Talk:Gilbert Foliot - Knowledge (XXG)

1987:

clicked on the articles about the films and didn't get any clue why the portrayal of Foliot in those films is important. I am not saying that anything that happened after Foliot's death is irrelevant (and many of the articles I work on do indeed contain information about things after their death, such as canonization, or further works written about them). What I'm trying to understand here, is why THIS information is important. Obviously, the portrayals are important. HOwever, I'm not a film buff, and many many others aren't either. Just like I can't expect to write this article without giving the context for his life, including a great deal on the Becket controversy, the film roles should give enough context for the general reader (not the specialist film buff) to understand why it's important. That's all. It isn't that it detracts, its that it's unconnected unless you know more context, which, is all that I'm asking for to be added, quite honestly. If the film role is that important to the film, it should be possible to source this context quite easily. Okay, and I know you think I don't like it or something. I disagree, but I get what you're saying and you'll note the information is still in the article, I haven't removed it, and won't unless we persuade you that it needs to go. Or unless consensus of a lot more editors agrees it needs to go (2 to 1 isn't enough to create the obviously bad feelings about this, so consider the information in). Right now, I'm asking, as a non-film person, for more context to undertand what's so freaking great about information. Otherwise, it's running the risk of being information only of use to a specialist film buff, turning that section of the article into a specialist film encyclopedia.

1968:, however, agree that serious portrayals of Foliot (or, indeed, Fawkes) on film are not a matter that should be included in an article about him. In what way do they detract from the article or contravene the purpose of an encyclopaedia? In addition, you will find many, many articles about historical figures on Knowledge (XXG) which state who has portrayed them on film (and also, indeed, that they have been characters in novels and plays). I'm a little puzzled as to why Foliot should be an exception. That is why I would suggest that the "I don't like it" non-argument is being used here. Remember that Knowledge (XXG) is open to everyone and caters to everyone's interests. As long as it is verifiable (which anything on film is, for obvious reasons - it is a source in and of itself) and not utterly trivial (which this is not) then it is a valid inclusion. Trust me, I am not one to add pointless fluff and have deleted enormous quantities of it over my editing career, but this happens to be something which I consider is of relevance to the article. Once again, from 1859:

I agree that passing references are not relevant. However, the portrayal of an historical character in film is of interest to many and should, I believe, be included. Opposing such references shows, I think, a certain academic snobbishness which has no place in a general encyclopaedia dedicated to every topic under the sun. If Knowledge (XXG) did not include many thousands of references to popular culture and was purely an historical encyclopaedia then I would be in complete agreement with you. However, that is not the case. As an historian myself, and personally fascinated by the portrayal of historical characters in film, I utterly oppose the idea that academic research and serious popular culture (as opposed to irrelevant fluff) are mutually exclusive. --

621: 2127:(even though this guideline is more for "viewpoints", but..): "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." In this case, what is so significant of such film portrayals to Foliot? The text shows nothing worth of significance other than "Gilbert Foliot is a character in this film." ... So what? 1947:

It's even a verifiable fact, reliably sourced, that at 3:23 pm today it rained in my front garden. The question we ought to be asking ourselves then is this: "What does including the fact that Foliot was played by Donald Wolfit in a film tell us about Foliot (this is an article about Foliot after all, not Wolfit), or the opinions of others on Foliot?" Without context the answer has to be nothing, and therefore the information is irrelevant. This is not about "snobbery", or "I don't like it", it's about common sense. What is it about Foliot you're telling the readers by informing that he was once played by Wolfit? --

716: 695: 2001:

Probably not really; a steward's a steward - it doesn't really matter who he was steward to. But it's included in the article, because somebody might be interested in it. "In about 1145 Foliot intervened to secure the release of a knight to whom he was related, Roger Foliot, but their precise relationship is unknown." So what? Who was Roger Foliot? We don't know. So what does that add to the article? Nothing whatsoever. My point is that different people find different facts interesting. That's not to say I think complete trivia should be included (e.g. "a character in the computer game

2147:"In determining whether a reference is notable enough for inclusion, one helpful test can be to look at whether a person who is familiar with the topic only through the reference in question has the potential to learn something meaningful about the topic from that work alone. For example, if a movie or a television series has been filmed in a town, the viewer is seeing a concrete representation of what the town actually looks like at street level — but if the town is merely mentioned in a single line of dialogue, the viewer hasn't learned anything except that the place exists." 1144:: "Foliot reprimanded the earl for his actions regarding his wife, reminding him that, until the pope had ruled otherwise, Agnes was to be considered his wife in bed and board. His warnings appear to have fallen on deaf ears for, when Pope Alexander III wrote to the bishop regarding reports of the countess's mistreatment by her husband and required Foliot to threaten the earl with excommunication, he also chastised the bishop for his handling of the case." I can't see how his "warnings falling on deaf ears" is related to Foliot's chastisement by the pope. -- 1878:

in my mind. But where do we draw the line? He's not just a character in films, he appears in literally hundreds of books, I'm sure. Some are going to be quite lengthy, do we list every time he's a character in a work of fiction, even if its a romance novel? It's all about where we draw the line, and secondary sources testifying to the importance of the role help draw the line. And please, don't assign motives to me about "academic snobbishness" that's really uncalled for. I didn't call you "a trivia freak" or anything of the sort.

