Talk:William the Conqueror/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Length of Debate

The article says, "His reign, which brought Norman-French culture to England, had an impact on the subsequent course of England in the Middle Ages. The details of that impact and the extent of the changes have been debated by scholars for over a century."

I am not a historian but I find it inconceivable that this effect was not debated by scholars before 1900. I think the text is probably intended to read, "...debated by scholars for over nine centuries", but I have no source. Even if you change it to, "...are much debated by scholars" you run into issues of weasel words. 87.113.110.55 (talk) 05:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think if you look into the history of historians, you find that the was very little debate over many historical facts. History was passed on often with little real analysis. Historians such as William Stubbs were accused of accepting the reports of medieval chronicles without considering the political bias of the churchman who penned them. This bias is especially apparent with William Rufas, possibly the Church's greatest enemy within the ranks of English monarach due to his opposition to Gregorian reform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.82.38 (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Citation style...

As it's really kinda a mish-mash right now, and I'm planning on beginning some serious work on the article - does anyone object if I change the citation style to one I'm comfortable with? It can be seen in action on Urse d'Abetot or Stigand (to stick to articles around this time period...) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No objection at all, for obvious reasons I don't think this is one of those situations where you have to worry about changing a style. Nev1 (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I figured I should at least observe the proprieties... I am, scarily enough, the largest contributor to this article by far - at least according to this. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I support your proposed change as well. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

On an Isthmus?

At the end of the section titled, "Invasion of England", there was (I have deleted) a paragraph that started, "William chose Hastings as it was at the end of a long peninsula flanked by impassable marshes. The battle was on the isthmus". The source given for this was, "Rodder Safeguard of the Sea pp. 32–35" which I think was meant to refer to Safeguard of the Seas: A Naval History of Britain, Vol 1 by Professor N.A.M. Rodger. Pages 32-35 of that book are in the introduction and deal with whether Ireland had a naval history worth writing about as part of the author's excuse for calling his book ...of Britain when it isn't really about Britain at all. Hastings does not get a mention. Secondly, the battle was not on an isthmus, it was at Senlac Hill which is now in the village of Battle which is ten miles (at least) from the sea. Thirdly, although this obviously counts as original research, I looked out the kitchen window and noted that Hastings is not on the end of a long peninsula surrounded by impassable marshes, a fact easily verifiable on any map of the south coast of England. I think the whole paragraph is a hoax, which is why I have deleted it.Cottonshirtτ 05:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Not a concern with me, I hadn't gotten to that section on my rewrite yet. Looks like a good case for removing. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I too didn't realise it was an isthmus; that's probably why I got lost there years ago with my wife. If only I'd known the truth about the local geography... :) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, when I was there ... we did go to the sea afterwards, but it was a bit of a drive... Maybe they meant that little bit of pond that was there at the battlefield? I think I saw a couple of ducks in it... hopefully I can get a bit more rewritten here later today or tomorrow... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 March 2012

Please change the text regarding the funeral of William the Conqueror that reads "The original owner of the land on which the church was built claimed he had not been paid yet," to "The original owner of the land, Asselin, son of Arthur, on which the church was built claimed he had not been paid yet,". This is referenced in the article on "Clameur de haro", located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clameur_de_haro. This is my ancestor, and it would be fitting to have him noted by name. Thank you!Trapfly (talk) 05:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Trapfly (talk) 05:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. This might be a good addition (specificity can be helpful), but we need sources to back up new content. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Parking this here ...

Since it really doesn't belong tacked onto a caption without other rebuttal oportunities. "The Coronation of William the Conqueror marks one of the sharpest breaks there has ever been in English history. Anglo-Saxon England was dead, the country was now ruled by the Normans. But the disastrous ceremony at Westminster Abbey was an indication that the relationship between the English and their new rulers wasn't going to be an easy one."<ref>Robert Bartlett, ''The Normans'' BBC TV</ref> Nor is that a complete citation - when did this programme air on TV and what Channel? It properly belongs in a legacy section, which I'm currently doing the reading on, and I'll be glad to include it (or some other opinion from Bartlett) in a fully fleshed out section. Just a random quote without other opinions isn't really very NPOV - it presents one side, but not the others. Never fear - I'm working on the legacy section. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:William the Conqueror/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chip123456 (talk · contribs) 19:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The article is well written. It is sourced, however there are a few long paragraphs which only have one reference. To give the article best reliability we need to have more references for the longer paragraphs and break them up more. I will but the article on hold for around a week for these problems to be rectified. --Chip123456 (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Also other comments are welcome. Please feel to leave comments on how to improve this page. --Chip123456 (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

When the entire paragraph is sourced to one source there is no need to just add sources for the sake of adding sources. It is perfectly acceptable to have one citation for a paragraph. And paragraph size is dependent on what the paragraph is covering - the ideal is that a paragraph covers one event/topic/etc fully. Without more specifics, I'm afraid I can't really act on this sort of review. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid you will. I reviewed previous articles and passed them, not just because of their high standard but because of the number of references which backed them. The article will remain on hold for 6 more days. --Chip123456 (talk) 09:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? Show me in the GA criteria where I need to break add more citations for the reason you gave? I'm more than happy to deal with specific concerns if they are listed, I just don't see that this "To give the article best reliability we need to have more references for the longer paragraphs and break them up more" are actionable concerns.There is no requirement for a certain number of citations per paragraph. And please don't bother using a talkback template on my talk page ... I have this page watchlisted and will notice anything added and there is a nice banner at the top of my talk page requesting folks to not use talkback templates on my page. I'd greatly appreciate not having them on my page. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Chip, Ealdgyth is right here. The good article criteria certainly require referencing, but there is nothing there that demands more than one source per paragraph. In fact, the relevant guideline suggests that a single reference at the end of paragraphs may often be completely appropriate- only if material is particularly contentious, relies upon multiple sources or is the kind of thing that always requires careful attribution (statistics, quotes, negative information about a living person, etc) will more than that be needed. Unless you are worried that sources which should be cited are not cited, or that information in the paragraphs in question is not taken from the cited sources, then your concern does not seem to be a useful one. This is a long and carefully written article about a highly important topic, and warrants close and careful review; the fact that you've gone through this entire article (I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you have...) and your only feedback is a vague statement about citation density suggests to me that you are not someone who should be reviewing this article. If you are not willing or able to provide more useful feedback than this, I strongly advise you step down from this review and let someone else take it up. J Milburn (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

And I'd like to add that I greatly welcome a very thorough and intense review. I have plans for taking this article to FA status and all eyes are welcome to pick apart my errors, which I know I've made, as we are all human and make mistakes. I want this article (as with all the articles I work on) to be the very best it can possibly be. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The article is written very well indeed. As pointed out, and as I very well know it is not KEY CRITERIA for the article to be awarded GA status but as I said I want this article to be the best. Also please note, I had every intention of passing the article anyway, as it is an excellent article, but I just wanted to increase to number of references to cover the vast paragraph area. I do have to admit that it was somewhat picky of me. Also sorry for the offence caused with the TB templates Ealdgyth. I will pass the article now. --Chip123456 (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments

From Sarastro

I am looking at this with a view to FA, so I apologise for any fussiness on my part. Also, I would normally just wade in and do a little copy-editing myself, but for an article as weighty as this one, I will note things down for the moment. But if it is easier, I am happy to copy-edit directly. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead

• "William was the only child of Duke Robert the Magnificent of Normandy and Herleva, who were not married, making William illegitimate, which created some difficulties for him when he succeeded his father in 1035 as duke.": Long sentence with a little too much going on. Maybe break sentence after Hervla, then begin "His parents were not married, making William illegitimate, which …" And I think "as duke" could go.
• There is no obvious problem suggested for the reader by his illegitimacy, but the lead then goes on "other problems".
• "Other problems were his young age…": Awkward. Maybe "His youth presented further problems when he became duke, as did the anarchy which plagued the first years of his rule."
• "His marriage in the 1050s to Matilda of Flanders aided his efforts…": Maybe worth explaining briefly why here.
• "After building a large fleet, William invaded England in September 1066 and decisively defeated Harold at the Battle of Hastings on 14 October 1066, killing Harold and a number of his supporters.": Too many Harolds? What about "defeated and killed Harold at the Battle of Hastings on 14 October 1066." I'm not sure it is worth mentioning the deaths of his supporters here in the lead.
• "and threatened invasions of England": Possibly worth mentioning who was threatening here?
• Maybe worth mentioning here somewhere that he didn't really spend that much time in England as king?

  Think I got most of this... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Background

• While fairly clear, this section seems a little detailed for me. Very little of the information directly impacts on William's life, and given that the events are pretty complicated, is it worth including this much information about events from before William's birth?
• "when an agreement between Rollo, one of the Viking leaders, and King Charles the Simple of France was reached which surrendered the county of Rouen to Rollo": Possibly more concise: "when King Charles the Simple of France surrendered the county of Rouen to Rollo, one of the Viking leaders." I don't think we need more than this here.
• "although whether Rollo took the title is unclear": Not clear what title is being referred to here, although it is presumably "duke". But I'm not sure this is important in this article.
• "Danish and other Vikings": The average reader will be unaware that there were any other Vikings; maybe specify?
• "it doesn't appear to have worked completely": Contraction and slightly informal tone here.
• "The Danes under King Swein Forkbeard continued to raid England, and may have come to an agreement with Duke Richard to sell the English plunder only in Normandy in exchange for allowing the Danish wounded to recover in Normandy": Rather heavy sentence which could be tidied. But again I wonder if it is necessary to include this at all?
• Around here there is a lot of close repetition of "Æthelred", "Swein" and "England" which needs reworking a little.
• Also, a couple of "however"s too many as well.

