Talk:Gilbert Foliot

Sources

I can't find a source for this one, which is why I felt the verification tag was called for. --Agamemnon2 08:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This page could do with some tidying up. Perhaps it would be worth adding a section on Foliot's role in the Thomas Becket controversy, in which the current information in this article regarding his relations to Becket can be moved and more detail added. Foliot was Becket's harshest contemporary critic and quipped that Becket 'was always a fool and he always will be'. His most well known letter the 'Multiplicem', was a venomous attack on Thomas Becket. --Valmecias —Preceding comment was added at 00:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

He's on my list, along with all the bishops of Hereford. As soon as I get home from a trip this weekend. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This article could use some revamping. I would like to see adding of the Thomas Becket controversy. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Starting work

Starting my much delayed work on him. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review

I haven't felt competent to undertake a peer review, as on both first and second reading I found nothing of any substance to suggest. I look forward to meeting the Rt Rev on the front page. I have made three tiny corrections of what I think are typos, which please check. Good luck! Tim riley (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments while copyediting

A few issues I don't feel competent to fix myself:

• From the lead: "After holding two posts as prior in the Cluniac order, he was appointed Abbot of Gloucester Abbey in 1139, a promotion influenced by his kinsman Miles of Gloucester. Although Foliot recognised Stephen as king, he may have sympathised with the Empress Matilda's claim to the throne."

I think that second sentence rather comes out of the blue. Being a fan of Brother Cadfael I'm familiar with some details of the Stephen and Matilda episode, but I think there needs to be a sentence briefly summarising what it was about before launching into Foloit's allegiances in the affair.

The rewrite you've done seems less jarrring to me now. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I seem to have unconsciously fixed that one myself. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Should it be "English Church" or "English church"? Whichever, the article needs to be consistent.

I have no clue. Sources vary. I lean English Church, but am willing to deal with English church. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Gone with "English Church", which is my preference too. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Will no one rid me of the turbulent priest". Isn't there supposed to be a question mark?

My source, Warren's Henry II does not have a ? in it. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Although Foliot was a Cluniac monk, they were still a subset of the Benedictine Order ...". Not entirely sure what the "still" is trying to say. Did they stop being a "subset" later? "Subset" seems a strange word to use in this context anyway. Would any meaning be lost if the "still" was dropped?

I think we can lose it here. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed "still". --Malleus Fatuorum 15:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

--Malleus Fatuorum 14:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Foliot also wrote that Stephen had "dishonored the episcopate...". Is "dishonored" really spelt the American way in that quotation? --Malleus Fatuorum 13:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

fixed. (You were right...) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• "This, at the end of Bishop of London appears to be a non sequitor: "Foliot reprimanded the earl for his actions regarding his wife, reminding him that, until the pope had ruled otherwise, Agnes was to be considered his wife in bed and board. His warnings appear to have fallen on deaf ears for, when Pope Alexander III wrote to the bishop regarding reports of the countess's mistreatment by her husband and required Foliot to threaten the earl with excommunication, he also chastised the bishop for his handling of the case." I can't see how his "warnings falling on deaf ears" is related to Foliot's chastisement by the pope. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Honestly? I have no idea. I did not add that paragraph, it was inserted by another editor, and I do not have access to the article it's based on. I think we can safely say "His efforts were unsuccessful, and later Pope Alexander III wrote to Foliot ordering the bishop to threaten the earl with excommunication and chastising the bishop's handling of the case." That work? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've changed it to something that makes sense to me.

My work here is done. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 16:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Image review

• File:B Innozenz II1.jpg

• The source is a bit unclear. Did the uploader take the photo themselves or is it a scan? It would be good to determine this.
• The "Date" field should also include the date of the original painting, as that is what determines the copyright of the image.
• The "Author" field should list the painter of the mosaic, as that is what determines the copyright. Note that the license says "life of the author plus 70 years". If the author is unknown, we definitely need the date of the mosaic to establish the impossibility of the author still being able to claim copyright.