1960:

he is portrayed. I utterly disagree. Dismissal of this as trivia is patronising - I do not consider films or their potrayal of historical figures (or who portrays them) to be trivia. In fact, I often watch historical dramas to see how historical figures are portrayed. Inclusion of a section on who has played a figure and in what films he or she has appeared is of use to many (I would point out that there are books in existence which list such portrayals). I completely agree with your point about the use of the Guy Fawkes mask in

1898:

otherworldly sort who is not in touch with reality." This would be sourced to various film reviews in newspapers, and would be easily related to the subject of the article. What you've added is without context and doesn't give us any idea of HOW GF is characterized in the films. It doesn't really related to the subject of the article except in a trivial way, the fact that a character in a work is named the same, without any context on how it related or did not relate to the historical GF. Does that make more sense?

522: 501: 453: 21: 726: 231: 54: 611: 590: 377: 350: 280: 262: 465: 387: 156: 75: 2142:"If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment. Quoting a respected expert attesting to the importance of a subject as a cultural influence is encouraged. Absence of these secondary sources should be seen as a sign of limited significance, not an invitation to draw inference from primary sources." 2006:

important to his life - but if you click on the links you can find out more about them. That's how Knowledge (XXG) works. I don't see you calling for removal of this information or demanding more context and I am struggling to work out what is different about the info I have added, other than the fact that it happened in the 20th century rather than the 12th. --

2152:

and the media should be raving or panning the Foliot portrayals before it can be considered significant. Unless such information are available, the article is qualititatively better off without portrayal listings. Once the context for the text has been established, then insertion is certainly not opposable by any means.

290: 2151:

What it suggests would be that "Gilbert Foliot" should be linked in the articles of films/plays that have him as a major (to the plot) character, and actors notable for portraying him. It does not suggest that a list of Foliot portrayals should be listed in Foliot's article. In other words, critics

1946:

That something is a fact does not make it automatically eligible for inclusion in an encyclopedia, and what may or may not be interesting is clearly a subjective matter. It is a fact that a blue car just drove down my road towards the traffic lights with its headlamps on, but its hardly encyclopedic.

1911:

No, what I've added is a fact. This is an encyclopaedia and facts are what we deal in. No, there is no context. There doesn't have to be. But someone can look at the article and think "hmm, Foliot was portrayed by Donald Wolfit and Thorley Walters. How interesting" (since as film buffs they know what

1877:

I'm more concerned with the "If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment." I'm not expecting "academic" secondary sources here, reviews of the films mentioning the importance of the GF character would show that

1858:

You seem to be omitting the section of the article you quote that states: "When fictional characters are modeled after other people or characters, they should be included when the connection is identified in the primary source or attributed by a secondary source." That seems pretty unequivocal to me.

1808:

What bearing on the actual subject of "Gilbert Foliot" the bishop does a few mentions of the fact that he is a character in a play and who played him in movies have? It might have bearing if it had some new interpretation of his historical role, or if he'd been portrayed in a monumentally influential

1232:

The "Author" field should list the painter of the mosaic, as that is what determines the copyright. Note that the license says "life of the author plus 70 years". If the author is unknown, we definitely need the date of the mosaic to establish the impossibility of the author still being able to claim

2005:

is called Gilbert, which is probably a reference to Gilbert Foliot"), but film portrayals are not fluff of this nature. As to context, the beginning of the article lists a load of people to whom Foliot was related. There is little indication of who they were (Bishop of xx - so what?) or why they are

1986:

I have not the slightest clue WHO Wolfit is. If the addition gave me some idea why it was incredibly great that he played Foliot, it would help. I'm not saying "don't add it" I'm asking that more information be added to it so that those (like me) who aren't film buffs can understand more about it. I

1959:

Er, we're telling them he was once played by Wolfit! A perfectly valid statement, of interest to many. I'm sorry, but what you essentially appear to be arguing is that you don't think anything that happened after Foliot's death is relevant to an article about him, even if it concerns him and the way

2167:

I give up. This sort of proscriptive attitude is what makes me sometimes hate Knowledge (XXG). When even serious, long-time editors like myself run up against this sort of proprietary "I know best", "how dare you add information I haven't agreed to my favourite article (which, by the way, I think I

2205:

Authority Control is a new topic to me. I have had a quick look-up of what it means and half understand it. I note, however, that two or three of the initial references to authority control here are failed links. I have absolutely no idea how to correct this. Will watch closely to see how they

2020:

I think at this point, we'll just have to agree to disagree, I can see your point to some degree, and I'll try to add some context that I'm looking for as I get a chance. We have at least reached an understanding that the information stays, and I hope you won't object if I add some context to the

2000:

Is that not why we link terms? So you can find out who Wolfit was? If you want to know, click on the link! But I'm a little puzzled as to why you think all information included has to be "important". What is important? Is it important that Foliot's father was steward to David, Earl of Huntingdon?

