Talk:William Cragh

Pics

I don't know if File:Pisanello 010.jpg is any use. There is a still more gruesome Pisanello drawing next to it on Commons. Johnbod (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

That's just the kind of picture I've been looking for, as that's exactly what the gallows Cragh was hanged on would have looked like. Thanks! Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yup, your basic medieval Ikea SNAAPËR model double gallows :) Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Err...

The Lord of Gower in 1290 was William de Braose, 1st Baron Braose, so says the all powerful Complete Peerage. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

And I'm sure it's right. I'm not sure what happened, but the link I removed was to this William, who was obviously long dead by 1290. Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions after rereading Hanska...

Might point out that there is some controversy over whether he was a thief or a rebel (or both), and that the fact that his offer of compensation was refused by the elder Briouze lends support to him being a rebel. Also point out that he probably came from a decent social standing, as 100 cows wasn't a small ransom in this context. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd also thought that 100 cows was by no means a trivial offer, added to which it's not explained why William's relatives were roped in (so to speak) to hang him. I'll have another read through what Hanska has to say. Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You may have enough for a FA out of this... if you go into more of the possibilities and political motivations behind the scene - the proctors that might have "helped" folks remember, etc. etc. I've requested the book from U of I, and should have it in my hands by the end of the weekend. I'm thinking the St Thomas Cantilupe, bishop of Hereford: essays in his honour, ed. M. Jancey book might have something also. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I requested the Jancey also. Thomas de C hasn't been a priority of mine, but it won't hurt to do some work on him too. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd obviously need your help with that Ealdgyth. I just stumbled across William when I came across a book the title of which caught my eye in my local library. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I love the little bits of oddness that you can stumble across in poking around. Like Hygberht - I never knew there was an Archbishop of Lichfield in the middle ages! Or good old William of York, who probably got poisoned in his communion chalice (and the suspected culprit was Osbert de Bayeux?) shortly after being reinstated as archbishop in York, and after surviving a bridge collapse? Just weirdnesses all over. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be great if Deacon came back and chipped in as well. I agree with you about the oddness factor. I've got an article waiting in the wings about some green kids who arrived on Earth when a matter transporter on their home planet malfunctioned. So much to do. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 00:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Killings

So these were in battle then? I can see the details are a little sketchy due to lack of records. Maybe that should be mentioned in the lead? I'm a little embarrassed to admit that at first based on the lead I thought he was a serial killer, and got excited, figuring this article would be fairly lurid. AaronY (talk) 07:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The short answer is that nobody knows, but I'd very much doubt that it was in battle. Who'd be keeping count in the heat of a medieval battle anyway? If Cragh was indeed a rebel as seems likely, although some considered him to be just a thief or a brigand, then it's probable that these were men he'd killed during raids on de Briouze's lands. Obviously though there are no records of the charges against Cragh or of his trial at Swansea Castle in 1290. All we know is that Cragh was accused of killing 13 men, which he denied. I don't really think this is something that needs to be spelled out in the lead. Malleus Fatuorum 16:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Cambro-Norman Lord of Gower

Any objection to changing “Captured in 1290 by the son of William de Briouze, the Anglo-Norman Lord of Gower ...” to “Captured in 1290 by the son of William de Briouze, the Cambro-Norman Lord of Gower ...”. He was, after all, the grandson of Llywelyn Fawr. Daicaregos (talk) 11:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No objection from me. Malleus Fatuorum 11:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks,  Done. Daicaregos (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-breaking spaces

I replaced some of these which had been removed from this article and added a couple more. These prevented things like " John XXII" and "2 November" breaking at their spaces at the end of lines. I understand these uses are recommended on WP:NBSP. Another editor disagreed and kept reverting my edits. I can understand people not thinking this is absolutely necessary and may not wish to spend time on it when editing but why remove what is only a (small) improvement?

With the use of smaller screens now on tablets and smartphones there is far more likelihood of lines breaking at confusing places so more NBSPs in these appropriate places are becoming even more useful.

