Talk:Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?/Archive 1

Comey

The article currently gives as much attention to a brief exchange lasting a few seconds and ultimately making little difference to the proceedings, as it does to the actual original context of the phrase. This has already been flagged, but attempts to pare it back have been reverted. Furius (talk) 01:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the article gives too much weight to the Comey-King exchange and that the second half of the section should be pared back in the way you have done. Cjhard (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Need more examples

I have tried to find other examples of this phrase in use but I haven't been able to. Can anyone else? I do think the recent usage by Comey and Angus King is relevant, and in fact was what inspired the creation of this article in the first place. But I'm sure there have been other times when someone notably quoted it, and I wish we could find and add them. --MelanieN (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Move page

Page moved, following unanimous consensus in this discussion.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The page should be moved to Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?. "Turbulent" is by far the better-known version. Compare the results in Google Books searches for "rid me of this turbulent priest" OR "deliver me from this turbulent priest", which are largely reputable history and other academic books, with the results for "rid me of this meddlesome priest", where the phrase only actually occurs in a handful of books, nearly all little-known novels. It could be stated early in the article that "meddlesome" was used in the 1964 film, and the Comey section would not need to be changed. OTOH basing the title on Comey's quote is WP:RECENTISM. 2001:BB6:4709:C258:18FC:B88A:64A:2207 (talk) 11:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I have edited the article so that it gives a more encyclopaedic history and analysis of the phrase. It's clear from the sources that "turbulent" is by far the most common use, going back to at least 1772, and still prominent in the last 12 months (here is ESPN citing it in the context of last month's Australian ball-tampering scandal). I'm requesting that the page be moved to Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?.
Notifying all the editors who have worked on this article: FireflySixtySeven, Mishigas, SkyWarrior, MelanieN, Killer Moff, Neutrality, Srnec, Rupert loup, Fadesga, Furius, Kintetsubuffalo, Cjhard, Regicide1649, A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver, Adamtt9, Hazhk, Sikander, Tectosax, WCCasey, and Auric.
If nobody objects within the next few days, I will ask for a technical page move. If there are objections, I will file a requested move. 2001:BB6:4709:C258:3175:799D:35B8:E7F6 (talk) 15:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion. I do think this is the more common wording. It's likely that the current title was inspired by the publicity given to Comey's use of the phrase. Let the discussion here stay available for a day or two, and if no one objects, ping me and I will do the technical move. (BTW it's possible that the above pings did not work; they didn't for me. I'll ping them again.) --MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@FireflySixtySeven, Mishigas, SkyWarrior, MelanieN, Killer Moff, Neutrality, Srnec, Rupert loup, Fadesga, Furius, Kintetsubuffalo, Cjhard, Regicide1649, A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver, Adamtt9, Hazhk, Sikander, Tectosax, WCCasey, and Auric: What do you think of this proposal to change the title of this article? --MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Melanie. Maybe pings don't work if you have a line break, or something. 2001:BB6:4709:C258:3175:799D:35B8:E7F6 (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the problem may be that you added the pings to a post you had already made and signed. Pings only work if you sign the post in the same edit. Anyhow looks like they worked this time. --MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I did it all in one go, and I made sure that the links and my signature were correct before saving. I've been caught like that in the past. But even when I think I've got everything covered I still get caught ;-) 2001:BB6:4709:C258:3175:799D:35B8:E7F6 (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

BTW 2001: Thank you for your big improvements to the article! Here's a thought (disclaimer: Original Research): It's possible that the reason there are differing versions of what he said, is that they are translations and he actually said it in French! That would be typical of the "English" (actually Norman) royal family in the 1100s. --MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Edward Grim wrote the quote in Latin, plus of course he wasn't actually there when it was said; the quote was the result of his later research. But it's clear (to me, at least), that the current version was due to rephrasing, embellishment, and ultimately contraction of (the English translation of) Grim's quote, which was the accepted way of writing history before the 20th century. In fact, the practice still hasn't ceased. What brought me to this page originally was the excellent BBC series The Plantagenets, where Professor Robert Bartlett gave his own version of the Grim quote: "I have brought up and raised some feeble and wretched men in my kingdom, who are not loyal to their lord, whom they allow to be mocked so shamefully by some low-born clergyman." He added that this was later reduced to "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?". 2001:BB6:4709:C258:3175:799D:35B8:E7F6 (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Off topic, but yes, the process of "improving" famous quotes hasn't ceased. Who remembers that Churchill actually said "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat"? Contemporaries immediately improved it to "blood, sweat, and tears." For that matter, Sarah Palin never said "I can see Russia from my house" and Al Gore never said "I invented the internet." History, as it is made. --MelanieN (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree // sikander { talk } 15:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree Thanks, MelanieN, for notifying me of this discussion. I think moving the article to a title using "turbulent" rather than "meddlesome" is appropriate. WCCasey (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

This looks like consensus to me. 2001 or somebody, why don't you go ahead and tag this for a technical move? If it's tagged, I (or any admin) can do the whole process with one click. --MelanieN (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, I have done that now. 2001:BB6:4709:C258:EC49:6DA1:2EC7:13F1 (talk) 09:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

And now it's done. Maybe you could mark this discussion closed, to save any of the others that we pinged from commenting? 2001:BB6:4709:C258:EC49:6DA1:2EC7:13F1 (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done archiving it now.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I arrived just after the fait accompli, but for the record, I support the move!--Killer Moff (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comey again

Looking through both the article history and the talk page history, it seems to me that the Comey section has never been properly discussed. I don't have a problem with the Comey reference being included, but I do have a number of problems with the section. Firstly, the sheer size of the section: 850 years of history gets 570 words, and an exchange lasting a couple of minutes gets nearly a quarter of that again! Secondly, the level of detail: the fact that Comey quoted the line may be notable, but the fact that Senator King "was just going to"? Really, no. And when the other sections give an overview, with a minimum of detail, why do we need to give word for word the question that Senator King put to Comey? But my major problem with it, above all that, is that it confusing as hell! With all the commas and the parentheses and the back-and-forth, the point of the whole thing is just lost. I propose that we replace it with the following:

In a 2017 appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee, former FBI director James Comey testified that President Donald Trump had said to him that he "hoped" Comey could "let go" of any investigation into Michael Flynn; when asked if he would take "I hope", coming from the president, as a directive, Comey answered, "Yes. It rings in my ears as kind of 'Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?'"

References

There is nothing in this that isn't true; there is nothing missing that would improve the article. There are more wikilinks than I would like, but that's a minor issue. The main thing is that the reader, seeing this, will know why it is there and what it is saying. 2001:BB6:4709:C258:EC49:6DA1:2EC7:13F1 (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree and your revision looks OK. I am going to trim the paragraph; I don't see the revision as controversial.--Hazhk (talk) 10:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Which historical records?

The current version of this article contains the following phrase:

"According to historical records, Henry made the outburst..."

However, in order that this article be properly encyclopedic, shouldn't we say which historical records state that Henry II said this? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 05:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)