Talk:Robin Hood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Robin Hood has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
Archive
Archives
1. Wikipedia:Peer review/Robin Hood/archive1
2. Talk:Robin Hood/Archive2


Contents

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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 DissidentTalk 09:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] The story

What's today most accepted story? E.g. He is an outlaw living in the woods with his Merry Men...--200.125.34.244 19:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you reliably cite that, pls? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know which novel featured Robin Hood hiding with dwarfs in their holes while an outlaw, and which ends with Sir Robin fighting the Evil Horde after they kill his wife, Marian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.34.0 (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No, but I definitely want to read it! (Jeremy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.25.18 (talk) 05:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Fulk FitzWarin"

This does not belong in the intro, incredibly obscure and tedious links in the overall story of Robin Hood, no historical documentary or work on Robin Hood mentions him as being a prime candidate for Robin Hood. If he has a similar story, then that belongs in his own article, not the opening paragraph of this one. A google search reveals this...
"Robin Hood" - 2,610,000
"Fulk FitzWarin" and "Robin Hood" - 777 (most of which are mirror websites, copying this article, or the one on FitzWarin)
There we have it, if its added back to the intro, it shall be swiftly removed, thank you. - Yorkshirian 10:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, somebody added it back. I'll reiterate, there is no where which suggests that FitzWarin was Hood, he was just one of numerous characters with a similar story. "Fulk FitzWarin is Robin Hood" gets a grand total of ZERO results on Google and non of the books, documentaries or article on Hood that I have read mention FitzWarin as being relevent enough to hold such a place in this article. Mentioning him in the opening, is the equivelent of going to Tony Blair's article and writing "the story of Blair is incredibly similar to that of Margret Thatcher, they are politicians from Britain". It has no WP:Notability to it. - Yorkshirian 13:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I am the editor who added it back in, Yorkshirian, and while you are new, it is vitally important for you to assume good faith regarding the edits of your fellows, and not characterize edits as vandalism which appear to simply be expressions of opinions other than your own. Charges of vandalism (n matter how politely expressed, and you are indeed polite) are pretty serious, and can lead to someone getting blocked or banned by an admin not paying close attention, and should be reserved for those people adding contentious, attack-y, or flat-out stupid information (ie, 'your Mom is teh<sic> best'). My edit, which reverted yours, attempted to preserve information that had not adequately been disproven via discussion or citations to that effect. In short, my main issue was that of the distinct lack of discussion. You must prove to the point of consensus that your edit should replace the pre-existent one.
As well, utilizing Google search results in Google is both pointless in matters of history and subject to manipulation, and is usually only valid after careful analysis (and more than a little contention) in Disambiguation pages. In matters of scholarly interest, as this article certainly aims at, JSTOR and other academic search engines are often more valid in finding references leading one way or the other.
Lastly, your syllogism comparing the disputed material to that of the prime ministers is not necessarily on point here, but i will avoid dismantling the argument for sake of brevity, politeness and a desire to stay on point here. You are contending that certain information - to whit, the Fulk Fitzwarin material - is not notable enough for inclusion. However, we have already in the version you reverted material that cites it as notable, When presented with that situation, it is always more advisable to present the proof that this pre-existing version is less than notable than the version you wish to replace it with. I freely admit that my knowledge of the Robin Hood legend is confined to films, local marketing schemes by the Nottingham Chamber of Commerce and the Blind Harry stuff, but I am aware that the best way to present an argument is not to do so as a fait accompli. Arguments presuming that it is easier to ask forgiveness rather than permission are doomed to failure in Wikipedia, as it is usually perceived by the body Wikipedian as an attempt to circumvent the most vital part of the Project's success, that of (often heated) discussion. Open discussion is the crucible in which the most equitable solution is found. And of course, the litmus for inclusion is not truth but verifiability.
Therefore, I am going to revert your version yet again, in the hopes that you will take the time to discuss why your version deserves to replace the one pre-existing. Please seek a consensus of agreement before re-adding your version, please. If you feel that my revert is unwarranted or unfair, you should feel free to seek out the advice of an administrator. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I have took the time to discuss, you will note that I started this section, only you reverted without taking part in it until just now. Please read the rest of the article, there are many people who have had "similar stories" to Robin Hood, there is no work that describes FitzWarin as THE definitive, there were even other people from his time with similar stories. You have not shown me one other major work which suggests he would warrant such a place of stature to be in an opening paragraph (let alone the second sentence) of this article. As such I am going to revert it.
There is no evidence to prove beyond doubt that Robin Hood was not actually a real man (read the other references in the article), and besides that if you read the section we have called "Sources" in this very article it says "The origin of the legend is claimed by some to have stemmed from actual outlaws, or from tales of outlaws, such as Hereward the Wake, Eustace the Monk, and Fulk FitzWarin." That is three people just there, why would FitzWarin take precident over the other two? WP:POV, besides the connection to those three are just a theory, considered by a subsect of people, not a definitive word on the topic.
If the "theory" of the tale been derived from the lives of those three is accepted, then that would put a one sided stance that Hood wasn't real, when that isn't a proven fact and there are many real life places with substantial connections with him, all the major works on Hood also do not place the derivative theory as the central part.- Yorkshirian 17:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate you using the Discussion page, Yorkshirian, and I appreciate you taking the time to point out your specific issues. Before you go sticking your edit right back in, you may find it instructive to wait and get the input of other editors to your response here. As such, I will be reverting your edit again. Time is not of the essence here, and being patient is going to garner you greater success than insisting on stating your pov and rushing forward to implement it.
Now, addressing your points, is it possible for you to add your information, instead of removing other information and replacing it with your own? Our job at Wikipedia is not to chew the food for the reader but instead to provide a balanced, informative article that fairly presents the majority of information present on the subject. Simply shunting off the former top of the article to the bottom implies a rather pov (point-of-view, aka biased) and dismissive attitude.The advantage that Fulk FitzWarin has over other similar adventurers is that Fulk is a similar legend from England, and therefore carries a bit more weight in regards to the source of the legend - a legend in which you do not posit an alternative, but instead seem keen on removing the Shropshire reference.
This is the bulk of my complaint with your edit, as the rest of it seems rather on point. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Major Oak

