Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/St Scholastica Day riot/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 10 February 2020 [1].

St Scholastica Day riot

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not often a corked wine ends up with three days of rioting, ninety dead and a grudge between town and gown that still lingers, but that's what happened in Oxford in 1355 on the feast day of St Scholastica.

This article has been re-written from a rather slim version to a more complete version we have now. Any and all constructive comments are, as always, most welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

I gave this a fairly thorough going over at PR. Let's see what else I can quibble over.

Two weeks ago I was in Oxford drawing the attention of some of today's students to this article. They were impressed. Apparently even the roughest of drinking disputes no longer lives up to, or down to, this standard: the benchmark for tavern brawls.

  • "An annual penance was imposed on the town: each year, on St Scholastica's Day, the mayor, bailiffs and sixty townspeople were to attend a mass at the University Church of St Mary the Virgin for those killed; the town was also made to pay the university a fine of one penny for each scholar killed" This reads as if the penny a student fine was repeated annually, have I got that correct?
  • "In 1334 Oxford, a town of 5,000 residents" Does that include students and faculty?
  • "many townspeople died or left" Possibly 'many townspeople and students died or left'?
    • Can we hold fire on this change until we see what others say? The problem is the remainder of the sentence "and a quarter of the scholars died": we know the proportion of students, so I think that info should stay in. I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise tho. - SchroCat (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. My point is that the current text suggests that many townsfolk either left or died (or survived), while the student seem only to have died (or survived). One might have thought that more students than townsfolk would have left (Isaac Newton style). I realise that you are constrained by your sources. (In passing, as a non-actionable comment, 25% is a low death rate. I assume because the students tended to be young, fit and well fed.)
  • "a town of 5,000 residents, was the ninth most wealthy in England" Given the footnote, does that mean that Oxford was the ninth most wealthy town? Ie excluding cities, however many there were.
  • "In around 1297 a citizen and a student were killed; the townsfolk responsible for killing the scholar were excommunicated and the town was fined £200 in damages." That really begs the question of what happened to the student[s]?
  • "In 1314 a riot between the two main factions of the university—the Northernmen and the Southernmen—39 students were known to have committed murder or manslaughter" Grammar. ('In a 1314 ... ?)
  • Not an actionable comment, but I do like the idea of students drinking wine from quart pots.
  • The bailiffs seem to have been the chief trouble-makers; is any reason for their antagonism known?
    • Not from the sources, unfortunately. I presume because they were annoyed at the behaviour of the students over a long period, but the sources don't really clarify it enough. - SchroCat (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The bells of both the town and university churches were rung to rally the respective supporters and students locked and barricaded some of the town's gates, to stop an influx of outsiders coming at them from a new direction." Suggest a sentence break at "and".
  • "any student who was found in his rented rooms or who was hiding" I think you mean 'or hiding place'. I assume that not every student who was hiding was killed.
  • " proclaiming in the king's name that "that no man should" - "that "that".
  • "The command from the king to the townsfolk had no effect." What command? None has been mentioned.
  • "The number of students killed in the riots is a matter of disagreement among the sources: Wood thinks it was 40; others put the number of students killed at 63." - "The number of students killed ... the number of students killed".
  • "In the early fifteenth century a series of poems ... was written; ...they could have been written between 1356 and 1357"?

NB, it is my intention to claim points for this review in the WikiCup. - Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid stuff. I look forward to it breaking the servers when it is TFA. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cassianto

[edit]

Marking my spot. CassiantoTalk 16:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background
Dispute

Looks fine

Resolution
  • "After the rioting ended both the university hierarchy and the town burghers surrendered themselves and the rights of their respective entities to the king." -- and the/and the
Aftermath

Looks fine

That's all from me, an interesting little article. CassiantoTalk 17:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SN's corner of the proles' bar

