This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
William de Turbeville is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the
Catholic Church. For more information, visit the
project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
East Anglia 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.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
William de Turbeville was one of the bishops in attendance at the Council of Clarendon and forced to agree to said Constitutions. It is known he wanted to capitulate and agree with the King, for he feared the King's anger. I'm sorry, I am new to Wikipedia, but I'm not sure how this information isn't relevant? Likewise on similar bishop's pages, especially those more embroiled in the Becket Controversy?
Rtmisst (
talk)
12:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)reply
the information isn’t supported by your source. You can’t claim that someone became embroiled in a controversy of the source you’re using is the actual document ...that primary source only supports the fact that he signed the document. No where does the actual constitutions of Clarendon support the embroiled bit. As for the other bishops... the ones you got reverted on all are good or featured articles. There, what is included is based on secondary sources...not primary ones. The constitutions are a minor blip in those bishops lives..so it’s trivia. With Nigel, it is also a problem like here, you were using the constitutions to draw conclusions. I see you’re editing as part of a class...does your class have a page for your professor? Or any interactions with the education project? Because ...quite honestly, Wikipedia is nothing like actual historical research and it must be approached totally differently.
Ealdgyth -
Talk12:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I genuinely am trying to help update these articles. I attempted to add a secondary source for this information to William's page, but it has been removed. Our lecturer is on here and is in contact with Wikipedia (I assume the Education project?)
Rtmisst (
talk)
12:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)reply
You added a secondary source, but you cited the entire book. That isn’t helpful at all...specific page numbers for large sources are what is required, especially for good or featured articles. And when you add the same information to multiple pages, it is basically spamming.. you’re not trying to fit the information into the context of the articles subject, you just found a factoid/opinion and are throwing it everywhere you think it might fit in the hopes it might stick. Look, I’m just waking up, but you need to actually take on board the information in those modules you “trained” with. And understand that Wikipedia is totally different than doing masters level historical research. Let me get caffeinated and I’ll explain further on your talk page.
Ealdgyth -
Talk12:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Thank you for explaining this to me. I had no intention to "spam", I merely thought it relevant in the context of the work I was doing. My apologies for any issues caused. I did forget to add the specific pages on the secondary source, again, apologies for that.
Rtmisst (
talk)
13:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
William de Turbeville is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the
Catholic Church. For more information, visit the
project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
East Anglia 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.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
William de Turbeville was one of the bishops in attendance at the Council of Clarendon and forced to agree to said Constitutions. It is known he wanted to capitulate and agree with the King, for he feared the King's anger. I'm sorry, I am new to Wikipedia, but I'm not sure how this information isn't relevant? Likewise on similar bishop's pages, especially those more embroiled in the Becket Controversy?
Rtmisst (
talk)
12:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)reply
the information isn’t supported by your source. You can’t claim that someone became embroiled in a controversy of the source you’re using is the actual document ...that primary source only supports the fact that he signed the document. No where does the actual constitutions of Clarendon support the embroiled bit. As for the other bishops... the ones you got reverted on all are good or featured articles. There, what is included is based on secondary sources...not primary ones. The constitutions are a minor blip in those bishops lives..so it’s trivia. With Nigel, it is also a problem like here, you were using the constitutions to draw conclusions. I see you’re editing as part of a class...does your class have a page for your professor? Or any interactions with the education project? Because ...quite honestly, Wikipedia is nothing like actual historical research and it must be approached totally differently.
Ealdgyth -
Talk12:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I genuinely am trying to help update these articles. I attempted to add a secondary source for this information to William's page, but it has been removed. Our lecturer is on here and is in contact with Wikipedia (I assume the Education project?)
Rtmisst (
talk)
12:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)reply
You added a secondary source, but you cited the entire book. That isn’t helpful at all...specific page numbers for large sources are what is required, especially for good or featured articles. And when you add the same information to multiple pages, it is basically spamming.. you’re not trying to fit the information into the context of the articles subject, you just found a factoid/opinion and are throwing it everywhere you think it might fit in the hopes it might stick. Look, I’m just waking up, but you need to actually take on board the information in those modules you “trained” with. And understand that Wikipedia is totally different than doing masters level historical research. Let me get caffeinated and I’ll explain further on your talk page.
Ealdgyth -
Talk12:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Thank you for explaining this to me. I had no intention to "spam", I merely thought it relevant in the context of the work I was doing. My apologies for any issues caused. I did forget to add the specific pages on the secondary source, again, apologies for that.
Rtmisst (
talk)
13:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)reply