Talk:Magna Carta/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Where's the actual text?

Why isn't the actual text of the document included here? --205.181.102.108 14:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

For sale!

As of yesterday, Ross Perot's copy is for sale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emorycat (talk • contribs) 09:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Vicissitudes

The vicissitudes of Magna Carta during the Middle Ages need to be outlined. User:Wetman

Usage

I always hear "the" Magna Carta as well, and a quick Google search will show just how common it is to say/write "the Magna Carta". But someone here doesn't want to go through the trouble of getting in touch with the real world and keeps screwing with the intro. (unsigned by anon)

Anon, the "proper" version is factually correct. It is not a judgement, it is a statement of fact. Grammatically speaking, it is proper to not use "the" when using Latin phrases. "Proper" is a neutral factual statement of grammar. It is not original research, and is factually solid. If you want to discuss the grammatical use of "the" in Latin phrases in English, perhaps you should look at the English language article. Stbalbach 14:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, let's try the Google test. Google shows 867,000 hits for "magna carta" and 182,000 for "the magna carta". To me, 867,000 - 182,000 = 685,000 references to MC without a definite article. That's 79%. Now where is that real world you were talking about? adamsan 14:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Read the intro in it's current form. Go on, I'll wait. Ok then, that intro right there is all I've ever asked for. Kudos to the person who wrote it :) Whoever you are, you're beautiful and I wouldn't change you for the world! My God, I love Wikipedia! I love affecting change at a grassroots level! It just reeks of democracy in action, doesn't it?

Is it common to leave out the definite article? I always hear "the" Magna Carta. Is the definite article omitted in the UK but retained in the US? Jdavidb 13:59, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As there's no definite article in Latin it isn't correct to speak of the Magna Carta, same with Mappa Mundi. It isn't always observed though and I don't think there's any formal trans-Atlantic difference as people in both countries will write it either way. adamsan 14:06, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to see the article not use "the". It is just more professional. Editors over time have waffled back and forth on this, so I have put it as line #1 highlited. If anyone can think of a less intrusive, but equally clear method, please go ahead. Another option is to use comments in the markup.--Stbalbach 05:31, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't have an answer to your questions and points. All I know is that many professional institutions and authors don't use "the" when refering to Magna Carta. I suppose we could buck that trend, but then we are also not supposed to do original research, rather report on what the professionals say. Perhaps someone else can fill in the historiography of why this continues to be the standard in professional historical writing.Stbalbach 03:28, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Quite right. I do believe there are two distinct terms in the Magna Carta and Magna Carta and as you have pointed out, the one discussed in this Wiki-article is Magna Carta. I only wished to point out how it may not be stricly incorrect to use "the Magna Carta" since this term exists in the English language as well as in Latin. I deleted my previous arguments as they were overreaching and unfounded.dwee

"The Magna Carta" is certainly an acceptable use, and the use of 'the' is a matter of style and not substance. - Nunh-huh 11:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For this article, we have set a standard, in order to avoid edit wars, as have occured in the past, a matter of practicality. The precident is that most academic English history books dont use "the". If you want to create a footnote and expand on the issue that would make sense. Stbalbach 16:24, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to either style, though the argument that it relates to whether Latin has a definite article is specious. One speaks of "The Aeneid" and "The Georgics". Just as a matter of curiousity, how did you quantitate that "most" academic English history books prefer their Magna Carta naked? - Nunh-huh 17:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From experience, the article needs to be clear and upfront on the format of the name used in the article to avoid edit wars. If we want to discuss the merits of either method I suggest we do so in the form a footnote to the opening message, since this seems to be a common point of discussion and might provide the reader some clarification. Stbalbach 23:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I hate to point this out, but in the note at the beginning, it states that "Magna Carta" is "usually" used without "the". This implies common use, which, in this case, is incorrect. Perhaps "properly" would be a better word.

What we absolutly need to say is "this article does not use the" so it may be better to say:

This article follows the usual academic style and refers to the the document as "Magna Carta" rather than "the Magna Carta."

with a footnote about definite articles in Latin and a brief review of examples. Intresting factoid (but not from a real academic English history book) -- Simon Schama uses "the Magna Carta" on page 141 of the first volume of "A History of Britain" and "Magna Carta" on page 142. Andreww 23:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, something like this would be better. I don't like the current "the document is properly referred to" sentence, mentioning Latin grammer right at the top. Although originating in Latin, the fact is that "Magna Carta" has entered the English language, and it is perfectly correct to say "the Magna Carta", just like it would be correct to say "the Act of Union", or "the Emancipation Proclamation". If we are going to use Magna Carta as a Latin word it should be italized, since this article is in English. So, anyway, I like the "usual academic style" sentence better, with a further section explaining in detail. Also, somewhere in the article it should be mentioned that it has also been called "Magna Charta" in the past.--JW1805 23:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good idea. Stbalbach 01:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Should have said - I have been bold and implemented that suggestion. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I added a "Usage and Spelling" section. --JW1805 20:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Call this comment a strongly dissenting opinion to various posts of Stbalbac above. Common usage in American English is definitely "the Magna Carta," not "Magna Carta," and using the definite article is definitely the most common and natural way to translate a Latin noun. Brit English is more ready than Am English to drop definite articles, but I don't think that's the issue here. My main objection to calling it Magna Carta is that it just sounds wrong, in the same way it would sound wrong to drop the article from THE Gallic Wars and THE Aeneid. The counterargument as far as I can see is that calling it 'naked' Magna Carta has some kind of tradition (a valid argument). But to me, it's overly pedantic to maintain in the face of common usage and common sense. I suspect that people may be confused and worry they're wrongly adding an extra article as in (Greek), "The Hoi Polloi." That is not the case. Finally, I hope it's clear that the title of the entry should be Magna Carta, but the first sentence should begin "The Magna Carta et cetera.Lbsterling 22:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)lbsterling.

How about using correct and consistent usage of keeping punctuation within quotation marks? It's more of a whole Wikipedia problem than just a Magna Carta problem, but I happen to be looking at this now and when I see one of "these", it makes the whole thing seem uneducated, or at best foreign. It should be "this," not "this". Things like "this", look stupid and make a whole article look similarly stupid. </rant> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mukanil (talk • contribs) 17:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"Only one to leave the UK"

The article mentions:

In 1984, Ross Perot bought one of the original copies of Magna Carta. This is the only copy to leave the United Kingdom.

But the article on Fort Knox, Kentucky mentions that it was the WW2 repository for among other, the Magna Carta. Anyone know of a better way to rephrase this, in the sense that the Perot copy is the only one to leave the UK permanently, or somesuch? —Gabbe 18:12, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, that whole statement is factually incorrect, as the Australian Parliament House also holds a copy - apparently one of four surviving copies of the 1297 issue; I assume the Perot one is another of the four. Also, as the Perot one is a copy of the 1297 issue, it's not "one of the original copies" See info: http://www.aph.gov.au/jhd/visiting/architect/build.htm http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/occa_lect/flyers/171097.htm

I'll try to re-word it when I get a proper chance. Mistertim 00:16, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

opening paragraph

For elements of style and readability I have trimmed back the opening paragraph. The opening paragraph should be a few sentences with a high-level overview introduction without getting in to specifics. It should not try to put the entire history with dates and names in to a few sentences in the opening paragraph. Instead, one could talk about the history in high-level general summary terms that a high-schooler could understand in a few sentence, for example "The Magna Carta was the result of a disagreements between a king and his barons over the rights of kingship" and then get in to the specifc names and dates in the main body of the article. Otherwise the rest of it is excellent. Stbalbach 18:11, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry - should have replied before - I take the point and have incorporated the deleted facts (where necessary) elsewhere. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:45, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"long lasting"

Henry III rule was one of the longest lasting monarchies in english history. It is a significant point and helps illuminate the reason why it become "settled" .. just saying 56 years means little to someone without this background knowledge. It helps to clarify the point on why it was never contensted by future kings.Stbalbach 20:34, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah - I see: not that his rule was particularly peaceful, though - Simon de Montfort, the first Parliament, the Provisions of Oxford, the Second Barons' War, and all that. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:45, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Removed references to modern monarchs, not relevant to Magna Carta or the medieval period, could confuse the reader, interesting trivia none the less, might find a home under King of England. Emphasised the reason for MC becoming a settled law and not annulled by future monarchs -- since MC takes power away from the king, reader will ask why kings after Henry III did not annul it, like John had almost done in 1215. Used "almost three generations" to show the large passage of time that the reader can relate too personally and how much can happen over that amount of time (assume 20 years = 1 generation). Stbalbach 02:56, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Clause 61

In the "Runnymead and afterwards" section it's mentioned that Clause 61 was omitted in the reissued Magna Carta, but there is no explanation in the article of this clause or why its removal is significant. Looking at the text of the Magna Carta, it's not hard to believe that is *is* significant, but it was, erm, repealed. Can anyone with a better knowledge of British history explain why this ineffective clause is important, or shouldn't the reference to it be removed? -- jhf 16:36, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're right, somehow missed that part.. totally changes the motivation of King John to go to war, important point.Stbalbach 19:37, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Magna Carta and Anti-Semitism

What is missing from this article is text showing that this a anti-semetic document! In the 1215 version (annulled by the Pope one month after it was signed), there is a long body of text concerning the Jews. By the time of the 1297 version this text had been removed. The reason is that the Jews had been kicked out of England in the meantime. In the 1215 version the Jews are addressed as moneychangers and as a sub-category of human beings who do not share the same status as human beings enjoying the blessings of the Pope. I have not inserted any of this material as yet because I would like to see reaction to my comments in the first place. I am also drawing the attention of user User talk:IZAK to this message, because I believe that it may be of interest to him. MPLX/MH 21:16, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's not really that significant. It reflects prevailing standard medieval views towards Jews at the time. A more appropriate place to discuss this is in an article about Jews in the Middle Ages and then the Magna Carta article link to that article. You could not do the topic justice here. --Stbalbach 21:32, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I totally disagree. Magna Carta is held up to be this shining star as the foundation of human rights when in reality it is nothing of the sort. First of all the actual text needs to be posted in English so that everyone can read it and understand it. Second it needs to be plain that this document was annulled one month after it was signed. Third it also needs to reflect all of the other Magna Cartas that followed and why they were different. With regards to the Jewish issue I hold that this was the seed that gave rise to the Holocaust centuries later! To shove it aside as a non-issue is merely to keep up the propaganda. By the way, my hero is John Lilburne and yes, I was born in Britain and my parents were born in Britain and so were their parents and so on. I now live in the USA which has a written constitution. MPLX/MH 23:25, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that there should be something said about the legislating against Jews in Magna Carta. The article as it stands has very little detail about the content of Magna Carta, and I feel that it would be appropriate to include this detail alongside others. For Jews, and especially English Jews, Magna Carta is very significant. Gareth Hughes 23:41, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Posting the full text is not appropriate for Wikipedia, it can be (and is) linked to though. A discussion of each clause as is done in US Constitution would be good but quite a task. I would prefer to see in depth coverage of the anti-semitic elements placed in a separate discussion of the phenomenon in mediaeval England (including Clifford's Tower for example which is also woefully under-recorded here). Frankly I'm not persuaded by this talk of MC leading to the Holocaust though. adamsan 23:56, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion of disecting this document because that is the only way to expose the fraud that it is. As for one thing not leading to another, well, that may be because the writings of Magna Carta have not been compared to the Nazi race laws. A case is to be made for that comparison. If it can be shown that the Nazi race laws had nothing to do with the Holocaust (because that came later), well I suppose that case could be made for Magna Carta. However, I believe that once this document is exposed in English that many people will be quite horrified to see what they have been upholding. One thing that it is not is the foundation of individual freedom. One thing that it is - is anti-semitic. You may have a point regarding Clifford's Tower because that does seem to be a part of this entire nasty package. MPLX/MH 01:15, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Magna Carta is not the shineing star of human rights and individual freedom you make it out to be. Youve kind of proped it up on this pedastal to create a controversy. I mean, if the article took that tone I would agree with you, but it doesn't. At the time, clause 39 was meant to only address some very specific abuses by King John and no one really saw it as being that significant. The stuff about jews is indeed significant, but only in relation to jewish relations in medieval england, and that discussion belongs in a seperate article. --Stbalbach 03:43, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Something is wrong with this picture. I do not believe that Magna Carta is the shining star foundation of human rights, but there are a lot of educational and legal sources that portray it that way. I am therefore opposed to this traditional interpretation. I am also opposed to hiding its text and discussing it in selected parts. The 1215 document was annulled by the Pope, one month after it was signed. That is important. What is also important is why this document was drawn up and what the Pope had to do with it. When you understand the part played by religion you also understand the plight of the Jews. To sweep the Jews aside to be discussed somewhere else smacks of the very anti-semitism that I am trying to discuss because this document and the Magna Carta of 1297 had a direct cause and effect on the Nazi race laws which in turn led to the Holocaust. In other words, to recoin a phrase: "the buck starts here!"MPLX/MH 04:30, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the annulment by the Pope is significant; though if the really anti-semitic clauses only survived in the version of MC that lasted for a month before being expunged in later editions, how much later influence could they be said to have had? Even finding the relevant text online is proving a challenge for me. I also agree that the reasons for the passages' removal also need to be explored. This sort of thing is directly related to the document itself whilst anti-Semitism in 13th century England seems to me a better home for commentary on the underlying reasons for the offending text to have been included and then removed. For example, later editions limit mention of the Jews to moneylending which I understand was one of the few professions open to them in mediaeval Europe due to the guild system and its links with the Church and not anything to do with MC. Anti-Jewish sentiment in England certainly predates Magna Carta, as the Cliffords Tower article demonstrates. Certainly the moneylending and the removed passages represent a general anti-semitism in English society (or at least amongst the the English church and aristocracy) but due to the brevity of their insertion and the use of 'Jew' seeming to me more like a contemporary synonym for 'moneylender' rather than an intentional ethnic discernment, I am not yet convinced there is any specific reason to explore the document's role in wider anti-semitism in any form other than a sentence or two linking to a wider discussion of the subject. I do not wish to ignore the anti-Jewish sentiment in the England of the period and in fact would argue that giving it its own article provides a much better opportunity to discuss the issue. adamsan 09:29, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Magna Carta of 1215 and the Magna Carta of 1297 are linked in context (there were bridge documents in between.) The version of 1297 makes no mention of the Jews for reason that like the Nazi race laws, the Jews were either out of England or in hiding! In Nazi Germany the Jews did not exist, in theory, when in reality some Jews were in hiding. I will see what I can do to find the English version of the texts. The reason why I know all of this stuff is because I joined with others and protested the American Express USA tour of the 1215 Magna Carta in 1987, which resulted in a front page color section article in the 'The Daily Progress', Charlottsvile, Virginia and on its NBC-TV affiliated station. MPLX/MH 21:28, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That there is a protest movement against Magna Carta is notable. On the issues of the protest movement and its history and origins and people involved and activities, would make a good article. Stbalbach 22:17, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I still don't understand the repeated mentioning of Nazi race laws, it has been stated the Magna Carta was responsible but I don't see any explanation and it seems quite frankly ridiculous. Please expand I am interested in how you see the link? The Magna Carta is celebrated as the first step in moving power from the crown, if only as far as some noblemen. It is the first step on the gradual progress of power towards a full democracy, and the universal emancipation only achieved within the last century. Noone sets in on a pedastal as something we should use now, or takes any reference from the very rare original copies including specific anti-semtism. I understand your concerns I think it should be mentioned in the article but taken in the wider context of general anti-semitic attitude in Europe at the time and not blaming it for the entire future of anti-semitism.Jameskeates 09:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow this is a nearly 2 year old conversation. But if you read this thread, MPLX/MH said he read a book that made the connection. I agree with your conclusion and I think the article currently reflects that. -- Stbalbach 14:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

