Talk:The Lost King

Removing of verification warning?

I looked at the sources currently being used and they all appear to be from good websites that report movie news. Should the verification warning be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnneofKeys (talk • contribs) 01:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. It looks well referenced to me. 31.53.58.60 (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Quotations and Copyright

Novice editor PrinceofChaos666 has added (in this change) a quotation taken from The University of Leicester website - just part of a more-extensive press release included at the inline citation target.

Normally, where copyright is concerned, quotations should be minimal to be used by Wikipedia under fair use criteria. I have cleaned-up the original editor's format and I believe this quotation at The Lost King#Controversy is not excessive. The University's copyright statement is here.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The Lost King

Why is Mark Addy not included in the cast or mentioned on the page? 2A00:23C7:9B8F:F401:5830:ADFB:AA53:750C (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

University's views

This BBC article paints a different attitude on the part of the university: https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20221006-the-controversy-over-an-incredible-archaeological-discovery 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:101B:1A33:BFBD:5B46 (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Langley as "leader"

@ABologna22:, please read and understand WP:BRD. If you make a bold edit, and another editor reverts it, you do not re-revert: you discuss the point at issue.

You are insisting on saying (here and here) that Philippa Langley "led" the search to find the remains of Richard III. She didn't. To "lead" a project means to identify an objective, devise a strategy for reaching it, and then to co-ordinate and motivate other team-members to achieve it. Langley established through documentary research that the king's remains might still survive on the Greyfriars site (others had made the same point before her), then used her PR and marketing skills to fundraise for the project, but then – quite properly – handed over management and control to the professional archaeologists. Archaeological excavation isn't treasure-hunting, looking for one star item: it's a destructive process, so it involves the meticulous recording and analysis of everything that is uncovered at a site. The archaeologists' primary aim wasn't really to find Richard's remains, but to learn more about the Leicester Greyfriars. Langley has since complained about being "sidelined" in the process, and that's the line the film takes. But whatever the full truth of the matter, it's perfectly obvious that she didn't "lead" the search; she "initiated" it.

You are also objecting (in the same edits) to calling the film a "fictionalisation" of events. Well, it certainly isn't a documentary, or even a docudrama. It includes fantasy scenes in which Langley interacts with Richard III; and, leaving those aside, the underlying "true" story is hotly disputed. Richard Taylor has threatened legal action over the film's inaccuracies (here). "Fictionalisation" seems the right word to me.

Finally, I see that you have made a total of 54 edits to Wikipedia, of which 20 have been to this article (or its Talk page), 14 to Philippa Langley, and at least 8 to add (largely positive) details about Langley to articles such as Hummersknott Academy, Cramond and June 29. This strongly suggests that you may have a conflict of interest. Please read WP:COI and WP:SPA. I also note that, in those 54 edits, you have not once included an edit summary. Please learn to do so. It is a basic act of courtesy to other editors. GrindtXX (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @GrindtXX: thanks for flagging that edit summaries are strongly encouraged. Fairly new to Wiki here and a lot of the pages I had come across didn’t have them in abundance in the edits history. Will make sure to do so going forward.

I’ve followed Philippa Langley’s work over the years, including the Channel 4 documentary, her book ‘Looking for Richard III’ (which I referenced) and the research she’s published on her website (here). The page for The Lost King heavily quoted the University of Leicester’s recollection of events and since Wikipedia is meant to be an unbiased resource for all to access and read, I felt it was important to include Philippa’s recollection. I would like to note that I never removed or edited the statements that have been added quoting the University but simply sought to make it a more balanced page.

