Talk:Walter de Coutances

Reverted text...

This text:

To avoid a civil war in England, Richard gave Countances secret instructions to keep peace between John and Longchamp. If the intrigues and political manueuvers between the two could not be resolved, Countances was to sack Longchamp. As it turned out, Countances would perform these instructions from Richard with adroitness.

I've reverted from the article, as it's all covered in the next paragraph as well as not being very encyclopedically written. "Sack" isn't encyclopedic. NOr is it needed to link "adroitness" nor "political". Ealdgyth - Talk 20:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

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

More details

The article is well documented, but needs more details. It contains many interesting and worthwhile information on medieval life and on Coutances, himself. I would recommend more photos in the article to break up the writing. I would also recommend any writings, if any, from Coutances, himself. That would give the article more connection with the reader.

Reviewer: Cmguy777 (talk) 18:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, he didn't write anything besides episcopal acta, which aren't strictly speaking writings, but instead are short legal documents. Photos aren't required for GA (or FA) status. The article contains most every detail that's known about him without going into uneccessary detail such as when he signed each acta, since we are writing an encyclopedia, not a biography, those details aren't really necessary. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I added that Richard I secretly instructed Coutances to sack Longchamps if he was unable to handle Prince John. It was deleted. I am not sure why since it was from a legitimate source. I just gave my input on the article. It is true that photos are not neccessary, but in my opinion they will add to the article. {Cmguy777 (talk) 06:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)}

The thing about Richard's instructions is actually covered in the article later, and Coutances had orders that covered a number of different options, not just getting rid of Longchamp. Nor was the wording of your additon particularly encyclopedic, since "sack" is slang. Nor was there a need to link "political" or "adroitness". And when you add sourced information to an already extensive article, you need to match the style of referencing already in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your insight. The word sack dates to 1825 when a dismissed worker was told to leave with their tool bag. Longchamps was not politely dismissed, but rather had to go through a humiliating trial. The word adroitness comes from the Latin word astutus meaning crafty or clever. All that was implied by that word was Coutances was successful at what he did. The word political comes from the Latin word politicus meaning taking sides in a party. Prince John and Longchamps were in a political struggle with each other over control of England, as far as I understand, while Richard I was fighting a crusade. Richard I was even concerned with a civil war breaking out in England. That is why I used political. You have valid reasons for deleting the edit.{Cmguy777 (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)}

The article seemed mostly fine to me; actually it could probably pass for FA without much improvement, since, as you say, there isn't really much more to write about him. But here are my comments, with the section in question:

• Early life - Gerald "liked Coutances because the other clergyman had befriended Gerald"; I'm not sure what that means. This was the only bit of the article that was unclear for me.

• Early life - "schools of Paris" could be linked to university of Paris, if that is what is meant. The university was pretty well-established by then.

• Service to King Henry - there is an article on the Revolt of 1173-1174

• Bishop of Lincoln and Archbishop of Rouen - Philip's sister Alice has an article (Alys, Countess of the Vexin - he had another half-sister named Alice too but this is the one who was supposed to marry Richard)

• Service to King Richard - "When Richard was in Messina..." paragraph starts off a little redundantly, after the preceding paragraph

• Death and legacy - John Gillingham also has an article

That's it! Adam Bishop (talk) 06:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I took care of them all, clarifying that it was Coutances who befriended Gerald in the early bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Great. I see I misread the befriending part, I thought it said "clergymen". But still, it's clearer now. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Status?

Where is this review at? It hadn't been tagged as under review at WP:GAN, which i've fixed. I've had a look at the article and this review page. The article appears ready to be given the tick for GA in my view. Cmguy777, are you ready to close this as a pass? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I am willing to give this article a pass. It is well written and highly valuable in terms of understanding middle age diplomacy and church policies. My only concerns was that Richard I apparently gave Archbishop Countances secret instructions to remove Chancellor Longchamp if he could not get along with Prince John. There is a sentence that mentions "duplicity" and in a sense alludes that Coutances was acting on his own, rather then orders from Richard I.[1] London, 800-1216: the shaping of a city (Christopher Nugent Lawrence Brooke, Gillian Keir, 1975) There is no mention of Richard I. Another suggestion was to add more photos to break up the reading, however, that was not neccessary. {Cmguy777 (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)}