Perhaps you should consider adding the photo of the Major Oak. It is a very notable oak and a destination for tourists. --Thus Spake Anittas 23:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite. Why should we consider adding the image? Forgive my likely ignorance, but what is the connection to RH? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The oak holds a legendary status for supposedly being Robin's hideout. It is a symbol for Robin and Nottingham and 500,000 people visit Nottingham forest, much due to the legend of Robin. But you already knew that and it's obvious you don't want the picture in the article. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, that wasn't very polite. Ahem. Actually, i didn't know that, which was why I asked. Can you reliably cite its importance? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Have added a sentence, an image, a link to Major Oak WP page, and a ref. PamD (talk) 08:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Why thank you ever so much for doing so. Apparently, Anittas was feeling a bit too paranoid and snippy to do it himself. Nice picture, btw. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Anittas was indef blocked ("Attempting to harass other users: Racism, hatespeech, was already on a final warning"), so a double dose of thanks goes out to you, Pam. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] The Legend of Robin Hood

There's now a stub on The Legend of Robin Hood, the 1975 BBC TV serial. All help with expansion will be much appreciated. Timrollpickering 00:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone find pictures from this serial? ..intended for that page? I have some in a 30 year old scrapbook, but surely someone knows of good quality ones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.92.41 (talk) 09:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An error?

Searching "Robin of Locksley" doesn't take you to this page, directs to some 2nd rate B movie... seems incorrect given how much more famous the general character is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.226.29 (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Important Stuff?

Someone has deleted the chapter "Early references". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.118.84.210 (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the chapter "Early references" was deleted on 7th December 2007 by somebody deleting vandalism; and not realising they should have simply "undone" it. As a consequence the whole chapter has been deleted.