MPLX - just a few points. 1) Pope's opinion was NOT the law in Enland. In fact English sovriegns often ignored the Pope's edicts (as did the Holy Roman Emperor and many others). Don't you think the Celts, Romans, Saxons, Normans had laws - long before the Popes got involved? 2) The Jewish religion is NOT the oldest religion. Cave painting (believed to have some kind of animist significance) have been carbon dated back 60000 yrs. Relgious artices from the Vedic culture in Northern India date back c8500 yrs, around the same time Shen Culture in Northern China also were producing artices believed to be of a relgious nature. The earliest sign of Jewish relgious culture dates back to the mid 10th Century BCE, some two hundred years after the collapse of Mycenean culture or some four hundred years after the relgious conversion of the Pharoh Arkarnen. Hope that clears up that furphy 58.165.128.101 Jim Jacobs

Research on Jews

In regards to this text:

The version of 1297 contains no mention of the Jews, who are discussed in terms of being moneychangers in the 1215 version, because the Jews had either been forced to flee the island nation, or they had converted to Christianity or they had gone underground.

I would like to see sources that can back this up, on why Jews were not mentioned in later versions and why the offending text was removed. Refrences to books (in the mainstream historical community) is fine. --Stbalbach 08:53, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It seems that the whole of both clauses concerning debt rather than just the mentions of Judaism were removed in the 1297 version. As one of the clauses refers to all creditors and not just the Jews, I can't see how you can conclude that the passages were deleted simply because the Jews had been driven out/underground. They didn't just do a find and replace but removed the whole text which covers a number of issues. The reasons for this need to be discussed. Also, I still cannot find this long passage of anti-semitic text that MPX talks about anywhere. I still think the mentions of Jews that I can find are contemporary synonyms for moneylender and I think we're incorrectly interpreting the language used 800 years ago in terms of modern thinking. adamsan 09:08, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Check Wikisource Latin, section 10 and 11, it says "Judeis". Beyond that I don't speak Latin, but a good sign that the word Jew was used in the original document.

I agree the section removed in later versions covered multiple issues, attributing its removal only to the Jews expulsion is questionable. --Stbalbach 09:28, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sure, there are two mentions of Jews as moneylenders in every version of the 1215 text I can find but MPX talks of Jews being referred to as "a sub-category of human beings who do not share the same status as human beings enjoying the blessings of the Pope". I inferred this to mean that there were other passages now missing which are much more anti-semitic and it's these I'd like to see evidence of. adamsan 09:41, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am pleased that others have joined this enquiry but I am already dismayed to find that someone has found it necessary to sweep the "Jewish Question" under the carpet when reference on this Talk page had already been made to one incident involving a "Final Solution" of the Jews in England. I like those terms because they shock the conscience in that everyone knows what those terms mean with regards to Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. It was the passage of the so-called "Race laws" of the 30s that led to the Holocaust of the 40s - there was a cause and effect.

Now with that preface out of the way I am stating that the 1215 Magna Carta contains the smoking gun of England's own move to rid the Isles of the Jews. This is not hidden history but well documented history. It is just not talked about because the English (I am English) don't want to be thought of as being antisemitic, but English history reeks of antisemitism.

What is not being addressed here (and even less now that someone has added the censor's touch), is that the Pope of Rome (there were other Popes), controlled England through his king; church and law (there was no secular law as such that was not santioned by the Church and the Church was the one Church based in Rome. I hope everyone knows about Henry VIII so that I don't have to explain that as well.)

So the Jews were moneychangers. Why were they moneychangers? Go and do your own research! You need to know. The Jews had a moneychanger relationship with the Church and that is why the clause is in there: the Jews were (are) not Christians (duh!) - not members of the Church of Rome. The Pope gave them special status. The representative for all of the wheeler-dealing was the Archbishop. The barons were merely local gangsters, or in today's understanding = warlords (thugs.)

The statements about the Jews in Magna Carta was not intended to educate readers as to who the Jews were - everyone knew who the Jews were. They were the People of the blood libel ("they killed Jesus"). The Church whose Jesus the Jews killed put up with them like the Nazis used Jews when it suited them and some Jews (a few) went along with the Nazis to save themselves at the expense of the majority of Jews. This is the thorny issue we are dealing with. Under English law the Jews were forbidden to do practically anything else but be moneychangers! They were the scum of society and the Church had a need for a sub-class of human beings. The Jews did not have the same status as everyone else and the Jews were murdered and abused. Because of the holier than thou attitude towards ethnic cleansing in the world today, the English do not want to admit that they were at it long before Herr Hitler got into the business!

Now move along to 1297 and "bingo!" = no Jews. Why? Because they were kicked out of England, forced to go underground or convert. Same thing happened in Spain. (Hello, isn't that what happened in Nazi Germany?) It was not until the time of Cromwell - long after Henry VIII told the Pope bye, bye and long after Shakespeare wrote his own infamous words about a moneylending Jew that Cromwell talked about religious tolleration. Why? Because Cromwell ruled the English Republic which had severed its relationship with the Church by chopping off the head of the king; abolishing the House of Lords and raiding all of the Church properties to put them out of business. Then the forces of the Republic went to Ireland and engaged in "ethnic cleansing" by wholesale murder and mayhem.

Read your history. Move up to the time of 18th Century and read about the status of Jews in Parliament (how and when they were finally allowed to sit in Parliament.)

The bottom line. The Magna Carta of 1215 needs to be explained: who wrote it and why and what it says and why. What we have here on Wiki right now is pure boring propaganda that explains nothing. But by looking at the clauses dealing with the Jews you can see that while the English may get on their high horses and yell about the evil Germans (remember the UK Royals are German are hiding under another name since WWI), then it is possible to gulp and say "me too" (in English) and understand that evil knows no race or religion. MPLX/MH 16:12, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So are the moneylending clauses the only ones in MC which ever mentioned the Jews? Am I correct with the following broad chronology?

Jews come to Britain with the Normans 1066
Jews forced by law to be moneylenders due to institutionalised racism in the Church and effectively become the king's chattels
Jews are persecuted by people who owe them money, the Church or people who just don't like them
Magna Carta includes clauses that mention Jewish moneylenders 1215
Jews still persecuted by their debtors, the Church or people who just don't like them
Edward I enacts papal legislation forbidding the Jews to lend money 1275
Jews expelled from England 1290 as they were of no use to the Crown without their loans

I note that History_of_the_Jews_in_England pays little heed to MC's role in English anti-semitism and from the above sequence I cannot see how the document did anything to worsen their lot especially when compared with everything else they were going through. As far as I can tell the clauses in MC were included because the King gained considerable income from the interest in the Jews' loans and the Barons wished to limit him claiming interest on a dead man's loan before his heir reached maturity. Much of the material you have added is duplicated from History_of_the_Jews_in_England and frankly I think it is more relevant there than here. The Jews did not come to Britain because of MC, they were denied some income by MC due to their closeness to the monarch but if anything I think MC further legitimised the Jews' presence in England. They were not persecuted because of MC and the persecution that took place in the decades afterwards is not connected with MC. The Jews were eventually driven out as the result of a Papal initiative and we all know the Popes didn't like Magna Carta. They therefore didn't leave England due to it either.

The article is not boring propaganda, it is a piece focused on the document itself rather than the wider social milieu. Furthermore I am still unpersuaded that it is sufficiently anti-semitic to require a wide ranging discussion spanning a thousand years of English history. If the editors of History of the Jews in England article didn't think it was worth more than a brief sentence (and I think we would all welcome their opinions on this subject) then why should we include one here? adamsan 19:41, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Adamsan, I also noted that other articles, writen by experts in their field, make only minor passing mention of Magna Carta, and only in relation to usuary. Stbalbach 21:42, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Jews are People too", etc.

What is being missed here is that the Jews are first of all a religion. Because the religion also determines marriage, etc., a People was formed, but not a People in the sense of an actual biological racial makeup any more than let's say, the Amish are a People but not a race, yet their religion and marriages have obviously contained certains strengths and certain weaknesses within their biological makeup that create the ambiguity of an actual race.

Now with all of that said and done let us look at what is going on here with Magna Carta and the Jews:

It is not that The Church (one main body at that time) did not like the Jews - it hated the Jews and the Pope hung them out to dry for killing Jesus for all time and said so quite plainly. It was an all time curse that modern Popes have tried to wiggle around and finally ended up by saying "sorry, we were wrong." But that took centuries and in the meantime a lot of Jews were abused, butchered and killed. So let us move on from giving the impression of "I like purple but not orange". This was ethnic hate at work against the Jews in the name of the Christian religion preaching "love".

Now we come to the question of who King John was. He was number two to the Pope. What the Pope said was the final word on everything. So here were some warlords (classified as barons) who wanted a bit of the action from the King. Their problem was that the King had nothing to give. All power ultimately belonged to the Pope. This was the reason why Henry VIII finally broke with Rome centuries later.

So when the warlords pushed the King to sign Magna Carta, the Pope was the one to speak up about his authority being trampled upon. The Pope then annulled Magna Carta.

The ONLY reason why the text about the Jews is in Magna Carta is to reflect that the Jews were considered to be sub-human. If not sub-human then what? Thomas Jefferson said that the Africans in America were sub-human. This is the same old business of ethnic and racial hate at work. In the USA this led to Civil War. In the time of King John and onwards up until 1297 it led to the murder of Jews and their being kicked out of England.

