Talk:Edward II of England

Citation style...

I'm looking to do some work on this article over the coming months. Before starting, I'd like to propose a change to the citation style. The current style, although not necessarily 100% consistent at the moment, typically uses long reference (see MOS:CITE). I wish to propose using the harnvb template short citation system throughout, backed up by the "cite web" template, with the bibliography using the "cite book" templates. As an example, see Henry I of England. I think that short citations for articles with lots of citations are easier to read and to edit. This would, I believe, represent a change, and would require prior consensus, as per MOS:CITE.

If the consensus was to retain long citations, I'd intend to tidy up the citations so that they are consistent etc., following the model at William the Conqueror. I've chosen this example specifically, as it is a featured article, and shows the long citation system at its best! Either system can work perfectly well, and I'll be carrying out the research etc. for the article regardless of which way the consensus on the citation system goes.

Comments welcomed! Hchc2009 (talk) 09:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

If it helps you to do as good a job as you did on Henry III recently....absolutely. DeCausa (talk) 09:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks DeCausa. If there are no objections raised in between now and then, I'll look to do the conversion tomorrow night. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Done - hopefully no glitches etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Expansion...

As promised in the previous section, I've gone through and expanded the article; everything should now be cited to a high-quality source (I think!), and should reflect the current literature. It will, I'm sure, need a copy-edit, and please shout if I've introduced any howlers etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Edward II of England/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 09:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hchc2009, upon my initial review of this fantastic article, I feel that it meets the majority of criteria for Good Article status. I plan on conducting a more comprehensive and thorough Good Article review of this article in the coming days. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. -- Caponer (talk) 09:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Hchc2009, I have finished conducting a more thorough and comprehensive review of this article, and I have a few minor comments and suggestions below. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this comments. It looks like the article currently meets all the Good Article criteria, so once these have all been addressed, it is good to go for passage to GA status! I cannot stress enough that you have crafted a beautifully-written and well-researched article, Hchc! -- Caponer (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Background and Early life (1284–1307)

• In the first paragraph of the lead, you may want to add a comma after "In 1308" and other instances when introducing the year in the beginning of the sentence. (For example, "During the 1280s" in the "Background" section).
• In the first paragraph of "Background," wikilink "Castilian" to the Kingdom of Castile article.
• In the first paragraph of "Background," wikilink historians Michael Prestwich and John Gillingham.
• In the first sentence of the first paragraph of the "Childhood, personality and appearance" subsection, you may want to consider only using Edward once in the sentence. In the next sentence, modify "by the Dominican friar" to "by a Dominican friar."
• In the second paragraph of "Childhood, personality and appearance", modify "an good rider" to "a good rider."
• Wikilink Walter Langton in the third paragraph of the "Early campaigns in Scotland" subsection.
• In the fourth paragraph of the "Early campaigns in Scotland" subsection, modify "was saw a punitive, brutal retaliation" to "was seen as a punitive, brutal retaliation" or "saw a punitive, brutal retaliation" depending upon the sentence's intended meaning.

Early reign (1307–11)

• In the second paragraph, would it flow better if the marriage between Edward and Isabella "moved forward" rather than "went ahead?"
• Wikilink mention of the Treaty of Paris (1303).
• Should Robert Winchelsey be named, in addition to mentioning his title, Archbishop of Canterbury?
• In the third paragraph of "Tensions over Gaveston", "fresh" is used three times--could alternative adjectives be used as well?
• In the second paragraph of "The Ordinances of 1311," should it read "split between reformers and conservatives?"

Mid-reign (1311–21)

• Everything in this section looks good to go--great job!

Later reign (1321–26)

• In the first paragraph of "War with France," there should probably be a comma placed after "In 1323."
• Everything else in this section looks great!

Fall from power (1326–27), Death (1327), Edward as king, and Legacy

• No further suggestions.

