Talk:Bayeux Tapestry
From Academic Kids
More info please on how the figure of Harold II is mis-identified. Leo
- There are several soldiers in this scene by the words "Harold Rex" the guy nearly in the middle on foot is the one with an arrow in his eye. The is also one (maybe two figures) on horse back. I remember when I was ten years old and say the tapestry, I though to myself then tat thst te one on horseback was most likely to be the king, so I'm not surprised if historians dispute the old story about the arrow in the eye person Dainamo 11:13, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
=====================================================================================================================
Help! the Edit Page is broken. User:Renata 24/9/2002
- What do you mean by this, Renata? I can edit with no problem. -- Zoe
When I try to edit from my home PC, I get an empty box, overlaid with "Warning....no header...." messages. When I try from my work PC, it's okay. It's a mystery to me. User:Renata
Who considers it the precursor of the comic strip?
Here, in France, it's much more know as the "tapisserie de Bayeux" than as the "tapisserie de la reine Mathilde". But my english is to poor for me to modify the article. Alvaro 14:53 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Comic strip?
...its serial storytelling is considered an ancestor of the comic strip.
The Bayeux Tapestry is an ancestor of comic strip? Medieval storytelling was highly graphic (in large past as most people could not read) and there is a long tradition of graphic serial story telling that goes back to, well, pre-historic cave paintings. It's unclear what the connection to comic strips and the Bayeux Tapestry is. This was not the first graphic serial story. Stbalbach 22:20, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What happened to this article?
Would anyone object (or support) this article being reverted to the pre-June 4th version, before the mass of new text was added by 67.191.224.15 ? Stbalbach 04:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I just re-read the text and its not as bad as I initially thought, but the primary source seems to be a 1966 National Geographic Magazine article, and it certainly reads that way. Lots of asides and anedotes and stories, not typical encyclopedic fare, and not typical Wikipedia material. It makes it more difficult for future editors to contribute, this is essentially a long pre-written stylized essay someone has cut and paste in. There are also a bunch of citations with no references. Stbalbach 05:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I don't like it either but I wonder whether to get rid of the POV and chatter rather than revert the whole business. The citations are absurd unless these books are listed (Setton is). But is the thing a copyright violation? I don't know whether to take your National Geographic reference literally! If so, it should be removed regardless of its encyclopedic merits. Thincat 12:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, look at the refrences, it says "Sutton" as a 1966 NatGeo article, and sutton references throughout. I was thinking of finding an old back issue and check for {{copyvios}}, but not sure where to find one. It certainly reads like a copyvio. With some work and effort it may be possible to cut out the relevant and encyclopedic parts. It would be nice if the anon editor chimed in on his sources and pedigree, but that he/she probably wont makes it all the more less credible. Stbalbach 14:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
