Talk:Richard Beauchamp (bishop)

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

Cultural section[edit]

I'm not going to edit war over the additions, but I'd like to register my dislike of the section, especially the picture. The picture is utterly unrelated to the time frame of the subject of the article, and since there isn't another portrait here, gives the wrong impression of what a bishop of the time frame would have worn. Ealdgyth | Talk 22:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC) - addendum - I just checked for images on Commons, none. If only I lived in Europe...Ealdgyth | Talk 06:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The whole thing seems irrelevant and the picture is (a) inappropriate and (b) not being used in line with Wikipedia:Non-free content guidelines as I understand them. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I too concur. This reminds me of when someone kept inserting a "as seen in this war inspired video game" type section on the Wake Island page, only this may be worse. Also I do not think video games count as "culture". --Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Video games are an integral part of culture -- such a fact is not very difficult to see if you understand the word 'culture' or wish to conclude why I would represent video games in a section that is seemingly unrelated criteria. Regardless, the image portrayed as the video game's representation may not seem fitting towards how Richard was justifiably portrayed within culture, but it is still a portrayal specifically created by Koei, and therefore it would emphasize biasism if I were not to add it, even though it itself is a figure of controversy which probably shouldn't be added -- so with these additional circumstances I cannot be reprimanded against. Either way, it obviously adds to the article better than it would by not existing, and therefore it should justifiably exist. And considering that the information that I have written is justifiably appropriate to Wikipedia, and this article is relatively nothing more than a mere two sentences, it shall be added, discluding the image. User:Exiled Ambition 28 January 2008 (EST)

As of present, we see that the article of Richard Beauchamp is composed of nothing more than a mere few sentences. With this knowledge, I can thus conclude from such a small amount of information that by adding one controversial image will not harm anything -- considering that with such an enormous lack of alternate information, obviously nothing can be used for retortion. In addition to these means, this image is a portrayal of Richard, so naturally it can't be potentially removed until a greater amount of information is produced to prove otherwise; and considering that it is the only cultural reference that Richard possesses, it does not emphasis any form of biasism and his entirely appropriate to its respective place. In conclusion, the image will be readded. User:Exiled Ambition 29 January 2008 (EST)

Actually, it is inaccurate. Not just the picture, but the whole statement. Please note that Edward the Black Prince died in 1376. The Hundred Years' War ended in 1453. In no way could Richard Beauchamp, who was first bishop in 1448, have supported the Black Prince. It is inaccurate on time frame and on the protrayal of the man as a general. Richard Beauchamp was involved in the Wars of the Roses, a totally different time frame. Are you sure you even have the RIGHT Richard Beauchamp here? You're off by a good hundred years on the dates. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, there is a Richard de Beauchamp, 13th Earl of Warwick, who fought with King Henry V of England in the Hundred Years' War. I submit that this is much more likely to be the one you're looking for than a Wars of the Roses' era bishop. Please note that this particular Richard Beauchamp IS a bishop, of Hereford first and then Salisbury, while the other one I just pointed out was a general and knight. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
In fact, going to the Bladestorm article, I discover that someone has helpfully identified the Richard Beauchamp as the earl of warwick. On that basis, I'm removing the information, as it is not connected to THIS Richard Beauchamp. Ealdgyth | Talk 02:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, as you say it to be, then I cannot do anything to stop you. However, as 'Richard de Beauchamp, 13th Earl of Warwick' exists as an article, I will transfer the cultural referencing from 'Richard Beauchamp' to the latter. User:Exiled Ambition 30 January 2008 (EST)