1053:"Although Foliot was a Cluniac monk, they were still a subset of the Benedictine Order ...". Not entirely sure what the "still" is trying to say. Did they stop being a "subset" later? "Subset" seems a strange word to use in this context anyway. Would any meaning be lost if the "still" was dropped? 1897:

Here's an example (purely fictious, because I am not a film expert) on something that I feel would be a good addition: "In the film Becket, the character of Gilbert Foliot is protrayed as a money-grubbing schemer out to get Becket's position, while in the BBC TV series, Gilbert's character is an

813:

This page could do with some tidying up. Perhaps it would be worth adding a section on Foliot's role in the Thomas Becket controversy, in which the current information in this article regarding his relations to Becket can be moved and more detail added. Foliot was Becket's harshest contemporary

1817:

has a point under "List content" that says "However, passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources." and "If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be

1334:

Nope. I TAKE pictures, I don't play with them online! If I had my way, I'd not put any pics into articles unless they were maps or charts or of the subject. THis habit of requiring many little pics of things unrelated to the subject of the article sends me over the edge with every FAC it seems

1160:

Honestly? I have no idea. I did not add that paragraph, it was inserted by another editor, and I do not have access to the article it's based on. I think we can safely say "His efforts were unsuccessful, and later Pope Alexander III wrote to Foliot ordering the bishop to threaten the earl with

1370:). AFAIK no designer or craftsman's name is recorded, you don't get that until a century or so later. Mosaics, (although not painted) count as 2-dimensional AFAIK, so the photo has no copyright. It looks to me like a scan from a book, but who knows, & it doesn't matter for the licensing. 1750:

The author says "Arbroath Abbey". What does this mean? In order to select the correct PD license for the UK (Commons requires that images be PD in their country of origin and the US), we have to establish if the author has been dead for a certain length of time, is actually anonymous,

880:

I haven't felt competent to undertake a peer review, as on both first and second reading I found nothing of any substance to suggest. I look forward to meeting the Rt Rev on the front page. I have made three tiny corrections of what I think are typos, which please check. Good luck!

2168:

own)" attitude then sometimes I feel like it's time to call it a day and leave the project I've contributed hundreds of (mostly historical) articles to over the past few years. I don't know what sort of encyclopaedia you want, but it's certainly not the encyclopaedia I want. --

906:

After holding two posts as prior in the Cluniac order, he was appointed Abbot of Gloucester Abbey in 1139, a promotion influenced by his kinsman Miles of Gloucester. Although Foliot recognised Stephen as king, he may have sympathised with the Empress Matilda's claim to the

1912:

Wolfit and Walters look like, sound like and act like). We are telling the reader something they may not know. In what way do you feel this contravenes the purpose of an encyclopaedia? And they are not just playing someone who is "named the same"; they are playing

1684:

This image has no source or author. The uploader may be the author, but this is a rather professional looking photo, so I'm wondering if it is a scan. You could leave the uploader a message asking for help identifying the source or try to track it down

1972:: "When fictional characters are modeled after other people or characters, they should be included when the connection is identified in the primary source or attributed by a secondary source." My additions meet that criterion. -- 1809:

play/film/book, but because he is indeed a player in the Becket drama, he's going to appear in a lot of films, books, etc. Unless these films or such have a profound impact on how he is viewed (such as Shakespeare's version of

2249: 1335:(grins). The pic is a little better than average but well within the capabilities of someone with a tripod or monopod. I took some in Europe that are as good (that are on Commons) sans tripod, so it's possible. John? 2021:

information as I get a chance? Information from some of the reviews I've listed below, in order to help those like me who aren't film buffs understand more about the way the GF character was protrayed in the film.

2119:

in the encyclopedia." Unless a portrayal of Foliot in a film/play received notable remarks, such information is indiscriminate. The context of information is crucial here, especially so for a Featured Article.

2239: 1303:, so asking over there is unlikely to get us far. If need be I can remove it, but this is the closest thing to a contemporary pic of INnocent we have. I'll note that there are exactly three illustrations in the 918:

I'm familiar with some details of the Stephen and Matilda episode, but I think there needs to be a sentence briefly summarising what it was about before launching into Foloit's allegiances in the affair.

141: 35: 2234: 1916:

person who is the subject of the article. I'm afraid that as far as I can see you are making the hoary old "I don't like it" argument. And I did not "assign motives" to you; I said opposition seemed

1349: 1384:

I wasn't totally sure that mosaics counted as 2D, so I was concerned about the licensing of the photo itself, but if you are sure they are 2D, we don't have to worry, you're right.

60: 572: 1969: 1814: 443: 122: 1487:

I've updated that to reflect the fact that the source isn't the author. Author/creator is the medieval creator of the seal, which will predate 1167, Matilda's death

2309: 667: 782: 2299: 1468:

We need the specific source information in order to verify the license - "original book" is insufficient. Treat this field as you would a reference in an article.

814:

critic and quipped that Becket 'was always a fool and he always will be'. His most well known letter the 'Multiplicem', was a venomous attack on Thomas Becket. --

562: 1844:

I very much agree with your position Ealdgyth. There has to be some light shed on Foliot by, for instance a fictional portrayal, for it to be worth including. --

2269: 433: 1474:

Title of the work is given above "Die Siegel der deutschen Kaiser und Könige" (which my very rough German gives "The Seals of the German Emperors and Kings")

2319: 2279: 772: 483: 538: 2329: 2289: 1240: 677: 409: 308: 173: 2304: 2284: 748: 2294: 2264: 2259: 2229: 312: 2314: 2274: 529: 506: 2244: 400: 355: 2254: 1500:

I see that the description field doesn't really describe the seal yet - it is the title of the source. Could we get a description? Thanks.