[edit]
Is this another of those FACs that ends up with a cast bigger than Ben Hur  ;)
Will be looking in tomorrow, to make sure you've got the Battle of Hastings in somewhere (as essential background, you know). ——SN54129 20:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re. the sourcing, I tend to agree that a source that old is not the best we should use, but it is clearly not WP:PRIMARY. However, usage of "old" sources is not black/white, and comes with pros and cons. J. J. Alexander, writing in 1937, discussed the use of antiquarian texts by modern historians. He noted that some of these writers often had access to now-lost sources, and, likewise, that some may even have been researching with the scientific method, but on the whole, "the practice of quoting from eighteenth- and early-nineteenth-century sources…is to be deprecated". About 1837 seems to be the cut-off point, although off the top of my head I have no idea why such a bizarrely precise date.
    All things being equal, I support on sourcing, which was my main concern at the peer review, and everything since then has been an improvement. ——SN54129 14:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Tim riley

[edit]

Like Gog, I gave this article a good going-over at PR, and thought it in very good fettle then. Little to add now – a few trivial points. Apologies if I missed them at PR.

  • "1333–1334" – a riot that lasted across two years is quite a riot. 1333 and 1334 seems more likely on the face of it, but the present wording is of course fine if that's what the source says.
  • Dispute
  • "reoccurrence" – the OED allows this word, but I think the more usual "recurrence" might be preferable – more familiar and slightly shorter.
  • Resolution
  • Consistency of ulc: "entities to the king … the King restored"
  • "When each new mayor or sheriff was sworn in, they had to swear" – unless, which seems unlikely – there were female mayors or sheriffs between 1355 and 1825 there is no excuse for this linguistically awkward plural pronoun with singular nouns. This should be "he had to".
  • Aftermath
  • "a lack of cathedral in the town" – looks a bit odd without an indefinite article before "cathedral".

That's my lot. Over to you. I'll look in again with a view to adding my support. Tim riley talk 09:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image

[edit]

Image review

  • Map caption needs editing for grammar
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:St_Scholastica_Day_riot.jpg: as per the tag, the image description should include details of the steps you've taken to attempt to ascertain authorship. Same with File:Ending_the_St_Scholastica_Day_riot.jpg

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Catto should include volume
  • Cobban 1992: link is to a different edition. Same with Cobban 2002, Harding 1993, Horan
  • Be consistent in how volumes are formatted
  • Darby is an edited collection and should be cited as such
  • Be consistent in if/when portions of citations are wikilinked
  • Maxwell Lyte is missing location

Support and comments from Jim

[edit]

Sounds like my alma mater The following are purely suggestions that you are free to ignore if you don't agree or they are too time consuming to be worth the effort Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The students became quarrelsome with the taverner— why not just quarrelled with?
  • had arisen several times previously—over what period? presumably that which is stated shortly after, but not explicit
  • Let me have a look at this. It's probably longer than this, but we've not covered the whole gamut of town and gown conflict in the article, just some high (or low) lights. - SchroCat (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • remainder sought religious sanctuary—any idea where?
  • assay—perhaps a link?
  • The map could do with increased contrast if that's reasonably feasible for you, not a big deal though
That's all Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support and nit-picks from Graham

[edit]

....and I thought I misbehaved when I was an undergraduate. I was a saint compared to this lot. I have three silly nitpicks, which you can ignore if you want.

  • "local residents" do we need "local"? I think it's obvious that they live nearby.
  • "their own Chancellor" I think perhaps "own" is redundant.
  • Perhaps a comma after "third day"?
  • I haven't gone with the comma on similar constructions in the article, except when there is a sub-clause afterwards. I'm happy to see if others pick up on the point if you are? - SchroCat (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for an engaging read. Articles such as these enrich Wikipedia greatly. Graham Beards (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Graham, I am endebted to you, as always, for your thoughts. I've gone with two of the three suggestions and demurred on the third: I hope the explanation for that is clear. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns of Fowler&fowler

[edit]

The article is well written. I like the organization of the sections. I like the ready availability of the sources online. The latter, however, might be related to the issue that concerns me. They are readily available because they are very old, so old that they have become public domain.

