Talk:John, King of England/Archive 2

Archiving
User:TaerkastUA on reverting my edit to restore the last 5 sections from the archive you wrote in the edit section "revert and restore archive, that doesn't make any sense, there hasn't been an active talk since June 2018". Please explain what you ment as the comment does not make sense to me. -- PBS (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why we needed to have the last five sections restored here. The newest of those conversations was from March 2018. I really don't care either way, but it seems silly to force the keeping of old discussions on a talk page for long periods of time. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That is precisely my reasoning. I can't see any rationale for keeping old discussions indefinitely, especially if the last reply was more than a year ago. It clutters the talk page unnecessarily.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 16:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The general consensus is that the most recent sections should be kept on the talk page. Five items is more than enough to creat an TOC so navigation is not a problem and the chances are that if something still needs to be resolved it will exist in the most recent discussions, which saves the need to trawl the archives. -- PBS (talk) 08:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1+years ago isn't exactly recent, and that should be taken on a case by case basis. If the discussions are sufficiently archived, then there should not be any difficulty in rehashing old issues.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 16:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm with Tærkast, conversations that old don't seem particularly useful. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Matthew Paris - William Marshal.jpg

Berengaria
Surprised no mention of his sister-in-law. Or, specifically, no mention of her repeated attempts at recovering her dower from John after Richard's death. 2A02:C7F:BE04:700:BD37:F67F:4BF2:EA2E (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2021
Please change "The war between Henry II and his elder sons ended with the deaths of Henry the Young King and Geoffrey." to "The war between Henry II and his elder sons ended with the death of Henry the Young King." John's brother Geoffrey did not die during this revolt. He did not die until 1186. Thank you. Morngaur (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the text the revolt ended long before the deaths of Henry the Young King and Geoffrey so I have deleted the statement. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Map
I've made an SVG version of the map, without amending the information (spelling mistakes excepted). Please ping me if you wish me to consider any further amendments. Excellent article, by the way. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2019
King jhons full name is John Lackland TIMTAMTOM33 (talk) 05:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * More of a nickname really, and it's mentioned in the first sentence. Richard Nevell (talk) 08:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

In an era when Norman-french was used at the court, surely he would have been known as Sansterre?Smlark (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Please add key to map caption in section "Jewels"
The map shows French royal domains (blue), Fiefs held on behalf of the French crown (green), Church lordships (yellow), and Fiefs held on behalf of the English crown (red). 18.29.5.79 (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

"John Sanzterre" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect John Sanzterre and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 4 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 13:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

"John sanz Terre" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect John sanz Terre and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 4 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 13:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

"John Sanz Terre" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect John Sanz Terre and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 4 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 13:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 7 December 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Adumbrativus (talk) 09:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

John, King of England → John of England – The current title is a bit awkward. I think moving it to this title would be sufficient. Interstellarity (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Far too vague. Goes against WP:SOVEREIGN, which requests title be included if there is no ordinal. Again, "John, King of England" is form commonly used in Britannica and other works of general reference.  Walrasiad (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I agree the proposed title is too vague and thus fails WP:PRECISE. There are lots of people named "John" from England. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per both, and oppose the editors who keep launching these time-wasting proposals! Johnbod (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think this proposal is a waste of time. It's been a number of years since the last RM discussion about this article's title, and it's good to gauge consensus from time to time on article titles such as this. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * After 20+ years, most big articles have landed at the right titles & don't need revisiting. But some editors just don't get that. In this case the nomination has clearly had little thought and research devoted to it, which is all too typical of this serial nominator. He launched Talk:Stephen,_King_of_England on the same day (which has a slightly stronger case), and has Mary I of England on the go too, started a week ago. None will succeed, and all take up other editors' time. What should be revisited is the content, but all this distracts from that effort.    Johnbod (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change over time, but I agree that these move requests are very unlikely to succeed. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As above. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Moving the page to a more vague title would not be helpful to readers. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Since he has 'no' regnal #, it's best we stick with the "Monarch, King of country" style. GoodDay (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Any editor is free to close this nomination as withdrawn. I can’t do it myself since I’m on mobile. Thank you, Interstellarity (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:URFA/2020
These maps don't seem to be sourced: A455bcd9 (talk) 11:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * File:France 1154-en (Angevin Empire).svg
 * File:English and French holdings 1180-1223.png

Preview on phone
When previewing this page on the mobile version it says “King of England (r. 1166-1216)” when it should “1199-1216”. Does anyone know how to change this? Henrik242E (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Papal interdict
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

August 2023
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)

No mention of the 2011 Film Ironclad with Paul Giamatti As King John??
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)
 * 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)