Talk:Hubert Walter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Hubert Walter is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 21, 2011.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 22, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
March 8, 2008 Peer review Reviewed
May 30, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article


Opposition of Herbert Poore to his election[edit]

Resolved: editors have reached agreement here, and LlywelynII withdrawn the contested edit. In the circumstances, strictly speaking a formal close isn't necessary, but the matter's appeared at WP:ANRFC, so rather than start a discussion about whether to close it, I'll just close it.—S Marshall T/C 23:46, 16 February 2015 (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.

Removal of pertinent, sourced info: Generally speaking, don't. — LlywelynII 13:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

You didn't give any resolution to it. Nor is it relevant at all ... ALL elections in this time period get challenged - it's only when the challenge drags on or becomes embroiled in controversy that it needs to be put into the article. And for the sake of all the gods - do NOT use outdated sources like the old DNB and if you add something to a featured article .... use the refrencing style already in use. It's common courtesy. Also - WP:BRD - you were bold, I reverted, we then discuss ... you don't get to revert back in while we discuss. It's not courteous. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
The pope's provision of the pallium is the resolution. As below, yes, it is relevant.
The reference style is ugly, but you have a point. As for the dated DNB, you're welcome to source it to the new one but I don't have a free membership and can't verify its content. — LlywelynII 13:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

[ec] Specifically, in this case,

He was chosen as archbishop without consultation from the bishops, who normally claimed the right to help decide the new archbishop.[34]

is the less pertinent information, as it is just vague editorializing.

This caused Herbert Poore, his archdeacon, to appeal the election to Pope Celestine III.[35]

is specific, sourced action that speaks both to the depth of the distaste (his own archdeacon) and to his relationship with Herbert (whom he effectively bankrupted and forced into exile a few years later.) If we're removing things, remove the fluff. — LlywelynII 13:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Would appreciate some outside voices as to the relevancy of a recent sourced edit to the page. (Specifically, a papal appeal that speaks to the seriousness of some opposition and bad blood that eventually caused one cleric to bankrupt and exile another... but the appeal itself failed.) — LlywelynII 14:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

(You know, you could like wait for me to reply to your points but whatever) BUT... it's trivia. Nothing came of it. The appeal was basically rejected. Nothing came of it. The bishops whined and complained but the actual appeal to the pope didn't do a thing ... so mentioning it here without giving the resolution is not helpful on two counts - it doesn't give the lack of actual impact it had and it is trivial. It may be pertinent in Poore's bio - but its trivia here. And from an outdated source and all the other issues. It gets absolutely no mention in the ODNB entry on Walter - where Poore isn't mentioned at all. Nor is Herbert Poore mentioned in Young's biography of Walter. NOr is Poore mentioned in Cheney's biography of Walter. Both of those biographies are full length book treatments of Walter's life, so if it's not important there, it's certainly trivia here. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Further - Young's bio of Walter states (p. 45) "On May 29, 1193, the monks of Canterbury elected Hubert, anticipating by one day the same action by the suffragan bishops of Canterbury, who claimed to have a right to participate in the election of an archbishop. The deputation of monks sent to ROme to secure the pallium returned without incident in October to complete the formalities of election and papal approval." There is no sign that anything held things up - no appeal at all. The Fasti entry for Walter as Archbishop makes no mention of any appeal by Poore - "Hubert Walter: Bp. of Salisbury (1189-93). King orders an el. to take place, in letter dated 30 March1193 (Epp. Cant. p. 364). Postulated by monks 29 May 1193 (Gerv. Cant. 1 518; Diceto11 108); and by bps. 30 May (Gerv. Cant. 1 519; Diceto 11 109). Royal assent given byjusticiar 30 May (Diceto 11 109). Enthr. and received pallium 7 Nov. (Gerv. Cant. 1522). (fn. 18) Temps. prob. by 12 Dec. 1193 (see C. R. Cheney, Hubert Walter (1967) p. 51and n. 4). Appd. papal legate for England 18 March 1195 (Epp. Cant. pp. 368-9), butlegation lapsed on d. of Celestine III, 8 Jan. 1198 (Gerv. Cant. 1 551). D. 13 July 1205(ibid. 11 413; Rad. Coggeshall Chron. Anglicanum, ed. J. Stevenson (Rolls ser. lxvi)p. 156). Commem. 13 July (Canterbury obits. II fo. 34r, III fo. 201r)." (here) Whether it is relevant to Poore's biography is immaterial whether it's relevant here. But I note that in Poore's ODNB bio, the information is given as "According to Roger of Howden, in May 1193 he appealed to the pope against the election of Hubert Walter (d. 1205) as archbishop, on the ground that the king was in captivity and the English bishops were not present at the election." ... this usually means the writer of the bio is not totally sure that this information actually happened. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Ealdgyth on this one. We do not need this information here. It has been correctly included in Poore's article. If you really must, the following would be more coherent and less undue. "and soon after Walter's return to England, he was duly elected archbishop of Canterbury, having been transferred to the see on 29 May 1193." => " Walter returned to England and after an appeal by Poore he was duly elected archbishop of Canterbury, having been transferred to the see on 29 May 1193." Op47 (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Op47 here. I think it's worth a link to Poore's article and mentioning there was at least some attempt to stop his election. Ealdgyth, you say that "ALL elections in this time period get challenged", but you're assuming readers know this already. That said, simply refer to an appeal taking place, nothing more. If his biographers didn't think it warranted a mention at all, then it definitely doesn't warrant an entire sentence on here. SamWilson989 (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
But if the biographers don't think it merits a mention in almost 200 pages, why should we mention it here where we're much more constrained. Young's biography of Walter does not mention Poore at all in regards to the election. Nor does Cheney in his bio of Walter. So why should we, with much less space? Neither Cheney nor Young say an appeal took place. Nor does the ODNB entry for Walter. It's not considered notable. It doesn't belong here, quite honestly. None of the biographies of Walter think there was an attempt to stop his translation (there wasn't an attempt to stop the election, because it'd already taken place.) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The way I see it is that this article is supposed to be a comprehensive biography of Hubert Walter, and as such, all notable events should be here. So the issue is that is the appeal by Poore notable. Personally, I think that in my own opinion it's worth showing there was some opposition, and is notable (the boundary between notable and otherwise is a rather large grey area though). That said, I think that his biographers are more qualified to decide and they have. I think I'd agree with you then, Ealdgyth, the appeal is not notable enough to be included. Possibly a compromise with User:LlywelynII could be putting it in a footnote? SamWilson989 (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Thank you for having performed that research, Ealdgyth. I do agree with Mr Wilson that Wikipedia isn't a print book with limited space, that we should be aiming for comprehensiveness rather than curated terseness, and that your research suggests that A) there's little question that any opposition was fruitless and B) there's some question that it occurred at all. My own edit at this point would be to move the information from the running text to a footnote reading something like:

