Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thomas of Bayeux/archive1

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:15, 14 March 2010 [1].

Thomas of Bayeux[edit]

Thomas of Bayeux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 13:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because... It's time for something besides a tax and a horse? Seriously, Thomas isn't a "bad boy bishop" nor is he a saint, just a typical Norman ecclesiastic of the time period, who rose a bit higher than most, becoming Archbishop of York. Thomas has the dubious distinction of being the first ABY involved in the Canterbury-York dispute, and had the bad luck to be ABY while Lanfranc and Anselm of Canterbury were Archbishops of Canterbury, which would make anyone look bad. Although he was responsible for rebuilding York Minster in England, little of his work survives. He was a member of an ecclesiastical dynasty - with a brother as a bishop, and two nephews also, including one who became ABY. As usual, copyediting by Malleus, who managed to transform my prose into something approaching readable. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links, no dead external links, alt text present and good. Ucucha 13:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Sources all look good to me. I haven't done specific source checking reviews before but I am confident about the sources here. Mike Christie (talk) 02:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment sources seem to be missing "Douglas William the Conqueor" • Ling.Nut 13:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who had previously as Duke of Normandy usually promoted either Norman nobles or monks" => something like "who had usually promoted Norman nobles or monks when he was still Duke of Normandy". Cavila (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do you have an ISBN number for "Douglas, David C. (1964). William the Conqueror: The Norman Impact Upon England. Berkeley: University of California Press."? My digging indicates that Amazon gives the paperback an ISBN of 978-0520003507; Book Depository lists the hardback as 9780520003484, and concurs with Amazon on the paperback. Alibris concurs with Book Depository. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Locations in the citations; "Berkeley" and "Chapel Hill NC"; "Cambridge" and "Cambridge UK"; "Oxford" and "Oxford UK". I'll admit I'm not familiar enough with FA's to know which is right, but please be consistent. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There have been several editions of Douglas, the one I have (and use) does not have an ISBN listed in it, and I don't care to use one if there isn't one in it. I'll get the locations straightened out. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The locations are standardized within individual locations. Places such as New York, London, Oxford, Cambridge do not have futher abbreviations as they can be assumed to be known where they are. Other places such as Berkeley, Princeton, etc. do further differentiate. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment also sought to have the pope declare that the northern sees of Worcester, Dorchester,[notes 2] and Lichfield – all south of the Humber River I have a number of problems here.
  • I don't think anyone would consider the diocese of Worcester to be in the north (except in the Londoner's definition - the north begins at Watford).
  • Dorchester is near the Engish south coast, way south of London. Although it may have been allocated to Lincoln, that doesn't make it a northern see. Or do you mean that it was being claimed because it was linked to the northern see of Lincoln?
  • The Humber is just the fairly short estuary of the Trent and Ouse. I thought that the River Trent was the traditional boundary between York and Canterbury (and the north and south of England), and that the Humber only comes into the reckoning because it's the estuary of the Trent? Also see second sentence of Archbishop of York
  • I know why you've linked to Coventry rather than Diocese of Lichfield, but it's not transparent, especially as the latter diocese still exists
  • a real nitpick - BE usage is "River Humber ", not "Humber River" - same with Trent
  • I've clarified a bit here with "midland" rather than "northern" - what I meant I believe was that the three sees were the northern ones in Canterbury's province, but...it wasn't clear. There wasn't really a "traditional" boundary at this time, this dispute settled the boundary. Most of my sources discss the Humber as the boundary, why, I do not know. Remember the Archbishop of York article covers a lot of time, where this is much more concentrated. Coventry IS Lichfield, which is Coventry... and there's really not a "good" place to link to in that debate. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still not happy. I'll accept what you say about the Humber, although it makes little sense, but the article to which Lichfield now directs doesn't actually mention Lichfield. The Coventry link is particularly unexpected given that the Diocese of Lichfield would be the anticipated target. I think you need either to amend the linked article or provide another footnote to clarify the surprising target of the link Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, fixed the problem now. The articles now link to the Bishop articles, not the dioceses, which are .. quite honeslty, not good articles. Whether that's an error I did long long ago, or one that someone came along and "fixed" for me, I have no clue. Those should be much better links now. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise I have no problems, and I'll support when the above sentence is clarified Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Reading Ealdgyth's bishop articles is meeting up with old friends – Odo, William-of-this-and-that, Anselm, Lanfranc...It's like a school reunion. I've only managed to read the lead so far; here are a few tickles:-