These are the real messages of Magna Carta. For someone to ask "is that all there is?" is like someone looking at the Nazi Race Laws and then the Holocaust and asking the same thing. Easy to do if you are not a Jew! Magna Carta was an early version of the Nazi Race Laws and 1297 was an early version of the Holocaust.

Of course, if you are a Christian who takes pride in English history this will be too much to stomach, a kind of "I'm all right, Jack!" mentality. But if you are a Jew who also lives in England looking back at your own history you can do nothing but cringe when it comes time to study Magna Carta.

There is a knock-on cause and effect going on here and because the phrase "never again!" keeps falling on deaf ears, generation after generation, ethnic cleansing after ethnic cleansing, it is time to lay out the cards and to tell the truth about history which can sometimes be misused for evil purposes. Magna Carta has been used for some very evil purposes indeed. MPLX/MH 22:45, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What evil, anti-semitic purposes has Magna Carta been used for? We have already established that the Jews were expelled from England due to legislation from the very same office which annulled Magna Carta and you agree above that much of the earlier persecution of the Jews was also initiated and prosecuted by the Church. I am still not persuaded that this document influenced mediaeval and later anti-semitism just because it mentions Jews as moneylenders. You infer that this mention treats them as sub-human; I think it reflects their role as de facto Crown servants who were synonymous with usury because it was the only profession open to them. It also reflects that the Barons were concerned about them because they were forced to pay a tithe of their loan interest income to the King whose power the Barons wanted to stem. Yes the Jews had a horrible time in mediaeval England, indeed all over Europe, but to compare passing mentions to Jews in Magna Carta to Hitler's race laws is overstating the case. adamsan 00:52, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Adamsans comments I agree with. I disagree with MPLX's research conclusions. It is certainly interesting and original, but not how most scholars of the Middle Ages see things. It is an over-emphesis on the relationship between Pope and King, as if the King was ruled by the Pope, which was not the case. The story of the middle ages is the story of disputes and disagreements between the church and secular rulers; Kings were not ruled by the Pope, and what the Pope said was not the law of the land. See the Investiture controversy for the most famous example, indeed the Holy Roman Emperor (a secular King) was the one who appointed the Pope! John himself was excommunicated and the entire country of England was under interdict for seven years until 1213 because John was embroiled in a dispute over the appointment of the office of Archbishop of Canterbury, which John was not willing to budge on. The Pope held power over the King only in the sense that the Pope could excommunicate and place interdicts, and even then, only done on religious disagreements, not secular ones, and only in the most extreme cases, a sort of nuclear bomb weapon the church used sparingly. This strategy sometimes backfired against the Pope when secular kings would invade Italy and sack Rome and try to kill the Pope! (see Investiture). Sometimes, anti-Popes were created. Anyway, you get the idea.

As for the church "hateing Jews", that is a modern POV interpretation. The Middle Ages was an age of faith, when everyone believed in the same thing: you do penance on earth for your sins so that you would go to paradise in the afterlife -- anyone who didn't believe that was an afront to your beliefs, an afront to your very existence and your reason for being, it challenged your very existence. Jews, Muslims and any other non-Christain was therefore not looked on kindly and was seen as somthing that either had to be barely tolerated (in the case of Jews tolerated because of usuary), or killed off (see Crusades). Perhaps a modern comparison is the belief system of some current day radical Islamisists (and even some modern Christains). To say it was "antisemetic" is attaching modern values to a world much diffrent than our own current very secular age. Back then, Europeans were "anti-everyone" that was not Christain, and indeed often anti-Christain as well, if they were not French, German, Italian or English (nearly as many Christains were killed in the First Crusade as non-believers). --Stbalbach 01:35, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Permit me to redirect this discussion back to the left hand side and deal with both sets of answers at the same time (otherwise this will become very difficult to keep up with. I will also add a new break below at the same time for ease of reference. MPLX/MH 05:27, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In reply to Adamsan and Stbalbach

Adamsan: What evil ... We have already established ... I am still not persuaded ... just because it mentions Jews as moneylenders. ==== That is the evil. That is the antisemitism. The Jews were not treated as ordinary human beings anymore than the African slaves were treated as human beings in America. The fact that this is enshrined in Magna Carta is of extreme importance because it is a record of this this hate and abuse of Jews.
You infer ... I think it reflects their role as de facto Crown servants who were synonymous with usury because it was the only profession open to them. ==== That statement is too much to swallow. They were not "Crown servants", they were the property of the Pope who entrusted them to his King. That makes them slaves.
Yes the Jews had a horrible time in mediaeval England, indeed all over Europe, but to compare passing mentions to Jews in Magna Carta to Hitler's race laws is overstating the case. ==== Overstating it due to the numbers butchered and killed? I am sure that the Jews in Nazi Germany "had a horrible time" as well. How much horror do you need to formulate a revulsion against hate mongers and butchers of human beings?

Stbalbach: I disagree with MPLX's research conclusions. It is certainly interesting and original, but not how most scholars of the Middle Ages see things. ==== Pardon me for asking, but are these independent Jewish scholars who also have a knowledge of the Holocaust? Or are we talking about Christian scholars who see Jews in a different light?
Kings were not ruled by the Pope, and what the Pope said was not the law of the land. ==== That's funny because until history matured the only law was the law of the Church and the law of the Church came from the word of the Pope, hence Magna Carta was annulled by the Pope one month after it was signed under duress by the King. The barons would today be called warlords. Let us be very plain about what we are dealing with here. We are also dealing with England which did not break with Rome until the time of Henry VIII.
See the Investiture controversy ... ==== We are getting way off topic. We are dealing with England, King John and the Jews.
As for the church "hateing Jews", that is a modern POV interpretation. ==== No its not, the Pope and the Church and the history of the so-called "Blood Libel" is proof of this hate. What is going on here is a form of denial and revisionist history attempting to bury the past and say that it was not that bad. It was that bad and if this lot had Hitler's death camps and gas chambers they would have used them! Himmler was also motivated by a crazy religious idea that fueled his hate for the Jews. Hate is not POV - hate is hate and murder is murder.
The Middle Ages was an age of faith ... ==== The Middle Ages were the dark ages of hate and now you are drawing a link between crazy religious killers of today and crazy religious killers of yesterday and I am getting the impression that you are telling me that I have to understand these crazy religious killers. Please do not go down that path.
Back then, Europeans were "anti-everyone" that was not Christain, and indeed often anti-Christain as well, if they were not French, German, Italian or English (nearly as many Christains were killed in the First Crusade as non-believers). ==== Well that is about the best "politically correct spin" that I have read in reply so far. But back to the subject at hand which is this antisemitic Magna Carta and the sub-human Jews that it is addressing. I do not believe that any spin can be put on the words of Magna Carta that will make its meaning and intent "understandable" so long as we still hold that hating and dispising and murdering classes of human being is wrong for which there is no excuse at all. MPLX/MH 05:27, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

MPLX/MH raises some important and interesting issues, though I wonder at his conclusion that MC was the seed for Nazi atrocities. Not least because anti-Semitism was not confined to England between the 13th and 20th centuries, but was widespread through Europe at various times in this period. As to his point that Jews were seen as non-humans, it is worth remembering that the vast majority of the population were seen like this by the ruling class. The typical Englishman/women lived a life of bonded labour who needed permission from his Lord to travel, marry or learn a skill beyond basic labouring. Nor was religious hatred reserved for Jews, English history is littered with persecutions of Catholics and Protestants. I doubt that a Muslim (Moor) would have been welcome in the 13th century, either. Markb 11:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Middle Ages the dark age of hate ? Get real. If one period in human history deserves such a name, it is the 20th century.

Opening paragraph

Per the Wikipedia rules of style, the opening paragraph is a high level overview of what is contained in the article, short brief bullet points. The issue of the Jews and Magna Carta is not to overshadow the primary reason Magna Carta is seen as significant. Wikipedia is not a forum for changeing mainstream views.

The header title for the Jews is called the same thing that the Jewish history article is called "..the Jews in England". This is a very clear NPOV title and an acceptable one by precedent. Stbalbach 21:36, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RFC?

Should we RFC this? I think a topic like anti-semitism and Magna Carta would be better discussed by the wider community rather than just us three. adamsan 23:23, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not yet. I (and lots of others, I am sure) am lurking too. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:44, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The latest revision of the article by Stbalbach is to be commended. It is clear and concise, and in good prose. Before this the article was looking as ragged as some copies of Magna Carta. In principle, a Wikipedia article on Magna Carta should cover all the essential details, and it is good to have what it says about Jews in England noted and explained. However, Magna Carta touches on many different subjects, and it is right that this one have its own section in the article. What Magna Carta has to say about Jews, I believe, should not be in the opening paragraph, which, as has been said, should just tell us what Magna Carta is, saving the detail. It would be sad to see this article run ragged again. I have not edited the article, but support the balanced inclusion of this material.

Gareth Hughes 13:24, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just an outsider's opinion, but I have to take issue with MPLX's drive to push the issue of Jews to the fore. If we are going to concede as he does that Magna Carta heavily influenced more contemporous European thought (e.g. on Jews in Nazi Germany) then surely its popular, though inaccurate, interpretation as a forerunner to human rights cannot simply be interpreted as a myth necessary of dispelling. Rather it would work to counter the repression of Jews rather than legitimize it, as the clauses that specifically refer to them are not nearly so well known as those that limit the powers of the ruling classes. Personally I feel the "Jewish question" here was not a primary factor in its creation or application. Indeed in the attempts of this article to dispell the myths surrounding Magna Carta, I would say that its symbolic power is underplayed. Philip Thomas --82.38.224.3 15:23, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since no one is an "outsider" on Wikipedia your views are just as welcome as everyone else. So welcome and please remain engaged. Now as to the points that you raised let us reexamine the facts: a) Magna Carta was the work of the Archbishop representing the Pope who annulled it because "his vassal king" was forced to sign it under duress which was then an afront to the authority of the Pope. b) the "Jewish issue" was a Pope-created issue that fed on what has been dubbed "antisemitism" (which takes many forms and that word is a problem because it refers to linguistics, not religion.) c) The actions taken between 1215 and 1297 to classify Jews as a sub-human group have a direct impact on what happened centuries later in Nazi Germany with the passage of its so-called race laws. English antisemitism is something that the English don't want to discuss (and I am English, by the way!) d) Centuries after 1215, Magna Carta was manufactured into having an importance that it does not deserve. If the claims made for it were true, then the 1776 War of Independence would have been unnecessary because the Americans would already have had the rights that they declared. MPLX/MH 18:29, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add a voice of support to Philip Thomas in this issue. I was suprised to find this article lacking in much historical analysis it could have (though I'm not complaining, Wikipedia is not really for that kind of thing) yet a huge proportion of the text is dedicated to this issue concerning anti-semitism. If this is an 'anti-semetic document' then surely the entire span of medieval history is just as anti-semetic! By the logic displayed by all this polemicising, a childrens history book should be prefaced specifically concerning anti-semitism in volume equal to the content itself! As a history student I often get stalked by revisionst pseudo-historical websites and it always confused me as to why there were so many. I think this kind of thing may be part of the reason. People could easily get the impression that this article has been hijacked and there we have the roots of revisionism. I'm not saying that I consider this to be a hijacking, I'm just pointing out that in terms of content, this impression can be easily gained. Neither am I saying that this is not an issue. However, this kind of thing can surely get out of hand. I understand that my comments will generate immediate condemnation from people discussing this here but nonetheless, I think we have to talk straight about these things. It is important that we never forget, however, this should not mean that simply because Magna Carta displayed an unfortunately common medieval disposition it should be known more for its anti-semitism than its contextual historical importance. (signed by anonymous)

Your absolutely right, Wikipedia, and the web, and TV, etc.. is a breeding ground for those who wish to "revise" the mainstream views. So much so, one has trouble finding out what the real mainstream view is (not the high school view, but what youd learn at say, Harvard of Oxford). The reason for this, I believe, is because those who are traditionally on the "outside", who are amateur historians, or who represent minority interests, or women perhaps, or anyone that is disadvantaged by the mainstream history profression, have nothing to loose by using these alternative media formats to "revise". And, sometimes these views do in fact eventually enter the mainstream, but most often they remain "in the wilderness" and always on the fringe and controversial. As for the incredible detail about the Jewish issue, we have no choice if an editor wants to go into such detail its the rules of the game, but it really does throw off the balance of the article and distort things since that level of detail is not done for other parts. Its like a funhouse mirror, the arm gets distored while the rest of the body remains normal. Stbalbach 23:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Lackland

Sorry to interrupt the, um, lively discussion here, but I couldn't help noticing that this page and King John give conflicting explanations of the nickname "Lackland". The Magna Carta page states that he acquired it by losing land in France, while the King John page states that he was called Lackland because his father wouldn't give him land in inheritance. The latter is what I've always understood to be the case, and it makes more sense linguistically, but I am not an expert in this area and I have to admit that my main source is Sharon Kay Penman. Does anyone know the history of the nickname and which version (if either) is more correct?

