Talk:Yeoman

Agriculture B‑class High‑importance

	Agriculture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

England B‑class

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Context switch

This is a kewl example of a context switch

Ships and Farms are two separate and distinct Frameworks ( Frames of Reference or contexts )

The yeoman role is adaptable to either. The attributes of the yeoman makes the role one that is sensitive to security and protocol ( good manners )

This is useful in software modeling using UML A context switch pragma ( for daemons } can operate inside a mutex. The colloquial analogy helps make the algorithm more human-readable.

The yeoman watched the teenage couple slip away toward the creek.  
He knew of course that they planned to go skinny-dipping.

Can the yeoman be trusted not to peek?

Quinobi 16:54, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

see POSIX thread locking

Is the previous reference to UML Unified Modeling Language or User Mode Linux? Mjchonoles 01:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this sort of biased for the modern times? "and today's so-called "war on terrorism"

Etymology

Thanks to the anonymous contributor User:71.116.166.78 for correcting the folk etymology I'd dropped in. It's too bad that we don't know who deserves the credit for the work. David 13:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Over the course of the last few weeks since late November of 2005, I have been editing the Wikipedia entry for Yeoman and making the corrections where needed. Sources have been verified to the best of my ability, however, I cannot make claim for its complete accuracy.

If you have any input, I would be certainly happy to discuss it with you.

Please drop me an email at: yeomanrycavalry@lycos.com

Riding man or road man

The following still rings of folk etymology, riding being at first glance more credible than road, the Modern Swedish word for knight being ridare:

Terms used such as 'radman' and 'radcniht' or 'radknight' being defined as riding man or road man, riding boy or road boy (page). The difference of terms helps to distinguish the young riding men or ‘yeomen’ from the riding boys or ‘pages’ who provide a riding service, or road service. It also indicates a path of career progression within a noble or royal household.

Robert Greer (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation split

This article needs to be split into a disambiguation page and a full article. I'll try to get to it, but would be happy if someone else beats me to it. BonsaiViking 17:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I just changed the article to a more wiki-appropriate format. No need to make a disambig page, once I checked for other articles. BonsaiViking 21:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeoman (point of contact discussion)

If you are researching the Yeomanry of the British Islands and America please drop me an email at yeomanrycavalry@lycos.com and I'll be glad to discuss the subject.

Also, those who have a strong interest in the legends, tales, myths of the British Islands are more than welcome to provide input.

Merge of Yeoman farmer to here

Agree. I did not know about htis article and was just trying to improve the Yeoman farmer article. --Bduke 22:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So long as the article does not focus on yeoman farmer as the only definition of a yeoman, I don't see a problem with it.

Yeoman Farmer merged unedited into the article. Get your teeth into it! SilkTork 11:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup on aisle 3

The section "Origin of the term" is comprised almost entirely of jargon, seems to contain several sentences without active verbs, and disagrees in whole or in part with the origin given in the article summary. I would clean it up, but I don't have the linguistic background to edit with any confidence here. Can someone else please tackle it?

Massive cleanup accomplished

Over the past few days I've attempted to clean up this entry. I know it's not perfect, but I welcome any constructive input on how to make it better. If you have any constructive or any useful suggestions, then be prepared to help me out with them.

yeomanrycavalry 22:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeoman of Buoys

I have located a further use of Yeoman. In 1871, my great great grandfather's occupation, at the age of 59, was "Yeoman of Buoys" in Liverpool, England. He had been a carpenter and ship builder in his earlier life. It isn't clear if he was the Yeoman of Buoys or if there were many of them, nor if it was an honorary role or involved physical or managerial work.

More on the Yeoman Farmer

The 3rd definition under "Current modern definition and usage" shows a small prosperous farmer 16th to 17th century. In Ontario, Canada (and perhaps other Canadian jurisdictions, but I only know about Ontario for sure), the Crown was still granting land for agricultural purposes to "(Person's Name) of (Town),Yeoman, a Free Grant Settler" well into the 20th century. I don't know how, or even if this should be incorporated into the article.

Renzo 80 15:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the section on United States usage here is also very incomplete. I am not expert enough to expand it, but in New England into the 1800s ordinary farmers routinely referred to themselves as "yeomen" -- it meant some combination of freeholder, farmer, citizen, townsman -- the kind of independent small landowner of which republics are made. --A reader, 3 Dec 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.85.73 (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed cleanup tag. Added wikify tag

The article appears clean but the absence of an overview paragraph indicates that it needs wikification --- Safemariner 16:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeoman archers and yew war bows

The last paragraph on the history needs attention, if not removing. It cites no sources and uses seemingly irrelevant details, such as the presence of images of archers in Iberian rock art. The genetic evidence remains highly debatable and needs to be scrutinised at its original source. Also I believe there are finds of British longbows from bogs older than 5,000 years and isotopic evidence places the Amesbury Archer as coming from central Europe, not Iberia (which the current wording might imply). Thefuguestate 23:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy

While I'm not going to contradict previous edits and re-add the cleanup tag, this article has major redundancy and unnecessary information issues. For example:

1 Etymology and early use
2 Current modern definition and usage
3 Origins of the term
4 The Medieval period
5 The Dark Ages
6 Ancient to modern usage

This could be trimmed down to two sections. Etymology, origins, and both of the usage sections can be compressed into a single section. The medieval period is the Dark Ages (and this term is not, in fact, accepted in modern academic circles, so really oughtn't to show up here at all); neither of these sections seems to expound much upon the nature of yeomen, though, and could perhaps be combined with the other sections, as well.