Issue

• Edward's issue should probably be listed in a template similar to those in other Featured and Good Articles, for example: Edward I of England, Edward III of England, Henry VIII of England, etc.

Very many thanks for the careful review - it's improved the text a lot. The only change I haven't made is the final one on issue; there are a couple of variants out here in terms of style, and examples of Featured Articles that use the format in this one include Henry I of England, Henry III of England and Stephen of England. I wouldn't oppose anyone converting between the two, but I'll admit a personal preference for the simpler one! ;) Hchc2009 (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hchc2009, that's definitely not a deal breaker! The issue section will read the same either way; it's just a difference in formatting. Once again, it has sincerely been a pleasure working with you throughout this process. I've been a fan of your work for sometime, and I commend you for all your stellar contributions to Wikipedia. Since this article meets all criteria and you've addressed my concerns and suggestions, I hereby pass this article to Good Article status! -- Caponer (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Happy to discuss...

Contaldo80, just to say that I'm very happy to discuss the historical work on Edward II and sexuality if that helps at all (NB: if you haven't already seen it, I'd strongly recommend the 2006 contributions to the "New Perspectives" volume if you've got access to it). Hchc2009 (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad that we can cooperate constructively. However, for the moment I'm concerned that you've misundertood my amendments. Firstly I added a good chunk of material covering what is said in various contemporary chronicles - as this is the best primary material we have then no reason why it shouldn't be used. And I was puzzled as to why you removed it. For example, the assertion that Edward's father-in-law was not concerned about Edward's sexual inclinations is wrong - he did have his suspicions. More fundamentally I do think we need to be careful about using the word "homosexual". Not because I'm personally squeamish but rather because it is slightly anachronistic. The issue is rather did Edward have physical - or romantic - relations with men (as well as women as this is documented)? Would we say, for example, that Edward has heterosexual relations with Isabella? Probably not as the phrasing is odd. Perhaps we can come up with a sensible approach between us. I also removed some of the editorialising about how we see things differently in the 21st century; I don't think that's needed. And I'm not sure the medieval church did see sodomy as heretical - but agree it was often cited as one of the things that heretics did. Thanks Contaldo80 (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It is certainly appropriate to describe a sexual relationship between two men as homosexual, whether the men lived 60 years ago or 600 years ago, but it is not necessary to do so when it is clear that we are talking about two men. I agree with Contaldo, though, that constantly describing the possible sexual relationship between Edward and another man as homosexual is as unnecessary as describing his relationship with his wife as heterosexual. Furthermore, if he and Gaveston were lovers, they could not have been anything but "homosexual lovers". Surtsicna (talk) 09:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Cheers. My thoughts:

