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)

• I added another source, which says First, the formulation of Magna Carta in England was not an isolated event. It was not unique. The results of the meeting at Runnymede coincided with many similar statements of law on the Continent. In form and content, they ran roughly parallel to the English document, though none was exactly identical to it. Among the most nearly contemporary were the Liber Augustalis, containing the Constitutions of Melfi issued in 1231 by the Emperor Frederick II for the kingdom of Sicily, and the Golden Bull of Zagreb, issued by King Bela in 1242 to the towns and cities of Slavonia and Hungary." There were also many others. Among the best known of them are Philippe de Beaumanoir's Customs of the Beauvaisis in France, the Siete Partidas in Castile, the Sachsenspiegel in Germany, the Usatges of Barcelona from Catalonia, and the laws of King Magnus LadulAs in Sweden. In general, though, we have to go with what the sources say; they seem pretty unanimous as to the uniqueness of the Magna Carta being a myth. --Aquillion (talk) 05:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks @Aquillion; the content seems reasonable at a glance, but as noted elsewhere, the lead should summarise the page without citations, so either what you have added should exist in more detail lower down with citations, or it should as it stands now be moved into a section lower down and then summarised in the lead (without citations).

  Somehow over the last 1-2 years the lead has become fully cited despite there being no need to do this in WP:MOS; I don't understand why these citations have been added (there's been no discussion for this change on the talk page) but suspect a lot of it is new material not appearing elsewhere so I am not sure that the lead and the body sufficiently relate to each other at this point.Jim Killock (talk) 06:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I think my revised version brings the lead a bit closer to the body - see particularly the "Interpretation" section, which goes into depth on the modern academic consensus about the Magna Carta and how the myth around it arose. There's room to tweak both a bit, but the overall thrust of the article is clear. We could possibly add a bit about antecedents, which is the one part that isn't in-depth in the body, but it does discuss the broader myth extensively. --Aquillion (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Aquillion I definitely agree the antecedents should be discussed more fully if possible. Basically, tho citations 10, 11, 12 and 13, 14, 15 need to be referenced where these sources / points are discussed in the main body; there are similar points made about "myths" but apparently from different, rather earlier sources. These, to be a little pedantic, wouldn't use the phrase "human rights" I suspect, which is more prevalent in post WWII discourse. It may therefore be helpful to add a sentence on the current academic consensus, or to place these citations where that is discussed. Jim Killock (talk) 00:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I've moved / copied things to the body of the article and left notes where more information could be added on the two points, being contempoary comparisons and the views of modern historians, both of which seem under-developed to me. Jim Killock (talk) 09:50, 30 August 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)

• I think that the sources are pretty unanimous as to the Magna Carta's historical significance being (as many of them say) a myth - it's an important myth, but the Magna Carta's importance comes with the use that people put that myth to in the 18th century. As far as I can tell, a clear majority of professional historians agree that it wasn't particularly significant or unique when it was written. If you want the lead to imply otherwise (ie. to treat it as an active dispute between historians) you need actual sources saying as much; arguing that it disagrees with what you feel you were taught in school isn't sufficient. Right now every source we have agrees that the Magna Carta was not unique and that much of its significance was a myth. Even Helmholz, probably the closest thing to a defender of that myth that I could find, makes it clear that there is a scholarly consensus that the popular conception of the Magna Carta as a pivotal unique document that changed the course of English law is simply not true. --Aquillion (talk) 06:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Lead and citations

As noted above, the lead has been reworked a lot by different authors over the last 1-2 years. See this version in May 2023. This includes a lot of citations, 36 in the lead vs 8 previously, which makes me worry that that the lead is no longer in sync with the content. If anyone can shed light, that would be great. I note many of the citations are also not added in the established style (full citations rather than Harv style).

The basics AIUI from WP:MOS are that the lead must reflect the main page content and as content should be cited in the main page content, there is no need to cite in the lead as such. Further, the established style for the page was that citations in the lead were kept at a minimum; there is now an inconsistent approach, some parts cited in lead and body, others not, and some information only in the lead. The best approach seems to be to revert to prior estabished practice.