1964:, which is fluff with no relevance to the article (since it is not about the portrayal of Fawkes himself) - I too would delete that. I do 739: 700: 643: 478: 360: 307:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge (XXG)'s articles about people. All interested editors are invited to 1789:

Basically what this comes down to is: editors on Commons are just like editors on Knowledge (XXG) - helpful but not always informed. :)

620: 1103:"Foliot also wrote that Stephen had "dishonored the episcopate...". Is "dishonored" really spelt the American way in that quotation? -- 2324: 316: 303: 267: 1637:

The source needs to link to the HTML page, not directly to the JPG file, so that any details about the image can be verified (see

1552:

The source needs to link to the HTML page, not directly to the JPG file, so that any details about the image can be verified (see

1734: 1227:

The "Date" field should also include the date of the original painting, as that is what determines the copyright of the image.

634: 595: 242: 2189: 1222:

The source is a bit unclear. Did the uploader take the photo themselves or is it a scan? It would be good to determine this.

30: 1366:

The mosaic is 1110-43, ie contemporary with Innocent (otherwise the current Pope would no doubt have been shown - it is a

715: 694: 53: 1951: 1848: 1621: 1191: 1148: 1107: 1094: 1079: 1041: 993: 947: 843:

I agree. This article could use some revamping. I would like to see adding of the Thomas Becket controversy. --

1272:

Added. I was hoping Johnbod would chime in as he's likely to know (if it's possible) who the mosaic artist was.

230: 20: 248: 40: 2089: 1211: 2135: 820: 1810: 1452: 1411:

The only issue might be mosaics on a curved wall, but I've never seen this raised, hence my afaik above.

848: 470: 830:

He's on my list, along with all the bishops of Hereford. As soon as I get home from a trip this weekend.

1948: 1845: 1674: 1188: 1145: 1104: 1091: 1076: 1038: 990: 944: 747:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

642:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

537:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

408:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

166: 2173: 2080: 2029: 2011: 1977: 1925: 1864: 1707:

It's from the V&A (link added) as it says. In the past they have been ready to licence pics, but

815: 44: 2157: 886: 392: 155: 74: 2103: 1992: 1903: 1883: 1823: 1794: 1775: 1762: 1698: 1659: 1601: 1587: 1574: 1519: 1505: 1492: 1479: 1403: 1389: 1357: 1340: 1325: 1312: 1290: 1277: 1261: 1248: 1166: 1124: 1063: 1023: 973: 968:

I have no clue. Sources vary. I lean English Church, but am willing to deal with English church.

961:

Should it be "English Church" or "English church"? Whichever, the article needs to be consistent.

927: 867: 835: 731: 183: 2124: 2112: 1320:

Have you looked around Google Images at all? Was this image copied from another site, perhaps?

804:

I can't find a source for this one, which is why I felt the verification tag was called for. --

521: 500: 2211: 1716: 1536: 1416: 1375: 844: 1398:

Well, that's good. I know Elcobbola told me that tapestries counted at 2D once upon a time

295: 1638: 1553: 2169: 2094: 2025: 2007: 1973: 1921: 1860: 1239:

Not a painting, it appears it's a 13th century mosaic. Note that it's in the side view of

805: 744: 725: 193: 1007:"Will no one rid me of the turbulent priest". Isn't there supposed to be a question mark? 452: 2194: 2153: 1837: 1833: 1708: 1582:

We still need a better description of the image. Where is it from? What is it exactly?

1367: 1300: 882: 188: 2223: 2076: 2072: 1988: 1899: 1879: 1819: 1790: 1771: 1758: 1694: 1655: 1597: 1583: 1570: 1515: 1501: 1488: 1475: 1399: 1385: 1353: 1336: 1321: 1308: 1286: 1273: 1257: 1244: 1162: 1120: 1059: 1019: 969: 923: 863: 831: 626: 534: 197: 2207: 2062: 1712: 1412: 1371: 610: 589: 405: 1299:

I honestly don't know. I'll note that the uploader hasn't touched Wiki since 2005

2084: 464: 279: 261: 1841: 1690:(Mutters) This one will probably have to go, unless Johnbod can chime in .... 1161:

excommunication and chastising the bishop's handling of the case." That work?

721: 616: 460: 382: 376: 349: 285: 2117:

even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion

1632:

More details about this image would be appreciated in the description field.

1547:

More details about this image would be appreciated in the description field.

386: 160: 1818:

possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment."

914:

I think that second sentence rather comes out of the blue. Being a fan of

1304: 943:

Yes, you're right. I seem to have unconsciously fixed that one myself. --

2215: 2177: 2161: 2033: 2015: 1995: 1981: 1954: 1929: 1906: 1886: 1868: 1851: 1826: 1798: 1779: 1765: 1720: 1702: 1662: 1605: 1591: 1577: 1522: 1509: 1495: 1482: 1420: 1406: 1393: 1379: 1361: 1343: 1329: 1315: 1294: 1285:

We still need to know a bit more about the source, if at all possible.