  I've culled a bit of the background, but the stuff about Harold Harefoot and Cnut is close enough to William's lifetime that it's necessary to see what a slender claim he had to the throne by blood. Got most of the rest that was still in the article ... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

More to come. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Early life

• I think this section also suffers from over-detailing, and there is quite a lot which is not directly relevant to William.
• Three cites and a note for the first sentence seems a little excessive. Would one ref and a note not be enough?

  I've pulled one of the cites, but I need the online source to show people that keep trying to insert a spurious and wrong birthdate into the article - Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Besides William's half-siblings (or in the case of Adelaide, possibly full sister), Herleva also had two brother": This does not make sense: the first part is about William's siblings, the second part about the unconnected fact of Hervela's brothers.
• Again, I would suggest that there is too much detail about his family at the beginning, and it becomes bogged down slightly. I might be tempted to rework this section something like this:

"His mother, Herleva, was the daughter of Fulbert of Falaise, who may have been a tanner or embalmer.[11] She was possibly a member of the ducal household, but did not marry Robert. Instead, she later married Herluin de Conteville, with whom she had two sons—Odo of Bayeux and Robert, Count of Mortain—and a daughter whose name is unknown. Herleva also had another daughter, Adelaide of Normandy, whose paternity is uncertain. [Maybe put the part about her father not being Herluin but possibly Robert into a note so as not to interrupt the flow?] One of Hervela's brothers, Walter, later became a supporter and protector of William during his minority."

• "Robert, William's father, became Duke of Normandy on 6 August 1027, in succession to his elder brother Richard III, who had only succeeded to the title in 1026, after the death of Richard and Robert's father Richard II.": I think I would be inclined to cut this sentence after "Richard III" as the rest is not relevant to WIlliam. The next sentence could then begin "Robert and his brother were at odds..."
• "who immediately was made a monk at his father's death": This suggests he was forced. Is this correct? And was he made a monk at his father's deathbed, as implied here, or after his father died?

I don't know that Nicholas is even worth mentioning in William's article. William became Duke because Robert was Duke, and nobody challenged William's succession on the basis of how Robert took control, nor put Nicholas forward as an alternative. Certainly there is something wrong with the way Douglas tells it, as Richard could not have had a legitimate son (any son for that matter) old enough to be made a monk either on his death-bed or by Robert shortly thereafter. He probably wasn't even a monk yet when William succeeded, although he may have been 'put away'. Perhaps the less said. . . . Agricolae (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed this bit - I'm planning on sitting down and rereading Searle's Predatory Kinship (or at least the relevant parts) and we'll see if we add a bit more in. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• "while his uncle became duke": Maybe better to just say "Robert"
• "Conditions in Normandy were unsettled when Robert became duke, with noble families despoiling the church and a war with Alan III of Brittany, who perhaps hoped to take control of Normandy": Maybe "Conditions in Normandy were unsettled at the time, as noble families despoiled the church and Alan III of Brittany waged war against the duchy, possibly in an attempt to take control."
• "In 1028, Duke Robert besieged his uncle, Robert, the Archbishop of Rouen, and forced the archbishop into exile. However, by 1031, the duke and archbishop had reconciled, and with the archbishop's help, Alan and the duke reached a truce which may have included Alan's performance of homage to the duke. Archbishop Robert then became one of the strongest supporters of Duke Robert, and was joined by a number of noblemen who were to rise to prominence during William's life. Included among these noblemen were Osbern, a nephew of Gunnor the wife of Duke Richard I, and Count Gilbert of Brionne, who was a grandson of Richard I.[13] Robert also supported the exiled English princes - Edward and Alfred, who were still in exile in northern France.[2]" I think there is too much going on here which doesn't concern William. Why not simplify it to something like

"By 1031, Robert had gathered considerable support from noblemen, many of whom became prominent in Williams's life. These included Robert's uncle, Robert the Archbishop of Rouen, who had originally opposed the duke. Duke Robert also supported the exiled English princes, Edward and Alfred, who were in exile in northern France."

• "There are indications that Robert may have been briefly betrothed to a daughter of King Cnut of Denmark and England, but no marriage took place. If he had married, it is unclear if William would have been supplanted in the ducal succession, for earlier dukes had been illegitimate and William's association with his father on ducal charters appears to indicate that William was considered Robert's most probable heir": I'm not quite clear on the connection between these events.
• "In 1034, Duke Robert decided to go on pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Although a number of his supporters tried to dissuade him from going, pointing out that there was no heir." Somewhere, there should be another part to one of these sentences.
• How did Robert die? Sarastro1 (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

  Disease - but is it really relevant? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

  Believe I took care of most of this - Ealdgyth - Talk 17:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

More to follow if this is helpful. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Challenges

• I attempted some copy-editing of this section; please revert anything I have messed up or that you are unhappy with.
• "The new duke faced a number of challenges, including his illegitimate birth and his young age,[15] which is variously given as either eight years old[16] or the slightly younger seven years of age.": May be better to begin the section with "William, as the new duke..." Also, it is worth specifying why his illegitimacy was a problem; the previous section suggests that this was common among Dukes of Normandy. And why not simply "his young age; sources state that he was either seven or eight years old at the time."
• "and conditions in Normandy descended into chaos quickly.[17] The anarchy in the duchy lasted until 1047...": How did the archbishop's death lead to this state. And for the benefit of the general reader, maybe explain what "anarchy" entailed in this context.

  It is a truism of medieval history (especially that period before about 1200) that if a child inherited a title - whether a kingdom or a barony - that disorder would follow. Leadership was so much bound up with personal power and authority that children had difficulties when they inherited - they lacked the authority and interpersonal relationships to project power. The only way to avoid chaos was to have strong adults supporting the child-ruler, so when Archbishop Robert died, this removed one of the main supports that William had. William lacked a set of powerful maternal relatives or a even a powerful mother, to help support him (such as Blanche of Castile was for Louis IX of France). Added to this was the fact that the Norman nobility was especially fractious and it was probably inevitable that when William inherited he was going to face chaos. Now... how to source all that information is another story ... or if it's even practical in this article... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• "the viscounts still acknowledged the ducal government and the ecclesiastical hierarchy was supportive of William": Did this mean much in practical terms?

  Yes. The church was powerful in this time period and as for the viscounts - the fact that they never actually repudiated their ties meant that William was able to eventually reassert his authority. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• "helping at a siege in the early 1040s": Could we be more precise here? DId he relieve a siege or help to end a siege carried out by William?

  The seige is very obscure and there is no sure date so I've just eliminated the mention of it. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Also, at this stage, how many of these actions were directed by William and how many were by his guardians?

  We have no idea, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• "led by Guy of Burgundy, with further support from Nigel, viscount of the Cotentin and Rannulf, viscount of the Bessin": Possibly not all these names needed?

  Actually, they should be mentioned to show that this was somewhat more broad in support than the earlier efforts. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• "make the much more plausible statement": Suggests editorial voice and judgement.
• "Peace of God": It may be worth saying more here as there was presumably a religious or ecclesiastically driven part to this?

  Well, sorta. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Break

Consolidation of power

• "William's first efforts were against Guy of Burgundy": Perhaps specify what this means; the last paragraph ends by mentioning continuous warfare, so I'm assuming it involved fighting of some sort which resulted in Guy's retreat. Also, there are three parts to this sentence which don't obviously connect: "efforts", a siege, then "and the duke only succeeded in exiling Guy in 1050".
• Geoffrey Martel or Geoffrey of Anjou; may be better to stick to one or the other as there is a danger of the reader thinking they were two people.
• "Geoffrey attempted to expand his authority into the county of Maine, especially after the death of Hugh IV of Maine in 1051. Central to the control of Maine were the holdings of the family of Bellême, who held Bellême on the border of Maine and Normandy.[26] On the death of Hugh of Maine, Geoffrey of Anjou occupied Maine": I don't quite see the connection of the family of Belleme to Geoffrey's actions.
• Why did the king "switch sides"?
• "The first group, which he led, faced Henry, while the second, which included a number of men who became firm supporters of William such as Robert, Count of Eu, Walter Giffard, Roger of Mortemer, and William de Warenne, faced the other invading force.": Slightly long sentence; maybe split into two after "faced Henry"?
• "Besides ending both invasions, the battle also allowed the ecclesiastical supporters of the duke to depose Mauger from the archbishopric of Rouen": A little clunky, and also repetition of "invading/invasion". Maybe "Both incursions were ended by the battle, which also allowed the ecclesiastical supporters of the duke to depose Mauger from the archbishopric of Rouen"
• "but fighting with the French king as well as the Count of Anjou continued until 1060, when Henry died in August and Geoffrey of Anjou died in November.[34] Henry and Geoffrey led another invasion of Normandy in 1057": Why do we have their deaths in 1060 followed by their actions in 1057? Also, slightly awkward with "Count of Anjou" and "Geoffrey of Anjou" in the same sentence. Maybe "...with Henry and Geoffrey continued until both men died in August and September respectively". I'm not sure we even need the months.
• "One factor that helped William was his marriage to Matilda of Flanders..." Maybe expand to "One factor which helped William to consolidate his power..."
• " but Pope Leo IX forbade the marriage at the Council of Rheims": Why?
• "Further corroboration is the fact that papal-Norman relations in the 1050s were generally good, with Norman clergy visiting Rome in 1050 without incident.": Corroboration of what? Not clear from previous sentences. Also, "with Norman clergy visiting" not the best construction.
• The last paragraph is a little confusing; it states that the marriage happened without papal approval, but then explains how they were able to get papal approval.
• Minor point, but the end of this section jars a little; two paragraphs on battles and struggle, then suddenly marriage. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

