Talk:Bayeux Tapestry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


More info please on how the figure of Harold II is mis-identified. Leo

There are several soldiers in this scene by the words "Harold Rex" the guy nearly in the middle on foot is the one with an arrow in his eye. The is also one (maybe two figures) on horse back. I remember when I was ten years old and say the tapestry, I though to myself then tat thst te one on horseback was most likely to be the king, so I'm not surprised if historians dispute the old story about the arrow in the eye person Dainamo 11:13, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Help! the Edit Page is broken. User:Renata 24/9/2002

What do you mean by this, Renata? I can edit with no problem. -- Zoe

When I try to edit from my home PC, I get an empty box, overlaid with " header...." messages. When I try from my work PC, it's okay. It's a mystery to me. User:Renata

Who considers it the precursor of the comic strip?

Here, in France, it's much more know as the "tapisserie de Bayeux" than as the "tapisserie de la reine Mathilde". But my english is to poor for me to modify the article. Alvaro 14:53 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Years of creation[edit]

At present, the article does not state when the tapestry was actually created. Perhaps some smart person can add that.

Ordinary Person (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not known for sure. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Even without the certainty there should be some discussion of the known time frames. I had to click on the link of Edith of Wessex to find out that it was potentially created around the time of the depicted events as opposed to hundreds of years later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Comic strip?[edit]

...its serial storytelling is considered an ancestor of the comic strip.

The Bayeux Tapestry is an ancestor of comic strip? Medieval storytelling was highly graphic (in large past as most people could not read) and there is a long tradition of graphic serial story telling that goes back to, well, pre-historic cave paintings. It's unclear what the connection to comic strips and the Bayeux Tapestry is. This was not the first graphic serial story. Stbalbach 22:20, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

42 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What happened to this article?[edit]

Would anyone object (or support) this article being reverted to the pre-June 4th version, before the mass of new text was added by ? Stbalbach 04:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just re-read the text and it's not as bad as I initially thought, but the primary source seems to be a 1966 National Geographic Magazine article, and it certainly reads that way. Lots of asides and anedotes and stories, not typical encyclopedic fare, and not typical Wikipedia material. It makes it more difficult for future editors to contribute, this is essentially a long pre-written stylized essay someone has cut and paste in. There are also a bunch of citations with no references. Stbalbach 05:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't like it either but I wonder whether to get rid of the POV and chatter rather than revert the whole business. The citations are absurd unless these books are listed (Setton is). But is the thing a copyright violation? I don't know whether to take your National Geographic reference literally! If so, it should be removed regardless of its encyclopedic merits. Thincat 12:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, look at the refrences, it says "Sutton" as a 1966 NatGeo article, and sutton references throughout. I was thinking of finding an old back issue and check for {{copyvios}}, but not sure where to find one. It certainly reads like a copyvio. With some work and effort it may be possible to cut out the relevant and encyclopedic parts. It would be nice if the anon editor chimed in on his sources and pedigree, but that he/she probably wont makes it all the more less credible. Stbalbach 14:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Artist of the Tapestry[edit]

The assertion in the article that, "The main artist must have been a Frenchman," is somewhat dubious. Much work has been done in this field and there is actually significant indication that the Tapestry was the design of an English artist. As well as the skill and renown of English embroiderers at the time, the use of Latin derived from Old English and key details in the depictions suggest an Anglo-Saxon construction that was designed to appease the Norman invaders, while asserting the illegitimacy of their reign to all Englishmen (and any other Germanic people). These include: 1) An apparently apologetic Harold on his return to England (having sworn an oath) and Edward apparently admonishing his earl. This scene is inconsistent with the Norman assertion that Harold was sent to provide surety for William's succession. 2) Harold's apparent heroism in dragging member's of William's army out of the quick-sand near the River Couesnon would appear to have been included to demonstrate Harold's nobility and further emphasise the abuse of William in forcing the earl to swear an oath. This is consistent with Anglo-Saxon legal tradition that rejected sworn oaths made under duress. 3) In the scene depicting Edward's deathbed, Harold and Edward's fingers are touching, following the Anglo-Saxon tradition of a pictorial narrative. This touching of hands was symbolic of a solemn commendation, i.e. Edward was solemnly conferring the throne to Harold. (This scene also confirms the arrangements identified in the Vita Ædwardi, which may well have been written at Canterbury around the same time that the Tapestry was being undertaken. The Tapestry most likely having been produced at St. Augustine's, Canterbury). 4) There are key differences between the events as depicted in the Tapestry and in Norman sources. The Tapestry is, however, consistent with Anglo-Saxon sources such as the Vita Ædwardi and Eadmer.