The "duplicity" is that a contemporary accused Coutances of duplicity, but it's not generally believed. As regards to the London book, the article goes into greater detail than the book you've linked to. The book is compressing down the entire last paragraph of "Service to Richard I" into one sentence. And properly so, since that book is about 400 years of the history of London, not about Coutances. The article says "At the council, Longchamp was deposed and exiled, largely on the strength of a royal document ordering the magnates to obey Coutances' if the archbishop's advice was resisted by Longchamp." those "royal documents" are the so-called secret instructions. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The book inferred that Richard I was behind the removal of Longchamp if there were continued disputes between rulling authority over England with Prince John. I believe that should be put into the article, making reference to Richard I. The article is good as it is. I don't believe that Countance would have acted on his own authority without Richard I permission. {Cmguy777 (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)}

It SAYS that. "royal document" basically means "Richard I" who, at this point in time was either sailing around the meditteranean or was still in Sicily. Saying "Richard dismissed Longchamp" would be wrong, as Richard did NOT. Coutances did, based on a royal document he held. If you fail the article because I won't put in a falsehood, so be it. The London book greatly simplifies the actual events, which are set forth in the article in much greater detail. The whole next section "Acting Justiciar" discusses the continuing disputes between Coutances and John that resulted in Countances being replaced by Hubert Walter. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Your article is thoroughly interesting and researched. I had no intention of "failing" the article. There may have been a misunderstanding. I apoligize. The article is good and well documented. The "Richard I" inquiry was only suppose to be for discussion. No falsehoods should be in any article. I suppose it is difficult to know exactly what was said between Richard I and Coutances about Longchamp or Prince John. I never supposed that Richard I removed Longchamp directly. I only meant mentioning that Richard I was in favor of removing Longchamp if he could not get along with Prince John.{Cmguy777 (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)}

Front pic

I notice that somebody else had problems with the previous picture. This is my offering, (having just straightened it to improve appearance). Amandajm (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The Portal of St John, a remaining part of the 12th century cathedral

Poor Walter, he finally makes it to the main page after more than 800 years, and the only graphic we have is a shot of the building where he worked? Nobody ever even drew a sketch of the guy? Featured, but featureless, it would seem. Neutron (talk) 03:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I googled him and came up with pictures of every contemporary abbot and bishop but not poor Walter! I even got a picture of a basket of something that looked like chicken nuggets but they turned out to be some ghastly snack from Jersey where they omit the chicken and just eat the batter. I don't know what this has to do with Walter, but it must relate........ Amandajm (talk) 11:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

"Coutances"

Coutances is not a surname. His friend the chronicler Gerald of Wales would not be refered to as "Wales". Coutances is a town of Normandy. Walter should be refered to as "Walter". Wetman (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It's treated as a surname by most sources - including the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article, which refers to him throughout as "Coutances". Since that's pretty much the only biographical treatment of his life, it's best to follow the sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

enthroned

If one types in Coutances 24 February 1185 enthroned into Google Books you will find dozens of references. --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

You might want to fix the French Wikipedia article also

enthroned from Dictionary.com = verb

1. to place on a throne

2. to honour or exalt

3. to assign authority to

thanks a bunch!--Christie the puppy lover 14:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• 1) So what makes the Spear source better than all these other Google Book sources? Where did Spear get his information that would make his better?
• 2) Can you tell me why "enthroned" does not mean "official entry"? I understand that enthrone means:

“ install on a throne, especially during a ceremony to mark the beginning of their rule. AND to give or ascribe a position of authority ”

Thanks ever-so-much ahead of time for answering my two questions.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Spear is current and used the primary sources to compile a fasti, or register, of the various ecclesiastical officials of the Norman cathedrals. It's always better to prefer a more recent source. You realize that the first page is all duplicated entries - there are four links to the DNB, and four more to the work of Gerald of Wales - those are not "different sources" they are the same source in different scans. AND all of them date to before 1900. I'm not sure why it is difficult to understand that "enthrone" as in an ceremony to be installed on the cathedra or episcopal chair, would be different than an entry into a city - they are two different things. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me see if I am getting this correct. Are you then saying that Gerald of Wales is somebody one can NOT rely on, where Spear would be much more reliable. I thought Gerald of Wales got his information from primary sources. Aren't these accurate? Are you saying then that there are two different sets of primary sources? Then Spear's set is somehow more accurate?

So what you are saying is that official entry is different than installed on the cathedra?