  Dealt with most of this - and yeah, that's the Normans for you. Battles and marriage all mixed up. Lusty and contentious bunch they were! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Physical appearance and character

• No problems here, just wondering why this information has been put at this point in the article? (Not that I have any better suggestions, I just wondered if the would be better. But not an issue)

• If anyone has a better place to park this section (that isn't totally at the end of the article, which I didn't like at all) ... please suggest. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Stylized... Criticized: Should this be stylised and criticised if it is British English? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, it should. Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Norman administration

• Did William have much to do with Cluniac reform at this point, if he was close to Lanfranc? And (not directly related) was the reform connected to the monastic expansion in the duchy, or was it in any way encouraged by William? (I feel "We don't know" heading my way...) Sarastro1 (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• No, he really didn't have much to do with Cluniac reform. Lanfranc wasn't a Cluniac, by the way. He was from Bec, which while involved in reform, was not a Cluniac house. And the general consensus on William's involvement with the monastic expansion in Normandy was that it wasn't much. I do have a little bit later on in the article about his two monastic foundations in Normandy (and the one in England...) but that was the sum total of his monastic involvement. And none of his foundations were Cluniac or especially known for being involved in reform. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

From J Milburn

I've got some thoughts, too.

• There's actually something of an accessibility issue with using picture family trees, I believe. Tables would be preferable in that regard. I personally prefer the picture, but it may be something to be aware of.

• Whatever format is used, given the role of his half-uncles in his succession conflict, they need to be shown. Agricolae (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not the author of the chart and I wouldn't have the slightest clue how to edit/improve it. I've got the important folks in the text - should I just nix the picture? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• I wouldn't mind - I have never liked the chart, as it seems to miss the mark with its stated goal of showing William's relevant genealogical context due to its arbitrary selection of who to show (Mauger of Corbeil, William of Fecamp) and who not (Mauger of Rouen, Guy of Burgundy, Osbern of Crepon, Gilbert of Brionne). Agricolae (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• "became the core of the later duchy of Normandy." Ambiguous- what would later be known as "the duchy of Normandy", or Normandy, which would later become a duchy?
• "Herleva also had a daughter, Adelaide of Normandy, possibly another child of Robert's but all that is known for sure is that Adelaide was not the daughter of Herluin." Needs to be rephrased. Also, confusion between the Roberts

• Perhaps inaccurate as well - one chronicler says that she was sister of William on the mother's side (which could either mean maternal half-sister, or full sister, even on the mother's side), another that she was daughter of Robert by a different mother. Consensus is that she was Robert's daughter, but less of a consensus that Herleva was mother. Agricolae (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• This isn't quite right. In fact it was the same chronicler who says both. Robert of Torigny, in his additions to William of Jumieges' Gesta, calls her "soror uterina Willelmi regis Anglorum senioris" - uterine sister, which as I said could either intend that she is daughter of Herleve by a different man, or is simply stressing that in addition to her father she shared the same mother as the illegitimate William. In his own chronicle, though, Robert says, "Robertus frater eius, qui genuit Willermum de Herleva non sponsata, qui postea Angliam conquisivit, et unam filiam nomine Aeliz de alia concubina" - that Robert had William by Herleve, and had a daughter, Aeliz (Adelaide) by another mistress. Agricolae (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• One more note - this apparent conflict is discussed briefly by Elisabeth van Houts, "Les femmes dans l'histoire du duché de Normandie (Women in the history of ducal Normandy)", Tabularia «Études» nº 2, 2002, p. 19-34 (2002), [1] In addition to adding that Orderic too explicitly makes her daughter of Robert, Van Houts points out (note 22) that in another of his additions to the Gesta, Robert uses the adjective 'uterine' to describe paternal half-brothers Richard II and William of Eu, suggesting that he is using the term here more generally to reflect half-siblings and that we should thus accept the statement in the Chronicle that she had a different mother. Agricolae (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Robert convened a council and had the assembled Norman magnates swear fealty to William" Do we have any idea when this was?

• Added in January 1035. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• "variously given as either eight years old[16] or the slightly younger seven years of age." Unnecessarily wordy?

• Fixed per above comments from Sarasato Ealdgyth - Talk 17:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Although many of the Norman nobles engaged in their own private wars and feuds during William's minority, the viscounts still acknowledged the ducal government and the ecclesiastical hierarchy was supportive of William also." How about "Although many of the Norman nobles engaged in their own private wars and feuds during William's minority, both the viscounts and the ecclesiastical hierarchy acknowledged the ducal government."? Or does that change the meaning?

• Yeah, it does. The clergy went beyond just acknowledging the ducal government and helped support William. Sarasato got on my behind about the "also" so it's gone now... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• "However the French king's support was gained, in early 1047 Henry and William returned to Normandy" Very odd construction

• I think I was going with something about how the story of William escaping might be a bit of storytelling rather than truth, but removed the first phrase now... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Although the battle marked a turning point in William's control of the duchy, it was not the end of William's struggles to gain the upper hand over his nobles" How about "...it was not the end of his struggles to gain the upper hand over the nobility"?

• Thanks, that sounds much better .. went with it. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• "which William was forced to besiege it,"?

• Fixed somewhere along the line... (thanks to whoever got it!) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• "William joined with King Henry in a campaign against Anjou, but this was the last known cooperation between William and the French king." Between the two?

• Fixed per your suggestion. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• "On the death of Hugh of Maine, Geoffrey of Anjou occupied Maine, but this move was contested by William and King Henry, and eventually they managed to drive Geoffrey from Maine" From the province?

• It's technically a county - so went with that. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• You don't mention his illiteracy in "Physical appearance and character"? I believe that's a generally accepted fact, but an unusual one?

• Actually, him being literate would have been unusual. Most monarchs of the time would have been illiterate. It's unusual that there are tutors mentioned connected with his childhood. The reason I don't mention it is that none of my sources (who are scholars of the period) mention it. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll continue later. J Milburn (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you soooo much for these, they were very helpful! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• "a Norman who Edward had named Archbishop of Canterbury, with Stigand, the Bishop of Winchester." Not clear what you mean by this.
• "to do homage" I may be completely wrong here, but do you not pay homage?
• "Some sources claim that Harold took part in William's Breton campaign of 1064 and that Harold swore to uphold William's claim to the English throne at the end of the campaign." Presumably, this is what the picture shows? If so, perhaps make it clear in the caption that this may not have happened.
• "In 1065, Northumbria revolted against Tostig, and the rebels chose Morcar, the younger brother of Edwin, Earl of Mercia, as earl in place of Tostig." Were there multiple Earls of Mercia, or was Edwin an earlier Earl? This seems an odd construction.
• "Harold's brother Tostig made probing attacks along the southern shore of England in May 1066" What relation does this have to William? I'm not saying it doesn't belong there, I'm merely wondering whether these were in William's name, vaguely supported by William or even off his own steam?
• Be aware of inconsistency with whether the lettered endnotes come before or after the numbered endnotes.

And... I need to dash off again. I'll look again soon! J Milburn (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Poitiers stating it was constructed at the mouth of the River Dives while Jumieges states it was built at Saint-Valery-sur-Somme," Tense swith
• Could the image of Harold's death be shifted down a little? Also, possibly mention in the caption the ambiguity?
• "Twice more the Normans feigned flight" They haven't feigned flight once yet?
• "After waiting a bit" Colloquial
• "Some who had fought against William at Hastings, however, lost their lands – including the lands of Harold and his brothers." This says that the lands of Harold and his brothers lost its land.
• "where King Malcolm III was husband of Edgar's sister Margaret." Awkward and wordy
• "The Whitsun council saw the appointment of Lanfranc as the new Archbishop of Canterbury, and Thomas of Bayeux, as the new Archbishop of York, to replace Ealdred, who had died in September 1069." Again, awkward phrasing. Something about "and Thomas of Bayeux, as the new Archbishop of York, to replace Ealdred, who had died"
• Perhaps a picture of Battle Abbey?
• "The widow proposed marriage to William fitzOsbern, who was in Normandy, and fitzOsbern accepted but was killed in February 1071 at the Battle of Cassel which resulted in Robert becoming count." Long, complex sentence
• "William and Malcolm agreed to a peace by signing" a peace?
• Check the way you link to articles on Odo. He's mentioned several times thoughout the article.
• "Troubles at home and abroad" is probably not quite the right tone for a section title

• I'm open to other suggestions, but the period of time is pretty much one of troubles for William... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• "More struck in 1083" What does that mean?

• Got all of these but the section title... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

More to come in the future. When are you planning to send this to FAC? J Milburn (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

When it's ready... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

I've seen these and fully intend to get to this this weekend. I've been swamped in real life though... I promise to get to these. And thank you all for them, they are immensely helpful to me in my quest to make this article better. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Edward's views on the succession

The article seems to imply that the only candidates personally endorsed by Edward were William and then Harold on his deathbed. Most historians see a more complex view.