1280: 1265: 1251: 1194: 1169: 1151: 1127: 1110: 1097: 1082: 1066: 1044: 1026: 996: 976: 950: 930: 890: 870: 852: 838: 824: 808: 2067: 639: 315:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the 2113:

Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information

201: 2115:: As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or 2250:

Knowledge (XXG) Did you know articles that are featured articles

1307:, one of which is a letter and the other lacks all information. 2098: 224: 451: 2240:

Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once

1832:

Having battled for months to keep a mask worn in the film

989:

Gone with "English Church", which is my preference too. --

2111:

There is no need for this sort of "starred by" content; "

1463:

The description needs to be in English as well as German.

1256:

None of the issues I have listed have been resolved yet.

1174:

OK, I've changed it to something that makes sense to me.

59:

This article appeared on Knowledge (XXG)'s Main Page as

2206:

are resolved by someone who does understand the topic.

2056: 2024:

Excellent. I'm glad we've come to an understanding. --

922:

The rewrite you've done seems less jarrring to me now.

159:

A fact from this article appeared on Knowledge (XXG)'s

134: 115: 96: 2235:

Featured articles that have appeared on the main page

743:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 638:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 533:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 404:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2055:

I have removed the following text from the article:

900:A few issues I don't feel competent to fix myself: 1745:The date says "medieval/1850s" - please clarify. 1813:) I'm not seeing how it's important. Note that 204:is unloosed for the destruction of the Church"? 2138:", advises against indiscriminate placement: 2136:Knowledge (XXG):"In popular culture" articles 1970:Knowledge (XXG):"In popular culture" articles 1815:Knowledge (XXG):"In popular culture" articles 8: 1920:to show a certain academic snobbishness. -- 43:. Even so, if you can update or improve it, 39:as one of the best articles produced by the 33:; it (or a previous version of it) has been 1241:File:Roma-santa maria in trastevere 02.jpg 689: 584: 495: 344: 256: 68: 15: 2190:review of film of Murder in the Cathedral 547:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Herefordshire 418:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Christianity 228: 2003:Call of Duty XXII: The Bishops' Revenge 1711:seems inactive now, though I've asked. 757:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Middle Ages 691: 586: 497: 346: 258: 2310:Mid-importance London-related articles 862:Starting my much delayed work on him. 2300:Low-importance Herefordshire articles 325:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Biography 7: 2270:Mid-importance Christianity articles 737:This article is within the scope of 632:This article is within the scope of 527:This article is within the scope of 398:This article is within the scope of 301:This article is within the scope of 2320:Mid-importance Middle Ages articles 2280:Mid-importance Catholicism articles 247:It is of interest to the following 2123:In some way, that is reflected by 652:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject London 550:Template:WikiProject Herefordshire 14: 2330:All WikiProject Middle Ages pages 2290:WikiProject Christianity articles 2230:Knowledge (XXG) featured articles 421:Template:WikiProject Christianity 2305:FA-Class London-related articles 2285:WikiProject Catholicism articles 1646:The date needs to be in English. 1561:The date needs to be in English. 760:Template:WikiProject Middle Ages 724: 714: 693: 619: 609: 588: 520: 499: 463: 385: 375: 348: 288: 278: 260: 229: 154: 73: 52: 19: 2295:FA-Class Herefordshire articles 1770:I've added the second license. 1735:File:Arbroath Abbey Seal 01.jpg 1693:Has been removed at this time. 777:This article has been rated as 672:This article has been rated as 567:This article has been rated as 438:This article has been rated as 2265:FA-Class Christianity articles 2260:WikiProject Biography articles 2083:in the film adaptation of the 1804:Fictional portrayals section.. 328:Template:WikiProject Biography 1: 2315:FA-Class Middle Ages articles 2275:FA-Class Catholicism articles 2195:IMDB list of external reviews 2178:13:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 2162:11:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 1058:I think we can lose it here. 751:and see a list of open tasks. 646:and see a list of open tasks. 541:and see a list of open tasks. 476:This article is supported by 412:and see a list of open tasks. 2245:Old requests for peer review 2034:17:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC) 2016:16:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC) 1996:13:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC) 1982:10:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC) 1955:20:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC) 1930:18:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC) 1907:18:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC) 1887:17:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC) 1869:17:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC) 1852:17:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC) 1827:17:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC) 1305:Commons Innocent II category 1187:My work here is done. :-) -- 313:contribute to the discussion 182:Did you know ... that after 2255:FA-Class biography articles 2079:. He was also portrayed by 1119:fixed. (You were right...) 