Can someone find a way of reinstating that chapter??

31/12/07.

I've restored it. --Zundark (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Arcayne

You said my earlier message adding the section about "Robin Hood/Robin Wood" here was unnecessary, in that case, I'll go and delete that section from the "Sword in the Stone" page then. It's not vandalism, I'm just trying to fix things. KellyLeighC (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Middle English

I'm having serious trouble understanding what's written there. How about a translation? Siúnrá (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:OR?

That last edit looks wrong[1], but I don't want to just revert it without discussion because it seems good faith. It says 'A historical analysis', but doesn't cite any author, making me think the editor wrote it; it makes the bold and incorrect assertion that all of the tales take place in the reign of Richard I (eg A Gest names 'Edwarde'; the rest of the article mentions other conflicting dates); it draws unsourced conclusions about the origins of the characters; and it asserts that the end of the crusade would 'guarantee' the end of taxation, which needs backed up since governments continually find other wars to fight. And it doesn't seem to belong in the section on sources. Back it out? Bazzargh (talk) 09:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep. And remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Someone's senior thesis isn't going to cover the notability. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've undone it, easier to back it out before there are conflicting edits; we're not losing anything sourced yet. To the author: I won't revert this if you reinstate it, but I think other editors will take issue with the edit (particularly the without exception line, that contradicts the rest of the article), and it may be worth discussing here before you put it back? Bazzargh (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Might I suggest that you bring the material in question to here? That way, it can stay in the discussion page until it is cited, and isn't just an edit diff in the article. I don't expect that citations are going to appear, but the good faith of 'porting it over to the discussion page might be helpful for now. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. This was the text added by the edit (it didn't remove or edit anything else):

A historical analysis of the origin of the tales of Robin Hood makes his transposition remarkable. Without exception, his tales take place during the reign of 'Good King Richard', Richard I. Richard was held in favour by the Barons and Lords of England at the time, for his personal rule and refusal to excessively tax the nobles. By comparison, the taxation levied by the Regent Prince John, later John I (John Lackland) through the agencies of his tax collectors and sheriffs was much reviled. Tax collectors were often newly-created knights, which landed nobles found repulsive. From these come Sir Giles of Gisbourne. The odious nature of Sheriffs create the villianous Sheriff of Nottingham. Robin himself is disposessed landed gentry, as he is the Lord Robin of Locksley.

The most curious aspect of the story is Robin's heroism for championship of the poor - 'To steal from the rich and give to the poor'. Medieval historians are almost unanimous in their analysis of the Feudal economy - that is to say, that the serf were almost without exception in a state of near constant poverty, and that wealth could only be accumulated with purchase of land. The poor in the tale could only be impoverished nobility, whose impoverishment would only be a localised phenomenon based on their monarch's demand for funding of his participation in the Crusades in Palestine. The adoption by the serfdom of Robin is therefore extremely curious given that he would not be a factor in their economic lives.

Another integral part of the story is the alleviation of financial suffering upon the return of 'Good King Richard'. In the story, Richard does return, and upon his return deposes Prince John, who in some versions is imprisoned, though there was certainly no historical justification of this latter event, which can only be viewed as wish fulfillment on the part of nobility. Richard's return would also guarantee a cessation of taxation, as he would no longer require funding of his Crusade in Palestine.

(quoting edit by User:118.92.189.35) Bazzargh (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No offence to anyone but it is actually ignorant to a shocking degree for an attempted edit. Citations are not given because they couldn't be, historical knowledge is about on the level of a (bad) children's encyclopedia, knowledge of the Robin Hood legend derived from a child's novel. Or maybe the television series? Jeremy (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken, Jeremy. The reason that we call for citation, and remove it until we have it is that doing so is a lot better (and more civil) than saying 'shya, shure it is, ass-clown'. Let me postscript that by saying that I don't think the contributor is an ass-clown; I am making a an argument for handling it the way that e do. Too many edit-wars over bruised egos and hurt feelings (and subsequently less-professional editing environments) happen because we call an ass-clown an ass-clown. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction and Real history

