Talk:William de Warenne, 2nd Earl of Surrey

Pedigree

Agricolae, you cannot simply delete a pedigree chart because you don’t agree with it. In the same way you cannot significantly alter it to suit your own opinions. The information on the charts is supported by valid published source citations on this page, his mother Gundred, Countess of Surrey’s page as well as that of her brother Gerbod the Fleming, 1st Earl of Chester, and that of his father William de Warenne, 1st Earl of Surrey. So his parentage and connections to the house of Oosterzele-Scheldewindeke as well as that of Rodulf de Warenne and his relationship to the de Crepon family are documented. You’ve reverted this information twice. Please don’t do it again. Bearpatch (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

But I can delete it when it is rife with controversial material, unreferenced, and unnecessary. There is no need to show this particular baron's genealogy to begin with, as it provides little worthwhile insight. As to the specifics, that Gundred was sister of Gerbod is almost universally accepted. However, as to Gerbod's parentage, there does not exist the same level of consensus that one can just fill in the pedigree with a string of men named Gerbod. As to William's ancestry, that has been subject of much scholarly revision, with solutions ranging from him being son of Rodulf and Beatrice, niece of Gunnor (as you prefer) to being son of Rodulf by Emma, niece of Gunnor, to William being son of Rodulf and Emma, and that Rodulf being son of an earlier Rodulf and Beatrice, niece of Gunnor. Given that it is nothing but gratuitous genealogy to begin with, it is better left out than to present such problematic material without a detailed explanation of the relevant controversies. You have added such unnecessary, unreferenced, controversial material three times. Please don't do it again unless you address the problems. Agricolae (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Where is the controversy, Agricolae - that you do not agree with it? Where is the guideline WP: PROVIDES LITTLE WORTHWHILE INSIGHT? Because I have not seen it and I didn't think it was like you to revert on your own made up guidelines. Name your wiki reasons and if the information is false, give a link to show it is false. If something is controversial, show where it is controversial. You have to show something better than that to revert. You are also mistating the 3RR rule. I have seen you revert this same editor on small insignificant edits and merely change the wording to mean the same exact thing 2 or 3 times already. I have also seen you engage and edit him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:William_I,_Duke_of_Normandy here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sprota&action=history and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_de_Warenne,_1st_Earl_of_Surrey&action=history and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rodulf_of_Ivry&action=history and now here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_de_Warenne,_2nd_Earl_of_Surrey all in a little over one week's time. Coincidence?Mugginsx (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't stating the 3RR rule at all - just pointing out that he too was reverting, and his request that I should quit editing his contribution, just because I had done so twice (gasp), was out of place. As to the supposed pattern of stalking that you seem to be implying, if you look more closely, you will find I have edited pages linked to these issues long before this editor started in on them. When a new editor starts making related edits on several related pages, should it really surprise anyone that an interested editor who disagrees with what has been done will want to assess and address the extent of the problem on all of the pages where it is being spread? As to the missing guideline, please see WP:UNDUE, WP:IINFO and WP:COMMON. When something is problematic, it should either be fixed or removed. If it is unnecessary to begin with, it is pretty straightforward which of these approaches to use. Now, where is the controversy? I already said it above - the parentage of William I de Warenne that was generally taken for granted in the 1920s and 1930s has been seriously questioned, in its precise specifics, more recently, most notably by Keats-Rohan. This article is not the place to discuss that debate, but should also not present the traditional solution without indication that it has been questioned. I have also mentioned the problem with Gerbod's pedigree, above. Given this, and the fact that the pedigree is gratuitous, then it is better to leave it out. Agricolae (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Agricolae, you have reverted this page twice and the Sprota page twice. That’s four times in 24 hours. If you think this somehow skirts the 3-revert rule you really should have read it more carefully. This is completely unproductive. If you have valid quality published sources that prove William the first earl is not the son of Rodulf and Beatrix, provide them here. Let me go over what you have and I’ll discuss it with you. Likewise, post your valid sources regarding Sprota not being the progenitrix of kings, dukes, earls, popes, archbishops, bishops, barons etc., on her page but quit trying to force anyone into being barred from editing. What does that possibly solve? I’ve noted your inordinate interest in what I’m doing and if you have questions, just ask. You want to provide an email address and we can talk, do that. But this won’t solve anything. You have another solution I’ll listen. Bearpatch (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The 3-revert rule explicitly states editors "must not perform more than three reverts on a single page" (emphasis added). As to the spirit - that people shouldn't edit war, well, that cuts both ways, now, doesn't it? You are no less innocent because you are reverting my edits. Sprota should be talked about on her page. These are completely separate issues and combining them benefits neither, nor does personalizing the issue - you should note that I edited the Gundred page, the Rodulf de Warenne page (regarding exactly the issue we are discussing) and that of William Longsword specifically as it related to Sprota, before your first edit on any of the subjects, so don't be like a European explorer claiming ownership of places to which you have just arrived, ignoring the standing of those who were already there. I am not "trying to force (you) into being barred from editing." Out of the dozens of edits you have made, the vast majority of them I have left unchanged or have made simple grammatical rephrasing. I simply disagree (strongly) with these few specific edits. That is the way Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not the place for someone so in love with their own writing that they cannot bear it being edited or questioned in any way. The way around this is not to pretend I am persecuting you, but to talk about the issue itself. Oh, and the appropriate place(s) to talk about anything taking place on Wikipedia is Wikipedia, not email.