My understanding is that Philippa did in fact ‘lead’ the project as per both your and the OED’s definitions of the term. She never claimed to be the first to bring up the name of Greyfriar’s church as a possible location for Richard III’s remains, but was the first to bring together many elements of existing research and documentation that supported her intuition that Richard III’s remains would be found beneath a specific spot in a car park.  She then went on to obtain the permission to dig from the local authority and raised the funds to commission ULAS (a commercial archaeological unit) to carry out the dig for her, the paying client. I’m not implying that she personally dug out the remains, but that is a separate issue from the point of initiating and ‘leading’ the search for Richard III’s remains. ABologna22 (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I entirely agree that our aim is to offer a non-partisan and balanced factual report of our subject, and I have no objections to your edits elsewhere in the article. However, I still don't think "led" is the right word here. It implies that an individual is in charge, and makes the big decisions, with other participants following their instructions. That was not the case here. Commercial archaeological units (in the post-PPG 16 era) may take their funding from external clients, but they conduct their investigations independently and in accordance with established professional standards. The person in charge is a professional archaeologist, and is normally said to "direct" operations. It's not like a client hiring a decorator to repaint their living room, who is expected to do what they're told. A better analogy would be a person deciding on private medical treatment: the client/patient may well make the initial decision to press ahead, and ultimately foots the bill, but all serious decisions about treatments and procedures are made by medical professionals. As far as I can see, the only sources to have claimed that Philippa Langley "led" the search are Langley herself, and those paraphrasing her. The Richard III Society says that she "conceived, facilitated and commissioned" the project (here). The British Academy says that the project was "initiated" by Langley and "enacted" by the archaeologists (here). Our article on the Exhumation and reburial of Richard III of England says that the search was "initiated" by the Looking for Richard project, but that the excavation was "led" by ULAS, in partnership with the City Council. Third party views welcome. GrindtXX (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think the analogy you draw with a doctor is correct. A leader of a project may of course harness the expertise of others. Philippa had been researching Richard for 8 years. There were many competing theories as to the whereabouts of the King’s body. Even those who believed he was buried in the Greyfriars precinct disagreed about where – only 17% of the precinct had not been built on and the funds Philippa raised could only pay for 1% of that area to be excavated (these percentages are the University’s figures from Episode 1 of their King Richard III Podcast series, at around 26:30 here). It was Philippa who felt that one trench had to be dug by the letter ‘R’ in the north end of the carpark where she had intuited that the King’s remains would be found. Those remains were revealed within hours of the dig commencing. It was Philippa who insisted that those were the remains of the King (not as the University believed the remains of some ‘old friar’ as they say in Episode 3 of their King Richard III Podcast series, at around 46:45 here) and gave more money to ensure the full skeleton was excavated. That is why I say that Philippa led the search (in which I include the initial dig) – she never claimed to lead the dig after the skeleton had been revealed (the University took over) or the subsequent DNA analysis. This is echoed in the description of Philippa’s role offered by the King Richard III Visitor Centre as having ‘led’ the project, and being the ‘driving force’ behind the successful search, and identifying Philippa as the person who insisted on (and paid for) the skeleton to be fully excavated. This seems like a more reliable and impartial source to use, given they are neither directly affiliated with the University of Leicester nor Philippa Langley. ABologna22 (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes there was uncertainty about whether Richard III's remains were in the Greyfriars at all, or had been thrown into the Soar; and, if in the Greyfriars, there was much uncertainty about the layout of the buildings and therefore where the grave might be. And in planning their strategy, the archaeological team certainly took account of Langley's research and views. But she wasn't their boss: they were acting as independent agents, and also took other research, standard archaeological protocols, and other factors into account. When a skeleton was discovered on the first day, the team very properly treated the find with academic caution until it had been investigated more fully. The fact that it turned out to be the king's was extraordinarily good luck, but that's precisely what it was – luck, a fluke. Talk about Langley's "intuition" may make for good drama, but is, with all due respect, bullshit.

