Talk:Stephen Langton

led to magna carta?
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)

تجربة
thanx alot

Rather POV?
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)

It would also be worth mentioning that the quarrel "which was to bring great misery upon unhappy England" actually also brought in rather a lot of money to England which would otherwise have gone to Rome. John was not a simpleton and England was not permanently unhappy under his rule.

The sentence "In the sequel, largely through Stephen's efforts, John was forced to grant the Magna Carta (June 15, 1215)" appears misleading since the armed power of the barons compelled what John would never have given to an archbishop alone no matter how energetic. However, I would dispute that villany and heroism only make a stirring tale, and can never be the result of a "neutral point of view". It may be impossible for modern thinkers to distinguish between villains and heroes, but it is surely possible to distinguish between villainous and heroic actions or to decide an is a combo. Further, it seems likely that the "neutral point of view" is a unicorn. Let's acknowledge the horse we are riding, and attempt to approach the truth from several directions. (The horse I am riding is britsattheirbest.com) Though I think it is off the mark, Paul Johnson's contention that Langton is overrated would be one of those directions. In contrast, I would suggest that Stephen saw himself defending the freedoms affirmed in Henry I's Charter of Liberties, the Council of Westminster, Stephen's Charter, and Henry II's Assize of Clarendon, which were each entirely or partly won by the Church. The rights and liberties of those charters were reaffirmed in Magna Carta. But Langton was not only the recipient of charters, which he, among a few others, was actually able to read. He was not only interested in the freedom of the church, though this must have been important to him. He was also the recipient of an episcopal tradition that included archbishops Anselm, Theobald, and Thomas a Becket, who had all fought unjust kings. One more note,if Langton wrote the Golden Sequence, as has been suggested, he was a contemplative, and was grounded in the experience of a God who was loving and who demanded justice. --Britsattheirbest 01:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I just edited the controversial section. I left all of the basic facts intact, but revised the language to be more neutral. See what you think. Psuliin (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Early Medieval history, to my mind, is often someone else's educated opinion as to facts, circumstances and often even as to date. In my humble opinion this is a beautiful article and matches "my opinion" of Stephen Langton. Whatever else can be fairly disputed, it seems to me that, in his time and place, Langton was a devoted and brave man. I think you all did a great job! Mugginsx (talk) 09:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

'Stephen Langton continued under Henry's reign to work for the political independence of England.' I don't quite understand what this is supposed to mean. Independence from what? Independence of whom? I haven't time at the moment to unpack and re-write this bit. Katiehawks (talk) 11:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Where was Stephen Langton from
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)
 * 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)

The ODNB simply quotes Powicke's 1928 book, "Stephen Langton" in which Powicke gives only a small summary of the text which says Langton (does not say Langton by Wragby, so could be any of the three Langton villages in Lincolnshire) and the same source makes mention of a mill there. Powicke concludes Langton by Wragby, probably based on it being the closest Langton village to Lincoln, though we can only speculate why, as he provides no evidence or explaination for his conclusion. The problem, as pointed out by Lost Langtons is that there is no river in Langton by Wragby so that rules it out. So it is a problem with Powicke's conclusion, not the primary source he quotes. We could just give Powicke's reference to the primary source, Harl 52 I. 30, but it seems better to me for people to be able to see Lost Langtons review of how that source has been interpretted historically, and why it was wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClarkEllis (talk • contribs) 16:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)

The Fasti Ecclesiae references F. M. Powicke again, so what value does that add? The original source referenced by Powicke is the harleian manuscript 52 I. 30, which simply states Langton. So even if you ignore the evidence presented by Lost Langtons as it is OR, there is still no evidence to support the claim for Langton by Wragby, is there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClarkEllis (talk • contribs) 17:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

There is verifiable evidence that it was Langton by Horncastle and I provided two original sources in my edit. Where is the rule that wikipedia required original sources to be interpreted by scholars? Does it have to be in a book? Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClarkEllis (talk • contribs) 17:44, 15 June 2015‎
 * I provided it earlier - 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)


 * ClarkEllis, as Ealdgyth says, please read No original research from start to finish and its linked pages, especially Verifiability and 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)

Thanks for providing those links. I'm surprised the policy is that archaic, but I agree it's not worth arguing about; it is what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClarkEllis (talk • contribs) 21:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)