Talk:Stigand

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments:

1. Other than the Pope image, the other three images require better captions so that they put the image itself into context. For example, with the scene from the book, what period is it from? What am I looking at? You might want to cut down a bit on the prose a bit and limit it to just describing the picture, rather than its direct relation to the article. For example, in the second picture, instead of "Stigand was chief adviser to Emma of Normandy, seated here with her royal sons Harthacanute and Edward the Confessor" it would be more helpful to have "Emma of Normandy, seated with sons Harthacanute and Edward the Confessor, in this X from year Y" or something along those lines. If you need me to clarify further, please ask.

 Done Reworded captions. If they need further clarification, please let me know. Ealdgyth | Talk 22:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

1. "Stigand is first mentioned in 1020." (Early life) needs to be reworded to be more encyclopedic. For example, it might be better to say "The first reference of Stigand in "X type of literature" or in "X type of history" etc. etc. came in 1020.

 Done Reworked. Let me know if it needs further tweaking. I assumed you just meant the first sentence needed more encyclopedic treatment, not the whole paragraph. Ealdgyth | Talk 22:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

1. "almost assuredly on Emma's advice." (Bishop of Elmham and Winchester). This needs a citation, although if I've missed it, please just point it out. It seems like a commonsense conjecture, but due to Wikipedia's policy against original research, it will require a citation.

 Done The sentence has been re-united with it's source, that had gone wandering like a lost sheep and is now found. Ealdgyth | Talk 22:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

1. "In 1052 the archbishop of Canterbury, Robert of Jumieges, having been outlawed and driven from England, Stigand was appointed to the archbishopric." (Archbishop of Canterbury) is not a complete sentence.

 Done Rewrote, and made into two sentences, I hope. If they aren't, I think I need to review sentence diagrams. Ealdgyth | Talk 22:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

1. "but it is now probable that this ceremony was performed by Aldred, Archbishop of York due to the controversy about Stigand's position." (Final years and legacy) I think you meant to say something along the lines of recent research or thought suggesting that it was more probable, but as it currently stands, this makes no sense, as there mere passing of time doesn't make a past event more or less probable of having happening.

 Done You guessed right on the intent, and hopefully this rewrite addresses that point in a more clear manner now. Ealdgyth | Talk 22:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"He had been an avaricious man and a great pluralist, holding the bishopric of Winchester after he became archbishop of Canterbury, in addition to several abbeys." (Final years and legacy) This is a very POV sentence and requires a citation to support it.

 Done Cited. Ealdgyth | Talk 22:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

To allow for these changes to be made, I am putting the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 21:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, they shouldn't be difficult to work on. I'll have time later tonight to get to them. Thanks for the great suggestions! Also thanks for tweaking small things yourself, it's appreciated. Ealdgyth | Talk 21:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That should be it. Anything else? Ealdgyth | Talk 22:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it looks good now! One suggestion I might have is that you should split the reference section into two columns, rather than one long list, but this is more stylistic than anything and certainly not a necessity for a GA pass, which I am going to do now. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Cheers, CP 17:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well done, everybody! -- SECisek 19:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Stigand is mentioned in the mouse's tale in "Alice in Wonderland"... AnonMoos (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Second look from Peer Review

As requested, here is my second look at the article based on my earlier peer review and changes made to it since.

• I know the lead needs to be redone, but assuming it is something like it is now, only expanded, the sentence "At the time of the death of Edward the Confessor (reigned 1042–1066),[1] only the royal estates and the estates of Harold had been larger and wealthier than those held by Stigand." really needs to be reworked - also clarify who Harold was (hint he gets an arrow in the eye being hastings hasty)
  • Hey, the last I read opinion is divided on whether he really got an arrow in the eye or not. I suppose I could go into that... that'd fill out the article! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Fleshed out. Harold is explained somewhat...Ealdgyth - Talk 19:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• The data all seems to be here and the writing is OK to good. I am glad there will be a copyedit since one of the requirements for FAC is professional writing. I think the the article needs some work. If you talk about early life, most peoiple start with when the subject was born. Since this is unknown, I would start with that fact first, followed by the first mention of him in the record. Organizationally, I would rewrite the first paragraph of early life to be something like the following:

The date of Stigand's birth is not known,[6] but he first appears in the historical record in 1020 as a royal chaplain to King Canute of England (reigned 1016–1035). Stigand was appointed to Canute's church at Ashingdon, or Assandun, that honoured the souls of those killed in Canute's rise to power in 1016.[2][3][4] Stigand's name was Norwegian and he was born in East Anglia, possibly in Norwich,[5] and was of mixed English and Scandinavian ancestry.[2] The family itself seems to have been prosperous, and the mixed nature of its ancestry is shown by the fact that Stigand's name was Norse but his brother Æthelmaer's was English. His brother was also a cleric and later succeeded Stigand as bishop of Elmham,[7] while his sister held land in Norwich,[8] but her name is unrecorded.[9]