"In the oldest legends the outlaw's enemy is the sheriff due simply to his profession,[8]" I don't think this comment canbe justified even though it is sourced to Holt. Holt's conclusions are controversial anyway.....later in the article the bitterness of the holstility beteween Robin and the Sheriff is mentioned int he first known ballad of all, and it is also stressed early in the Gest. There is also no reason to believe that Robin Hood in the earliest stories is presented as a common criminal; already in the Geste he is clearly a very uncommon criminal indeed, "mind ye rob no husband man that tilleth with his plough, nor no knght nor squire that would be agood fellow". There is no reason to beleive that the Robin Hood of the ballads was anyhting but a "social bandit" not regardfed as a criminal but as a hero of his own community .....I think the articvle is superlative in places but needs some rewrite. The May Games probably need even more attention than they have in the article I'll have a go when I have time andd sources in front of me.

In the meantime I want to raise the issue for consideration. As for the "real Robin Hood" This area of history is obviously one of those that involves alot of amateurs with particular theories, and quite right too. But I think there is still prety general academic agreement that the Robin Hood ballads are literature not history and so taken when first performed. The search is thus for models not so much for a "real original". Once this is accepted I think it is clear that Roger Godberd is very much the strongest contender. It may be an exaggeration to call him the "real Robin Hood" but he is a good deal closer than Alexander Selkirk was to Robinson Crusoe......we should also remember that the early ballads and plays have been mostly lost despite their popularity; being a subversive literature would not have helped survival. We are assuming too much for example if we assume that Maid Marian is a late invention. After all the Geste fails to include the story of the Monk and of Guy of Gisborne, interestingly just the two stories most usually cited for excessive violence. Maybe that is why they were left out?. In the May day play about Robin Hood and the curtal friar the favours of a woman are aprt of his inducement for joining the band, not mentioned in the ballad in any extant version, and we know that in the May Games the protoptype of Maid Marain was not given to chastity. maybe that is why Maid Marian never made it into the Geste......

Just thoughts but of some relevance to potential editing. Will get back to it. In the meantime I've just included a modest reference to Roger Godberd. Jeremy (talk) 06:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC) And, erm, sorry for the typos etc. Jeremy (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC) I removed the "obscure footpad" claim. No evidence for it, the character as he appears in the earliest ballads was not that. The earliest historical references to an outlawed Robert Hood may or may not be directly connected with the ballads and in any case an outlaw was not necessarily a footpad or bandit. The lagal maxim was "Robin Hood in Barnesdale stood" and I've so corrected it though strictly it should be referenced. The claim, which I believe in any case to be wrong, that Barnesdale and Sherwood were all one forest should be referenced if it is to stand, a detail of some potential importance. Luv, Jeremy (talk) 11:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thirteenth Century

Just done some basic editing of background section to sharpen up accuracy a bit. The most recent edition of Rymes of Robyn Hode has a intersting stuff which should be used....I don't right now have it in front of me....but the particular thing is there are references in the Gest which as a matter of legal and social history date the story to no later than the thirteenth century. To be precise Robin's question whether Sir Richard is "a knight of force" (ie knighted by force in to incur the associated obligations) and the character of the abbey as a major moneylender able to foreclose on a knight's lands. If someone with the reference in front of them can add it in that's be good, otherwise I will eventually. And I've called for a reference to the "Robin Hood as murderous psycho" comment in the same section. Certainly Robin is shown as a more violent character than later in these early stories, a point worth making, but I don't think any of the ballads portray him as a bad guy from the balladeers viewpoint....Jeremy (talk) 02:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yorkshire