In the table below I have set out what I think needs to change to the intro. These are:

• move citations to main body / remove duplicate citations done
• ensure citations are consistently in short style; move full sources to source section done
• move comments on current perceptions to end done
• restore content about its status to end section to reflect main body done
• add a note to the article, eg {{Leadcite comment}} to remind editors not to duplicate citations done

Regarding the main body, something (probably) needs to explain in greater detail the comments regarding the true status of the Charter vs perceived importance in order for it to remain in the lead. At a bare minimum these should be repeated in the appropriate section.

Comments welcome. Jim Killock (talk) 06:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Summary of changes to the lead compared to main text

2023 May version	Current version	Comments and check against main text
Magna Carta Libertatum (Medieval Latin for "Great Charter of Freedoms"), commonly called Magna Carta (also Magna Charta; "Great Charter"), is a royal charter of rights agreed to by King John of England at Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15 June 1215. First drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Cardinal Stephen Langton, to make peace between the unpopular king and a group of rebel barons, it promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons. Neither side stood behind their commitments, and the charter was annulled by Pope Innocent III, leading to the First Barons' War.	Magna Carta Libertatum (Medieval Latin for "Great Charter of Freedoms"), commonly called Magna Carta or sometimes Magna Charta ("Great Charter"), is a royal charter of rights agreed to by King John of England at Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15 June 1215. First drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Cardinal Stephen Langton, to make peace between the unpopular king and a group of rebel barons, it promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift and impartial justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons. As neither side stood by their commitments, the charter was annulled by Pope Innocent III, leading to the First Barons' War.	"As neither" does not seem to be supported by the main text. The Pope's stated reasons seem to be related to John's rights as King rather than the lack of compromise.
After John's death, the regency government of his young son, Henry III, reissued the document in 1216, stripped of some of its more radical content, in an unsuccessful bid to build political support for their cause. At the end of the war in 1217, it formed part of the peace treaty agreed at Lambeth, where the document acquired the name "Magna Carta", to distinguish it from the smaller Charter of the Forest which was issued at the same time. Short of funds, Henry reissued the charter again in 1225 in exchange for a grant of new taxes. His son, Edward I, repeated the exercise in 1297, this time confirming it as part of England's statute law. The charter became part of English political life and was typically renewed by each monarch in turn, although as time went by and the fledgling Parliament of England passed new laws, it lost some of its practical significance.	After John's death, the regency government of his young son, Henry III, reissued the document in 1216, stripped of some of its more radical content, in an unsuccessful bid to build political support for their cause. At the end of the war in 1217, it formed part of the peace treaty agreed at Lambeth, where the document acquired the name "Magna Carta", to distinguish it from the smaller Charter of the Forest, which was issued at the same time. Short of funds, Henry reissued the charter again in 1225 in exchange for a grant of new taxes. His son, Edward I, repeated the exercise in 1297, this time confirming it as part of England's statute law. The charter became part of English political life and was typically renewed by each monarch in turn, although as time went by and the fledgling Parliament of England passed new laws, it lost some of its practical significance.	Sections are similar to main text but the sources used are different. Sources should be moved to main section.
At the end of the 16th century, there was an upsurge in interest in Magna Carta. Lawyers and historians at the time believed that there was an ancient English constitution, going back to the days of the Anglo-Saxons, that protected individual English freedoms. They argued that the Norman invasion of 1066 had overthrown these rights, and that Magna Carta had been a popular attempt to restore them, making the charter an essential foundation for the contemporary powers of Parliament and legal principles such as habeas corpus. Although this historical account was badly flawed, jurists such as Sir Edward Coke used Magna Carta extensively in the early 17th century, arguing against the divine right of kings. Both James I and his son Charles I attempted to suppress the discussion of Magna Carta. The political myth of Magna Carta and its protection of ancient personal liberties persisted after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 until well into the 19th century. It influenced the early American colonists in the Thirteen Colonies and the formation of the United States Constitution, which became the supreme law of the land in the new republic of the United States. Research by Victorian historians showed that the original 1215 charter had concerned the medieval relationship between the monarch and the barons, rather than the rights of ordinary people, but the charter remained a powerful, iconic document, even after almost all of its content was repealed from the statute books in the 19th and 20th centuries. None of the original 1215 Magna Carta is currently in force as it was repealed, however four clauses of the original charter (1 (part), 13, 39 and 40) are enshrined in the 1297 reissued Magna Carta and do still remain in force in England and Wales (as clauses 1, 9 and 29 of the 1297 statute).	