Talk:Richard III of England

Possible

Dougweller has added the word "possible" to the heading. I don't see how this is useful. Firstly it's uninformative, since no more information is given (and anyway they weren't "possible remains", they were real remains). But mainly, the argument presented by the scholars quoted are vague. All one (Hicks) seems to be saying is that we can't be 100% certain, which is true, but rather pointless. How much more evidence does he need? The other authority quoted seems to be saying there should be some form of inquest in otder to make it official. Hicks's view could be included in the section. Paul B (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I read that article the other day and I must say that my respect for Hicks has diminished considerably. This is going to hurt his reputation too. His comments, as you said above PB, are pointless. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):I'm not sure you are right about the grammar issue, I don't interpret that as meaning that they were possibly remains. They are possible "remains of Richard". Here's the Guardian's take.[1] It would certainly be nice to see the official report. I know theses things take time but for something this sensational I would have liked to have seen something sooner. It's obvious that there are strong feelings about this. I tagged Exhumation of Richard III of England as NPOV because of the title and my tag was immediately removed as potentially offensive to the article's editors (which is ridiculous as this only happened in the last few days and up until then there was no question about the title) and also because the only thing the critics cast doubt upon was their reputations. I don't think we can assert this as established fact anymore. Dougweller (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you feel that Hicks and Biddle's comments make any difference to the likelihood of the remains being Richard's? I have to say it looks to me like attention-seeking on their part, or maybe the media making a mountain out of a molehill. Deb (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Re Section: Discovery of Remains. A suggestion. It reads "Forensic pathologist, Dr Stuart Hamilton stated that this injury would have left the King's brain visible ...," with another later reference to "the King." As the paragraph is still building evidence for this wretch being Richard, shouldn't it still read "the subject" or "the skeleton" at this point, so as not to jump to the conclusion and derail the argument? WHPratt (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Richard III - The New Evidence

Interesting video for those who are interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDHDvnnK4nI&feature=youtu.be

Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

If you are in the UK it can't be seen on Youtube, but can be seen at the Channel 4 website [2]. Paul B (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Until 4 September anyway (note: if you run AdBlocker, you may need to tweak). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I must admit that having to watch the advert for vagisil four times was a bit too much for me. Paul B (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

ROFL!! Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, If I'd only known, I would have bought shares in it... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm really not sure that Richard had much use for products like that. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure I'm getting the 'Vagisil' joke. Would it be funnier if there were ads for condoms: small, extra small & wikipedian? AnonNep (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

"Once a knight, always a knight", I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Where's the Spanish Infanta...?! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Richard III of England/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 17:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Beginning first read-through. More soonest. From a swift once-over think I have a treat in store for me. Tim riley talk 17:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't let it spoil your weekend though... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Review

There is much good material in this article, and I found it highly enjoyable, well written and convincing, but it is not within striking distance of GA standard. I am afraid it comprehensively falls short of one of the six GA criteria – WP:VERIFIABILITY – because of the persistent lack of citations for your statements: *Marriage and family relationships

• • First para is mostly without references
  • Second para has none
  • Fifth and sixth paras – far too many statements lacking citations, most glaringly, perhaps, "There is no evidence of Richard's involvement in George's subsequent conviction and execution on a charge of treason."
• Estates and titles
  • Mostly unreferenced
• Accession
  • Third para – no citations
  • Fourth para – ditto
• Rebellion of 1483
  • Second para – no citations
  • Third para – ditto
• Death at the Battle of Bosworth Field
  • First para – mostly uncited
  • Second para – final sentences uncited
• Succession
  • First para – no citations
• Legacy
  • First para – no citations
  • Third para – no citations
• In culture
  • Second para – no citations
  • Third para – no citations
  • Fifth para – no citations

I am failing the nomination, but I hope you will address this problem of wholesale lack of citations and re-nominate the article in due course. There are some other points that need addressing, including some incidental errors of fact, but nothing that can't be fixed during a WP:Peer review and/or a second nomination for GAN. My advice is that once you have fixed all the missing references you take the article to peer review before putting it up again for GAN: the input of other editors is of great help in getting an article up to standard. – Tim riley talk 19:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean my mate Miriam Margolyes? (Just realised I can't link to the Facebook page photo of me sitting next to her.) Deb (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

little choice

Richard may well have had little choice in usurping the throne. It is possibly while he was arranging his nephews coronation that he realised that the Woodville indoctrinated Edward would eventually turn on his uncle.

The nobility probably heaved a sigh of relief at Richards actions as the potential situation between Edward and Richard may well have led to a resumption of the Wars of the Roses. AT Kunene 123 (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

BTW, Are you the same person as AT Kunene? Deb (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Yea, they heaved such a sigh of relief that there were almost immediate rebellions. Paul B (talk)

So true. He was such a good guy - who cares if he murdered a few people on his way to the top? Deb (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

As I have said variously - if Richard had survived Bosworth he would have been regarded as 'just another medieval monarch, who supported the arts (and possibly exploration).' Compared to Cesare Borgia and Vlad the Impaler he was a good guy. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Compared to Adolf Hitler and Genghis Khan, Jack the Ripper is a good guy. It's not exactly much of an endorsement to say that some people were worse. Paul B (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

One has to compare like with like and consider Richard III in the context of his own times - and dealing abruptly with threats was a recognized component of ruling. Is there a WP page on 'medieval concepts of power and its maintenance' where this discussion should now decamp? Jackiespeel (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Was he a "saint"? Hardly. However, compared to H2, John, or pretty much any of the Tudors, R3 doesn't fare badly. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

No, at Wikipedia at the moment it'll be a choice between the Psychopathy Checklist and How to Win Friends and Influence People. But you could always create a stub. ;) AnonNep (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

(reset) The Borgias and Vlad were contemporaries - and some of the other rulers in the mid-late 15th century were 'robust in their actions': Richard did patronize the arts - and the good burghers did see fit to write that he was piteously slain and murdered to the great heaviness of the city.