  • Second line of lead: should "the King" be capitalised?
  • Don't know. I usually leave that to Malleus, as I invariably get it wrong. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'd have gone for "the king", but consistency is all, and apart from one instance Malleus has used "the King" throughout. The one exception is "the Danish king" which I suppose is Ok, him being Danish and all... Brianboulton (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a problem understanding this: "...part of Lanfranc's claim that Canterbury was the primary bishopric, or head of the English Church." Can a bishopric, which is an office, be the head of the Church? Surely, it's the bishop that is the head, in the same way that the monarch, not the monarchy, is the Head of State?
  • My point here is that Lanfranc is arguing not just for himself but for the office as head. I'm afraid if I say "archbishop" in this context, folks will think it only means Lanfranc, and not his sucessors. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point; mine remains that office-holders, not offices, are heads of things. Could the sentence be tweaked to read: "...part of Lanfranc's claim that Canterbury was the primary bishopric, and its holder head of the English Church"? I don't see any room for confusion in that. Brianboulton (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thomas and Lanfranc continued to clash over ecclesiastical issues, including the primacy of Canterbury, which dioceses belonged to the province of York, and the question of York's obedience to Canterbury." Aren't "the primacy of Canterbury" and "the question of York's obedience to Canterbury" the same issue?
  • Sorta kinda yes, and sorta kinda no. In this case, not only did they dispute whether York was subordinate to Canterbury, but they disputed over how any oath of obedience would be made and whether any oath thomas made was binding on his sucessors. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, why not state this in the text?
  • Changed the last part to "... and the question of how York's obedience to Canterbury would be expressed." Ealdgyth - Talk 19:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the Bishop of Durham, William de St-Calais, Thomas' sole suffragan, or bishop subordinate to York." Not sufficiently explained. Presumably all bishops in the province of York were subordinate to York, yet this reads as though only William de St-Calais was. What was special about William's status (it's not clarified in the main text)?
  • Um. There WAS only one suffragan bishop in York, Durham. So yes, only St Calais was. (York had a theoretical claim to the Scottish bishops, but it never really worked out that way...) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the Province of York consisted only of the Diocese of York and the Diocese of Durham. Am I understanding correctly? Brianboulton (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Carlisle was added later (1133). York had a theoretical claim over some of the Scottish bishoprics, but this was very much "theoretical" and rarely enforceable. Especially in this period. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thomas once more became involved in the dispute with Canterbury over the primacy when he refused to consecrate the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Anselm, if Anselm was named the Primate of England." His refusal sounds more like a threat or intention ("If Anselm is named Primate I shall refuse to consecrate him") than an actual act of refusal. Perhaps should read "when he intimated his refusal to consecrate Anselm as the new Archbishop of Canterbury if Anselm was named as Primate of England."
  • No, he pretty much refused. The problem is that we aren't sure what exactly happened next. One source (Eadmer) says that Thomas consecrated Anselm as "Primate of All England", thus implying that Thomas caved. Our other main source, Hugh, says that Anselm was consecrated Metropolitan of England, which has a different meaning, and this implies that Thomas did NOT cave. Both are partisan, and what actually happened will probably never be known. It is clear that Thomas at first refused, we're just not sure whether he caved or not. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me clarify this. Thomas was refusing to consecrate and name him IN the consecration service itself, does that make sense? Anselm and/or the king or whoever was backing Anselm's demands, was attempting to get the consecration service itself to name Anselm as Primate. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your last comment clarifies what happened. You need to carry that clarification into the text, though. (What a load of squabblers these old bishops were.) Brianboulton (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added "... in the consecration service." to make it clearer. Yeah, half the fun of ecclesiastical history is how the supposedly saintly officeholders ... could fight tooth and nail over some of the strangest things. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and cover the rest later. Brianboulton (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments (conditional upon answer below, which will I suspect be that there isn't any information :)). reading through now. Please revert any prose fixes I make which inadvertently change meaning. I'll jot queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Early life - do we have any idea where he came from? Somewhere in Normandy or England or where...
Weird. Lead says that he's a native of Bayeux, not sure how that information went missing in the body, it is there explicitly now. That's pretty much all we know, that his father was a priest and he came from Bayeux. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

