Jump to content

Talk:Hubert Walter/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1


GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments:

  1. "His reliance upon the knights, who now for the first time appear in the political sphere, is all the more interesting because it is this class who, either as members of parliament or justices of the peace, were to have the effective rule of England in their hands for so many centuries." (Justiciar) Maybe I'm being too picky here, but I feel like an encyclopedia shouldn't be telling its reader what they should find interesting. I think the sentence would be better reworded without the subjective judgment. Green tickY Done! Ealdgyth | Talk 06:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. "In 1198 Hubert, gave the monks of Canterbury who he was quarreling with another opportunity of complaining to Pope Innocent III, for in arresting William Fitz Osbern in 1196, he had committed an act of sacrilege in Bow Church, which belonged to the monks." (Archbishop of Canterbury and Justiciar) If this sentence ran anymore, it would be eligible to compete in marathons. It should be split into two sentences, as it is very difficult to read in its current state.Green tickY Done! Although I feel sorry for the poor little sentence, not able to run anymore... Ealdgyth | Talk 06:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. I corrected two spelling mistakes in "Under John" that were in the middle of a direct quote. If those spelling mistakes waere in the original quote, then they should be reinstated with a (sic) to denote the mistake. Otherwise, it's fine as it is.Green tickY Double checked, it was my crappy typing, not the quote. Done!Ealdgyth | Talk 06:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. "Hubert was not a holy man, although he was, as John Gillingham, a historian and biographer of Richard I, says, "one of the most outstanding government ministers in English History."" (Death and legacy) Direct quotes require direct citations, even if it's the same one used at the end of the sentence/paragraph.Green tickY Done!Ealdgyth | Talk 06:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Other than that, everything looks great. You know the drill by now. On hold, seven days etc. etc. Have fun, good luck and thank you for your hard work thus far. Cheers, CP 05:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I like to think I'm getting better at this. You caught some typos, and merged somethings, and caught one However at the start of a sentence. Only four action items this time! Yay me! Expect to see this guy go to FA, he's big enough. (And a word of warning, I just finished all 28K of rough draft on Ranulf Flambard today... be warned.) Off to work!Ealdgyth | Talk 05:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Great job as usual and a great GA pass. Reminds me of the days that I used to actually write Good Articles instead of just reviewing them... Good luck with FA! Cheers, CP 06:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I forgot to mention that usually with a person "ie. John Smith" they would be referred to as "Smith did such and such" rather than "John did such and such" unless differentiation from another Smith was needed. In this case, I thought "Hubert" was fine instead of "Walter", since he was a religious figure. It may pop up in FA, I just didn't want you to be surprised by it. I'd say it's fine as it is unless someone points otherwise. Cheers, CP 06:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That'll be interesting for some of these bishops. Most of the "surnames" are really nicknames or places where they came from. With Hubert, I can see changing it to Walter, although that's just odd to say, because medievalists usually refer to first name or mix it. Titles are popular too. It's easy enough to go in and switch it before FA, rather than try to disturb my writing which thinks in terms of first names. Legacy of all those medieval history classes, I guess. Ealdgyth | Talk 06:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

At Eagldyth's request, I'm doing a pre-FAC peer review. I've made it about halfway through the article. Here are my comments so far (I'll hopefully finish on Monday):

  • This sentence is a bit awkward "Walter had been instrumental in ensuring that John became king, and it was Walter that crowned John"
Reworded. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This sentence is a bit awkward "Walter accompanied the king on the Third Crusade,[8] going ahead of the king with the group that went straight from Marseille to the Holy Land, which included Baldwin of Exeter, Archbishop of Canterbury and Ranulf de Glanvill". The whole paragraph about the Crusade seems a bit choppy to me, but I think my brain is a bit too tired to identify what should be changed.
Moved some of the phrases around on this, let me know if this works better.
  • I'm not entirely sure what this means "Walter made use of representation and election as a way of helping increase royal revenues". Ok, now that I've read the rest of the section, it makes sense, but it was confusing at the time I first read it.
I just took out the sentence, it was rather oddly placed. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what this means "feet of fines"
Tried to explain it. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 03:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't shoot me, but I just finally managed to read Young's biography of Walter, so I'll be incorporating some new stuff into the article over the next few days. I did go ahead and explain what a feet of fine was. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I have everything in that needs to be in to be utterly comprehensive. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry this took me a whole week to get back too (real life intruded), but here are my comments on the second half of the article:

  • This sentence is off to me: "The whole dispute from the time of Baldwin of Exeter, Hubert's predecessor as archbishop, flared up again, with the papacy siding with the monks and the king siding with his archbishop, and the monks ending up locked up in their buildings once more"
    • It's a little redundant, because we've already learned that Baldwin was the predecessor
    • Were the monks locked up by someone or did they lock themselves in their buildings?
    • I can't pinpoint what I don't like about the wording.
Probably you don't like the wording because I quit writing like a encyclopedist and wrote more in my "natural" irrevelant style. Drove my professors nuts, but... it's fun. Especially when you have tempests in a teapot over really wacky things like this dispute. I've taken a stab at rewording it, although I really kinda like it myself. I took out the bit about the monks ending up locked in their buildings again, and changed "sided with" to "supported" which should make it a bit more encyclopedic. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not entirely sure what this means "making a speech which supposedly promulgated the old theory of election by the people for the last time."
I tried to clarify this. Supposedly, he made a speech which talked about the old Anglo-Saxon concept of the king being selected/elected by the people (or Witan). This is supposedly the last time this sort of theory was stated in a coronation speech. Hopefully the new statement works a bit better. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I reworked it into two sentences (that was an easy one!) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I reread the first half and I like it better now. The new information helps bring a little more clarity to some of it. Karanacs (talk) 01:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Further comments

There are a couple of places where things don't quite seem to make sense:

  • "W. L. Warren advances the theory that either Hubert Walter or Geoffrey Fitz Peter, instead of Ranulf Glanvill, was the author of Tractatus de legibus et consuetudinibus regni Angliae, which was a legal treatise on the laws and constitutions of the English. Chrimes agrees that Glanvill was probably not the author, and feels that Walter was probably the author, without finding any definite conclusion." Chrimes agrees with who? Warren just seems to say that either Walter or Glanvill was the author. The "probably"s read rather awkwardly as well.
Warren says that Glanvill probably wasn't the author, and advances the idea that it was either HB or Geoffrey FP. (as written above) I think you need to reread that, it seems really clear to me that warren says no to Glanvill. Unfortunately, the authors are playing cover their ass games here, so probably is the best we can do. Would "Chrimes agress that Glanvill probably was not the author, and feels that Walter likely was, without finding definitely either way." work better?Ealdgyth - Talk 19:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I misread what was being said. I think I may have had my attention too much on the "probably ... probably ...", which I still think is very awkward. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Does my suggestion work better? (Sorry for the crossing of posts in the ether, I just dropped a note on your talk page, sorry!) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
As I just replied on my talk page, I think your suggested wording is a significant improvement. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "In 1188 he founded a Premonstratensian house of canons on family property at West Dereham, Norfolk. His uncle and other family members had favoured the Premonstratensian Order, and this monastery was located near the family lands in Norfolk." So which was it? On family lands, or near family lands?
Remnant of earlier rewrites. He bought the land, that was near the property. Clarified. The family lands actually went to Theobald. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"Walter and his older brother Theobald Walter were nephews of Ranulf de Glanvill. Walter owed his early advancements to his kinsman. His other brothers were Osbert, a royal justice who died in 1206, and Roger, Hamo (or Hamon) and Bartholomew ...". This reads rather strangely to me, and I'm not sure what the point trying to be made here is. Weren't all of Walter's brothers nephews of Ranulf? As written it seems to suggest that Osbert and Bartholomew weren't Ranulf's nephews. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Remnant of a previous version where I didn't know the names of the other brothers. Maybe "Walter had an older brother, Theobald, as well as other brothers Osbert, Roger, Hamo (or Hamon) and Bartholomew. All the brothers were nephews of Ranulf de Glanvill, who helped the careers of Theobald and Hubert. Of the other brothers, Osbert became a royal justice and died in 1206, but the others only appear as witnesses to charters." Says the same thing but less awkwardly. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
That certainly makes more sense to me, but what about something like "Walter was the second of five brothers. He and his elder brother Theobald were helped in their careers by their uncle, Ranulf de Glanvill. A younger brother, Osbert, became a royal justice and died in 1206. Roger, Hamo (or Hamon) and Bartholomew only appear as witnesses to charters." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Problem is we're not sure he's the second brother. We know that Theobald was older than him, but beyond that... it's not known. And count, there are six brothers (Theobald, Hubert, Osbert, Hamo, Roger, and Bart) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I modified your statement a bit, and put it in. Let me know if it's too wordy or awkward. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
That looks much better to me. There are a few footnotes in which there's a linebreak between the "p." and the page number (at least on my 1280 x 1024 display) where I'll put a non-breaking space. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Baby display. (2560X1600 here) Thanks for catching those, though.
Hey, size doesn't matter, or so I've been told. :-) For what it's worth, I've added my support for this article, with full disclosure of course. Good luck! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
There are so many places I could go with that, but I'm an old lady, I'll leave it be. Thanks for the support! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Robin Hood stuff...