• In terms of the use of primary sources, the guidance is from WP:PRIMARY; we shouldn't, typically, be citing primary sources on the wiki, but rather the very best of the secondary sources from specialist historians (which is the inverse of normal scholarly practice, I know...!) Interpreting medieval chronicles is really hard, which is why we turn to secondary sources.
• Using authors like Ian Crofton and David Loades for an article like this needs to be done with a great deal of care. Crofton writes general, popular reference books, and isn't a professional historian, let alone a medieval specialist. Loades is a notable 16th century Tudor specialist, but beyond the odd comment in popular history books on the history of England as a whole, has never written in detail on the 14th century that I'm aware of. His opinions on the Tudor period are really important... but he's not a specialist on Edward II, and his views on Philip IV don't tally up with those of the historical experts on that specific period. We should be drawing on the top historians on the early 14th century - I'll give Mark Ormrod as a classic example - for the opinions being cited. (Equally, you wouldn't normally use Ormrod as a source for an article on the Tudor court in the 1500s - I'd be turning to Loades for that, it works both ways!)
• Homosexual/ sexual. There are clearly a range of different views among historians on how to use the terminology here (for some "homosexual" carries particular 21st century cultural baggage, for others it doesn't; some would follow Foucault on this, others wouldn't etc.). Provided we're consistent within the article, as per Surtsicna's recent edits for example, I'm personally reasonably relaxed. If we can get consensus on this language, leaving a hidden note in the text for later editors would be no bad thing either.
• The commentary about how homosexuality/sexuality was seen is brought up by several key historians on the period when discussing Edward II, and I think therefore needs to be in there. It also helps explain why this was a charged issue. I'll double-check the original source for the wording to make sure it hasn't lost anything in translation! If other specialists disagree with the sexuality/heresy linkage, then we should reflect and cite it of course. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Some constructive comments - thanks. Some of your approaches for dealing with different parts of the material seem broadly sensible. Happy also to use Ormrod as he was one of my lecturers at college :) But having had a read of where we are, I have some outstanding concerns. Firstly, while I accept that it's not appropriate for us to insert primary sources based on our own research; it is ok to use them where historians (secondary sources) have cited them to illuminate a point. So I don't know why we dropped the quotes from the Vita Edwardus Secundi and the Flores Historiarum? My preference would be to re-include them. Secondly is it really true that Mark Ormrod has said that homosexuality was "equated" with heresy? Perhaps many "heretics" were frequently accused by the Church of sodomy etc; but that's not to say the Church automatically defined someone as a heretic if they had engaged in sodomy. Some clarification needed I think. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd love to meet Ormrod - I've enjoyed his work!

I'd argue that it remains essential on the wiki to be using primary sources in accordance with, and cited to, the best secondary source. The second half of the Secundi quote isn't used by Phillips and most of the others, but Chaplais picks it up, and, if you're content, I'd propose adding it in and reference it to him accordingly; he notes that it's meaning is "disappointingly vague", though! Flores seems to be treated with caution (explicitly so by Phillips, who cautions against it as a source; I can't find it being used by the other clutch of current academics here) so I'm a bit more reticent on that.

The sentence that runs: "Homosexuality was fiercely condemned by the Church in 14th-century England, who equated it with heresy" is cited to Prestwich, who notes that "it was tantamount to heresy" and talks about the "church's condemnation of homosexuality". I can see that there could potentially be a subtle difference between saying that homosexuality could be equated with heresy, and the sense that it was tantamount to heresy (although tantamount can certainly mean "equivalent to"), so if we can find a better/more precise phrasing, happy to discuss it. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The relevant legal sources for common law at the time are Fleta and Britton (law). Both prescribe the death penalty. Fleta, xxxviii.3: Those who have dealings with Jews or Jewesses, those who commit bestiality, and sodomists, are to be buried alive after legal proof that they were taken in the act, and public conviction". Britton, i.10: "Let enquiry also be made of those who feloniously in time of peace have burnt other's corn or houses, and those who are attainted thereof shall be burnt, so that they might be punished in like manner as they have offended. The same sentence shall be passed upon sorcerers, sorceresses, renegades, sodomists, and heretics publicly convicted." 71.246.145.152 (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Edward of Caernarfon?