I changed this: In popular culture Robin Hood and his band's tales are usually associated with the area Sherwood Forest and Nottinghamshire, though most historians point towards him being a Yorkshireman" to something to the effect that ealier sources associate him with Yorkshire, Yorkshirean changed it back on the basis that "earlier wording better reflects the sources". So just for a start, lets not get carried away, we are discussing the wording here (note to self). The earliest surviving ballads do indeed place Robin Hood in Yorkshire as almost everyone agrees, in addition his traditional grave etc. But I have several problems with the wording which is at the head of an important article and so worth some care. "Most historians" and the like are dangerous expressions, one had better be pretty sure one is correct before using them. I don't think a BBC documentary is of much value as a source, I've seen some pretty crap BBC documentaries (including one on Robin Hood). And in any case I think that what "most historians" would agree is that the ballads situate him in Yorkshire not that "he was a Yorkshireman", there is no early story of his birth or childhood; even more importantly I don't believe there is any substantial agreement that he was fundamentally a single histroical figure as the article as it stands implies here. Finally if Robin Hood was substantially based on a single historical figure then there is an excellent argument that that figure was, in fact must have been, Roger Godberd; who was born in Leicestershire. I'll leave it for a while but unless these arguments are countered then I will return to re-edit! Jeremy (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. I had substantially improved this paragraph, not only removing the (false) implication that "historians" generally concede Robin Hood to be a historical character but also giving due weight to the Sherwood references. In my comments above I was in fact mistaken to say that the unanimous verdict of the early ballads was to support the Barnsadale location! Robin Hood and the Monk, the earliest, supports the Sherwood location. Also there is an early 15th century reference locating him in Sherwood. "South Yorkshire" of course did not exist in Robin Hood's day, which is why I wrote "what is now South Yorkshire". There have been periods, as is noted elsewhere on wikipedia, when the Barnsdale area was in fact part of Nottinghamshire....so that fact that Robin Hood on balance belongs to Barnsadale does not necessarily mean that he on balance belongs to Yorkshire. A reference from a BBC documentary is not a good reference; it is a borderline trash reference that should only be used in desperate circumstances when nothing better is available. Jeremy (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Me and Yorkshirean seem to be in an editing war here. He chooses not to engage on this page but just keeps reverting my edit. The references on which he apparently puts alot of weight are a bunch of TV shows, mostly about amateur historians, and sometimes more about local patriotism than history of any kind. (One story is about Yorkshire MPs backing the Yorkshire theory!...another seems to take for granted the Hunter theory largely seen as discredited by serious scholars). The references are evidence of course for the persistence of traditions associating Robin Hood with Yorkshire, and as such I have not removed them. They do not support the claim that "Robin Hood was a Yorshirean" however. The paragraph I keep putting in is:

"In popular culture Robin Hood and his band are usually seen as living in Sherwood Forest in Nottinghamshire. Much of the action of the early ballads does take place in Nottinghamshire, and the very earliest known ballad does show the outlaws operating in Sherwood Forest [1]. However, the weight of evidence from the early ballads [2] show Robin Hood based in the Barnsdale area of what is now South Yorkshire (which borders Nottinghamshire), and other traditions also point to Yorkshire [3][4][5][6] His birthplace is said to be Loxley in South Yorkshire,[7] while his grave is claimed to be at Kirklees Priory in West Yorkshire.[8]"

I think that is accurate and informative and reflects the sources given. If Yorkshirean thinks different he might like to discuss it here. Jeremy (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Describing sources such as the BBC (the most dominant English language media in the world) as "crap" just because you do not agree with it is not how WP:V works. The information is sourced, yours is not. Such strong sources outweighs personal opinion. Also when Robin Hood lived, the local government administration area of South Yorkshire did not exist. Since the times of the vikings however the West Riding of Yorkshire did exist. - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Also please provide evidence to prove that "everyone agrees Robin Hood never existed". - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Yorkshirian.... I never claimed "everyone agrees Robin Hood never existed"! In fact elsewhere on this page I have suggested that a passage which gives too much weight to the "fictional" theory needs to be edited. The BBC is not IMO crap, and that is not what I said. However a reference to a TV documentary is not a good reference to the truth of anything claimed there, just to the fact that the claims have been made on TV. Even when genuine experts appear directly great care has to be taken in using what they have seemed to say because the director of the doco, who is part of the entertainment industry, has control of the context. In general the point is that TV documentaries are entertainment not scholarship. And sometimes even on the BBC, however "dominant" it may be, they are pretty crappy from a factual point of view.