I don't object to a discussion of him appearing in the Robin Hood stuff, but it's unnecessary to link it to a modern day series only. If we start mentioning one TV series, we open the door to every series. Try to find something significant ... a piece of literature or something, rather than a current TV series. Not to mention that the citation doesn't even try to match the current style used. I'll fix it. (Fixed now) Nor does the citation give the information about the first part of the added sentence. Put on a citation needed tag. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Maud or Martha?

Maud de Valoignes becomes Martha in the section "Early Life".--Wetman (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Appointed or elected?

From the article as it currently stands : 'After the death of King Henry in 1189, the new King Richard I appointed Walter Bishop of Salisbury; the election took place on 15 September 1189 at Pipewell, with the consecration on 22 October 1189 at Westminster.[20][21]'

Pardon my ignorance, but if he was appointed by the king, why was an election necessary? Is there some canon law involved here? Grandma Roses (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's just say that Richard wanted Hubert so he made the appointment and then the cathedral chapter dutifully elected the king's choice. It's kinda like how the electoral college works in the US - the people elect the voters in the electoral college and then that group elects the president ... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Baron of the Exchequer

This very good article states that Walter was a baron of the exchequer in 1184-85, which made me wonder what were the status and duties of this position in the late 12th century. The wikilink for 'baron of the exchequer' points to a brief article on the Exchequer, which does not mention the position. Searching on Baron of the Exchequer directs to Chief Baron of the Exchequer, which states that this was a judicial position, with barons under him, but appears to refer to a later period. The Dialogue Concerning the Exchequer. circa 1180 at [1] appears to describe both administrative and judicial duties, but also refers to greater and lesser barons, and I am not clear whether these were barons of the exchequer or the greater and lesser lords of England. Dudley Miles 22:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Stacey's ODNB article (which is the source for this statement) states that "As Ranulf de Glanville's chief deputy in England, Walter was involved in the full range of administrative business for which the justiciar was responsible, serving as one of the barons of the exchequer during the 1180s, and sitting regularly with Glanville and others as a justice of the exchequer court."... I just do not have the experise to revise out not so good article on the barons of the exchequer. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, which confirms that his duties were both administrative and judicial. I picture his position at this time as something like that of the law lords until the recent change to a Supreme Court (although unlike the law lords with admin as well as a judicial duties) a temporary baron while he held his position, but maybe this is anachronistic. Dudley Miles 23:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Heh. I'm a yank... law lords?? And no worries about the clarification.. at the time, things were a bit fluid anyway.. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Since 2009 the highest British court has been the Supreme Court, but before that it was the House of Lords. Leading judges were appointed barons so that they could carry out the House's judicial functions, and they were commonly known as the law lords.