I've run in to the origin of this a few times in my readings and it has always been in relation to his loss of lands in France. That is the first I heard it was otherwise, although it's certainly possible both could be accurate, with the former being a childhood knickname which was bolstered by the events in France. Nicknames in England were usually assigned by popular percption which is why you have names like "William Rufus" (William II), "Henry Courtmantle" (Henry II) and "John Lackland." Stbalbach 22:39, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the first person to question the background of the nickname. John was the 4th son and was not given any land by his father at first (later we was made Lord of Ireland). Most history books this is stated. I'll try to look at some sources about this. --Scafloc 16:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm certainly no expert either, but every reference I found cited the lack of inherited land as the reason for the nickname, and I went ahead and made an edit to reflect that. --Crispyinstilly 20:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Popular culture

I've removed the reference to the Simpsons song; ignoring the copyvio aspects (it's probably fair use) it doesn't seem to be either particularly notable, nor does it add much to the article. And as for "a perfect summary"... I have my doubts. [1] might be a more appropriate summary, but again it probably doesn't need included. Shimgray 17:34, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

minor edit

i have edited the sentence.

Henry III's son and heir Edward I's Parliament reissued Magna Carta for the final time on 12 October 1297 as part of a statue known as Confirmatio cartarum (25 Edw. I), reconfirming Henry III's shorter version of Magna Carta from 1225.

my bold

to:

Henry III's son and heir Edward I's Parliament reissued Magna Carta for the final time on 12 October 1297 as part of a statute known as Confirmatio cartarum (25 Edw. I), reconfirming Henry III's shorter version of Magna Carta from 1225.

clearly confirmatio cartarum was a statute in law rather than a statue.

You don't need to describe every edit you make on the page's discussion. You should only do that if there's a chance someone else might disagree or if you think your new information should be called to attention. VolatileChemical 19:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Habeas corpus

I think that the principle established in the article 39 is not called habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is about the legality of imprisonment, article 39 is about just trial. I've changed the text to remove the habeas corpus reference.

Actually that was the problem, John was holding people captive for no good reason, other than for ransom money or to force his will on relatives or whatever. That was the motivation for the clause. I don t know the legal history of habeas corpus to comment on its application here, but I do know that is the history of why the clause was written, specific incidents and actions on Johns part. Stbalbach 03:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

British Constitution?

The current version refers to Magna Carta as "a cornerstone for the future British Constitution". I thought there was no such thing as "the British Constitution" at least not in the sense that "Constitution" is understood in most countries, i.e. as a specific document. Perhaps some more informal sense is intended. Could someone explain?

Crust 13:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The British Constitution is seen as being made up of

a) a large number of individual documents, of which Magna Carta is the oldest

b) constitutional conventions, which are practices that are sufficiently well-accepted to have the force of law despite being uncodified - things like the understanding that the monarch will not refuse the Royal Assent to laws passed by Parliament.

As such - no, there's no single document, nor is there generally held to be "a Constitution" as a single item. They have the force of constitutional law, but Magna Carta simply has the status of a law. Does that make any sense? Shimgray 13:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Historical Documents of the USA

Since Magna Carta is not a historical document of the USA, and since many countries can make claims to Magna Cartas influence, am I the only one who is a bit uneasy with this template being used in an international forum? If this was the "Wikipedia of the USA" that would be one thing. Stbalbach 21:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate many nations see Magna Carta as an important document and also that the editor was polite enough not to emblazon the template right at the top of the page. At the same time, could not The Bible also be listed as an important US historical document under the same loose criteria as MC? Perhaps someone could whip up a template of Important Documents of the English-speaking nations and list MC in that rather than in the US template. And then make another template covering its importance to the Jews of course... adamsan 21:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm the one who made the template, and I wasn't sure about whether to put Magna Carta on it or not. It isn't technically a US document, of course. However, it is considered to have been a great influence on American law (there is even a mention on the Constitution of the United States article. Comments are welcome over at the Template:US Historical Document talk page about what should be listed in this template. Maybe I can put a divider and list MC as an influential non-American document. Actually, you have a good idea about an "English-speaking" documents template, I may try to work on that too.--JW1805 00:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as 'American Law'? I can see how the USA and Canada's legal system may have a common root, but I'm not so sure about the rest of America. Do the legal systems of Mexico, Brazil, Peru etc share a common frame work with the systems of Spain and Portugal, and do this counties' legal systems make any reference to Magna Carta (whichever version you choose)? Markb 11:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, note that technically, the Mayflower Compact is an English document, written entirely by "loyal subjects of our dread sovereigne Lord, King James". So the line can be a bit fuzzy.--JW1805 01:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

IMO there is only so much space for templates, and they are burdensome on system resources, these things are better handled as Categories, which were designed for this purpose. Categories are scalable allowing anyone to create categories of articles, theres no limit to Category creation, and no limit to the number of articles which can be included. Templates are limited to only a few per article, and whose to say which is the best way to organize it. They work best as navigation aids when there is a clear exisitng structure and article series. Just creating templates of articles that can be lumped together is potentially endless. Perhaps Magna Carta should also have a template on Jews in England, or English Rebellions, or etc.. you see how its an endless slope. Use categories. Stbalbach 02:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I realize I am coming late in this conversation, but it does have the force of law in Maryland, and probably other states as well. -James Howard (talk/web) 16:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the first statement. The details of the Maryland Constitution should be removed. It does not add to the significance of Magna Carta.

restore original version

There has been an almost complete replacement of the text with an entirely new version about 3 times as long. The old version has been the result of dozens of wikipedians original work over the course of years and it was deleted outright with no discussion. It was concise, well written and easy to understand, although certainly open to change. The new version may be a copyvio. athough I can't find any source online. It reads like an essay and makes appeals to a hidden authority or single voice, taken out of context of where it came from originally. I would ask that a proposed new version be put up on a temp page somewhere and let people look at it and comment and find some way to be integrated before making this massive change to the article. I found the new version difficult to understand due to the high level of details its fairly complex and advanced for a general purpose encyclopedia. -- Stbalbach 22:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

From the text:

The first clause of the Magna Carta (the original 1215 edition, which will be used as the reference throughout this dissertation).

It appears to be someones school dissertation cut and paste into the article. Its copyright status and authorship are unknown, obviously not original to Wikipedia. -- Stbalbach 22:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit of Magna Carta

I apologise for breaking any etiquette I may have done by editing Magna Carta Page, it was not my intention.

My reasons for editing the page was that it ignores nearly a millennium of the development of Magna Carta after its conception, Magna Carta was vital in the development of both the English Constitution and in the development of Parliamentary Sovereignty.

I also feel the entry massively over-exaggerates the power of the monarch pre-charter. The Kings of the time were far from absolute monarchs. Firstly England was pat of Christendom at the time, and therefore the King was subservient to the pope (in fact at the time of the charter the king was the pope's vassal and rented England and Ireland from the pope as a fiefdom). Not only this but the concept of monarch by consent was very much in force at this time, in the English Constitutional Law of the time (and as now) the monarch was only such with the consent of the people. Therefore the charter was not a liberation of the people from the absolute king.

Also, the influence on the American constitutions has been over-emphasised, it is important to note that all common law constitutions (if not all constitutions) have been heavily influenced by the charter; America is NOT the only country on this planet.

Finally, and most fundamentally, the charter seems to have been completely misinterpreted. It was not one document, but a development over a number of decades forming one charter, the 1215 charter is not to be ignored, but it is vital not to treat it as THE Magna Carta. Most importantly it ignore the fact that the ‘trial by peers’ the charter refers to has nothing to do with the modern concept of trial by jury or magistrate, or even due process. It refers to the right (which still remains) of the nobility to have a trial of first instance in the House of Lords. Commoners would have had no advantage whatsoever from this provision. Whilst it may have influenced later rights to this effect the importance of the charter is not the content of it but the effect it was granted over the following 600 years. For this point to be made properly it is important to go into depth over the effect it had in those centuries.

800 years of English constitutional law, arguably the most important document in the world cannot be condensed into such a small article. Conciseness insinuates all relevant facts are included. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neiljamesking (talk • contribs) .

Ok agreed. I guess my concern is it's evident this was not written for wikipedia, but is extracted from a dissertation. Who wrote the dissertation and who owns it? There are copyright issues. Wikipedia has a problem with copyright violations. The second thing is, it also reads like a dissertation - dissertations are more than encyclopedia articles, they argue for and arrive at conclusions, they are POV. -- Stbalbach 23:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Its mine, the copyright is mine provided i use it only in an academic manner (I wrote it for my undergrad law degree which included copyright law) although I did edit it (the original was about 4 times as long). Now I understand the situation, prehaps if i re-edit and remove anything opinionate and add it here for comments first? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neiljamesking (talk • contribs) .

Ok, just keep in mind once its on Wikipedia, its released under the GFDL, and theoretically could be published for money (a DVD sold of Wikipedia content). Yes it would be great to incorporate it, feel free to edit directly in the article, but if you can find some way to incorporate what's already there, assuming it's not a repeat, it was a bit of a shock to see %90 of it deleted, your obviously well versed in the subject. The lead section (before the ToC) should summarize the article contents in a high-level simple manner for the general reader who has no background or context. Each section should start off with a brief summary then expand with the detail, providing context. Yes any opinionated should be removed/copy-edited to have a neutral tone. Thanks, I'll help also. -- Stbalbach 01:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm not too familar with writing for wikipaedia so I'd feel better posting for comments first, I don't wish to upset anyone...it can be found at Magna Carta/temp.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neiljamesking (talk • contribs) .

By convention a working version would be located at Magna Carta/temp. -- Stbalbach 19:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I have moved it there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neiljamesking (talk • contribs) .

Ok I have left a comment at Talk:Magna Carta/temp (BTW you can sign your name to comments on talk pages with four tildes, like ~~~~). -- Stbalbach 19:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Reference to "democracy" in the section about reinterpretation during Tudor times

'The Tudors saw it as proof that the state of governance had existed since time immemorial and the Normans had been a brief break from this liberty and democracy. This is almost certainly not true but explains how Magna Carta came to be regarded as such an important document.' [my italics]

- This seems a rather dubious comment, and I'd like to see what evidence its based upon. England was not a democracy in Tudor times. Indeed, from what I understand, democracy was considered to be undesirable by almost all educated people, including those who believed in limited state power.

It should be scrapped or at least rephrased.

It means democracy in the widest sense, i.e. the power vested of the people. Whilst the Tudors did not believe to any extent in democracy in the modern conception, the idea of rule by consent was very important to the English conception of the state. This was what caused the problems later when the divine right of kings started to get wafted around. I was reffering to that; the concept that kings of England only remained kings provided the people believed that the king was indeed king. It was the reasoning behind the execution of Charles I. NeilKing 20:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Links

Is it me or are there far too many links in the first paragraph?

Neutrality

I tagged a sentence for neutrality, though I'm not entirely sure if that's the right tag.

The sentence suggesting the moon landings / magna carta repealing occured at the same time doesn't appear to have a citation / source, and appears to be just opinion.

Should that be present?

-Pyke (June 15th, 1:15pm)

Unecessary disambiguation

"The Magna Carta" redirects here. This article follows the usual academic style and uses "Magna Carta" with no "The"

First, the first sentence should be removed. Redirects should not be announced in the absence of disambiguation. User's redirected from "The Magna Carta" could not possibly wish they had been redirected to another article, thus, unecessary.

