![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Comments:
Other than that, everything looks great. You know the drill by now. On hold, seven days etc. etc. Have fun, good luck and thank you for your hard work thus far. Cheers, CP 05:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I forgot to mention that usually with a person "ie. John Smith" they would be referred to as "Smith did such and such" rather than "John did such and such" unless differentiation from another Smith was needed. In this case, I thought "Hubert" was fine instead of "Walter", since he was a religious figure. It may pop up in FA, I just didn't want you to be surprised by it. I'd say it's fine as it is unless someone points otherwise. Cheers, CP 06:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
At Eagldyth's request, I'm doing a pre-FAC peer review. I've made it about halfway through the article. Here are my comments so far (I'll hopefully finish on Monday):
Karanacs ( talk) 03:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry this took me a whole week to get back too (real life intruded), but here are my comments on the second half of the article:
Karanacs ( talk) 01:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
There are a couple of places where things don't quite seem to make sense:
-- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 14:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
"Walter and his older brother Theobald Walter were nephews of Ranulf de Glanvill. Walter owed his early advancements to his kinsman. His other brothers were Osbert, a royal justice who died in 1206, and Roger, Hamo (or Hamon) and Bartholomew ...". This reads rather strangely to me, and I'm not sure what the point trying to be made here is. Weren't all of Walter's brothers nephews of Ranulf? As written it seems to suggest that Osbert and Bartholomew weren't Ranulf's nephews. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 02:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't object to a discussion of him appearing in the Robin Hood stuff, but it's unnecessary to link it to a modern day series only. If we start mentioning one TV series, we open the door to every series. Try to find something significant ... a piece of literature or something, rather than a current TV series. Not to mention that the citation doesn't even try to match the current style used. I'll fix it. (Fixed now) Nor does the citation give the information about the first part of the added sentence. Put on a citation needed tag. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Maud de Valoignes becomes Martha in the section "Early Life".-- Wetman ( talk) 15:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
From the article as it currently stands : 'After the death of King Henry in 1189, the new King Richard I appointed Walter Bishop of Salisbury; the election took place on 15 September 1189 at Pipewell, with the consecration on 22 October 1189 at Westminster.[20][21]'
Pardon my ignorance, but if he was appointed by the king, why was an election necessary? Is there some canon law involved here? Grandma Roses ( talk) 19:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
This very good article states that Walter was a baron of the exchequer in 1184-85, which made me wonder what were the status and duties of this position in the late 12th century. The wikilink for 'baron of the exchequer' points to a brief article on the Exchequer, which does not mention the position. Searching on Baron of the Exchequer directs to Chief Baron of the Exchequer, which states that this was a judicial position, with barons under him, but appears to refer to a later period. The Dialogue Concerning the Exchequer. circa 1180 at [1] appears to describe both administrative and judicial duties, but also refers to greater and lesser barons, and I am not clear whether these were barons of the exchequer or the greater and lesser lords of England. Dudley Miles 22:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, which confirms that his duties were both administrative and judicial. I picture his position at this time as something like that of the law lords until the recent change to a Supreme Court (although unlike the law lords with admin as well as a judicial duties) a temporary baron while he held his position, but maybe this is anachronistic. Dudley Miles 23:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Since 2009 the highest British court has been the Supreme Court, but before that it was the House of Lords. Leading judges were appointed barons so that they could carry out the House's judicial functions, and they were commonly known as the law lords.
It seems from the ODNB comment you quoted that Walter as a baron of the exchequer answered to the justiciar, although it is curious that the Dialogue mentions barons of the exchequer, greater barons and lesser barons, but never the justiciar. As you suggest, it needs someone expert to explain the early history of barons of the exchequer. Dudley Miles 18:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Dudley Miles ( talk) 10:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Ealdgyth, a "bishop-elect" has about as much authority as a "president-elect", i.e. zero. (Are you forgetting that we're talking about the Roman Catholic Church here, where the Pope gets to decide who his bishops are, not the king, not a congregation of monks?) The correct succession here is: Baldwin, Hubert Walter, Stephen Langton. The article itself says Baldwin was the predecessor; the infobox should agree with the text of the article. -- Kenatipo speak! 00:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear Ealdgyth, let me begin by telling you that I admire all the hard work you've put into so many articles; and I congratulate you on all the Good Articles and Featured Articles that you have created. Thank you for making Wikipedia better; Wikipedia needs more editors like you! I'm not really trying to pull your chain. It's just that we have a different opinion about who is (or was) an Archbishop of Canterbury and who gets to make that determination. My opinion is that the RCC and CoE can tell us who their archbishops were and are. There should be no-one on the List of Archbishops of Canterbury whose name is not listed on the wall in Canterbury Cathedral (see photo in List article). The historical footnotes (like the Reginalds) are not being treated like footnotes on the current List; in fact, they are being listed in many places as "predecessors" and "successors" when, according to the CoE, they were never Archbishops of Canterbury in the first place. My recommendation is that these historical footnotes be removed from the List, since they don't belong there anyway, and put on their own "List of ABC close-calls". (I also think telling readers that Reginald (sub-prior) was the ABC when he was not is a not tiny detail). -- Kenatipo speak! 02:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Being an admin can be onerous sometimes and I admit I groaned internally when someone raised an issue concerning this article at my talk, because I thought I had very little interest in this subject area. I want to say that I really enjoyed reading the article; it's fascinating and well-referenced, and I truly appreciate the hard work of the volunteers who wrote it. -- John ( talk) 09:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Comments:
Other than that, everything looks great. You know the drill by now. On hold, seven days etc. etc. Have fun, good luck and thank you for your hard work thus far. Cheers, CP 05:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I forgot to mention that usually with a person "ie. John Smith" they would be referred to as "Smith did such and such" rather than "John did such and such" unless differentiation from another Smith was needed. In this case, I thought "Hubert" was fine instead of "Walter", since he was a religious figure. It may pop up in FA, I just didn't want you to be surprised by it. I'd say it's fine as it is unless someone points otherwise. Cheers, CP 06:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
At Eagldyth's request, I'm doing a pre-FAC peer review. I've made it about halfway through the article. Here are my comments so far (I'll hopefully finish on Monday):
Karanacs ( talk) 03:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry this took me a whole week to get back too (real life intruded), but here are my comments on the second half of the article:
Karanacs ( talk) 01:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
There are a couple of places where things don't quite seem to make sense:
-- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 14:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
"Walter and his older brother Theobald Walter were nephews of Ranulf de Glanvill. Walter owed his early advancements to his kinsman. His other brothers were Osbert, a royal justice who died in 1206, and Roger, Hamo (or Hamon) and Bartholomew ...". This reads rather strangely to me, and I'm not sure what the point trying to be made here is. Weren't all of Walter's brothers nephews of Ranulf? As written it seems to suggest that Osbert and Bartholomew weren't Ranulf's nephews. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 02:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't object to a discussion of him appearing in the Robin Hood stuff, but it's unnecessary to link it to a modern day series only. If we start mentioning one TV series, we open the door to every series. Try to find something significant ... a piece of literature or something, rather than a current TV series. Not to mention that the citation doesn't even try to match the current style used. I'll fix it. (Fixed now) Nor does the citation give the information about the first part of the added sentence. Put on a citation needed tag. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Maud de Valoignes becomes Martha in the section "Early Life".-- Wetman ( talk) 15:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
From the article as it currently stands : 'After the death of King Henry in 1189, the new King Richard I appointed Walter Bishop of Salisbury; the election took place on 15 September 1189 at Pipewell, with the consecration on 22 October 1189 at Westminster.[20][21]'
Pardon my ignorance, but if he was appointed by the king, why was an election necessary? Is there some canon law involved here? Grandma Roses ( talk) 19:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
This very good article states that Walter was a baron of the exchequer in 1184-85, which made me wonder what were the status and duties of this position in the late 12th century. The wikilink for 'baron of the exchequer' points to a brief article on the Exchequer, which does not mention the position. Searching on Baron of the Exchequer directs to Chief Baron of the Exchequer, which states that this was a judicial position, with barons under him, but appears to refer to a later period. The Dialogue Concerning the Exchequer. circa 1180 at [1] appears to describe both administrative and judicial duties, but also refers to greater and lesser barons, and I am not clear whether these were barons of the exchequer or the greater and lesser lords of England. Dudley Miles 22:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, which confirms that his duties were both administrative and judicial. I picture his position at this time as something like that of the law lords until the recent change to a Supreme Court (although unlike the law lords with admin as well as a judicial duties) a temporary baron while he held his position, but maybe this is anachronistic. Dudley Miles 23:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Since 2009 the highest British court has been the Supreme Court, but before that it was the House of Lords. Leading judges were appointed barons so that they could carry out the House's judicial functions, and they were commonly known as the law lords.
It seems from the ODNB comment you quoted that Walter as a baron of the exchequer answered to the justiciar, although it is curious that the Dialogue mentions barons of the exchequer, greater barons and lesser barons, but never the justiciar. As you suggest, it needs someone expert to explain the early history of barons of the exchequer. Dudley Miles 18:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Dudley Miles ( talk) 10:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Ealdgyth, a "bishop-elect" has about as much authority as a "president-elect", i.e. zero. (Are you forgetting that we're talking about the Roman Catholic Church here, where the Pope gets to decide who his bishops are, not the king, not a congregation of monks?) The correct succession here is: Baldwin, Hubert Walter, Stephen Langton. The article itself says Baldwin was the predecessor; the infobox should agree with the text of the article. -- Kenatipo speak! 00:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear Ealdgyth, let me begin by telling you that I admire all the hard work you've put into so many articles; and I congratulate you on all the Good Articles and Featured Articles that you have created. Thank you for making Wikipedia better; Wikipedia needs more editors like you! I'm not really trying to pull your chain. It's just that we have a different opinion about who is (or was) an Archbishop of Canterbury and who gets to make that determination. My opinion is that the RCC and CoE can tell us who their archbishops were and are. There should be no-one on the List of Archbishops of Canterbury whose name is not listed on the wall in Canterbury Cathedral (see photo in List article). The historical footnotes (like the Reginalds) are not being treated like footnotes on the current List; in fact, they are being listed in many places as "predecessors" and "successors" when, according to the CoE, they were never Archbishops of Canterbury in the first place. My recommendation is that these historical footnotes be removed from the List, since they don't belong there anyway, and put on their own "List of ABC close-calls". (I also think telling readers that Reginald (sub-prior) was the ABC when he was not is a not tiny detail). -- Kenatipo speak! 02:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Being an admin can be onerous sometimes and I admit I groaned internally when someone raised an issue concerning this article at my talk, because I thought I had very little interest in this subject area. I want to say that I really enjoyed reading the article; it's fascinating and well-referenced, and I truly appreciate the hard work of the volunteers who wrote it. -- John ( talk) 09:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)