Now, as to the issue on this page, I have no source that proves William is not son of Rodulf by Beatrice because such proof is impossible. This is what Robert of Torigny said, but there we know Robert was confused (after all, he gives Roger de Mortimer two completely different pedigrees). People have been trying to sort it out ever since. In particular, both Keats-Rohan and van Houts have directly addressed the question of Robert of Torigny's pedigrees over the past several decades, and highlighted the reasons why their accuracy must not be taken for granted. Given this, the material in the pedigree becomes problematic, and since it is also unnecessary, one must then question why it should be given at all. Agricolae (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I have now added an extensive note on the debate concerning William I's ancestry to his page. The version given her in the pedigree here is problematic, and does not reflect recent scholarship. As to Gundred, show me a single reference that names her father. Just one, or it doesn't belong in the chart. Better yet, explain why this controversial chart needs to be in the article at all. Agricolae (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it has been a week since I provided the desired information, with no response at all from those expressing opposition, even though they have been active editing during the week. The pedigree presents for William's parentage material that is now questioned by at least one serious historian (in the only recent detailed analysis of the question). To present the traditional view is misleading. The pedigree presents for Gundred material that, while likely at least in the first generation, is poorly documented - I have yet to see cited a reliable source explicitly calling Gundred daughter of Gerbod II (van Houts calls her sister of Gerbod II). her own page does not name her parent, just her brother, so it looks like a bit of harmless original research in being done. The important context for understanding William II are 1) that he was son of William I and Gundred, and 2) that he was kinsman of Helias of St. Saens and more distantly of the kindred of Duchess Gunnor. A full pedigree is unnecessary to present these two facts, and given the problems, is better left out than presented without explanation of its faults and uncertainties. I will thus act accordingly. Agricolae (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the 3-revert rule does not apply to you. Congratulations. Regardless, you cannot simply revert what you do not like and this or any orther article is not yours to disassemble at your whim. I saw the essay you added to the article of William I de Warenne regarding the problems with Beatrix as niece of Gunnor and I modified the chart, removing the NN connections from the chart. That was your response. Besides, nobody is under any time constraints of your choosing.

The chart is not a problem as English sources clearly state Gundrada, Gerbod, Earl of Chester, and Frederic of Oosterzele-Scheldewindeke are siblings. Likewise, Flemish sources show the family connections. Further published sources such as Anderson [Uxor Mea,SAC 130, 107-129] clearly show Gundrada, Gerbod, Frederick and a fourth brother Arnoul as being the children of Gerbod, advoui of Saint-Bertin, and he of an earlier advoui of the same name. Elisabeth van Houts has published several articles and books stating the same, as have several other noted historical authorities. Anyone can question anything they like but without proof it simply a question. As this situation has not changed, there is no sense in endlessly arguing with you over your personal preferences. The chart is a feature of the article. You have no valid reason to disruptively tamper with the page contents. Bearpatch (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Enough with the groundless talk of disruptive tampering, and for 3RR you just had better educate yourself before saying something this erroneous again. The 3-revert rule prohibits more than three reverts to the same article in one day. You have already filed a false report against me, and to continue to make such accusations is a violation of Civility, in addition to being just plain wrong. I can simply revert something I don't like, particularly when I am the only one willing to discuss it. No, nobody us under time constraints, but likewise, you can't expect the entire Wikipedia community to refrain from editing 'your' articles because you think you can 'win' a dispute by ignoring the discussion. Lest there be any confusion on the point, let me state it plainly: if you want your opinion to be a part of the consensus, it is incumbent on you to participate in the discussion, not to ignore it and then make accusations after the fact. As to proof, you have it backwards - proof is needed to include/retain material, not to remove it. You added dubious material, I took it back out. Just because you want it there does not make my actions disruptive, or tampering. You seem to be going at this with the mindset that you have the inherent right to decide what goes on a page and the entire burden is on those who disagree with you. It doesn't work that way. I have just as much right to edit the page to reflect my preference as you do to reflect yours, and attacking my actions is not a productive way of generating a consensus.

As to the specific table itself, it is still problematic for William's ancestry (Keats-Rohan concludes, based on a contemporary charter that explicitly states such, that William I was son of Emma, not Beatrice). It is still unreferenced for Gundred's ancestry. You say that all the references are on other pages, but you are mistaken - there is not a single place in Wikipedia except this specific page that says Gundred is daughter of Lay Abbot Gerbod. There is not a single page on Wikipedia that says that Gerbod, her father, is son of another Gerbod. You seem to be arguing that if English sources say (A -> B) and Flemish sources say (B -> C), then it is legitimate for you, as a Wikipedia editor, to link the two together to state the conclusion (A -> C). This is not the case, as it is a clear example of Original Research by synthesis. Likewise, van Houts explicitly calls Gundreda sister of Gerbod II, meaning that her father would be Gerbod I - does that make her grandfather Gerbod 0.5? This is a clear conflict in the published literature. Most importantly you make the bold assertion that "the chart is a feature of the article". Why? What important insight does it provide in understanding William II, Earl of Surrey, to know the identity of his completely obscure great-grandfather? Do you have a single source that names this man with respect to William II, Earl of Surrey? Do you have a source that suggests that his ancestry (other than the Gunnorid descent that you have now removed) played any role in his political standing in the kingdom? I have asked several times why this chart should be included, and you have done no better than a bold assertion that it is there and I have no business taking it out, which doesn't really answer the question at all. Agricolae (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If we can drop the sarcasm, cynicism and straw man arguments it would easier to try to reason with you. Now, I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic about the ordinal number .5 or really do not understand how ordinals are assigned. Assuming the latter, they are typically assigned by later historians. Eleventh century English and Norman sources were not familiar with the Gerbodon family in Flanders but did know of the three siblings, Gundrada, Gerbod and Frederick who appeared in England after the conquest. Flemish and French sources were aware of the prominence of this family in Flanders, but were not recording information on family members in England. So that it would not be unusual for Flemish and French historians to use different ordinal numbers for the generations those sources identified. Gerbod’s given or assigned ordinal, the one referred to by Keats-Rohan, for example, would not necessarily be the same given by Warlop, who calls Gerbod, (Earl of Chester) Gerbod III. Anderson repeats this same ordinal as used by Warlop. Clearly this is not a case of WP:SYNTH because several modern authors have researched both to show the three siblings were the children of Gerbod, the advocate of Saint-Bertin; Anderson and van Houts are two such historians.

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article."

The admonition is clearly directed towards Wikipedia editors, not reliable published authors; especially leading professionals working in their own field. The last sentence states that “A and B, therefore C” is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. Since more than one reliable published sources have made this connection, the argument this is SYNTH is without any merit.

WP:NOR states: “Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.”

