Talk:Robert of Jumièges

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. The image in the infobox needs to place in context with a caption. For example, something along the lines of "Robert of Jumièges, as depicted in..." The two non-Pope images should do the same ie. "Statue of William the Conqueror in... (city X)" and "King Edward the Confessor as depicted in..."

 Done I removed the Edward the Confessor image, because there is no source information on its file on Commons. Given the length of the article, three images work fine. Ealdgyth | Talk 00:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

1. The "See Also" section should probably removed, as neither of the links are directly relevant to the subject of this article (indirectly, yes, but, for example, on the pages of NES games themselves, it is generally discouraged to link to List of NES games)

 Done While working back and forth on these articles, I find the 'see also' links very handy when working with large number of bishops, but they are easy to remove once we get the articles past the stub stage.

Ealdgyth | Talk 00:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not required for GA and is inconsistant with other GA Archbishops of Canterbury. I have readded the see also link. -- SECisek 00:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

1. All one-two sentence paragraphs must either be expanded or merged with the surrounding paragraphs, as they cannot stand alone.

 Done Merged. Unfortunately, most of what is known about Robert is here in the article. Ealdgyth | Talk 00:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

1. "It is interesting to note that in refusing to consecrate Spearhafoc, Robert was following his own interests, going against both the King and Godwin." (Priest and bishop) This sentence should be rephrased, as it is up to the reader to decide what they find interesting, not the writer to tell them what they should find interesting.

 Done Reworded. Let me know if this still makes sense. Ealdgyth | Talk 00:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

1. "It seems likely that it was intended for Edward and Edith to divorce, for it must be remembered that the Life of Saint Edward is a hagiography and intended to show Edward as a saint." (English royal succession) This sentence is not phrased encyclopedia, as it addresses the reader indirectly (for it must be remembered that...) It also seems to contradict the last sentence of the paragraph, which says "More likely, Edward, at the urging of Robert, wished to divorce Edith and remarry in order to secure the English succession." A better transition between the two ideas might help the uninitiated (ie. me) to better understanding the theories.

 Done Reworked the whole paragraph, hopefully to better express what the sources are trying to say. This is a case of the initiated knowing TOO much, and having issues trying to explain it simply. (grins) Ealdgyth | Talk 00:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

1. "Ian Walker puts forth the theory that..." This scholar needs a little context (no more than a sentence). Who is Ian Walker and why is his opinion qualified to be in an encyclopedic article about Robert of Jumièges? Same with David Douglas later on.

 Done Explained who they are.

To allow for these changes to be made, I am putting the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 23:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Going to address Angus' thing down there, and wait on Secisek to finish playing with pictures, which he does so much better than I... Ealdgyth | Talk 00:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Did we pass? -- SECisek 00:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The middle paragraph of "Priest and bishop" is only two sentences long, and thus needs to be expanded or merged. I would have just done this myself, but I didn't want to tamper with the image that's sitting between the two paragraphs. As for the See also section, I still disagree that it should be there, per WP:ALSO, which says "A good practice is to treat subjects in a "See also" section as topics that could be worked into the article, which I don't believe entirely works for the current things in "See also." Having said that, I can accept SECisek's logic in that it's not require for a GA pass, though I might recommend it if you intend to work on this for FA status. So if you fix the middle paragraph of the section, it should be good for a GA pass! Cheers, CP 01:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done And there we go.

Looks good to me! Congratulations, and thank you for your hard work! Cheers, CP 01:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert Chambert?

Is that right? I thought (and Barlow's Edward... and Higham's Death of Anglo-Saxon England seem to agree) that he was unflattering surnamed Robert Champart. If that is right, does anyone have handy an explanation of how he came by it? As it happens, we don't have a champart article, but fr:champart would take no time at all to translate. Or is there somewhere it could be redirected to right now? Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

DNB also says Champart was a surname, although they inclose it in []s, so its an 'alternate' name. Here we go "His nickname ‘Champart’ apparently derives from a term denoting a share of a crop paid as rent" I'll add that in. I'll add that into the article, you up to doing the French translation? Ealdgyth | Talk 00:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It's in, and I think we're ready to let CP see it again. Anything else? Ealdgyth | Talk 00:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, one thing more. I think when I was googling Robert I saw some things that suggest a link between the new church at Jumièges, started when he was abbot there, and Edward's Westminster, started when he was Bishop of London. Does the DNB connect Robert, Jumièges, and Westminster? Here's an example. I promise that's the last one. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