Given this, does anyone have reasonable objection to a change in the article that identifies the artist as English (or most likely English)? Valiant Son 13:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be kind of dubious to assert one way or the other. I recall at least one place where William's name is (presumably mistakenly) rendered with the French spelling, and I wouldn't think an Englishman would make that mistake. Also, my understanding of the swearing on holy relics was to demonstrate that Harold violated that oath and paid for it with his crown and his life. That might just be the Norman interpretation, of course... but it was supposedly the reason that this tapestry hung in a Norman church for a long time: to teach a moral lesson. Wahkeenah 22:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I haven't really suggested an assertion that the artist was English. Instead I have presented a reasoned and substantiated precis of evidence that strongly suggests that he was. (Hence the 'most likely).

There is every reason to presume that an English artist would use a derivation from the French for William's name as this was the name by which William was principally known in England and was that used by him in documents. (The place you are thinking of is in Plate 13 "Here a messenger has come to Duke William" and Plates 15-16 "William, Duke of the Normans" "Here Duke William with Harold"). Also it should be remembered that there have been siginificant 'repairs' to the tapestry and some were much less sympathetic than others. Irrespective of this, the linguistic evidence is greater for an English author and is a point that is accepted by many historians.

The swearing of an oath was spread as part of the Norman propaganda. However, this is not the issue that I was specifically concerned with here. Rather I was discussing the symbolism of the scene and the later scene of Harold's return to King Edward. Whether or not you accept that this was under duress is irrelevant here as we are looking at the artist behind the tapestry and not at the specifics of the succession. The suggestion that it hung as morality lesson is pure conjecture. It is much more probable that it was to legitimise the invasion. William did not receive wholesale approval for his actions. There was concern from many of the neighbouring French dukes about this increased power and the implication that William was prepared to usurp authority. (Indeed the French king was concerned about this). Also let's not forget that William had to do pennance for his actions throught the construction of Battle Abbey. This was all part of his campaign to be seen as a legitimate king. (It doesn't matter whether or not he was. He needed to be Italic textseenItalic text to be.

For a full and well respected account of the symbolism within the tapestry see the following (I only highlighted some key aspects to provide a grounding for my point)

N.P. Brooks and H.E. Walker, 'The authority and interpretation of the Bayeux Tapestry', Italic textAnglo-Norman StudiesItalic text, 1 (1979), pp.1-34 Valiant Son 23:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

    • Comment I think you offer a nice interpretative analysis here, but I do not think this or the article in general can make near definitive conclusions about the origin of the Tapestry. The point is that we simply do not know where it came from, France or England, or by whom. I am very skeptical that this article can make such definate conclusions without acknowledging THE HUGE debate on this issue. If I were to cite this article, and say the tapestry was made in England by Bishop Otto (or whoever), I would be WRONG. Additionally, what you provide here is criticism and assertions. This article needs to be heavily revised to encompass the debates and lack of consensus about this tapestry. What you write is convincing, but it is your own analysis based on a small selection of critical work. This article needs heavy revision. I, personally, do not have a grasp of the issues well enough to talk about them, but I know the factual assertions in this article have not meet an overwhelming consensus. With that in mind, even claims like "most likely" cannot be substantiated (by critical discussion and not original research) on this topic which is highly debated. --Malecasta 05:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Having read a bulk of work on the period and undertaken my undergraduate special study on the issue it is rather galling that what I have said be described as, "your own analysis based on a small selection of critical work." It is based on a hug range of work and I merely suggested that, in line with the majority historical view prevailing, the article should show that the artist was "most likely" English. I can even give academic referencing for this! Valiant Son 03:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverting article[edit]

Based on comments above, I'm taking the bold step of reverting the article back to the version before the mass of new text was added by on June 4th, back to the May 31 2005 version. has not responded either to fix concerns listed above, or to provide more information on sources, and further problems have arisen with NPOV and factual concerns. This is a complicated topic, that has many theories, and only a single POV is being presented in a format that makes it very difficult if not impossible for other editors to edit. In addition much of the material is simply triva that has nothing to do with the tapestry and is not very Wikipedia-like. The current article still needs a lot of work. It would be good to have some structure such as "there are many theories who made it.. one is.." to set the precedent, so we can start listing theories. Stbalbach 07:21, 20 October 2005 (UT