The riot is an event of the mid-14th century, first chronicled 300 years later, with less than certain reliability (see here, p232 and here) by Brian Twyne and Anthony Wood (here), the latter's English account apparently borrowing much from the former's Latin. Today, 300 years later still, the riot garners a paragraph or two in histories of the University of Oxford (here, or of the English universities in the middle ages (here). It is a pivotal event no doubt but recorded in history books not so much for the bloody violence as the changes it effected in local law and governance. The core section is Dispute, constituting 40% of the article. It has 49 citations, 25 of which are to books, chronicles, or records, older than 120 years. 13 are to the chronicles of Anthony Wood (died 1695) whose manuscript was edited and published by John Gutch in 1792 (here). Another 13 are to Lawrence Hall's attempt at writing a bestseller on John Wyclif in the 1980s. (See humorous but devastating first paragraph of a scholarly review.)

Concerns:

  • 1. There are altogether too many primary sources. Can you reduce this dependence?
  • 2. There is
    • a) WP:SYNTHESIS. Sample: "Many of the student halls had been plundered or vandalised, except that of [[Merton College, Oxford|Merton College]], whose students had a reputation for quietness and whose hall was made of stone.{{sfn|Hall|1983|p=57}}{{sfn|Cheetham|1971|p=74}} (Hall, 57) = Fortunately Merton College was one of the few collegiate halls in the town of Oxford built entirely of stone, and its stone walls offered protection that some of the other halls lacked. (Cheetham, 74) = Only Merton College, whose clerks had a reputation for quiet behaviour, was left undistrubed.
    • b) WP:OR and SYNTHESIS: Sample: "They were served wine by John de Croydon, who was the tavern's [[vintner]]{{sfn|Jeaffreson|1871|p=227}} or possibly the [[Landlord#Licensed victualler|landlord]],{{sfn|Green|1859|p=41}} although the historian Louis Brewer Hall and the [[antiquarian]] [[Anthony Wood (antiquary)|Anthony Wood]], among others, describe him as a friend of John de Bereford, who was the tavern's owner and the [[mayor of Oxford]].{{sfn|Hall|1983|p=55}}{{sfn|Wood|1792|p=457}}{{sfn|Catto|1984|p=160}}
  • 3. Please fix these. There are similar sentences in the article, their warrants or evidence patched together, sentences that you will find nowhere else in any account of the riot. Please go through the article and fix those as well. I don't have any other concerns. As I've already remarked, the prose flows smoothly. The sourcing and synthesis and OR issues, however, can be dealbreakers. It is better to leave out than to mix and match. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No thanks. There is no OR (all information is from reliable sources) or SYNTHESIS (information is clearly identified as to source). There are no primary sources (excepting the very small number of newspapers used) and if you want the older sources removed we’d end up with a gutted shell of an article that doesn’t inform people of diddly squat. As this article stands it is entirely within the structures of the MoS and the FA criteria. - SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fowler&fowler: I would be interested to know what primary sources you are referring to. As you have recently discovered, it is insufficient to make vague handwaves towards the possibility of an issue; rather, you must demonstrate an issue exists.
    In other news, a one-way interaction ban would be most unfortunate. Cheers, ——SN54129 20:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with SN54129. I am, to my considerable regret, beginning to have the feeling that Fowler&fowler has for some reason got it in for SchroCat and is raising frivolous and unhelpful objections that nobody else has the least sympathy with. I have myself had valuable input from Fowler&fowler, but it's starting to seem like Jekyll and Hyde – constructive in the review of my recent FAC but determinedly obstructive here, as at another of SchroCat's FACs. Tim riley talk 20:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat, Serial Number 54129, and Tim riley: The primary motivation of my review was SandyGeorgia's off-repeated regret that FACs are not being reviewed with the care and rigor they deserve (see here). Furthermore, per Ealdgyth's cautions I cannot respond to imputations of motivation whether in the form of a threat of an interaction ban (which presumes I bear malice or ill-will toward anyone) or comparison with the protagonist of RL Stevenson's less than first-rate work. (Had it been Kidnapped, Tim riley, and had you cast me as David Balfour's evil-hearted Uncle, I would have responded with delight. :)) The primary sources I am referring to are Wood (1792) (written in the 1670s or 80s and the manuscript edited and published in 1792; Wood died in 1695) Jeaffreson (1871), and Green (1859). The article has one core section, "Dispute." Half the citations in that section are to these sources and half of them are to Wood. Old sources, be they 19th century or 17th (published in the 18th) are primary sources, their narration of events is not reliable, their assignment of emphasis or weight is dated, their employed methodologies are dated. I've already given you two links above of modern sources that say the same, using "if the old chronicles can be trusted," or similar expressions. A history article in any encyclopedia, cannot use old sources, especially not 17th-century chronicles written 300 years after an event, except occasionally in a direct quote which complements something in a modern secondary source. As far as I'm aware this is a non-negotiable axiom of encyclopedia writing. Fear of reducing an article to a hollow shell does not allow us to negotiate with that principle. But in keeping with Ealdgyth's other caution in the same note, I will await others' weighing in. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you think "old=primary", you are mistaken. I am sure the other reviewers will also note that by implication you do not think they have conducted their reviews with care and rigor. - SchroCat (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to learn that Fowler&fowler's delusion that old sources are ipso facto primary sources is not due to obstructionism, but it remains a delusion. See the definition of primary sources on the "No original research" policy page, which starts: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." The policy contains helpful supplementary definitions at footnote (c), including this: "Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied or were created at a later date by a participant in the events being studied (as in the case of memoirs). They reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer".
I would like to remind Fowler&fowler that his sympathetic and helpful review of Randall Davidson in its way to FA did not object to my extensive use of the biography by George Bell, although Bell was Davidson's chaplain and secretary and later Dean of Davidson's cathedral, and "a participant or observer" in or of many of the events covered in the biography. None of the sources used in the present article are of this kind. (Indeed, Sarastro comments below that we are not told who the primary sources are that the published accounts draw on.) The generalisation "old = primary" is so clearly contrary to Wikipedia's stated policies that it cannot go unchallenged. As to the more common notion that old = not as good as new sources, I smile when I see this, as new sources invariably draw on the old, either to recycle or dispute them, but that is a different argument, and the source review for this article makes no complaint that 18th- and 19th- century sources have been used. (I am glad about this, as it would be a pity to rule e.g. Gibbon, Hume, Acton et al unacceptable sources as Fowler&fowler would evidently have us do.)
As to standards, I'm not clear what SandyGeorgia's "oft-repeated" views have to do with the matter. We have not seen SandyGeorgia reviewing here or, as far as I recall, at any other FACs I've been involved with as reviewer or nominator. Tim riley talk 09:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
:) Old sources about an even earlier period are not primary sources because they are simply old but because their main value is a primary one for their historical period, as evidence of interpreting history during their period, of writing history, and so forth. (For that same reason, we would not be using Macaulay today other than sparingly, and directly quoting from him, when writing a history of England in a tertiary source.) It is difficult to assess their reliability, as it is difficult to identify the "primary" sources on which they are based. They are also difficult to evaluate for DUE as contemporaneous reviews of literature do not exist. (Old tertiary sources are a little better for use on Wikipedia, in my view, but these did not really exist in the modern sense before the late-19th century.) Tim riley, I made it clear several times in my review of Randall Davidson I was reviewing only for syntax, usage, and coherence of text. Yes, absolutely, we would not be using Gibbon today, for example, for the early Popes, nor indeed Mandell Creighton for the later ones—on Wikipedia that is. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See Sarastro's comment below: your concept of a primary source differs from that of others. There is not an issue with the sources we have here, nor in their use of them., all of which fall within the requirements of the MoS in general and the FA criteria in particular. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro

[edit]

I haven't read the whole of this article, but I did notice the comments of F&F above. Regarding the claims of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR, I'd require rather better examples than the two provided (It would be a little easier to read if F&F didn't include such long quotes with the formatting mark-up and explained concisely instead). But what drew my attention was the claims of using primary sources. F&F appears to have misunderstood what primary sources are: in this article, they would be sources from 1355 or around that time. The oldest source here is from 1792, and even if that author died in 1695, I think it is highly unlikely that he was writing from his memories of having witnessed these events!