Looks good to me. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• See is a fairly specialized word and it might be useful to explain it the first time it is used (in the lead currently)
  • explained as "bishopric" .. think that's enough? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, I had the word bishopric typed here and it looked wrong so I took it back out ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Since the see of Elmham has moved since Stigand's death, I would add a footnote explaining this
  • Already done, I believe. Footnote 14. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
    • D'Oh! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Watch tense "he was appointed to Canute's church" but "Stigand witnesses occasional charters"
  • fixed Ealdgyth - Talk 19:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Change Because little is known of Stigand's activities before his appointment as a bishop, making it [is] difficult to determine who[m] he owed his position to.[9]
  • fixed Ealdgyth - Talk 19:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• I would link simony, not everyone knows what it is (or reads of Simon Magus)
  • Linked at first use, as well as explained. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I swaer I read this, sorry Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Watch overlinking - William I is linked twice in the Norman Conquest section alone.
  • Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• It looks pretty good to me, but it is hard to tell for sure because it needs a copyedit. The facts all seem to be there, well referenced, and the overall organization is good. I think most things that might be unclear have been explained briefly, though it might be useful to mention a pallium is a garment soemwhere.
  • A pallium isn't really a garment, it's a ... thing. Little piece of cloth, basically. It's worn, but if you just wore a pallium you'd get in trouble for public nudity. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Explained it's basically a cloth band. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks - I thought it was more like a robe (alb). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hope this helps, let me know if you want me to look at it again when the copyedits and lead expansion are done. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks muchly. I know my writing is only "good" and not up to FA standards, which i why I pester Karanacs or Mike Christie or Brian or Malleus for copyedits! I just like to get the obvious stuff out of the way before i pester them. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Queries

Robert of Jumieges- was he outlawed or did he just vacate the premises before Godwin got ahold of him? Ning ning (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

He ran for it. It's detailed in his own article, if you wanna look at that. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, 'cos he's outlawed in this article. Ning ning (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

All's clear now. Maybe reverse the order to indicate he ran and was then outlawed? Ning ning (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. (grins) Wouldn't be the first time that things got juggled a bit in the trends of editing and copyediting. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I like this article a lot - good work! Two comments:

• "Some historians state that he supported Earl Godwin in his quarrel with Edward the Confessor in 1051–1052,<ref name=Barlow123>Barlow ''Edward the Confessor'' p. 123</ref><ref name=Mason65>Mason ''House of Godwine'' p. 65</ref> others hold that he was neutral." - would it be wise to attribute the sources here?

Done! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• " held both Winchester and Canterbury, he was definitely a pluralist.<ref name=Huscroft62/> It has been suggested that Edward refused to remove Stigand because this would have undermined the royal prerogative to appoint bishops and archbishops without papal input.<ref name=Mason78/>" - suggested by whom? and does this mean removed from Winchester or from Canterbury or both?

Clarified who, and it's unclear if they would have taken both away or just Canterbury. Strictly speaking, the whole subject was under debate at the time so it's not clear exactly what was uncanonical and what was okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise. I'll do a quick check to make sure your changes haven't changed anything vital (I don't expect it to, but you never know) and take care of these issues. Probably better worry about Commons images too, since Awa's checking Commons! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully I didn't mess things up too much. Tried to clarify etc. where it might be misunderstood. You mentioned something about a new ref system to take the lengthy notes out of the footnotes? Feel up to explaining it to me in short simple words? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Question -

• Is there a reason in the lead we're using ".. in holding two sees (Winchester and Canterbury)..." instead of "...in holding two sees, Winchester and Canterbury,..."? I try to avoid parenthetical statements like the plague. And shouldn't it be a ; between concurrently and he was finally deposed? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reworded it to remove the parentheses; don't know about the semi-colon. Editing the sentence to remove the parentheses, the editor couldn't decide whether to add a semi-colon. Ning ning (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There should not be a semicolon after "concurrently" because the first part of the sentence, up to and including the word "concurrently", does not contain a main verb. The semicolon separates two sub-sentences that each contain a main verb; the one in this sentence is an example. 91.105.21.151 (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Trivial question-

• He was imprisoned, but presumably not in a prison? If the story about the story about Edith's visit is correct it sounds a bit sarcastic to tell someone who's imprisoned that they should take better care of themselves. Maybe he was under house arrest in Godbegot House. Ning ning (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No prisons as we know them at this point. Where he was held is in the article, but the exact conditions aren't known. (I've read that he was kept in chains, but don't know of any basis for this statement.) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-trivial question-

• "Between his holding of two sees and the appointment of his men to other sees in the southeast of England, Stigand was an important figure in defending the coastline against invasion." Don't like the between; also how did he defend the coastline? Ning ning (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Because he held large chunks of the land in SE England, he controlled of most of the coastline. He would have been in charge of the first responses to invasion. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect link

The link in note 4 to Margaret of England should be to Saint Margaret of Scotland, but I cannot find how to correct it.Dudleymiles (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! I'm not sure who linked those. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It is still wrong! The correct person is St Margaret of Scotland, not England.Dudleymiles (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

query

The article pluralism in the first paragraph appears to describe a different concept than the one meant by Pluralism in the article. Maybe someone with more knowlege than me could check it out.