The particular references you rely on to support your claims about "most historians" do not even pretend to support any such claims. If you think they do, please explain how. They concern the activities of local hobbyists and politicians, and are interesting on that level. I don't know how you can think anyone is doubting the existence of the West Riding of Yorkshire. The aim of the reference to "South Yorkshire" is to help people who may not even live in England to locate the area in question.

My information is in fact sourced, to Dobbs & Taylor's book on the Robin Hood legend and to the article Robin Hood and the Monk which links to the ballad. I should probably include in the reference the stanzas in which the outlaws are situated in Sherwood...Will do. May be there should be a quote from the ballad on the page if that would satisfy you.

Bottom line is you simply can't say that "most historians" say that Robin Hood was Yorkshire man, first of all because you can't even say that "most historians" reckon he existed as a single person indentifiable with the legend. The general view seems to be that he is a literary creation based to greater or lesser extent on real-life models; but I wouldn't say "most historians" say that even though I think it probably true because of the differences referencing it. (What I could do is quote a number of prominent historians to that effect.) And the early ballads don't say where he was born etc, they just mostly show him as based in Barnsdale. And I can (and in my contribution in fact did) reference a prominent scholarly source to the effect that the early RH legend sources him in Barnsdale which is in Yorkshire.

For the record, I tend to the Godberd theory myself. I have no personal stake in the Sherwood/Barnsdale controversy which the Godberd theory rather transcends anyway. Jeremy (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any excuse for using TV shows, etc as sources in this article where we have so many good scholarly sources. Certainly no excuse to linking to people who write about ley lines and vampires, or local politiciians. Personal websites, however much they quote Holt, aren't a substitute either. And maybe the correct word isn't 'historians' to describe all the scholars who have written about Robin Hood, what do you think? Doug Weller (talk) 06:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ballads and Tales II

Someone wiped it clean and replaced the section with "hi" several edits ago. I'm not sure how much of the article to revert; could someone more familiar with the article's history fix this? Thanks--Romulus (talk) 03:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks!--Romulus (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Earl of Huntingdon etc in introduction

I've reverted an intial naming of Robin Hood calling him Robert and Earl of Hingdon etc to plain Robin Hood. There is no consesnus that he was a Robert or an Earl or a Lord of Loxley, these additions appear in some versions of the story as the article itself makes clear. Another important addition to the introduction is to make clear that there is no consensus as to him being a historical figure. Various editors keep blurring that point. The introduction needs an integrated rewrite and the article needs some additions. There should be more info on the May Day plays, some reference to the theory associated with Robert Graves that Robin Hood was a pagan diehard, and more of the info on dating that story that appears in the current edition of Rymes of Robyn Hode (did I spell that right? I'm getting my copy back soon and will use to make some referenced edits). Jeremy (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ballads and Tales

This section has some fairly contentious material which does need to be balanced, notably: In many respects, the character of Robin in these first texts differs from his later incarnations. While in modern stories Robin Hood typically pursues justice, and the Merry Men are a proto-democracy, this sense of generosity and egalitarianism is absent from the medieval and Early Modern sources. Robin is often presented as vengeful and self-interested, meting out barbaric punishments to his own enemies, but rarely fighting on the behalf of others. Nothing is stated about 'giving to the poor', although Robin does make a large loan to an unfortunate knight.[32] Furthermore, even within his band, ideals of equality are generally not in evidence. In the early ballads Robin's men usually kneel before him in strict obedience: in A Gest of Robyn Hode the king even observes that "His men are more at his byddynge/Then my men be at myn". Their social status, as yeomen, is shown by their weapons; they use swords rather than quarterstaffs. The only character to use a quarterstaff in the early ballads is the potter, and Robin Hood does not take to a staff until the eighteenth century Robin Hood and Little John.[33] And rather than being deprived of his lands by the villainous Sheriff of Nottingham, when an origin story for Robin appears, he takes to 'the greenwood' after killing royal foresters for mocking him (see Robin Hood's Progress to Nottingham).