However, that doesn't invalidate the concern of using older source material, which is one I've often raised myself. My inclination is that we are OK here though. Older sources are fine if they are being used for indisputable facts that cannot have changed in the intervening period. A quick glance suggests that this is the case here. All analysis that I have seen is sourced to modern historians. Therefore I believe we are fine on this issue: older sources for facts, modern analysis. Obviously, it is best to use modern sources throughout but for articles like this I am conscious that this is not always possible.

But (getting slowly to the point...) this does raise a couple of valid issues. With the qualification that I haven't read this closely, and I might have missed the things I'm about to mention, do we discuss the actual primary sources here? It would be good to know how we know about the riot. Who told us about it? Are those original sources reliable (from the viewpoint of the historian, not WP)? For example, I'm thinking of something like the Green children of Woolpit which has a sources section as part of the article. And I'm also wondering if there is something to be said about the historiography too. It may be useful to know why Wood, Green and company were writing about this when they did, if there is anything that discusses this. Sarastro (talk) 07:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarastro, thanks for your comments. I haven't seen anything that discusses the points in your final paragraph, but let me go back over the sources and see what they say. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sarastro, I have the following that can be added to identify the primary sources. I'm looking into one or two other things that may or may not be enough to add, but these are the key historiographical points:
Cobban identifies two sources of primary documentation, Oxford City Documents, Financial and Judicial, 1258–1665, edited by the historian Thorold Rogers in 1891, and Medieval Archives of the University of Oxford: Vol 1, edited by the historian Rev Herbert Salter in 1920.[1] The historian Jeremy Catto adds Collectanea, edited by Montagu Burrows of the Oxford Historical Society in 1896.[2]
Sources

  1. ^ Cobban 2002, pp. 193.
  2. ^ Catto 1984, p. 167.
I'm not entirely sure of the best place to add this - probably the Aftermath section, I would think, unless you have any better ideas.
The historiography itself isn't covered. From my OR I can see that the older works (pre, say, 1930) covered the more graphic aspects of the riot and then looked at the after effects; the modern works are very perfunctory in dealing with the riot (i.e. they state it happened and may mention it was over bad drink), but are more detailed in looking at the impact. That's why the Dispute section has more from the older sources, while the other sections are from the more modern sources – they reflect the availability of the best sources of information available for the particular sections they deal with. Unfortunately I can't find a review of the literature that cover this. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sarastro1 I agree with some of the things you have said. (See my post above.) We do have some public records, of course, but it is not clear that Twyne and Wood have used these. Wood does identify some sources (see here) but only for names and direct quotes. For the rest, whatever "sources" Wood has used, we are not sure that he has not recorded them so faithfully or unquestioningly as to make his document a primary source (in the usual sense). If no modern source has details of the dispute, then we cannot use 300-year old sources to fill them in. We are not talking about using such a source for names or direct quotes, but for the description of how the event unfolded. That is as important as its interpretation, for the latter is based on the former. I can't recall this very minute, but I read somewhere that Wood had borrowed liberally (and perhaps literally?) from Twyne's Latin version. All in all, the Dispute section is very troublesome for me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler&fowler, just to make it easier for all of us, and so this doesn't all go back to the state of Humphreys review, can you just pop an "oppose" onto your section and the rest of us can carry on regardless. The co-ords can judge your comments accordingly. This will be much less of a waste of time for all concerned. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sarastro1, And if we are going to use Wood, where do we draw the line? He has the names of the killed and wounded. All Irish, he "conceives." That is not much of an more or less a simple interpretation for that time and milieu. Can we mention the names, but not their description as Irish, or can we quote him on that too? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, Sarastro1, you asked for clarification about my synthesis example Here is (a): "Merton College, whose students had a reputation for quietness and whose hall was made of stone." It has been cited to Hall who mentions the stone walls but not quietness, and to Cheetham who mentions the quiet behaviour but not the stone walls. In my quick scan, this seems to be happening in several places. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You need to actually read WP:SYNTH. The opening line states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" (my emphasis). As is rather obvious, we reach or imply no conclusion here. Just because two pieces of information come from two separate sources, it does not mean there is synthesis.
As I have said, I would prefer if you just opposed and left it there. You may think that you are doing someone else's bidding by such reviews, but it is down to the current FAC co-ordinators to judge your comments and your approach, no-one else. This approach certainly did not work last time you tried it, and I suspect it won't work this time, if you are basing it on novel interpretations of SYNTH and PRIMARY that are not aupported by the policies themselves. – SchroCat (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The statement, "Many of the student halls had been plundered or vandalised, except that of Merton College, whose students had a reputation for quietness and whose hall was made of stone." is an inference or conclusion made from the sources. It is not made by either of the two sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Untrue. I am, however, happy to let others, particularly the current FAC co-ordinators judge the matter. - SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to the point: Somewhere above the wall of text that has appeared, SchroCat replied to me. In terms of where to put about the sources, I'd say after the aftermath, in its own section if we can squeeze out enough information. The more specific we can be about who said what in those sources, the better it would be. If there is nothing on historiography, there is nothing on historiography, and we can't include anything unfortunately. Sarastro (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Fowler&fowler: With the greatest respect, this constant back and forth is not helping anyone and it is certainly not establishing if this article meets WP:WIAFA. If you believe it does not meet them, it would help if you simply said so, explain briefly on what grounds, and leave the rest to the coordinators.

