[3]AN-APPEAL-TO-THE-HOUSE-OF-COMMONS-1649-Diggers.pdf].— Rod ^talk 10:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Aaargh - I think it wiki software which interprets bit of the URL as being an attempt to put in a wikilink. Its also available here but I don't have a subscription for that one.— Rod ^talk 10:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Still not working on my machine... my main concern was whether the quote included the "viz" bit in the cited version? Hchc2009 (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I've sent an email to the webmaster of the Diggers site to see if he can help. Its obvuiously from a book (hopefully out of copyright) pages 301-312 but I'm having problems working out what the book is so we can cite the original. The "(viz. Magna Carta)" is in the orignal. I will attempt to email you the link.— Rod ^talk 10:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I've found a copy of the speech in a book on google books & changed the ref - however the specific page with the quote is not included in the online available version.— Rod ^talk 10:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The Linebaugh book has the quote (page 85).— Rod ^talk 10:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Cheers. NB: I'd be inclined to get rid of the further reading - they don't seem key works on the charters. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I've gone through and added some material on 1216 and 1217, using the Henry III of England article as a baseplate. Will do the 1225 and Edward I bits next. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

As suggested I've remove the further reading section. Putting it here in case anyone wants to reuse any of them:

• Butterfield, Herbert (1969). Magna Carta in the Historiography of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. University of Reading. ISBN 978-0901024015.
• Burton, Adams George (2013). Constitutional History of England. HardPress Publishing. ISBN 978-1313408707.
• Dickinson, J.C. (1965). The Great Charter. Historical Association.
• Jennings, Ivor (1965). Magna Carta: And Its Influence In The World Today. Private Publication.
• Lyon, Ann (2003). Constitutional History of the UK. Routledge-Cavendish. ISBN 978-1859417461.
• Williams, G; Ramsden, J. (1990). Ruling Britannia: Political History of Britain, 1688-1988. Longman. ISBN 978-0582490734.
• Royal letter promulgating the text of Magna Carta (1215), treasure 3 of the British Library displayed via The European Library
• Magna Carta in Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
• W. S. McKechnie; Magna Carta: A Commentary (2d ed. 1914, repr. 1960)
• A. Pallister; Magna Carta the Legacy of Liberty

Some would need further details adding if they are to be reused.— Rod ^talk 11:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Unable to reference quote The Barons, in fact, were amongst the greatest traitors that England ever produced

In the section on interpretation there is what appears to be a quote "At the popular level William Howitt in Cassell's Illustrated history of England would note that it was fiction that King John's Charter was the same Magna Carta as was on the statute books and stated that "The Barons, in fact, were amongst the greatest traitors that England ever produced” given as coming from William Howitt's writing in John Cassell's Illustrated history of England. I've been to The Google books version but can't find the quote. Can anyone help?— Rod ^talk 18:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It does sound like something out of Cassell, but, like you, I'm struggling to actually locate it. Wikisource has volume 1 (which I'd imagine it would be in) but only page by page, and it might not be in the obvious section. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Videos added to commons & ? section on 800th anniversary celebrations

Some videos have been added to the commons category for this article by User:Fae. In particular there is one about the plan to bring together the four surviving copies of the 1215 manuscript as part of the 2015 anniversary. This got me thinking should the article include a sub section about the activities (around the world as well as the British Library) planned for 2015?— Rod ^talk 12:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Some reference would sound justifiable; I'd be cautious (given recent-ism!) of giving it too much weight though. Would be good to link the video as part of that. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

OK could you take a look at a a draft at User:Rodw/sandbox and see whether that is undue weight?— Rod ^talk 12:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been cheeky, and proposed a shorter version on your sandbox; my thought process was that if we got the balance right, we'd probably want to retain the text pretty much sentence for sentence after the event, so my counter-proposal tries to stick to themes which I can imagine being key for the article in 2016 and beyond, looking back at the events in retrospect. That said, I'm usually pretty miserly about current events, so have probably swung too much the other way! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy with your alt version - shall I copy it across to the article? at the end?— Rod ^talk 19:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Definitely OK by me. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Tis done.— Rod ^talk 19:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

1225 section done...