1. Several historians think Edward sent Ealdred, bishop of Worcester, to Germany persuade Edward the Exile to return as heir, Stenton p. 571, ODNB Ealdred, Barlow, Edward the Confessor, 214-5, Bates, William the Conqueror, 95. (Blackwell Encyclopedia, Edward the Confessor, thinks that Harold probably sent Ealdred and Douglas p 172 that Harold may have had him murdered to remove a rival claimant. No wonder Barlow remarked in the preface to his biography that he was touched that Douglas had commissioned him to write it because he was pro Anglo-Saxon and Douglas pro Norman). Note: the page numbering in my 2004 edition of Bates' biography is different from the edition cited in the article.

2. Most historians do not see Edgar the Ætheling as a major claimant but Stafford, Queen Emma and Queen Edith, 83, says that Ætheling (throneworthy) was far more tightly defined after 900 than in early Anglo-Saxon England, and that Edgar was the first man known to have been designated Ætheling after 900 who was not the son of a king. She sees Edward's desigation of him as Ætheling as his recogntion of him as his heir (pp. 76, 83, 88, 269). ODNB, Edgar the Ætheling, takes the same view.

3. In the view of Bates 98 and Barlow 220 William was only one of a number of claimants Edward endorsed at various times.

4. Very few historians see Tostig as a claimant. Barlow does p. 219, but not ODNB Tostig, Stenton, Bates or Douglas. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Edward the Exile was dead shortly after he arrived in England ... by the time William began to seriously consider the English throne, Edward the Exile was out of the picture. I don't think we can take Stafford's view as important in THIS article... in Edward and Edgar's articles, her view is definitely worth pointing out, but I'm trying to keep the bloat down on this article - if anyone else had her view on his title being a designation as heir, it would be worth mentioning here. But, is it really important to William, since even if King Edward had meant the designation as making him the heir, Edward obviously changed his mind and designated Harold instead (Even William acknowledged that Edward HAD designated Harold as the next king on Edward's deathbed.) Again, on #3, this article is focused on William - the variety of different designations that Edward might or might not have made are really relevant to those people's articles as well as to the Norman Conquest article (which I'm slowly trying to work on also), not so much here. Huscroft and Thomas see Tostig as a claimant - certainly by 1066 the major players are Harold Hardrada, William, Harold Godwinson, and Tostig. I've changed the mention of Tostig to "... and there were three or four main claimants to the English throne – Harold was the main English claimant but his exiled brother Tostig may also have claimed the throne." to make it more clear that Tostig is a secondary claimant. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

And yeah, I know all about Ealdred's mission to Germany - I wrote Ealdred (bishop)'s article also... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Ealdgyth sorry if my amendment annoyed you. It would have been better if I had posted comments for you to look at. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Didn't annoy me at all... really. Most of your copyedits were great - just a couple that needed tweaking. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Lead image...

As we head into FAC-readiness... we need to think about the lead image. Right now, it faces out of the page, which is generally a no-no. What I'm thinking is exchanging the coin image of William with the lead image in the infobox... this would solve both images issues. Anyone object? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I would rather keep a Bayeux Tapestry image there. For so many kings the only contemporary image is a coin, and it would be a shame to demote one of the few for whom we have the possibility of an alternative in favor of yet another coin. I would rather use one of the other depictions of William from the Tapestry. Here are three cases where William can be unambiguously identified, and is facing left: [2] (far right), [3], [4] (far right, lifting helmet). Agricolae (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's go with the helmet raising one from the battle - that's pretty iconic. I have a nice book that has good size images of the tapestry in it, I'll scan it tomorrow as well as replacing the other images in here from the Tapestry with larger scans.. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Map...

Good map, wrong language...

It's been suggested that a map might be useful. Now, I have no map skills at all. But I found one on Commons - but it's labeled in Russian/Cyrillic... anyone able to fix this to be English? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You can see what the place names are from the original map here. Malleus Fatuorum 23:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

[Preposition] [year] comma or no comma

This article has multiple instances of sentences beginning "[Preposition] [year]". Sometimes the year is followed by a comma, sometimes not. IMHO, it always should, as evidenced by the natural slight pause. Hence "In 1073," "By 1065," etc. I think it's unarguable that the article should be consistent. Would anyone dispute the insertion of the comma? --Dweller (talk) 09:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I leave that sort of thing to Malleus ... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I would. It's an American affectation. Malleus Fatuorum 02:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistency, pausing, commas or some combination of the three? --Dweller (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

A few comments

• "Harthacnut became king following Harold's death in 1040, and summoned his mother and his half-brother Edward to England." Not quite correct as his mother came back with him and he invited Edward over the following year. Perhaps leave out the summoning as not relevant to William.
  • Fixed - see if that works better for you? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
• "Lanfranc, a non-Norman". I would prefer "Lanfranc, a Lombard".
  • I'm a bit afraid that some of our readers will not grasp that a Lombard isn't a Norman ... any ideas of how to combine the two bits of information? The important bit is that Lanfranc wasn't a Norman... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
• "Gytha, Harold's mother, offered the victorious duke the weight of her son's body in gold for its custody, but her offer was refused. William ordered that Harold's body was to be thrown into the sea, but whether that took place is unclear. Waltham Abbey, which had been founded by Harold, later claimed that his body had been buried there secretly." But according to William of Malmesbury William gave the body to Gytha unransomed for burial at Waltham. Ann Williams, DNB, Gytha.
  • I"ve added a footnote - the modern historians are pretty sure that William refused the offer - both biographers of Harold downplay the story. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
• "the French king, seeking a focus for persons opposed to William's power, proposed that the Ætheling be given the castle of Montreuil-sur-Mer on the English Channel, which would have given Edgar a strategic advantage against William. William managed to diffuse this threat by once more agreeing to allow Edgar at William's court,[103] although the fact that Edgar was unable to take up the castle when the Ætheling's ships were wrecked contributed to Edgar's decision to submit to William." This seems to me confusing. If Edgar's attempt was defeated by the wreck of his ships why did William need to defuse the threat? It combines the incompatible versions of Douglas that William defused the threat by treating with Edgar, and Bates that Edgar decided to submit to William after the destruction of his fleet forced him to abandon his opposition.
  • I don't see this as confusing... the wreck of the ships contributed to the decision, not making it the decisive factor. But, given that this article is about William and not Edgar .. I've culled it out some. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
• "King Philip of France later relieved the siege and defeated William at Dol, forcing him to retreat back to Normandy. Although this was William's first defeat in battle, it did little to change things." Douglas, p. 234, gives an alternative view: "William's defeat at Dol was the first serious military check that he had suffered in France for more than twenty years, and its importance has been unduly minimised." Dudley Miles (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • But I don't think that Douglas disagrees that little changed in the geopolitical situation. Although he was defeated, the next year he managed to beat back another attack on a supporter and secure a truce. I think Douglas is merely trying to point out that the defeat was greater than most other historians have stated... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for these - every bit helps! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

So-called "indirect descent"

I believe that the terminology "direct descent" and "indirect descent" in Wikipedia biographies should be deprecated. The reasons for this are:

• It muddies the distinction between "descent" and "succession".
  • See Hereditary succession models and Order of succession.
• It is nonsensical, in that one is either descended from a person, or one is not. There is no such thing as "indirect descent", unless genetic engineering is involved.
• A defense of this usage, urging that by "direct descent" the reader is to understand "patrilineal descent", and by "indirect descent" to understand "non-patrilineal" or "matrilineal" descent," is an anachronistic endorsement of sexist connotational defaults.

--Ziusudra 13:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right. And since there have been female English monarchs, the patrilineal concept doesn't work anyway. It is the case that while every English monarch is descended from William I, there is not a straight line running through all the monarchs. But there is no such thing as "indirect" descent. Even a laboratory-produced test-tube monarch made from the cells of a living (or dead) English monarch would still be a "direct" descendant. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of a chimera than a clone.

--Ziusudra 15:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the the terms used all have problems but the purpose of my edit was to correct the simplistic myth that Elizabeth II of England is a direct descendant of William I by any definition. She is a descendant and almost certainly is a genetic relative by many lines. However a huge portion of the British/English population is likely to have some relationship to him, more so the remaining aristocracy. To give a very truncated version of English royal history, the Plantagenet line (which included a number of Kings who usurped the throne)came to an end in 1485 and was replaced by the Tudors with a very weak claim by descent. They were to be followed by the Stuarts who had more linage from the Scottish Royal houses than the English, then an invasion throws out a Catholic Stuart to get a Protestant one in. Followed by Hannover which saw the 57 'rejets' passed over to obtain a protestant heir, George I. Add in the hardly royal Saxe-Coburg and Gotha link and the relationship between W I and E II is very thin by any measure. This notion that Elizabeth II is rightfully on the throne of England because she is the direct descendant of an 11th Century Norman feudal lord is nonsense. She is the Monarch today because a a very complex social and political history of the island of Britain and its European neighbours. Terms like "direct descendant' obscure this.