You said to me "We do have some public records, of course, but it is not clear that Twyne and Wood have used these" but I do not understand what that has got to do with anything. My question to SchroCat was about the actual literal primary sources that everyone else has used to discuss these events, as I believe we should discuss them in the article. Nor do I understand what you mean by "And if we are going to use Wood, where do we draw the line?" as your example is a non-sequitur. And I still do not agree with you about synthesis, but I'd be hugely appreciative if you did not explain to me here why you are right and I am wrong.

And although I don't want to reply to your every point: "If no modern source has details of the dispute, then we cannot use 300-year old sources to fill them in. We are not talking about using such a source for names or direct quotes, but for the description of how the event unfolded. That is as important as its interpretation, for the latter is based on the former." Once more, I cannot see how your second argument follows from your first. But to take your first argument... that may be something worth raising at WT:FAC. I disagree, I have never seen that argued elsewhere, and I'd need some convincing. It may be worth asking the opinion of others. If you wish to take this further, can we please discuss it away from this FAC? My talk page is nice and quiet. I repeat, please don't argue every point here as it just clutters the page and is not relevant to whether this article meets WIAFA; I am happy to argue elsewhere. Sarastro (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I'm inclined to say we should move most of this back and forth to the talk page where it is out of the way (and I include my above ramblings in that). Sarastro (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Sarastro. I'll do some more digging, but the meat of what I have found so far is above (Both the sources used there, Cobban and Catto, both have footnotes that say something along the lines "For documentation on the riots see: ..." and then the sources I've mentioned (See Footnote 32 as an example). I suspect some of the original sourcing is from documentation held in the Bodlian, but I'll see what I can put together from what there is. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's slightly irritating that they don't make it nice and explicit. I'm used to early medieval writing where they spell out what the sources say, who wrote them and various other mind-numbing details. This merely confirms my prejudices against the later medieval period. You wouldn't have this trouble with Beowulf! They even talk about the scorch marks on the paper when they're talking about Beowulf! Sarastro (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note from a source reviewer (and historian) (who is NOT wearing her coord hat)

[edit]
The definition of primary source in history can actually deviate a bit from that as defined above by Tim (No original research" policy page, which starts: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." The policy contains helpful supplementary definitions at footnote (c), including this: "Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied or were created at a later date by a participant in the events being studied (as in the case of memoirs). They reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer".) In the medieval and classical periods of history (as with some other areas), a primary source can indeed be something that is further in date from the actual event. Medievalists consider something like Bede and classicists consider something like Plutarch, to be primary sources, even though they are often writing about periods long before their time. There are some works from the early 1500 and 1600s that should be considered primary for the medieval period, not secondary even though hundreds of years separate them.