871:21:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 655:Template:WikiProject London 180:The text of the entry was: 2346: 1622:File:Jindrich2 Beckett.jpg 896:Comments while copyediting 853:05:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC) 839:01:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 825:00:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 783:project's importance scale 678:project's importance scale 573:project's importance scale 444:project's importance scale 142:Featured article candidate 2325:FA-Class history articles 2216:18:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC) 2061:Foliot is a character in 1018:does not have a ? in it. 891:14:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC) 776: 709: 671: 604: 566: 530:WikiProject Herefordshire 515: 459: 437: 370: 273: 255: 211: 151: 71: 67: 41:Knowledge (XXG) community 809:08:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC) 401:WikiProject Christianity 61:Today's featured article 2090:Murder in the Cathedral 1799:16:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC) 1780:01:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 1766:17:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC) 1721:01:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 1703:01:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 1663:17:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC) 1606:01:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 1592:01:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 1578:17:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC) 1523:01:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 1510:01:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 1496:17:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC) 1483:17:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC) 1421:01:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 1407:01:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 1394:01:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 1380:01:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 1362:01:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 1344:01:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 1330:01:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 1316:01:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 1295:01:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 1281:01:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 1266:01:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 1252:17:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC) 1212:File:B Innozenz II1.jpg 1195:16:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC) 1170:14:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC) 1152:13:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC) 1128:14:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC) 1111:13:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC) 1098:14:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC) 1083:15:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC) 1067:13:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC) 1045:15:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC) 1027:13:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC) 997:15:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC) 977:13:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC) 951:15:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC) 931:13:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC) 740:WikiProject Middle Ages 658:London-related articles 479:WikiProject Catholicism 1811:Richard III of England 1453:File:MatyldaAnglie.jpg 553:Herefordshire articles 471:Catholic Church portal 456: 237:This article is rated 1675:File:StThomasSens.jpg 1136:"This, at the end of 455: 424:Christianity articles 304:WikiProject Biography 241:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 2075:he was portrayed by 2073:1964 film adaptation 1596:Sorry - see it now. 1348:It looks similar to 1014:My source, Warren's 763:Middle Ages articles 104:Good article nominee 1075:Removed "still". -- 393:Christianity portal 732:Middle Ages portal 635:WikiProject London 457: 331:biography articles 243:content assessment 184:Pope Alexander III 79:Article milestones 2201:Authority Control 2104:The Devil's Crown 1537:File:Stephen3.jpg 827: 797: 796: 793: 792: 789: 788: 688: 687: 684: 683: 583: 582: 579: 578: 494: 493: 490: 489: 343: 342: 339: 338: 223: 222: 219: 218: 97:February 13, 2009 63:on March 6, 2014. 2337: 2184:Possible sources 2101:TV drama series 1140:appears to be a 1138:Bishop of London 904:From the lead: " 818: 765: 764: 761: 758: 755: 734: 729: 728: 718: 711: 710: 705: 697: 690: 660: 659: 656: 653: 650: 629: 624: 623: 613: 606: 605: 600: 592: 585: 555: 554: 551: 548: 545: 524: 517: 516: 511: 503: 496: 473: 468: 467: 426: 425: 422: 419: 416: 395: 390: 389: 379: 372: 371: 366: 363: 352: 345: 333: 332: 329: 326: 323: 309:join the project 298: 296:Biography portal 293: 292: 291: 282: 275: 274: 264: 257: 240: 234: 233: 225: 214:Featured article 212:Current status: 200:exclaimed that " 174:January 15, 2009 158: 137: 118: 99: 78: 77: 69: 56: 31:featured article 23: 16: 2345: 2344: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2220: 2219: 2203: 2186: 2134:quoted above, " 2109: 2095:Thorley Walters 2081:Alban Blakelock 1806: 1352:, for example. 