THis is what DNB says, and I think it can wait until I find out which scholars are suggesting which way the influence goes :"Probably in 1040 he began work upon the magnificent abbey church of St Mary, which was perhaps a model for Westminster Abbey, although a reverse influence has been suggested" Seems like there are a lot of qualifiers on that sentence, to me. I'll try to get a copy of that year's issue of the Battle Conference Report, but it'll be a while before I can track it down. I'm not planning on stopping work on Robert boy, ideally some of these ABCs will go to FA. I think Theobald and Stigand could do so pretty easy. NOt sure there is quite enough on Robert, but we'll see. Ealdgyth | Talk 01:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

GA

Well done, everyone. Ealdgyth, what is next? -- SECisek 01:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Second look after Peer review

As requested, here is a second look at the article. I find it muc improved, but there are still some places where context could be made clearer and / or language could be polished / improved.

• Internal consistency - the first sentence says died 26 May 1052 or 1055, but then in the second paragraph of the lead it says The archbishop died in exile at Jumièges either between 1053 and 1055 or shortly before 1070. There are four dates in these two sentences (1052, 1053, 1055 and 1070) but only one agrees between the two. 1070 is not mentioned again in the article.

Clarified. The 1070 might have been the last remnant of the 1911 Britannica. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Provide geographic locations for context He also served as prior of the church of St Ouen (St Ouen Abbey ) at Rouen, abbot of Jumièges Abbey, both Benedictine abbeys [in what is today France], and as Bishop of London.

Clarified. It was France then too, in a very broad context (Normandy was considered part of France then, if barely.) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess "in Normandy" would work too Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• I would add more dates to provide context, for example in the lead He was a good friend and advisor to the king of England, Edward the Confessor, [who] appointed him first as Bishop of London [in X], then later as archbishop [in Y].

Clarified. Any other spots you want dates? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Or add dates in the Background and early life section for clarity: After Canute's death [in 1035], his elder son Harald Harefoot by his first wife succeeded him, but after Harald's death [in 1040], Harthacanute succeeded for a short time.

Fixed. This is a great example of "I'm a medievalist, I know these dates..." syndrome! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)\

Not that I can see Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Would it help to use the full name here When Edward [the Confessor] was recalled to England in 1042 Robert went with him.[1]?

Can't hurt. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Would it help to add "episcopal" or another appropriate word to one of the first [episcopal] vacancies that occurred in Edward's reign.[10]?

If it tripped you up, yep, it'll help. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Unclear sentence The cathedral chapter elected Æthelric, a kinsman of Godwin and monk and Canterbury,[15][16] I do not understand "and Canterbury" here

That's because the and should be "of" or "at". Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Normandy on this trip and informed Duke William that he [William] was King Edward's heir, Edward having no children.[10] I would link Duke William or somehow indicate this is the future William the Conqueror, and I would avoid he as it is unclear if William or Robert is meant.

Added parenthetical. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps add royal here? the decision to make William the heir had been decided at the same [royal] Lentan council in 1051 that had declared Robert archbishop.[2]

Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Did Robert claim Kent personally or on behalf of Canterbury in Godwin and his family were exiled and Robert probably claimed the shire of Kent on the strength of Archbishop Edsige having held the shire.[27]?

Changed to "Robert probably claimed the office of sheriff of Kent on the strength of Archbishop Edsige having held the office also." which makes it clear that it was an office. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Simony is linked and explained twice in two paragraphs in the Bishop and Archbishop section

Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Is something meant instead of sometime in Thus, it stresses that Edward voluntarily remained celibate, sometime unlikely to have actually been the case, ...?

Yes, "something" was meant. Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• I am not sure, but at FAC they may want to know who thinks that More likely, Edward, at the urging of Robert, wished to divorce Edith at this time and remarry in order to have children to succeed him

Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Refs are generally in numerical order so fix (for one example) and further complicated by the post-Norman Conquest propaganda claims made by Norman chroniclers.[34][29][notes 4]

Blech, this is one of the more picky things I can think of... but I'll fix them. Blech. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I check them by searching the article in one window for "][" and then swapping ref orders (editing) in another window Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Why did company with Bishop Ulf of Dorcester and Bishop William of London leave with Robert?

clarified, I meant that he left IN company with them, but just cut that. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• I miss the picture of the missal

I couldn't fix the fair use for it as I didn't have the source for it (I didn't upload it). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note 2 is unclear ^ Both Alfred and Edward returned to England in 1036, but after[wards?] Alfred was murdered, apparently on Harold's orders.[7]

Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Should the Further reading book be a source?