Also - older works need to be used with care - EVEN for plain facts. While there are some exceptions, most Victorian historians do not approach history with the same rigor that more modern historians do. And this also applies to their ability to sift fact from fiction in their sources. Many a Victorian historian took forged documents at face value and built their narratives on something that has later proven to be contentious or downright wrong. (The classic example here is Gundrada de Warenne - where uncritical acceptance of forged documents means that prior to the late 1800s, most folks accepted that she was either the daughter of William the Conqueror or of William's wife Matilda. We know now that this is incorrect - but it STILL pops up all over the place ... and if you aren't familiar with the sources and the historiography - it's very easy to uncritically take a history from the 1840s, say, and repeat a disproven fact.) I strongly strongly strongly suggest that we should not rely on 19th-century sources, even for filling in details, because it is important to dig into WHY more modern historians aren't repeating the information - has it be proven wrong? Or embelished? Or is it some other reason?

Likewise, it's a bad idea to use newspaper articles to source a history article on wikipedia - frankly, the ability of newspaper writers to get history wrong is boundless. The fact that wiki policy allows us to use 100-300 year old sources or newspaper articles doesn't mean we should. We're trying to write the most accurate and up to date articles we can - which should be built on modern scholarship. If the fact that you can only flesh out an event by resorting to those sorts of sources, then things are not good.

I'll also point out that F&F pointed out that one at least of the book sources has at least one very bad review in a schoarly journal - THAT needs to be investigated also - is that one review an outlier? Or do most scholarly reviews pan the work - if that latter, then we again, should not be using a work for a historical subject that is considered bad scholarship by historians. Wycliff is a VERY well-studied subject in history - surely there is a better biography of him to use?