1207: 1037:Fair enough. -- 916:Brother Cadfael 898: 878: 860: 802: 762: 759: 756: 753: 752: 745:the Middle Ages 730: 723: 703: 657: 654: 651: 648: 647: 625: 618: 598: 552: 549: 546: 543: 542: 509: 469: 462: 423: 420: 417: 414: 413: 391: 384: 364: 358: 330: 327: 324: 321: 320: 294: 289: 287: 238: 207: 206: 194:excommunication 178: 133: 114: 95: 72: 12: 11: 5: 2343: 2341: 2333: 2332: 2327: 2322: 2317: 2312: 2307: 2302: 2297: 2292: 2287: 2282: 2277: 2272: 2267: 2262: 2257: 2252: 2247: 2242: 2237: 2232: 2222: 2221: 2202: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2192: 2185: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2149: 2148: 2144: 2143: 2093:(1952) and by 2059: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 1962:V for Vendetta 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1872: 1871: 1855: 1854: 1838:Gunpowder Plot 1834:V for Vendetta 1805: 1802: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1754: 1753: 1747: 1739: 1738: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1709:User:VAwebteam 1687: 1686: 1679: 1678: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1649: 1648: 1643: 1634: 1626: 1625: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1564: 1563: 1558: 1549: 1541: 1540: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1485: 1471: 1470: 1465: 1457: 1456: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1368:donor portrait 1364: 1236: 1235: 1229: 1224: 1216: 1215: 1206: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1155: 1154: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1114: 1113: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1070: 1069: 1055: 1054: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1009: 1008: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 982: 981: 980: 979: 963: 962: 958: 957: 956: 955: 954: 953: 936: 935: 934: 933: 911: 910: 897: 894: 877: 874: 859: 856: 801: 798: 795: 794: 791: 790: 787: 786: 779:Mid-importance 775: 769: 768: 766: 749:the discussion 736: 735: 719: 707: 706: 704:Mid‑importance 698: 686: 685: 682: 681: 674:Mid-importance 670: 664: 663: 661: 644:the discussion 631: 630: 614: 602: 601: 599:Mid‑importance 593: 581: 580: 577: 576: 569:Low-importance 565: 559: 558: 556: 539:the discussion 525: 513: 512: 510:Low‑importance 504: 492: 491: 488: 487: 484:Mid-importance 475: 474: 458: 448: 447: 440:Mid-importance 436: 430: 429: 427: 410:the discussion 397: 396: 380: 368: 367: 365:Mid‑importance 353: 341: 340: 337: 336: 334: 300: 299: 283: 271: 270: 265: 253: 252: 246: 235: 221: 220: 217: 216: 209: 208: 189:Gilbert Foliot 179: 153: 152: 149: 148: 145: 138: 130: 129: 126: 119: 116:March 15, 2009 111: 110: 107: 100: 92: 91: 88: 85: 81: 80: 65: 64: 57: 49: 48: 27:Gilbert Foliot 24: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2342: 2331: 2328: 2326: 2323: 2321: 2318: 2316: 2313: 2311: 2308: 2306: 2303: 2301: 2298: 2296: 2293: 2291: 2288: 2286: 2283: 2281: 2278: 2276: 2273: 2271: 2268: 2266: 2263: 2261: 2258: 2256: 2253: 2251: 2248: 2246: 2243: 2241: 2238: 2236: 2233: 2231: 2228: 2227: 2225: 2218: 2217: 2213: 2209: 2200: 2196: 2193: 2191: 2188: 2187: 2183: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2159: 2155: 2146: 2145: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2137: 2133: 2130:In fact, the 2128: 2126: 2121: 2118: 2114: 2108: 2106: 2105: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2091: 2086: 2082: 2078: 2077:Donald Wolfit 2074: 2070: 2069: 2064: 2058: 2057: 2035: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2022: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2004: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1994: 1990: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1967: 1963: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1953: 1950: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1919: 1915: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1905: 1901: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1888: 1885: 1881: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1870: 1866: 1862: 1857: 1856: 1853: 1850: 1847: 1843: 1839: 1835: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1825: 1821: 1816: 1812: 1803: 1801: 1800: 1796: 1792: 1781: 1777: 1773: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1764: 1760: 1756: 1755: 1752: 1748: 1746: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1737: 1736: 1732: 1731: 1722: 1718: 1714: 1710: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1691: 1689: 1688: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1677: 1676: 1672: 1671: 1664: 1661: 1657: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1647: 1644: 1642: 1640: 1635: 1633: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1624: 1623: 1619: 1618: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1589: 1585: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1576: 1572: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1562: 1559: 1557: 1555: 1550: 1548: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1539: 1538: 1534: 1533: 1524: 1521: 1517: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1484: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1472: 1469: 1466: 1464: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1455: 1454: 1450: 1449: 1422: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1405: 1401: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1365: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1342: 1338: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1327: 1323: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1314: 1310: 1306: 1302: 1301:contributions 1298: 1297: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1263: 1259: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1237: 