Talk:Richard I of England

Template:FAOL

Total Re-write

Would anybody be averse to me tearing this thing down, keeping everything that is well referenced, organizing it into chronological headings that actually make sense to read and basing the rest on proper sources and direct quotes. I'll do my best to give us a good article to squabble over at least.

I'll leave this a few days before starting some research to hear all the objections. Look at Henry II of England which bar a few small changes, i wrote from scratch, just keeping the good tid-bits the old article had to offer, which were few. If you think that's decent ill do the same with this if anybody is up for it. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tefalstar (talk • contribs) 23:31, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea...your Henry II re-write was great, and Richard deserves a better article! Adam Bishop 01:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to see it improved all at once, but I would also like to be assured that absolutely no accurate information in the current article will be lost by a rewrite. (And Henry does look like a big improvement.) Srnec 04:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Logic error

The article says that Richard was shot by a sniper from the walls of a castle he was besieging, and that he had the man brought to him.

Presumably he captured the castle first? 129.230.248.1 16:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• He was shot by a child, under 18, as vengeance for some perceived wrong Richard had done his family. The killer wasn't an active soldier, so its likely he lived and was apprehended outside the walls. Richard often didn't wear armor and he failed to pay the assailant enough attention, thinking he was safe at that distance. At least one source says he saw the bolt in the air and waved his hat to his attacker before dodging it, a move he made a split second to late.

He had the boy bought to him, where he gave him several pieces of gold and sent him on his way. After the king died, the boy was again found and put to death against Richard's wishes. Skinned alive to be precise. The siege was over such a trivial matter it would be laughable, had it not robbed the greatest western warrior of an age, buts thats aside. Hope thats helpful anyway. --Tefalstar 22:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikiprojects

I have removed this article from WikiProject Judaism because it makes no sense here. Richard was not Jewish, nor is he notably and particularly renowned for his attitudes towards the Jewish people. If we're going to include people in this category simply because, at some point in their public careers, they said or did something that had to do with Jews, then virtually every major public figure in Western society will be under the aegis of this WikiProject, and that is absurd. 76.97.163.77 02:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• First of all, it's considered very rude to remove other editors' comments from talk pages without their permission, as you did in your last revert. Please don't do it again.
• Secondly, I reiterate: this article has nothing to do with Judaism. Yes, there were pogroms against Jews during Richard's reign. But, sadly, there were pogroms against Jews all throughout the Middle Ages. Again, if we include WikiProject Judaism here, we would have to include it on every medieval monarch. I notice that WikiProject Judaism is not included on Edward I of England, even though he actually officially expelled the Jews from the country - a far more historically significant event than the brief antisemitic persecution led by mobs during Richard's administration. I also notice that WikiProject Islam is not included on this article, even though Richard is primarily known to history as a crusader and in that capacity he devoted much of his adult life to warring against Islam. (He also massacred a few thousand Islamic prisoners at Acre as described in the article, and, unlike the pogrom following his coronation, there is no question that this mass murder was specifically ordered by him.) There certainly would be much more justification for including that.
• Again, it certainly makes sense to include WikiProject Judaism on the articles of people who are specifically and prominently known as anti-Semites, such as the Nazi leadership or Tomas de Torquemada. But Richard doesn't fall into that category. He faced a situation where he made boilerplate statements about defending the Christian faith and a bunch of crazed religious fanatics (spurred in many cases by personal greed) took that as an excuse to engage in persecution and murder. I wish that was an unusual situation during the Dark Ages and Middle Ages, but it wasn't. Everyone in the Christian world during the medieval era was an anti-Semite by modern standards. 76.97.163.77 02:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Richard was actually horrified by the actions agains the Jews -

"The act committed at York was soon reported to the king beyond the seas, who, after the commotion at London, had granted peace and legal security to the Jews within his realm. He was indignant and enraged, not only on account of the treason against his royal majesty, but for the great injury his revenue had sustained -- for whatever the Jews, who are the king's farmers, possess in goods, appertains to the treasury." Chapter 11: Book IV: William of Newburgh —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieRCD (talk • contribs) 16:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sexuality - again..