Thanks for catching that! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible source...

here Ealdgyth - Talk 01:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Page 465 of Anglo-Saxon England ...

Says "The archbishop's (Robert of Jumieges) place was immmediately filled by Stigand, bishop of Winchester, a close associate of Earl Godwine. This arbitrary supersession of a lawfully constitued archbishop ignored canonical principles with high churchmen abroad regarded as fundamental, and it was never forgiven by the reforming party in the Roman curia. Archbishop Robert at once appealed to Pole Leo IX, by whom Stigand was summoned to Rome, condemned in absence, and exommunicated. The process was repeated by Leo's successors Victor II and Stephen IX. Shortly after the death of Stephen IX, Stigand obtained the pallium from Benedict X, who held the papacy uneasily from April 1058 until Januar 1059. But the recognition by Benedict, whose own position was regarded as uncanonical by all strict churchmen, brought no permanent advantage to Stigand. He was excommunicated again by Nicholas II, with whose election the reforming party returned to power at Rome, and by Alexander II, whose support of William of Normandy in 1066 was partly determined by the hope of securing Stigand's deposition." Blair and Blair in Introduction to Anglo-Saxon England p. 108 say "The vacant archbishopric was given to Stigand, but save for one short period his tenure of it was not recognized either by Rome or by he leading English churchmen." Barlow English Church 1000-1066 states of Stigand "His position was therefore irregular." Ealdgyth - Talk 13:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

On a minor point, is "Blair and Blair" a typo? My copy only mentions one Blair. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Not sure what I was thinking there.. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Tapestry edits ...

Douglas is over 50 years old. The biographies by Rex and Walker of Harold are quite clear that there is some ambiguity whether Stigand is actually crowning Harold or if he is just there. He's standing beside the king - who is already crowned. It is also way too much detail for this article - we cover the fact that the tapestry shows him there - we do not need to detail every placement of the people. We're an encyclopedia, not a scholarly monograph discussing this issue. It's just common courtesy to actually conform the citations to the style in use in the article - which you've edit warred back in. You've also mangled the whole section - you've got "The scene depicted is immediately after the coronation and shows Stigand (whose name is prominently embroidered STIGANT) standing at the left-hand of King Harold, seated on a throne, wearing a crown and holding royal regalia. Thus Stigand is not depicted actually in the act of placing the crown on Harold's head." sourced to Rex Harold p. 151 - who says nothing at all close to what you've got him saying about the Tapestry. You've also ... ignored the whole BRD concept - you were bold and added, I reverted it and instead of discussing - you've edit warred inaccuracies back in. Douglas' Historical Documents isn't the best source both because of its age and because of what it is - it's discussing the various primary sources. Douglas' later work on William the Conqueror is not nearly so emphatic on Stigand being the actual officiant - he merely states the Tapestry depicts Stigand performing some act in connection with Harold's accension - not as the actual officiant. (And Douglas specifically refers to his earlier work as part of his source for this - so he's obviously changed his mind somewhat.). Grape's work on the Tapestry discusses this scene and never quite comes down on the side that it depicts Stigand actually presiding at the coronation - he makes it clear that it is meant to show Stigand involved with the coronation, but that it cannot be said to depict the actual coronation. If we include all this detail on the Tapestry - we have to balance it by more detail about the opposing side's arguements - and then we're way into undue territory. Way too much weight and detail assigned to something that was covered before this edit - we summarize as an encyclopedia. It's worth noting that Rumble's recent article on Stigand mentions this scene in the Tapestry just in a footnote - and doesn't claim that Stigand was the officiant at the coronation. His words are ""Archibishop Stigand is dpicted on the Bayeux Tapestry, standing with arms outstretched in acclamation, in front and on the left of the enthroned King Harold." (This is from 2012). Musset's work on the Tapestry discusses this scene and concludes that Stigand's "presence in this scene suggest that he is performing some king of liturgical function: although it does not seem to be an actual coronation, it is certainly not far removed from one" and then goes on to state that he feels it's probably one of the ceremonial crown-wearings that William later was famous for. So - no, Douglas' EHD is no longer the last word - and all this discussion of what the scene means would be better placed at the article on the Tapestry - not here, where we briefly touch on it and then continue on with discussing Stigand's biography. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Ealdgyth asked me to take a look at this discussion, since I've worked a fair bit on Anglo-Saxon articles. Ealdgyth's points seem sound to me -- re BRD, re Douglas, and re the other sources. Please discuss here on the talk page if necessary, but I don't think the edit should be made again without discussion. With regard to the picture, I think it's less harmful but the caption is too detailed. How about a crop of the picture to just show Stigand, and simply state that it's the image of him from the Bayeux Tapestry? I think most readers would find that interesting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)