While he is sometimes described as a figure of peasant revolt, the details of his legends do not match this. He is not a peasant but an archer, and his tales make no mention of the complaints of the peasants, such as oppressive taxes.[34] He appears not so much as a revolt against societal standards as an embodiment of them, being generous, pious, and courteous, opposed to stingy, worldly, and churlish foes. His tales glorified violence, but did so in a violent era.[35] While he fights with royal officials, his loyalty to the king himself is strong.[36]''

The author here as it seems to me has misunderstood the early ballads. While Robin Hood certainly is not in the Gest and the Monk a sainted goody goody as he appears in later stories it remains clear, as the Gest puts it at the end that: He was a good outlaw/ Who did poor men much good Of "ideals of equality are generally not in evidence", this was the Middle Ages. But when Robin Hood was captured in the Monk, his men "swooned" with grief. Robin Hood tries to resign his leadership to Little John in gratitude for his rescue. It is not true that relationships within the band are simply ones of dominance and obedience. He does not "mete out barbaric punishments to his enemies", he kills people who try to kill him. And, of course, he is always up for a brawl. This contrasts with the ridiculous modern image of Robin Hood as some strange sort of pacifist but not with the tradition of the "good outlaw" or social bandit. Robin Hood's Progress to Nottingham does display barbaric behaviour but then it is a late ballad and not one that has been generally adopted into the tradition. The early ballads do not show Robin Hood as having strong loyalty to the king, he is shown in the Gest as accepting the king's pardon when hard-pressed but then reneging and returning to the greenwood. And just a minor point, the potter who uses a quarter-staff is apaprently also a yeoman. So, some revision is needed to this section. Jeremy (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've now made what I regard as minimum surgery to "ballads and tales" along the lines of my comments above. (I'm Jeremy, not logged in]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.64.23 (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There has of course for long been a theory as to the authourship of the early Robin Hood tales, namely the Barnsdale religious poet Richard Rolle 1290-1349. So far as I know it was first proposed by Joseph Hunter in his book on Robin Hood dated 1852. Probably that should be mentioned, as a theory, in the article. It is inseparable from the point that the early ballads are of (much) hifher value as literature than the later ones, that should be mentioned too. Jeremy (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Early References

This passage is I think too POV and needs re-writing: Therefore Robert is largely fictional by this time. The Gale note is inaccurate. The medieval texts do not refer to him directly, but mediate their allusions through a body of accounts and reports: for Langland Robin exists principally in "rimes", for Bower "comedies and tragedies", while for Wyntoun he is "commendyd gude". Even in a legal context, where one would expect to find verifiable references to Robert, he is primarily a symbol, a generalised outlaw-figure rather than an individual. Consequently, in the medieval period itself, Robin Hood already belongs more to literature than to history. In fact, in an anonymous carol of c.1450, he is treated in precisely this manner — as a joke, a figure that the audience will instantly recognise as imaginary: "He that made this songe full good,/ Came of the northe and the sothern blode,/ And somewhat kyne to Robert Hoad".

The implication is to support Child's famous comment that Robin Hood had no historical basis but was a entirely a creation of the "medieval ballad muse"; a legitimate enough position but certainly a contested one. Child's quote probably should be in the article btw, I'll chase it up when I can if no-one else does it first.....Jeremy (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

Editors need to be careful to make sure that their references stay within guidelines. Eg, although some personal websites may be acceptable if you can show that their owners are recognised by reliable sources as experts in their field, most are not. Media websites which are normally acceptable may not be where they report people such as Barbara Green, whose opinions in my opinion are not a reliable source -- ghosts, ley lines, etc. [2]

I notice that A J Pollards book is in the bibliography but is not used as a reference. I strongly suggest editors read it [3] - it is also searchable on Amazon.com.