An indirect line implies the throne passing through cousins, second cousins and their decendants as it often was In the age of D.N.A. based anthropology it would be fascinating to know just how close the Windsors and William I are. Rpersse 19:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No question the issues are complex. Being a descendant of William I does not necessarily qualify someone to be the British monarch. But what about the reverse? Isn't it a requirement of the British monarchy? That is, if you're not descended from William I, then you're automatically out? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no requirement that I am aware of to be descended from W I, its just assumed they all are! As I said you could safely assume that a huge number of the modern British (and therefore Canadian, Australian...) population is too, the Plantagenets were succssful and likely to have had many surviving children (unlike the Tudors). Interestingly they do have to be a Protestant to this day and the heir cannot marry an R.C. By any measure E II is far more German and Scottish than English. I believe that Diana was the first English woman in many centuries to have married an heir to the English throne (see Norman Davies in 'The Isles'), she may well have had more genes in common with W I (my speculation only) due to her aristocratic lineage. Perhaps someone could throw more light on it, most interesting. Rpersse 20:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpersse (talk • contribs) 20:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a point about there being no such thing as indirect descent. If direct descent means paternal descent, then that is what it should say. Unless of course direct descent means paternal and most senior. As far as modern British law, the monarch of the UK has to be a descendant of Sophie of Hanover, who is descended from William I. Therefore it is implicitly a requirement to rule Britain. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, she is also descended from Alfred the Great and his heirs via the marriage of Henry I to Matilda of Scotland. She is also, interestingly, descended from Harold Godwinson via the marriage of Edward II to Isabella "the she wolf of France" who was descended from one of Harold's daughters! What ultimately makes someone the Monarch is the acclimation and coronation, but the claim to the succession ultimately depends upon the decent and relationship to the most recent monarch. The Lancastrian succession was based upon the rights of succession passing to the closest relative of the current King (Henry VI) whose claim was validate by being the son (i.e. the closest legitimate relative) to the previous King (Henry V). The Yorkist claim was essentially based upon two facts. Firstly, that Henry VI had failed in his duties as King (losing the French territories, not maintaining justice and rule of law, being feeble of mind etc) and had hence broken his coronation oath and should be removed as King. Secondly, the Lancastrian succession was illegitimate anyway since Henry IV had usurped the throne from the legitimate King, Richard II, and set aside the rightful heir the Earl of March, and that the Yorkists, being descended from the Earl of March's sister (grand daughter of Edward III's 2nd surviving son) as well as the Duke of York, the 4th surviving son, made them the legitimate heirs to the throne which had been usurped by the Lancastrians (Henry IV, V and VI). If Henry VI had been a successful King, this wouldn't have mattered. Henry IV's claim was certainly disputed, but by the time of Henry VI the line had become established, and under normal circumstances the Yorkist claim would never have been made. Henry Tudor's claim was based upon his relationship to Henry VI. Regarding the Stuarts being “more Scottish” – well they were the established Scottish Royal House, but they were also descended from English royalty, and indeed it was via Scottish royalty that the line of Alfred the Great and the House of Cerdic was restored to English Royalty. The Hanoverians were descended from James VI & I, and are so as much descended from the previous Stuart, Tudor and Plantagenet Kings as anyone else is. The claim is based upon the senior decent according to law. Parliament excluded any Catholic claimant, resulting in the Hanoverian succession, to prevent any repeat of Mary I or James VII & I. Prior to Mary I, the law hadn’t established the right of women to succeed to the throne in their own right, which is one reason why Elizabeth of York wasn’t proclaimed Queen by opponents of Richard III. This issue is complex though. Henry IV based his claim on being the most senior adult male in the line of succession (the Earl of March was 7), but he also based it upon the acclimation of Parliament – admitting that Parliament (the community of the realm) had the right to choose the King!

So specifically, descent from William the Conqueror isn't an absolute requirement, but pretty much anyone of any realistic claim to the throne, and relationship to the Queen, would be descended from him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.89.1.33 (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Family tree?

A family tree showing William, Edward and ideally Harold would be a smashing addition to this really enjoyable article. --Dweller (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

We had one, but it totally sucked. If someone who is image capable wants to make one, I'm willing to send sketches, but I cannot do the image well at all. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Weellllll, I said to the D-man that we could either use a tool like Visio and upload a jpg to Commons, or we could have a stab at using the {{Family tree}} template. I'm happy to give either a go if I could get the details. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Not wanting to step on your toes, but I am already well underway. I tried the template but there was too much going on, horizontally, to make it practicable. I am close to finishing a preliminary jpg (or rather two - one dealing with the succession to Normandy, the other to England). I should have something ready for comments over the weekend. Agricolae (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Tree of William's struggle for Normandy.jpg

Family tree depicting William's struggle for succession to Normandy, showing his supporters (++) and opponents (--)

File:Tree of William's struggle for England.jpg

Family tree depicting William's struggle for succession to England

OK, here are my first drafts of two trees. I have tried to include those kinsmen mentioned as either supporting or challenging William in his succession to and stabilization of Normandy and England respectively. These are not intended to be the final forms, just a basis for discussion and optimization. Any suggested changes regarding whom to include, name forms, bolding or italics, etc., are welcome, although keep in mind that in some cases they may not be practicable given space and software limitations. I just threw these together using very simple software with limited font capabilities, but once there is a consensus on the final form, I will redo them with (somewhat) better software. I would prefer to hammer out the details first, though. Please do not incorporate them as-is, or upload them to commons just yet. Agricolae (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

They look fine to me, only quibble might be to use "Robert de Beaumont" and "Roger de Montgomery" but that's my age showing. Also, since we use "(sister)" at one point, do we need to list Duvellina's name at all? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason for not naming the sister is that Robert of Torigny gives Juliana as a niece of Gunnora, without specifying her mother's name. A scholarly argument has been made that it was probably Seinfrida, the eldest, because the Montgomerys seem to have received a large inheritance inconsistent with the existence of a son (Herfast & Duvelina) or multiple daughters (Wevia), but this was never presented as anything but the more likely possibility. That being said, we may want to remove Duvelina for another reason - a second source (a clerical prohibition, due to consanguinity, of a marriage between a Beaumont scion and one of Henry I's bastard progeny, if I recall correctly) makes Humphrey the son of Wevia instead, but the version shown represents modern scholarly consensus with regard to this and also the Montgomery pedigree (where it is agreed that Torigny compressed two generations into one). Agricolae (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking really good. Thanks. A few names in the chart I opened aren't consistent with the same people's names in this article. I also was curious about "Eadgyth", wife of Edward the Confessor. Our articles about both him and her consistently call her "Edith", with no mention of this spelling. Might be worth a sourced update? --Dweller (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

On the problematic names, please be specific (in some cases I had to make a choice between the different forms used in William's article and their own). As to Eadgyth vs Edith, that is a question of converting to modern name forms as opposed to using more traditional ones. Eadgyth is the Anglo-Saxon form of the name that evolved into Edith, and it is not uncommon to find this form used by historians - there is no consistency in their usages, with AElfraed always being rendered as Alfred, Eadweard as Edward, and Eadwine almost always as Edwin, but Æþelmær never as Elmer and Æþelræd never as Elred but as Ethelred or Æthelred (oddly preserving one diphthong and not the other), and Godgifu almost always as Godiva when referring to the Godiva and as Godgifu or Goda when referring to anyone else of the same name. I started with all three named Eadgyth but then noticed that their pages were using the name Edith, and changed two but missed the third. I note that I also have Godwin vs Godwine, which I will fix, and Sweyn vs Svein, which is an inconsistency in the application of naming standards to these two Danish kings. I want to get all of this worked out first, as my final version will not be editable without going back several steps in the process. Agricolae (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

While I'm at it, what is the consensus on Edgar Ætheling? Should I bold him as king or not? (And I have decided to add Margaret and Malcolm III.) Agricolae (talk) 23:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

My opinion (and that's what it is, opinion) is that he wasn't king. On the other hand, Handbook of British Chronology has him listed in the "rulers of England" section. HBC does note "chosen k. by Archbishop Aldred, the citizens of London and the earls Edwin and Morkere aft. the battle of Hastings, Oct. 1066 (ASC 1066 D; cf. 1066 E), but not apprantly crowned; submitted to William the Conqueror bef. Christmas of this year." British Monarchy homepage also lists him as a ruler - here. Against that ... the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article by Nicholas Hopper just calls him "prince" here. Dodge the issue and just call him "Ætheling" (grins)? None of these sources specifically call him unequivocally "king" like they do Harold II. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my opinion as well, but then I also don't count Ælfweard, for whom my personal opinion is that the whole concept of him ever reigning is a 12th-century over-interpretation of the ASC's bare report that he died days after his father. I have my doubts as to whether Offa deserves special mention as King of England as well - was his reign really different in kind, rather than simply in degree, from those of other Bretwaldas? That being said, I was just in a dispute over whether someone should really be counted as King of France, when his father abdicated in favor of someone else and the son didn't sign the same document until 20 minutes later (their argument was that he was listed on Template:Monarchs of France, so he must have been king). In general, I think it is a mistake to over-categorize these things in modern terms, 'The king is dead, long live the king' didn't necessarily operate in 10th or 11th century England. However, when you put together a chart of this sort, you have to show it one way or the other. Edgar needs to either be bold or not. Maybe I just need to be bold and let anyone who doesn't like it make their own chart. Agricolae (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't mean to push, but please help me out here - tell me what specifically needs changed, added or removed so I can make the changes and render it with better software, because given my limitations that is going to be a royal pain in the tail and I only want to do it once. I already have Eadgyth > Edith. Should I use uniform Sweyn (or Svein)? or match it to the articles. Given that once created, these may be used in other articles, should I describe Archbp Robert and Mauger more precisely? etc. Agricolae (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we should go with whatever name the article on each person uses - that's probably safest. I may not have always used those, but I do try to stick with the names used in articles normally (unless it's been hijacked by nationalists...). I think I'd at least give the diocese for the various ecclesiastics - probably safest. I did get the images changed out today... so that's a start ... I'd really rather use an image than a template - the article is already long and has a lot of templates - adding more just makes it longer to load and harder to edit, in my opinion. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I think for the most part using the article names is a good idea in general, but in some cases it is overkill (such as calling each of Godwin's sons 'Godwinson'), awkward (Gilbert, Count of Brionne as opposed to just Gilbert of Brionne, or Åsta Gudbrandsdatter), not the form typically used in this context (Harald III vs Harald Hardrada), etc. In the absence of the ability to do piping, perhaps the creative use of redirects will assuage some of these concerns. Agricolae (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, good point. Certainly, simplifying by removing "Godwinson" is a good plan - especially since they will all show that they are sons of Godwin on the chart. I almost always use "nicknames" such as Hardrada when possible, as it's much easier to remember that than try to remember which Harald of Norway was which. I have the same problem with all the Louis' of France - I can remember the "big" ones - Louis VIII, Louis IX and Louis XIV, but .... which Louis is Louis the Child or Louis the Spider is beyond me... I guess what it boils down to is I trust your instincts in this... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Family tree template