Does this conversation belong here or here [3]? Jackiespeel (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The link (now corrected) is to keep this talk page from wandering too much from its intended purpose of discussing how to improve the actual article in discussions of 'Comparative good and bad monarchy in the Middle Ages' and similar interesting subjects (whether or not in the style of 1066 and All That. (Though such discussion will always take place on this page.) Jackiespeel (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Isananni

...seems determined to disrupt the article (again), and s/he refuses to discuss it here. A curious individual displaying occasional bouts of possessiveness it seems. The section on the age of the actors in comparison to R3's own age is impossible to source- those I added (and that are being reinserted) only make the point that a certain actor is in a certain show; not about his age relative to that of his subject. It also seems irrelevant to the notability of the subject himself- I suggest that it would be better of solely in the 'cultural depictions' article._Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Why "impossible", exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, too difficult for me anyway! I tried to source them yesterday, but sleeping on it, I realise they do not say what I thought they said- they report the fact of an actor in a series (etc) but not the pertinent point that that paragraph is making, viz the ages of the actors compared to R3 when he died. Which frankly seems a rather pointless comparison anyway- isn't that what actors do? (Change their appearance and our impressions of them?!) _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest a compromise along the lines of removing the references to Olivier, McKellan and Pacino, because their ages aren't sourced but their roles have been referenced in a para above; but keeping the section from 'In September' which is sourced? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

If all the actors who have played Richard are noticeably older or younger than he was, the audience may well get a mistaken impression of him. Actors are very clever, of course, but sometimes physical attributes can distract. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Good one! Please insert that as a source immediately. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

If you two aren't careful, a Red Pen will be turning up here shortly to accuse you of original research and synthesis! :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deb (talk • contribs)

"Aye, we're all doomed, I tell you." Martinevans123 (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Accusing ME of possessiveness, Fortuna, is like the pot calling the kettle black, AND I was merely defending sensible entries other editors had made in the long past where I had merely improved on the references. All actors'names were linked to their wiki page or could be referenced and their age at the time of performance could be easily checked (should the reader NOT believe the entry) based on their date of birth, like I did in the case of Cumberbatch. I personally think the past editor who pointed out how the distortions in Richard III's mass perception also relied on the wrong age he had been made appear to have in Shakesperean performances (where Shakespeare actually does depict him far older than he his and have him kill the Duke of Somerset in one Henry VI, can't remember which part right now, when in reality he was 3 years old, quite a naughty boy mixed with Hercules...) had made s good point for a section called "In culture". On this assumption, I think reinstalling the actors'age issue would be relevant, however I agree the most important thing is that mention of the different performances is kept and the section is not depleted. I may not be so skilled with templates and talk pages, but I hope all editors and users can see my point in refusing those entries to be called irrelevant. Editor isananni 25 Nov 2014 12.40 Greenwich time

Is there any reason why your content could not just be included in the Cultural depictions article, where it would seem to be more relevant? Deb (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any major problem with the inclusion of this here, and I don't think the calculation of age should be an OR issue in itself. The alleged fact that actors are too often too old may be an OR issue, and it's doubtful whether it's very informative in any case. After all, in, for example, Olivier's Richard III film, Edward IV (died age 40) is played by Cedric Hardwicke (age 62) and The Duke of Buckingham (died aged 28) is played by Ralph Richardson (age 53). It very common for Shakespearean characters to be played by actors who are the "wrong" age, simply because they are classic roles that actors of all ages aspire to play. Paul B (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

But why would you want it in this article rather than the "cultural depictions"? Deb (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Did I say I did? I have no problem with it being either here or in the Cultural depictions one. Paul B (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Does that mean you agree it shouldn't be in both? Deb (talk) 14:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I personally have no problems in the actors'age issue being tackled in the "cultural depictions" provided it does not disappear since the editor who wrote the entry in the past had dedicated time and commitment to it and had made, imho, a good point. I do object at entries onesidedly being considered trivial or irrelevant as editor Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (nomen omen) called them simply because one user out of the thousands who visited the page and maybe gained from it suddenly thinks he/she is cleverer than all the others. Furthermore, the section had been almost completely depleted, I understand it MUST be shorter than the "cultural depictions" article, but IT cannot disappear either, if only for the sake of inviting people to discover more in the "cultural depictions" I suffered the same treatment with another entry (for the Childhood section) which I dared add only after I had researched for days and supported it with references that made it relevant to the specific section. Being harassed is always unpleasant, but even more so when you are working for free for the sake of sharing information with users who may not have thr means to access all the books I went through for a couple of sensible lines. If you feel the actors'age issue is preferably to be moved to the "cultural depictions" it sounds reasonable to me, but since I was not the one who took the liberty to delete this issue in the first place, I expect the editor responsible will take charge of reinstalling the issue there. Editor isananni, 25 nov 2014 14.20 Greenwich time