In addition, I'm entirely unclear as to why this article needs a section of the evolution of the letter Y. It adds nothing that I can see to the understanding of yeomen -- or am I wrong in my belief that knowing the difference between a yogh and a y is entirely worthless to this discussion?

Unfortunately, I do not have the knowledge or time, at this point, to undertake such a major effect. Nonetheless, this article is bloated to extreme levels, and a major compression would be a worthwhile effort. --Icydesign 23:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article is absolutely painful to read. It jumps around several themes with repetition and no sense of structure. Even the history is not written in chronological order. Thefuguestate 10:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's a mess and is way overdue for some cleanup. The reference to the glyph yogh and the letter Y is best described elsewhere. It only has relevance to the term "yeoman" only in the evolution of the letter y from its origins in strokes, to the letter g, and then the yogh.

The reference to Iberian archers is not founded. Earliest bell beaker archers have been found in the Iberian peninsula, but this has not been confirmed as the origination of the longbow or war bow used during the Hundred Years War which is several thousand years later. Even if the DNA migration maps show originations of Western European type migrating from Iberia to Britain, there is no proof the longbow was a native derived weapon, or if it was imported from elsewhere.

The earliest yew longbows found in Britain are in Meare Heath, Somerset Levels and near Moffatt in Scotland. Also, some archers are identified near Amesbury and in surrounding areas, but the effect these archers had on the development of the longbow is unknown. Perhaps a more ancient instrument of war then we're first led to believe (e.g., the longbow or war bow was created in the 1300s); it's origins may be much deeper and descriptions in this article are not necessary.

Suggest removing the glyph yogh reference, the longbow reference (with exceptions to the 1300s in which yeoman archers are identified). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.116.10 (talk) 06:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, the early Anglo-Saxon spelling was something like "Gheoughman" - pron. "ghee-oman".

Seeking Linguistic Expertise

The word Yeoman is ill-defined and appears to have been for quite some time. Any input from an expert in linguistics would be appreciated here. 75.82.116.10 07:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC) yeomanrycavalry@lycos.com[reply]

What tenure did they hold?

Definition 3 in this article, from the 16th and 17th centuries, of 'small prosperous farmer'. I'm wondering does anybody know what tenure they held their land under? I am doing Google searches for 'Yeomen' 'Tenures' 'Maitland' 'Coke' 'Littleton' and so forth but I cannot find any information about their tenure. Free socage? Tenant in Capite? In a nutshell, I am finding in the sixteenth century men referred to as 'yeomen' but I am also finding that the same manor had no tenants serving under specified tenures. Consequently, if I can find out what tenures they were granted land on I can argue strongly that the person who termed these men 'Yeomen' was misrepresenting the reality (in terms which he obviously understood better). I'd be very grateful for any reading or help on this. That misrepresentation (and other factors indicate it is a misrepresentation) does have quite significant consequences of our understanding of that past. Thanks. 86.42.98.153 00:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tenure

The English Yeoman by Mildred Campbell is a good source to understand the tenure system. I believe you can find the book in Google Books and download it for free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.116.10 (talk) 08:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tenure varied with time and place. In some jurisdictions, a yeoman was defined as someone who derived at least £40 income from a freehold. In colonial America, quitrent, also written "quit rent," an annual payment usually in winter wheat, seems to have been common. Quitrent was also common in Germany among the higher-ranking peasants. Zyxwv99 (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yew Man

Sorry but I thought Yeoman meant yew man i.e. someone who grew and made long bows from trees on his land and could be called up when needed etc... is that completely wrong then... Richardharbord (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry V

It was Henry V, not Edward V that lead the english army at agincourt.62.30.40.251 (talk) 05:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.40.251 (talk) 11:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistic writer talent wanted