...reusing some material from Henry III of England. I'll take a stab at Edward I and the 14th century sections next. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Bullet lists & tables

I've been trying to improve the accessibility of the tables (especially important for those using text to speech readers and the like) but I do wonder whether the multiple tables and bullet lists are necessarily the best way to present the content. In addition we have clauses of the Runnymede Charter in roman format (eg IX) in the first table and then numerals (eg 9) in the "clauses still in force" & four further unreferenced sections below it. Can we standardise on one of them and can anyone think of better ways to present the information (some of which may be duplicated) than bulleted lists?— Rod ^talk 19:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering if some form of textual explanation in regular paragraphs would be the best way to capture the main content, and then using a "collapsible" or "hidden" table to provide the bulleted point version beneath them for readers who are after the finer detail? Hchc2009 (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been going through the first list (Clauses in Runnymede Charter but not in later Charters) and adding refererneces - mostly from The Magna Carta Project from the University of East Anglia which has lots of other stuff which may be useful. I did notice that we have clauses 61,62 & 63 which the UEA project considers "suffixes". Anyone have other sources to resolve this?

The tables have been hiden but the bulleted lists of what was omited from later charters, although possibly useful for the study of later law development, may not be of interest (in their current form) to the more general reader.— Rod ^talk 10:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

What I was thinking of was something like this:

Clause	Description	1215	1216/1217	1225/1297	Still current
1	The freedom of the English Church	X	X	X	X
2	The regulation of feudal relief	X	X

...although I suspect that a good wiki-gnome could make something that looked nicer! This way all the bulleted lists could form a single, collapsible table; it is sortable so a reader could choose to look at it by clause, or by which charter contained which clause, etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Good idea - I've been thinking something similar - do we need a column for references or do we reference the textual description (possibly with the UEA ones I've been using). We don't have references for whether they were still in other charters.— Rod ^talk 12:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if I count as a wiki-gnome but will have a fiddle about in my sandbox and see what I can do.— Rod ^talk 12:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I've made a start (see User:Rodw/sandbox) but it gets complicated as the current article includes "Clauses in the 1225/1297 Charter but not in the Runnymede Charter" which don't fit into the list (should they be included in this article?) and some of the clause numbers change.— Rod ^talk 15:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I've got myself further confused with clause numbers as the version on legislation.gov.uk uses the 1297 clause numbers - I think this is going to take days to sort.— Rod ^talk 16:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I can probably sort this - I've now got a chapter in Claire Berry's "Magna Carta" book (the British Library volume) which does a compare and contrast of the clauses. If you're happy, I'll take what you've got so far and adapt it using that as a reference point? Hchc2009 (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I've just got back to this in my sandbox following a busy few days. I'm using: The UEA site, The word docs linked at the bottom of this page and the legislation page saying when clauses (1297 numbers) were repealed. If you can give me till the end of this evening I will make sure what I've done so far is fully referenced etc. Do you think we need the 1216/1217 column - as it doesn't provide much more info?— Rod ^talk 16:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Cheers! Historically some of what got taken out that year is quite important, although they are quite similar in most respects. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Right I think I've got about as far as I can with this (very messy particularly near the end). Over to you - happy for you to work on it in my sandbox or take it somewhere else.— Rod ^talk 17:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, will take a look. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Melrose Chronicle & tapestry version of this article

According to this article in today's Guardian the Chronicle of Melrose provides detail of the events around the negotiations which lead tothe M<agna Carta in 1215 - should this be included? It also says "a 13-metre long tapestry replicating Magna Carta’s Wikipedia page as it appeared in June this year. It will be stitched by over 200 people who have an association with Magna Carta including lawyers, prisoners, civil rights campaigners, politicians and barons. Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, has also agreed to do some stitching." I wonder which date version of the article is to be attempted and how many issues with that version will be immortalised?— Rod ^talk 18:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... the problem is that the Guardian's article's a bit vague about the interpretation and what the "so-what" is, particularly since it uses the phrase "whatever the true story" at one point! I'd be inclined to wait for David Carpenter's new book on Magna Carta, due out in January and I think making use of the research done during 2014, and the new edition of Holts, due out shortly afterwards, and see what they make of it. Hopefully someone will take a Creative Commons compliant photograph of the new tapestry! ;) Hchc2009 (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