BTW the nomen is a quotation from Carmina Burana.Deb (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I knew the source for the very preposterous pen name "Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi", thank you. In exchange for the courtesy, may I remind you (I am sure you already knew), "nomen omen" is a Latin idiomatic phrase meaning "the name speaks for itself". Editor isananni, 25 nov 2914, 15.23 Greenwich time

You're implying this contributor is female, which I don't think is the case. Does your user name mean you are a nanny? Deb (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You mentioned the genre issue, I did not. I am implying that I think the choice of the pen name Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Latin for "Fate is emperor of the world" - empress actually, since "fate" or better Fortuna is female in Latin) might, just might, strenghten the impression this contributor thinks he/she can treat this space as his/her private realm, like the rest of the world possibly: can he/she? As for my user name, which I am not obliged to comment upon, the very fact that this thread was started under my user name instead of e.g. "Issues in "In culture" section" makes it clear that this contributor was more interested in a personal attack than in understanding how to solve the issues/contributing positively to the article. Must I assume you are backing up this contributor in personally attacking me by questioning my user name? Is that the real issue of this thread as the title (again, nomen omen) seems to be pointing at? If not, article related issues seem to have been dealt with already. Editor isananni, 25 nov 2014 16.16 Greenwich time

Ah-ha! Just as I thought - yet another example of the stiffling wiki Nanny state! (But I never knew that Ray was keen on Latin!? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake, isananni, get a grip. Deb's comment was a joke. Obviously the name does not mean you are a nanny. It was intended to draw attention to the weakness of your own argument that one can extrapolate personalities from user names. To claim that that Deb was "personally attacking me by questioning my user name" not only misses the point, it demonstrates astounding double standards, since you have chosen to berate someone for having a username that means "Lady Luck Rules the World". I've no idea how you can deduce from that any claim that Wikipedia is the editor's private realm (and since Fortune is essentially the deification of luck or chance, that wouldn't even make sense). Is "Luck be a Lady Tonight" a song about controlling the world? Paul B (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

p.s. you could learn to sign your posts using tildes. That way we won't get messages such as the one dated "25 nov 2914". Your lucky year, perhaps. Paul B (talk) 19:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

"Be opposite all planets of good luck

To my proceedings, if, with pure heart's love,

Immaculate devotion, holy thoughts,

I tender not thy beauteous princely daughter!" Act IV, Sc. IV.

Martinevans123 (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Anyhow, I've moved the content and all are welcome to check that I've got the latest versions of everything. Deb (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Referrals, consistency and general contributors' transparency

Talking about disruptions and possessiveness, user _Fortuna has been removing referral brakets that made it possible to link a name mentioned in the sentence to the corresponding article, e.g. Anne Neville from the first sentence in "Marriage and family relationship" section. I understand it is common practice that in ordinary articles referrals are only used once, the first time anything is mentioned in the article, but here we have a 25 downscrolls long article with 18 sections and 6 subsections, all of which are accessible separately, do you find it reasonable to reinstall the referrals so that the subject has a referral once in a section and not just once in the whole article thus enabling easier browsing for the users?

Another change our a.m. contributor made was amending the word "Earl" to "earl" (section Childhood, 3rd paragraph, sentence "During the earl’s life only George married Isabel...). All titles are in capital letters in the section. Should we keep consistency?

User _Fortuna made over 30 changes in the last 24 hours, none of them is described, nor is any change this editor ever makes, at least on this article. Do you agree an editor one-sidedly deciding to put up a template that "This article is actively undergoing a major edit" should at least declare the changes he/she makes thus allowing peer reviewers to check the changes more easily and possibly suggest improvements and/or undoing of edits?

Thank you for this display of pique. You are welcome to my opinion. If you look at the top of this page, you will see a template that shows this article is up for peer review, with the eventual aim of achieving GA-status. There is no ownership (except, ironically, from you, who seems to think other editors have to ask you permission to edit). My changes are the product of advice- not factual, but WP:MoS- from other editors. I am not going to bother explaining each and every one to you- if you are not capable of following a link (or willing to) then you probably shouldn't be wasting your time here. BTW, Earl is a personal noun; earl impersonal. Feel free to look it up. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

"Thank you for this display of pique" - again the pot calling the kettle black "I am not going to bother explaining each and every one to you" I guess "you" is in the plural, this is a public page, as is the article, this is a talk page, do you feel above explanations and community standards? Earl is a personal noun; earl impersonal - in this case it is used to refer to a person, that is the Earl of Warwick (where Earl is the title) - maybe we should replace the entire word with "Kingmaker's" and close the dispute?Isananni (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he or she should use the edit summary. However, you may not be aware that you can see all his or her edits at the same time by going into the history and selecting "cur" from the first edit, which will show you all differences between that edit and the current article. Deb (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I am aware, and that is what I did, but as you can imagine it turns out a hunt, wonder if it's deliberate, but we have to assume good faith, don't we? What about the other issues?Isananni (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

FIM is correct on the "earl" question - see MOS:JOBTITLES. Deb (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

"earl question" - I stand corrected, thank you Deb. However, since "earl" without capital letter is odd in that specific position, what do you think of replacing it with "the Kingmaker", since this is the person the word "earl" refers to?Isananni (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion.Isananni (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

If you assumed good faith, you would not tell people (actually, LIE) you are reporting them to 'Wikimedia managers' etc, whoever they may be. You lost your AGF privileges there. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

