Talk:Stephen Langton
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[edit] تجربة
thanx alot
[edit] 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)