As for the second sentence, can anyone produce a source which confirms this claim about "the academic style"? As far as I am aware, the document is simply called "Magna Carta" and those who refer to it as "The Magna Carta" are either incorrect or simply using "the" as an article without implying that its part of the proper noun ("I read the Magna Carta today"). Is there a non-academic style of referring to this as The Magna Carta? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

discussed a number of times on this talk page. The problem is people need to know up-front what standard is being used in this article so we dont have constant churn and inconsitency as in the past. The upfront statement has proved very helpful. -- Stbalbach 23:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If it is merely designed to prevert people from changing the article, it should be a comment (as I originally changed it). In either case, I am going to remove the first sentence which does not serve the purpose that you are referring to. It's fine if this article uses one style by consensus but that should be announced to other editors on the talk page or as a comment. It should only appear in the article space if it can be sourced, and even then, only as a footnote. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been tried. Sounds good in theory, but in practice this is the only solution that has worked. Even this solution is not foolproof, people still go through adding "the" on occasion. But it has markedly reduced the number of incidents with a blaring notice at the top of the article. -- Stbalbach 21:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of discussion, let's say I'm OK with the second sentence. Why, then, have the first one? Redirects are only announced in such a fashion when it is possible that someone redirected by that redirect would have wanted another article (e.g. "U.S. redirects here" in the United States article). That's clearly not the case here. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

We have found the above notice to be very helpful in bringing attention to it, it works. The amount of "the" edit-churns has gone from a few times a week to perhaps once every 3 months. -- Stbalbach 01:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this whole discussion is unecessary, as you can see above, the title was agreed on by a number of people for good reason. I see no reason to change this because one person disagrees.NeilKing 11:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to change to the title of the article. I'm talking about not making the first two sentences of the article (1) announcing a redirect which could not possibly be intended to point anywhere else (No one has contested the removal of this sentence on the talk page) and (2) A note to prevent editors from adding "the". Although I sympathize with the intent, this is not the proper method of doing so. That's why the comment was invented. See Yahoo!, for example. The article begins with a similar comment becacuse a lot of users go around deleting the exclamation point in the text or adding it to hyperlinks. However, even though it is much more of a problem in that article, no such disclaimer is visible in the article space, only a comment.

I am proposing deleting the first sentence and commenting out the second.

Please respond to my comments rather than hiveminding. You'll notice nowhere else on Wikipedia are such things visible in the article space. It sucks when user's stumble onto articles and make mistakes which have already been made. However, the history feature allows such changes to be undone and the comment feature empirically has served as a good deterent. The damage of users adding "the" is temporary and easily fixed. The damage of such a prominent disclaimer (aescetically) is permanent. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 16:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I obviously meant that when i said title. My point still stands. This is what has been agreed after much discussion. Please read the discussion at the top of this page. I am afraid I could not disagree more with your 'lesser of the two evils' approach.NeilKing 11:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Delisted GA

This article did not go through the current GAN nomination process. Looking at the article as is, it fails on criteria 2b of the GA quality standards. Although references are provided, the citation of sources is essential for verifiability. Most Good Articles use inline citations. I would recommend that this be fixed, to reexamine the article against the GA quality standards, and to submit the article through the nomination process. --RelHistBuff 10:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

U.S. Supreme Court reference & Word Change

I added a bit about how the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly noted Magna Carta (or rather Lord Coke's interpretation of it) as an antecedent of the right to a speedy trial (with an external link to the case).

In the "Popular Perceptions" area, I softened the sentence noting that Magna Carta is "revered" in America for breaking POV and for being unverifiable--not to mention likely demonstrably untrue. I used the word "honored" which is more in line with the facts. I also deleted an uncredited quote about an American serviceperson that, besides being unsourced, seemed odd. Gorjus 18:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Age of Henry III

Maybe it's just me, but I can't figure out how this works:

His nine-year-old son, Henry III, was next in line for the throne. The royalists believed the rebel barons would find the idea of loyalty to the child Henry more palatable, and so the child was swiftly crowned in late October 1216 and the war ended.
Henry's regents reissued Magna Carta in his name on November 12, 1216, omitting some clauses, such as clause 61, and again in 1217. When he turned 13 in 1225, Henry III himself reissued Magna Carta again, this time in a shorter version with only 37 articles.

So Henry III was 9 years old in 1216. In 1225, he turned 13. Interesting.

Last sentence of section 3.0 doesn't make sense

The last sentence of section 3.0 (1226-1495, before the subsection about Great Council) currently reads: "The power vested in the Great Council by, albeit withdrawn, Clause 14 of Magna Carta became vested in the House of Commons but Magna Carta was all but forgotten for about a century, until the Tudors."

The phrase albeit withdrawn is misplaced, but I can't figure out where it should go — "The power, albeit withdrawn, vested in the Great Council..."? or perhaps "The power vested in the Great Council by Clause 14 of Magna Carta, but withdrawn when?, became vested in the House of Commons..."?

Lincmad 05:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Monarchy

Could this be considered the first step in an English or British transition from absolutism to constitutionalism, or would it be something earlier or later? VolatileChemical 22:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

question

This statement from the article is confusing:

By the Stuart age, Magna Carta had attained an almost mystical status for its admirers and was seen as representing a ‘golden age’ of English liberties extant prior to the Norman invasion.

Didn't the Norman invasion happen 200 years before the Magna Carta?

J. Crocker 18:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a general romantic view that the Norman and Anglo-Saxons each had strengths of governance that came together between 1066 and the 14th century to form the most sophisticated government in Europe in the High Middle Ages. One of the Anglo-Saxons strengths were its legal system (see Anglo-Saxon law) and I suppose the above sentence could be suggesting Magna Carta contains vestiges of that. Norman culture was not yet fully integrated with Anglo-Saxon when Magna Carta was written. I didn't write the above so I'm taking a guess at what was meant. -- Stbalbach 14:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The "Myth-Busters"

Could we please change the name of this section? Something along the lines of "Proposed Reform of Magna Carta," perhaps? ----Revolver66 22:26 16/12/06.

I am going to implement this suggestion, because "The Myth-Busters" is a really dumb title. Further editing of the title of this section is welcome. Josh Thompson 16:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Four original copies

As far as I know, one original copy is in Lincol, one in Salisbury but two are held at the British Library. http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/themes/histtexts/magnacarta.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.179.148.53 (talk) 12:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

I've heard that one of the four copies is in Virginia Beach,VA.

There are two copies at the British Library - I was just there in June 2007. One is the burned copy mentioned in the article, and the other is in much better shape. --Turketwh 20:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

CItation Tag for Lackland

I placed the ^{[citation needed]} request on the following statement: Note: John's nickname of "Lackland" does not refer to these losses to France, but to the fact that, unlike his elder brothers, he had received no land rights on the continent at birth. The reason is that the article on John of England directly contradicts this statement, and consistency is important. If anyone has a validating source for this, please cite it, remove my tag, and kindly fix the King John article as well. Thanks! Kevin/Last1in 23:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of the Magna Carta?

i think that the Magna Carta is a very interesting way of the people under tKing John's reign showed that they were mad. i think that the Magna Carta aslo influenced society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.168.99 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is a beautiful collaborative piece of work. Can it be improved? All articles can be improved, but I hope the work of these good editors is not lost in the process. Mugginsx (talk) 12:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

article 54

Here's something which seems wrongly read in the article:

Clause 54 says that no man may be imprisoned on the testimony of a woman except on the death of her husband.

Here are three translations I've found

34(!): No Man shall be taken or imprisoned upon the Appeal of a Woman for the Death of any other, than of her husband. [2]

(54) No one shall be arrested or imprisoned on the appeal of a woman for the death of any person except her husband. [3]

54. No one shall be taken or imprisoned on account of the appeal of a woman concerning the death of another than her husband. [4]

And the original:

Nullus capiatur nec imprisonetur propter appellum femine de morte alterius quam viri sui.

To me it seems that the article says that people cannot be imprisoned for homicide based on a woman's testimony unless the person who was killed was her husband. Anyone object to this change?

(I also removed a reference to Magna Carta copies from pre 1023.) -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Cat:Anti-semitism

I am adding this to Category:Antisemitism due to the references to unequal law against Jews (in case anyone is wondering why it is in that category). Valley2city 21:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little puzzled. I was sent here by this excellent essay [5] at the Reference Desk. I note the specific quote talks about debts due to Jewish lenders, and ends with "in like manner let it be done touching debts due to others than Jews." How precisely is this an unequal law? Hornplease 02:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No reply. Taking it out. Hornplease 05:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

semi-protection

Is the semi-protection of this article intended to be permanent? mako (talk•contribs) 00:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently not. And please remember to sign post like so- ~~~~

DarkestMoonlight (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

CSI

"The 'burnt copy', which was found in the records of Dover Castle in the 17th century and so is assumed to be the copy that was sent to the Cinque Ports. It was subsequently involved at a house fire at its owner's property, making it all but illegible."

This statement is probably incorrect since badly burnt texts can be read relatively easily when illuminated with infrared light. This is done in criminal investigations every day. 81.0.68.145 21:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

America and Manchester

Way back in January '07, an IP address removed the following text from the America section:

"The fact that this cry could have equally been applied in the United Kingdom seemed to be lost on them, as at the time, Manchester and Birmingham had no MP."

This change seems to have gone unnoticed to date, and the removal of the sentence makes the paragraph confusing, to say the least (what has Manchester got to do with anything in the article as it stands?). I was going to just put the original text back in, but it struck me that the wording is somewhat POVish, particularly the "seems to have been lost on them" bit. Something needs to be done with that small part of the article, but by someone who knows the subject (ie not me!): either replacing the original text; or rewording the text to get rid of the POV; or getting rid of the reference to Manchester altogether. Carre 09:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The first clause to be repealed

The article currently says both that

The repeal of clause 26 in 1829 (by 9 Geo. 4 c. 31 s. 1) was the first time a clause of Magna Carta was repealed.

and that

The major breakthrough occurred in 1828 with the passing of the first Offences Against the Person Act, which for the first time repealed a clause of Magna Carta, namely Clause 36.

So I'm assuming that 9 Geo. 4 c. 31 s. 1 was the first Offences Against the Person Act, but was it in 1829 or 1828? And more importantly, did it repeal clause 26 (which is about the estates of deceased debtors) or 36 (which prohibits courts from charging a fee for certain writs)? Marnanel 12:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Runnymeade

There seems to be no mention in the article that the Magna Carta was signed at Runnymeade, shouldn't this be changed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.144.126.145 (talk) 20:53, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Clause Error

"Clause 9 guarantees the “ancient liberties” of the city of London."

it isnt clause 9 but rather Clause 13 that does that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.182.147 (talk) 23:30, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Original research

Hi everybody. Slightly at a loss to know how to react to this article. There's a wealth of material, and I'm sure the majority of it is well researched. However, large chunks appear to be someone's thesis. Looking at this talk page, I'm assuming it's Neiljamesking's thesis. The entire article between "The Tudors" and "Influences on later constitutions" is without citations and contains quite a lot of what is essentially opinion, which is fine in a thesis but not in Wikipedia. I can only see one citation in thousands of words of text, and we get writing like: "apparently it was seen as no more special than any other statute"; "The Charter had no real effect until the Elizabethan age"; "In the Elizabethan age, England was becoming the most powerful force in Europe and so pride became a primary force in academia". That's three examples in a few paragraphs. I mean the last sentence is just so wrong on so many levels: who says that England was becoming the most powerful force in Europe? In what sense? Certainly not in terms of a standing army. What about the French and Spanish? Did the Elizabethans think of themselves as the most powerful force in Europe? Who says that pride was a primary force in acedemia? How would you demonstrate this, anyway? And I'm sure I could make an interesting case that the Elizabethans were determined to prove their Roman origins precisely because they were trying to assert their moral superiority, not because they thought they were the most powerful nation in Europe. It would make a good essay for precisely the same reasons as it makes for bad Wikipedia writing: it's controversial, and you can have a point of view on it. But Wikipedia is not supposed to have a point of view; it's supposed to neutrally report verifiable facts.

I'm very reluctant to remove from Wikipedia well researched material, when you compare it to the large amount of articles with almost no research at all, but surely something has to be done to this chunk of the article.

Unless anyone strenuously objects, I'll go through and try to tidy up the worst examples of opinon writing. It's quite difficult though, because it's written as a thesis by someone who clearly knows far more about Magna Carta than I ever will. Does anyone know if is Neiljamesking still active? A joint edit with the person who knows about the subject would be preferable.

--Merlinme 17:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

it's written as a thesis by someone who clearly knows far more about Magna Carta than I ever will.

I would suggest then leaving it alone and wait for someone else to correct it. It's not that bad at the moment. -- 71.191.36.194 13:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The current version is after I've edited it quite heavily. Some of the thesis was just plain wrong. --Merlinme 09:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The Chartists

Is it actually correct that the Chartists relied on Magna Carta in their arguments? I do vaguely remember them relying on the spirit of Magna Carta. But as far as I'm aware they didn't claim they wanted to return to Magna Carta (which would imply they had no idea of its contents). They were Chartists because of the People's Charter, not Magna Carta, and they knew the People's Charter went much further.

The only reference I can find to anything to do with Magna Carta in the whole period is someone comparing the 1832 Reform Act to a second Magna Carta. Neither the Wikipedia nor 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica Chartism entries even mention Magna Carta.

--Merlinme 16:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Norman" instead of "Anglo-Saxon"???