No one ever loses their AGF privileges, even you! :-) Take it easy, please. Deb (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Deb, thought it was just me perceiving a moiety of aggressivenessIsananni (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further changes, it might be wise to wait until FIM has finished his/her edits; they might include the amendment you have suggested above. Or not. Deb (talk) 15:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not against the notion. But it might read more stodgily, rather than varying the name? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I saw you replaced "earl's" with "Warwick's". Since "Warwick" is also present in the previous sentence, I personally would have used "the Kingmaker's" to avoid repetition. I'll leave it to you. Can we tackle the issue of referrals? I am just thinking from the point of view of a visitor to the page with less experience in the topic who jumps down from the index directly to a specific section and has to copy and paste in the search string names of people/events he does not know and would like to learn more about because the once in an article referral is some x scrolls away. Isananni (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: You could both bung a copy in a sandbox somewhere and edit it jointly... Deb (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean... :-( Isananni (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Consistency again: section Succession. We have a "Michael Hicks and Josephine Wilkinson have suggested " and now the following "Dr Ashdown Hill suggests" has been replaced by "It is possible that" with the attribution left to the citation only. Can we decide on one standard? Do we leave attribution to the citations (my personal preference) or do we declare in the text of the article? Otherwise it sounds like some historians are given preference and more visibility than others. The same has happended, the other way round, with an attribution to Hicks that was already mentioned in the citation in the marriage section. Sounds kind of biased... glad to hear what you think Isananni (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's true - some historians are given preference. Ashdown-Hill is rather controversial. Deb (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

And of course we can't give everyone equal weight. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

For the benefit of newish contributors, though, you could explain your reasoning here. Deb (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not like everyone is given equal weight. Michael Hicks has 2 visible mentions, 1 of which on an issue where he has been proved wrong, Ashdown-Hill has none, at least as far as down to the Succession section. Furthermore, by replacing the direct attribution with a generic "It is possible" in that specific context, it looks like that assumption (John of Gloucester being fathered during Richard's first solo expedition) still belongs to Hicks/Horrox and it is simply reported in Ashdown-Hill's book, whereas it is Ashdown-Hill's original research and speculation and I do not think it is fair to have it taken for someone else's work. Isananni (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review

Here:

Wikipedia:Peer review/Current#Richard_III_of_England

Thank you. I do not know how this works, can only answer to Tom Riley's question on "The requisite Papal dispensation" – I briefly lost the will to live during this paragraph: do we really need to drag Henry VIII into it? Mention of HVIII's case of first degree consanguinity was included because it was a better known case and could help the unexperienced visitor better understand the terms why in HVIII's there was a case for first degree consanguinity and in Richard's and Anne's there was not. Medieval canon law on affinities, siblings created by carnal union in marriage (so Isabel's marriage to George made Anne sister to George and Richard brother to Isabel, but not Anne sister to Richard), etc. is no easy topic and a comparison with a similar better known case might have helped. I would personally recommend it should be reinstated somehow. Isananni (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

In the past, we've had a lot of debate and disagreement about this topic. I'm all for keeping it concise and perhaps it would be better not to give any examples at all, just to cite reputable sources. Deb (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree. It's not very reader-friendly in the current phraseology either? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Tim agreed to reinstating the removed entry, which is in itself very concise and supported by the corresponding reputable source (one that was added by Fortuna a few months ago) Isananni (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

You mean he expressed an opinion. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Like everyone else here. You accepted Tim's opinion when he suggested the entry was redundant and removed it without further questioning, why should Tim's opinion have less weight now that he has changed his mind after I explained the ratio behind the entry? Isananni (talk) 11:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Does that make it consensus? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It apparently did the first time it was accepted. Does it have to end in fight every time? You actually thanked me yesterday for reinstating the entry after I politely checked the opportunity to do so with the peer reviewer, what has changed overnight? Isananni (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Please desist from personalizing the discussion. The point re: TR is that I agreed with his reasoning he first time, and not the second time. If you went to the trouble of comparing what has been listed as questionable under the PR and the edits I recently made, you will find that I haven't actioned a fair number- edits that will require discussion and consensus! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Following my explanation, Tim and I are of the opinion the 2 lines entry on HVIII (including the source you added) is not redundant. Deb and you are of the opinion it is redundant. That is not consensus either, I would be glad to hear one more opinion Isananni (talk) 12:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I seriously suggest you both lay off the article until the matters have been fully discussed. Possibly Isananni is unaware of the long and bitter history of this article and the constant bickering that has taken place among many contributors - some of whom have thankfully departed - about whether Richard was basically a good guy or not. Stop and take stock before you rush in to make tiny amendments to wording. Deb (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course. I was working on a few suggestions for actually not major improvements (that did not include assessing Richard's reputation one way or the other). I was thinking of making the changes on the article for better read, highliting the change in the edit summary as "subject to peer review", since they can of course be reversed if deemed worse than the current version, but I will find a way to post them on the talk page (here and the peer review one) and wait for the oter editors' opinion Isananni (talk) 12:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course, some editors also do not realize that for an article to reach GA status it has to be stable and not subject to 'bickering.' _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you should show more understanding. Do you remember when you were new to wikipedia? Deb (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Once bitten etc, that's all. This is the second time I have gone through this with the same editor (see September) and I find it hard to AGF when it is not reciprocated (having been accused of ownership and being threatened with ANI etc). But hey, who am I to moan! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC) (PS sorting out that bibliog would prob go some way towards restoring the aforementioned!)