NB: the bit about the civil servant is described in Nicholas Vincent's book from last year, I've been meaning to add that in... Hchc2009 (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The tapestry will be the version as of summer 2014 - the 799th anniversary, I believe. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - presumably it will be this version then.— Rod ^talk 21:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

No warning templates, at least! (By the way, did you get my email last week?) Andrew Gray (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

If that was addressed to me - then no.— Rod ^talk 20:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

How odd; resent through the WP interface. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Got it now. I suggest adding the info re BL copyright here. Also there is another source here. The story will be in the next Signpost "In the Media" section see draft here.— Rod ^talk 07:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

BL Magna Carta pages

Hi all,

I've recently noticed that the British Library's longer Magna Carta articles are all marked as CC-BY and so may be useful to reuse in parts if needed. There are currently five - translation, introduction, context, people/society, & timeline.

Of these, the most useful may be the translation - the one currently on Wikisource is from 1915, and is in a more stilted English than the version here, which glosses some now-archaic terms (eg 'disparagement' in c.6). The quotation marks around some terms are a little jarring, but can easily be removed if desired! Andrew Gray (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I had a look through the other day when I was making use of the images they'd recently released, but I couldn't see much new in them - but definite kudos to the BL for releasing them under the CC-BY license! 07:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

isbn check help

The bibliography contains Warren, W. Lewis (1991). King John. London, UK: Methuen. ISBN 978-0-413-45520-3 Check |isbn= value (help). I can't find a 1991 publication which fits this to sort the isbn error out. I can see a 1997 book with this author & title but a different isbn. Can anyone help?— Rod ^talk 08:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Fixed it was a 1990 2nd edition not 1991.— Rod ^talk 09:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Anniversary of signing

This article from the Observer points out that it will be the 800th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta next year (15 June 2015) and suggests there will be various TV and radio programmes (and books etc) to coincide with the significant date. I note this article regularly gets 150,000+ page views per month and this is likely to increase. Would it be worth trying to get a collaboration going to get it to at least GA or even FA standard before the anniversary?— Rod ^talk 18:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

In principle yes, although there are some specialist recent works I think we'd need to cover the current literature and to get the balance righ. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I've added the revised lead that you've helped to edit, and updated the infobox slightly. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The Magna Carta wasn't signed, it was sealed. Luan Hanratty (talk) 12:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

That would be an interesting DYK to use. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Penny image

The image captioned "silver John penny" appears in History of the English penny (1154–1485) as a "Henry III penny", and it is inscribed "HENRICUS REX". That article explains that Henry II pennies, inscribed "HENRICUS REX", continued to be issued by Richard I, by John and by Edward I. In which case, is this coin correctly described as a "John" penny? Or is the other article mistaken in describing it as a "Henry III penny"? Citation needed. An image of this type of penny appears here as a John penny - a better preserved example, looking less sheepish. Wikiain (talk)

The short cross currency was struck under Henry II, Richard I, John and initially by Edward I, as you say, with "Henricus" on it, as they failed to alter the dies. Within this grouping, you then typically get approximately 8 different "classes", each with a typical date range and some variation over the period they were issued, partially generated by the 21 different mints who stamped the coin. Identifying the age of a specific coin from this period depends on combining the various options and clues.

The source of the image on the Commons was the original photographer and full-time numismatic Rasiel Suarez; the source link from the Commons gives Suarez's fairly detailed analysis that the coin is "a transitional issue closer to the demarcation line between classes 5 and 6, circa 1209". I'm not a numismatic (!), but Richard Kelleher (the Fitzwilliam) and Barrie Cook (the British Museum)'s guide to the British medieval currency has some useful sample photographs of each of the classes, and it does look much more like a class 5 (1204-9) than any other.

