Talk:Magna Carta

"However, nothing about Magna Carta was unique in either its content or form for 12th–13th century Europe"

For example? What are these contemporary French, German etc documents similar to Magna Carta? Does Holt even mention a single one? 82.24.169.40 (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree. This very broad and debatable assertion should not appear without solid (preferably multiple) WP:RS sources cited.

~ Penlite (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Very good point. We need some citation here, or it should be edited. 2600:8807:309:D000:14FB:6BA8:A612:DF7D (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The citation currently given is to Holt 2015. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

As this was also mentioned by Penlite in the section below, I thought it worth addressing further. The information comes from the third edition of J.C. Holt's Magna Carta. Holt is recognised as one of the most influential scholars of Magna Carta, which partly explains why his book has three editions. Ralph V. Turner's review of the 2015 edition picks up on this point about uniqueness and does not contest it. A review by James Masschaele was positive about Holt's book, without touching on this element specifically. And in Beyond Magna Carta Andrew Blick picks up on this point, citing Holt and I have added him as a reference here to address the concern that only one reliable source was cited. I have also modified the text to use Holt's quote as this may present the information not in Wikipedia's voice; to most readers I suspect this would appear as watering it down, though to medievalists it may do the reverse given Holt's influence on the understanding of Magna Carta. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Didn’t “Disney” just use the M/C in a Law suit & use the “British Sovereign” (being that America is still under that sovereign)in to the equation & won? So it still stands regardless of how board you may feel the British own the land. 159.192.42.180 (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Did they? Does that influence the discussion of whether Magna Carta was unique? Richard Nevell (talk) 08:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

As to the point itself, it's not that controversial. To argue that something is not unique in a specific way (ie: content and form) all one needs to do is provide one example where similarities are evident. Holt does just that in the cited passage (actually making several comparisons, not just one). A statement that something is unique is much bolder and more challenging to demonstrate. Though this is not the main argument of the chapter from which the quote is taken the point is adequately made. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful for the body of the article to expand on the parallels briefly, so the content in the lede/lead reflects what is stated later, as per WP:LEDE. At the moment to an average non knowledgeable reader it may come as a bit of a surprise, and then they get no follow up. It sounds like it would be relatively easy for you to write a few lines. Jim Killock (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Good suggestion - I'm happy to add something along those lines. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Bad lede

The lede for this article is far too long, contains many important-but-debatable assertions, and yet offers little-to-no evidence for them.

The lede should be a quick summary to encapsulate the salient substance of the topic -- not every notion or controversy involving it, nor any trivia unnecessary to recognizing the basic reality and significance of the topic.

Only the most significant controversies belong in the lede (though not in detail); the rest belong in the detail sections below.

Whoever contributed to this massive, verbose, under-documented lede, please revise according to WP:Lede guidelines, which state:

• "In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents."
• "It gives the basics in a nutshell... in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view."
• "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate,..."

Respectfully, ~ Penlite (talk) 08:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, please also note the bit of MOS:LEAD that says "it is common for citations to appear in the body and not the lead" (my emphasis), and more specifically that of MOS:LEADCITE. GrindtXX (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

When the lede is so verbose that it becomes an article in itself -- deterring further reading by most visitors -- it's probably appropriate to include the supporting references, it would seem to me. Especially if it is about a bedrock legal document, of such historic importance, and subsequent controversy. In support of that, refer to MOS:LEADCITE which says:

Although the presence of citations in the lead is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article, there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. (my emphasis)

It is hard to imagine a more complex, current (ever-referenced) or controversial subject in the field of law (itself complex, current and controversial), than the pivotal, immortal Magna Carta.

Respectfully, ~ Penlite (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The article lead contains many assertions that appear to be subjective, even debatable. If the lead is to be an article unto itself (as it appears to be, given its size; substituting for the unwieldy massive size of the far-more-detailed article that follows the lead), it should offer the casual reader (the bulk of Wikipedia consumers) a reasonable sampling of supporting references for those assertions in the lede -- especially those that appear subjective, debatable or pivotal. Examples:

• The lead says: "Neither side stood by their commitments, and the charter was annulled by Pope Innocent III, leading to the First Barons' War." -- yet the wikilinked article on that war appears (at first glance) to contradict both assertions, blaming only John of breach, and leaving Innocent, well, "innocent" of the war.
• The lead says: "nothing about Magna Carta was unique in either its content or form for 12th–13th century Europe." -- a very broad assertion, contradicting popular assumptions about it, often taught in school. Yet only one source is cited for this broad, contra-intuitive declaration.
• The lead reports re-issuances of the charter in 1225 and 1297, citing reasons, but without supporting reference citations. A view of the details on those events, in the detailed article to follow, too often appears to show elements of the lead's sentences on that topic to be based upon only one source (e.g.: Carpenter; other examples).