Come in, Tim riley, Paul Barlow and anyone else who is interested! Deb (talk) 12:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I am out of my depth here. My knowledge of the Wars of the Roses is no more than that of the average educated Englishman, and I cannot usefully comment on the edit war raging here. I am so sorry to see it, as it was I who induced Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi to take the page to PR, and I now wonder if my advice was sound. I have the impression, perhaps wrongly, that there is a lot of POV going on, and if so I am too ignorant to squash it. Tim riley talk 20:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there's strictly speaking an edit war, Tim, since people are discussing it on the talk page, but you're right some historians do have strong views for and against him (the pro-Ricardians perhaps being most notable in their approach). The trick, I think, is to make sure that we're using the highest quality sources, and then rigorously citing etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Hchc2009, that is actually what I have always tried to do in the few entries I added, trying to share information that cost me time and money. Time allowing, I would appreaciate it if you and anyone else would like to comment on the suggestions I made below. Isananni (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions on current version dated 28 nov 2014

• Succession

The reference to HVII’s grant of £ 20 to John of Gloucester lacks citation. I know it’s true, I read it somewhere too, but cannot trace the source (Parliament roll or whatever) to support the statement, maybe someone can help

• Childhood
  • Paragraph on “The War of the Roses” This paragraph was included following user Hchc2009’s suggestions that in its turn followed Tim’s suggestion to add a straightforward attribution in the text to the statement that Richard’s father was a claimant to the throne. In view to improve on conciseness and reader-friendliness, avoid repetitions, etc. my suggestion is to avoid attributions in the text leaving them to the due citation (otherwise all sentences should start with “Kendall, or Hicks, or Ross says, which is not exactly engaging for the average reader) and possibly reword the paragraph with something like:

"Richard was born on 2 October 1452[8] at Fotheringhay Castle, the twelfth of the thirteen children of Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York and Cecily Neville. As a potential claimant to the throne of King Henry VI from birth(ref Dr. Johnson) Richard’s father was the leader of the Yorkist faction that opposed the party supporting the Lancastrian king and played a major role in the first phase of the so called The Wars of the Roses, a period of "three or four decades of political instability and periodic open civil war in the second half of the fifteenth century”(ref Prof. Pollard). At the time of the death of his father and elder brother etc...."

• Childhood
  • Mention to change of attitude towards Middleham estate in adulthood

In this section, this mention shifts focus from childhood to adulthood quite strangely and lacks the link to the change in ownership of the estate. My suggestion is to move this mention to the Estates section as follows: Two months later, on 14 July, he gained the Lordships of the strongholds Sheriff Hutton and Middleham in Yorkshire and Penrith in Cumberland, which had belonged to Warwick the Kingmaker. It is possible that the grant of Middleham seconded Richard’s personal wishes(ref. Kendall, Richard III,p 125 “Richard had won his way back to Middleham Castle”). However, any personal attachment he may have felt to Middleham was likely mitigated in later adulthood, as surviving records demonstrate he spent less time there than at Barnard and Pontefract(related present ref by Pollard)

• HVII’s expenses on Richard’s tomb

I cannot trace the entry right now, but I remember it speaks of £ 50. The first contract spoke of £ 50, but the actual sum disbursed by HVII to James Keyley in 1495 for Richard’s tomb in 1495 was £ 10 (ref Rhoda Edwards, The Ricardian, Vol. III, No 50, September 1975, pp 8-9), quite a bargain, a discount under duress? :)

• Marriage and family relationships – referral to Anne Neville’s article

May I suggest to reinstate the referral brakets to the name Anne Neville in the first sentence? I know it’s a repetition of a referral some 2 upscrolls away, but given the relevance in this specific section it may not be redundant and would make for easier browsing for the user, since the section can be accessed separately from the index and the occasional user may not be aware the referral is in another section

• Bibliography and Further Reading

The Bibliography section mentions 3 books, while the Further reading section mentions 19 (mostly books, but a few articles are also included). I will crossmatch the different citations to check if any further books (not articles) have missed inclusion in this section, but in the meantime, would it not be the case to merge the 2 sections in 1 single Bibliography section? Should the articles be included or not? Should all books that are mentioned in the citations be included e.g. Josephine Wilkinson's "Richard the young king to be"? Some books are strictly on Richard, others are not (e.g. we have 3 on the War od the Roses, 2 on Anne Neville, 1 on George of Clarence, etc.), my opinion is the bibliography should only list books on Richard. Some qualified books on Richard are not listed, e.g. Carson's The Maligned King or Hancock's The murder in the Tower, should we add them? The bibliography section lists works by author/title/publisher/isbn id, the Further reading section lists works by title/by author/publisher in brakets/isbn id in brakets - which criteria should we choose to keep consistency? Furthermore, I do not have the ability to work on sections that impact on the index if we want to merge the bibliography and further reading section, so I hope someone can help there.