Since reliable published sources have identified Gerbod’s and Gundrada’s family as that of Oosterzele-Scheldewindeke, NOR likewise does not apply. There is no valid reason to remove the pedigree section of this article. It’s a feature of the article giving readers an accurate visual representation of the family tree as per reliable published sources. Keats-Rohan's article questioning whether Beatrix was the mother of William is handled in the note you added to his article. A question being raised by one leading historians does not invalidate established sources and is a topic to watch for future developments. It certainly does not negate the entire pedigree and is not reason in and of itself to change the long-established relationship to Beatrix based on charter information. Should this change the name Beatrix can be edited.Bearpatch (talk) 22:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, drop the sarcasm, cynicism and straw man arguments, so only you can make them? Yes, I know how ordinals work, but you said that van Houts provides all this information, and she just can't name Gundred's grandfather, else she wouldn't be calling the Earl Gerbod II. That is all I was getting at with the ordinals. Obviously I know that NOR refers to Wikipedia editors and not the published authors, given that I was forced to explain this to you a few weeks ago. Hammering on it now, is thus nothing but a straw man of your won. Still, it would be original research to say that Gundred is daughter of X if you have no source that explicitly calls Gundred daughter of X. The SYNTH comes in when you say - 'it is all found on other Wikipedia pages' as proof of this table, yet Gundred's page says she is sister of Earl Gerbod, never who her father is. If elsewhere you find that Gerbod is son of another Gerbod, it is SYNTH to put 2 and 2 together and reach a conclusion about who Gundred's father is. And again, no page on Wikipedia names her grandfather. Anyhow, "all of the information is found in sources cited somewhere or other on Wikipedia" doesn't really cut it, in terms of the expected documentation of page content. The pedigree remains undocumented.

But those are the fine details, and this is bigger than the specific details. All you give is another bold assertion that the pedigree is "a feature" of the article. The pedigree is certainly currently a part of the article, but "a feature"? What does that even mean? It looks like just another 'I like it' argument. The pedigree is just indiscriminate information, gratuitous genealogy providing no insight, given just for its own sake. Further, it is also deceptive. In presenting what it does, and not presenting other things, there is a fundamental problem: not a single historian thinks that the fact that William II is the grandson and great-grandson of the Gerbods, lay abbots of St Bertin is worth mentioning - not one. You have decided this is informative. I think it is pointless trivia, and I have the historians on my side. On the other hand, several authors have related that William benefited from being a member of Gunnora's kindred and as kinsman of Helias of St Saens, but the pedigree doesn't show that at all because the form that this pedigree takes does not allow the inexact/speculative nature of the relationship to be presented. So, we present as his 'genealogical context' only the relationships that historians consider irrelevant and not those that they consider important. In so doing, the presentation of the pedigree in this form gives undue weight to his Flemish side, while completely ignoring the context that would provide useful information. Why then is such a deceptive pedigree so important to the page? (Is there some other manner in which the page could convey his genealogical context in a manner that reflects the attention given it by historians?) Agricolae (talk) 23:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Let’s look at your argument that “The pedigree is just indiscriminate information, gratuitous genealogy providing no insight, given just for its own sake.” How is this pedigree different than that of, say, Robert I, Duke of Normandy—specifically the file “Cronological tree william I.svg”? Where is the documentation on this pedigree? Where does it say he’s the grandson of…? Since there is no difference I’d have to assume your comment is directed at pedigrees in general. But why would you consider pedigrees to be indiscriminate information, gratuitous genealogy with no insight? Some of the following examples that I know you’ve seen are: Oneca Sánchez of Pamplona Agatha, wife of Edward the Exile, Ferdinand I of León and Castile, Harold Godwinson, Hugh I, Count of Vermandois, and Edmund FitzAlan, 9th Earl of Arundel. Also see: List of family trees. Again, there is no difference. In each case they are a graphical representation of the information on the page. I would say cited information but for the fact that many are themselves poorly cited, unlike William II de Warenne’s article. And as you can see from Wikipedia’s Family tree they come in several different formats.

One at a time:

• Robert I, Duke of Normandy - excessive, but since Robert contested his elder brother's role, and then his own succession was challenged by his half-brothers, some sort of pedigree might provide insight. Given this, it is easier to simply throw in a pedigree someone already made than to design one to purpose, even though it would be better to do the latter.
• Oneca Sanchez - note that I have been arguing that the whole page should be removed. There is no point in discussing the relevance of a pedigree (which I will delete if the page remains - it isn't even her pedigree) when the whole page should be gone (and why is it just her mother's pedigree, as if her father, the king of Pamplona, was chopped liver?).
• Agatha - this page doesn't have A pedigree. It has individual pedigrees relating to each proposed reconstruction. Given that 1) Agatha is only notable because of the interest she has received from genealogists, 2) these pedigrees are exactly those discussed in the adjacent text, and 3) they are derived directly from the cited references in that text, this is an entirely different situation. I don't know how you could clearly convey the inherently genealogical material being discussed without such pedigrees.
• Ferdinand - were it up to me, I would probably either delete or replace his pedigree, but an argument has been made with regard to reigning monarchs that one of the factors that provides insight into their succession and domestic and international politics is their genealogy. I personally think this is stretching things, but for a monarch, I accept that such an argument can be made. This potential insight drops precipitously as you move down the social ladder.
• Harold - as a king from a novel dynasty, but with genealogical linkage to both one of the previous dynasties and to the premier nobleman in the kingdom, it is perhaps informative as to his milieu. I would lean toward keeping some king of pedigree, but a different form is probably better (i.e. a critical relationship, that his sister was the previous queen, makes no appearance in a pedigree of Harold).
• Hugh - His position as a Capetian prince is well illustrated by the pedigree, but it is probably excessive to the task, and if I cared enough, I would look more closely and see if it shouldn't be deleted.
• Edmund Fitz Alan - completely pointless and uninformative.

You argue that they are summaries of the information on the page, but in each case except for Agatha, the pedigrees go on to show material not relevant to the page. To your more general point though, my general opinion is that there are too many pedigrees on Wikipedia, not too few. Pedigrees, in my opinion, are appropriate only when they are accurate, relevant, well documented, and provide some useful insight into the situation/individual they are used to illustrate that has been mentioned in the published sources (i.e. not just the Wikipedia editor should think find this insightful), or else be a summary pedigree that provides the big picture, such as connecting the Kings of England over time. They are most relevant when used to illustrate inherently genealogical concepts, such as rival branches of a family struggling for priority.