Such minimal or absent sourcing would not be a big deal in an article about, say, the history of Christmas tree ornaments. But about the history of the one of the most-noted, influential and formative documents in world history, it's just not enough.

~ Penlite (talk) 05:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

On a quick look one of the CN's regarding Edward I's 1297 statute version is not (necessarily) needed as the points are made lower down and cited. These could be copied if preferred. Jim Killock (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The habeas corpus point is also well referenced further down the article. Jim Killock (talk) 07:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The "practical significance" point is also discussed quite thoroughly further down. Jim Killock (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The "council 25 barons" point is also referenced in the body. Jim Killock (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The point about Innocent III is well known but could be better put. It is discussed a bit at King John but might be better described on that page also. It's not entirely clear to me whether Innocent III backed John's right to annul the Charter or than "annulled" it himself. Have a quick glance at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022046917000641 and https://blogs.bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2015/07/papal-overlordship-of-england-the-making-of-an-escape-clause-for-magna-carta.html Jim Killock (talk) 08:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

This is in fact fully explained in the body so I don't think it needs additional references or changes. Jim Killock (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The quote from Holt probably could do with being expanded in a "parallels" section in the body. This would certainly be helpful rather than it being a point dropped into the lede only. I have amended to "claims that" to soften it meantime; but this should be reverted if the body is expanded to better support the point. Jim Killock (talk) 08:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Overall I would conclude the problem is not with references, but that the lead may be a little too long and detailed. WP:LEDE says:

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies
As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate, although it is common for citations to appear in the body and not the lead.
Significant information should not appear in the lead, apart from basic facts, if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles. This admonition should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead, but rather to harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article.
The lead has no heading; its length should be commensurate with that of the article, but is normally no more than four paragraphs.

I'm sure everyone is aware of all this and I suspect new information has crept into the lede over time. And at this point I don't have specific recommendations for cuts to make, more an overall impression that it may be a little too detailed and slightly over recommended length. Jim Killock (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the CN tags as per the observations above. Jim Killock (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Better Call Saul

In the TV show Better Call Saul, attorney Charles McGill, portrayed by Michael McKean, makes a reference to the Magna Carta during a court hearing. He designates a house number as "1 after Magna Carta" (1216). McGill employs this reference during a pivotal moment in the courtroom, experiencing a mental breakdown. The scene gained significant popularity on the internet and social media.

Considering that this TV moment serves as the introduction to the Magna Carta for many viewers, it might be appropriate to include this reference as a notable side note in the Magna Carta article. 2003:E5:771A:1C00:94A9:BC19:DB7:44D4 (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Here's the clip. There is no section in this article for "Magna Carta in popular culture", although the document and its year have probably appeared many times "in popular culture" in the intervening 807 years. There is a section for "Modern legacy" but I'm not sure this particular mention is that notable. Most of the drama pivots around the fact that Jimmy McGill changed the address, in the relevant documents, from 1216 to 1261, not that it was anything to do with Magna Carta, as such. It was simply Chuck's personal mnemonic. But it might be a good idea to mention Magna Carta and link to it at the article for that episode, Chicanery (Better Call Saul)? Currently it does not appear there. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Lede CNs

There are a lot of CN tags in the lede. Aren't these discouraged in the lede except for instances of challenged material? I don't disagree that the lede is too long, and it should have material cut out. However, these tags feel excessive and don't offer anything to the article, especially since the material that supposedly must have citations appears to have them in the body. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 21:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer to follow the broad thrust of WP:LEDECITE which is that as long as the information is cited within the article it doesn't need to be duplicated in the lead. There may be a case for repeating some citations in the lead; the article is read more than 100,000 times a month and presumably a good portion of those readers just look at the lead. @Penlite: as the editor who added the tags, are there particular points you were concerned about (leaving aside the issue of the length of the lead)? Richard Nevell (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell:@Maxxhiato:Please see my explanation in my February 5th statement in the "Bad lede" section, above. Respectfully, ~ Penlite (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for adding specifics, that will make the issues easier to address. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Some point the antisemitic clauses needed addressing

This isn't high on my agenda to check through, but the anti-Jewish clauses could do with explanation sometime. I can help with the background (how KJ and other Kings abused the loans system to force the sale of loans to themselves at cut prices, and then to leverage land repossessions). The question pf the Jews was one of the great obsessions of the Church and landholders in the 1200s. I understand there is controversy over whether there was any meaning to them, but they were clearly on the minds of the framers of the document. Jim Killock (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)