Not a painting, it appears it's a 13th century mosaic. Note that it's in the side view of File:Roma-santa maria in trastevere 02.jpg. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

None of the issues I have listed have been resolved yet. Awadewit (talk) 01:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Added. I was hoping Johnbod would chime in as he's likely to know (if it's possible) who the mosaic artist was. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

We still need to know a bit more about the source, if at all possible. Awadewit (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. I'll note that the uploader hasn't touched Wiki since 2005 contributions, so asking over there is unlikely to get us far. If need be I can remove it, but this is the closest thing to a contemporary pic of INnocent we have. I'll note that there are exactly three illustrations in the Commons Innocent II category, one of which is a letter and the other lacks all information. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked around Google Images at all? Was this image copied from another site, perhaps? Awadewit (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I TAKE pictures, I don't play with them online! If I had my way, I'd not put any pics into articles unless they were maps or charts or of the subject. THis habit of requiring many little pics of things unrelated to the subject of the article sends me over the edge with every FAC it seems (grins). The pic is a little better than average but well within the capabilities of someone with a tripod or monopod. I took some in Europe that are as good (that are on Commons) sans tripod, so it's possible. John? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks similar to this photo, for example. Awadewit (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The mosaic is 1110-43, ie contemporary with Innocent (otherwise the current Pope would no doubt have been shown - it is a donor portrait). AFAIK no designer or craftsman's name is recorded, you don't get that until a century or so later. Mosaics, (although not painted) count as 2-dimensional AFAIK, so the photo has no copyright. It looks to me like a scan from a book, but who knows, & it doesn't matter for the licensing. Johnbod (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't totally sure that mosaics counted as 2D, so I was concerned about the licensing of the photo itself, but if you are sure they are 2D, we don't have to worry, you're right. Awadewit (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's good. I know Elcobbola told me that tapestries counted at 2D once upon a time Ealdgyth - Talk 01:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The only issue might be mosaics on a curved wall, but I've never seen this raised, hence my afaik above. Johnbod (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• File:MatyldaAnglie.jpg

• The description needs to be in English as well as German.
• We need the specific source information in order to verify the license - "original book" is insufficient. Treat this field as you would a reference in an article.

Title of the work is given above "Die Siegel der deutschen Kaiser und Könige" (which my very rough German gives "The Seals of the German Emperors and Kings") Ealdgyth - Talk 17:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've updated that to reflect the fact that the source isn't the author. Author/creator is the medieval creator of the seal, which will predate 1167, Matilda's death Ealdgyth - Talk 17:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I see that the description field doesn't really describe the seal yet - it is the title of the source. Could we get a description? Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 01:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• File:Stephen3.jpg

• More details about this image would be appreciated in the description field.
• The source needs to link to the HTML page, not directly to the JPG file, so that any details about the image can be verified (see WP:IUP).
• The date needs to be in English.

Updated. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

We still need a better description of the image. Where is it from? What is it exactly? Awadewit (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - see it now. Awadewit (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• File:Jindrich2 Beckett.jpg

• More details about this image would be appreciated in the description field.
• The source needs to link to the HTML page, not directly to the JPG file, so that any details about the image can be verified (see WP:IUP).
• The date needs to be in English.

Updated Ealdgyth - Talk 17:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• File:StThomasSens.jpg

• This image has no source or author. The uploader may be the author, but this is a rather professional looking photo, so I'm wondering if it is a scan. You could leave the uploader a message asking for help identifying the source or try to track it down yourself.

(Mutters) This one will probably have to go, unless Johnbod can chime in ....

Has been removed at this time. Awadewit (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It's from the V&A (link added) as it says. In the past they have been ready to licence pics, but User:VAwebteam seems inactive now, though I've asked. Johnbod (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• File:Arbroath Abbey Seal 01.jpg

• The date says "medieval/1850s" - please clarify.
• The author says "Arbroath Abbey". What does this mean? In order to select the correct PD license for the UK (Commons requires that images be PD in their country of origin and the US), we have to establish if the author has been dead for a certain length of time, is actually anonymous, etc.

