Talk:William the Conqueror/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Quash

Cambridge English Dictionary - quash: verb) to stop or block something from happening: The Secretary of Defense tried to quash speculation that he was planning to resign following the disastrous military defeat.

quash: verb) to say officially that something, especially an earlier official decision, is no longer to be accepted:

His conviction was quashed in March 1986 after his counsel argued that the police evidence was all lies.

quash: verb) to forcefully stop something that you do not want to happen:

The revolt was swiftly quashed by government troops. The company moved quickly to quash rumours/speculation that it is losing money.

quash: verb) LAW to state officially that something, especially an earlier official decision, is no longer to be accepted:

quash a conviction/decision/order His conviction was quashed in March after a lengthy legal battle.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary - quash: verb 1) to suppress or extinguish summarily and completely (quash a rebellion); verb 2) to nullify especially by judicial action (quash an indictment)

So both sides of the pond, you quash a rebellion. Agricolae (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Rollo, Poppa, William and the origins of Normandy

I edited the page backed it all with countless verifiable sources. And yet, the page keep reverting back to its orginal state. I can't even see the name of the user who keeps reverting it to understand his reasons. How is this not tampering?! (Jules Agathias (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC))

this is an article on William the Conqueror, not on Rollo. There is no need for the level of detail you keep trying to introduce. Nor is the personal webpage of an unknown person named Stephen Baldwin a reliable source. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia before attempting to edit on a featured article. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Ealdgyth that such a focus on Rollo is undue, but just to be clear about the cited web page, it is by Stewart Baldwin, who is a Fellow of the ASG, and is frequently published in scholarly genealogical periodicals, so could represent "an established expert in the field" as described by WP:SELFPUB if for a fundamentally genealogical claim the relevant 'field' is considered to be medieval royal genealogy (the counter argument could also be made, but the point is that this is not just the web page of 'some random guy'). However, as that policy goes on to say, "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources" and that is certainly the situation here, where it is being used to document something mundane, for which numerous published scholarly sources could equally be cited (Predatory kinship comes immediately to mind). For a a Good Article, we shouldn't settle for a 'second-best' self-published web page as source, no matter who the author is. Agricolae (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Undue...

This edit is being edit warred in. It's undue content .. sourced to a tertiary source, and is being spammed across the whole suite of articles by a new editor. I've tried to discuss on their talk page... but it just keeps getting spammed. Please actually read the links I left and learn how to edit properly. --Ealdgyth (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

discuss here, not edit war the information. This is too much detail about an event that happened over a hundred years before the birth of William. We need to stay focused on William, not tiny details of events long before his life. --Ealdgyth (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)