All three are articles that delve into much more details on the background than really needs to be in the article, they are there for folks who might want to learn more about the Romanesque building works or about the great historical debate on when or if Edward really DID designate William as his heir. (It's one of those great debates among historians... reams of paper have been expended on it, as well as many a evening spent drinking wine and rehashing all the points... ) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The whole thing reads well and I was ultra picky - seems pretty close to FAC to me and I have pointed out the only problems I noted. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, good, I can escape another run at PR? I'll fix these things today or tomorrow and get Karan and Brian to do a read through before going to FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if the lead should have something on his legacy - possible introduction of Romanesque architecture and the missal? Would it also make sense to just say (died sometime between 1052 and 1055) in the first lead sentence? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm, might not hurt. I'll try to think of something ... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Added something. Probably not the best we can do, but it's something. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Would this link be a valid source for a Missal image? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

the problem with the Missal image is that even though it bears his name, he didn't commission it. It was something he found in England and just shipped to Rouen, so while it bears mentioning, images from it are somewhat misleading. I'd rather stick with the pics of places he was, honestly, and things he did start. The Romanesque stuff is much more of a "legacy" than a book he looted. (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

More post-PR comments

I'll keep my comments separate from those above, to avoid possible confusion. So far I've only read the lead and first section, so more will follow.

• Lead image: "Modern ruins"? I detect a whiff of oxymoron here - I don't think the ruins of a medieval abbey can be "modern". Perhaps "Modern photograph of ruins...", or just "Ruins of..."

Went with just 'Ruins of.." Ealdgyth - Talk 15:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• The sentence beginning "He also served as prior of the Abbey of St Ouen..." needs sorting out. I think it probably means: "He had previously served as prior of the Abbey of St Ouen at Rouen, and as abott of Jumièges Abbey, both of which were abbeys in France; he had also held office as Bishop of London".

fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Played into later Norman justifications...." is rather odd phrasing. Does it mean: "His deposition became part of later Norman justification..."?

Malleus reworked this, check it out. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• "...claimed that Robert in 1051 or 1052..." would read better as "...claimed that in 1051 or 1052 Robert..."

Malleus reworked to "claimed that Robert went to Normandy in 1051 or 1052"Ealdgyth - Talk 15:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Penultimate sentence ("The treatment of Robert..."): Isn't this saying the same thing as the opening setence of the paragaph?

Seems to have disappeared in the copyedit... as usually happens with my redundancies! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Final sentence needs strengthening. "His" needs specifying, and the sentence could be expanded to: "Robert's building work at Jumièges helped to influence English ecclesiastical architecture, particularly the church built in Westminster for Edward the Confessor, now known as Westminster Abbey".

took your suggestion.

• On the lead generally, it's rather short (no pun intended). Would it be possible, for instance, to summarise some of the events of Robert's brief Archbishopric?

I expanded it a bit, and moved the "justification" bit to the second paragraph. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Since, as you say, nothing is known of Robert's origins and family background, you might consider removing "early life" from the section title.

Changed to "Background and life in Normandy" Ealdgyth - Talk 15:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• It might also be an idea to switch the order of the two paragraphs, to get a better chronology.

I THINK I'll keep them in this order, since the first paragraph does discuss the fact he was a Norman by birth, at least. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• You refer to Edward being "in exile" in Normandy, but later say his mother sent him there for safekeeping with relatives, which doesn't seem quite the same thing. Probably this is pedantry on my part.

Well, he was sent there at first, but he bascially ended up staying, which in my mind is exile. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Further observations will follow at reasonable intervals. Brianboulton (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

On the Bishop and Archbishop section:-

• The second sentence is rather long and meandering. I suggest rephrasing the first two sentences as follows: "When Edward the Confessor was recalled to England in 1042, to become king after Harthacanute's death, Robert went with him. It was due to Edward that in August 1044 Robert became Bishop of London...." etc. Incidentally, "Bishop of London" is capitalised in the lead, why not here?

Fixed the capital, Malleus whacked off the runaway sentence, it appears. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• A full stop or a semicolon, not a comma, is required after "acquired much land"

Cleared out in the CE ... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Whose hagiographical work is being quoted here? If authorship unknown it should say so.