I'm removing the LGBT category. Unless there are reliable sources added to the article, it can't be there. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a minor revert battle going on over a section describing Philip as Richard's "longtime lover", with some attempts, which I agree with, to alter this to "alleged homosexual lover (see below)". This seems a pretty clear issue to me; as it stands the article assumes a theory, that of the Richard/Philip relationship, which lacks broad historical consensus. It also does so in language both unencyclopaedic and anachronistic ("longtime lover" makes no sense in a mediaeval context, sounding instead a bit Barbara Cartland). Yet when I attempted to undo the reversion to the original version my action was marked by an admin as unconstructive...so I thought I'd take it up here

I have no settled opinion on the question of Richard's sexuality myself, but I think a balance should be reflected in the article rather than the current assumption of the more 'colourful' version Jaguarjaguar (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jaguarjaguar; as it stands it makes an unwarranted assertion that, at the very least, needs some kind of evidence cited. Cheers, Lindsay 16:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Even a tad further down in the article, the bets are hedged, as their actions taken by "some historians...to imply a homosexual relationship"; so i slightly weakened the "longtime" to reflect the uncertainty. Cheers, Lindsay 16:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. There is no source cited. To make that kind of assertion, with no source, is poor practice at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.7.246.108 (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. DrKiernan (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Richard I of England → Richard the Lionheart — Per WP:NCNT If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, and there is then no need to disambiguate by adding Country. —Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support as nom. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support, common names are preferable. Kbthompson (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose this one. I spell it Lionhearted, and the incomplete citation of the present guidelines disturbs me. It is possible they should be changed; but for now they add that nicknames should only be done when consensus so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet, using this case as an example. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Lionhearted sounds clumsy to me, and if it means anything google has 4 times the support for "Richard the Lionheart" as "Richard the Lionhearted". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Raw Google means nothing, and Lionhearted better represents the force of Coeur-de-Lion, which is probably more common than either; Lionheart is bad grammar in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Not of itself, but he is known as "the Lionheart" rather than "Lionhearted" or "Heart of the Lion". BTW, I'd recommend you do some work on English grammar, "Richard the Lionheart" is perfectly good English grammar. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose all post-Norman Conquest monarchs should be 'name-numeral of England'. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• support Most common name. Gwinva (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Using google books a quick check gave me huge support for Richard I and roughly comparable support for Richard the Lionheart and Richard the Lionhearted, but even adding Lionheart and Lionhearted together didn't give me the total that used Richard I. Yet again I vote against what I'd actually wish to. Irritating. Narson (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose simply because it will lead to innumerable pointless edit wars over "Lionheart" and "Lionhearted". Adam Bishop (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - too many orthographical variations to move as yet. I'd prefer "Coeur de Lion," personally. john k (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment' I'd prefer that too, but it'd never wash with the UEers; and with those allied to the numeralists, it'd be dead before it began. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't know, I think I'm an advocate of UE, though more on a 'I hate it when I told I'm wrong for using the English'. On this one, Coeur de Lyon or Coeur de Lion would acctually be my preferred. Possibly my semi-franglais upbringing shining through though. Narson (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional Support: There is no doubt that in Britain/the English-speaking world he has always been known as Richard The Lionheart. But changing this article's title should not be a pretext for changing other monarch's article pages where, say, as in the case of Polish or French monarchs the average English-speaker has barely heard of the king (as in, say, a Louis) let alone heard that his own people called him 'The Bold' or 'The Fat'. So changing the obvious here should not be a pretext for changing the obscure. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support "Richard the Lionheart" as per the nomination. I doubt that, without consulting a reference, many people would otherwise know the difference between "Richard I of England" and "Richard II of England." As with similar other cases, I might in the future be open to considering "Richard I the Lionheart." Nihil novi (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - per John K Ealdgyth | Talk 03:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per john k and Adam Bishop, and his ordinal is well-established. Srnec (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, in agreement with the very guideline cited in the nomination, which goes on to say, "But there must be consensus so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet; and the name must actually be unambiguous. For example, although Richard the Lionheart is often used, Richard I is not unusual, so he is at Richard I of England;...". The sundry forms of the nickname also pose a problem. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 06:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Lonewolf BC. I well understand the supporting argument but have to lean to the oppose for consistency and to minimise ambiguity. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support per Nihil novi. Lionhearted is also fine with me. Space Cadet (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support As long as it doesn't constantly have to be reverted from Lionhearted. Saying Richard I is like saying Aethelred II, many people don't know who it is. Regards --Tefalstar (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - he is commonly known as Richard I of England. If you want to use a nickname, "Coeur de Lion" is equally common, even in English. Deb (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Really WP:NCNT is pretty clear, using Richard himself as an example. There isn't a post-conquest monarch of England, GB, or the UK for whom the ordinal is less recognisable than the epithet, so all of the current crop of move requests should be turned down. Not only that, but i agree with John K, Adam Bishop, and others, there are too many possible epithets in use for Richard. Cheers, Lindsay (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support - better recognition and greater contemporary resonance; the ordinal convention seems arbitrary and anachronistic in this case. Lionheart is a more usual English translation than Lhearted, by the way, and I believe better known, so I'd rather have that Jaguarjaguar (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. We should use whatever name is most common among reliable sources. I don't know if that is Richard the Lionheart, Richard the Lion-Hearted, or Richard Cœur de Leon. I am fairly confident, however, that it is not "Richard I of England." *** Crotalus *** 01:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support per my comment at Talk:Casimir I of Poland.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. The merits may be fine but this volume of requests should be dealt with wholesale, maybe with a change of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). — AjaxSmack 03:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think it may be better to do some test cases, like this, before attempting across-the-board decrees right away. Nihil novi (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Nickname test cases - this is one of them. Andrewa (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per opposers. Johnbod (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose This is pretty anal, guys.