This is absurd. The article did have some NPOV, but with some editing this could have been removed. Instead, you showed up, took a two second look and blew away 5 months of edits. Someone needs to revert this back. --JDooley 02:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I didnt just show up, see my comments above from June when the mass of new text was first put in. It's unfortanate 5 months have gone by since. In addition to the NPOV and non-Wikipedia like nature, I'm fairly certain the text added by is a copyvio, although I have not found the source yet, it is too professional and polished, and reads like a National Geographic magazine from the 1960s (which is listed as of the sources). Questions about it have gone unanswered from As I said, this is a bold step. Since you dont agree and have reverted it back, I expect you will take responsibility for fixing the problems? I await your reply on how to resolve this before reverting back. Stbalbach 03:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

JDooley appears to be a very casual user of Wikipedia lately, to move this along Im reverting until further discussion. I would ask JDooly and others to look at the article edit history pre- and post- June 4, and review the discussions above, to see the material in question. Thank You. Stbalbach 00:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Everyone's in a rush to revert. It's a Battle of Hastiness. We need concensus. We need William the Concurrer. Wahkeenah 00:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
True. Well, the easiest thing is do nothing. Thats what happened 5 months ago. Im not sure 3 people is consensus though, its been hard enough to get the attention just of two other people on the talk page. Stbalbach 00:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I um, fourth the motion to revert. -timothymh, who is definitely not a bunny. 21:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
To follow up, I have just bought a 1966 National Geographic from eBay ($3). At worst it'll be an interesting article about the Norman Conquest (and possibly some B&W topless Africans), at best we will get to the bottom of the mystery of the source of the text. It will take 30 days or so to receive and verify. Stbalbach 00:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I have a copy, actually. The one topless African is in color. Page 165. The Norman Conquest article runs nearly 50 pages, so I can't transcribe it for you. Do you want me to check out anything in particular? Other than page 165? Wahkeenah 00:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Ahh! The wonders of Wikipedia. Well I suspect the content added by starting June 4th (see edit history) is lifted directly from the NatGeo article (not including page 165) thus copyright violation. Stbalbach 01:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe a tough call. He seems to be paraphrasing much of it, although he is also citing the authors for various segments, on the theory that multiple plagiarism = "research". Some of it's pretty close. I haven't studied it in depth, but one of the first lines that jumped out me was as follows:

  • NG article: "...the border, usually filled with mythological creatures, and scenes from fables."
  • June 4 a-none: "The borders of the tapestry are filled with mythological figures, lions, dragons, and scenes from fables."

Wahkeenah 01:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok its probably not a strong enough case, paraphrasing seems to be accepted on Wikipedia so long as sources are cited. I'll restore the article. Unless you find anything else clearly word for word. Ill check too when my copy arrives. Stbalbach 02:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Guys, was just glancing at this article whilst revising for an exam on the Norman Conquest and spotted some huge errors. Much of the text was not a description of what the Tapestry shows, but rather a slightly-Norman biased story of the Conquest itself. I've gone through it now with my copy of the Tapestry in front of me and taken out a lot of stuff, and added some stuff in about where there are controversies, etc. It's by no means perfect now - I'm not used to Wikipedia-ing so I've probably not linked in properly and stuff, and it may not explain everything to someone without basic knowledge of the Norman Conquest, but at least it's no longer totally misleading about what the Tapestry depicts. I'll get back to this after my exam and fill some more stuff in! I also stupidly didn't read the talk page before I edited, so apologies if I've trodden on anyone's feet here. I should also probably get a user account so you can track me easily too... in the meantime here's my IP address! 20:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

France vs England[edit]

As Malecasta noted above in October, the article still needs a lot of work (the origins part). But at least the nature of the debate is more clearly outlined and not so muddled. We need (a lot) more detail on the specifics on both sides. As the article stands today, based on the material we started with, it leans heavily in the pro-Anglo-Saxon side of things which is probably not good. Stbalbach 07:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Past tense[edit]