I'd be inclined to go with Suarez's analysis as per the Commons description. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks here and for correcting the other article. Wikiain (talk)

No problem. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

New article

This article appeared in yesterdays Guardian - possibly just promotion for David Carpenters book but might be something worth using.— Rod ^talk 10:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Definitely - I'm looking forward to reading it! Hchc2009 (talk) 10:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

BBC programmes on Magna Carta

A press release on 800th anniversary programmes is at [13], starting with a Melvyn Bragg Radio 4 series in week from 5 January. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I did add it, as it's now being broadcast, but it's been removed as "recentism" (see below). Martinevans123 (talk) 08:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Background

What a great article - well done - but is there space in the background section to mention the meetings of barons and clergy in St Albans in 2013 and Bury St Edmunds in 2014 where various preliminary documents were drafted, the decisive French victory at the Battle of Bouvines in 2014, and the occupation of London by the Barons earlier in 2015? The loss of John's land in France, and then the loss of London, put him in a very difficult position. See for example http://magnacarta800th.com/history-of-the-magna-carta/battles/pre-magna-carta/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.43 (talk) 09:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm assume you mean 1213/1214/1215? ;) My opinion would be that the background is probably long enough as it is - it does cover the failure of the 1214 campaign etc. The 1213 events don't get as much prominence in the academic literature as they do on that particular website, and I'd be inclined to argue don't need special mention. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I meant the 13th century! I suppose I was just looking for a bit more clarity on why events came to a head in 1215. The article mentions the 1214 military campaign in France, for example, but the unlinked Battle of Bouvines was the critical event there, surely. There is also lower down an oblique reference to celebrating the 800th anniversary of the 1214 meeting in Bury St Edmunds. There were also celebrations in St Albans in 2013, incidentally (some sources describe that meeting in 1213 as the first where representatives were summoned from across the whole of England - that is, an early Parliament).

Another background factor, only mentioned obliquely, was the papal interdict that was only lifted in 1213. Stephen Langton only returned to England at that time, and seems to have quickly become a prime mover in advocating a return to Henry I's coronation charter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.43 (talk) 09:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I suspect this comment is prompted by the Radio 4 programmes on Magna Carta, fronted by Melvyn Bragg being transmitted this week "The Aftermath of Runnymede" (see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04wwcnm which may not be available to those outside the UK) in which the Papal bull was given some prominence (11.00-13.00). The programme also highlighted (from David Carpenter's new book) new findings that one of the British Library copies was originally at Canterbury Cathedral, (03.30-03.45) which may be worth including in the article.— Rod ^talk 20:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I notice the programme was added and removed from the article, the bit I thought might be worth adding, perhaps in the 1215 exemplifications section was the finding that one of the BL copies was originally at Canterbury.— Rod ^talk 07:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a great deal of detail in the three programmes that I've heard so far, that does not appear here. That was my motivation for adding. They are available at BBC iPlayer for the next year. I don't think the Magna Carta gets three hours of BBC coverage very often. I guess it would be more suited to a "popular culture" section, but we all know how popular they are. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

"Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain? [laughter] … a brave Hungarian peasant girl, she forced King John to sign the pledge at Runnymede and close the boozers at half past ten." Martinevans123 (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hancock at his best! ;) Let's get a copy of Carpenter's new volume and cover the Canterbury bit - it sounds really interesting. I'm still not convinced that the radio programme is really notable (in ten years time, will it really be a key part of Magna Carta history?) but consensus may go the other way of course! Hchc2009 (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess 800 years of history makes a lot of things more prone to "recentism"! Would an external link to the Radio 4 series be more acceptable? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd be entirely supportive of an external link if it contains information not in the article. :) Hchc2009 (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd thoroughly recommend you have a listen, some time in the next year, if you can. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Baldwin, 1935

It seems that Michael Portillo also did a programme for Radio 4, about the Magna Carta, back in 2006, as part of their series The Things We Forgot to Remember. Here's a transcript: [14]. He mentioned the Stanley Baldwin 1935 quote, as did Bragg in this week's programmes. I think Baldwin's reference might be worthy of note:

"Magna Carta is the Law: Let the King look out."

"So it has always been with tyrants among our own people: when the King was tyrant, let him look out. And it has always been the same, and will be the same, whether the tyrant be the Barons, whether the tyrant be the Church, whether he be demagogue or dictator — let them look out." (Speech at Westminster Hall (4 July 1935); published in This Torch of Freedom: Speeches and Addresses (1935), p. 4.)

