Talk:Stephen Langton

message: The statement 'the dispute between King John of England and Pope Innocent III, which ultimately led to the issuing of Magna Carta in 1215' seems too sweeping. The dispute between the Pope and King was one of many contributing factors to the crisis which resulted in the issuing of Magna Carta, but the article makes it seem like Magna Carta came about as a direct result of this dispute and only this dispute. A strong case can be made for the view that the barons revolt was due to long standing anger aroused by 'Angevin tyranny' stretching  back across several reigns, and so the dispute between John and Innocent had little relevance, other than weakening the king's position.
I suggest that the statement is removed from the article or changed, perhaps to 'the dispute between King John of England and Pope Innocent III, which was a contributing factor to the crisis which led to the issuing of Magna Carta in 1215'.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.158.60 (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  led to magna carta? 

message: This article reads very much in favour of Langton's career, and seems to espouse a slightly dated Whig view of history; do phrases like "which was to bring great misery upon unhappy England" or "none of the barons worked harder than he against John's tyranny" belong in an encyclopaedia? At the moment they seem more reminiscent of a Victorian novella written by a pious Anglican spinster. (unsigned; was by  19:21, 2 October 2006 User:195.195.166.31 (Talk))
There is of course a case for John's villainy and Stephen's heroism-I sympathise with it up to a point and it's well made here. But can we not adopt a more complex and less 19th century view of things? (unsigned; was by  19:21, 2 October 2006 User:195.195.166.31 (Talk))
Villany and heroism are all fine and good for making a stirring tale, but they are, unfortunately, not neutral point of view: someone's villain may well be someone else's hero, and thus opinions are reflected in the article. Thus, I have taggedeth the article as POV disputed. 204.52.215.107 20:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rather POV? 

message: This really ought to be based on evidence. Originally this page said he was from Langton by Wragby but there is no evidence to support it. I welcome anyone who can find any to submit it so we can all evaluate the evidence. There is evidence that Simon, Stephen's brother, and their father, Henry, owned land in Langton by Horncastle. This is verifiable evidence. On what other basis should such a question as this be answered?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClarkEllis (talk • contribs) 16:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is indeed a source for the Wragby information - the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. The Lost Langton's site is a self-published genealogy site. It is not a reliable source for any information. On Wikipedia we use secondary sources - not self-published genealogical sites. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

text: All that is original research, or OR, which Wikipedia does NOT do. Until it's published by a reliable source (NOT a self-published website) it is OR and cannot be used in Wikipedia. Note that the Fasti Ecclesiae agrees with the ODNB - here. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

text: There is two - ODNB and Fasti. The fact that some website claims differently doesn't impact the fact that two different historians (Greenway in the Fasti and Holdsworth in the ODNB) agree with Powicke. We aren't in the business of disproving historians because we do not interpret original sources. That's what the historians do - and we report what they conclude. Until other historians disagree with Powicke, Powicke, and the historians who rely on him, is a reliable source. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

text: ClarkEllis, there are several scholarly sources which give his birthplace as Langton by Wragby in addition to the ODNB and Powicke. e.g. , , , and a couple which highlight that which of the three Langton By's is his actual birthplace, is not known for sure, but that F. M. Powicke had argued from his evidence for Langton by Wragby, e.g.  . You are going to have a find a source of similar quality to support your contention and lostlangtons.co.uk is not one of them. Voceditenore (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  And I see that ClarkEllis has once more edit-warred the information about Horncastle back into the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: And I am about to revert him. Some early 19th-century sources, e.g. , claim it was Langton by Spilsby. I haven't found any books, let alone modern scholarly ones, which claim it was Langton near Horncastle. Voceditenore (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

text: I provided it earlier - Wikipedia:No original research, specifically the part about interpreting primary sources. Assuming that one particular Langton is meant because a river or mill is mentioned is very definitely interpreting an original/primary source. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

text: ClarkEllis, as Ealdgyth says, please read Wikipedia:No original research from start to finish and its linked pages, especially Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. These are Wikipedia policies and no amount of you arguing otherwise is going to change those policies. All editors have to abide by them. If you are still insisting that LostLangtons or your/their personal interpretation of primary source documents is a reliable source, take it to the Reliable sources Noticeboard. But I can guarantee that you won't like the answer. Voceditenore (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where was Stephen Langton from