Updated. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added the second license. Awadewit (talk) 01:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Basically what this comes down to is: editors on Commons are just like editors on Wikipedia - helpful but not always informed. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Fictional portrayals section..

What bearing on the actual subject of "Gilbert Foliot" the bishop does a few mentions of the fact that he is a character in a play and who played him in movies have? It might have bearing if it had some new interpretation of his historical role, or if he'd been portrayed in a monumentally influential play/film/book, but because he is indeed a player in the Becket drama, he's going to appear in a lot of films, books, etc. Unless these films or such have a profound impact on how he is viewed (such as Shakespeare's version of Richard III of England) I'm not seeing how it's important. Note that Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles has a point under "List content" that says "However, passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources." and "If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment." Ealdgyth - Talk 17:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Having battled for months to keep a mask worn in the film V for Vendetta out of Gunpowder Plot and Guy Fawkes I very much agree with your position Ealdgyth. There has to be some light shed on Foliot by, for instance a fictional portrayal, for it to be worth including. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be omitting the section of the article you quote that states: "When fictional characters are modeled after other people or characters, they should be included when the connection is identified in the primary source or attributed by a secondary source." That seems pretty unequivocal to me. I agree that passing references are not relevant. However, the portrayal of an historical character in film is of interest to many and should, I believe, be included. Opposing such references shows, I think, a certain academic snobbishness which has no place in a general encyclopaedia dedicated to every topic under the sun. If Wikipedia did not include many thousands of references to popular culture and was purely an historical encyclopaedia then I would be in complete agreement with you. However, that is not the case. As an historian myself, and personally fascinated by the portrayal of historical characters in film, I utterly oppose the idea that academic research and serious popular culture (as opposed to irrelevant fluff) are mutually exclusive. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm more concerned with the "If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment." I'm not expecting "academic" secondary sources here, reviews of the films mentioning the importance of the GF character would show that in my mind. But where do we draw the line? He's not just a character in films, he appears in literally hundreds of books, I'm sure. Some are going to be quite lengthy, do we list every time he's a character in a work of fiction, even if its a romance novel? It's all about where we draw the line, and secondary sources testifying to the importance of the role help draw the line. And please, don't assign motives to me about "academic snobbishness" that's really uncalled for. I didn't call you "a trivia freak" or anything of the sort. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example (purely fictious, because I am not a film expert) on something that I feel would be a good addition: "In the film Becket, the character of Gilbert Foliot is protrayed as a money-grubbing schemer out to get Becket's position, while in the BBC TV series, Gilbert's character is an otherworldly sort who is not in touch with reality." This would be sourced to various film reviews in newspapers, and would be easily related to the subject of the article. What you've added is without context and doesn't give us any idea of HOW GF is characterized in the films. It doesn't really related to the subject of the article except in a trivial way, the fact that a character in a work is named the same, without any context on how it related or did not relate to the historical GF. Does that make more sense? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No, what I've added is a fact. This is an encyclopaedia and facts are what we deal in. No, there is no context. There doesn't have to be. But someone can look at the article and think "hmm, Foliot was portrayed by Donald Wolfit and Thorley Walters. How interesting" (since as film buffs they know what Wolfit and Walters look like, sound like and act like). We are telling the reader something they may not know. In what way do you feel this contravenes the purpose of an encyclopaedia? And they are not just playing someone who is "named the same"; they are playing the person who is the subject of the article. I'm afraid that as far as I can see you are making the hoary old "I don't like it" argument. And I did not "assign motives" to you; I said opposition seemed to me to show a certain academic snobbishness. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That something is a fact does not make it automatically eligible for inclusion in an encyclopedia, and what may or may not be interesting is clearly a subjective matter. It is a fact that a blue car just drove down my road towards the traffic lights with its headlamps on, but its hardly encyclopedic. It's even a verifiable fact, reliably sourced, that at 3:23 pm today it rained in my front garden. The question we ought to be asking ourselves then is this: "What does including the fact that Foliot was played by Donald Wolfit in a film tell us about Foliot (this is an article about Foliot after all, not Wolfit), or the opinions of others on Foliot?" Without context the answer has to be nothing, and therefore the information is irrelevant. This is not about "snobbery", or "I don't like it", it's about common sense. What is it about Foliot you're telling the readers by informing that he was once played by Wolfit? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Er, we're telling them he was once played by Wolfit! A perfectly valid statement, of interest to many. I'm sorry, but what you essentially appear to be arguing is that you don't think anything that happened after Foliot's death is relevant to an article about him, even if it concerns him and the way he is portrayed. I utterly disagree. Dismissal of this as trivia is patronising - I do not consider films or their potrayal of historical figures (or who portrays them) to be trivia. In fact, I often watch historical dramas to see how historical figures are portrayed. Inclusion of a section on who has played a figure and in what films he or she has appeared is of use to many (I would point out that there are books in existence which list such portrayals). I completely agree with your point about the use of the Guy Fawkes mask in V for Vendetta, which is fluff with no relevance to the article (since it is not about the portrayal of Fawkes himself) - I too would delete that. I do not, however, agree that serious portrayals of Foliot (or, indeed, Fawkes) on film are not a matter that should be included in an article about him. In what way do they detract from the article or contravene the purpose of an encyclopaedia? In addition, you will find many, many articles about historical figures on Wikipedia which state who has portrayed them on film (and also, indeed, that they have been characters in novels and plays). I'm a little puzzled as to why Foliot should be an exception. That is why I would suggest that the "I don't like it" non-argument is being used here. Remember that Wikipedia is open to everyone and caters to everyone's interests. As long as it is verifiable (which anything on film is, for obvious reasons - it is a source in and of itself) and not utterly trivial (which this is not) then it is a valid inclusion. Trust me, I am not one to add pointless fluff and have deleted enormous quantities of it over my editing career, but this happens to be something which I consider is of relevance to the article. Once again, from Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles: "When fictional characters are modeled after other people or characters, they should be included when the connection is identified in the primary source or attributed by a secondary source." My additions meet that criterion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have not the slightest clue WHO Wolfit is. If the addition gave me some idea why it was incredibly great that he played Foliot, it would help. I'm not saying "don't add it" I'm asking that more information be added to it so that those (like me) who aren't film buffs can understand more about it. I clicked on the articles about the films and didn't get any clue why the portrayal of Foliot in those films is important. I am not saying that anything that happened after Foliot's death is irrelevant (and many of the articles I work on do indeed contain information about things after their death, such as canonization, or further works written about them). What I'm trying to understand here, is why THIS information is important. Obviously, the portrayals are important. HOwever, I'm not a film buff, and many many others aren't either. Just like I can't expect to write this article without giving the context for his life, including a great deal on the Becket controversy, the film roles should give enough context for the general reader (not the specialist film buff) to understand why it's important. That's all. It isn't that it detracts, its that it's unconnected unless you know more context, which, is all that I'm asking for to be added, quite honestly. If the film role is that important to the film, it should be possible to source this context quite easily. Okay, and I know you think I don't like it or something. I disagree, but I get what you're saying and you'll note the information is still in the article, I haven't removed it, and won't unless we persuade you that it needs to go. Or unless consensus of a lot more editors agrees it needs to go (2 to 1 isn't enough to create the obviously bad feelings about this, so consider the information in). Right now, I'm asking, as a non-film person, for more context to undertand what's so freaking great about information. Otherwise, it's running the risk of being information only of use to a specialist film buff, turning that section of the article into a specialist film encyclopedia. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Is that not why we link terms? So you can find out who Wolfit was? If you want to know, click on the link! But I'm a little puzzled as to why you think all information included has to be "important". What is important? Is it important that Foliot's father was steward to David, Earl of Huntingdon? Probably not really; a steward's a steward - it doesn't really matter who he was steward to. But it's included in the article, because somebody might be interested in it. "In about 1145 Foliot intervened to secure the release of a knight to whom he was related, Roger Foliot, but their precise relationship is unknown." So what? Who was Roger Foliot? We don't know. So what does that add to the article? Nothing whatsoever. My point is that different people find different facts interesting. That's not to say I think complete trivia should be included (e.g. "a character in the computer game Call of Duty XXII: The Bishops' Revenge is called Gilbert, which is probably a reference to Gilbert Foliot"), but film portrayals are not fluff of this nature. As to context, the beginning of the article lists a load of people to whom Foliot was related. There is little indication of who they were (Bishop of xx - so what?) or why they are important to his life - but if you click on the links you can find out more about them. That's how Wikipedia works. I don't see you calling for removal of this information or demanding more context and I am struggling to work out what is different about the info I have added, other than the fact that it happened in the 20th century rather than the 12th. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think at this point, we'll just have to agree to disagree, I can see your point to some degree, and I'll try to add some context that I'm looking for as I get a chance. We have at least reached an understanding that the information stays, and I hope you won't object if I add some context to the information as I get a chance? Information from some of the reviews I've listed below, in order to help those like me who aren't film buffs understand more about the way the GF character was protrayed in the film.