Alternatively, perhaps you have an idea here and the grandfather’s name should be added to the pages with pedigrees. If you’re willing to do some of the others, I’ll do this one—if you feel this is a fair compromise. I already have citations for the information so it is not a bad idea, it just seems that the pedigree did that by itself as it does on numerous other pages. But again, if adding the information would appease you I’d be happy to do it. It is a constructive solution.

No. That is not it at all. In fact, I think there is too much of such formulaic recitation of relatives, just because. There are a lot of pages that begin: "His parents were X and Y. His paternal grandparents were XX and YY. His maternal grandparents were WW and ZZ. Every time I see one of those I rewrite it, usually removing the grandparents entirely (particularly if the father or mother are already linked) unless there is some reason for it to be there (the person succeeded or was raised by his grandparents, or later in life his politics were intertwined with the region from which his mother's family came).

You stated: “not a single historian thinks that the fact that William II is the grandson and great-grandson of the Gerbods, lay abbots of St Bertin is worth mentioning - not one.” While I’d prefer to stay with advocates (as in military advocates which these were) you are partially correct, not one but actually several think this is his maternal ancestry. Please refer to the following:

Elisabeth van Houts, 'The Warenne View of the Past 1066-1203', Anglo-Norman Studies XXVI, Proceedings of the Battle Conference 2003, pp. 116-7

Freda Anderson, "Uxor Mea": The First Wife of the First William of Warenne, Sussex Archaeological Collections, Vol. 130 (Sussex Archaeological Society, 1992), p. 107.

C.P. Lewis, 'The Formation of the Honor of Chester 1066-1100', The Journal of the Chester Archaeological Society, Vol. 71, 1991, pp. 39-40

Elisabeth van Houts, 'Epitaph of Gundrada of Warenne', Nova de Veteribus, Mitel-und Neulateinische Studien fur Paul Gerhard Schmidt, K.G. Saur, Munchen Leipzig, 2004, pp. 374-5

Elisabeth van Houts, 'Frederick, Brother-in-Law of William of Warenne', Anglo-Saxon England, Vol. 28, Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp. 218-220.

E. Warlop, The Flemish Nobility Before 1300, Part II Annexes, Volume 2, G. Desmet-Huysman, Belgium, 1976, p. 1021

David C. Douglas, William the Conqueror, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1964, p. 267

I’m perfectly willing to wait however long it takes you to obtain and research these sources. But upon reading them I think you’ll have to agree they do make her the daughter of Gerbod the advocate.

Her? William II is not a her. Of these that I have seen make any statement about William II. A lot of them talk of Gundrada and her siblings and their parentage, but that isn't the same as stating that William II of Warenne was maternal grandson of Gerbod, advocate of St Bertin. For example, I don't recall van Houts' article on Frederick mentioning William II at all. I would be very much surprised if Warlop has a section dedicated to William II, Earl of Surrey. That Gerbod is father of Gundrada, yes, that information is frequently found. Find me a single source that says "the great-grandfather of William II, Earl of Surrey, was Gerbod, advocate of St. Bertin", or something of the sort. Otherwise, where do you stop with a pedigree being relevant? 4 generations? 10? 30? Each generation is independently documented, but that doesn't mean the whole thing belongs on a given page unless the secondary literature think that specific relationship is noteworthy.

As for Helias of St Saens, perhaps a pedigree on that page would be more appropriate. That’s a second constructive idea that’s come from all this. I would volunteer to do that one as well or you can construct one if you prefer. If you reconsider the worthiness of family trees as an aid to articles, you may see this as an addition to Helias’ page. It may help elevate it from a Stub class page. Give it some thought.

There are two problems with this. First, it is relevant to William II, as he received lands as cousin of Helias when the latter had them confiscated. If there is a single genealogical fact relevant to William II's life beyond his own parents, it is this relationship. Second, how does one construct such a pedigree? How does one show the vague connections that are known to exist, or the more specific hypothesized connections? Which do you show, or do you try to show both? Keats-Rohan, annoyingly, hints at some of the connections but doesn't explicitly connect the dots, even though it is clear what she is hinting at. Does she represent the current status of the field, or just one person's opinion? Wikipedia policies do not handle such issues well, as they encourage creation of pages on people that may only receive significant coverage once or twice a generation. Any new article represents both the most current work on the subject and just one author's opinion on a subject that will probably never receive significant unbiased review by the field.

But if I can sum this up, there are several citations showing Gundrada to be the daughter of Gerbod, advocate of Saint-Bertain. The pedigree is a feature (as in specific part) of the article and your reasons for repeatedly attempting to delete it are shown to be baseless. They don’t violate any of the policies you have cited and are well supported by several published sources. I have compromised for you and have offered you additional compromises. Perhaps we can return to reason regarding this issue.Bearpatch (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not Gundrada's page. It is William II's, and historians don't share the same interest in his maternal grandfather as they do in Gundrada's father. That is why this is gratuitous. You haven't shown anything to be baseless. You just repeat again that it is a 'feature', which is effectively a circular argument - it is an important to the article because . . . it has it's own section in the article? That is no justification whatsoever for it being there. The presence of a pedigree providing information no historian thinks relevant to William II is a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:IINFO. As to whether 'we' should return to reason, I have never left reason. Agricolae (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

All this aside for the present, As a concession I added source citations which, as you will see, overlap proving each level of the pedigree. I can add more if you like but I think I’ve addressed your concern very adequately. I’ve conceded several times now and you’ve yet to offer anything in return. Hopefully this is a constructive compromise that works all around.

So, brushing everything I have to say aside, it is 'fixed' by adding references? You could also follow his descendants all the way down to the present, with citations for each generation. But you shouldn't because no historian has found such genealogy relevant to an account of William II. Same thing applies to his ancestry. The fact that it was unreferenced was just one of the problems, and one of the least of them. And now, since you have made this superficial change that does nothing to address the concerns you saw fit to simply brushed aside, I am to say that it is now OK that the article has a perfectly worthless table showing material no historian thinks relevant to the subject of the article, while not showing the only genealogical connection that receives any comment, since now has citations added to prove that however irrelevant it may be it is not a figment of your imagination. I don't get it. This is not about keeping score, or 'since I made a superficial concession then you should abandon all of your major concerns' arguments. You still haven't given any reason such a table should be in the article about William II, not have you provided a single author who thinks the maternal ancestry of William II is important when talking about William II.