I welcome discussion and await some form of consensus.Doug (at Wiki) 22:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Because it wasn't an improvement at all? Eric Corbett 23:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The point you seem to have missed, Eric, is that I was replacing the NBSPs that were in the article when it was FA reviewed, but Ohconfucius arbitrarily removed on 1 Sep. I did add acouple of extras to help for the reasons above. What is your problem with that? Doug (at Wiki) 23:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The point you seem to have missed is that nbsps were unnecessary. Eric Corbett 23:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you read WP:NBSP ? Just because something is not necessary does not mean it is not useful or helpful. What's your problem?Doug (at Wiki) 23:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's face the facts. You're an incompetent editor determined for whatever reason to add unnecessary clutter to an article that you couldn't have written even in your dreams. Do you understand now? Eric Corbett 23:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

As before, abuse does not help us come to a consensus. I outlined in the first two paragraphs of this section why I feel that the NBSPs make an improvement to the article. Perhaps you could indicate how you think removing them improves the article. Doug (at Wiki) 23:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It certainly makes it easier to read and edit the prose without such markup. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You read the article to see if an edit is needed not the source. Articles are intended to be improved for the reader, not for an editor, who should be familiar with markup.Doug (at Wiki) 06:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Without editors there would be nothing to read, editors matter. I think the consensus is that it was fine as it was. J3Mrs (talk) 07:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you indicate how you think the article was improved by removing the NBSPs?Doug (at Wiki) 07:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I could quite easily edit it if it was necessary. Although I have edited for years, I didn't know I was expected to be familiar with markup. I'm not and it isn't a requirement. Markup is the sort of thing that discourages editors who have something of value to contribute without being technical. Now let it go. J3Mrs (talk) 07:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

If you don't need to use markup there is no need to look at the source at all. Just edit the text on the page. I'm just waiting to see if anyone can indicate how the article was improved by removing the NBSPs which have been quite happily sitting there for over four years. Doug (at Wiki) 08:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Eric - Now I'm really confused! I just realised that all the NBSPs i'm trying to get restored were put into the article by YOU in the first place! Someone comes along, nearly 4 years later and takes them out. I restore them and you abuse me for it! Do you just like edit wars or what?Doug (at Wiki) 11:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you got nothing better to do? Why not try writing an article yourself? Or what about taking a long walk off a short pier? Eric Corbett 11:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

A lot can change in 4 years - and if we follow your reasoning, DW, if someone adds anything, they can never remove it? I'm failing to see what a big deal the addition or non-addition of these spaces is. They were there, now they aren't. It's not something that important that it requires an edit war and all this text when your position isn't supported by other editors. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Ealdgyth (and others). As an editor I respect who I have had plenty of contact with before I take what you have said well and agree that it's unimportant and can be left alone. But my last comment to Eric shows what my problem is. I actually supported him and made small contributions through the FA process. I just can't see why my minor restoration of a sudden removal gave such offence and caused his abuse. No more from me on this. Doug (at Wiki) 12:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous

The crap about his being resurrected is presented as fact, not hearsay and legend. This entry need to be edited to become more objective; it reads as though the Vatican PR department wrote it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:2080:ECB7:4F27:B48:E2B2 (talk) 01:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Text-source integrity and close paraphrasing

Hello dear editors. Thanks to everyone involved in making this an FA. I enjoyed reading the article, although when I checked its sources, I found it to be overly reliant on two scholarly efforts: Hanska 2001 and Goodich 2002. I don't have access to the latter, but I was able to get my hands on a PDF of the former. It grieves me to say it, but in my view our article hews to closely to Hanska's contribution, and even interprets it erroneously. I wonder why no proper source review was carried out at FAC? Some examples:

• Article: Cragh pleaded innocence of the charges against him, but he was nevertheless found guilty and sentenced to be hanged.

• Source: Nevertheless, he was convicted and sentenced to be hanged.

• Our article says that Cragh was hanged by Ythel Fachan, one of his relatives who had been forced to perform the service by de Briouze. Hanska only supports the first of these three assertions (p.126).

• Article: Although they found no marks around his neck they did discover some scarring on his tongue, according to Cragh caused by him having bitten it while hanging

• Source: They did not find any traces of hanging on his neck, but they did find a scar on his tongue. According to the witness, the scar was caused by the fact that he had bitten his tongue when being hanged

Conversely, hats off to the author(s) for elegantly paraphrasing Hanska's 'Epilogue' into our 'Aftermath'. Truly great work, and an example to follow.

I wonder whether any of the watchers of this page has Goodich's chapter (part of Meeting the Foreign in the Middle Ages) in their possession? Eisfbnore ^(会話) 06:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Eisfbnore, you can ask for the relevant section(s) of Goodich at WP:RX if you'd like to consult that source. buidhe 10:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)