Excellent. I'm glad we've come to an understanding. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the following text from the article:[1]

Foliot is a character in Jean Anouilh's play Becket. In the 1964 film adaptation he was portrayed by Donald Wolfit. He was also portrayed by Alban Blakelock in the film adaptation of the T. S. Eliot drama Murder in the Cathedral (1952) and by Thorley Walters in the BBC TV drama series The Devil's Crown (1978).

There is no need for this sort of "starred by" content; "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Unless a portrayal of Foliot in a film/play received notable remarks, such information is indiscriminate. The context of information is crucial here, especially so for a Featured Article.

In some way, that is reflected by WP:UNDUE (even though this guideline is more for "viewpoints", but..): "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." In this case, what is so significant of such film portrayals to Foliot? The text shows nothing worth of significance other than "Gilbert Foliot is a character in this film." ... So what?

In fact, the essay quoted above, "Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles", advises against indiscriminate placement:

"If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment. Quoting a respected expert attesting to the importance of a subject as a cultural influence is encouraged. Absence of these secondary sources should be seen as a sign of limited significance, not an invitation to draw inference from primary sources."

"In determining whether a reference is notable enough for inclusion, one helpful test can be to look at whether a person who is familiar with the topic only through the reference in question has the potential to learn something meaningful about the topic from that work alone. For example, if a movie or a television series has been filmed in a town, the viewer is seeing a concrete representation of what the town actually looks like at street level — but if the town is merely mentioned in a single line of dialogue, the viewer hasn't learned anything except that the place exists."

What it suggests would be that "Gilbert Foliot" should be linked in the articles of films/plays that have him as a major (to the plot) character, and actors notable for portraying him. It does not suggest that a list of Foliot portrayals should be listed in Foliot's article. In other words, critics and the media should be raving or panning the Foliot portrayals before it can be considered significant. Unless such information are available, the article is qualititatively better off without portrayal listings. Once the context for the text has been established, then insertion is certainly not opposable by any means. Jappalang (talk) 11:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I give up. This sort of proscriptive attitude is what makes me sometimes hate Wikipedia. When even serious, long-time editors like myself run up against this sort of proprietary "I know best", "how dare you add information I haven't agreed to my favourite article (which, by the way, I think I own)" attitude then sometimes I feel like it's time to call it a day and leave the project I've contributed hundreds of (mostly historical) articles to over the past few years. I don't know what sort of encyclopaedia you want, but it's certainly not the encyclopaedia I want. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible sources

• review of film of Murder in the Cathedral
• IMDB list of external reviews

Authority Control

Authority Control is a new topic to me. I have had a quick look-up of what it means and half understand it. I note, however, that two or three of the initial references to authority control here are failed links. I have absolutely no idea how to correct this. Will watch closely to see how they are resolved by someone who does understand the topic. Quartic (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)