I see you saw this already before I had a chance to answer you here. The CP citation does not support the idea it could have been Beatrix or Emma, it only states Beatrix. Keats-Rohan raised an interesting question and suggested alternate theories, but has not as yet disproved Beatrix. The established sources state Beatrix and for the time being that is what should be used. It may change soon if further research proves it was Emma and not Beatrix. So changing back to Beatrix (for now).Bearpatch (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

On second thought I'll add an alpha-note re: Emma and Keats-Rohan's theory. This should be more than sufficient and reduce any ambiguity in the pedigree.Bearpatch (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No, this is unsatisfactory. These pedigrees, if they are to be included at all (and I have already made my opinion clear on that matter, I hope), either need to be accurate (not just documented by a half-century old reference, but accurately reflecting modern scholarship) or else they need to not show the information. Showing the dated information and then hiding the conflict in a footnote doesn't cut it. As unfortunate and unscholarly as it may be, most people look at the names in a table and don't read the footnotes. The whole reason some give for these tables is that they are for people who can't be bothered to read the text of the article. The solution is not just to present one POV in the table, and to hide any scholarly debate away somewhere at the bottom of the page. (And no, we cannot wait for the next equivalent of CP to come out - it is unlikely there will ever be another compilation like that, given the changes in the economics of publishing, and we shouldn't pretend that historical scholarship has ossified since the 1940s. The only recent scholarly prosopographical review compilation I am aware of that covers William I de Warenne in sufficient genealogical detail to be relevant is Domesday People: Prosopography of persons occurring in English documents, 1066-1166, which unsurprisingly shows William de Warenne (I) Earl of Surrey, to have been son of Ralph (II) de Warenne by Emma. It would be wrong to wish this away, or exile it to where someone looking superficially, the main audience of these tables, doesn't know the controversy exists, simply because this 15-year-old hypothesis isn't in a 60-year-old compilation.) Agricolae (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Modern scholarship is great and very often it advances the genealogy of medieval families. There are two fallacies regarding old vs. new though. An argumentum ad antiquitatem asserts something is better because it is older while an argumentum ad novitatem promotes something new as being better than something old. We really can't subscribe to either. Every source needs to be evaluated on its own merits and as compared to other known quality sources. What you’re saying regarding who looks at tables and pedigrees was partially my point. Not everyone is a scholar and we should be writing articles that reflect that. And I agree with what you said regarding the Complete Peerage. I think it is very unlikely we’ll see anything like it in the future; you gave the reasons why. I’m well aware of Keats-Rohan offering the name Emma, I have a copy of the book. Unfortunately she does not cite any sources and it appears her earlier article included an explanation, albeit theoretical, of who she thought the mother might be. So it’s just the opposite, we can’t wish it was Emma or Beatrix, we can only go with the sources. Domesday people is one of those sources but as we can’t determine where this came from (other than the obvious Rbt of Torigni article) so it can't hold it's own with the sources which say it was Beatrix. Keats-Rohan is a very important author and researcher. One of the things I appreciate most is that she’s very clear when she’s stating fact as opposed to when she’s theorizing. Unfortunately the article, with regards to the de Warenne family, is purely theory with nothing to support it. I hope it serves as a precursor for other research to follow. But if so, they’re a little slow in coming. Bearpatch (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

We know exactly where Emma comes from and we know exactly where Beatrice comes from. Emma as mother comes from a charter that names Emma as wife of Ranulf, and explicitly calls William their son. Beatrice as mother comes from a charter that names (a) Ranulf and his wife Beatrice, another than names (a) Ranulf and his wife Emma, an assumption that the two Ranulfs were the same, a chronological deduction that William could not have been born to Emma after Beatrice died and still be an adult in 1066, and the rejection of a document explicitly stating the contrary as just sloppy in its pronouns. So you would dismiss DP for being based on Keats-Rohan just theorizing that the document means what it says, and embrace CP for being based on Loyd just theorizing that the document was sloppy? It is not like Loyd had evidence Keats-Rohan did not, but you just dismiss Keats-Rohan out of hand as pure theory, but what is Loyd? Theory based on rejecting the one piece of evidence than names William's mother. That, my friend, is a double standard. (And this is exactly why gratuitous genealogy should be avoided. We are forced to address a question that is not directly relevant to William II, just because the completely unnecessary pedigree is there.) Agricolae (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

So you are still following, just not answering. Still haven't seen a single citation in which an author addressing WIlliam II, Earl of Surrey, finds it worth mentioning who his maternal great-grandfather is. Agricolae (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

And I am still waiting for a policy based reason why it is justifiable to have this pedigree here, when nobody writing about William de Warenne, 2nd Earl of Surrey, deems to mention a single grandparent. Agricolae (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Robert of Torigni Revisited