Is every historical figure going to be known by their epithet? Coeur de Lion? OK, so does that mean Louis the Fat will be known as le Grosse? There are more important things to get excited about.--Gazzster (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. While his nickname is really well known, it also has several divergent renditions. His regnal number is also known well enough, and helps avoid those problems. I favor systematics (= regnal ordinal) for this case. Shilkanni (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. His ordinal is far more consistant than his nickname and its numerous variations. Dimadick (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose EB and Encarta use Richard I, so I feel we ought to as well. Tim! (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per GoodDay. Nicknames inevitably inject POV and lead to arguments as to which ones to use. Current title puts the subject in historical context. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Every other English/British king is under their regnal number. The other is just a nickname - he is known to most serious historians as Richard I. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Serious historians do not shy away from his nickname. Srnec (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I would rather have consistency in the naming of monarchs, in the format of "monarch name (ordinal) of country". As Richard the Lionheart redirects to Richard I of England, I really don't see a problem with the current name. – Axman (☏) 16:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - While indeed Richard is known as Lionheart in some contexts, they are flamboyant contexts and usually not encyclopaedic. Also keep consistency with other British monarchs. Parable1991 (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Not encyclopaedic perhaps, but rarely flamboyant. His nickname is scholarly currency. Srnec (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). "If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, ... But there must be consensus so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet". This proposal fails that test at both the simple Google search and also in reliable sources. Further a mass proposal like this should have been discussed on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) to see if there was a consensus before a mass WP:RM was made. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• I cannot honestly believe anyone objecting to Richard the Lionheart which is all this king was ever known as even in his own time and not just in England. Its ludicrous. David Lauder (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Some apparently believe it to be against the holy and sacred guidelines, even though these guidelines have no living consensus; the sentence in question is IMHO controversial and should be removed. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, they weren't going to call him "Richard I" in his own lifetime, obviously... Adam Bishop (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • My main objection is that there is not consensus between "Lionheart" or "Lionhearted". If we must use ordinals, I prefer "Name Ordinal, Monarch of Country", but it's not something I'll get that worked up about either.Ealdgyth | Talk 15:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• I'm baffled by the agonizing over "so many versions" of Richard I's cognomen: "Coeur de Lion," "the Lionhearted," "the Lionheart." He was an English king—why insist on using the French version ("Coeur de Lion")? "The Lionheart" is equally correct as "the Lionhearted"—why not dispense with the extra syllable? "The Lionheart" will do perfectly. (I personally would go with "Richard I the Lionheart," so as not to lose what value there is in the ordinal—which is pretty little, without the cognomen.) Nihil novi (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Richard was actually French; he prolly didn't speak a word of English, though for the tiny amount of time he ever spent in England that wouldn't have mattered as England was run by people of French speech. According to Gerald of Wales, his father, the great Henry II, needed a translator to converse with the English. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Better yet, since there's a Richard II of England and a Richard III of England, why not leave this article as is. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I remember people better by name and descriptor than by serial number. (Though, as I said above, I would include the ordinal—the serial number—as well, for the limited information it does provide.) Nihil novi (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
      • David Lauder says he cannot believe how people can object to Richard the Lionheart (Lionhearted, Coeur de Lion, whatever). I don't believe anyone is. It's one of the iconic names in Anglo-Celtic culture. Rather I can't believe that some people think it's an issue to get bothered about. I haven't checked, but I wouldn't mind betting it's a redirect anyway. Another possible candidate for Wikipedia:lamest edit wars? --Gazzster (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Nickname test cases - this is one of them. Andrewa (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.