Holt is used extensively to the detriment of the article as work on Robin Hood has moved on and he is considered (by at least some, I can't say most as I don't know) writers to be out of date. He can be used about the plebian-aristocratic thing, but he should be used only sparingly, and with reference to more modern scholarship, elsehwere.

Some references that may help - Robin Hood A Mythic Biography By Stephen Knight [4] (ok, it's to a specific page, but it's the whole book I'm referring to), Imagining Robin Hood: the late-medieval stories in historical context, A J Pollard [5], possibly more searchable on Amazon [6], Robin Hood: The Shaping of the Legend By Jeffrey L. Singman, [7] which mentions one thing that people still quote Holt a lot about, class distinction in Robin Hood, Robin Hood in Popular Culture: Violence, Transgression, and Justice By Thomas Hahn [8], Transactions of the Royal Historical Society: Sixth Series By Royal Historical Society, Royal Historical Society [9].

The article needs quite a bit of clean-up. Can I point out that although it is ok to say that most historians do not think Elizabeth I was a shape-shifting reptilian (some people really think that!) that you can't say 'most historians' about Robin Hood unless that is actually a quote. I note that the article at the moment says "the weight of evidence from the early ballads" without a citation actually saying that, which means that that bit is original research which does not belong there. I doubt very much that he was a historical figure, certainly the geography cannot be taken literally. Oh - I'm an American living in Derbyshire, just so no one wonders. Doug Weller (talk) 08:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Doug, but careless reading is always a problem isn't it? For example, "the weight of evidence..." quote actually did have a citation which I repeat in full here: Dobson & Taylor Rymes of Robyn Hood 1997, Sutton Publishing, page 20 "The final impression left both by the Gest and other early ballads is therefore of a legendary outlaw based reasonably firmly in the Barnsdale area but capable of expeditions southwards in pursuit of his arch-enemy, the Sheriff of Nottingham" So the quote is not OR and it does belong here! Dobbs and Taylor is a very standard mainstream text. I think you are right about Holt....and I know you are right about "most historians". I wonder, though, why you are so certain that the geography cannot be taken literally? Just suppose, for example, that Joseph Hunter was at least right in one thing, that the first author of the Robin Hood ballads was Richard Rolle in holiday mood. He lived in Barnsdale, he would have been writing for a local audience, why wouldn't he get the geography right, whether Robin Hood was a historical figure or not? OK, forget about the Rolle theory, on the assumption the ballads were first made by a local, why wouldn't they get the geography right? 203.87.64.23 (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It is the 'weight of evidence' bit that is OR, correct or not. As for the geography, I shouldn't say I'm certain, it's just that it looks stereotypical -- the main thing is, as some of the writers have said, the 'greenwood'. Do you think it matters that Barnsdale was not a royal forest? I don't particularly care for the speculation about "In those days, Sherwood Forest and Barnsdale Forest were probably all one vast forest" either. Have you seen this by the way? [10]
One final point, the commentators on Robin Hood are not all historians, yet the article at times gives the impression that they are. Maybe that should be fixed. Doug Weller (talk) 06:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hum, Doug, OR? How so? Maybe I expressed myself badly, but I was just intending to paraphrase the view of Dobb and Taylor; so I'd tend to say that correct or not one thing it definitely is not is OR! In fact of course it is not possible to write a coherent article without some degree of "OR" strictly interpreted, but that is another issue. The "one forest" claim is wrong as I undeerstand the matter, I'll correct it in time if no-one else (yourself, perhaps?) does so first. Yeah, the "historians" point should be addressed, difficult though it may be....(Jeremy in a rush and not signed in) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.47.7 (talk) 10:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
No I hadn't seen the reference you show, and I'll have another look at it...a bit post-modern in tone? (Jeremy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.47.7 (talk) 10:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)