The quote also appears here. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits; different clause numbers

A lot of good work has been done on this while I've been otherwise engaged, thank you to those who've been working on it. I've made some relatively minor edits to clarify various points. My single biggest comment is to be careful that you do not confuse the 1215 clauses with the 1297 clauses. This causes endless confusion, and although I've made some short edits in the article to clarify this it could perhaps be spelled out in more detail. It's the 1297 version which is on the statute book, therefore it is probably more correct to use the numbering system from the 1297 statute when saying which clauses are still in force. I think in the previous version of the article I gave the clause numbers from both versions, and I may make that change again now, as invariably otherwise editors ended up changing the 1297 clauses to the 1215 clauses, which is not strictly correct if you're talking about the statute. --Merlinme (talk) 11:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a difficult one. There's a subset of legal literature which clearly prefers the 1297 clauses, because of that statute issue, whereas most of the medieval historical literature works off the 1215 clauses, as most of the history of the charter is pre-1297. Breay was the only writer I could find who did an explicit "what was included in what charter" comparison (else we're into original research pretty quickly). If we can ensure that the chart of clauses remains suitably referenced and avoids OR, I'd support including both 1215 and 1297 clauses; I'd also be keen that we keep it fairly readable/simple - I'll admit to finding the old listing rather hard to comprehend! Hchc2009 (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The old table was rather hard to follow, although that is mainly because it's quite a hard problem to solve, when there are multiple similar but not identical versions of the text, with different numbering systems, and you're trying to clarify what is in which version. I don't mind the new version, I think it's probably as detailed as Wikipedia needs. Doing a direct comparison of the 1215 and 1297 versions would also be fine. If you're using the 1297 clauses you can use the statute database to clarify exactly which act repealed which clauses.

I do think we need to be as clear as possible when referring to the "clauses still in force" however. The clauses are quoted in full from the UK statute database, which is available online (and referenced in the text). I would therefore argue strongly that we should use the numbering system given in the UK statute. It's not even strictly correct to say the "due process clause" is clause 39 from the 1215 charter, as it's actually clauses 39 + 40 (if you use the standard numbering system). If you were using the 1215 clauses you should therefore say that there are four clauses still in effect. Some sources do in fact state that four clauses of Magna Carta remain in effect. When referring to the current law I would prefer to stick to the 1297 statute though, as long as we're clear on the differences. --Merlinme (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Cheers. Ensuring that clarity sounds sensible. Would it be easier perhaps then to have two collapsible tables; one with the 1215 clauses, what they covered and whether they were in later charters, and one with the 1297 clauses, and whether/when they were repealed? Hchc2009 (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Um... If anyone has the energy you could try to do one table for 1215 and one 1225/1297. This is what the older version of the article attempted to do by having a "1225 clause" column and a "Runnymede Charter" column. See e.g. [15]. Search for "Repeal of articles".

It's a can of worms though, because some of the 1215 clauses eventually formed part of what became known as the Charter of the Forest. The older version of the article ended up with three different sections, one for 1215 clauses, one for 1215 clauses included in 1216/17, and one for 1215 clauses included in 1225/1297. Does anyone have appetite for three collapsible tables? I'm really not sure this level of detail is necessary in Wikipedia. I guess it wouldn't be seen by most people, but that actually makes the problem of verifiability etc. worse. You don't have "many eyes" on the problem because most eyes don't see that part of the article.

Also, the 1215 document didn't originally have clauses, and it's mildly complicated, controversial even, exactly how you relate some of the sections to what ended up in English law. The 1215 document is almost worthy of a separate article in its own right, as it contains large chunks which never made it into the version which became statute.

Really there are (at least) two separate documents, the somewhat revolutionary 1215 document which the barons used to attempt to control King John, and the rather toned down 1225 document which became a somewhat vague statement that the king was bound by the law, and was added to the statute books in 1297. --Merlinme (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

"Undue weight"?