I've been playing with the {{Family tree}} template... there is something similar at War of the Roses. Perhaps something like {{William the Conqueror family}} (collapsed below)? -- Ferma (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

This is pretty much a matter of personal preference, but I find myself stuck with a bad choice between two suboptimal formats: one that is easy to edit and easy to link, but is inflexible and aesthetically unpleasing, vs. the other that is hard to edit and link, but you can do just about anything you want with it and it is more pleasing to the eye. I don't like the fact that you have seemingly random combinations of black, red, blue and purple (depending on what links you have visited) text within black, blue and green boxes (a shade which I find headache-inducing, but that is beside the point as it can easily be changed to something else, as I will do in a minute), and that you have to scroll off the side of the page to see it, and the other chart - the Conquest one, is going to be even worse. At it's heart, though, I have just never liked this format, even though I have found myself using it at times. I like it better without the boxes, but you can't do that selectively, as far as I know, and we need the boxes to indicate the roles, because there is little else you can do in this format. That being said, I am going to fix most of the redlinks and match the box colors with the relevant roles in the conflict (plus get rid of that chartreuse) so that a better comparison can be made. I don't want to play down the disadvantages of the other format - I am going to have to mock it up in the wrong software, then do a screen-capture just to make the final version, and it won't be linkable without some nasty point mapping, but I just like the way it looks a whole lot better. Agricolae (talk) 03:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I greatly prefer as an actual content editor that we avoid the complex wikisyntax of the various wikitables. They are a royal pain in the arse to edit around or to fix. And they can be magnets for vandalism. I prefer a simple image graphic ... and I hope to make a few comments on the proposed one shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You are most welcome :)

As an "actual content editor" myself, although admittedly not of this article yet, I prefer some text that I can actually edit, rather that an image that I can't. I wonder which works best for a screen reader - perhaps both are impenetrable?

The syntax of the {{family tree}} template is relatively complex, true (it is not a wikitable, by the way) but it is not too complex for someone to tweak an existing example. Having it in a separate template should assist to deter vandalism (for example, it could be partially or fully protected while the article remains unprotected) and should also insulate the casual editor from the syntax (the general mess of infoboxes and reference templates is often similarly complex and difficult to edit; this article is better in that respect than many).

As Agricolae suggests, neither something based on the {{family tree}} template nor a point mapped image is ideal, but a couple of people suggested trying it this way, so I did. Let me know if anyone thinks there might be merit in this approach and I will have a go at the English succession chart. But I will duck out of here for the meantime and let you decide what is best. -- Ferma (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

 Family tree #1

Conan I of Brittany

Ermengarde-Gerberga of Anjou

Fulk III of Anjou

William I Longsword

Sprota

Esperleng

Geoffrey II, Count of Anjou

Richard I of Normandy

Gunnor

Duvelina

(sister)

Herfast of Crepon

Rodolf of Ivry

Geoffrey I of Brittany

Hawise

Judith of Brittany

Richard II, Duke of Normandy

Papia of Envermeu

Archbishop Robert

Geoffrey of Eu

Humphrey of Vieilles

Juliana

Osbern of Crepon

Emma

Alan III, Duke of Brittany

William of Arques

Archbishop Mauger

Gilbert, Count of Brionne

Roger de Beaumont

Roger de Montgomery, seigneur of Montgomery

William FitzOsbern, 1st Earl of Hereford

Richard III

Robert I

Herleva

Alice

Renaud I of Burgundy

Roger of Montgomery

William the Conqueror

Guy of Burgundy

If it is to be done in this fashion, I would prefer something more like this (colors negotiable). I still think the English succession chart is going to be tough to do this way, due to too many things going on in the same generation. Agricolae (talk) 07:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Having removed the boxes, you might be able to remove some of the horizontal spacing (which stops the boxes overlapping) and so make the whole thing a bit smaller across the page. -- Ferma (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Tried some things, but couldn't get it it to shrink any more without distorting things too much. Agricolae (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I've moved to a separate template to play around with it a bit, and tried to do what I suggested. Is that any better? -- Ferma (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I have played with the first template to replicate the second diagram, just to see if it can be done (perhaps I should have asked if it should be done, but too late now!). I confess, I prefer the boxes, but see the third hidden template below. Not entirely disastrous, I think. It would be good to have a direct comparison with a point-mapped image. -- Ferma (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I just uploaded a (somewhat) final versions of the image files, replacing those above. Agricolae (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

 Family tree #2

	Supporters of William
	Adversaries of William
	Supporters and Adversaries at different times

William I

Sprota

Esperleng

Fulk III of Anjou

Ermengarde of Anjou

Conan I of Brittany

Geoffrey Martel

Richard I

Gunnor

Duvelina

(sister)

Herfast

Rodolf of Ivry

Geoffrey I of Brittany

Hawise

Judith of Brittany

Richard II

Papia of Envermeu

Archbishop Robert

Geoffrey of Eu

Humphrey of Vieilles

Juliana

Osbern of Crepon

Emma

Alan III of Burgundy

Gilbert of Brionne

Roger de Beaumont

Roger of Montgomery

William Fitz Osbern

William of Arques

Archbishop Mauger

Roger of Montgomery

Richard III

Robert I

Herleva

Alice

Renaud I of Burgundy

William the Conqueror

Guy of Burgundy

 Family tree #3

Sigurd Syr

Åsta Gudbrandsdatter

Harald Grenske

Sweyn Forkbeard

Edgar the Peaceable

Richard I of Normandy

Harald Hardrada

Saint Olaf

Godwin of Wessex

Gytha

Ulf Jarl

Estrid

Aelfgifu of Northampton

Cnut

Emma

Æthelred the Unready

Aelfgifu

Magnus the Good

Sweyn Estridson

Svein Knutsson

Harold I

Harthacnut

Edmund Ironside

Richard II of Normandy

Edward the Exile

Robert I of Normandy

Herleva

Herluin de Conteville

Sweyn

Tostig

Gyrth

Leofwine

Wulfnoth

Eadgyth

Edward the Confessor

Alfred

Edwin of Mercia

Morcar of Northumbria

Edith of Mercia

Harold II

Edith the Fair

Eustace II of Boulogne

Godgifu

William the Conqueror

Bishop Odo of Bayeux

Robert of Mortain

Godwine

Edmund

Magnus

Gunhild

Gytha of Wessex

Harold

Ulf

Edgar Aethling

Is there a reason that the second tree (England) needs to go in the paragraph where it is now placed? I moved it down one paragraph because the previous image extends down half-way through the second paragraph (with my screen width), and the tree is so wide that it was squeezing the text between the two figures to as few as single words. I moved it down to help alleviate this, but it is back up again. This is only going to get worse when I add Waltheof, which the latest text edit seems to make appropriate but will make the tree even wider if we don't want to shrink the text size. Agricolae (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to avoid it bleeding into the next main section on my screen, but feel free to move it again... image placement is a royal pain in the behind. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I added Waltheof, and Ralph - while the latter is not mentioned as a claimant, he is usually mentioned as Edward's nephew, if only to immediately dismiss him as possible heir due to his character, and he may be relevant other places where this chart might be used (unlike the Norman one which is purpose-specific, this tree can go on several pages). I am also going to move it down again - right now I see: Count | Herbert | I of | Maine| etc. If it still impinges below at the slightly larger size made necessary by the addition of Waltheof, then we will have to consider other options (such as the suggestion to center it between paragraphs rather than wrapping around, as suggested by George Ponderevo).

Harrying of the North

Should there be more on this? Higham, Kingdom of Northumbria, p. 233, refers to "perhaps the most destructive single campaign in England's history - William's devastation of the north undertaken in the winter months of 1069-70." Dudley Miles (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Other historians are less convinced that it's not all propoganda from the English side - personally I suspect that the back and forth over whether it really was as destructive as has been claimed is best related in the Harrying of the North article itself. We could pile one historian's opinion against another's opinion and just increase the bloat of the article here if we're not careful. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Last thoughts before FAC ...