I carefully evaluated Keats-Rohan’s Aspects of Robert of Torigny’s Genealogy Revisited. The first three pages concern William de Warenne and the nature of his relationship to Roger de Mortemer. It also theorizes regarding William’s parentage and what the relationship of William’s mother was to Gunnor. One of Robert of Toringy's statements was that a niece of Gunnor was the mother of William (I) de Warenne and Roger de Mortemer. Orderic confirms they were at least kinsmen. That leaves many possibilities not the least of which is that they could have been related by marriage (affinity begat affinity). Loyd's stating the two were about a generation apart again has several implications most of which were not explored in this article. The author makes a point at the bottom of p. 21, that [the statement] ‘charter evidence names William's father as Rodulf and his mother as Beatrice’ is not true. That is correct, as it is worded. But two charters do give the names of Rodulf de Warenne’s wives. In a charter of the Holy Trinity Abbey c. 1055 it names the benefactor as Rodulf de Warenne and “Beatricis uxoris ejus.” In a second charter dated 1059 also by Rodulf de Warenne is the name of his wife is given as “Emme uxoris ejus” [Calendar of Documents Preserved in France, Vol. I, ed. J. Horace Round, 1899, p. 20]. But it was by implication that Emma could not have been the mother of William because as she married this Rodulf between 1055 and 1059 and the charters were subscribed by William’s elder brother, Rodulf (II) de Warenne. Also, William was of military age by 1054. This is not as crystal clear as we’d like and Norman families who repeatedly used the same given name in two or more generations are always problematic. So the author raises an interesting question as to which Rodulf was which, but the idea there were three Rodulfs instead of the two we know of is a hypothesis, and nowhere accepted as fact (yet). And that it's based partially on a translation of the word 'mother' which is a somewhat troubling problem in that chroniclers were at times lax in differentiating between mother, step-mother, foster mother, godmother, etc. as they were with various forms of brother, sister, uncle, grandfather, etc. So if, as Keats-Rohan speculates, Roger was William’s uncle, it seems Orderic might have used a more specific word than consanguineus. This is especially true in that he was well acquainted with the de Warenne family. Keats-Rohan mentions a second grant of land (which particular lands is not given) was given by a widow named Beatrice sister of Gotmund Rufus de Vascoeuil, son of Tesselin. Keats-Rohan dates this to before "c. 1054-1060." This Beatrice, had sons with the names Ralph and Roger (not exactly unique names in Normandy at the time). And given the late period we're forced to ask what about a son named William? Now, nowhere has she or any sources she’s cited provided any evidence that this Beatrice or Ralph or Roger were of Warenne family. On p. 23, is the author’s theory that these were of the de Warenne family although there is nothing to support this other than the coincidence of common names. She says it points strongly to one interpretation with the benefit of harmonizing with her theory of three Ralphs (Rodulfs). In actuality, the information lends itself to more than one theory (but none that would work with her theory). It also carries with it the problem that, in the charters cited by Round above, that Beatrice, wife of Rodulf de Warenne, could not have been his widow. That alone raises some interesting questions. On p. 24 the theory gets into more difficulty. While the author feels a Beatrice as the niece of Gunnor (agreeing with Torigny), to accept the theory of three Ralphs, we are forced to change the mother of William de Warenne from being a niece of Gunnor to great-niece. Robert of Torigny didn't say great-niece, by the translations he said niece. So not a brother to William de Warenne, but his uncle; and the mother wasn’t a niece of Gunnor but her grandniece. It would seem this statement by Torigny was either partially untrue or completely untrue, but which? It's a question we simply can't answer. This is not to mention the chronology problem of three Ralphs causes. It remains just as likely that the mother of William de Warenne was a niece of Gunnor and that Roger de Mortemer's relationship to William de Warenne, while still unknown, could have just as easily have been through another niece of Gunnor (she had a few). So while extremely interesting and otherwise very well thought out, it's a theory only and does not prove or disprove anything with regards to this family. The article contains valuable information regarding others, but just not the de Warennes. It simply offers one plausible alternative out of many and arguably, other theories may have just as many problems. Genealogically it isn’t usable as-is. Further research may cause this situation to change and if and when it does the information and citations in the articles should change also. But until that time we have the best available evidences which say his mother's name was Beatrix and the article should reflect that. It's a less than perfect situation, but it's what we have. Bearpatch (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason to view Keats-Rohan's theories as inferior to Loyd's. If one were to apply your reasoning to Loyd, he should be accepted until (and only until) further research supports his reconstruction or reveals a viable alternative. That has now happened, so to just take Loyd and ignore Keats-Rohan is unsupportable. And no, it is not what we have. We have many choices: 1) give Loyd's solution only, (with or without explanatory endnote); 2) give Loyd's and Keat-Rohan's solutions, (with or without explanatory endnote); 3) give Keats-Rohan's solution only (with or without explanatory endnote); 4) best of all, give neither - don't force this question into an article that has no need of a pedigree to begin with. Agricolae (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