Was he really called Edward of Caernarfon? I suspect he was called Edward of Carnarvon. When I was a child, back in the 1960s, the town's name was Caernarfon if you were speaking Welsh, but Carnarvon or Caernarvon if you were speaking English (similar thing for Conway/Conway). Since then, it's been decided that the modern name of the town is Caernarfon in both languages. But back in Edward's day it would, for an English speaker, have been almost certainly spelt as Carnarvon. As titles go, the current Lord Carnarvon is still Lord Carnarvon. So I believe that he should be referred to as Edward of Carnarvon, because he was England, spoke English rather than Welsh, and we are in English Language Wikipedia rather than Welsh Language Wikipedia (Edward ap Caernarvon?) Simhedges (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Edward would have spoken Anglo-Norman French as his birth language. And most anything written would have been in Latin, rather than English or Welsh. English kings had French as their first language until Henry V ... almost a hundred years after Edward II. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Edward was born in Carnarvon, Carnarvonshire, not Caernarfon, Gwnedd. What we are debating is whether we should discuss a person as in a different time and distant place, or "update" him to somehow retain relevance to today and the same GPS coordinates. My vote is to guide the reader to understand how different the time and place were yet how Edward had the same human qualities we see today. He was born in a location under military rule very different from the Caernarfon of today, in a motte and bailey castle very different from the stone castle seen today. Tourists will still visit beautiful Caernarfon; there is no reason to skew the history. Regarding Latin and Norman French: spelling was rather fluid in that era so look to the document forming Carnarvonshire for the spelling in use at his birth.68.32.154.213 (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Carnavonshire was created by the Statute of Rhuddlan which was in Latin. As Ealdgyth says, Edward spoke Norman-French. I'm not sure what either the medieval Latin or medieval Norman-french for Caernarfonshire was but I suspect that neither would give you "Caernarfon" or "Carnarvon". So claiming that either is "right" or "wrong" is spurious. The normal convention is generally to use the modern place-name. DeCausa (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree with Eadldyth's comments from last year on the Latin point. Either way, though, we should be following the practice set by high-quality, reliable secondary sources on Edward (as the article does), rather than straying into OR. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

At WP:NCGN and it says this:

If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used.

The debate regarding his appellation differs from the debate regarding the name of the castle and town of his birth. A book that rehashes older secondary sources for the purpose of sales in the castle gift shop, but lack original contributions to scholarship or research, is not a reliable secondary source for Edward's accepted historical names. Edward is usually referred to today as Edward II, and in multiple scholarly works has also been referred to as Edward of Carnarvon (for example: The Captivity and Death of Edward of Carnarvon, by Thomas Frederick Tout); in today's English language, Édouard de Carnarvon in today's French language, and Edward o Caernarfon in today's Welsh language.68.32.154.213 (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The information is cited to Seymour Phillips' 2011 volume, a 679-page peer reviewed book published by Yale University Press, one of the leading academic presses in the world - I can't vouch for Yale University Press's intent in publishing it, or Phillips' in writing it, but I doubt that it was aimed at sales in the local castle gift shop in North Wales... ;) Tout died in 1929, and his work is no longer authoritative for this period. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Please do not use LGBT label on Edward II of England

It is total affront to good historical, scholarly research such labels! Why so asks a layman? 1. Applying anachronistic concepts on historical people and events are a definitive NO NO! (ex. In the USSR, according to the Marxist-Leninist Theory of History Thomas Müntzer was a communist - a pure example of anachronism) 2. No source or a support of a widely held view among scholars. Major Torp (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The policy guidelines on this appears to be Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality#Sexuality. This states that "For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate. Historically, LGBT people often did not come out in the way that they commonly do today, so a person's own self-identification is, in many cases, impossible to verify by the same standards that would be applicable to a contemporary BLP. For a dead person, a broad consensus of academic and/or biographical scholarship about the topic is sufficient to describe a person as LGBT."

Current mainstream historians almost all agree that it is impossible to know for certain today what the details of Edward's sexual relationships in the 13th-14th centuries were; all agree that he had some sexual relations with women, and many believe that he probably also had sexual relations with men. Opinions on the interpretation of these conclusions - e.g. whether Edward is best described as straight, homosexual, etc., or whether these labels are not helpful - vary considerably. Among the artistic community, of course, Edward has been widely depicted as a homosexual (Jarman's film being perhaps the most obvious example).

