Talk:William de Turbeville

Constitutions of Clarendon?
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)
 * 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 - Talk 12:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

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)
 * 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 - Talk 12:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

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)