In the first paragraph after the intorduction, titled "Events leading to Magna Carta", there is I think a typo in the second sentence. It reads:

"This was due to a number of factors including the sophisticated centralised government created by the procedures of the new Anglo-Saxon systems of governance, and extensive Anglo-Norman land holdings in Normandy. "

I believe it should read "...of the new Norman systems of governance," instead of "Anglo-Saxon systems", and indeed this link, when clicked, does correctly point to an article about the Normans.

If I understand my history correctly, it was the Normans that established a strong centralized government in England, which allowed them to effeciently consolidate power in their new holdings.

4.154.4.97 18:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Danny

It was a hybrid combination of both Norman and AS systems. 96.231.161.184 (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction

The article has a contradiction regarding King John's seal on the document.

there were no signatures on the original document, only a single seal by the king. The words of the charter-Data per manum nostram-signify that the document was personally given by the king's hand. By placing his seal on the document, the King and the barons followed common law that a seal was sufficient to authenticate a deed, though it had to be done in front of witnesses. John's seal was the only one, and he did not sign it. The barons neither signed nor attached their seals to it.[4]

and then:

Numerous copies were made each time it was issued, so all of the participants would each have one — in the case of the 1215 copy, one for the royal archives, one for the Cinque Ports, and one for each of the 40 counties of the time. Several of those copies still exist and some are on permanent display. If there ever was one single 'master copy' of Magna Carta sealed by King John in 1215, it has not survived.

The first paragraph suggests there is a single original document with King John's seal, the second paragraph says no such thing is know to exist. Which is correct? -- 71.191.36.194 13:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is this a contradiction? The first paragraph is in the past tense: "there were no signatures on the original document"; not "there are no signatures on the original document". There was an original document; it has not survived. I don't see any contradiction. --Merlinme 09:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Error in the section discussing weights and measures

Section 2.3 says "Clause 25 sets out a list of standard measures". This is an error of fact - it is clause 35 that says this: "35. There shall be one measure of wine throughout our entire kingdom, and one measure of ale; also one measure of grain, namely, the quarter of London; and one width of dyed cloth, russet [cloth], and hauberk [cloth], namely, two yards between the borders. With weights, moreover, it shall be as with measures." - see any of the online texts to confirm this (sorry, new user, so can't make this correction myself) MatthewVernon 13:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you checked that you're looking at the right charter? Clause numbers are different in the 1215 and 1297 versions. I don't have time right now, but I'll check later unless someone's put a comment here. --Merlinme 14:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've had a quick look, and the weights and measures clause is indeed 25 in the 1297 charter, 35 in the 1215 charter. As we're discussing which clauses remained in force, and the numbering goes up to 63, it seems reasonable to assume that we're talking about the 1215 charter here, so 35 is correct. The different versions of the charter do make referring to particular clauses confusing though. --Merlinme 16:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Prevalence of the the

The academic use of "the Magna Carta" does appear less prevalent than "Magna Carta", though amusingly to me (since I've only ever heard Commonwealthers say simply "Magna Carta") the article appears more common in British academic usage than American: "the magna carta" gets 7,260 hits on .edu sites and 2,140 on .ac.uk sites, while "magna carta" alone gets 18,700 on .edu, and 3,230 on .ac.uk sites. I.e. 40% of UK academic usage includes "the", versus only 30% of American academic usage. At least, as best one can gauge.

I think those search results go a long way to establishing that the article is pretty common even in academic circles, and its use in common parlance is solidly established: the OED entry for Magna Carta merely says "usually without article"; the BBC uses the definite article frequently; the hansard style guide of the Australian Parliament refers to "the Magna Carta" (p.15); and, anecdotally, I've never heard an American say it without "the". Thus I've amended the Usage and spelling section to be clearer on the prevalence of the definite article both inside and outside of academia.--Severinus (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Is google a good methodology for determining how "academia" does things? EDU sites have a lot of stuff that is not authoritative. Probably the best way is to look at how the major University Press' handle it, they basically set the current standards that Wikipedia is trying to match (on this subject). Oxford or Cambridge or Harvard or Yale would be good models. 96.231.161.184 (talk) 02:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Grain/ corn in clause 28

I've let the edit stand because the translation makes sense either way, but Americans please be aware that British English routinely uses corn to mean any of a wide variety of grains. The Cambridge Dictionary (for example) says:

"corn: UK (the seeds of) plants, such as wheat, maize, oats and barley:a sheaf of corn; grains of corn"

Also see, for example, the Corn Laws. Corn to mean maize is American English, not British English. --Merlinme (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The British Library translation (of their own copy), referenced in the article, translates "blada" as "corn". Bluewave (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Cited Source?

I found this bit in the article:

There are some popular misconceptions about Magna Carta, such as that it was the first document to limit the power of an English king by law (it was not the first, and was partly based on the Charter of Liberties); that it in practice limited the power of the king (it mostly did not in the Middle Ages); and that it is a single static document (it is a variety of documents referred to under a common name).

How do we really know these things?--Padawan Animator (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well- I suppose a source would be nice. But do you disagree with the statement? There does occasionally seem to be a bit of a "reference fetish" on Wikipedia, where even things which no-one would dispute have ^{[citation needed]} put on them. I'd have said the sentence is a reasonable summary of the popular perception of Magna Carta, i.e. that it was a document imposed on Bad King John to stop the (English) King being able to do what he wanted in the Middle Ages. --Merlinme (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The sentence you refer to (was) in the Lead Section. It is supported with citations in the article. Looks like someone removed that sentence from the Lead Section. Sad. Lead Sections generally don't have citations, they are merely summaries of the article contents where all the nutty gritty citations are handled. 96.231.161.184 (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Copy under new ownership

David Rubenstein recently won one of the copies of the 1215 Magna Carta for more than $20 million during an auction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.161.169 (talk) 04:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism Act 2006

Removed the following:

"Although the Magna Carta is on the statute books, the Terrorism Act 2006 passed in 2005, 2006, and more recently on 11th June 2008, has effectively ended the statute protecting the right of habeas corpus, the right of a citizen to be protected against arbitrary state action."

This does not to me appear to be NPOV as it's an opinion. If it's the view of the majority of the legal community I'd be happy to accept it but feel then it should have a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpmuk (talk • contribs) 15:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a common trope among the opposition in the UK but I haven't seen any firm proof of it yet. Here are some editorials commenting on the topic:

UK's Lord Nazir opposes 42-day detention proposal -- Lord Nazir arguing in Parliament that the 42-day limit "will inevitably demean the Habeas Corpus principles embedded within the Magna Carta"
Rights are not a luxury -- left-leaning paperThe Guardian arguing that habeas corpus in England doesn't come from Magna Carta directly
An assault on freedom -- The Guardian again, this time directly comparing the detentions with Magna Carta.
You were right first time, Mr Howard -- Right-leaning paper The Telegraph: "t has been stirring to hear Magna Carta cited so often in the past week by opponents of the Bill, but it is worth recalling that there was no such thing as VX nerve gas or dirty bombs in 1215."

These last three are editorials. I haven't seen a non-opinion piece saying that the 42-day limit brings the Magna Carta rights to an end, so at the moment we should still call this assertion unsourced. --Stlemur (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Different Dates

Different Dates are listed in the intro and the 'still in force' as to the date of the version that's on the statute books, in the intro it's 1322, in that bit 1297 (I think) so inconsistency.81.157.89.241 (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You can buy a copy of a 2007 version of this Wikipedia article for $9.99, great deal or ripoff?

See [6], and Filiquarian Publishing LLC.--Doug Weller (talk) 10:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were spamming us, but I understand now. It's kind of amazing that someone is trying to make money out of publishing Wikipedia articles. Do you think anyone actually buys it? --Merlinme (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone bought a copy of the D B Cooper one. And I started to delete stuff thinking it was copyvio and had to put it back! Doug Weller (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Should have added a link to a discussion on this at the help desk. [7] Doug Weller (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

English Church

I think the translation of the first clause should be changed from "Church of England" to "English Church". This would probably be a truer rendering of the Latin "quod Anglicana ecclesia libera sit." Anglicana is an adjective, not a noun; besides what people today think of as the "Church of England" only came into existence in the 16th century. In the 13, the English Church was part of the Roman Church. Any objections...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilipT-K (talk • contribs) 22:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you can't do that- the relevant section is a direct quote from the UK Statute Law Database. If you change the text, it's no longer a direct quote, and it becomes original research. Essentially you're saying that you understand the Latin better than the person who did the translation for the database. Now, that may well be true! But unfortunately we can't just have your opinion for making the change, there has to be a third party source.

I agree that "Church of England" is confusing in this context however. There are two possible approaches; find another source to quote from (and when I did a quick check, I easily found one which translated this as "English Church"). If you're going to do this though, please make sure it's a good source, and please make sure you replace the entire text of the quote and give a reference to the new source. The alternative approach would just be to add a footnote that "Church of England" does not mean Anglican in the modern sense. In some ways I prefer this approach, because the quote is currently from the "official" source, i.e. the one that's still on the statute books. (Although technically I imagine it's the Latin text which is legally in force). --Merlinme (talk) 07:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Article needed on signatures on the documents

Although the original document wasn't signed, one or more of the versions may have been signed. A poster above noted that Runnymeade signed the Magna Carta. He probably signed something related to the original document. True or not, there is significant information on the signers of the Magna Carta. To help sort all this out, there should be an article Signers of the Magna Carta or "Signers of versions of the Magna Carta" to clarify who did what, to what, when. In other words, when a person reads that so-and-so signed the Magna Carta, it would be nice to have a Wikipedia artice that provides more information on that person's and all other person's claims to have signed the Magna Carta (e.g., he signed a copy, he signed a reissue, he merely attended the King's placing a seal on the document, etc.) -- Suntag (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There are no citations in the first 20% of the document.

I'm new here but there is a lot of information there with no sources. I'd like to add a few [citation needed] tags to the following:

But after King John of England was crowned in the early 13th century, a series of failures at home and abroad, combined with perceived abuses of the king's power, led the English barons to revolt and attempt to restrain what the king could legally do.

King John's actions in France were a major cause of discontent in the realm.

By 1215, some of the most important barons in England had had enough, and they entered London in force on 10 June 1215,

There are many more but what do you guys think? vap (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think there is a statement that needs a reference then you are always welcome to add {{fact}} tags to the article. If it is a whole section that needs better references, you can place either {{unreferencedsection}} or {{refimprovesect}} directly below the section header. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

new magna carta

the new magna carta is happening now,if you ever know about it its still there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.232.36 (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Lord Keating

The section Outside Parliament says:

In 1667 the Lord Chief Justice and important member of the House of Lords, Lord Keating...

However, John Kelynge was the Lord Chief Justice at that time. Please clarify. --91.76.189.83 (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I have corrected the first half of that paragraph and added citations. The sources refer to him as "Lord Keeling", but this is probably just an alternative spelling of Kelynge. I have used the Keeling variant because of the sources but linked it to the John Kelynge article. Road Wizard (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Clauses 56-59, Scotland and Wales

Clauses 56 to 59 of Magna Carta refer briefly to short-term English foreign policy, namely disputes with the rulers of Scotland and Wales.

The clauses refer to settling Scottish and Welsh grievences with John, the return of hostages to Scotland and Wales and reissuing of charters, believed to be reneged on by John. Should there be a mention of this in the article? There is reference made to the "British national identity" later in the article, however as Magna Carta mostly concerns England, with exceptions being in these clauses, parhaps worth a mention? Aoibheann08 (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Shariah

What of the Magna Carta and King John and Shariah and Arab-Norman law? Why is there no mention of that here? Faro0485 (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what are you talking about? Road Wizard (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

This might be a garbled reference to Jean sans Terre's alleged attempt to convert England to Islam, currently covered somewhat inadequately at Muhammad an-Nasir. I'll be working on this, and on the Magna Carta's influence on the Hungarian constitution. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Image is NOT the Magna Carta!

File:Magna_charta_cum_statutis_angliae_p1.jpg This is not the Magna Carta, though it does appear to be from a statuta vetera collection, and the Magna Carta would usually begin such a collection. This jpg is, as the text of the manuscript says, the end of the Statute of Gloucester and a brief explanation of it. Moreover, the modern pencil folio given in the upper right suggests that this is folio 85r of the manuscript, not "page one" as the wikipedia image title says. (The errors are understandable, as the Library of Congress' own website, where the image is from, is very unclear. Regardless the text itself is quite clear- this is the end of the Statute of Gloucester and f.85r, not page 1 of the Magna Carta.)

Cheers Neogrammarian (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC) neogrammarian

I believe you. I guess it should be deleted. Can we find another uncopyrighted image which we can use? --Merlinme (talk) 12:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, hey people. Check this out, will you?