As you uniquely put it, no, there is no reason to view Keats-Rohan’s theory concerning the connections between William de Warenne and Roger de Mortimer as inferior. I did not disparage this article in the least, although I understand why you would characterize it as such. Very simply, the article is not inferior to any other mentioned source any more than an SUV is inferior to a pickup or vice versa. They differ in their functions and are purpose-built. In a manner of speaking so are these references; certain aspects of the Keats-Rohan article in particular. Genealogical guidelines and standards exist for the very purpose of determining what can and can’t be used as evidence. In addition, one of the first things a researcher learns to recognize when evaluating a source is what its purpose is. Keats-Rohan’s 'Aspects Revisited' article, in the first three pages and as concerning the question of William de Warenne’s mother is clearly theory while others, Loyd included, are well vetted. Calling Loyd’s work theory reveals a serious lack of appreciation for what it actually is, although labeling it as such makes it easier to attack (not to mention the tu quoque fallacy). Keats-Rohan is, albeit ingeniously, theorizing there was a third Rodulf, between the established Rodulf I and Rodulf II. And while it remains possible she’s right, there is a difference between what you think is right and what you can prove. She suggests that Rodulf (I) married a Beatrix de Vascoeuil, the proposed Rodulf (II) married Emma, who were then the parents of Rodulf (III) and William I. But Beatrix de Vascoeuil was a widow, which does not fit with what is known. Nowhere is there an independent source for the name of her husband. Also, and to add to the confusion, a spurious charter of c.1030 gives the names of a Ralph de Warenne and his son Roger. Elisabeth van Houts [Robert of Torigni as Genealogist, p. 228, n. 59] points out that both Clay and Loyd have determined there is no connection between these two and Rodulf (I) de Warenne and Roger de Mortemer. So a third Rodulf is not new and neither is attempting to connect him to Rodulf I de Warenne. The only connection between this widow Beatrix and two of her grown (sometime prior to 1060) children is the coincidence of common names and not even exclusive to one de Warenne family. So unless we’re prepared to engage in indiscriminate name-matching this raises more questions than it answers. Further mention of this article as a source in the context of this article both misrepresents what it is and unnecessarily introduces confusing statements into the article. This is after all an encyclopedic work not a run of the mill, low-end, fantasy genealogy web page. You, or whoever pointed it out to you, had no difficulty recognizing theory in another Keats-Rohan paper, 'Poppa of Bayeux'. Was either paper completely theory? Absolutely not, both are valuable, well-written and otherwise well cited articles. But we both recognized they contained theoretical connections for which no evidence existed at the time they were written. Theories are a valuable part of medieval genealogy and often lead to answers that might not otherwise be found. But, until a theory gain acceptance and corroboration, no matter how brilliantly constructed, it cannot overturn accepted conclusions which are based on actual evidence. You mentioned a charter giving Emma as the mother of Rodulf (II) and William. While you didn’t cite your source the passage you’re referring to is "hic enim invenitur Rodulfus I de Warenna, conjux Beatricis, postea Emmae, ex qua Rodulfum II et Willelmum I filios habuit". This text, however, was appended to the original charter by the editor of the cartulary, a "Monsieur Deville" and was based on a mistake regarding the chronological order of the two charters (both of which were cited previously in Round’s CDF, p. 20) [see The Archaeological Journal Vol. III, London, 1946, p. 10]. So in this tainted charter Emma was presumed to be the mother of Rodulf and William, but as it is not authentic it remains unusable. Keats-Rohan (like most of her contemporaries) was well aware of this and did not cite the charter as evidence of Emma as mother [see p. 21 n. 5]. 'Aspects of Torigny’s Genealogy Revisited' was published nineteen years ago and other than an unsourced mention of the name Emma in her later work, Domesday People, nothing yet has moved this theory towards acceptance. It remains unvetted by the academic community. I wouldn’t rule out the possibility this might be accepted, in whole or in part, at some point in time, if and when more evidence was found. There are still numerous uncatalogued and untranslated Norman documents from this period and Keats-Rohan is a leading prosopographer, researcher and historian. If there is any chance for this to develop into something, it’s in the right hands. Loyd’s 1934 paper 'Origins' contained his conclusion, which numerous other authorities have accepted as sound, based on the two pertinent charters and several other pieces of evidence. Among the other evidences that have come to weigh on this question is Archbishop Anselm’s letter to Henry I cautioning him against the then proposed marriage between one of his [illegitimate] daughters and William II de Warenne. The church’s calculations of the consanguineous relationships fit with William I’s mother (William II’s paternal grandmother) being a niece of Gunnor. It does not fit with Keats-Rohan’s solution that she was a grand-niece of Gunnor. There are numerous authorities that accept Beatrix (whose origins are unknown) as the mother of William and the niece of Gunnor, I’ve given you some and there are more. One of the better concentration of evidence is found on p. 228 of Elisabeth van Houts’ 'Robert of Torigni as Genealogist', as well as in the footnotes. Theories are not facts and it is irresponsible to represent them as such. Beatrice is consistently given by numerous authorities as the name of his mother and at present remains the only responsible solution. Bearpatch (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You act like we 'know' anything about Beatrice, wife of Rodulf, just because of assumptions made by Loyd. You favor Loyd because he was first across the post and had a period when there was no other contending theory. That hardly makes him the paragon of research that any challenger must unseat. It is groundless to suggest that it is 'known' that Beatrice wasn't a widow, when nothing is known about Beatrice other than that she was married to Rodulf at the time of that one charter. You condescend to instruct me that theories and facts are distinct, but what you really seem to mean is that while new theories are not fact, if they have been around for a while you will consider them as such. Loyd made a reconstruction based on evidence, then Keats-Rohan made a different reconstruction based on evidence. Loyd's isn't 'fact' and Keats-Rohan 'theory' just because he did it first. (And while we are talking about condescension, ". . . or whoever pointed it out to you . . ." qualifies.) Likewise, you are making the assumption that two texts derived from the clergy reporting the relationship must be independent of each other. I am not surprised in the least that Anselm reported the same relationship as Robert. Further, it need not bear on the question at all if Emma was the Gunnorid niece (but she can't be because we 'know' that Beatrice wasn't a widow, right?) It is not like either Anselm or Robert name the mother.

Anyhow, this isn't the place for this analysis. It is being forced here because of the unsupported insistence that a pedigree that provides no insight (but opens this can of worms) still must be in this article, just as if this were a "low-end fantasy genealogy web page" and not an encyclopedia. This is not at its heart about Beatrice - that you have now spilled over 10,000 characters in the past several days about just one individual in the pedigree demonstrates exactly why this pedigree and its inherent difficulties shouldn't be here at all. I have asked it before and I ask it yet again: Why do you insist on forcing this controversy onto the page? Agricolae (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see we’re reverting to another ad hominem attack telling me what I think when it’s more than evident you haven’t a clue. I’m forced to repeat myself because it apparently isn’t sinking in, it isn’t about what you or I think, it’s about what we can prove. It is about evidence. For example, the evidence indicates William’s mother (her name actually being secondary) was a niece of Gunnor, I personally think it’s chronologically plausible she could have been a great-niece, which agrees in part with Keats-Rohan’s theory. But what I think and what she theorized both lack supporting evidence. Your theory regarding what I’m thinking is wrong and unsupported by any facts. You see the problem with unsupported theories? And evidence is not saying there’s evidence for something (especially when there isn’t), it’s by offer of proof in the form of source citations allowing others to easily locate the information for themselves. Evidence also needs to be properly analyzed without bias, preconceived ideas, patronage, prejudice, ideology or ego. However, if you don't understand that you can't appreciate what is and what is not evidence or how to use it correctly. The charter you brought up as evidence of Emma being the mother? OK, that actually was evidence albeit it was tainted and as such unusable. The citation you admittedly used to obfuscate the mother of William? It’s unsupported theory the same as those you brought up in the Poppa of Bayeux article. You see where bias can undermines credibility? As I pointed out it was Stapleton who first commented on the name of William’s mother, not Loyd. Round included the authentic charters in correct chronological order in his CDF. Loyd put it together along with other evidences. Two texts derived from the clergy? I assume you mean charters from a Cartulary? If so, in this case it is two different notification documents regarding land transfers written at two different times. So what is it about independent you don't understand? I gave you the citation from Round CDF, p. 20, and right at the top of the page is "Abbey of the Holy Trinity (Mont Ste. Catherine), Rouen" and directly beneath it is "[Cartulary in Archives of the Seine-Inférieure]", footnote 1 identifying this as edited by M. Deville. The charters are numbered 71 and 72. It was all right there for you to see but you didn’t look. You also said you weren’t surprised Anselm reported the same relationship as Robert [of Torigny]. It’s called corroborating evidence and again, you really should have read the letter before commenting. Your complaint was the chart was unnecessary and that it was uncited. Family tree charts are common at Wikipedia, we've covered that in great detail, and per your suggestion I added valid secondary source citations. While the ‘Aspects of Torigny’s Genealogy Revisited’ is an excellent article and can be used to cite numerous facts, the particular information regarding the parentage of William I is, as yet, unsupported theory. If I have to repeat that until it sinks in so be it. Now you have the temerity to criticize me for discussing the issues when you earlier complained I was ignoring you. I’m simply attempting to address your many issues. If you have no more comments then I wouldn’t have anything for you. The most intelligent thing to do here is to agree, if only tacitly, we simply don’t agree and leave it at that.Bearpatch (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