It seems from the ODNB comment you quoted that Walter as a baron of the exchequer answered to the justiciar, although it is curious that the Dialogue mentions barons of the exchequer, greater barons and lesser barons, but never the justiciar. As you suggest, it needs someone expert to explain the early history of barons of the exchequer. Dudley Miles 18:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I think the office of justiciar is to be identified with that translated as "chief justice" in the dialogue, that is, the president of the court of exchequer. Choess (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Bishop-elect

Ealdgyth, a "bishop-elect" has about as much authority as a "president-elect", i.e. zero. (Are you forgetting that we're talking about the Roman Catholic Church here, where the Pope gets to decide who his bishops are, not the king, not a congregation of monks?) The correct succession here is: Baldwin, Hubert Walter, Stephen Langton. The article itself says Baldwin was the predecessor; the infobox should agree with the text of the article. --Kenatipo speak! 00:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm good with some commentary next to the names, but in this period, the papacy had not quite established a stranglehold on appointments - elections were not always quashed, and fitzJocelin would probably have been confirmed if he hadn't died. Something like "elected but never consecrated" next to both would work. Note that both the Handbook of British Chronology and Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1066-1300: volume 2: Monastic cathedrals (northern and southern provinces) list both of these men as part of the succession to the archbishopric. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Don't you agree that the text should not conflict with the infobox? --Kenatipo speak! 00:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't see that it does... it doesn't say "immediate predecessor" in regards to Baldwin, just predecessor. Keep in mind, Richard was in the Holy Land and a bit of time elapsed before Walter was nominated. In fact, he wasn't nominated to Canterbury until after Richard was already in Germany in captivity... Baldwin died before Richard arrived in the Holy Land... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I see what you mean -- if we had a list of US presidents, it would be OK to say Washington was the predecessor of Lincoln and Reagan was the successor of Lincoln. Good point! Onward and upward with the Wiki! --Kenatipo speak! 00:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
My information on the succession comes from the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) article by Edwin Burton. Do you not consider it authoritative? --Kenatipo speak! 01:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
It's 100 years out of date, and written from a distinct POV ... Handbook is from 1996 ... even the Fasti is from 1977. Historical thought has uncovered a great many new facts and documents in that 100 years. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I assure you, the succession in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Canterbury between 1175 and 1225 has NOT changed in the past 100 years. Did you get my point about Washington, Lincoln and Reagan? And, you haven't answered my question about conflicts between the text and the infobox. --Kenatipo speak! 01:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
How it's viewed has, as well as how those who were elected but did not get consecrated are viewed also. Note that the Catholic Encyclopedia definitely toes the papal line - no one is official until the papacy said so, even when in the actual time frame, that would be anachronistic. I did point out a perfectly fine compromise - I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to be replying to ... You seemed to be agreeing with my point about the text ... and didn't see anything but the CE stuff to reply to. Feel free to add the suggestion I made above - but I'm definitely opposed to not acknowledging the fact that there were folks who were elected to the office. The reason fitzJocelin isn't mentioned in the text is that Hubert had nothing to do with the election at all... he was out of the country for the brief time that fJ was archbishop-elect. And the successor link doesn't conflict with the text at all... nothing is mentioned about Hubert's successors at all in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The problem with your anti-papal approach is that you end up listing men as Archbishop of Canterbury who were never the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the two Reginalds are good examples. The Fasti (which takes forever to download) has men like the Reginalds in brackets. Does that not suggest anything to you? You seem to be taking the approach that anyone elected must be the Archbishop. It just doesn't work that way, as history shows. Are you in denial about the authority of the Pope over his own bishops? He does indeed have the authority to decide who becomes a bishop in the Church. The list in the CE1913 article on Canterbury, written by Edwin Hubert Burton, D.D., Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, should be taken as authoritative. --Kenatipo speak! 03:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
If you don't like the Roman Catholic list, maybe the Church of England list is more to your taste: Archbishops of Canterbury --Kenatipo speak! 04:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
