Talk:William of York

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article.-- Jreferee 22:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Some points for attention

• There should be consistency about whether to refer to him as "William" or "Fitzherbert" - both are presently used.
  • Bother! I thought I caught all of those... I think I have them all now! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• The dates in second para of the Early Life section are clearly wrong. He can't have held a prebendary between 1109 and 1114 when he wasn't born until 1110. Etc, etc.
  • I didn't add the 1110 date. The best guess is "born before the 1090's" so I've stripped out the 1110 date and added in that we have no real clue. It wasn't the dates of his prebend that were wrong, it was the birth date. (The dates on the prebend come from charter signings, so they are reasonably secure.) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • And I suppose 1009 in line 3 of 2nd para of Early Life should be 1109? I'd change it myself if I were sure. Brianboulton (talk) 11:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Yep. Nice to have someone else look at these sorts of things, it is easy to miss the forest for the trees. (Capt Scott is on the list for today, I promise!) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Some words may need explaining to non-ecclesiastical folk. Examples: "see", "uncanonical gift", "archiepisopal" (probably a typo there?).
  • linked a few more terms. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the subject, but I hope these points help you. Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

A few more helpful hints

• Grammar is wrong in third sentence of lead. Suggest reword: "He was a relative of King Stephen of England, and the king..."  Done
• Early life, several points'
  • "New sources say that she..." Is this "she" Emma, or another putative mother? If the former, suggest replace with "Emma", if latter with "his mother" Done
  • 1090s is a plural term, no apostrophe{[done}}
  • After 1114, it's no longer really "Early Life". It's also a massive time jump, within the same sentence, from 1114 to 1141. Suggest you divide this section between "Early life" and "Appointment as archbishop" Done
  • Text says "elected" 1141, box says "enthroned". Shouldn't they say the same?
    • Heh. Enthroned is the technical ecclesiastical term for the first time a bishop/archbishop goes to his cathedral and has this little ceremony where he sits in his cathedra (bishop's chair) and everyone goes ooohhh and aaaahhh. (well, the oohs and aahs are optional). The box is set up for enthroned and I can't really change it. We don't actually KNOW when he was enthroned, and I suppose I can bop Secisek again about the silliness. Supposedly there is some fancy dancy new box to use, but I'm not bothering to change them just yet. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Penultimate sentence of section: did FitzH actually swear this oath? Done
• Archbishop and controversy, a few points.
  • I thought sentences weren't allowed to start with And? You don't actually need to break the sentence here. Done
  • Too many Fitzherberts, better "the pope suspended him..." Done
  • I don't know, but it seems a bit odd to describe Bernard of Clairvaux as a "religious figure". Bit like calling, say, President Roosevelt a "political figure". Perhaps religious "leader"? Done
    • I thought about putting "raving religious fanatic" but figured that might not be NPOV. Went with leader, relunctantly. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I'd have gone for "provocateur and howling bigot", but also not NPOV Brianboulton (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I imagine he was deposed by Eugenius, not the Eugenius. Done
    • (coughs) That would be a remnant from replacing the unspecific "the pope" with the specific pope in one of my copyedits. Glad you caught the stray "the". It has now been returned home to the fold....Ealdgyth - Talk 00:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That's all I have, hope it helps. Now for the other bloke. Brianboulton (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Can't leave it alone. Just a few more:
    • Specify Hilary as Hilary of Chichester Done
    • "....including the Bishop of Durham..." Is this the same bishop mentioned earlier, by name? Should be clarified. Done
    • Two Stephens in one sentence reads awkwardly. "...his son Eustace.." reads better, there's no doubt as to who is meant. Done
    • Death section, last line of article, should be 1960s - that apostrophe again!{[done}}
      • Okay, so grammar isn't my strong suit (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That really is it. Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

As I've done most of the commenting on this article, I feel I should perhaps formalise it into a proper GA review. There is not a great deal that is now outstanding, but could you address the following points:

• General: I think that York, the city, and Yorkshire, the county, should be linked at first mention.

Done

OK, and I've also linked East Riding Brianboulton (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Early life

Done

• • Can you expand on the sentence: "He was also archdeacon for the East Riding of Yorkshire". When was he appointed, and for long did he hold this appointment?

Expanded as much as possible. The sources are REALLY skimpy here. All we have is a range of dates, between 1125, when the previous office holder last appears in the records, and 1133 when William appears as archdeacon. The joys of medieval research.

I think I understand, but the sentences still lack clarity. May I suggest: "He was also apponted archdeacon of the East Riding on an unknown date between 1125 and 1133". The last sentence of the para is also foggy. Is the required sense: "He was apparently holding both of these offices when he became archbishop elect, so probably held both until his election"? If so, could this be simplified further: "He apparently held both of these offices until his election as archbishop"? Brianboulton (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Much better than my wording, thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• • I've referred before to the 27-year time hiatus in the article. What was William doing all this time? Did he simply hold the two appointments you refer to (archdeacon and cathedral treasurer), or did he hold other offices? Neither of the posts you mention seem senior enough for him to jump to Archbishop. If there is no information available, then at the very least there should be a linking statement along the lines of "Little/nothing is known of his activities or other offices until, in 1141 he was elected...."

