Talk:John, King of England

message: Think I should note here that I don't agree with mentioning the excommunication without mentioning church services being banned for six years in the lead section. The latter was a step further from the former, which ultimately resulted from the archbishop dispute. It felt like something that was missing. GOLDIEM J (talk) 11:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I, however, think it's unneeded detail in the lead of the article and thus, as my edit summary said, not an improvement. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe then it may be better to remove details about the excommunication and interdict from the lead altogether in said case scenario. GOLDIEM J (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The excommunication was the main event. It was something that rarely happened to entire kingdoms, and when it did, it had consequences. In this case, the interdiction of church services was one of those consequences. No reason to mention discrete sub-topics in a lead that's already substantial. IMHO.  SN54129 16:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the Pope banned church services first and then excommunicated the King second. These are the two events presently mentioned in the article lead, as it does not mention an entire sovereign state being excommunicated. So for this reason, I believe that the interdict was the main event. I think it would be more appropriate to remove details about the excommunication of the King rather than the interdict, as the interdict indeed had consequences. But given that my edit hasn't been reverted for a couple of days, it comes across to me that most fellow contributers aren't thinking twice anyway. GOLDIEM J (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Papal interdict 

message: I still think that if we're going to mention one or the other in the lead, we should mention the Papal interdict instead of John's excommunication. It has previously been mentioned that we should reserve the lead for major and consequential events, but I wholeheartedly believe that the interdict was more major than the excommunication of the king, especially considering that the latter happened after the former which implies that it was an extension of the other. GOLDIEM J (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  August 2023 

message: Future students of King John might be well to watch this film as at least a glimpse of the extreme personal violence of the Era and the cruelty and temper of King John offset somewhat by  by his anger and frustration due to the resistance of those who would not recognize the traditional rights of Kings.   John is not a sympathetic character in this film, but is depicted as a rational man determined to be a King in a manner that he determined a King should be and that cruelty was a necessary object lesson to ensure that the rights of King's were maintained. He seems burdened by his responsibilities but determined to fight through the resistance to his role as a traditional king that protects the freedom and rights of the common man by absolute authority over him and to whom no act is unlawful concerning a King. This echoes the opinion of Charles I who stuck to his conviction "that no man is free unless a King has his rights." 2603:8080:D508:BA1C:C880:F453:72BE:72A5 (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It is listed in Cultural depictions of John, King of England. This article could be expanded with a discussion of which cultural depictions give the most accurate portrait of John (if reliable sources exist), but it is not a subject for the main article. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of the 2011 Film Ironclad with Paul Giamatti As King John?? 

message: Please can we reopen the discussion concerning the interdict? Are we going to acknowledge its seriousness or not? GOLDIEM J (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  September 2023