The edits by anon user are correct, the article should be written in the past tense, it is either a policy, or at least MoS guidelines. Otherwise it reads like where the article is sourced from: a National Geographic author who spent a few months traveling around England/France and writing a journalistic report. --Stbalbach 02:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Whatever. The a-none was inconsistent in its approach, so I reverted. It should try again and do the whole article the same way. Or you could, if you've a mind to. Wahkeenah 04:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The Tapestry's Origins[edit]

This article does little more than assert, So-and-so thinks X created the tapestry. Some other people think Y created the tapestry. X is probably right." If it instead presented the case for each side, cited precise attributions, and offered corresponding illustrations to demonstrate the case for each side - then it might have the makings of a featured article. Durova 18:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

French vs English[edit]

I don't know if this is a good or constructive idea (depends on what sources the present article used and a couple other factors)... I admit to being no specialist on the question, and not having much in the way of creditable sources... But I thought it might be clever to check Wiki-French and try to see if that article is better than this one, and if necessary to fish the juicy bits and translate them here. Is this a tolerated procedure? Do you folk think it's a good idea in the first place? In case the motion should be approved, I, as a native French speaker, and having opened my big hole in the first place would volunteer to do it... and a bat bit of work it should be, as the two articles are organized differently, and comparing data will not be that clear cut. --Svartalf 01:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Possibly amusing use of the tapestry in pop culture?[edit]

I didn't see anything about references to the tapestry in modern (pop) culture, though I presume there are many. One I came across recently was in a computer game, and I append a screenshot. The section of the tapestry shown here runs from Harold and William approaching Rouen to the departure of William for Mont St. Michel. In between is the famous Aelfgyva and the cleric scene. There is at least another section displayed in the game, featuring the scenes showing the construction of Westminster and the funeral of Edward.

Bayeux Tapestry in a computer game.

Neale Monks 14:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


I recall there was some minor controversey over the tapestry several years ago over what appeared to be a turkey on the border. This was held as proof of pre-coloumbian contact with the americas. I believe it was disproved but is it worth a mention on the article anyway?Amanoman 20:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Galliform birds similar in appearance to the American turkey are also found in the Old World: it is a member of the same family as pheasants and grouse. Accidental resemblances are also frequent in the biological world: e.g. Australia's native brush turkey belongs to a different family of birds than the true turkey but they are nonetheless quite alike. Zoetropo (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Bayeux = YTMND fad[edit]

Bayeux tapestry is being made again by YTMND users as they include bayeux tapestry versions of various YTMND fads, from "Nigga stole my bike" to "Yonder moor coveted mine steed", The original "You're the man now dog" to "Thou art the man henseforth dog", or even "What is Love" to "What doth love be"

Post made by flashn00b

Is this why this article is listed under internet memes? Because there's nothing in the article to say why it's a 'net meme as far as I can see. I'm confused! Perhaps I'm missing something but I'm not sure why it is listed in this category. If anyone could clarify this? Thanks Redclaire 17:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, SomethingAwful parodied it before YTMND did -- 02:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed an Internet Meme. It should have at least a mention in the article, I think. RC-960018 (talk) 06:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Latin text[edit]

Hello. I wonder what can be said about the Latin text. Maybe there are some clues about who wrote it, to judge by the text itself. Maybe it is possible to comment on its literary quality as well. Finally it would be nice to identify the style of letters and how that fits with pen-written documents of the same age. 00:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What literary quality? There are hardly any structured sentences in it at all. Start from here and press the next image buttons. It shows literal translations of the Latin, which is more like annotations than a commentary. Jake95(talk!) 21:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, there is some indication that the Tapestry is of Anglo-Saxon origin due to some forms of Latin which are used. Off the top of my head I cannot remember what they are. b_cubed 19:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

L.Foaly ?[edit]

Who/what is "L.Foaly"? It is at the end of one of the sentences, but no where else in the article. Is this a footnote to a source, what source? -- Stbalbach

In Normandy[edit]

I changed the link in the first paragraph from Normandy to Basse-Normandie, the actual region Bayeux is in. Jake95(talk!) 21:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

New Yorker cover[edit]

Would this suffice as a reference for the New Yorker cover parody: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Mistyped date near the head of the entry[edit]

Someone please correct the "earliest reference" as in a 2007 Bayeux Cathedral inventory? 2007 is obviously not the first appearance of the tapestry. I would be interested in knowing when. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. It's called vandalism, don'cha know. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

citations for added University of West Georgia info[edit]

don't currently have time to add them in but hope someone else can Werecowmoo (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