I see that the Magna Carta is mentioned at Weights and Measures Act. Should mention be made of that subject in this article? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the (hidden) table of clauses "35 Ordered the establishment of standard measures for wine, ale, corn and cloth. Repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1948.[271]".— Rod ^talk 17:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Rod. I think it may be widely recognised as the first attempt to bring in a single unified system of weights and measures in England? And it did last for 733 years! There is a lot of useful detail at the Magna Carta Project. In fact, although this site is used as a source ref twice in the article, I'm very surprised it's not given as an external link. It has a vast amount of information presented very clearly. "...the Clause spoke of uniformity, something that English kings had been trying to impose since well before the Norman Conquest". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Whig interpretation of history

I'm confused by this sentence: "The Glorious Revolution reinforced the century's ideological interpretations of history, which would later become known as the Whig interpretation of history." The Glorious Revolution took place in the 17th century, so perhaps "the century's ideological interpretations of history" means "the 17th century's interpretations of history". But the interpretations of history concerned are more associated, as far as I'm aware, with the 18th century. I suppose the 17th century is what is meant in the sentence, since that is what the preceding material in the section is talking about, but could we say something more precise and transparent here?

For example, if the following is actually true it would read a bit better and segue more straightforwardly into what follows: "The Glorious Revolution reinforced the 17th century's ideological interpretations of history. During the following century, these developed and consolidated into what later became known as the Whig interpretation of history." Or if something else is intended, could it be made clearer? Metamagician3000 (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I've rewritten somewhat to get closer to the source. Large chunks of this article are written in a style which contains detail which is broadly accurate but where I don't entirely agree with the slant. For example, the Whig interpretation of history treats the Glorious Revolution as a Jolly Good Thing. However the article has to date been somewhat confusing the 17th century interpretations of history with the Whig interpretation of history. Clearly if there were interpretations, plural, of history then the Whig interpretation is not the only one. --Merlinme (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

What else before a GA nomination

What else do people think is needed to get the article to meet the Good article criteria? I have spotted:

• In "Great Charter of 1225" I am unclear about William Brewer (who argued with Archbishop Langton). Was this William Brewer (justice) or his nephew William Briwere?
• In "Great Charter 1297: Statute" there is a quote "Constitutionally, the Magna Carta of Edward I is the most important" without any attribution or explanation as to why this might be the case.
• In "14th-15th centuries" I didn't quite understand "The judgement of 1387 confirmed the supremacy..." is this a specific judgement and if so which one? or should this be a more general "A judgement..."?
• I've put a clarify tag on the Glorious Revolution paragraph for the sentences about the Triennial Acts and Septennial Act 1716 as I'm having working out the significance of these or even just understanding the prose.

Any help with any of those would be appreciated. Can anyone spot any other issues?— Rod ^talk 11:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts from me...

The late 14th-century-15th century elements need a workover; I can probably help with that over this weekend.

The Glorious Revolution needs a copyedit and a check against the academic sources.

The Use in North America similarly needs a copyedit and a check against academic sources.

I think there's a bit of material missing on the repeals, but I haven't found a suitable legal history of this yet.

The later exemplifications section needs a copyedit, and I think there's some info on the numbers of the exemplifications in circulation we could add. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I've asked for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests but if anyone else takes it on before they get around to it, we can always remove the request.— Rod ^talk 18:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

At Rodw's request, I gave this a copyedit over this past week. I was somewhat daunted by the size/scope of the article, but it was really in very good shape. A couple of comments:

• I agree that the Later exemplifications section could use a little wordsmithing, but I haven't been struck by inspiration there yet. The Rubenstein quote ("thought it was very important that the Magna Carta stay in the United States") in particular is strange; I would suggest instead his "I have always believed that this was an important document to our country, even though it wasn't drafted in our country. I think it was the basis for the Declaration of Independence and the basis for the Constitution." or his description of it as"[one of the] three most important documents in Western civilization" along with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
• The definite article ("the Magna Carta") is used several places, and repeatedly in the Use in North America section. This reads as inconsistency within the context of the article (even though that is definitely how we refer to it here). I hesitated to change it in case it was intentional, though.

