Talk:Petition of Right

April 2003 text move

• As there were more links to the then empty Petition_of_Right page, I redirected the links that linked here to there. I should have moved the page. So we now have two identical articles, but nothing links here. Sorry, got in a muddle here -- 02:52, 20 April 2003 djnjwd

May 2007 moves

• 7 May 2007: I moved Petition of Right, 1628 to Petition of Right as user request, deleting the previous Petition of Right which was a redirect.
• 17 May 2007: I restored a slice of Petition of Right's history (from August 2003 to June 2006) which got left at Petition of Right when the text was cut-and-pasted to Petition of Right, 1628 in August 2003.

Anthony Appleyard 05:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

1627 vs. 1628

The year given for the Petition of Right in this article was 1627, based on the date given in the UK Statute Law Database. I have changed the year to 1628, however, since the Petition of Right was created in 1628 (by the parliament of 1628), granted by the the king in 1628, and is invariably referred to in historical works as dating from 1628. Thus, dating the Petition to 1627 is, I think, misleading, and, for the purposes of an encyclopedia, inaccurate. As an example, I would compare it to saying that Magna Carta dates from 1297, since that is the year listed in the statute book, even though in a much more significant sense Magna Carta dates from 1215.

Additionally, the Statute Law Database is said to date the Petition to 1627 because it retroactively came into force from the beginning of the 1627 session of parliament. Under new style dating, however, the parliament of that year did not begin in 1627, but rather in 1628. Because that year's parliament began on March 17th, in the old style calender it would have preceded New Year's Day (which at that time was March 25th), and therefore would have been considered as beginning in 1627. But, using the modern calender, there was no parliament held in 1627 - the parliament began in 1628. Groundsquirrel13 (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Mutiny Act

The history of the mutiny act is strongly tied to the petition of right. I am wondering if it would be appropriate to mention this in the article here and provide a link to the mutiny act article. Thoughts?Jumpinbean (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

A short discussion of what the Petition of Right says concerning martial law, with a brief description of how that related to the Mutiny Act (and a link to the Act), would probably be appropriate for the "Content of the Petition" section. Groundsquirrel13 (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Added a short comment per your recommendation Groundsquirrel. I am wondering if it fits or if it needs adjustment to flow better. Jumpinbean (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Harej (talk · contribs) 23:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I will be the reviewer for this article. hare j 23:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): No complaints to register.

   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): Total compliance.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Yes

   b (citations to reliable sources): Yes

   c (OR): No original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Covers everything about the Petition of Right from soup to nuts.

   b (focused): Each of the aspects are described in full detail.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: Yes.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.: No edit wars, nor do I anticipate any cropping up unless there's a resurgence in Stuart loyalists, but I am surprised at the amount of vandalism this article gets. This, however, is not an issue, for vandalism is promptly reverted.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): Yes

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Yes

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Article approved with no revision required. hare j 23:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 April 2012

I would like to add a Spanish translation, I need to add the code es:Petición de Derechos to link here. Thanks.

Lasandaliadelpescador (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

A link to the corresponding article on the spanish wikipedia has been added with this edit. James500 (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect date for Charles I's 3rd parliament

In section 1.1, the statement "necessitating a new Parliament being called in March 1627" should indicate March 1628 instead. I realized this after noticing the Five Knights case was at the end of 1627, and yet since Charles I had to disband Parliament and form a new one, it should have happened after that. I did further research and found the following reference supporting this:

edit: for some reason the referenced source doesn't show up correctly, I suppose I just don't know what I'm doing: http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/glossary/parliament-1625-29.htm

66.196.17.164 (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Daniel Kreimendahl66.196.17.164 (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

On a talk page you need to add {{Reflist-talk}} as follows:

References

--ukexpat (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

" ... the only way to propagate the war"

Surely, propagate as used here is a malapropism for prosecute. I'll change it unless there are objections. Norvo (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep, my bad! Now fixed; thanks for spotting it :). Ironholds (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. Norvo (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Use of scholar's names

This is encyclopedia article, a tertiary source. It is not a research paper for users to show off their knowledge of the names of scholars. Scholar's names should be left to the references; this material is dense enough without such useless clutter. This is especially true if the scholar is the source. Abductive (reasoning) 06:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I've rewritten it to make it more accessible for the general user. Robinvp11 (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Unless an individual or small group of authors on a subject are widely out of line with the accepted majority view - then, pointing out a name is important.50.111.44.55 (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

2020 Rewrite

In general it was overly detailed; this is an encyclopedia for general users, and as someone who specialises in the 17th century, I found this really hard going. Its always hard to leave out/remove stuff we find interesting, but if no one reads it, why do it?

It was also hard to figure out from the article why this was so important; I'm comparatively well-versed, so I know, but it is an important document, and worth knowing about it.

If there's something missing, happy to discuss.

Robinvp11 (talk) 11:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Robinvp11: Well, let's see. You've simplified, and simplified, and now parts are manifestly false. For instance, your change of 15:50, 13 April 2020:

In response, the House of Commons prepared a set of four Resolutions, decrying these actions and restating the validity of Magna Carta and the legal requirement of habeas corpus. These were rejected by Charles, who also announced that Parliament would be dissolved;

now reads

A Commons committee led by Sir Edward Coke prepared four Resolutions, declaring each of these illegal, while re-affirming Magna Carta and habeas corpus.

And, unbelievably, that hashed text has remained for over a year. And this trashed article is referenced from the main page today.

What is missing? Credibility. Please go back and review your text - this article - line by line - and fix the mars you've added. Shenme (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons committee led by Sir Edward Coke prepared four Resolutions, declaring each of these illegal, while re-affirming Magna Carta and habeas corpus.

Which bit of this is "manifestly false?' And where does it appear in the article? Robinvp11 (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Coat of Arms of England (1603-1649).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)