The word "restoration" does not appear in the article. Has there been any? A repair is mentioned from antiquity. Is there any record or speculation of what repairs have occurred? Tempshill (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


The third paragraph claims "the Latin text contains hints of Anglo Saxon" - this is an ambiguous statement. Does the writer mean that the language is that of the Anglo-Saxons (Old English)? Or that the font style is reminiscent of Anglo-Saxon texts? Or something else? Perhaps someone with a better knowledge than me of the subject could clarify ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not know, but the fact the Normans are called Franci "Franks" or "French" could suggest, that it was made in England, because nobody would have called the Normans, the Bretons and the Flemish people "French" in what is today "France" at that time. The regional identies remained very strong until the 15 th century (see Duby's William Marshall) and the French were identified in France as the inhabitants of Paris and Ile-de-France, like the French language today, that is mainly the language of Paris. The French national feeling is something modern that began at Joan of Arc's time. Nortmannus (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC) See for example in La Chanson de Roland, version of the Oxford manuscript, we read : verse 3795 :"Baivier e Saisne sunt alet à cunseill, e Peitevin e Norman e Franceis; asez i as Alemans e Tiedeis." Bavaria and Saxon people went to the council and Poitevin (Poitou people) and Norman and French, there were Alamans and Lorraine (or Flemish) people too.
I've read texts from the 11th century that speak of Bretons, Normans, French and English as four distinct groups, but I've also read some that lumped the Normans in with the French, but separately from the Bretons. It is worth noting that Ralph the Staller, who was lord of Gael and Montfort in Brittany, signed Breton charters as "Ralph Anglicus" ("Ralph the Englishman"). Ralph was an official under Edward the Confessor, and may have been born in England. So "English" wasn't so much an ethnic term as a national one, in a way that approached the modern sense. Zoetropo (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Removed pic[edit]

Portion of the Bayeux Tapestry

I just removed this picture from the lead. Yes it is a nice clear pic.... but it can't rightly be claimed to be the Bayeux tapestry. It is a painted representation of part of the tapestry, not a photgraph of the tapestry itself. That is why the colours are so clear and bright. Amandajm (talk) 12:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Scrollable image of the whole thing?[edit]

Does there exist a scrollable image of the whole tapestry,

comparable to this format?

There is one at Ceola (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Anomalous paragraph in "Reliability"[edit]

There's a strange paragraph at the end of the "Reliability" section. It's badly written, and anyone who knows exactly what it means should probably rewrite it, or it should be removed. I'll modify it a little, but I'm not certain exactly what it's about, so I will only touch it up superficially. --PlantPerson (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, the paragraph is now clean grammatically, but an expert should look it over... I don't really trust its accuracy, given the quality of the writing. --PlantPerson (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It really needs to be explained what nude men have to do with opposition to Williams reign and why it would be shown under a scene meant to attack Harold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Mystery vs. Reliability[edit]

The Mysteries section notes the clergyman touching the woman's face and the nude men; but the Reliability section claims these mysteries are solved. Could a knowledgeable editor edit appropriately? Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Those are what I'd call unsupported claims in "Reliability." This editor thinks at the very least it needs a who? tag and a citation needed tag. If not just delete the entire claim.
Someone in that section also misidentified Gytha Thorkelsdóttir as the wife of Harold, when she was his mother. This does not help inspire any confidence in the claims being made. It could easily be OR, based on the way it's written. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 03:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the more I think about it, I think that whole paragraph deserves deletion, and I do believe I feel inclined to just go ahead and get it over with. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

One of the identifications of the Aelfgifu figure is given in the Wissolik (1979) paper which is listed in the references (available at Wissolik argues that the figure is Harold's daughter. The evidence is simply the fact that Harold did have a daughter called Aelfgifu - there is no historical record of her having gone with him to Normandy in 1064. Ceola (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Removal of apparent duplication - then reversed...[edit]

I've just removed apparent duplication, only to see it immediately reverted. In "the Plot", the section from the paragraph before "Halley's Comet" contains material which is both out-of-order for the chronology of the plot, and will be covered more in-depth anyway in subsequent paragraphs. Quoted here for reference:

"William, upon hearing this, plans an invasion of England to claim the crown promised him by Edward. William spends a few years building ships for the invading armada. His forces eventually land in England and prepare for battle. Prior to the battle a great feast is held for the forces. The Battle of Hastings takes place, during which Harold is killed. The tapestry depicts various scenes in the battle, including one in which Harold's forces appear to be winning the battle. But eventually, William is victorious and claims the throne intended for him by Edward, and William becomes the King of England." (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Right you are. I have reverted my revert and apologize for the mix-up. On the other hand, if you had explained your deletion in an edit summary, we could have saved some time. Favonian (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Well I wasn't complaining as such, just stating what had happened :)
( Though you're probably right that I do need to engage a bit more actively when making edits, rather than swooping in at random :) ... ) (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Latin text with English translation[edit]

I have moved the section containing the Latin text with an English translation out of this article and into Bayeux Tapestry tituli. The section (which I had added myself) was too long in my view.

Thincat (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggest re-merger of table of text[edit]

Following from last entry: Great mistake! Your addition was excellent and much needed in the main article and should remain there in a central position. The Latin text and translation is fundamental to an understanding of the Tapestry, not merely an appendix which can be consulted by interested readers. The current article cannot hope to inform the reader about the Tapestry unless it explains it scene by scene. We are letting down readers by not giving them the full tapestry. Length should not be an issue. It will still be quite a short article compared to some (i.e. King John is 33 pages!). Separating the two also creates the need for a new intro. which causes duplication & eventual divergence which will require later rationalisation. I have accordingly added merge to/from tags to both articles suggesting a re-merger. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC))

  • Comment I agree the text is very important, but would prefer leaving the new spacious article with images, and in the main article just quoting the text in say 10-caption bursts, with both languages. That would not take up too much space. I'm dubious that embroidery can create "inscriptions" btw: "text" or "captions" would I think be better. Johnbod (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Adding images of the scenes has been a great idea and one which seems very appropriate to me. I would like to see the table with images of the entire tapestry. However, when I split this version of the article it was because I thought the length of the section made the article unbalanced. The new expansion with added images makes this a greater difficulty so I think it is best to leave the articles demerged. However, this is very much a matter of editorial judgement with no right or wrong about it. Johnbod's suggestion might work out rather well and it would not be difficult to achieve. Finally, "inscriptions" never was the right word (apologies!), I now tend to favour "annotations". Thincat (talk) 12:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
tituli is the correct scholarly term, but probably too unfamiliar for this popular article; "annotations" are usually added later. Johnbod (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment The table could be reintroduced in a collapsible form. Nev1 (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I like the collapsible concept. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon document?[edit]

I notice Johnbod has removed the [Category:Anglo-Saxon documents], and I'm just wondering if that's wise. I accept that both the "Anglo-Saxon" and the "document" elements are debatable. However, in my view the BT is undoubtedly a document (albeit in an unusual medium), and I see Johnbod hasn't removed the category from Bayeux Tapestry tituli. "Anglo-Saxon" is more borderline, as the Tapestry is (axiomatically) post-Conquest; but it was made, according to the dominant school of thought, by Anglo-Saxon embroiderers, and the text includes Anglo-Saxon characters and spellings. On balance, I feel that categories are cheap, and that if a subject even arguably falls into one it may as well be included. I didn't originally add the category, incidentally, but felt the point was worth at least a brief discussion. GrindtXX (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The tituli article covers the "document" aspect; if we didn't have that I would have left this one in. But as we do have it, it's better those looking for documents to go straight there, I thought. Johnbod (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Better lede image?[edit]

Does anyone have objections to replacing the lede image with something of better quality? The current image is small and looks like it was photographed with an on camera flash at point blank range. I propose replacing it with one of these:

Each of these varies in the color of the background. Perhaps someone who has seen the tapestry in person can comment on which is more color accurate. - MrX 00:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bayeux Tapestry. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 04:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bayeux Tapestry. 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:

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

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 11:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Video by Lindybeige[edit]

Just added the video by Lindybeige. It was undone with the caption "random youtube video isn't good for external link" by User:Ealdgyth. Please watch the video first before removing it. It really adds to the article. It is a well researched and entertaining Video explaining the step by step the history of the depicted scenes. You have studied history as you say in your profile. You should know that knowlede mediation is a big issue for our disciplines! Please rethink the edit and maybe watch the video. As long as it dosn't compromise any Wiki guidelines (I am usually editing the german Wiki) we should consider adding it. I'd like to hear your thoughts! Greetings Wikisassonia (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