Uhm, hey people. Check this out, will you? The Declaration of Arbroath (1320) was un-conquered Scotland versus NORMAN king Edward I. The Magna Carta (1215) was conquered England versus NORMAN king John. The Charter of Liberties (1100) was conquered England versus NORMAN king Henry I. Do we see a pattern here?? In 1054, Rome broke away from the Orthodox Eastern Church in the Great Schism. Southern Italy, Sicily, and the British Isles, amongst others, did NOT JOIN ROME IN SCHISM and remained (briefly) Orthodox. THIS IS WHY ROME COMMISSIONED THE NORMANS to conquer Italy, Sicily, and "Heretic England" in the 1050s and 1060s. See that?? Southern Italy, Sicily, and "Heretic England" were converted to ROMAN CATHOLICISM by the sword -- again, this is why "William the Conquistador" conquered England JUST LIKE CORTEZ would conquer Mexico, or the TEUTONIC KNIGHTS would brutalize Poland and Holy Mother Russia. Please note before anyone steps to me that "Conquistador" = "Conqueror" in Spanish, they mean the exact same thing and are both daughter words of the same LATIN root. The point is, we unambiguously have a common denominator here: ANTI-NORMAN CATHOLICISM. Arbroath: vs. NORMAN Edward I; Magna Carta: vs. NORMAN John; Charter of Liberties vs. NORMAN Henry I. These documents clearly represent the gradual reassertion of the ancient Liberties of Pre-Norman Anglo-Saxon Britain... this is why these types of documents start cropping up only AFTER 1066, see that?? These documents represent a gradual return to Pre-Norman norms; they are clearly a REACTION against Norman tyranny according to the dictionary definition of that word (single ruler, absolute power, ie, Norman King / his Papal overlord). This assertion is neither unwarranted nor hard to see. Normans invade in 1066, nearly a decade of strife ensues, by 1075 20% of the population is KIA or has fled into exile. That's pretty fierce resistance, the Anglo-Saxons obviously didn't want the Normans around. And lo-and-behold, over the next 250 years, the Anglo-Saxons and Scots inhabitants of Britain gradually reassert their pre-Norman rights. This should not be controversial.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.235.44.73 (talk • contribs) .

Article 13?

This page states in the section on the articles that remain current in UK/English (?) Law that article 13 - guarenteeing the rights of the City of London - is still current. Looking on the database cised a few lines down I notice that this is actually listed there are article 9. Is this an error that should be corrected?

In Parliament

The reference to 'British navy' should be changed 'English navy', since the British state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain did not exist in 1664.

Also, the spelling convention of the article is not consistently British, which it really ought to be.

Did King John literally sign the Magna Carta?

This link says that King John was illiterate and that later illustrations of him signing the Carta are incorrect as he only used the royal seal. If that's true, I think it should be mentioned in the article (at least under the illustration of King signing the Carta). --83.131.162.83 15:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC) John was not illiterate because he owned a large library and acted as a judge in court! my history teacher told me this and it was in a text book so i think im right!

Yeah I've heard that before. Probably belongs in the misconceptions section, although it needs a better source. -- Stbalbach 02:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

i have aslo heard it said that way, though some people say he did sign it. i doubt it, but some illustrtions show that he did sign it.

I have also learned that he only touched the parchment to show his agreement, but never signed it. After he touched it, the royal seal was attached. Kumorifox (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles?

Sorry if I'm missing something in the discussion above, but why doesn't this thing have any articles - like, "the Magna Carta"? Is it really referred to as "Magna Carta" with no definite article? I have never seen nor heard such a thing before. -69.127.18.205 (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just saw the "usage" paragraph in the article. Do we have a source that states that scholarly principle holds it to be called "magna carta," beyond simply stating the obvious fact that latin doesn't have definite articles? In other words, is this purely an abstract linguistic thing or is it actually really truly scholarly convention to refer to it without a "the"?-69.127.18.205 (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Most don't use "the". We just need to pick one method and be consistent, even if not everyone uses that method. The real pros and experts don't use "the". 96.231.161.184 (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the fact that Latin doesn't have articles, but as this is the English language wikipedia, I think we should follow normal English usage. It was very jarring for me to read this article, because of the lack of them. --WhiteDragon (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that the "pros and experts" of the ivory towers of academe have been wrong before, and this lack of the definite article for the Magna Carta is an excellent example -- if this is true that the "pros and experts" are indeed so dense as to not use the article. I mean, c'mon now... AtomAnt (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"Magna Carta" translates to "The Great Charter". If you want an English language title for the article then that would be it, but it would be confusing. 86.162.37.228 (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Dispute Accuracy of Article on Magna Carta

I’ll like to dispute the accuracy of all parts of this article on the Magna Carta that claim any or all parts of the Magna Carta 1215 or any subsequent charters and their clauses have been repealed from English law.

The reason for this dispute is because it is not possible in any way whatsoever to repeal the Magna Carta. This is due to the fact that parliament did not create this magnificent document. It was a deal struck between the people and the sovereign and is a deal that can never be broken.

Part of this article on the Magna Carta as well as the Magna Carta 1215 itself offers proof of this and confirms it:

“Articles 60, 62 and 63 provide for the application and observation of the Charter and say that the Charter is binding on the King and his heirs forever” --John10001 (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to dispute it then you have to have a source that backs up your statements. The claim that Magna Carta was a deal struck between the people and the sovereign is a fallacy. The "deal" was made between the sovereign and the feudal barons that represented the people. As the modern representation of the people and the inheritors of much of the sovereign's power, I see no obvious reason why Parliament does not have the power to amend Magna Carta.

That is also excluding any mention of the catholic church's authority to free people from oaths given in the name of God and church as John was freed from the 1215 Charter.

Please provide a relaible source to support your position. Road Wizard (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

An act of Parliament stating Magna Carta null and void would be the equivalent to a repeal. However, such an idea is anachronistic; Magna Carta is not a piece of modern constitutional law. There is no sense of 'people' in it; it's a contract between monarch and landed aristocrats. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

And 'the deal' fell through because the barons ('the people' were no where in sight) would not hold to it. That there were 32 odd acts to confirm and establish Magna Carta between 1267 and 1416 gives an indication that the government never considered it a permanent feature or something special beyond other acts, it was something that could be debated - concession rather than contract - from generation to generation. As a bargaining tool it became irrelevant with the rise of Parliament.--Utinomen (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

A few corrections

1. The section headed "Chartists" is largely a repeat of the previous paragraph.

2. "Curiae Regis" should read "Curia Regis", unless it's plural or genitive, which it isn't.

3. "While executive government descends from the Curiae Regis, parliament descends from the Great Council"

Not true. The Curia Regis evolved into the Privy Council, which ceded almost its executive functions to the modern Cabinet. See for example http://www.answers.com/topic/great-council-and-king-s-council

And the Great Council gradually petered out, being superseded by the parliament. See for example http://www.warsoftheroses.co.uk/appendix_4.htm

4. "the Bishop of Salisbury (also a Lord) was of the strong opinion that the powers of Parliament, mainly vested in the Commons, were sovereign and unlimited and therefore there could be no limit on those powers at all, implying the dominion of the lower house over the upper house."

Can this be clarified? It's a non sequitur as it stands. Passage through parliament requires the assent of the Lords, so how can it imply the dominion of the lower house over the upper house? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hughesr (talk • contribs) 02:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you're correct, you sound like you have a significant knowledge of UK constitutional law and its history. Please make any corrections you think appropriate and can be backed up by citations. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, after all; be WP:BOLD. --Merlinme (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

9 Geo 4 c 31 s 1

I'm not sure who left the comment, but to explain the strange abbreviation, it's how statutes are labelled here in the UK. It indicates it was the ninth year of the reign of George IV (1828), the 31st "chapter" (ie 31st act that year), so the Offences against the Person Act 1828.

The Act begins (at section 1):

Be it therefore enacted ... that so much of the Great Charter made in the Ninth Year of the Reign of King Henry the Third, as relates to Inquisitions of Life or Member ... shall continue in force until and throughout the last Day of June in the present Year, and from and after that Day, as to that Part of the United Kingdom called England ... be repealed ... and this Act shall commence to take effect ... on the First Day of July in the present Year.

that section is commented in the sidebar as "Repeal of 9 H. 3. c. 26." — ninth year of Henry III (1225), chapter 26.

Hope this helps :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 00:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Magna Carta vs. The Magna Carta

For years, this article has claimed that there is academic precedence that the Magna Carta is called simply "Magna Carta," without the definite article "the". As a political scientist (albeit an American one), I have never run across this usage. If the article continues not to use "the", then the article should cite examples where folks say simply "Magna Carta" without the definite article. Can anyone actually cite this usage in a peer reviewed scholarly journal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.168.136 (talk) 02:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

If you check the citations already included in the article you will find plenty of examples without use of "the". Anecdotally it appears that non-US sources generally say "Magna Carta" and US sources generally say "The Magna Carta". Road Wizard (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Title of article

In keeping with what appears to be the practice on some other wikipedia entries, shouldn't this article be called "Magna Carta (England)"?--Utinomen (talk) 10:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are there other Magna Cartas? The only reason I can think of why it would be "Magna Carta (England)" is to disambiguate it from all the other Magna Cartas. But to the best of my knowledge, there's only one Magna Carta. There was apparently also Magna Charta Hiberniae (the Great Charter of Ireland), but that was based on the original Magna Carta, and is generally referred to by its English name. In fact its Latin name apparently includes Hiberniae, presumably to differentiate it from the original. That is, it wasn't called Magna Carta, it was called Magna Charta Hiberniae (or just Great Charter of Ireland). There's only one document known as Magna Carta; hence no need to disambiguate. --Merlinme (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes. There is then a Magna Carta (England) and a Magna Carta (Ireland). The articles could note the differentiate in terms, or, if there is no difference include the Great Charter of Ireland here. Anyway, this is partly superceded by proposed split see below.--Utinomen (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, no. As I said above, there's no such thing as Magna Carta Albionae (or whatever, I've never studied Latin). There's Magna Carta and Magna Charta Hiberniae. Magna Carta refers to one document. There's no need to disambiguate. --Merlinme (talk) 08:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Per the WP:COMMON NAME policy and WP:PRIMARY TOPIC guideline, "Magna Carta" is the obvious common name, and the English "Magna Carta" is the obvious primary topic. The sheer length of this article attests to both. - BilCat (talk) 09:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the English one called "Magna carta cum statutis angliae", or "The great charter of the liberties of England, and of the liberties of the forest" or something? --Utinomen (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Just checked [8] - so England is in the offical title!--Utinomen (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. That title may have been added centuries after Magna Charter was first produced. Statute law database can only be used to define what the current official title is in UK law. Road Wizard (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I was going to wait to have a discussion before reverting you, but I noticed that you also decided to change the date. Magna Carta was created in 1215, amended in 1225 and later confirmed in 1297. To say that Magna Carta dates to 1297 is very misleading to readers. Road Wizard (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

→ You have now restored the text with the incorrect date. Can you please provide a justification here rather than simply reverting? Road Wizard (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't you mean a Magna Carta was issued in 1215? The legal document is 1297 as named in UK government reference? Plus you reverted to an unreferenced line, I have restored referenced line.--Utinomen (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

First, please be careful not to delete other users' talk page comments during a discussion. Second this article is about Magna Carta from its creation in 1215 through its evolution in 1225 and 1297 to the present day. To jump straight to the mnodern translation of the 1297 version and say that is the one definitive source for the article is incorrect and extremely misleading.

Also it is normal practice not to include citations in the lead section of an article. The first sentence is referenced from all the other sources in the article so saying it is unsourced is not accurate. Road Wizard (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't delete other user's talk page comments, it was edit conflict and it deleted my comment. Are you stating that the UK government is incorrect in stating that the legal document is 1297 and that its title is as given, is the UK government being extremely misleading? I have already indicated with the an earlier proposed split suggestion below that there is a problem with this article as it currently stands as to what it is actually about. --Utinomen (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes there was an edit conflict, but you should make sure to restore the deleted comment immediately, or cut and paste your own comment into a new edit so you don't delete the other comment in the first place.[9] I am not stating the Statute database document is inaccurate, I am saying you are misusing a source. As the Statute law database states, the 1297 version is a reissuing of Magna Carta as confirmed by Edward 1, following an earlier version granted by Henry III. By focusing solely on the 1297 version and removing reference to the original you are misleading readers who are encountering this subject for the first time. Also, the Statute law version is a primary source text and should not be used as a basis for any interpretive statements. We have plenty of other sources that provide interpretation for us.

