Talk:George Marsh (martyr)

Untitled

You could at least capitalize his name...this article is rather incoherent. Czolgolz (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hang on I have only just created the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chestertouristcom (talk • contribs) 20:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Tidied up and now certainly does not fit speedy.Paste (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Good work, people!:) Merkin's mum 00:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Place of trial and detention?

This source says: "His brief stay in the dreadful Northgate Prison after his trial in the Lady Chapel of the Cathedral was recorded thus in Foxe's Book of Martyrs (1563).." Martinevans123 (talk) 11:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Have now added this. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent commemoration?

I agree there are currently too many images for such a short article and this one File:georgemarshbanner.jpg was rightly removed, I think. Perhaps it could be used again if something could be found to add about recent commemorations? There is no description at the image source (uploaded 2008). Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Similarly with this one: File:Boughtonmonument1.jpg. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal of spam and unreferenced material

I have removed yet again trivia and spam. None of this adds anything about the life of this man. I have watched the video and it says nothing whatsoever about him. COI editor trying to promote his film. J3Mrs (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure a lot of other editors would welcome a link to the video, so that they can decide for themselves. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk)

Spam is spam. It tells nothing about George Marsh. J3Mrs (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Guess we'll know we'll never, then. Seems someone's hidden the can-opener. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps reference to this document [1] might be usefully added to the article, as might this one [2]? Although reference to this page, with a reproduction of one of the contemporary illustrations, apparently been deemed to be "spam" [3]? Interestingly, that page claims "Research has shown that he was not a vicar as some have suggested, or an ordained minister." It's not clear what that research might be - the source doesn't say. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Geoffrey Hurst

Should mention be made of Geoffrey Hurst, the Shakerley nail maker who married Marshes sister Alice? Apparently he was a follower and was also imprisoned at Lancaster but was saved from martyrdom by Queen Mary's death. Including one or two short sentences about him seems perfectly relevant to me as, not only was he Marsh's brother-in-law, he was also held in the same gaol and was also nearly executed like Marsh. What do other editors think? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Some editors might wish to discuss here instead of breaking WP:3RR? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Some editors might like to stop inserting promotional material and removing relevant referenced material. J3Mrs (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems perfectly reasonable to include a sentence or two on Marsh's brother-in-law to me, particularly as he was released and Marsh was executed. Malleus Fatuorum 15:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Illustrations

A Google search for images of Marsh's burning produces a number of illustrations which appear to be contemporary and which thus may be unlikely to be under copyright? e.g. this one: [4]. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't all rush at once, now. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Promotional video

I have again removed the promotion of a video from the article, it adds nothing of note. Nothing has changed over the last year. I refer the editor to the question asked at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#George Marsh, Martyr update source. He received good advice and chose to ignore it. What is needed is a reliable, independent source to critically review the video, not the programme page of the obscure religious TV channel that aired it. I doubt it sheds any further light on George Marsh. I suggest the editor reads WP:COI as he is promoting a self-produced video. J3Mrs (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• For starters, it is a primary source for that fact, which we avoid for disputed or contentious facts, which this falls under. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've reverted 31.55.63.253 solely on copyright/administrative grounds. I don't have a dog in this hunt. You can't link to copyrighted material that way, and this is clearly copyrighted per the video's first frames. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • But why is that Dennis? Surely, He owns the copyright!? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
    • He can go through OTRS I suppose, but that still doesn't address the issue above (if you read) about sourcing. Why not link every single video on YouTube? What makes this one special? Are there reviews? How do we know it is accurate? This is why we require sources. My revert was about copyright, but others have voiced concerns about the video as it is an unknown work that has never been reviewed. I don't know the subject matter, or the video, don't really care as I'm not editing the article. Others say it is promotional as well (see above) so the inclusion is contentious, thus the WP:BURDEN is on him. This has been explained to him. Getting back to copyright, we don't know that the person who uploaded the video on youtube is the same person that owns the copyright and is the same person here (again, WP:OTRS) WP:ELNEVER covers this. But again, inclusion is contested, so WP:DRN is the best step. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, from Wikipedia's point of view, that's the next best step, if Mr Sutherland wishes to embark on that route. I very much doubt if User talk:SPSutherland has the stamina or fortitude to face OTRS. I regret I'm playing Mr Sutherland's advocate here, but I have to agree that WP:BURDEN is on him. The video is very well-researched and informative, however, and I don't see anything wrong with it. How likely is it that it will be reviewed by an "expert" or by any "reliable mainstream media channel"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure on reviews. I think it is easy to be open minded if you have something, most of the i's dotted. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
          • To my mind, Mr Sutherland falls uncomfortably between two camps - he's obviously a sincere and able film-maker, but with no corporate or mainstream backing. In another universe he might even be a "Wikipedian in residence" somewhere. For many people his relatively modest video will be more informative and educational than a whole string of highly protected, tweaked-and-preened wikipedia articles. Just because he's now branded as a "serial sock-puppeteer", I personally don't see him as the wiki anti-Christ. Just sayin'. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
            • In all fairness, the first round was CU checked and the situation was problematic to say the least, but that isn't the reason I've reverted here. I'm genuinely trying to be consistent with what we expect from any similar video and article. It wasn't a bland hit and run revert and threat, and others have explained in detail as well. I don't think anyone is singling him out. I've even spent considerable time trying to explain to him. I'm not saying "no", I'm just saying what has to be done to consider it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
              • Yes, you have been (as always) very fair, Dennis, and expansive. I suspect, because of a combination of wikipedia policy and the path of burning coals that is OTRS, Mr Sutherland will never get his video linked here. More's the pity. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to have put you to so much trouble after I had to go out yesterday. Can I just make plain where I'm coming from, the article is about George Marsh not a video that should not have been added by the person who made it. Thank you for being so patient about this. J3Mrs (talk) 10:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Marsh (martyr). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080725070740/http://www.tyndale.org/TSJ/5/cooper5b.html to http://www.tyndale.org/TSJ/5/cooper5b.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)