I did not review sources (so I haven't checked for verifiability or close paraphrasing), but the prose, images, formatting, and citations are certainly in line with good article standards. Good work! Maralia (talk) 07:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for all your copyediting on this article. The change to the Rubenstein quote seems reasonable to me - what do others think? The use of the definate article has been an ongoing issue and may have been changed in the North America section because of local usage. I think it should probably be made consistent with the rest of the article. The request I put in for the article to copyedited at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests is now number 10 in the list (with several above it already being worked on) but in the light of your effort I could remove that request as no longer needed. I think the article could be nominated now at Wikipedia:Good article nominations as meeting the Wikipedia:Good article criteria what do others think?— Rod ^talk 20:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll echo Rod's thanks for the copy-editing - great work! I also agree about the consistency point. On the Rubenstein, I'd prefer the second quote, as it explains why he wanted to purchase it; the third feels like his personal view, which isn't of huge significance. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

As there have been no further comments I have changed the Rubenstein quote as discussed above. I have also standardised on "Magna Carta" rather than "The Magna Carta", except where it is in direct quotes or references (eg book titles). I still have a couple or outstanding issues:

• In "Great Charter of 1225" I am unclear about William Brewer (who argued with Archbishop Langton). Was this William Brewer (justice) or his nephew William Briwere?
• In "Great Charter 1297: Statute" there is a quote "Constitutionally, the Magna Carta of Edward I is the most important" without any attribution or explanation as to why this might be the case.
• In "14th-15th centuries" I didn't quite understand "The judgement of 1387 confirmed the supremacy..." is this a specific judgement and if so which one? or should this be a more general "A judgement..."?

If anyone could help with these that would be great otherwise I think this more than meets the Good article criteria,— Rod ^talk 09:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

As to your question about the 1297 Charter, Rod, the source just goes on to list the bits of it that are still in force. One might take this to imply that the 1297 Charter is constitutionally the most important because it is the one that remained in force - but it isn't altogether clear that this is what is meant, or all that is meant. Maybe just take the quotation and the reference out. Halsbury is reliable, but sketchy and possibly at umpteenth hand. Wikiain (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

From memory, the second and third sentences were added by a no longer active editor who added quite large worthwhile chunks to the article but was occasionally somewhat prone to point of view pushing. In general he argued (without necessarily close backing from the sources) that the 1215 charter was almost irrelevant, that only the version which was on the statute book (1225 as written down in 1297) was relevant; even with the 1297 version, Magna Carta was not particularly important and could always be overridden by the reigning monarch or government. He also tended to argue that King John was ok really and that the barons were traitors.

All these points have some validity but he tended to argue them to the exclusion of other views, probably beyond the sources, and almost certainly into the realms of undue weight.

That's the background; in the case of these particular sentences, I would argue that the intention is to say that the 1297 version is "constitutionally most important" because that's the version which is on the statute book. This is true as far as English law goes, however it perhaps ignores the historical significance of the 1215 charter. Whichever way this is argued, in a Good article it should be attributed to a good source. Alternatively this could just be deleted.

"The judgement of 1387 confirmed the supremacy..." is another interesting example of rather going beyond the source. I've looked up the ISBN on google books, the only reference to 1387 is on p. 127: [16] It says, basically, that Richard II of England asked for a legal opinion on the royal prerogative, in an attempt to free himself from a baronial committee which had been set-up while he was under age. The source says, however: "The judges' replies rank among the boldest statements of the royal prerogative ever made in medieval England. After this judicial endorsement, references to the royal prerogative, rarely encountered earlier, occurred frequently, and promoters of royal sovereignty would confront Magna Carta's principle of the subjection of the king to the law." Note, the source specifically emphasises that this legal opinion was exceptional. It also says that promoters of royal sovereignty would confront Magna Carta. In other words, people argued about it. It does not say that the judgement "confirmed the supremacy of the royal prerogative", which is what the Wikipedia article currently says. I'll try to tidy this up now.

In general, confirming sources is one of my specialities on Wikipedia, so if anyone has come across any other statements in this article which seem dubious or unsupported by other sources which they're aware of and would like me to verify a source, I'm more than happy to do so. --Merlinme (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: William Brewer, based on wikisources: [17]I believe it should be William Brewer (justice). E.g. "when in January 1223 Archbishop Langton and the lords demanded that Henry, who was then holding his Christmas festival at Oxford, should confirm the great charter, Brewer answered for the king, and said: 'The liberties you ask for ought not to be observed; for they were extorted by force.' Indignant at this declaration, the archbishop rebuked him. 'William,' he said, 'if you loved the king you would not disturb the peace of the kingdom.'" I'll link it accordingly. --Merlinme (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)