Given the Wiki guidelines, which explicitly address the use of the LGBT category label for historical figures, and the historical literature on his sexuality, I would consider the LGBT category to be appropriate in this case. If there are concerns about the guidelines and anachronism, I think it would be best to take that up on the relevant talk page, rather than article by article. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of any further inputs, I don't think there's a consensus for removing these categories and will reinstate them. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Wait, you're saying yourself that "current mainstream historians almost all agree that it is impossible to know for certain today what the details of Edward's sexual relationships" yet despite that you're still thinking that these labels should apply? You are saying yourself that there is no consensus among historians as to what Edward's sexuality was, therefore how does it meet the guidelines to include these labels? I apologize for not commenting earlier, As I only just noticed this discussion today (and I could argue that since you're the only one who wants to add them here, there's no consensus for including it). Psunshine87 (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's broadly my opinion. Current historians almost all agree that it is impossible to know for certain what happened in private between two people in the 13-14th century; many historians do believe, however, that Edward probably had sexual relations with men, sufficient in my opinion to justify the category label being present in the article. Several editors have now removed the existing categories, and several have added them back in, and I don't believe that the discussion so far here on the talk page has produced a clear consensus for change. Where no consensus on an edit exists, the usual guidelines are for the original version to remain in place, and the existing version of the text prior to the removal of the categories on 26 October included the categories (and they seem to have been present since Willthacheerleader18 added them back in June). Hchc2009 (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright, then I'll remove any objection on my part to their inclusion. Your argument seems sound. Psunshine87 (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Psunshine. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:YESPOV , WP:FRINGE and WP:ASSERT. That “Edward probably had sexual relations with men” is not enough. Please read WP:CHERRY fact picking, WP:EXCEPTIONAL - Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, WP:WEIGHT.

Statements and claims presented as a fact must be backed by balanced, certified and strong unequivocal research and scholarship with the help of multiple sources. Loose claims here and there are just opinions and does not amount to an fair and balanced view. Varying authors can be be used as a source for presenting an opinion for such and such, but it is still not to be deemed authoritative and conclusive. Multiple sources and scholarly consensus must be the main aim when something is stated as a reasonable fact.

That you say so, does not make it so. Provide sources that support the idea of strong unequivocal research that say "Edward had sexual relations with men" which is of course in line with verifiable scholarly consensus.

Thank you! Let's make it solid. Major Torp (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Torp, if you're looking for some reading on this topic, I'd suggest starting with the works cited in the article, which covers the current academic corpus on Edward fairly comprehensively. The two most recent biographies by Haines and Phillips would give you a framework, and I'd then recommend working through the relevant chapters on sexuality in Dodd and Musson's edited volume The Reign of Edward II. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not about who reading what! It's about someone claiming something and hence obliged to provide multiple sources and provide a view that respects a general academic consensus. Find sources, and then we can speculate about person who lived 700 years ago in a totally different world than ours. Please don't make the ideological mistake of justifying something with anarchistic projections from our present-day to the past. KIndly respect neutrality and observe WP:SYN, WP:WEIGHT, WP:YESPOV , WP:FRINGE, WP:ASSERT, WP:NOR and especially WP:SCICON. Thanks, Major Torp (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If you don't want to read the academic sources cited in the article concerning Edward's sexuality, Torp, I'm not sure there's much more I can do to help you. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Please don't claim that you want the article to cover "a general academic consensus" when you've been told where to read to FIND that academic consensus. It IS covered in this article - although it appears you don't agree with it so you wish it gone. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Ambiguous/Misleading: Wine and Pimento

Sorry, I'm not wiki-savvy enough to have the confidence to edit it, but found this surprising "a fountain that produced wine and pimento, a spiced medieval drink" (because it's pre-Columbus). It turns out that pimento in this context is a drink on its own, and has no relationship to the sweet chilli. Re-wording it to "a fountain that produced pimento, a spiced medieval drink, and wine..." would remove the ambiguity and resulting confusion. , but there are probably more suitable references. Urilabob (talk) 10:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Ooh, you made the big, scary unapproved discussion go away!

Ooh, you made the big, scary, unapproved discussion go away! So now you can get back to pretending and make-believe that it never happened, and that most people out there would never really be against you homosexuals! Oh and thanks for leaving the discussion page unlocked for me! lolol