Okay, we're in the home stretch here ... I think we're waiting on the family tree and ... what else? Are there any comments I missed replying to? Anything else that needs doing? I know we need to jiggle the image placement a bit to make sure all the images face into the article, but I'm waiting on the family tree before doing that, since that will likely affect images. I'm going to beg Malleus for a final copyedit before we head to FAC, but want to have everything else squared away before hand. I know a map might be nice but ... I'm horrid with maps and haven't found a decent one. Any suggestions? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I cleaned up the older map and have inserted it into the article... and we have family trees (thanks Agricolae!). Anything else? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you might have trouble with that family tree diagram at FAC, as JPEGs don't scale well; ideally it would be an SVG. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

We obviously have different views of 'ideal'. (I originally said a lot more, but it was in serious violation of WP:CIVILITY, so I will leave it at that.) Agricolae (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

No, the idea is to employ graphics that are scalable, as the name Scalable Vector Graphics implies. On my screen the present JPEG is virtually unreadable, and I really fail to see why my mentioning this would justify an abusive attack from you. If that's the tenor of discussion then I will waste no more of my time here. Incivility doesn't seem to be in short supply on Wikipedia, so I can easily get my fill elsewhere. George Ponderevo (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't go away mad - others here can use your help. If you must know, though, I have now done one of the figures three different ways, and they took progressively twice as long to go from simple software doing simple things, to trying to do the same simple things using increasingly more annoying and needlessly excessively complex software. If I can throw together a jpg in 1 hour, and it takes me 4 hrs to do the svg that is demanded, it only confirms my decision to never endeavor to take an article of 'my own' to FA status, nor even to subject myself to another DYK vetting ever again. That being said, this is not 'my' article (and yes, I know I don't really own any of them, but you should understand what I mean) and I am sure those who have the time and motivation to deal with the whole arbitrary process would welcome all the help they can get. Agricolae (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Tree of William's struggle for England.jpg

jpg

svg

Well, those were 5 hrs of my life I will never get back. Here is the sgv and the jpg for one of the figures, and neither one is readable at the size used in the article. Am I missing something, where this was supposed to make a difference? Agricolae (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I've changed out the image in the article for the svg version and upped the size, which makes it readable to me at least. That's the advantage of svg, it's scalable without having to upload lots of different sizes. I'm sorry you're upset (and sorry if you're offended that I have been working towards FAC also), and I would certainly not call the time you spent on the charts wasted at all. I have greatly appreciated all the efforts you have put forth to help this article be the best possible. I can totally understand, however, if you don't want to convert the other chart to svg, given that you don't want to participate in the FAC process. If you can't/won't, would it be okay if I attempted the conversion? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I am certainly not offended. If it works for you, then great. And while we are at it, for all everyone cares about the software used, why is nobody asking for the information in the charts to be documented just like every other piece of information in the article? I don't know why genealogy gets a free pass. I think the England one can cite the chart in Barlow's Edward the Confessor, except I don't remember if it shows Harold's sons. The Norman one is largely found in Searle's Predatory Kinship, with the fine details on the Montgomery descent from Elisabeth van Houts' Robert of Torigny article and Kathleen Thompson's on the Montgomery family (checking them again, I note that they agree on the Montgomery descent from Seinfreda, so I am going to put that in, and use 'Montgomery' in anticipation of Roger's page being renamed to the more common spelling), although I don't know that any of these show the Breton and Angevin links - in fact, perhaps these should be removed as a violation of SYNTH. Unlike the Norman side (brought home by Searle) I don't know that anyone has commented on these relationships when discussing William's struggles to succeed to Normandy. Agricolae (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I note that you have captioned the second chart "some of the claimants" (as opposed to just "claimants"). Are you aware of another claimant that has been left out? Agricolae (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Not really - but I was covering my butt in case you'd left something off... if you haven't... then we can easily remove "some" ... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I included everyone I knew of who 1) actually is recorded as making a claim, 2) invaded, raided, or rebelled and had a genealogical connection that could have been the basis for a claim, or 3) were immediate family members and get mentioned by most accounts of the English mess between 1015 and 1075. The only other people that I might think of including are Olaf Haraldson, and Skuli Tostigson, both of whom became effective non-entities as far as England was concerned the minute their fathers became raven-food and never either claimed nor invaded England after that day (as far as I am aware) not are mentioned except for slinking back north afterward, Waltheof, whose only genealogical connection would introduce additional problems (e.g. was Adelaide daughter of Herleva or just Robert) and arose after the fact, and maybe Ralph the Timid, who was never in danger of being motivated enough to claim anything. Olaf and Ralph would be relatively easy to add. Skuli and Waltheof would be problematic. Still, I am open to suggestions (or for that matter it is now in the public domain so anyone who wants to can add anyone they want). Agricolae (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been good with what you added - and any of those that you just named wouldn't really be claimants in my mind (nor have I seen then in the literature either...). The only one I'd even sorta consider would be Waltheof, but like you say, there are issues with putting him on the chart (and I don't think we'll ever reach a satisfactory historical conclusion on whether Adelaide was a full sibling to William or just a half sibling... ). If you're good with leaving Waltheof off, I"m good with it. The only reason I'd see to add him would be to show that Waltheof was related somehow to William... I don't think he was really a claimant. I've been hammered by real life the last few days... hoping to get some editing done in the next few days... so that we can tie up the last loose ends. I'll get that "some" removed when I can find time to edit. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

NB, I've upped the hues slightly on the map of Britain - the blues and reds should stand out a bit more now; see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• I think those two family trees at the size they are now would look better if they were centred, rather than boxing the text. Just a thought. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• What does this mean? "Harold stopped in London, and was there for about a week before Hastings". Something like "marching on to Hastings"? George Ponderevo (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• " Ralph eventually left Norwich in the hands of his wife". What does "in the hands of his wife" mean? George Ponderevo (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Got these, I think. Thank you for the wonderful copyedit! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Agatha

I have added a note regarding William's disputed daughter Agatha that could use another set of eyes. Agricolae (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. In a related (oh, bad pun) note, I'm thinking of removing numbers 20, 22, and 23 from the ancestor chart - I can't find anything that discusses them in the way of sourcing and certainly none of the biographies of William discuss these ancestors - your thoughts? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk about a can of worms. . . . This is a problem with all of these ancestry tables that are proliferating like rabbits all over Wikipedia. As you may have noticed, I have been involved in a long-running dispute on another page over whether such a tree is appropriate at all, given that no biographer of the subject has ever named anyone but his parents and a (vague) distant cousin. The response was that I was trying to deprive him of his ancestors and that it was all fully referenced, both of which are totally beside the point I was making of it being SYNTH and UNDUE. I have never seen a single source discussing William the Conqueror that names Juhel Berenger as an ancestor, but that seems to be a standard that is blatantly ignored when it comes to these tables. I see four options - leave it as it is, because as I said, nobody seems to care; remove valid ancestors from the tree to avoid UNDUE issues, at the expense of having a tree that is vaguely deceptive in that by its nature this format is intended to show the complete known ancestry over the included generations; trade it for the 4-generation version of the template, which would remove the problem individuals (but also William Longsword, but he is in one of the new trees anyhow); or shoe-horn Fulbert into the 'struggle for Normandy' tree and remove the ancestry table entirely (gasp). Agricolae (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we can safely trade this in for the 4 generation version... let me see if I can do it without breaking anything... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, pooh. It insists on putting in blank boxes for the missing folks... can we shoehorn Fulbert in (I do appreciate so much you taking on the charts... ) and then just chop the chart? The boxes with {{{12}}} etc are just plain ugly. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Ugly with a capital Ugh!. The 6-generation template (why anyone needs 6-generations of genealogical context is beyond me) does this as well. Agricolae (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Returning to the original issue: Not having access to ODNB, I am not sure I have appropriately expressed the position of Elisabeth van Houts. What precisely does she reject in her Adeliza article? Douglas' hypothesis that it was Adeliza who was affianced to Alfonso, or that Agatha existed at all (or both)? Agricolae (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Dropped you an email about it... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I was just going from the text that was already in the article, but van Houts says something different entirely - in fact, she is quite open to the idea that Agatha was an authentic daughter of William. I think we need to consider reintroducing Agatha into the list of children (with a qualifying 'possibly'), as we have just Douglas saying no, van Houts possibly, and all of the Iberian historians accept her. Agricolae (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with that... you're more familiar with the Iberian sources - I just care that the information is correctly sourced. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Last chance...