We don't provide advertising for people's random youtube videos. It's that simple. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Really? That'S the reason? So we don't link to people's articles anymore because it advertises them? Anyone else on this issue? I am not Lindybeige nor am I a friend or a big fan of his work, but this video is genuinly well done. I don't care to much if it gets added i just think we should consider it, because it makes accessing this topic easier for more people. Again, does linking this video violate any guidelines or is it just your oppinion, that youtube videos are not worth linking to? Wikisassonia (talk) 12:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
The person isn't an expert in history. The person doesn't seem to specialize in medieval history topics - I checked their other viedos. They link to a patreon page and solicit donations/contributions, so yeah, we don't need to be driving more traffic to their videos, especially as they have no qualifications in the topic area to make them a subject matter expert. A youtube video done by one of the authors of the works we use as references would be useful. A video from a documentary producer with a history of producing history videos would be useful. A video by a college professor who is a medieval history or art history professor would be useful. A youtube video by a random person who does a whole lot of youtube videos isn't useful. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
[edited because i got a bit upset, sry] Yes, he makes money with people watching his video - as does every other youtuber or media site or documentary producer or researcher. But: He has a BA in Archaeology as far as i know. Contrary to what you wrote he largely specialises in medieval warfare and history. You don't have to be a college professor to present the results of other researchers in an understandable and entertaining way. How is a documentary producer - who most likely is a journalist or a media person of some kind - more suitable to be featured on this site, than an independent researcher? But I am not starting a discussion about who is worthy enough to be linked to this article. You should really watch the video before judging it. I am just leaving this out here as a suggestion. Please watch and consider adding it to this site, if you think it adds to the topic. Thanks for consideration. Greetings Wikisassonia (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
WP:ELNO #1 and #11 seem relevant here. External-links sections in articles aren't intended to be a catch-all for anything related that happens to be found on the Web. Deor (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Thx Deor. I agree. #1 is relevant in this case. I disagree about #11. Thank you for pointing it out Wikisassonia (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Dead Weblink[edit]

Btw, * A Guide to the Bayeux Tapestry – Latin-English translation seems to be dead? Wikisassonia (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

i deleted it (talk) 07:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I have restored an archive of the link because we try not to delete links solely because they are dead. WP:KDL discusses this. However, I'm not necessarily suggesting the link is worth keeping but I'll leave it to others to delete if it is not worth having. Thincat (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Possible loan to UK[edit]

I've removed the sentence somebody added about the possible loan of the tapestry to the UK which has been reported in the British press today. First of all it doesn't belong in the Recorded history section and secondly it has only been agreed in primciple by President Macron. To quote from an article in the Times today [1] "The Élysée Palace confirmed the loan of the tapestry today, saying that it would probably be sent to Britain for several months after 2020. An aide to Mr Macron said: “This symbolises the strength of our historic relations. Very important restoration work has to be carried out first.” It was also reported today that the tapestry would have to be assessed first to see if it was ok to be transported. It also says in the Times article that it expected to go to the British museum but then goes on to say "Although the museum stopped short of confirming that it had secured the loan, its director gave a statement saying that his museum would welcome it". In the end it probably will happen as it also says in the article "It will be taken to London after restoration and displayed in the capital while the French museum undergoes refurbishment before it reopens in 2023" but until a firm date for an exhibition is agreed then to talk about it in this article is premature. Richerman (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

We should add something - if only to prevent a continuous stream of helpful isp's doing so, which they will. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Made in Canterbury[edit]

The article treats the origin of the Bayeux Tapestry as a matter of some debate. A speaker on Front Row on January 18 2018 said that it is quite well known that the tapestry was made in Canterbury. Vorbee (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

She didn't seem much of an expert imo. Canterbury is favourite, but there is no very specific evidence. Johnbod (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Her name is Maggie Kneen, and she has been studying the Bayeux Tapestry for years, has contributed to conferences on it and and is co-authoring a book on it with Prof Gale Owen-Crocker. She's acknowledged as giving expert help in the foreword of a book on the tapestry by Trevor Rowley. She's not employed as an academic, but that doesn't mean she doesn't have expertise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)