The history of this subject makes clear that it's not easy to produce a wikipedia quality standard description of this word. The fist lines create confusion. All the lines with "citation needed" create even more confusion. The piece about bowmen is more or less readable for me only by jumping up and down to other subjects constantly. It is hard to explain to people whose native tongue is English. For me (Dutch) it's still much harder to get the picture out of this spaghetti. IMHO it should be cut up chronologically, no etymology to start with, but "disambiguous etymology" at the bottom. Start with it's first appearances, literal quotes, with sources, with most probable translations, then on to the next century and so on. BTW AFAIK it's incorrect to call a Yeoman Warder, AKA Beefeater, a yeoman. IMHO Maggy Rond (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The etymological information here is not only unsourced, much of it is utterly fanciful (do a Google search on gau judices and you'll see what I mean). I will attempt to improve it. But you can't talk about the earliest meanings without the etymology, so I think that does have to come first. --Pfold (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've looked at this in more detail now. To be honest, I think the sections Early Middle Ages, High Middle Ages & Ancient to modern usage should be junked in their entirety. Since the word doesn't appear until the 14th century all material relating to earlier periods is irrelevant. Most of it of it is unsourced rambling about medieval social status. The strictly linguistic stuff in these sections is on the whole just plain ignorant - there is no word geongramanna in Beowulf, for example, or indeed in any other Anglo-Saxon text, so discussion of the Anglo-Saxon period is irrelevant; the patent rolls (a source!) are actually in Latin, the word yeoman is used in the modern translation! Unless anyone can make a case for weeding this part of the article in a more surgical manner (and is prepared to do the work), I propose to tidy up (and source) the etymology section, and delete the following three sections. --Pfold (talk) 10:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was Closing as 'No consensus in accordance with decision at Talk:Yeoman (disambiguation)#Requested move
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 12:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeoman → Yeoman (word) — Per discussion on Talk:Yeoman (disambiguation), I have moved this article to Yeoman (word). Its own lede states the topic of this article is the word itself. The article does need a cleanup, as some of the content is tangents concerning the various kinds of people called yeoman. That content should be merged into the respective articles. Some other Wikipedia articles about words provide some models for this article:

--Una Smith (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this move has been contested, I have moved the page back pending further discussion. Dekimasuよ! 10:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of a multimove, involving Yeoman (disambiguation), Yeoman, and Yeoman (word). Please join the discussion on Talk:Yeoman (disambiguation)#Requested move. --Una Smith (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with moving this article, making room for the disambiguation page to be at the base name. Powers ^T 13:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move - new discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus to move. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeoman → Yeoman (word) — Apparently the previous discussion was too entangled with another one to take. Here's a fresh start. This article is about the word, not any one concept, and therefore should not be at the base name. (In other words, because multiple concepts are discussed in this article, no one concept can be considered to be primary.) Powers ^T 15:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's about both, and therefore should be here. What advantage is gained by making the base name into a redirect? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Both what? Powers ^T 14:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that it's intentional, but this has the effect of forum shopping. You say above that you want the base name to be turned into a redirect to the disambiguation page, which would result in the dab being moved to the plain title through WP:MDP. However, the move of the disambiguation page to the plain title was already rejected at Talk:Yeoman (disambiguation). Dekimasuよ! 04:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My perception was that it was rejected because people didn't want to overwrite the content currently here. I'm trying to move this content to make room for the dab page, yes, because I don't believe there is a primary topic. Powers ^T 14:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There is no sense to this rename. Whether this article is about the noun, a person, or anything else, its current title is inclusive and isn't focusing on any primary concept. No need to muddle with a confusing disambiguation. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand what you mean. If the article isn't focusing on any primary concept, then that's a problem that needs to be fixed. Powers ^T 00:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think P199 likes the current grab-bag nature of the article, that's all. --Una Smith (talk) 05:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am refuting the statement "because multiple concepts are discussed in this article, no one concept can be considered to be primary". And yes, there is nothing wrong with describing multiple meanings of a word in one article if it is logically organized. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Certainly there is, unless the article is about the word itself. Powers ^T 12:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I said in the previous discussion, I think the first step should be to clean up the article, moving the tangents from it to other articles where they belong. --Una Smith (talk) 05:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've attempted to start to meet some of the concerns re this article being about the word by copyediting the lead. There's more to be done. Station1 (talk) 07:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pronunciation

Since it's an oddly spelled word shouldn't pronunciation be added to the intro? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.16.195 (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Query about a Stated Greek Derivation

Hello,

I apologize for creating this new section, but I could not find any other formerly existing section of this page, unto which the following request and question which would be found below, might seem then of sufficient relevance.

Could the person who added the paragraph about the Greek language, under the headline, or section, which regards Etymology on this article, please provide an explanation for its inclusion over there ? What is the relation between the matters which he refers to on that particular entry which was added by him, and the etymology of the English word of "Yeoman" ?

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.52.86 (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If the person who wrote the paragraph which regards the Greek language might have meant to refer on that same paragraph to a possible relation of the term of "Yeoman" with the Modern German word of "Gau", or with the Old English word of "gā", and so on, then could this person please also include a reasoning for stating the existence of such a relation between them on this article, such as a paragraph which may describe this certain connection which could possibly exist between them ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.52.86 (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]