Going to head to FAC in the next few days with this... anyone have any last minute copyedits, concerns, problems? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

None from me. George Ponderevo (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• As someone who has spent time in the Southern Hemisphere I really take issue with using "spring", "summer", "autumn" and "winter" to denote time unless the local seasonal conditions are important to the story, as the seasons are relative to where on the planet we are. WP:SEASON backs me up. I am here to discuss how to move forward. --John (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• The problem is that just saying "early in the year" does NOT convey the same chronological time frame as "spring" ... spring is three months - "early in the year" is any time before June. When you're dealing with medieval writers, they didn't always specify months. Sometimes all we can do is a season. Changing all "spring"s to "early in the year" is introducing ambiguity that wasn't there. I get the whole Southern Hemisphere thing - but in the 11th century - no one was recording history IN the Southern Hemisphere (except perhaps some Incas...) - and it's pretty dang clear that William's article will be dealing only with Northern Hemisphere locations. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC) (edited to correct capitalization and add inca bit Ealdgyth - Talk 21:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC))

  Added to which they weren't using the same calendar in the 12th century anyway, so how "early" is "early"? Malleus Fatuorum 21:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Discussing the specifics - the source for "Edgar remained free and in the autumn joined up with King Sweyn of Denmark" specifically states "In the autumn of 1069 a great fleet sent by Sven..." ... if you just say "later in the year" you imply that the fleet could have sailed anytime up to December of 1069, something that doesn't usually happen with fleets sailing in the Baltic and North Seas.
• For "Although Sweyn had promised to leave England, he returned in the spring of 1070, raiding..." again, campaigning happened in the spring - as well as fleets sailing on the North Sea - the source specifically states "in the spring of 1070 came King Sweyn himself"
• "William only returned to England in autumn of 1075" ... this one is more arguable, although again, the source only specifies "autumn" ... crossing the channel DID happen in winter, although it wasn't quite as safe as in the fall.
• "...and in the spring of 1080 they rebelled..." again, the source only states "spring of 1080" but leaving it at "early" gives ambiguity that isn't present in the source. Saying "early" implies it could have happened in January or February - which the source specifically does NOT imply. The rebellion happened before Walcher's death on 18 May 1080, but the source doesn't specify how much earlier in the spring - could have been early May or as early as March... we don't know from the source.
• "and in the autumn William's son Robert was sent on a campaign against the Scots" .. again, campaigning in the winter would be exceptional (note that we discuss how unusual it was for William to campaign in the north over winter) but saying "later in the year" implies that it could have been anytime past mid-year... but the source specifies "autumn".
• I'm not generally in the habit of being vague when my sources aren't vague - if there is a date, I'll give it. But I also don't want to be vaguer than the sources state either - when the source doesn't give me more than a season, why should I introduce ambiguity when it's very clear that this article can't be referring to anything related to the Southern Hemisphere? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm with Ealdgyth on this one - it's a feature of historical writing on the medieval period, and the chance for confusion seems low. I guess the article could include an explanatory footnote if necessary. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

  What might that explanatory note say? That Europe is in the northern hemisphere? Malleus Fatuorum 21:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Only if we found a citation for that. :) Personally, I don't think confusion is likely, but if someone was concerned then a footnote saying something like "Medieval chroniclers frequently referred to 11th century events only by the season, making more precise dating impossible." might do the trick. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

  That's one approach. Mine would be to use common sense. The southern hemisphere has no recorded medieval history, so how can there be any confusion? Malleus Fatuorum 22:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You miss the point of WP:SEASON then; it isn't to eliminate confusion of that sort but to recognise that readers may have a different (and perfectly legitimate) understanding of "spring" or "autumn" if they live in a different hemisphere. I do think it looks parochial to use seasons this way, although I understand the limitation of the sources. An actual date or at least a month would be preferable. --John (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I double checked every change you made - none of them give an exact date .. as you can see above. As for parochial, most medieval history works, including from scholarly presses, use such phrases when necessary. When referring to campaigning, implying that the whole second half of the year is meant is misleading in my mind. I'm less concerned with the "William only returned to England in autumn 1075..." one and would be okay with it being changed, but the ones relating to campaigns really need to stick with the season - it makes a big difference. I've gone ahead and made sure the 1075 one is not seasonal... but I don't think accuracy should take a back seat to "parochialism"... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

To say "early in the year" is terribly confusing, when some of us know (and some don't) that the year began on 25 March. If the sources refer to seasons, then that's the best we can do. From the context it's self-evident that "spring", "summer", "autumn", and "winter" must refer to the seasons in Europe. For anyone who has trouble understanding their meanings, it is surely time to learn them. Moonraker (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point on the beginning of the year. Setting aside that a European context is obvious, there are cases where what is important really is the season. If you say that 'as autumn approached, William hadn't sailed yet", everyone knows that the weather turns to crap the closer to winter you get. If you convert this to August, that is when people in the antipodes start looking for conditions to improve, so you actually make it less clear by converting from season to date. Such seasonal dating is conveying both conditions and position on the calendar, and either way you relate it loses half the meaning in upsidedownland. It's like translating poetry - you usually can either preserve the metre or the precise meaning, but not both. Either way you end up stripping half the context, and I am not convinced that absolute chronology is the most relevant thing in all cases. Agricolae (talk) 05:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry you do not understand WP:SEASON. If the time of year is important to the telling of the story, this should be referenced and included. If it is not, there should be better ways of indicating when things happened. Question; did "spring" etc. have the same meanings to people a thousand years ago as they do today? --John (talk) 09:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that WP:SEASON is as clear cut as you suggest. It makes clear that precise dating is "usually preferable", for exactly the reasons you suggest, but it does not present a blanket ban on presenting dating by seasons. If the academic sources being used in the article date by season, due to the style of the original primary sources, and it is not possible to translate them into more specific dates, for the reasons suggested above, I can't really see how else to present the information. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the considered response. I generally agree with you. The question I asked would still be an interesting one to see an answer to, and the point about the start of the year being different seems to be a complete red herring as far as I can see. In modern times spring in the Northern Hemisphere can mean as early as 2 February or as late as 31 May. I would accept a footnote explaining the range of possible dates for each event that is glossed this way in the text. --John (talk) 11:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

For me, a note explaining the range of possible dates is a little unrealistic, and I don't know where the dates at each end of the range are going to come from. In England and France, the seasons are very variable, and of course William's life came in the middle of the medieval warm period. If the primary sources say no more than "spring", to explain that as a range of possible dates would surely be original research, unless we could report informed speculation from reliable sources. There are all kinds of things we can't say about medieval lives (and, indeed, modern lives) because we lack information, and we surely need to learn to live with that. Moonraker (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:SEASON is sort of wrong, and especially wrong when dealing with history and especially older history articles, because we don't know exactly what happened, only what people tell us happened. I see people change "the spring" to "early that year" "per WP:SEASON"; on what planet are the two phrases synonymous? Can anyone name a single historian who approves of this practice? - Dank (push to talk) 14:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I sympathise with your view Dank, though I disagree with it. It seems to me that SEASON is something to be proud of; unlike most professional historians we have a policy of generating free content which will be intelligible to everyone in the world who can read English, not just the privileged elites in Europe and North America. As such I think we should support it. In any case, like it or not, it enjoys consensus as part of MoS at the moment and unless or until that changes, this article has to follow it as best it can. I am not sure where your query about the timing of spring comes from; is it not in the early part of the year where you live? --John (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

John, you keep acting like SEASON mandates that we never ever ever use "spring" or "fall" - but it doesn't. It states "As the seasons are reversed in the northern and southern hemispheres—and areas near the equator tend to have just wet and dry seasons—neutral wording (in early 1990, in the second quarter of 2003, around September) is usually preferable to a "seasonal" reference (summer 1918, spring 1995). Even when the season reference is unambiguous (for instance when a particular location is clearly involved) a date or month may be preferable to a season name, unless there is a logical connection (the autumn harvest)." that's not a mandate to always avoid the term - it's a "usually preferable". I know you have a hobby horse on this (and I see you opposed the FAC over this), but to my mind, military campaigning is also a "logical connection" here. Medieval campaigns did not happen in the winter and we should not imply that they did. Using "early" or "late" in the year implies not spring or fall to me, but Jan-April or Oct-Dec - which is wrong to the sense of the sources. Spring in England is usually March through June and fall is late August through October. That's not "early" or "late" to me - it's not strictly speaking any part of the quarters of the year (due to winter overlapping the years). And you're ignoring my efforts to compromise - I did change the one that wasn't connected to military campaigns, but I don't see any acknowledgement of my efforts to find a compromise. You're not addressing my arguments - you're just saying "MOS must be met". Can you possibly address the specifics I addressed above or is this such a matter of principle that you can't see a compromise? Right now, it's sure looking like the later to me. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• (ec saying much the same)To quote from the MOS "Even when the season reference is unambiguous (for instance when a particular location is clearly involved) a date or month may be preferable to a season name, unless there is a logical connection (the autumn harvest). Season names are preferable, however, when they refer to a phase of the natural yearly cycle (migration to higher latitudes typically starts in mid-spring)." "Particular locations" are always involved here, and in terms of military campaigning, sea travel (indeed most travel) etc, there was very often a "logical connection". Indeed reading the article suggests that revolting Norman or English were as much a part of 11th century natural cycles as migrating reindeer. I think the MOS is being over-interpreted here. Johnbod (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • What do the sources say? I would definitely amenable to a compromise here, even though it is a hobby horse of mine. If a source makes a "logical connection", or if an explanatory footnote can be provided, I think we can fix this. --John (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
    • John - I posted above for each change you made what the source says... the paragraph starts "Discussing the specifics..." Ealdgyth - Talk 20:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Note -- Speaking both as a FAC delegate and a resident of the southern hemisphere, I think Ealdgyth (among others) has provided adequate responses to the concern about seasons, in terms of logical connection and the limitations of the sources. Objections at FAC must be actionable, and the only action I can see that might reasonably be taken to address the concern is a brief footnote at the first use of a seasonal reference, along the lines that Hchc suggested at 21:38, 23 June 2012. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

What triggered the introduction of WP:SEASON (diff) was this example which may help to explain to people who live in the northern hemisphere why this issue is confusing for people in the southern hemisphere (and why is an example of systemic bias). Having said that it is important in a military history that the season is recorded because it weather affects military operations. -- PBS (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)