Clarified it a bit. Does that work better? As far as the posts being senior enough, yeah, they were. And holding both together doubled his power. Treasurer of the chapter (who elected the archbishop) was a pretty powerful position. Add in his connection to the king, and you get a pretty serious candidate for archbishop. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This will be clear when above sentences amended. Brianboulton (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Election problems: Did FitzH actually seek election three times? Or, instead of "on the third attempt", would "as the third choice" be the more appropriate phrase?

Clarified it a bit. We don't know if he was a candidate in the first two elections or not, such is the lack of sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This is clear now. Brianboulton (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Archbishop and controversy
  • "Stephen probably wished to trade recognition of Murdac for the coronation of his son Eustace". Coronation? Isn't what is meant "right of successsion", or some other phrase meaning recognition of Eustace as Stephen's heir?

Clarified a bit, i hope. Stephen faced a pretty serious rival in Henry of Anjou. And Stephen's own "election" as king owed a lot to him just basically seizing the throne from the legitimate candidate, so he needed some help to legitimize the succession to his son. If I take this article to FAC, I'll have to expand a LOT on the background, but at the moment I'm unconvinced I'll be able to find enough sources to take it to FAC, so I've avoided loading it down with a lot of background. The links are there for folks to read about the other folks if they want.Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A bit more clarification still required, and the operative sentence clunks a bit. I've done a some English medieval history, but others haven't & may get confused. So how about: "Stephen probably wished to trade recognition of Murdac for support for his son Eustace. Stephen was trying to secure the coronation of Eustace as his succesor during his own lifetime, to defeat the rival claims to the throne of Henry of Anjou". It's quite a hard point to explain, without getting tripped up over too many Stephens, but I think my version is marginally the clearer. Brianboulton (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Also much better than mine, thanks. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• • This part of the long sentence towards the end of the section is exceedingly dodgy, grammatically: "..to plead for re-appointment from the new Pope, Anastasius V, which happened on December 20, 1153". Suggest rephrase along the lines: "..to plead with the new pope, Anastasius V, for restoration to office. The pope concurred, and FitzHerbert's reappointment was confirmed on December 20, 1153". Or some such wording.

Took your wording, which was much better than mine. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

OK no problem. Brianboulton (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done one or two more little fixes, and will keep on the lookout for others. If you can get back to me I think this can be wrapped up fairly quickly. Brianboulton (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've clarified where I can, etc. etc. Please point out any other places where I've assumed too much background knowledge, that is a problem when you know the time frame backwards and forwards. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Just the clarifications requested above, then, and it's all done and dusted. Brianboulton (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Got'em! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Final GA review summary

This is a clearly-written article which complies fully with MoS guidelines. The principal editor has responded positively to various suggestions for improving the article's clarity and making it accessible to readers without prior knowledge of this rather specialised subject. It is well-referenced, and has appropriate links in place.

Finding images for subjects such as this is problematic, but this has been dealt with adequately.

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of April 4, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.

Brianboulton (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Venerated in Church of England?

At the moment the article says he is venerated in the Catholic Church alone, but this would be surprising to me because in the Anglican churches in York, his coat of arms is still featured on them too. The York Minster also uses St William's College as a place for conferences and banquetting.[1] - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure he is venerated elsewhere also, but I don't have any sources for that so I didn't include it. I'd be glad to see it if sources for it can be found. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Cistercian dispute

I was wondering whether a little more background should be added about the Cistercian monastic breakaway and dispute, which seems to be one of the bases of Cistercian enmity to William. William seems to have been the King's candidate and issues relevant to the investiture controversy appear to arise. Xandar 03:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It really should be added, but I've been concentrating on trying to get the rest of the medieval bishops fleshed out some, and William hasn't managed to grab my interest that much. The whole political climate at the time is very convoluted, around the time that William faced issues with the Cistercians at York, there were also problems in the Diocese of Durham, with William Cumin being intruded into the see there by the King of Scots. Also, William's time in York coincided with the height of instability in England as a whole, what used to be known as The Anarchy, although that terms fallen a bit out of favour with historians. You have King Stephen and his brother Henry of Blois, who was Bishop of Winchester and sometime papal legate pushing their candidates, with the Cistercians, who were pretty powerful in the north of England and had a Cistercian on the papal throne, pushing for their own candidates. Mostly, the investiture crisis in England is over by now, it's more politics here, and (personal opinion here, historians are divided on the issue) the weakness of Stephen's rule. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Right I'll try to add a bit more from the (borrowed) book, but in the run-up to Christmas, it may not be for some days. Xandar 00:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Distant cousin of Roger II of Sicily ?

"FitzHerbert took up residence with one of his friends, and a distant cousin, Roger II, King of Sicily".

I think that's a false statement. Since his parents are small nobles of Hampshire whose ascendance is not known, I can't see how he could be a cousin of a king of Sicily... Is that what Christopher Norton really wrote? PurpleHz (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that William's a relative of King Stephen, who was the son of the daughter of the Conqueror, who in theory was related to the Guiscard house. Norton says on page 118 "At his point William took himself off to the kingdom of Sicily, where he spent some time with his distant cousin, King Roger, and with Robert of Selby, the chancellor of Sicily, a man of great wealth and loaded with honours." He sources this to John of Hexham, p. 318 in Arnold's edition. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

His relation with Stephen has been discarded since. See Burton and the article sentence "New research, however, suggests that Emma might have been a daughter of Hunger fitz Odin, who held lands in Dorset in the Domesday survey". So there is a contradiction in the article itself. PurpleHz (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:William of York.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:William of York.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. PurpleHz (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)