Looking forward to your opinion Isananni (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a note to Tim. I sympathise with Fortuna, who has done a lot of work to try to improve the article - but (if he/she will forgive me saying so) perhaps a bit too eagerly - and is now becoming frustrated by some of the criticisms. However, I think I went on record some years ago to the effect that this article can never maintain GA status because of the emotionally-charged views of many contributors. Now, personally, I think Richard III was probably not a very nice man - just like most medieval kings. However, over the years, there have been a number of revisionist views expressed in the media, by scholars and amateurs alike, which means that everything does have to be sourced, and reputably sourced. The discovery of the body hasn't helped. Despite the fact that it has proved Richard did suffer from a physical deformity, just like the Tudors claimed, has been interpreted by some as somehow "proving" the opposite. The arguments are guaranteed to continue for many years to come, and every so often we will take a couple of steps backwards in terms of NPOV. Deb (talk) 11:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Many other, more emotionally-charged articles have retained FA status, so I'm perhaps more sanguine! In the meantime, I've taken a quick stab at pulling together the books and article used in the article so far, for the bibliography. I've put them in a sub-section below for the time being. Key tasks (dull, but essential) appear to be:

• Checking the location, publisher and ISBN/OCLC numbers, and page numbers for articles etc. and getting them all into a common format (e.g. the cite book already used in the article; I've done a couple of these at the top of the list, the ones below have yet to be converted).
• Checking that they are all indeed high quality, secondary sources, representing the best of the current scholarship. I have my doubts about some of them.
• Deduping; in some cases we're citing different printings of the same book edition.
• Checking that we have page numbers for the citations in the original citations (in some cases we don't have them, or the page numbers look awfully like the article page range, rather than the specific page for the fact being cited). Hchc2009 (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Singling out some works compared to others is not good academic practice. All works should be mentioned in one single list in alphabetical order so that repetitions (e.g. Ross, Ashdown-Hill) or omissions (e.g. Weir was included in the Further Reading, should we remove it?), now present, can be more easily traced and removed. I am not sure a fiction novel like Arnand's Crown of Roses should be listed, nor in general works that are not specificallly on Richard (e.g. George of Clarence's page only lists books on George, Edward IV's page only lists quoted works in the references without double mentioning them in a Bibliography section, etc.) or the Bibliography section would end up being a repetition of the References section with no real ratio. As for quotations, I do not think always quoting the precise page is an issue: on one hand, pages will always change from one edition to the other, on the other some quotations derive from a whole book, not from one single page, as is e.g. the case for Baldwin's book on The lost prince where Richard Plantagenet of Eastwell is assumed to be the youngest of the so called Princes in the Tower.Isananni (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Isananni, as I explained above, I'm not singling out works, see the first bullet of my comment above.

As I think I've explained before, the MOS says that a Bibliography section should list the works used in the article; the Further Reading section should have any key works that aren't used but are potentially useful to the reader.

Citations on the wiki should almost always give the relevant pages in a volume where the argument or statement can be found - quotations should always have the page number; editions are different, which is why location, publisher ISBN and/or OCLC numbers etc. are important to allow other editors to identify which volume is being used.

In general I'd agree with you about novels, but you may want to double check which footnote that is supporting.

If you fancy doing some of the legwork to fill in the gaps in the works used in the article already and listed below, or to convert them into a common citation template, you'd be very welcome. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, novels should be excluded unless there is some specific reason to quote from or refer to them in the article. We have a separate article for popular culture/trivia, which is where they belong. Deb (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I had already made a list offline so I can help, even if not straight away. Are we agreing the Bibliography should be a single list in alphabetical order with all works mentioned in the article (excluding novels, web links, etc.) and the Further reading should contain additional works, e.g. Carson and Weir, that are not mentioned in the article? Isananni (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

If a novel is being used in a citation, it should be in the bibliography, as an editor is claiming it supports a particular fact (rightly or wrongly). To what extent we should be citing novels in support of particular claims is another matter. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The only example I can think of that might be appropriate is the Josephine Tey book. Deb (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Anand's Crown of Roses novel was mentioned in the cultural depictions section, quite oddly AS ref instead of direct attribution, I moved the mention from ref to direct attribution in text, which leaves all novels out of the Bigliography, hope you agree on the solution. I will work on the single list for biblio and Further reading sections tomorrow Isananni (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I've done the bibliography and updated the article, and deduped against the Further Reading, but haven't changed the formatting of the Further Reading (which is probably covered by MOS:CITE and needs to be raised here first). As noted, there's a fair bit of work to be done to sort out the referencing in terms of specific volumes, etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

thanks, i will try and complete refs to publishers and missing isbn ids from my pc tomorrow, please note that - Ross'works are double, Anthony Chhetham should be Cheetham Anthony and listed alphabetically accordingly, Anand's novel need no longer be listed in the biblio ince I replaced the ref with a direct attribution in the article text — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isananni (talk • contribs) 19:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

ps why did you add "citation needed" to the mention of Anand's novel in the article? The novel itself is the citation Isananni (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph compares and contrasts the novel to other fictional material, and suggests that it is pro-Ricardian, all of which needs to be supported by a citation to avoid being original research. More generally, I'd expect a novel relevant to a historical subject to be covered in secondary literature and cited accordingly, which would establish its relevance to the subject of the article. If it helps, think about the question "why are we telling the reader this novel exists?" Some novels, plays, etc. are highly relevant to our understanding of a figure like Richard III; others tell us nothing at all. Typically, reliable secondary sources will exist to explain the significance of the former grouping. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

As it happens, I've read Crown of Roses, and although it's true that it is pro-Richard, that's nothing unusual in fiction. I don't recall there being anything notable about it. I suspect this is just a leftover from the days when we used to have a trivia section within the article. Deb (talk) 11:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Deb. Anyhow, Rohan Maitzen from the English Department at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia has reviewed several pro-Richard fiction novels and also mentions Crown of Roses among them http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/all-the-world-to-nothing/. I guess it can be added as citation, while the mention to the novel itself, now no longer present in the references can be removed from the Bibliography section Isananni (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft bibliography