And "official entry happened at" is different than "received at"??--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Gerald of Wales IS a primary source. We are an encyclopedia ... we use secondary sources. In this case, we use Spear who is a historian and who makes his living interpreting primary sources. And understanding the biases/etc that primary sources have. Gerald of Wales was writing about events that were contemporary to him - thus, primary source. Spear is using not just chronicles like Gerald's work, but also documents and charters and other source records. He then compares those sorts of records to the chroncilers and thus what he produces is a secondary source. I'm saying that we stick to what current secondary sources say - if they say "He was elected archbishop in summer 1184, confirmed by the pope on 17 November 1184 and received at Rouen on 3 MArch 1185" ... we cannot say that Walter was "enthroned" on that day - because it's not what he's saying...he doesn't say "enthroned" but "received". And he never mentions an enthronement date at all for Walter. Nor does Turner (another current historian and thus a secondary source) mention any enthronement date for Walter in his Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry for Walter (which dates to 2004 and thus is much more current and recent than the old DNB (which would date from 1887). Ealdgyth - Talk 20:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your very nice kind answer. Now I see that "official entry happened at" (the words I used) is different than "received at Rouen on 3 March 1185" (the words of the source).--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

In this case then it is alright for you to use the exact same source words?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 10:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you might want to consider using my words.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I've already addressed that. In this case, the specific wording is needed to make sure we get the nuance of the source. Another word would not capture what the source is saying. And kindly, please, drop the subject. It's getting very very old. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your very nice kind answer. I'm trying to learn and understand how all this works.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 09:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

From the information I am getting "official entry happened at" would fit correctly and therefore you could get away from using the exact source wording.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll be putting in those words tomorrow (so you won't have to use source wording), unless you can show this would be incorrect. Please give reasoning - thanks!--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I've addressed this above. It's not correct to the source. We follow sources ... not "from the information I'm getting". I've given reasoning above. It is perfectly fine to use exact source wording for something that would be incorrect if reworded. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Since you have skirted around the issue and NOT answered it, tomorrow I'll be changing your wording of "received at", that could be considered a copyright issue, to that of "official entry happened at" which is my wording of the same thing but would NOT be considered a copyright violation since it is my words. My wording means the same thing as the source, but has been reworded into my own words of the same meaning. It is not incorrect to use these words. In fact it would be an improvement.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I am NOT skirting the issue. Your words change the meaning. Received does NOT mean "official entry" ... not at all. If the source had meant "official entry" they would have said so. Using the same word as a source is NOT a copyright issue if by using it you remain true to the source's meaning. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

AND you are going to give me the true meaning of the source meaning of "received at" - oui?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It means "received at". It's not a game, playing at words. The source says "received at" ... not "official entry". Whatever modern usage may be, medieval usage likely was different. You cannot assume from modern practices that it was the same situation in medieval France. You cannot extrapolate from modern Anglican practice to medieval practice. The source means "received", and to go to "official entry" from "received" is well past the allowable bounds of paraphrasing. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• If you feel that "official entry happened at" does not have the same meaning as "received at", then I'll leave it to others to decide what "received at" really means. I'm off to see the wizard - the wizard of Oz.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Keep in mind this is a discussion - I found at Oxford Learner's Dictionary of their meaning of enthrone

enthrone somebody when a king, queen or important member of a Church is enthroned, they sit on a throne (= a special chair) in a ceremony to mark the beginning of their rule.

early 16th cent. (gradually replacing late Middle English enthronize; formerly also as inthrone): from en-, in- ‘on’ + throne.

• This all from Oxford would be the same as "received at" in my opinion. Maybe others have more sources or can give a definition for "received at", in this case for Coutances being either 24 February 1185 or 3 March 1185 of which is one week later.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• This video is a representation of a bishop being received into a Church, especially at 10 minutes in where it shows the Crosier being passed and showing the new bishop was "received at" the new Church. This would be the "official entry" enthronement as it consisted of a formal ceremony and the beginning of his role as the new bishop. --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's a modern video, so you can't use that as evidence for what might have happened 800 years ago. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I'll withdraw that as evidence based on your conclusion. It looks like we are heading toward the idea that "received at" in that time period probably was an informal event like in Welcome, glad to see you could make it.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

You are so nice Adam Bishop!