There was indeed a discussion below about splitting the article but you failed to gain consensus for your proposal. Removing reference to the original Magna Carta is not an improvement. Road Wizard (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

My point about being careful with primary sources appears to have been valid. You have renamed Magna Carta "The great charter of the liberties of England, and of the liberties of the forest" from 1297, but the Charter of the Forest is a separate document published in 1217. The Statute Law Database entry clarifies that it is a republication of several contemporary documents including Magna Carta. Your interpretation that the title relates solely to Magna Carta needs to be supported by a secondary source. Road Wizard (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The full name you've given is that from the statute book from 1297, which is when Edward issued his confirmation of the Charters (note plural). The statue law database says in Editorial Information: "The Latin Indorsement beginning “Magna Carta” is at the bottom of Membrane 38, of the Roll, being the last of the three Membranes on which are entered The Inspeximus and Confirmation of the Great Charter and of the Charter of the Forest, the Charter of Confirmation in French, and the King's Pardon". So in other words two of the three membranes are not Magna Carta. I think it's highly debatable therefore, to say the least, that Magna Carta's full name is "THE GREAT CHARTER OF THE LIBERTIES OF ENGLAND, AND OF THE LIBERTIES OF THE FOREST". At best that's the name used in 1297; in my opinion it is in fact the title they gave to several charters which were confirmed at once. I could of course be wrong, but I'll want to see a secondary source before I accept such a long name appearing in the lead. As far as I can tell looking at images, the original copy did not have a title, which makes sense as "Magna Carta" is essentially a descriptive name. The original was written quickly and does not have paragraphs, sections or (apparently) a title. In a 1297 copy: [10] [11] it clearly does have a title: "Magna Carta 1215". So I really don't think this edit can be allowed to stand without a reliable secondary source. --Merlinme (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

1) Editors above are making a distinction between the MC as is and what led up to it - and giving preference to that pre-history over the thing itself! You wouldn't expect other articles to make such a distinction: Perhaps on that logic the article on the USA should simply be a subsection of the article on the 13 Colonies! Do you disagree with the UK government that MC, the things itself, is as titled and dated? That is what MC actually is. I accept that this article may not be about the thing itself, about what it actually is, and that I am suggesting is the problem.

2) Yes, I agree the Charter of the Forest bit was added in 1217 as you have noted, and thereafter issued together with the Great Charter in 1225 and sealed together (yes, plural) in the confirmatio of 1297. That is the history of the document!

We could go on and on. but let take a shortcut. Is this article about

events 1215

or

the legal document called Magna Carta, The great charter of the liberties of England, and of the liberties of the forest, final form 1297, it's history before (i.e how it came to its final form in 1297) and history thereafter?

--Utinomen (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This article as it currently stands is about the whole life of Magna Carta from 1215 to the present day. You proposed a split of the article but failed to gain consensus. Trying to make this article about Magna Carta as it stands in UK law today by removing other aspects of the article is not acceptable. All aspects of the article need to be covered either here or in separate articles, but you need to obtain consensus first. Road Wizard (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Do editors then doubt that the US constitution is as it is today, or, do they think it is as it was 1787? I am not suggesting removing all other aspects of the article, my argument is with the topsy-turvy balance. And to return to the original theme of this discussion, why shouldn’t England be in the title. Surely at the very least the first line of this article should state something to the effect that the Great Charter is of the liberties of England? --Utinomen (talk) 08:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

As you are referring us to other examples, it may be wise to see how they are handled on Wikipedia. If you look at United States Constitution you will see that it doesn't say it dates to 1992 (the latest ratified amendment) but rather gives the whole story of the constitution from beginning to end. The other example you gave of the USA article gives a concise story of the USA with history, geography, politics, economics and many other factors; many sections include links to sub articles for more detailed information.

Neither article jumps in to state the most modern aspect of their subject without reference to the initial origins of the subject and neither one gives a misleading date in the first sentence.

There is no reason to emphasise England in the first line unless you have a source to say that was in the original title. If you have a secondary source about 1297, you are welcome to say the modern translation of Magna Carta's 1297 title is "...." but that should either be later in the lead section or just lower down the article. Remember though, as has been pointed out above, the Statute Law Database is a primary source that makes specific mention that it includes several different charters; you will need a secondary source to confirm that the name used for the group of charters is the one used to refer to Magna Carta today in modern UK law. Road Wizard (talk) 08:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Utinomen, I'm sure you're acting in good faith, but I am finding that you tend to look for evidence which supports what you already believe/ want to do, rather than considering what's best supported by the evidence, what's best for the article, and what's easiest for a reader to understand. As I understand it you consider Magna Carta to be a purely English document, the importance of which has been exaggerated, especially outside of England. That's fine, if supported by the evidence (particularly secondary sources). Certainly there is a debate to be had about its relevance during the Middle Ages, how groundbreaking it was, and the extent to which it influenced later constitutions etc. But I'm afraid I don't find your ongoing attempts to get it renamed "Magna Carta (England)" to be particularly helpful, when the supporting evidence is tenuous at best, and you haven't achieved consensus. The opening sentence already states that the document is an English legal charter, and I don't see why more than this is needed. If you want to state, later in the document, that its 1297 name on the statute database is whatever, that's fine, but I whole-heartedly agree with Road Wizard that it is neither necessary nor desirable in the lead; it over-emphasises one part of the article at the expense of other important parts of the article. --Merlinme (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

!!!!!!! But the UK Statute law is what Magna Carta is! I am staggered that Road Wizard doubts the veracity of the UK Statute Law Database! Yes it is a primary source! Still if you want a secondary source then Halsbury's Vol 10! Merlinme: "tend to look for evidence which supports what you already believe" - do you too doubt UK Statute law? In which case it is clearly you who is putting their belief before what is factual! It seems bizare to state later in an article what a thing actually is, it should be up front! I am putting what I consider to the most succinct, neutral, factual statement of what MC actually is as an the opening paragraph. --Utinomen (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop attributing statements to me which I have not made. The UK Statute Law Database is a perfectly valid primary source, but you need to be careful with primary sources that you do not conduct original research on interpretation of the material. As I have said above, and as you have refused to address in favour of accusing me, the Statute Law Database makes a clear declaration that the material relates to several Charters published at the same time in 1297 but does not specify whether the title you are trying to insert relates just to Magna Carta or to the collection of charters as a whole. You need a secondary source to interpret the primary source for us and say whether or not the title relates to one or the other.

From the article you linked to on Halsbury's, that would also appear to be a primary source as a straight forward republication of the statute. If it includes commentary on the statute including clarification on the title then the commentary can be considered a secondary source in this matter.

Also as stated before, this article as currently set out is about the whole history of Magna Carta, not just the most modern incarnation of it. You are quite welcome to write a sub-article on Magna Carta in current UK law if you wish and then include it as a sub-article link on the relevant section here. Road Wizard (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Utinomen, I'm a bit surprised you went ahead and changed the lead when the people who had contributed to the discussion here had disagreed with the proposed changes. I know discussion isn't voting, but on the other hand being in a minority of one leaves you as far as it's possible to be from having achieved consensus. I'd suggest that you need to persuade us that your quite radical change to the lead is actually correct before making the change. Fundamentally my problems with it are the same as Road Wizard's; 1) your lead considers Magna Carta exclusively as it exists on the UK statute books from 1297, when it had a history for 82 years before this, with quite dramatically different wording and content in 1215, and it has had symbolic significance over and beyond what the English statute actually said; and 2) the way you have chosen to describe it seems to rely heavily on your (debatable) interpretation of a primary source, which you have still not been able to provide a reliable secondary source to support you in. Because of the history of Magna Carta before and separately from the 1297 statute, I'm not even convinced that it's an appropriate primary source for what you're attempting to use it as support for. You state that Magna Carta is what's on the statute book, but I'm not sure you could provide a secondary source to support you in that statement, and I don't think you'll find support from the rest of us in your opinon on that either. --Merlinme (talk) 09:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not disputing that this article is about the history of MC, what I am disputing is what people think MC is. No, I am not proposing it concentrate exclusively on 1297 - but I am proposing it not concentrate exclusively on 1215. Yes Merlineme, I agree MC has a history and that should be in the article. I cannot see that I am 'interpreting' or 'using' the primary source, that is what it states. It's not an appropriate primary source?! what is then? Is there some other UK government I can refer to?! WP:Primary "A primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge". that is what I have held to. As this has now gone completely off track from this talk section I will start a new talk section below and request comment. --Utinomen (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I notice the Bill_of_Rights_1689 article in the opening line states what its full title is. I am therefore restoring the full title of Magna Carta to the article.--Utinomen (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed split June 2010

I propose that the article be split into four:

Rebellion at Runnymede - Magna Carta (England) 1215

The Barons at Runnymede, French involvement, those bits

The King's Great Charter: The Magna Carta (1216-1297) in English and British Law

The history of the Charter 1216,1217,1225, and 1297, what part it played in law then and now (if any), any bits about repeal etc

The Myth of Magna Carta: Later Political Interpretations of Magna Carta

Coke's interpretation, political uses of MC during seventeenth century and later, why people conflated the rebellion at Runnymede with the later Charter, how people use it today

Magna Carta in American Political Thought

Self explanatory

The article is clearly too long, and the article is a mash of factual parts and fanciful parts. The proposed divisions would bring focus onto the main parts and would reduce subjective interpretations from taking over the historical parts. As one of the main hallmarks of those who adhere to the myth of MC (God bless 'em) is the conflation of 1215 with later events I think it is essential that events at Runnymede are separated from the history of MC issued by the King and which entered law. That conflation can be dealt with under the Myth of Magna Carta part. --Utinomen (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If the article was split into separate articles with those titles, no-one would ever find any of them! Surely the only thing people are going to look up in an encyclopedia is "Magna Carta". Bluewave (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose as proposed - This is far too convoluted a proposal, and the names way are too long and confusing. I would support a split into two article, perhaps on the later interpretations, but without the apparent POV of of using "Myth" in the title. - BilCat (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - the proposed titles break a number of naming conventions and the use of "myth" suggests an unnecessary point of view that later interpretations were invalid. Road Wizard (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Oppose [being a bit clearer than I was above] because of the impractical titles and also because I don't see the rationale for choosing those 4 divisions. Bluewave (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if I'm not editing in the right spot and/or should have a user account for this, but wouldn't:

History of the Magna Carta
Legal implications of the Magna Carta

and so forth be a more viable split? I agree that the article needs to be split, given its convoluted nature, but I also think that the proposed titles would be unnecessarily inaccessible to the average Wikipedia user. 58.96.110.21 (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Opposed to the proposal but not to separate articles The Great Charter can't be explained out of context. So obviously the article will go into the barons' rebellion and its causes, the history of the Charter, etc. But I do think some of the suggestions are good for separate articles: the Magna Carta in English, Commonwealth and American law, Political interpretations and applications (which would be interesting and would involve the "myth" of the Magna Carta.Gazzster (talk) 04:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Oppose splitting to that extent and with those titles - The article is too long, with a fair amount of fluff (most of it was written as an essay by a law student, I believe) and I can see a case for splitting into two or three separate articles, with short summaries in the main article; i.e. a short section on the Civil War, with a link to Main article: Magna Carta in the Civil War or whatever. However four is probably too many. I would personally divide it into something like: a main article on Magna Carta which primarily concentrates on the 13th Century; and separate articles (linked from the main article) covering Magna Carta and the English Civil War and Magna Carta and Constitutional Law (or whatever divisions we consider appropriate). One article at least should be called Magna Carta though, or no-one will ever find them! --Merlinme (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Having read the comments above does an editor want to remove my proposal and make a counter proposal with titles more accessible to the average reader user? I am not wedded to the titles I suggested, I just felt that such a stark redivision would get you thinking. I like Merlinme's suggestion above. I agree 'myth' is a POV, but clearly many did (and still do) have a POV about MC, and that should form an article or sub-article on that, with whatever title everyone thinks is appropriate. --Utinomen (talk) 09:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Since consensus on WP is not formed by merely voting, the proposal works as-is for now. I think Merlin's suggested divisions are a good start to discussing splits. In the actual performance of the splits, it may become apparent that there is another way to divide the article, and that 2 or 4 total articles may be better than 3. These things have lives of their own, and it's often best to let the content dictate the format, within reasonable limits. - BilCat (talk) 09:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC).

Yes, I should perhaps clarify that my objection to splitting into four sections was based more on the divisions suggested than on my opposition to more than three articles. "American Political Thought" seemed too specific, "Myth of Magna Carta" seemed a rather non-neutral title. It may be that when coming to divide the article up that there is enough material for four or more articles. Certainly the article could usefully be broken up, if/ when someone has the time and energy to do so. --Merlinme (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I read it that the consensus is for some sort of change, such as moving some of the material to separate articles, but not according to the proposed division. --Utinomen (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)