  • Three stylistic points: A few commas after sentence-initial prepositional/time phrases would make for easier reading. I added one or two. Watch those close repetitions, such as "line" and "so"; I've changed a few in the second section. Some rather long sentences, such as "The 12th century chronicler Eadmer, who was a monk at Canterbury, wrote much later that Thomas had resigned and surrendered his archiepiscopal symbols, which were promptly returned to Thomas by Lanfranc on the pope's orders, but this story is from a partisan source and may not be accurate."
  • "but his profession of obedience was made orally to Lanfranc personally"—orally and professionally seem squashed in.
  • "an outcome that probably had the support of the King,"—hope that reference is authoritative. Is it an unsupported hunch in the source, or are convincing arguments for this supposition put there? It's the only sourcing from Dawtry. Tony (talk) 05:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll ask Malleus nicely to try to look it over again for any long sentences that might be broken up. Unfortunately, on the second point, there really isn't a better way to word that, given the constraints of what needs to be said. The last could be sourced to any number of other sources, Dawtry was just the first of many sources I consulted to make the point. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed that long sentence and a couple of others I came across. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support contingent upon other issues being addressed. I'm satisfied with the prose and the content. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC) I read this for prose and clarity. I leave images and such things to others. A few minor prose quibbles. [reply]

story's partisan source casts some doubt on its accuracy however. I'd remove however. It isn't necessary, and it probably isn't according to "Hoyle} (Fowler).
you probably need a note explaining how his father could be a priest.
Humber River ? (in paragraph about council of prelates)
...such as the Danish king, as King of England....such as a Danish king, as King of England....such as the Danish King as King of England....?
...and the matter of the papal privilege for Canterbury, went nowhere ...remove extra comma
In 1073, Thomas, with the help of Wulfstan, Bishop of Worcester and Peter, Bishop of Chester, consecrated Radulf as Bishop of Orkney in an attempt to increase York's authority in Scotland... In 1073, with the help of Wulfstan, Bishop of Worcester and Peter, Bishop of Chester, Thomas consecrated Radulf as Bishop of Orkney in an attempt to increase York's authority in Scotland... although it still is unclear why this would increase York's authority in Scotland. Because Radulf would owe his consecration to Thomas?
archiepiscopate ?
it had a rectangular ring crypt that was long out of style ... it had a rectangular ring crypt that had been long out of style in 1075.
After the death of the Conqueror, Thomas was loyal to the third son, William Rufus, who had inherited England instead of the eldest brother, Robert Curthose.[notes 3] Thomas supported Rufus despite a rebellion led by his old mentor Odo of Bayeux... This doesn't have the same cadence as the other sentences. After the death of the conqueror, William's third son, William Rufus, inherited the English lands instead of the eldest son, Robert Curthose. Thomas supported Rufus and accompanied him on his campaigns to supress a rebellion led by his old mentor, Odo...
consecration of St Anselm ... should be Anselm, he wasn't a saint in his own lifetime, was he?
Hugh the Chanter or Hugh the Chantor? You have him linked twice, and spelled two different ways.

:Herbert de Losinga was appointed a papal legate in 1093 by Pope Urban II to investigate the matter of Thomas' profession of obedience to Lanfranc, but Herbert seems to have done nothing about investigating the issue. ....this is awkward....How about In 1093, the question of Thomas' profession of obedience to Lanfranc reemerged, and Pope Urban II appointed Herbert de Losinga as papal legate to investigate the issue. Herbert seems to have done nothing about investigation.

In 1097, Thomas consecrated ...., an unusual act, because these diocese were in Canterbury's province. However, Anselm was in exile after quarreling with the king.
''In 1100 after the sudden death of King William II and the seizure of power by the King's younger brother Henry, Thomas arrived in London too late to crown Henry I, as the ceremony had already been performed by Maurice, Bishop of London, in the absence of both archbishops. Anselm at this time was still in exile.[42][43] Thomas was initially angry at the slight, until it was explained to him that the King had worried over the chance of disorder in the kingdom if there was a delay. To mollify him, Thomas was allowed to crown the King publicly at a church council held soon after the coronation.... wordy. In 1100, William died unexpectedly. With Anselm still in exile, and Thomas in York, Maurice, Bishop of London, crowned William's younger brother, Henry. Thomas was initially angry at what he interpreted as a slight, but appeased by the King's explanation of the chance of disorder. As further mollification, Thomas performed the public ceremony at a church council held a short time later.
He was considered to have been an excellent archbishop during his time there One of his nephews, Thomas, became...
his see against... his See or the See of York.... Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got most of these. I do not have a note in the article about how his father could be a priest because well, it's pretty obvious ... (boy meets girl...) Explaining how and why clerical celibacy got introduced into the church is way beyond the scope of this article. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I agree, but a sentence explaining that clerical celibacy was not expected of parish priests in the 11th century might be in order. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not expected of parish priests in the 21st century is it? I'll get my coat ... --Malleus Fatuorum 19:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is in some churches. Still I don't think a note is needed. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even the Catholic Church has now relaxed its stand on clerical celibacy, at least for Anglican priests converting to Catholicism. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Thomas_of_Bayeux/archive1&oldid=1077421793"