Talk:Robin Hood

Archives
1. Wikipedia:Peer review/Robin Hood/Archive1
2. Talk:Robin Hood/Archive2

What was archived

1 Was he really a Yorkshireman? 2 Objectivism 3 Minor POV Issue 4 When Things were Rotten 5 "Ken" 6 Pictures from the Walt Disney film 7 Robin Hood film 1908 8 Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves 9 neo-Pagan reinterpretations of Robin Hood 10 Tax collector passage 11 Locations edit by 80.47.185.51 12 Robin Hood Remake 13 Monty Python 14 Once and Future King 15 Meaning of "merry" 16 Wakefield edits, etc. 17 Size 18 Hai Yue Han 19 The poor and tradition 20 Who did he steal from? 21 Rabbie Hood 22 Any place for description of "standard modern legend"? 23 Palimpsest? 24 'Popular Culture' 25 Swearing 26 Robin Hood in Stretford? 27 Fictional Foxes 28 Peer review 29 Very Minor Edits 30 Manuscript of A Geste of Robyn Hode

This article

I checked the history of this article in order to find the main contributors to this article. There is too much variety in the amount of users contributing, with many anonymous users also doing their share. This article has the best written flow that I have ever read on Wiki. How can it be assessed as B-class only? It should be at least GA-class with good opportunities to get promoted to A-class and then perhaps FA. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article is exceptionally well-written. That said, we still need to go throught the article and make sure that statements without citation are tagged, and that tagged statements that have been sitting there for a while get removed as uncited. We cannot pursue GA status with problems that glaring. If you (or anyone else) are concerned that the statements you remove are important (always err on the side of caution here), port them over here before removing them from the article. That way, if they actually can be cited, they can be insterted back into the article. Make sure to provide the diff where they were removed, so that people can see where the statements originally were. I willprovide an example immediately after this post.

After that, we can pursue getting the article to GA status. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Peer Re-Review

The article is rather spiffy and, with the last removal of uncited statements, I have resubmitted the article for a peer review to help us catch any problems we might be missing. If we pass that,I will nominate the article for GA. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed uncited info

The following:

Libertarians and Classic Liberals have interpreted Robin Hood as a liberty-seeking anti-government independent. In this phrasing, the power structure of the Sheriff and Prince John are representative of the government, while Robin Hood and the Merry Men are the rebellious everymen, with Friar Tuck as an ambivalent Church. Robin Hood returns taxes, confiscated goods and private property to their rightful owners, the common individual citizen in this reading. Those on the Left in turn have taken the opposing view of seeing Robin as the defender of the poor against the rich, "robbing from the rich to give to the poor" being seen as the classic socialist position.

and

Maid Marian, for instance, something of a warrior maiden in early Victorian novels, was reduced in demeanor to passivity during the period of the women's suffrage movement. As the media power of the modern feminist movement gathered momentum, Marian reacquired an altogether more active role.

was removed here due to lack of cited references. If you can cite them, please do. They cannot return to the article without them. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Other Possible Relative Source

(Wiki-noobie here, so please 'scuse the Wiki-imperfections...) There is a traditional (Scottish?) folk tune titled "Henry Martin", sung/recorded by many & notably Figgy Duff, which I understand to possibly be the inspiration to the R.Hood story. As of yet, there is nothing on Wiki regarding this song, but I understand this to be relative ... so I'm leaving this note here to see if this can get looked into and/or the ball rolling by someone who knows better as to how to approach this here on Wiki. This may be a rather important part of the R.Hood story's history. If you care to kindly message me about this, please do -- if you're going to send something scathing, don't bother.

GA Review

I feel that this article satisfactorily meets the GA criteria:

• It is well written
• It has many references
• It has good prose
• It incorporates good images to support text
• It is both stable and neutral

I have therefore decided to pass it. Congratulations. Any questions should be directed to my talk page. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Date of Birth?

Maybe this was discussed before, but can we really have a definitive data of birth given so prominently for a personage who is quite possibly/probably only a mythological hero? The date given, if I recall, was mentioned only once in one of the shorter and more obscure ballads. I would propose removing the date of birth from after the name in the first line. Its possible a later section could be added about that date as the traditional date of birth, but to have it in the first line without any question marks or other indicators of questionable authority gives it too much credence that I don't think we have the evidence to back up. 24.180.153.59 05:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You are corect. I've marked it with a cn tag, letting people know that some proof needs to be presented here within 14 days, it will be removed as uncited. Good catch. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a manuscript of the Gest?

This is to explain my edit of the Gest section, including the addition of the reference to Ohlgren's book. While several very reputable sources, including Holt, do say that there is a manuscript of the Gest, none cite one. There is in I think the Bodleian, Oxford a later manuscript, but both Ohlgren and Knight are emphatic that the printed editions - both Wynkyn de Worde's and the Lettersneijder (sp?) edition in the National Library of Scotland are much earlier. I tried to make this claim a few months ago, but got distracted until today, when I looked at Ohlgren's new book - mostly a collection of previously-published essays, some of which you can get from his website, but some new and important work as well. I don't think any other scholar working on Robin Hood today has his authority on textual issues. Besides, and as I said before, where is this manuscript supposed to be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.54.168 (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Maybe you should take a look around for it - maybe its stuck between the cushions of an old sofa or something... ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Traditionally, you snatch it out of the hand of someone who's trying to start a fire with it!