I suppose you've seen this site or linked to it somewhere already (presumably this is where you found "received at Rouen"), but the Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1066-1300, volume 3, Lincoln (ed. Diana E Greenway, London, 1977) (online at British History Online) quotes Ralph of Diceto, who says that Walter "was received" in Rouen 1 year, 11 weeks, and 5 days, after Walter became bishop of Lincoln on December 11, 1183 - so March 3, 1185. That must be the only specific information available. Ralph also says Walter was received "with a solemn procession", so evidently there was some sort of ceremony, although what that was exactly, Ralph doesn't say. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Adam! That was very nice of you for locating this information and passing on. I have given you a cookie for that. I'd give you Irish stew, but I ate it all up at noon. You are great on finding good stuff like this. Interesting about he was received "with a solemn procession". Either way I'll go with. The date of 3 March 1185 sounds right to me - and I would lean towards this date. I am going to leave it the way written now. Again you have come through. --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, for your information, Ralph says Walter was enthroned in Lincoln on Gaudete Sunday in 1183, which was December 11. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yup, looks like 3 March 1185 is a promising date - as that is 1 year, 11 weeks, and 5 days later (by my count looking at the calendar).--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Since Ralph also says Walter was received "with a solemn procession", doesn't that make it then the "official entry" date? In other words, his official starting date. It so happens that 3 March 1185 is a Sunday also. In other words, if he was 'enthroned' in 1183 - wouldn't he have been 'enthroned' in 1185 also?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

That's OR though. Ralph is a primary source... unless a secondary source says there was an enthronement ceremony or that it was an "official entry" ... you can't say that. You cannot go past what the secondary sources say, which I've explained before. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry - I'm not going to change your wording in the article. I'm interested for my own knowledge.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Right, this is definitely OR territory now. And unless the modern source that uses February 24 is simply mistaken, there could be lots of reasons that the date could be interpreted as February 24. There could be other sources that talk about Walter's arrival in Rouen that we haven't considered here. Maybe there are chronicles from France, or charters from the church in Rouen, who knows. That's why we couldn't use Ralph as a source here, because maybe he's not the only source, and maybe he was mistaken. And maybe he was "enthroned" in France just like he was in England, but going by what Ralph of Diceto says, he only says "enthroned" for Lincoln. What does that mean? Maybe Walter wasn't enthroned in Rouen, or maybe it doesn't mean anything, maybe Ralph just wanted to use a different word that time. Maybe the ceremony was different in England and in France. We can't really tell from the short description. There are probably other sources that describe the exact ceremony for other people, but we'd need to find a modern secondary source to properly synthesize all that information. And of course that's another reason why we can't use just one primary source, on Wikipedia or in real life :) Adam Bishop (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean Adam Bishop. Some sources like this one can't agree on what Diceto says. Now since Ralph says Walter was received "with a solemn procession", and he was enthroned in Lincoln on Gaudete Sunday in 1183, then it's logical that he would have been enthroned on an important day in 1185. That would be St Matthew's Day, which is 24 February 1185. So I am moving my bets back over to 24 February 1185 as there is now overwhelming evidence to show this. Even a ditsy blonde can figure out that whatever date you want to pick for 1185 that "received at" means "official entry" day. In other words the day when Walter began his official duties as the new bishop for the church of Rouen. But don't worry Ealdgyth, I'll leave your wording and date as I don't want to start an edit war.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, there you go, there is a chronicle from Rouen after all. So that's where February 24 comes from. I guess February 24 could be significant as St. Matthias' feast day, but is the feast day of a minor saint really more significant than March 3, 1185? That was Quinquagesima Sunday, part of the pre-Easter period (Easter was April 21 that year). The date probably isn't significant, since pretty much every day is dedicated to something in the liturgical calendar! But that is a good find about the Rouen Chronicle. Now of course there are plenty of reasons that chronicle could have been mistaken... Adam Bishop (talk) 12:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course, that edition of Diceto is from 1877 or so. If I was a historian, I'd want to see a modern editon of Diceto (and of course, I should read the original myself) as well as a modern editon of the Rouen Chronicle (and have more information on how the RC was composed - is it of late date?). This is why we use secondary sources ... they are trained to do this sort of work. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

