Talk:Richard I of England

Yet Another Article On England Corrupted By Ideological/Nationalist Imbalance

This is just like the Battle Of Agincourt article, along comes some editor and gives great weight to one point of view (ie some French historian suggests one of England's greatest champions was gay as well as another editor (French) denying their own historical records on the numbers at Agincourt to suit their contemporary world view) while the majority academic view is reduced to what seems insignificance. The whole homosexual black propaganda was created by Richard's enemies when he and the King Of France slept in the same bed to display filial friendship between France & England. To promote one of Flori's views over the entire width and breadth of Crusade historians seems somewhat grasping and need's addressing. How is it that one historians pov gets so much coverage in the article? It suggests imbalance. And where is the section On King Phillip II's sexuality? It was his idea to share the bed.

See: Lionhearts: Richard I, Saladin, and the Era of the Third Crusade by Geoffrey Regan and The New Knighthood: A History of the Order of the Temple by Malcolm Barber BOTH contemporary historians (well after '45) and neither suggest Richard enjoyed musical theatre, so PLEASE put the whole gay nonsense into perspective, yes mention that his enemies tried to demonize him by suggesting homosexuality but offer some more balance.Twobells (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Slow down, that's quite a number of assumptions you've made there. First of all, what evidence do you have the the editor who added Flori is French? The version they used is in French, but there are plenty of people not from France who can speak the language. Ascribing an ulterior motive to any editor without evidence is a bad idea, and something you should certainly reconsider. Flori is a well respected medieval historian, and claiming otherwise is a dead end. The article does need more sources, Gillingham in particular and I think Turner's book looks well worth investigating, something I intend to do. The issue of Richard's sexuality is a thorny subject, even amongst academics. But I believe the article deals with the subject in a sombre, unsensational way. Flori actually does a good job of summarising the opposing views and striking a middle ground between the hardline positions. Exactly what about that do you find objectionable? Also, is that the only bit you have a problem with, because that's all you've mentioned. Nev1 (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I was born in Italy of an American father and Italian mother. I have lived extensive periods in the USA (East and West coasts), Italy, and Switzerland. My mother tongues are Italian and English. I am fluent in French and chose to use the original French version of Flory's work. I am a citizen of the US, Italy, and Switerland. So I am in no way French. Flory extensively discusses Gillingham's analysis and refutes it, in my opinion convincigly.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify: your only gripe is that the article currently says historians disagree about Richard's sexuality, and that the truth probably lies in the middle ground? Nev1 (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Slow, what do you mean? There are not any assumptions made just facts, check the Agincourt entry. It lays out the entire sad and sorry mess. And it seems from the 'sexuality' entry that the same thing is happening here. There are far more eminent historians who suggest that Richard was not gay, what I find objectionable is the lack of objectivity and balance. Wasn't the motive behind slandering Richard with homosexuality to promote John's ambition to become king furthered along by King Philip and his bishop regarding the two so-called 'confessions'?

Please cite historians other than Gillingham who deny that Richard probably engaged in sodomy. The main evidence cited by Flory are the two public confessions by Richard. Although Richard did not explicitly state that the sin that he was confessing was "sodomy", Flory explains convincingly why it is hard to conclude that anything else could have been intended, given the context and text of the confessions. Flory explicly states that the episode of sleeping in the same bed as Philip cannot be taken to be evidence of homosexuality, so Philip's sexual preferences and habits are not relevant to the question of Richard's homosexuality.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: I edited the initial entry to read as it was meant rather than the assumption you made, I meant that the Agincourt entry was written by a Frenchman.Twobells (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

ps: Did you know that Flori never actually communicated with these 'contemporary historians' and ask their opinion but read their work (none of which suggested Richard was gay) then declared Richard a homosexual?Twobells (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I asked you to slow down because you jumped to unsubstantiated conclusions about editors' motives. And frankly what happens on the article about the Battle of Agincourt is of no concern here. Objectivity involves weighing arguments dispassionately, something you seem to be failing to do. There is disagreement on the subject of Richard's sexuality so the article needs to reflect that. Nev1 (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Agincourt entry has great concern here as it seems a reflection regarding imbalance with far too much weight given to one hypothesis blown out of the water by most contemporary historians. It is true I AM passionate, passionate about Wiki articles being factual and not platforms promoting one view over the consensus, especially when that particular academic is in the minority.Twobells (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Flori is not in the minority on this topic. It is Gillingham who is in the minority. The section, as written, correctly reflects what reliable sources say, and that is what Wikipedia is supposed to do. Please recall that "factual" in the Wkipedia context means accurately reflecting reliable sources, no more, no less.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

We should remind Twobells that Geoffrey Regan is not an historian. Malcolm Barber is, and The New Knighthood is otherwise an important book, but it's not about Richard at all. He is mentioned only a few times in its over 400 pages. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, Richard I was rather more "French" than he was "English". He probably didn't even speak the English language with any competence. So I don't think we can blame the French for some sort of anti-English vendetta against him. The idea that the charge of homosexuality was some sort of smear at the time is absurd. The concept of 'homosexuality' did not exist. Indeed the problem is that medival ideas of sexual norms were very very different from our own. Paul B (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Paul B is correct. Regarding sexual norms, I reproduce here what I posted earlier: "I remembered that I have a good book on the history of sex, 'Sex in History' by Reay Tannahill (1980). It does include material on homosexuality through the ages. On page 159, she says that from the sixth to the early eleventh centuries, homosexuality was no worse than contraception. Then it started to be stigmatized and was increasingly harshly repressed. But I'm not sure that we can integrate anything like that into the article."--Gautier lebon (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Who killed Richard?

The article mentions these people in connection with Richard's death (some of these may be the same person):

1. Man with crossbow and frying pan, whom Richard laughed at
2. Man who shot Richard
3. "The crossbowman", sometimes called Peter Basile, whom Richard pardoned.

Since Richard pardoned Person #3, it's implied that Person #3 is the same as Person #2. But that's not entirely clear, as Person #3 is described as "the crossbowman", and Person #1 also had a crossbow, and it's conceivable that this man was pardoned for his role in distracting Richard. In any case, we're told that Person #1 is not the same as Person #2, because while Richard laughs at #1 he is shot by "another" crossbowman. However, the Pierre Basile article contradicts this, saying that Basile (Person #3) was the boy who shot Richard (Person #2), and also he was armed with a frying pan (Person #1, unless we want to suppose that there were two crossbowmen with frying pans).

So...what's going on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.106.128.79 (talk) 12:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, the story is unclear. The problem is that the contemporaneous sources (chroniclers) give very different accounts. What is there is an attempt to synthetize what was reported by the contemporaneous sources, as summarized in the cited references. It might be possible to present this more clearly, but I don't have any ideas. Does anybody wish to propose new text? I think it might be better to do that on this discussion page and only update the article after we agree.--Gautier lebon (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism by 203.45.21.183

Can we get an Admin to either lock editing by unregistered users or ban 203.45.21.183. This person has severely messed up the content of this article over multiple edits. 67.187.109.3 (talk) 05:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)