We're clearly not going to agree on this. I am flagging up this discussion on the Talk pages of Exhumation and reburial of Richard III of England, Philippa Langley, University of Leicester and WikiProject Archaeology in the hope of attracting some further input. GrindtXX (talk) 11:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Your denial of the role of intuition in discovery (including scientific) is noted. I do not happen to agree. Perhaps there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy… ABologna22 (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Langely clearly "led" the process to search for the remains (i.e. without her, it would not have happened; and it was more than just initiation, as had she given up early, it would have ceased), whereas the archeologists clearly "led" the physical process of digging. These are separate actions, but it is clear from reading about this subject, that she made the dig happen (i.e. without her, it would not have happened). However, clearly, there was a lot of archelogy that went on for the dig itself (which is in the film), but even more after the dig (which is not portrayed in the film, and which I think some archeologists are upset did not get recognized). The article just needs to be more accurate about distinguishing between these two distinct processes, but it should not downplay the fact that she did "lead" the search, which I do not think is disputed. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Architects have always divided into the “finders” and the “diggers”. Some do both but many don’t. Finders think the Diggers are glorified construction workers, and Diggers think the Finders are glory hunters and salespeople. They have been fighting over credit since the dawn of archaeology, but both are key. Langley’s naivety was not knowing this. Advice above is good, just separate the two processes. 46.255.152.138 (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree Langley was naive, but I think the distinction she failed to appreciate was the difference between documentary research and archaeology. In documentary research, the lone researcher (whether professional or amateur) can often achieve great things (because, although time-consuming, the skill-set is relatively straightforward; and because if they go down a false trail, or misinterpret what they find, the evidence is still there for someone else to come along afterwards to offer a revised interpretation). But archaeology isn't like that. It used to be, 70+ years ago, when someone could have a bright idea, have a rootle around with a trowel, and either find what they were hoping for or give up. But over the past couple of generations it's become increasingly complex and scientific, full of highly but narrowly skilled specialists (so that much of the skill of the person in charge lies in knowing which expert to consult and when), and also much more tightly regulated (in the interests of not destroying data that may be irrelevant to the immediate enquiry, but of potential interest to someone in the future). So any archaeological project is very much a team exercise. In Leicester, the Richard III investigation started as Langley's personal project, but as it developed and became bigger and necessarily more professional it was inevitable that professionals, with the appropriate background training and skills, should take control of things - so yes, in that sense she was "sidelined". She remained part of the team (as a documentary researcher), and her views continued to be listened to; but it's pretty obvious she's not really a team player, and that's what lies at the bottom of this controversy. The University's mistake (which they're now no doubt regretting) was not pandering more to her ego.

So for all those reasons, she can't be said to have "led" the project. Yes, she set things in motion; it would never have happened without her initiative and enthusiasm; and she could even be said metaphorically to have "led the way". But as matters progressed, she became (like any documentary researcher on an archaeological project) just one team member among many: she wasn't the governor, the boss, she didn't "lead" the project in that sense. Via the Richard III Society, she raised about £20,000 of funding, around half the initial excavation costs, which certainly got things moving; but the university paid the other half, plus all post-excavation research and reburial costs, eventually amounting to millions (details from Mike Pitts' British Archaeology article). At the end of the day, Langley got an MBE, and Buckley got an OBE: these honours aren't handed out lightly, and what that tells me is that someone in Whitehall looked into the matter carefully and objectively, and concluded that while Langley had been a key player and the project's figurehead, the person in charge overall and who brought things to a successful conclusion had been Buckley.

The only editor seriously to have pushed for the claim that Langley "led the search" was User:ABologna22, who had a clear conflict of interests, and now fortunately seems to have left Wikipedia. So please, can we just leave the wording at the stable and much more neutral "initiated the search". GrindtXX (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Richard Branson "leads" many Virgin companies, but has no idea of the science behind (almost) any of them. Langley would have "initiated" the search if she had asked for it and then walked away. I think not only did she "lead" the search, but her direction to the archaeologists (dig under the R and then stop all other work) meant they found it in a day. Ironically, had she been given £5k and the permission to dig with her own private archaeology contractors, she would clearly have found it, and then sent the bones off to some centre for verification (which any major centre would have done for free given the publicity). In my experience, when IPs/new editors begin to appear at a WP article with a different view, it can often mean the consensus is wrong. Remember, a whole film has been made based on the fact that UL seemed to take all the credit. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 09:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Carly Hilts is not an unbiased source

