Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Carucage/archive1

Moving some my own earlier comments and Ealdgyth's responses here, because the main FAC page is overloaded. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 22:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Just as an example, I think this paragraph is almost impenetrable if you don't already know the history:

The 1220 carucage was collected by a special commission, and was paid not into the Exchequer, but to the Templar Order church in London, the New Temple. The three men appointed to the commission—William de Halliwell, a friar, William FitzBenedict, a London resident, and Alexander de Sawbridgeworth, an Exchequer clerk[27]—were responsible for accounting for the money received, which amounted to £3,000.[30] The time frame of the 1220 carucage collection was quite short; the orders for the assessments to be made were issued in August, but required the tax to be collected by Michaelmas in late September.[31] The 1220 tax attempted to allow for variation in land values, exempting wastelands from taxation.[24] The system for the 1220 assessments was simpler, as ploughteams were counted to determine the land size. This tax gathered around £5,500.[15] There was some difficulty in collecting the tax, however, as some counties did not pay, and a number of barons refused to pay, at least at first.[32] The 1220 carucage was for the defence of Poitou.[29]

Why was it paid to that church? Who appointed the commission? The 1220 system was simpler than what? The barons refusing to pay, but then paying: what persuaded them, and why did they first refuse, do we know? The defence of Poitou: what and where was that, and why was it being defended, and against whom?

I'm not suggesting you add extensive detail for each of the points, only that the sentences be fleshed out a little, so that the average reader can find his or her bearings. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, just one more point. It would be nice to know a little about how we know these things. "X reports that a, b, and c, but we also know from Y that d," because I'm assuming that the history comes to us from a very small number of sources. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reworked throughout the article including some of that example paragraph (such as explaining what Poitou was) but quite honeslty we do not know why that year the carucage went to the Temple Order church...nor do the sources explain why the barons at first refused to pay nor why they decided to pay. We're a bit hampered at the moment by the lack of a good biography of Henry III. We have good scholarly biographies of William I (2 in fact), Wiliam II (2 in fact), Henry I (2 again), Stephen (more than I can count...), Henry II, Richard I (2 again) and John (2 again) but none on Henry III, so there isn't a "narrative" tying his reign together yet. As for the "X reports..." I've indicated in the text when it's given in my secondary sources, but a lot of this data will have come from the financial records themselves, which survive. Sometimes that's the only source for the information. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could tell the reader when the sources have been exhausted, along the lines of, "X reports that the barons at first refused to pay, but later did, though no record has survived to explain the change of heart." Something like that, so that readers get just a very rough idea of the historiography.

As it stands, it's very succinct, too much so. I've submitted a very short FAC myself—Stanley Green, just over 1,200 words—so I'm not arguing that the length is a necessary obstacle, but in Green's case, that really was all that was known about him, and there were no puzzling terms to explain. Here, there's a rich history behind some of these expressions, and knowing who said what, and what remains unknown, would be very interesting, in my view. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Check over the additions I made and see if it feels too succinct. Personally, I don't think it's needed to explain who exactly is arguing each point ... even if my sources state that. Historian's don't always footnote to the degree I think you're looking for. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Those changes are good. Could you say what "free men" were? Regarding historians, I think the best ones (or the ones who are easiest to follow) do make clear who their sources were, but also bear in mind that we're not aiming at the same readership, so we need a bit more explanation. A little historiography is usually required at FA level. I'm not suggesting reams about it, just an idea of where this comes from, and when something isn't know, then saying so. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I've thrown in a paragraph in the background section that explains that most of our sources are the original financial records, which makes the most sense to me to have it in one place rather than explain every time that this piece of information comes from the financial records. I've also explained "free men" (which quite honestly means exactly that... men who were free but I've pulled out my historian bs-hat and made it a bit fluffier). Mitchell doesn't say anything beyond a bald "A considerable number of barons refused at first to pay the tax."... I'm afraid that medieval taxation doesn't attract many historians, it's a rather dry subject! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

There's another Mitchell book here from page 7 onwards, which seems to say more about it. Says it was also called "hidage" in case that's useful. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 20:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I looked at that, but that's a reprint of a 1914 work, which is just a rework of his PhD dissertation. Since no one else, even Mitchell, later calls it a hidage, I didn't think it was necessary. I did just look through it again, but it's mainly repeating information in the article already. (If I missed something, let me know...) I'm assuming that if he'd kept that idea, his later work would have mentioned it. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This, p. 506, also uses hidage as another term for carucage, or carucatage, as he calls it. It's a little earlier, but not much. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Maitland's talking about a different thing there. Tribal Hideage is a Anglo-Saxon document that records lands owned by various tribes. Maitland's discussing land measurements there, not the tax. This is the joy of being a medievalist, terminology has changed over time. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, so his carucatage is not the same thing as curucage? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope. He's discussing Domesday and the units of land - the hides or the carucates. Which is incredibly confusing, I know. Maitland's ... 100+ years old, easy (I'd have to look up his article) but most of his writings are old, so some of his terminology can be confusing. A carucate is not a carucage... no matter how similar they sound. The latter is the tax based on teh former .. carucate and hide are roughly similar, though. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't think I'd ever find taxation issues interesting, but as I read about this, it's really quite fascinating. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)