What an interesting conversation from scholars. AND thanks Ealdgyth for previously explaining why we have secondary sources - to analyze many primary sources to come to a consensus. We let the smart ones do that.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Diceto is from 1877 (or whatever) and the Rouen chronicle is in the Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, which is from even earlier in the 19th century, but I'm not sure if there are more recent editions. The current scholarship seems to quote those editions though. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I found the Chronicle of Rouen - there is a bit of it in the RHGF, but that excerpt doesn't go as far as Walter's arrival. For that, we need the edition published all the way back in 1657 (on Google Books, p. 369). There, the chronicle simply says "1185 - in this year Walter of Coutances was received as Archbishop of Rouen on the feast of St. Matthias". I don't know anything about the compilation of the chronicle, but the last entry in this edition is 1343. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, aside from Spear, who is probably the best source and probably discusses the dates somewhere, another possible source I found that isn't mentioned in this article is Peter A. Poggioli, "From Politician to Prelate: The Career of Walter of Coutances, Archbishop of Rouen, 1184–1207". Seems to be Poggioli's PhD thesis though, so it might not be easily accessible... Adam Bishop (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I was totally unable to get a hold of a copy. Since the ODNB entry uses it, I felt that I was probably okay with not paying for a copy... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Adam Bishop for finding that on page 369 of the chronicle saying "1185 - in this year Walter of Coutances was received as Archbishop of Rouen on the feast of St. Matthias". Looking at the Oxford English Dictionary of the word "receive" it says - To accept (something / a person or thing) as an authority, rule, or practice. Received - adj. "Now chiefly in religious contexts." It looks like to me that of official entry. But, don't worry Ealdgyth - I'll leave your wording in there. I want to keep your blood pressure down.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Different dates

Maybe the difference between the various sources for Coutances' official entry of 24 February and 3 March (1 week) is that a new bishop would go on a tour of his diocese, making sure all the clergy knew he was there, ensuring their loyalty before doing the official enthronement ceremony as shown here for example.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 11:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

This would show that I was correct with 24 February 1185 from the references I found. Also the French article on him uses this date. --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Again the source you're showing above is the DNB - which dates from 1887. We discussed this before. The French article sources that date to a 1932 source. We've discussed above the whole concept of older sources being superceded by newer sources. And your idea about a tour is WP:OR without a reliable source. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying I am going to change the 3 March 1185 date, since it is only a week off and makes no difference in the long run over some 800 years, but pointing out to you that Maybe the difference between the various sources is because of the idea of a preliminary tour ahead of time BEFORE the official enthronement. You can keep your date.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It isn't MY date. It's the source's date. We go by sources here... not by editor's opinions. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It isn't MY date either, that of 24 February 1185. Got it from Dictionary of National Biography - which I believed at the time was correct, as it appears this source is used quite often by many other editors. But, don't get your blood pressure up - I'll leave the March date. Not worth fighting over a week difference in some 800 years. It's history, ancient history - hehehehe.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what we're doing here. Christie the puppy lover, we can't have original research. Discrepancies between the sources happen, and preponderance should be given to the better sources which, typically, are the more recent ones. Also, Gerald of Wales is indeed a marvelous historian; his account of the werewolves in his Topographia Hibernica is very exciting. Ancient history is indeed old, which is why we rely on secondary sources, preferably really good ones, and one assumes that the FA process would have separated the wheat from the chaff. Please refrain from edit warring; thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Heh, sorry, I didn't mean to add to the confusion by talking about touring the diocese over on the Reference Desk. That's what Christie is talking about. I just meant that it was something a new bishop would do, eventually (could be months before he got around to it though, if ever). Anyway, that has absolutely nothing to do with the date discrepancy here, so forget I mentioned it. Actually this reminds me of a discussion we were having about the death of Baldwin IV of Jerusalem on his talk page. Different medieval sources say different things, and these are interpreted differently by modern historians. No big deal. It's always nice to know an exact date but sometimes we just can't know. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see edit warring here, as I have left Ealdgyth's 3 March 1185 date alone after he put it in. I have not changed it. However there is a discussion that I obtained the 24 February 1185 date from the Dictionary of National Biography - which I believed at the time was correct as it is a source often used by many editors. If one has found another date of a week later, then that is fine by me -> and I never changed that from when it was put in. So, bottomline I see no edit warring going on, only disagreements as to which date should be used. That is NOT edit warring - as no edit has been reverted. Disagreements on a date is NOT edit warring. It is a discussion! Why do you think we have Talk Pages on articles -> even a ditsy blonde can figure that one out.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)