1234: 1230: 1228: 1225: 1223: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1214: 1213: 1209: 1208: 1204: 1196: 1193: 1190: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1168: 1164: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1153: 1150: 1147: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1134: 1129: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1112: 1109: 1106: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1096: 1093: 1084: 1081: 1078: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1068: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1056: 1052: 1051: 1046: 1043: 1040: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1028: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1006: 1005: 998: 995: 992: 988: 987: 986: 985: 984: 983: 978: 975: 971: 967: 966: 965: 964: 960: 959: 952: 949: 946: 942: 941: 940: 939: 938: 937: 932: 929: 925: 921: 920: 917: 913: 912: 908: 903: 902: 901: 895: 893: 892: 888: 884: 875: 873: 872: 869: 865: 858:Starting work 857: 855: 854: 850: 846: 841: 840: 837: 833: 828: 826: 823:was added at 822: 817: 811: 810: 807: 799: 784: 780: 774: 771: 770: 767: 750: 746: 742: 741: 733: 727: 722: 720: 717: 713: 712: 708: 702: 699: 696: 692: 679: 675: 669: 666: 665: 662: 645: 641: 637: 636: 628: 627:London portal 622: 617: 615: 612: 608: 607: 603: 597: 594: 591: 587: 574: 570: 564: 561: 560: 557: 544:Herefordshire 540: 536: 535:Herefordshire 532: 531: 526: 523: 519: 518: 514: 508: 507:Herefordshire 505: 502: 498: 485: 482:(assessed as 481: 480: 472: 466: 461: 454: 450: 449: 445: 441: 435: 432: 431: 428: 411: 407: 403: 402: 394: 388: 383: 381: 378: 374: 373: 369: 362: 357: 354: 351: 347: 335: 318: 317:documentation 314: 310: 306: 305: 297: 286: 284: 281: 277: 276: 272: 269: 266: 263: 259: 254: 250: 244: 236: 232: 227: 226: 215: 210: 205: 203: 199: 198:Thomas Becket 195: 191: 190: 185: 176: 175: 170: 168: 167:Did you know? 162: 157: 150: 146: 144: 143: 139: 136: 132: 131: 127: 125: 124: 120: 117: 113: 112: 108: 106: 105: 101: 98: 94: 93: 89: 86: 83: 82: 76: 70: 66: 62: 58: 55: 51: 50: 46: 42: 38: 37: 32: 28: 25: 22: 18: 17: 2204: 2150: 2131: 2129: 2122: 2116: 2110: 2102: 2088: 2066: 2063:Jean Anouilh 2060: 2054: 2002: 1965: 1961: 1917: 1913: 1807: 1788: 1749: 1744: 1733: 1673: 1645: 1636: 1631: 1620: 1560: 1551: 1546: 1535: 1467: 1462: 1451: 1231: 1226: 1221: 1210: 1205:Image review 1142:non sequitor 1141: 1137: 1089: 1015: 915: 905: 899: 879: 861: 845:DavidD4scnrt 842: 829: 812: 803: 778: 738: 673: 633: 568: 528: 477: 439: 415:Christianity 406:Christianity 399: 356:Christianity 302: 249:WikiProjects 213: 187: 181: 172: 164: 140: 135:May 18, 2009 121: 103: 102: 45:please do so 34: 26: 2085:T. S. Eliot 876:Peer review 819:—Preceding 754:Middle Ages 701:Middle Ages 361:Catholicism 123:Peer review 2224:Categories 2170:Necrothesp 2026:Necrothesp 2008:Necrothesp 1974:Necrothesp 1922:Necrothesp 1861:Necrothesp 1842:Guy Fawkes 1350:this photo 1233:copyright. 806:Agamemnon2 171:column on 36:identified 2154:Jappalang 2071:. In the 1757:Updated. 1685:yourself. 1569:Updated. 883:Tim riley 816:Valmecias 322:Biography 268:Biography 186:absolved 161:Main Page 2125:WP:UNDUE 2107:(1978). 2065:'s play 1989:Ealdgyth 1952:Fatuorum 1900:Ealdgyth 1880:Ealdgyth 1849:Fatuorum 1820:Ealdgyth 1791:Awadewit 1772:Awadewit 1759:Ealdgyth 1695:Awadewit 1656:Ealdgyth 1654:Updated 1598:Awadewit 1584:Awadewit 1571:Ealdgyth 1516:Ealdgyth 1502:Awadewit 1489:Ealdgyth 1476:Ealdgyth 1400:Ealdgyth 1386:Awadewit 1354:Awadewit 1337:Ealdgyth 1322:Awadewit 1309:Ealdgyth 1287:Awadewit 1274:Ealdgyth 1258:Awadewit 1245:Ealdgyth 1192:Fatuorum 1163:Ealdgyth 1149:Fatuorum 1121:Ealdgyth 1108:Fatuorum 1095:Fatuorum 1080:Fatuorum 1060:Ealdgyth 1042:Fatuorum 1020:Ealdgyth 1016:Henry II 994:Fatuorum 970:Ealdgyth 948:Fatuorum 924:Ealdgyth 864:Ealdgyth 832:Ealdgyth 239:FA-class 147:Promoted 128:Reviewed 2208:Quartic 2097:in the 1949:Malleus 1846:Malleus 1836:out of 1713:Johnbod 1514:Fixed. 1413:Johnbod 1372:Johnbod 1189:Malleus 1146:Malleus 1105:Malleus 1092:Malleus 1077:Malleus 1039:Malleus 991:Malleus 945:Malleus 907:throne. 821:comment 800:Sources 781:on the 676:on the 571:on the 442:on the 163:in the 87:Process 2087:drama 2068:Becket 1639:WP:IUP 1554:WP:IUP 649:London 640:London 596:London 245:scale. 109:Listed 90:Result 2132:essay 1918:to me 202:Satan 29:is a 2212:talk 2174:talk 2158:talk 2030:talk 2012:talk 1993:Talk 1978:talk 1926:talk 1904:Talk 1884:Talk 1865:talk 1840:and 1824:Talk 1795:talk 1776:talk 1763:Talk 1751:etc. 1717:talk 1699:talk 1660:Talk 1602:talk 1588:talk 1575:Talk 1520:Talk 1506:talk 1493:Talk 1480:Talk 1417:talk 1404:Talk 1390:talk 1376:talk 1358:talk 1341:Talk 1326:talk 1313:Talk 1291:talk 1278:Talk 1262:talk 1249:Talk 1167:Talk 1125:Talk 1064:Talk 1024:Talk 974:Talk 928:Talk 887:talk 868:Talk 849:talk 836:Talk 311:and 84:Date 2099:BBC 1966:not 1914:the 773:Mid 668:Mid 563:Low 434:Mid 192:'s 2226:: 2214:) 2176:) 2160:) 2032:) 2014:) 1991:- 1980:) 1928:) 1902:- 1882:- 1867:) 1822:- 1797:) 1778:) 1761:- 1719:) 1701:) 1658:- 1641:). 1604:) 1590:) 1573:- 1556:). 1518:- 1508:) 1491:- 1478:- 1419:) 1402:- 1392:) 1378:) 1360:) 1339:- 1328:) 1311:- 1293:) 1276:- 1264:) 1247:- 1243:. 1165:- 1123:- 1090:-- 1062:- 1022:- 972:- 926:- 889:) 866:- 851:) 834:- 486:). 359:: 196:, 2210:( 2172:( 2156:( 2028:( 2010:( 1976:( 1924:( 1863:( 1793:( 1774:( 1715:( 1697:( 1600:( 1586:( 1504:( 1415:( 1388:( 1374:( 1356:( 1324:( 1289:( 1260:( 909:" 885:( 847:( 785:. 680:. 575:. 446:. 319:. 251:: 177:. 169:" 165:" 47:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index