Carly Hilts' review should be taken out, she was a contributor to The Bones of a King: Richard III Rediscovered, the book the Greyfriars Research Team wrote. Obviously this team is not presented well in the film, so shw should not be represented as an unbiased archelogy commentator reacting to the film.78.18.228.191 (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I saw this earlier and agree she should not be included. Good to chronicle the dispute with UL as it is being widely reported, but let’s not turn the article into a coatrack/hit job as there are other most substantive Wikipedia articles on this subject area. 46.255.152.138 (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

What your source says is that she "assisted with research" for the Bones book. The book itself (here) identifies 2 authors, plus the "team of contributors whose research made this book possible" (21 individuals), plus a further 27 individuals "beyond the team" briefly thanked in the acknowledgements, this last group including Hilts. So yes, she clearly knows members of the team, but she's hardly an entrenched insider. (Surprise, surprise; professional networking happens.) She's a respected archaeological journalist, and editor of Current Archaeology, one of the two leading British archaeological magazines (the other being British Archaeology, edited by Mike Pitts - who, incidentally, is author of Digging for Richard III (2014/2022), so presumably has similarly networked with the research team). I think Hilts' review should go back in (though perhaps trimmed a bit from the long quote I originally included). We could also quote from Chris Catling ("Contributing Editor" to Current Archaeology; but also, in his day job, Secretary (CEO) of the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales, so undoubtedly a significant player in the archaeological world), who writes in the January edition of CA (online here), "The film adopts the fashionable trope of the passionate amateur with a spark of intuition who gets it right (hurrah!), versus the cold and sceptical ‘experts’ (boo, hiss!) who belittle the amateur then try to steal her glory when, after many a battle, she is proven right." No doubt Langley would just dismiss all this as the archaeological establishment closing ranks, and I agree this row shouldn't dominate the article, but I still think it's important to make clear that these complaints about the film's inaccuracies aren't just coming from Leicester and from one outside commentator (Pitts), but appear to be the consensus across the whole archaeological community. I suspect we're going to hear a lot more about all this, especially if Taylor does pursue legal action. GrindtXX (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

She is clearly part of the "Greyfriars team", and should not be represented as a broader opinion. There are British archeologists who are unhappy with the portrayal in the film, and Pitts, one of the most important in Britain, is worth chronicling. However, there is hurt in some of the archeological community for missing what was arguably the greatest find in Britain for a century, and maybe longer. And the data was available. While it is important to chronicle the dispute of views between the film and UL (and Taylor in particular), outside of noting Pitts, we should avoid turning this article into a battleground for different views, as there are clearly two sides to it. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 09:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there could be a follow-up from Taylor's lawyers. Film producers are very careful about using real first names vs. using fictional first names but which are clearly based on real people for such liability. The fact they used Taylor's real name indicates that they must have a deposition from someone at the council meeting who can back up almost exactly the words he said, which is the libelous part. The rest of his portrayal is less libelous as it usually involves Taylor speaking at a recorded event, i.e. on-site interviews or the actual press conference. Film companies are very careful about this. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 09:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Mike Pitts is also not a strictly an unbiased source, as he wrote up UL's work on the dig in his book Digging for Richard III: The Search for the Lost King in 2015. 78.18.235.180 (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Pitts has said some very disparaging things about Langley. Not an impartial commentator. 31.187.2.145 (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

MBE/OBE

The article now says in two places "the closing credits state that Langley got the MBE for her work, whereas Buckley got a superior OBE". This is not what the cited source (the Guardian) says: "The closing credits reveal that Langley got the MBE for her work — but not [my emphasis] that Buckley got the superior OBE". GrindtXX (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

That was my edit, I must have misread the Guardian. I will take out of the plot but will leave in the cast (with the ref) which is more appropriate. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Trimmed Plot

I trimmed the plot down from almost 900 words to circa 650 words, which I think is more in line with WP:PLOT. It is worth keeping the technical material about Greyfriars, River Soar, and Robert Herrick, as these are details that the reader might have missed or been confused about in the film. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 09:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)