• Anand, Valerie. Crown of Roses.
• Anthony Cheetham, Anthony Cheetham (1972). The Life and Times of Richard III. Weidenfeld & Nicholson. ISBN 1566490383.
• Ashdown-Hill, John (2010). The Last Days of Richard III. Stroud, UK: The History Press. ISBN 9780752454047.
• Baldwin, David (2007). The survival of Richard of York. Stroud, UK.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• Baldwin, David (2012). Richard III.
• Booth, P. W. B. (197). Landed society in Cumberland and Westmorland, c.1440-1485- the politics of the Wars of the Roses, Unpublished PhD. thesis.
• Camden, William (1870). Remains concerning Britain.
• Chrimes, S. B. (1999). Henry VII. Yale, US.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• Churchill, George B. (1976). Richard the third up to Shakespeare. Alan Sutton, Rowman & Littlefield.
• Clarke, Peter D. (2005). "English Royal Marriages and the Papal Penitentiary in the Fifteenth Century". English Historical Review. 190 (488). {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
• Clemen, Wolfgang (1977). Richard III: "foul hunch-back'd toad", Development of Shakespeare's Imagery. ISBN 978-0416857306.
• Clements, R. Markham (1906). Richard III: his life & character, reviewed in the light of recent research. London, UK: Smith and Elder.
• Costello, Louisa Stuart (2009). Memoirs of Anne, Duchess of Brittany, Twice Queen of France. ISBN 1150152451.
• Ferguson, R. S. (1980). A History of Cumberland. London, UK.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• Gairdner, James (1898). History of the life and reign of Richard the Third, to which is added the story of Perkin Warbeck: from original documents. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Gillingham, J. (1933). The Wars of the Roses. London, UK.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• Given-Wilson, Chris; Curteis, Alice (1984). The royal bastards of medieval England. Routledge.
• Grummitt, D. (2013). The Wars of the Roses. London, UK.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• Hanham, Alison (1975). ichard III and his early historians 1483–1535. Oxford, UK.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• Hicks, Michael. Anne Neville Queen to Richard III.
• Hicks, Michael (1980). False, Fleeting, Perjur'd. Gloucester, UK: Clarence.
• Hicks, Michael (2013). Richard III. Stroud, UK.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• Horrox, Richard (1982). Richard III: A Study in Service. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521407265.
• Hume, David (1756). The History of England. Vol. 2. Liberty Classics. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
• Johnson, P. A. (1988). Duke Richard of York. Oxford, UK.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• Jones. Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle.
• Kelly, R. Gordon (2000). "Josephine Tey and Others: The Case of Richard III". In Browne, Ray B.; Kreiser, Lawrence A. (eds.). The Detective as Historian: History and Art in Historical Crime Fiction. Vol. 1. Popular Press.
• Kendall, Paul Murray (1956). Richard the Third. W. W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-00785-5.
• Kincross, J. (1988). The Battlefields of Britain. London, UK. ISBN 0882544837.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• Kleineke, Hannes (2007). "Richard III and the Origins of the Court of Requests". The Ricardian. 17.
• Licence, Amy (2013). Anne Neville: Richard III's Tragic Queen.
• McEvoy, Sean (2008). Ben Jonson, Renaissance Dramatist. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
• Page, Gerald. The Lineage and Ancestry of H.R.H. Prince Charles, Prince of Wales. Vol. 1. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

• Parliament of Great Britain (1806). The Parliamentary History of England from the Earliest Period to the Year 1803. Vol. 1. London, UK: Parliament of Great Britain. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
• Penn, Thomas (2013). Winter King: Henry VII and The Dawn of Tudor England. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-1-4391-9156-9.
• Pollard, A. J. The Wars of the Roses. London, UK.
• Rees, E. A. (2008). A Life of Guto'r Glyn, Y Lolfa. ISBN 086243971X.
• Riley, T. (1854). Ingulph's Chronicle of the Abbey of Croyland: with the Continuations By Ingulf, Peter (of Blois). London, UK.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• Ross, Charles (1974). Edward IV. University of California Press. ISBN 0520027817.
• Ross, Charles (1981). Richard III. Eyre Methuen. ISBN 0-413-29530-3.
• Ross, C. D. (1974). Edward IV. Trowbridge , UK.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• Ross, C. D. (1981). Richard III. St Ives, UK.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• Scofield, C. (1923). The Life and Reign of Edward IV. Vol. 1. London, UK.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• Shipley, Joseph Twadell (2001). The Origins of English Words: A Discursive Dictionary of Indo-European Roots. JHU Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-6784-2.
• Steer, Christian (2014). "The Plantagenet in the Parish: Richard III's Daughter in Medieval London". Ricardian. 24. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
• Wagner, Anthony (1967). Heralds of England: A History of the Office and College of Arms. London, UK: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
• Wagner, Anthony (1967). Heralds of England: A History of the Office and College of Arms. London, UK: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
• Walpole, Horace (1768). Historic doubts on the life and reign of King Richard the Third. Dodsley, UK.
• Weingberger, Jerry, ed. (1996). Francis Bacon, The History of the Reign of King Henry the Seventh. Cornell University Press. ISBN 0801430674.
• Wilkinson, Josephine (2007). Richard the Young King to Be. Amberley, UK.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• Williams, Barrie (1983). The Portuguese Connection and the Significance of the 'Holy Princess'. Vol. 6. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help)
• Wood, C. T. (1975). The Deposition of Edward V. Vol. 3. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help)