It's the vita on Edward the Confessor... an it's authorship is a matter of great historical debate .. to put it mildly. Where do you think I should say it's unknown though? I guess I'm unclear on what you're unclear on. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• See comment on Background section re use of the term "exile"

It basically turned into an exile. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think held "during" Lent is better than "at Lent". And the adjective is lenten (uncapitalised), not Lentan

Caught during the CE. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• "...simony, or the buying of ecclesiasical office" Are these alternative descriptions of the same offence, or alternative offences? If the former, "or" should be omitted. If the latter, the end of the sentence should be "those sins"

Caught by Malleus during the CE. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• The phrase "In the end..." is a bit informal and non-encyclopaedic. I'd also combine some short sentences here, as: "Subsequently, William the Norman, the candidate favoured by Robert, was consecrated instead of Spearhafoc".

I'm going to stick with "in the end" because it's a good way of conveying that I'm not including the long digressions and discussions that took part before he was finally consecrated. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Without much luck" is a colloquialism. I'd say "without success".

Caught Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• In the third para, final sentence, "and" connects unrelated facts.

Think I fixed it with a ; Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

To be continued Brianboulton (talk) 11:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Notes on remaining sections (hope someone is reading all this)

• Godwin in exile
  • Is this the best title for this section, which doesn't really seem about Godwin?

Changed to "Royal advisor"...other suggestions welcome. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• • "...something unlikely to have been the case". Sounds like opinion - is there evidence for this?

Yeah, it's in the footnotes (grins) Generally, ALL modern historians agree that Edward was not celibate. I mean, all. It's rather amazing actually, normally historians's don't agree this much. (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• • "somewhat uncertain" - "somewhat" is redundant.

removed Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Outlawing etc
  • It needs to be "had invaded from Ireland"

fixed by the CE Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• • "Robert died at Jumieges, either between 1053 and 1055, or on 26 May in either 1052 or 1055". Honestly, that does sound a bit of a muddle. At some stage, and preferably before this, you need to deal with the anomaly of his death being reported by some sources apparently before Godwin's return, before his own deposition, before his visit to the pope etc. If he died on 26 May 1952 that knocks out this section's entire chronology. I accept that the date of Robert's death is not sure, but surely the 26 May 1052 date can be discounted by other events? Bearing in mind that the 1052 date is given in the lead, your readers need a little help if they are not to be confused. Perhaps Note 1 needs to be extended to cover the apparent 1052 misdating.

The problem is ... The ONDB GIVES the 1052 date (which seems to come from a medieval source) but doesn't discuss that it's wrong. If I go into more detail on it, I'm treading into OR territory. He's a pretty obscure little guy, and some research just hasn't been done yet. I've got death dates all over the place, because the one date that's recorded (the May 1052 date) by a contemporaryish source, is obviously wrong, but no one discusses why it might be wrong. I'll work on this in a bit,, but I'm not sure there is a non-OR solution. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would be OR to add a note, for the benefit of readers, that the ONDB date conflicts with other information - you don't have to be seen to be taking sides. Or just emphasise the confusion over the death dates. Do what you think is wisest. Brianboulton (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll think on it a bit (mainly because I have a monster of a headache and just can't be bothered to think much at all today) and see what works. Did everything else get resolved to your satisfaction? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, reworked it some. I have traced down the supposed contemporary death date reference, unfortunately it's to William of Poitiers, which i do not own (yet), so I'm unable to actually go and check that. I think I clarified it without going into OR territory, I hope. Check it over and make sure it works for you? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that's all. I detect the usual meticulous use of sources. I long for the time when I can post "What makes [....] a reliable source? Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Where would the fun of that be though? I mean for me? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

What is "Barlow The Godwins p. 42" in footnote 26 31? Srnec (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It's Barlow, Frank (2003). The Godwins: The Rise and Fall of a Noble Dynasty. London: Pearson/Longman. ISBN 0-582-78440-9. , which somehow didn't get listed. It's there now. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Great. I could have added it myself, but I thought I'd make sure the error was in not listing the source, not in the source used. Srnec (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

User error, of course. thanks for catching it. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert of Jumièges. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006223625/http://www.pindarpress.co.uk/catalogue/medieval-western/gem-architecture-vol2.htm to http://www.pindarpress.co.uk/catalogue/medieval-western/gem-architecture-vol2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

MOS:JOBTITLE

It appears to me that some incorrect lowercase may have been installed in this edit. MOS:JOBTITLE says that titles are capitalized "When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the Queen, not the queen (referring to Elizabeth II)". Ealdgyth might want to doublecheck these. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

To be honest? I quit fighting the de-cap police a while back as it's fruitless. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I see the problem :). Well, will put this in the MOS-warrior-not-worth-worrying-about basket then. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, Robert is named in that sentence and is defined by his job title. The job title is not a substitute for anything. Surtsicna (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)