"So what is it about independent that you don't understand?" And I'm the one resorting to ad hominem? From the start your main argument has been of the tone of 'how dare you', and that doesn't seem to have changed. My original complaint was that it was unnecessary, uncited, and not reflecting the state of the field. Obviously, the latter two are secondary to the fact that it is unnecessary. 'Indiscriminate but cited' is not the benchmark. Setting all of your straw men and red herrings and condescension and accusation and ad hominem and indignation aside, after all this, the best defense you can give is that "family tree charts are common to Wikipedia"? Some other pages have them? And based on this argument, your solution is that we reach a tacit agreement whereby you get to decide what the page will look like and I get to accept whatever you decide? That really makes all the discussion worthwhile. You made a point that this is an encyclopedia, not a "low-end fantasy genealogy web page". Well guess what. It isn't any kind of genealogy web page. Please, tell me that this whole discussion hasn't been to avoid having to admit that the only reason you have is 'because I want the chart to be there'. Agricolae (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, you’re injecting some humor into the conversation. Perhaps not intentionally but it also demonstrates that it’s probably pointless to attempt to explain to you what these various fallacies you’ve used are, or that you are deflecting once again. You already admitted you can remove a pedigree simply because you want to. My question is what makes your wants here more important than anyone else’s, or even mine? That is a real question. The larger question is how deleting pedigrees from articles serve readers? You tried technicalities and word play; a mother’s father is not a grandfather because sources didn’t use the specific word 'grandfather'. I somehow doubt you ever had that difficulty distinguishing your own grandfather. You tried to use various WP policies incorrectly. I pointed out your errors. You asked for justification, I gave you justification. You asked for citations, I gave you citations. You consistently deny everything even when it plainly appears on the same page. Your response now is that these are all secondary to the presumptive 'fact' that the pedigree is unnecessary anyway. That is conceding all of the above, no doubt, but you are simply reverting to your original but already rebutted point showing only that your determination here is inversely proportional to any real justification you claim to have. OK, so you want a do-over despite your insensate 10,000 character comment. You realize this will waste more ink on this subject because of your refusal to grasp a few simple concepts. Pedigrees and family trees have been with us since the Egyptians, so there’s nothing new about them. They are a graphical representation of family relationships. They add an element of information to a biography and apparently, I’m not alone in that understanding. I showed you there were hundreds, if not thousands, of family trees and pedigrees at Wikipedia. You responded with plans to tilt at other pedigrees and articles. Perhaps that’s something else to look into. What I didn’t show you is there are numerous family tree templates, help pages, and established pedigree files ready to add to an article. The question becomes if family trees and pedigrees are unnecessary why is the Wikipedia community promoting their use? Why develop templates for the entire community to use? William II de Warenne is a biography. A biographical article provides a person’s life story and is typically organized according to various aspects of their life. Who they were, what they did, how they interacted with others, what they were like, where they came from and who they were related to are all questions we have about notable persons. A pedigree is a feature of article that adds interest for the readers. In this particular case William II had well-known ancestors so a pedigree chart was appropriate. On the other hand adding controversy, minority viewpoints, superfluous and irrelevant details is contrary to the stated goals does not serve the readers. I’m sure you’re not used to anyone questioning your presumed authority, but authority is earned. It can also be lost by repeatedly making bad decisions. I notice elsewhere that you are familiar with good sources and it’s clear you can make sound decisions. So what is this if not sheer stubbornness? Well I can be reestie too. There is nothing to be gained by deleting the chart and if only a couple of hundred readers benefit from the information in the pedigree chart it is well worthwhile. So I repeat, this is for the readers. It is not about you or me. Bearpatch (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Again with the straw men and mischaracterizations, I see. As you yourself point out Wikipedia is not a genealogical web page, it is an encyclopedia. How many pedigrees of this type, showing all of the ancestors of an earl, do you find in the Britannica? The Larousse? In any encyclopedia? Where have you ever seen anyone present the pedigree of William II before? Yes, editors do all kinds of things. They put all kinds of material on pages, without consulting the broader community. They make templates to do this, without consulting the broader community. The fact that editors put a five-generation pedigree into an article on actor Oliver Platt need not imply that the community endorses spewing pedigrees all over the place, or give carte blanche to anyone wanting to attach a pedigree to their favorite celebrity, living or dead. You are right that there are pedigrees all over Wikipedia - many more than there should be. Just because you can throw together a pedigree doesn't mean you should. The criteria for inclusion of material on a Wikipedia page is the degree of coverage in reliable secondary sources, and time and again you have failed to show a single source that gives such a pedigree for William II. There are plenty that say who William's mother and father are, and a few that mention who a distant cousin was, and who a great-...-aunt was. (Contrary to your claim, William I, Gundrada, and Gunnora are his only 'well-known' ancestors. Nobody else is the least bit notable.) What you have utterly failed to provide is a single source that thinks naming the maternal ancestry of William is worth doing. Not one. You seem to think that you can put anything into an article that trips your fancy, and the entire burden is on those who disagree with your taste. As flawed as this view is, I have still explained several times how it's inclusion represents undue weight and indiscriminate information, with no scholar writing of William II seeming to care less. What I get in response is, 'but the irrelevant material is cited', 'but I like it', 'how dare you' or simply 'why not', as if that hadn't already been explained, as well as veiled or entirely unveiled attacks (You know, it is possible to respond without attacking me - you ought to try it some time, but consider something else: to call me intransigent for not giving in to your insistence on having your own way is rather ironic, don't you think?). Agricolae (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)