Talk:Cast off the Yoke of Bondage

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

(It should be noted that the validity of this passage depends on a single, hostile source (Walsingham). Other writings attributed to John Ball that have come down to us (see, e.g., Medieval Political Writings, James M. Dean, ed.) do not advocate killing. They have a common burden that can be reduced to 'this is a dreadful time in England, so know who your friends are and stand together with them peacefully and without greed'. The most violent suggestion to be found in these other materials is 'chastise wel Hobbe the Robbere'.) Added by on the article page - transferred to talk page by AllanHainey 10:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly why did you move the text? There is nothing at all controversial about it. I'm putting it back until you provide a cogent explanation. Katzenjammer 17:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Katzenjammer. I transferred your editorial comments from article page to the talk page because the talk page is the proper place for wider editorial comments beyond a simple introduction to the text. We try to keep comments on the authenticity/accuracy/consistency with other sources/etc of any texts off the article page, as it is intended purely for the article itself & brief intro not for comment. The most appropriate place for comment of this type is on the talk page. I'm therefore removing the comments from the article page again. AllanHainey 07:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't see how that can possibly be NPOV. Seen within the whole context of works attributed to Fr Ball, that 'transcript' is clearly propagandistic rather than factual, so allowing it to stand alone without mentioning Walsingham's hostility is like letting any other self-interested apologist re-write history. I'm putting it back. Katzenjammer 15:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
It is NPOV because your editorial comments haven't been removed they are in the appropriate place on the talk page, where you would expect to find them. This source hasn't been singled out it is being treated in the same way as any other source. I can't comment on whether this speech is propagandistic or unreliable I don't know enough to do so but I'm not arguing that - only that comments of this kind are not appropriate on the article page. The wikisource article page (article is a bad word) is intended to host the original text itself and not any original commentary, beyond the header & brief introduction. It isn't intended for any discussion of the validity of, or warnings about the reliability of the source. These are better suited here on the talk page or on wikipedia. I'm therefore reverting again.
Can I also suggest that as you seem to have access to a wider range of works by John Ball you consider adding them to broaden out the sources we hold by him. Thanks. AllanHainey 07:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Show me, if you will, where the agreed principles are laid out that de-POVing commentary is to be hidden on the talk page. Because in fact putting them here amounts to hiding them. Katzenjammer 15:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


Please add the source for this speech. It seems from above that it is "Walsingham" if so then please add that, and the publication from whence it came. -- 20:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The speech is described in Walshingam's "Historia Anglicana," but in Latin, and only the first line is transcribed in English. The rest of this appears to be a liberal rewriting of John Stow's translation of Walsingham, which starts:

"And, continuing his begun sermon, he sought by the word of that proverb, which he took as his theme, to introduce and prove, that from the beginning all were made alike by nature, and that bondage or servitude was brought in by unjust oppression of naughty men against the will of God."

As far as I know, there is no primary source for Ball's Blackheath sermon, which is not surprising given the unpopularity of his particular viewpoint among the richer and better-armed elements of society. As such, this gloss on Stow's Walshingam seems to be either an original work (see WS:OR) or a work of unknown authorship and copyright status. It probably shouldn't be in the project at all, and presenting it as a transcript (when it is at best a third-hand reconstruction) is misleading. I've marked for deletion. Chapka (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)