RJensen
Forum Communicator
Posts: 191
|
 |
« on: September 08, 2007, 06:44:20 AM » |
|
The [[Richard III]] article is, in my opinion, unencyclopedic and polemical. The author has not been active in any other article in CZ. I've moved the article to the talk page --what should we do with it?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Aleta Curry
|
|
« Reply #1 on: September 08, 2007, 05:24:05 PM » |
|
Okay, yes, that's a biased essay. I've nothing against biased essays, but I do agree they shouldn't as encyclopaedia articles.
This is a good case in point for why articles should be started in draft space.
But what to do? Well, having all that diatribe on the TALK page is too much for me--I find it very annoying to page down to actually get to a place where I could comment. Deleting it does not seem fair to the O/A, but I agree that it shouldn't be on the main page either.
Can we make an archive page for it, or simply put it at Richard III/Draft or Richard III/Draft I?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Derek Harkness
|
|
« Reply #2 on: September 08, 2007, 08:15:27 PM » |
|
I think Richard, as editor, the decision falls to you. You need to choose whither the article can be rescued or should be restarted a fresh. It's the editors decision on this one.
My own opinion, I could go either way. I had started down the line of cleaning it up, but if you think it would be better started a fresh, I'd go with that too. (though my knowledge of this King is limited to what I read in Shakespeare so I won't be able to help much with a rewrite.)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Matt Innis
Administrator
Forum Regular
Posts: 844
|
|
« Reply #3 on: September 08, 2007, 09:34:34 PM » |
|
Speedy delete with editor's request.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Aleta Curry
|
|
« Reply #4 on: September 08, 2007, 10:17:02 PM » |
|
Speedy delete with editor's request.
Ouch! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Todd Coles
New Arrival
Posts: 33
|
|
« Reply #5 on: September 09, 2007, 07:58:55 PM » |
|
Denis Cavanagh did a good job on Edward I, this might be something he can try to salvage.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RJensen
Forum Communicator
Posts: 191
|
|
« Reply #6 on: September 09, 2007, 09:25:42 PM » |
|
Richard III was a minor king of England with a short reign. The odd think is that he generates this 20th century controversy. A discussion of the controversy would be more interesting than a discussion of the king (who reigned two years and did little except incite rebellions against him).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RJensen
Forum Communicator
Posts: 191
|
|
« Reply #7 on: September 09, 2007, 11:41:27 PM » |
|
the article insists Richard III had to kill all those traitors and the little princes to maintain his legitimacy. I think we have to kill this polemic to maintain out legitimacy as a serious encyclopedia rather than a vehicle for hobby horse history.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Derek Harkness
|
|
« Reply #8 on: September 10, 2007, 08:20:06 AM » |
|
Although Richards rein was short, he is a pivotal point in English history. The last Plantagenet of the house of York he is caught up in the end stages of the Wars of the Roses. It's a tail of how things can so quickly turn from good to bad. It's also the key to understanding how the house of Tudor ended up on the throne. You can skip many of the kings from the Wars of the Roses period, but you have to include Richard III in the story somewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Matt Innis
Administrator
Forum Regular
Posts: 844
|
|
« Reply #9 on: September 10, 2007, 09:46:26 PM » |
|
I'm not saying delete any article on Richard III, just this article. If a history editor thinks it is beyond saving and easier to start over and no other history editor comes to its rescue, then palce the speedy delete tag on it and state that the editor wants it deleted. A constable will delete it. The other option is to rewrite it starting from this article and changing it to the point that it is no longer the same article anyway. We can always start another Richard III article.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
