Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William de Corbeil/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 promoted by Karanacs 15:14, 31 August 2010 [1].

William de Corbeil

[edit]

William de Corbeil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 12:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC) & User:Malleus Fatuorum[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it's complete (baring Wehwalt finding some obscure newspaper article!) and doesn't have any fair use images. Oh, and it's also a comprehensive look at one of the more obscure but interesting archbishops of England. He was a compromise candidate, not really a monk but not a fully "normal" clergyman either. He built the tower at Rochester Castle, and supervised the finishing of Canterbury Cathedral. He spent most of his episcopate in a dispute with the archbishop of York and thus spent all his time running back and forth to Rome. It's been copyedited quite extensively by Malleus, who is definitely a co-nom on this. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • No citations to Hollister, C. W. (1975). "The Anglo-Norman Succession Debate of 1126". Transfer to Further reading
  • Use of "et al" for multiple authorships should be consistent through the references list
  • Refs 5 and 6 could be combined
  • Ref 15 refers to English Church rather than The English Church
  • I am not sure why refs 17 and 18 are presented in this way. I use this form when the quotation originates from another published source and is being quoted second-hand. That does not seem to be the case here.
    • acutally it's being quoted second hand AND as the author of the main work translated it. I did not look it up in the original quotation, but it's not the author of the overarching work saying this so I feel this is a good compromise. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise all sources seem OK Brianboulton (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All issues resolved Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport:

Could they be mentioned before here, as their dismissal is their first mention. If there is nothing really to say, it's not a problem. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, happy to support. Very interesting, and I think the recent changes make one or two things a little clearer. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deacon of Pndapetzim's comments

Good work as always, but I'm more concerned about this article that I've been about many of your other fine nominations:

  • A compromise between York and Canterbury was negotiated, which involved Canterbury allowing York the supervision of the dioceses of Bangor, Chester, and St Aspah in return for Thurstan's verbal submission and the written submission of his successors
  • St Asaph didn't exist at this point. The actual terms proposed were "Chester, Bangor and another which lies between these two, but is now vacant, owing to the desolation of the country and the rudeness of its inhabitants" (quoted in Charles Johnson, Hugh the CHanter, pp. 206 (text), 207 (translation) ).
  • ODNB (the source for this) says "Canterbury should surrender to York the bishoprics of Chester, Bangor, and the unnamed diocese of St Asaph..." I could add in "unnamed" or "future" in front of St Asaph, but Barlow definitely is mentioning St Asaph here (I think we've discussed my opinion of Barlow before...) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • and in response he refused to consecrate William; the ceremony was performed instead by William's own suffragan bishops on 18 February 1123.
  • Interesting. This is what the ODNB says too. Hugh the Chanter appears to indicate that that Thurstan wanted to consecrate William, but was prevented from doing so by the king.
  • Yeah, I know this is a minefield as far as the primary sources. Unfortunately, Hugh is a primary source here, and we should be using secondaries mostly, especially for contentious issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section in the primacy dispute doesn't really provide enough background material. Some is essential. Urban II, Paschal, Gelasius and Calixtus (definitively in 1120) were all hostile to it, and chided the English kings and archbishops of Canterbury for insisting on it, as well as Archbishop Thomas for making a submission ... they claimed it was against the rules set out by Gregory the Great, and that it was an infringement of the Roman see's rights. The section as it stands is confusing/confused. it was indicating that the dispute was new and that the Canterbury bishops had a fair chance of persuading the papacy.
  • I have some problems with the monk versus non-monk section. The message is a little over-stated, and doesn't sit well with Bartlett p. 299, a source used. Canterbury was a monastic bishopric, and Anselm, his predecessor but one, was a monk, and William himself was virtually a monk, being a canon under the Augustian rule (regula, hence "regular canon").
  • for this section, I'm relying on Bethell, who is probably the reason you feel the message is a bit overstated. Bethell's backstopped a bit by Knowles also. I've taken their emphasis as a bit more important than Bartlett, who is writing a "general overview" work and in any case is a 13th century specialist, rather than a 12th. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the "Archiepiscopal activities" (now called) is comprehensive. Castle at Rochester is covered in depth, church councils somewhat ... but reading this article you'd think little else happened. A few other things are mentioned, but the organization is not what it could be [I tried to fix this a bit]. There is more stuff in the ODNB #Provincial and diocesan section.
  • Any suggestions for sources besides the ODNB? I'll reread the ODNB and some of the others and see what I can turn up. I'll admit that the core of William was written a while ago, and is one of my "earlier" articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I know this is a minefield as far as the primary sources. Unfortunately, Hugh is a primary source here, and we should be using secondaries mostly, especially for contentious issues.
  • Indeed, though it is an indication that the section might need balancing/that there might be other stuff out there! :)
  • I've taken their emphasis as a bit more important than Bartlett, who is writing a "general overview" work and in any case is a 13th century specialist, rather than a 12th
  • I wouldn't say Bartlett is more 13th than 12th century. The centre of graity of his work is probably mid-1100s. If you were waying Bethell against Bartlett, the fact that Bethell was writing in the 60s and Bartlett is writing now should be heavier.
  • I'm hoping to cover most of the incidental details in Canterbury–York dispute which is still very much a work in progress. This will make a lot of the bios of the folks invovled a bit less ... wordy. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • My point is more that the article itself needs to make the context clear ... as it gives the wrong impression about the nature of the dispute.
  • Any suggestions for sources besides the ODNB
I think I've addressed most of this (although honestly, some of it's pretty incidental details that may bog readers down a bit). As for Hugh's claim that Thurstan orginally was willing to consecrate William - I've checked Bartlett, HOllister and Green (her bio of Henry I) and none of them mention this particular curlicue on the whole Canterbury-York mess, so I think I'll leave that particular historian's debate to the Canterbury-York dispute article itself, where we can go into minute detail of why exactly Hugh might have said that and it might be a bit biased. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think such details are incidental. This is an FA candidate on what to most people is a fairly obscure topic. This stuff has to be right. While the sources being used are in general reliable sources, I'm not sure they are the most focused for every aspect of this article. Will you also be able to consult the Nicholl Thurstan book shortly, or is it totally unfindable? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hasn't turned up yet. Granted, I'm kinda swamped in real life so haven't looked. You know you're always welcome to add... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (a minor thing):

  • Were the party from Merton Priory sent to St Martin's monks or cannons?

Ucucha 21:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • ARGH! Canons, canons... (mutters) The habit of canons being from priories is ... annoying. Fixed. Also removed a duplication of that information later in the article.. (mutters). Ealdgyth - Talk 21:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cannons—I must learn to read what I write before I save. He might have been more successful with cannons than he was with canons, though. Thanks for the fix. (I'll hold off supporting until Deacon's issues are dealt with.) Ucucha 22:58, 29 August 2010 (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/William_de_Corbeil/archive1&oldid=382176877"