Despite being chosen as archbishop without consultation from the bishops, who normally claimed the right to help decide the new archbishop,<ref name=Jones35>Jones ''King John and Magna Carta'' p. 35</ref> Hubert's delegation to Pope [[Pope Celestine III|Celestine III]] returned with his [[pallium]], the symbol of his archiepiscopal authority, in October{{refn|According to [[Roger of Hoveden]], after an unsuccessful challenge to his election by the [[archdeacon of Canterbury|archdeacon]] [[Herbert Poore]].<ref name=DNBPoore>Kingsford and Kemp "Herbert Poore" ''Oxford Dictionary of National Biography''</ref>}} and he was [[enthronement#religious ceremonies|enthroned]] at Canterbury on 7 November 1193.<ref name=Young45>Young ''Hubert Walter'' p. 45</ref>

Personally, I think that's helpful without giving UNDUE attention to the point but Op seemed to agree with you. (Note also some minor changes to include or not: your sources clarify that his delegation of monks received the pallium from the pope rather than a personal visit, which is worth noting; removal of the gloss on pallium (it's uncommon, sure, but it's linked for the curious); inclusion of a link to treatment of episcopal enthronement (most people associate it with kings but would confuse that with coronation); the caveat about Roger being our source but spelling his name according to our article on him.) — LlywelynII 02:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd lose the gloss on pallium also except I would then have to add it back ... it gets asked for with every single archbishop FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
That's nuts. From the phrasing, it's perfectly clear (whatever it is) it's the papal go-ahead for assuming the office, which is all it's important for the reader to understand (or that the gloss even addresses). Lemme know if you need a second voice at any future FAC to help explain that to the reviewer. (I'll work on my tact and combativeness beforehand.) — LlywelynII 02:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
And if we must have the footnote (I'd prefer not) .. please let's use the modern ODNB instead of the outdated DNB. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I have no problem with that but it's inaccessible to me: I couldn't verify it or format the cite properly. I reïncluded the pallium gloss as needful. With or without the footnote, are the other changes fine? — LlywelynII 02:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I've cleaned it up - better to stick with the symbol wording than saying vestment. (there's another fun guy that shows up from time to time that insists on this wording). Still prefer no footnote - it's not really important that Roger of Hoveden (who isn't the most reliable of people relating anecdotes) says this. The fact that both Young and Cheney dismiss the Poore bit completely and that the ODNB entry for Poore qualifies it by stating it came from Roger says that most historians now don't put much reliance on the incident as reported by Roger. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree the incident is worthy of mention as there was obviously a controversy (and still is apparently). A footnote seems to be a good compromise here.Lozen8 (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2015 (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.


Recent edits[edit]

LlywelynII, I'm not expert on this topic, but I'll watch the discussion here and see whether I can make a sensible contribution. However, I wanted to post here to comment on your approach. It's fine to edit featured articles; they can always be improved, as we all know. But please follow BRD. If you're reverted, don't start an edit war; please come to the talk page instead. There are lots of reasons to do it that way, and very few good reasons to re-insert your edit. There's no deadline. Please consider changing your approach, and as a matter of politeness I'd suggest you revert your own edits and make the case for them here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Ead was obviously overprotective of her pages, performing blanket reverts over her personal preferences, sometimes regardless of improvements such as needful links or grammar corrections. We should be aiming for informative: true and sourced details that might be UNDUE are things for her to discuss on the talk page, not to revert. I likewise object strenuously to the idea that there was any edit warring going on: it's the 3RR rule, not the 1RR rule and it's both silly and rude to act otherwise.
Now, that said, Ead was right to take some umbrage at my having mentioned OWNERSHIP in regard to these pages: I've more recently met some editors who fully abuse process, rather than going through it, and who just hurl abuse, rather than providing reasoned and well-sourced argumentation, as she has done. Since it was sourced and well-meant, she let the information stand in the page rather than taking it personally. You're quite right that I should be more like she's been. We're all just trying to improve the content here and any right version will eventually win out. — LlywelynII 01:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
EALD, not Ead. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)