The Magna Carta is often falsely presented as a unique and early charter of human rights; the majority of historians, however, see this interpretation as a myth created centuries later. Neither was the Magna Carta unique; other legal documents of its time, both in England and beyond, were broadly similar. At the end of the 16th century, there was an upsurge in interest in Magna Carta. Lawyers and historians at the time believed that there was an ancient English constitution, going back to the days of the Anglo-Saxons, that protected individual English freedoms. They argued that the Norman invasion of 1066 had overthrown these rights and that Magna Carta had been a popular attempt to restore them, making the charter an essential foundation for the contemporary powers of Parliament and legal principles such as habeas corpus. Although this historical account was badly flawed, jurists such as Sir Edward Coke used Magna Carta extensively in the early 17th century, arguing against the divine right of kings. Both James I and his son Charles I attempted to suppress the discussion of Magna Carta. The political myth of Magna Carta and its protection of ancient personal liberties persisted after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 until well into the 19th century. It influenced the early American colonists in the Thirteen Colonies and the formation of the United States Constitution, which became the supreme law of the land in the new republic of the United States. Research by Victorian historians showed that the original 1215 charter had concerned the medieval relationship between the monarch and the barons, rather than the rights of ordinary people, but the charter remained a powerful, iconic document, even after almost all of its content was repealed from the statute books in the 19th and 20th centuries. None of the original 1215 Magna Carta is currently in force since it has been repealed; however, four clauses of the original charter (1 (part), 13, 39, and 40) are enshrined in the 1297 reissued Magna Carta and do still remain in force in England and Wales (as clauses 1, 9, and 29 of the 1297 statute).	Sentences on mythological importance of Magna Carta are placed in flow of the history of the Charter. This seems wrong; the narrative is broken. Query use of "falsely": this implies that those who make the claim are deliberately falsifying matters. Incorrectly or wrongly, or "claimed" would be more appropriate, unless sources show that there is lying taking place. Material should probably move to next section on legacy. Commentary missing from the main article body. The 17 mostly duplicated citations added in this section belong in the main body.
Magna Carta still forms an important symbol of liberty today, often cited by politicians and campaigners, and is held in great respect by the British and American legal communities, Lord Denning describing it as "the greatest constitutional document of all times—the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot". In the 21st century, four exemplifications of the original 1215 charter remain in existence, two at the British Library, one at Lincoln Castle and one at Salisbury Cathedral. There are also a handful of the subsequent charters in public and private ownership, including copies of the 1297 charter in both the United States and Australia. Although scholars refer to the 63 numbered "clauses" of Magna Carta, this is a modern system of numbering, introduced by Sir William Blackstone in 1759; the original charter formed a single, long unbroken text. The four original 1215 charters were displayed together at the British Library for one day, 3 February 2015, to mark the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta.	In the 21st century, four exemplifications of the original 1215 charter remain in existence, two at the British Library, one at Lincoln Castle and one at Salisbury Cathedral. There are also a handful of the subsequent charters in public and private ownership, including copies of the 1297 charter in both the United States and Australia. Although scholars refer to the 63 numbered "clauses" of Magna Carta, this is a modern system of numbering, introduced by Sir William Blackstone in 1759; the original charter formed a single, long unbroken text.	Comments regarding presentation as "a unique and early charter of human rights; the majority of historians, however, see this interpretation as a myth created centuries later" belong here as it is commentary on current pereptions. The cuts made here do not reflect the main body of the article, which explores the high status given to the Magna Carta, whether deserved or not.

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2024

In 2001, due to serious breaches of the Constitutional Coronation Oath of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Commonwealth, .. Clause/Article/Chapter 61 of the original, perpetual and Constitutional Magna Charta 1215, was correctly and lawfully invoked until satisfactory lawful remedy has been achieved. This was reported on in the Daily Telegraph by Caroline Davies on the 24th March 2001, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1327734/Peers-petition-Queen-on-Europe.html https://www.gov.uk/government/news/no-one-not-even-the-king-is-above-the-law-british-ambassador-davidson-promotes-magna-cartas-principles-in-honduras MagnaCarter1215 (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Are you proposing any change to the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)