Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

sweetplantveal t1_irehq4p wrote

This wiki is terrible. They go from backing the king and creating himself a title to arrested for treason, turned over to rebels, and beheaded in like three sentences. Wtf happened?

142

WhapXI t1_ireonyj wrote

As it says in the article, he was arrested because he was a supporter of the disgraced Duke of Suffolk.

During the reign of Henry VI, the Duke of Suffolk was largely in charge for a bit. Under his leadership, the Kingdom of England lost most of its land in northern France. This was a time in history when such failure would be dealt with in a way that we would consider harsh. Suffolk was accused of treason and arrested and then murdered.

Baron Saye was arrested and executed in the same kind of factional purge, being a supporter of Suffolk.

89

sweetplantveal t1_ireqzwf wrote

Ty, honestly you should consider editing the wiki. You're far more informative.

46

adamup27 t1_irfg8l1 wrote

Not the commenter but I’ve given up on editing Wikipedia. I found an obscure book written by the son of American-Yiddish composer Lazar Weiner. It filled in a ton of gaps and was a fascinating read. I spent about an hour making Weiner’s page present a full picture. I cited my source, corroborated it with some other sources. I clicked save.

Three minutes later a power user reversed it since it was “their” page. It sucked.

49

Ameisen t1_irhtwb0 wrote

There are no edits to the page you linked to below that match your story.

The largest edit on there was in 2017, added three sentences, three partial paragraphs, and zero sources, which is why it was removed.

There are no other edits even remotely matching your description.

Seems strange to blame a power user removing it because it was 'their' page...

> Reverted edits by 161.130.188.187 (talk): Failure to cite a reliable source (HG) (3.1.22)

And that user had never made any edits to the page otherwise, nor did they claim that it was 'their' page.

In fact, they left the following two messages on your talk page:

> Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Lazar Weiner, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.

--

> I undid your edit to Lazar Weiner as it was unreferenced. Adding references is how we ensure that content is valid. Without references, a reader can not easily validate information and there is no presumption of accuracy. To add a reference, please read Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:footnotes. This is covered by the Wikipedia policy of wp:verifiability (WP:V). Please wp:cite your edits with wp:reliable sources (RS). Per WP:V unsourced content can be removed. Your edits are saved in the wp:page history. Please add references when you restore the content. Thank you

So, in essence:

#you're a big fat liar.

13

[deleted] t1_irmpz5a wrote

[deleted]

1

Ameisen t1_iromvnl wrote

> It's hard to give proper references then. He obviously would have mentioned the book itself.

I mean, yes, that's a completely valid citation. That is what they should have done. Instead they created some story about how it was a power-user 'protecting their article' (which was entirely untrue).

I've seen plenty of people use obscure books for references. I've even checked some of those references and have had to mark the usages as incorrect because they misinterpreted the citation.

The simple thing is that the person who reverted the change may or may not have been a 'power user', but the revert had nothing to do with it 'being their article', they explicitly told them (twice) why they reverted it, and they explicitly requested that they add a citation.

1

VertexBV t1_irfipaz wrote

Link?

12

adamup27 t1_irfir23 wrote

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazar_Weiner

11

VertexBV t1_irfkrg3 wrote

Maybe I'm not using the mobile app right, but the cited reason was lack of references, and I didn't see one added...

I've never really contributed much to Wikipedia but I've seen quite a few edit wars where an anti-skub would go to the skub page and add unsourced stuff to it to make it look bad, then a pro-skub person would come after and undo everything.

22

4thCenturyChocolate t1_irfomo6 wrote

You're right, the almost three paragraphs that were added did not cite a source or maybe it was not explicitly indicated with a superscript.

19

SilasMarner77 OP t1_iremff6 wrote

Yes I must agree that the wiki could have been more clearly written although it lists among its sources some well-written scholarly works. I first heard about this particular episode in our history from the masterful BBC Radio documentary "This Sceptered Isle."

28

Djidji5739291 t1_irekfsw wrote

Seems perfectly normal. It would happen today if it was legal or people were organized/united enough. Why do you think all the billionaires keep their identity secret, why do they hide their assets so hard that officially the UK royals aren‘t billionaires? Because they are scared of the consequences of exploitation, corruption and greed.

−16

ChristyM4ck t1_irelhdu wrote

Nothing stated in the article even alludes to this theory.

16

Djidji5739291 t1_ireou3j wrote

I‘m saying it‘s not like politicians didn‘t make false promises back then. Corruption is nothing new either. I can imagine hundreds of reasons why a king would be assassinated shortly after being crowned. And I can imagine dozens of reasons why a king would be charged with treason.

−10