My point here is that ... again... we cannot just uncritically say "policy allows us to do this" and think it's fine. It isn't nearly as cut and dried as that ... and we're doing a disservice to our readers if we just do the minimum without actually trying to understand that the best practices would be to avoid usage of some sources even if policy on wikipedia seems to allow them. We're supposed to be writing the best we can... and that doesn't always mean including everything guidelines and policy might allow. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is more of an essay than a note and belongs on the Talk Page not here. While being a useful commentary, it is most unfair on the nominator to use his FACs as test cases.Graham Beards (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let the other coords decide whether it belongs here or on the talk page. But, I don't think it's at all unfair to rebutt some arguments made above from a different perspective. If I was going to use this FAC as a test case, I'd have opposed, which you'll note I haven't done. And I don't intend to. I do, however, think that folks are too busy quoting the letter of policy to look at the bigger picture of trying to make the best article possible. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are not a coordinator for this FAC; you have recused. I still maintain that is not the venue. Graham Beards (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One poor review does not preclude the use of the source. "Reviewed Work: The Perilous Vision of John Wyclif, (Nelson-Hall, Chicago, 1983) by Louis Brewer Hall"; Review by: Lawrence S. Snell. Teaching History (JSTOR 43256137) is less negative. - SchroCat (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Teaching History is a journal for sixth-form teaching (see here). The JSTOR review you cite ends with, "especially recommended for sixth-form libraries." A more relevant review, in addition to the critical one I have cited earlier, is in Theology Today (subscription only; see here), which says, "This is a well-told, popular-level account of the life and times of a maverick theologian ... Hall, an expert in medieval English poetry and drama, has grappled with the difficulties in Wyclif biography and has chosen to harmonize his sketchy and discrepant sources in a way that seems somewhat more straightforward and circumstantial than the hard data actually quite allow. ... Professor Hall is an ardent admirer, and presents Wyclif as a hero—stopping short, however, of a probing analysis of the philosophical and theological issues ... This, then, is not a book for experts. ... Neither is it a book for nitpickers: the agglomerate noun for sheep is not “band” (pp. 17, 18, 165); “Oxfordians” is not what Oxonians call themselves (pp. 31, 51); Bury St. Edmunds is not “north” of London, but northeast (p. 181); “the slaughter of the innocents” was not in Nazareth (p. 204); Cambridge was not a “major city” (p. 237)." The main point is that the writing style of the book, the dwelling on silly anecdotes (such as the young Oxford girls disappearing upstairs to console the pub's clients and so forth) does not bespeak overall reliability. It has to be used judiciously. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FAC coordinators: I am, as you know, always happy to make improvements to articles based on constructive suggestions that are related to the relevant guidelines and policies, but I am at a loss here. There are comments above that are unclear and contrary to accepted policies and practices.
As nominator and primary editor of this article, I’m at a loss as to how to progress and to which comments or sentiments I should address. If you could clarify which (if any) comments need addressing, I’ll consider them. Thanks, if you are able to assist. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My suggestion remains that old sources—including 19th-century sources, much less 17th-century manuscripts (Wood) published in the 18th—not be used in the article except occasionally. Also, as I have pointed out, Hall is melodramatic, to be used judiciously, not for example for the first use of "havoc," in English. There are some issues of synthesis. See also Sarastro1's talk page. You are better off following the modern sources, expanding the Background and Aftermath and reducing the Dispute. Your article will become a good piece of work. I certainly will be happy to support it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Ian Rose and Laser brain The nominator collapsed the comments section and withdrew the nomination two days ago, as stated by him above; in which case, the nomination should be archived. He cannot then leave us, the reviewers, in the dark, and, while not letting us comment further, also suggest that there is no oppose and that it is for the non-recused coordinators to "close" this, as if to suggest that he has not withdrawn the nomination. I have serious concerns about the ill-use of very old sources in the article; one, in particular, is from the 17th century. Please clarify if the article has been withdrawn from FAC or not. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FAC coordinators: Please withdraw this. For the second THIRD time in a row at FAC my enjoyment levels are too low and my stress levels too high because of a second rate reviewer who does not understand how to conduct a review and appears to have some petty and stupid grudge for Christ knows what reason. It may be some time before I bother with FAs again, if at all. - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As this is still awaiting closure I'll add a brief note for the record. There are six supports to this article and no opposes, yet I am still requesting withdrawal.

Sourcing: The older works (pre, say, 1930) cover the more graphic aspects of the riot and then looked at the after effects; the modern works are very perfunctory in dealing with the riot, but are more detailed in looking at the impact. For each part of the article the most recent and reliable sources dominate where possible. It should be noted that at no point do any of the modern sources contradict the older ones on the points that are used in this article. Despite the implication from a recent posting at the FAC talk page from someone who has no clue about my approach to article development, the majority of the sourcing was done during visits to the British Library.

Reviewer conduct: Sadly this article deserved a lot better than a troll bludgeoning comments across several sections and bringing a toxic battlefield attitude to this review. I note that the pattern continues elsewhere. This was the third review on the trot when this aggressive pushing of personal preference causes a disturbance; they were asked by Ealdgyth at the last review not to do this and by Sarastro (on their talk page) in relation to this one, all to no avail. You are able to judge on all three reviews where the problem lies: interactions with all other reviewers, over comments positive and negative, show the good faith in which those contributions were made by both parties. Only in one area did they break down.

I still request this to be withdrawn, and I will still be declining to participate in all aspects of FA-land for the foreseeable future. To clarify: this is not a threat to say 'pass this or I won't write FAs anymore': I really do not care about the FA process. All enjoyment has been sucked out of this increasingly politicised process with the second-rate interventions of a very small number of people intent on moulding FA into something it is not and was never meant to be.

Ian and Andy, as you are the only non-recused co-ords here, it will have to be you that closes this. Thanks – SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/St_Scholastica_Day_riot/archive1&oldid=940079552"