There are two differences between the 2 lists: the CofE lists Byrhthelm in 959 and Roger Walden in 1398 and the RCC doesn't. --Kenatipo speak! 17:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I prefer to use all the available lists from modern historians - that includes the Handbook of British Chronology and the Fasti as well as the CoE lists but would not consider a 100 year old article to be authoritative - and if we're discussing the whole list, wouldn't it make more sense to discuss that information on the list article itself, rather than here at one specific archbishop? In case you hadn't noticed, I've qualified the statement in the infobox about Reginald fitzJocelin - which should allay your concerns on this specific article. I appreciate that you wish to discuss the various list issues, but honestly, the best place for that discussion is on the list article itself. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Your qualification to the inbox was a step in the right direction but it still misleads the reader into thinking Reginald fJ was ever Archb. of Cant.. He wasn't. No pallium, no archbishopric. What do the brackets around the entries in Fasti mean to you? --Kenatipo speak! 20:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
What do YOU suggest, bearing in mind that he WAS elected to the post and death was the only thing that kept him away? I think it's pretty clear with the note that he wasn't ever "fully" archbishop, and as for "no pallium no archbishop" are you saying that the current ABC isn't an archbishop? I'm pretty sure he's not received a pallium from the pope. For that matter, many of the early ABCs did not receive a pallium. I'd like to hear your suggestions here ... because quite frankly, I'm doing a lot of explaining and explaining and this is getting to be a bit of an annoyance. The infobox cannot always explain in total detail every nuance of someone's tenure of office... that's what the full text of the article is for. If folks want to know more details about R fJ, they can click on his article - the note now in this article makes it clear that there was some irregularity with him, so if they are curious, they can check his article. Yes, I'm getting tired of this endless discussion. I've tried to meet you half way with a compromise, but it seems that you don't really want a compromise, you want it your way. As someone who has pretty much been the only one working on these articles, it does indeed get very frustrating when someone comes along and fixates on some single tiny detail without seeing the whole picture ... did you realise you've never once said "Nice article, cool that we cover this guy in depth"... instead it's been pound pound pound on this one tiny detail. Sorry, but I've spent pretty much the last 24 hours trying to reach a compromise and its getting nowhere. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Ealdgyth, let me begin by telling you that I admire all the hard work you've put into so many articles; and I congratulate you on all the Good Articles and Featured Articles that you have created. Thank you for making Wikipedia better; Wikipedia needs more editors like you! I'm not really trying to pull your chain. It's just that we have a different opinion about who is (or was) an Archbishop of Canterbury and who gets to make that determination. My opinion is that the RCC and CoE can tell us who their archbishops were and are. There should be no-one on the List of Archbishops of Canterbury whose name is not listed on the wall in Canterbury Cathedral (see photo in List article). The historical footnotes (like the Reginalds) are not being treated like footnotes on the current List; in fact, they are being listed in many places as "predecessors" and "successors" when, according to the CoE, they were never Archbishops of Canterbury in the first place. My recommendation is that these historical footnotes be removed from the List, since they don't belong there anyway, and put on their own "List of ABC close-calls". (I also think telling readers that Reginald (sub-prior) was the ABC when he was not is a not tiny detail). --Kenatipo speak! 02:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question about the current ABC not having the pallium: my remarks were intended to apply to the pre-Reformation bishops because those were the one's we were discussing. After Reginald Pole, the C of E (and the monarch) decided who the archbishop would be. --Kenatipo speak! 16:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  • What do the reliable sources, standard texts on this area of history say? Our opinions about which ABC was or wasn't "official" are only that; I'd be interested to see how some of these books deal with the issue. I'd also point out that this type of thing can become emotive which is understandable but won't help to resolve the discussion. --John (talk) 08:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Reader's note

Being an admin can be onerous sometimes and I admit I groaned internally when someone raised an issue concerning this article at my talk, because I thought I had very little interest in this subject area. I want to say that I really enjoyed reading the article; it's fascinating and well-referenced, and I truly appreciate the hard work of the volunteers who wrote it. --John (talk) 09:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hubert_Walter/Archive_1&oldid=1079073812"