I don't know who posted the above bibliography, but it is filled with typos and errors. I've had a go at straightening the article's version, but it will take a better historian than I. Doesn't anyone check this stuff? 81.159.159.128 (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Not accurate description of results

Currently, under the ancestry section, the article states: "In December 2014, further DNA study confirmed the identity of Richard III's body, but indicated that there were discrepancies in his accepted male lineage shown above." Neither of the two references state this, nor is it possible to corroborate at this time. There could be a problem with Richard III's male-line ancestry being incorrect, but it could just as easily (and more likely, given the large number of generations) have been an NPE in the generations between Edward III and the 5th Duke of Beaufort. I will reword the sentence to be more clear.PohranicniStraze (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I've added a basic explanation 'but this could also involve 'false paternity' in the Beaufort family, who provided the comparison DNA' (as per source). Wording/detail can always be improved but substantial updates would be more appropriate in Exhumation of Richard III of England with a sourced summary here in the bio. AnonNep (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Deb (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I have tried to improve the grammar/ style of the passage added to the section "Discovery of remains", but I'm now unsure if that passage should be there at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

"The lack of such links could involve 'false paternity' in the Beaufort family, who had provided the comparison DNA." This is a very ambiguous explanation of the results. The results bring into question the bloodline legitimacy of Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI and the rulers of the Tudor dynasty. If the 'false paternity' occurred after Elizabeth I then it involved only the Beaufort family. This is notable and warrants a paragraph for clarification rather than a sentence. Of interest is that the DNA study found two 'false paternity' events, not one. The second was positively identified within the Beaufort line. Wayne (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "two 'false paternity' events" means. Please can you clarify? Deb (talk) 08:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

From what I understood from the Leicester University study (here is the link to the original text http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141202/ncomms6631/full/ncomms6631.html) it means they identified 2 cases of "break in the male line" or, for non experts, 2 cases of adultery leading to the birth of male descents with a biological father that was not the recorded husband of the mother. They also stated these cases more probably referred to a period following the 18th century Isananni (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

How about:

In November 2014 the results of the testing were announced, confirming that the maternal side was as previously thought. The paternal side, however, demonstrated some variance from what had been expected, with the DNA showing no links to the purported descendants of Richard's great-grandfather John of Gaunt through Henry Somerset, 5th Duke of Beaufort. This could be the result of paternity that does not reflect the accepted genealogies between Richard and Gaunt or between Gaunt and the 5th Duke of Beaufort.

References

Adding missed sig - sorry! AnonNep (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

John of Gaunt was not Richard's great-grandfather, Edward III was the common ancestor of John of Gaunt and Richard III being John of Gaunt's father and Richard III's great-great-grandfather (but I could have missed a great, Edward III was grandfather to Richard III's grandfather), the only male living descendants that were found were linked to Edward III throught John of Gaunt and his 3rd wife Katherine Swynford's line of descent. Isananni (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

If you have a look at the Ancestry chart John of Gaunt is Richard's great-grandfather but Edward III is his great-great-grandfather twice. The male DNA testing is through the House of Beaufort and they're only using the common male line shown here (only one of Richard's Edward III links and not the Gaunt one which involves female ancestors) so a rephrase of the above would be:

In November 2014 the results of the testing were announced, confirming that the maternal side was as previously thought. The paternal side, however, demonstrated some variance from what had been expected, with the DNA showing no links to the purported descendants of Richard's great-great-grandfather Edward III of England through Henry Somerset, 5th Duke of Beaufort. This could be the result of paternity that does not reflect the accepted genealogies between Richard and Edward III or between Edward III and the 5th Duke of Beaufort.

References

Adding missed sig - sorry! AnonNep (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for raising the issue of the ancestry published on Wikipedia being wrong. Edward III had 6 sons, John of Gaunt was the 3rd one and through his first wife was father to Henry of Bolingbroke later king Henry IV, who in his turn was father to Henry V in his turn father to Henry VI, all Lancastrian Kings. Edward IV's 4th son was Edmund of Langley, first duke of York and ancestor to Richard of York, Richard III's father, who ultimately rebelled against his COUSIN (not brother) Henry VI. John of Gaunt's children from his 3rd wife Katherine Swynford were called Beaufort (from one of John of Gaunt's estate in France) and their living male descendants claim Edward III as ancestor through that line. You may check further sources and they will confirm what I have just stated, have been involved in this genealogy for quite a time. Isananni (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I now see what you mean, yes, John of Gaunt was Richard III's great-grandfather through John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford's daughter Joan Beaufort, but since they are discussing Y chromosome which only involves direct male line, that female line does not count in this specific issue

As for your phrasing, it is not correct to say that Richard's maternal line was as thought. The mitochondrial DNA was extracted from living descendants of a female line deriving from Anne of York, Richard III's sister, who shared Richard's mta dna from their common mother Cecily Neville. So maybe it would be more correct to say "the female ancestorship deriving from Richard III's mother Cecily Neville was confirmed", for the rest youur rephrasing sounds fine, you may want to replace a recent change in this topic by an unknown user where I only specified ancestorship. Your phrasing and references sound more accurate Isananni (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

On a second thought, "maternal line" sounds fine after all if we need to keep it concise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isananni (talk • contribs) 16:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)