Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Edict of Expulsion/archive1

Edict of Expulsion

 * Nominator(s): Jim Killock (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the 1290 edict of expulsion that led to the departure of the Jews from England, and the reasons why it was issued; and the consequences and importance of the edict since then. It would be good for it to be featured as it is an important facet of English and Jewish social history, with an international significance. Jim Killock (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Placeholder
I'll take a look at this one over the weekend...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments

 * "Edward told the sheriffs of all counties he wanted" => "Edward told the sheriffs of all counties that he wanted"
 * "then adopted in England at the Synod of Oxford in 1222." - this doesn't work grammatically with the rest of the sentence. I would separate it into a separate sentence
 * "King Henry III backed allegations" - link him
 * "this was however an unrealistic expectation" - this either needs to be a separate sentence of else the comma before it needs to be a semi-colon
 * "Edward also attempted" - who's Edward? This is the first mention in the body of him
 * "Edward broke his collarbone in an 80 foot fall" => "Edward broke his collarbone in an 80-foot fall"
 * "Wardens at the Cinque Ports were to told" => "Wardens at the Cinque Ports were told"
 * "Perhaps more dangerous than the risk of piracy was the condition of the sea in Autumn" - autumn doesn't need a capital A
 * "the most valuable of which was houses in London" - while probably grammatically correct, this reads a little oddly, so I would suggest maybe "the most valuable of which consisted of houses in London"
 * "Some of the property was given away to courtiers, the church and family" - whose family?
 * "Sales were mostly completed by spring 1291, and around £2,000 was raised. £100 of this was used to glaze windows and decorate the tomb of Henry III in Westminster Abbey" => "Sales were mostly completed by spring 1291, and around £2,000 was raised, £100 of which was used to glaze windows and decorate the tomb of Henry III in Westminster Abbey"
 * Check for overlinking. Queen Eleanor is certainly linked multiple times in the body of the article.
 * "it appears to be a deliberate attempt to associate himself and Eleanor with the cult." - this should be its own sentence
 * "for instance in the canonization evidence" => "for instance in the canonisation evidence" (British English spelling)
 * There's quite a bit of sandwiching going on with images, especially in the significance section. Maybe lose a couple of images
 * If kept, the Edward I image caption needs a full stop
 * Note c - "See Hillaby & Hillaby 2013, pp. 364–5" - this could just be a reference in the same format as all the others
 * Note d needs a full stop
 * Note f - "See Morris 2009, p. 226" - same as with note c
 * Same with notes j and h
 * Note l does not need a full stop
 * That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Great - those look very sensible. I'll work through them probably tomorrow. Jim Killock (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much @ChrisTheDude. Those are all done, bar removing an image. I've cut the image captions down, but left them for now, until I've had a think. On overlinking I checked Edward I, Queen Eleanor and Little St Hugh as the most likely candidates for overlinking with several mentions.Jim Killock (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

FM

 * Marking my spot. FunkMonk (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the first image should be moved above the first series template? Looks a little awkward now, and it would provide a more relevant start illustration for the article.
 * Hopefully done I don't fully understand this. I've put at the page top but let me know if I have misunderstood --Jim Killock (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What you did is exactly what I had in mind. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * "The first Jewish communities are recorded in England after 1066." Probably relevant to mention from where and under which circumstances for context?
 * Done good spot. --Jim Killock (talk) 11:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Link terms and names in image captions?
 * Can I ask what (where?) the rules are on links in captions vs overlinking? --Jim Killock (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:captions and WP:duplinks is what we have. The latter says "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence in a major section." That's of course vague, but personally I just link a term in the first caption it occurs, and consider the captions a separate text from the article body, just like the intro section is. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. Jim Killock (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * As I'm not exactly an expert on this subject, I'm wary to continue the review until the issues below are resolved, also so I don't tread the same ground. I'll return if Gog gives it a go. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, thank you, that makes sense. I've addressed everything specific raised bar one cite I need to add; I've also given the copy another once over for anything I can spot myself. Jim Killock (talk) 09:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

 * Note 1: I would strongly recommend recasting this as 'Modern historian Cecil Roth notes that contemporary Jewish writers.
 * Done--Jim Killock (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sources: if a work referred to is not the first edition, the date of publication of the original should also be given.
 * Done for Roth, should be the only case (it was extensively rewritten) --Jim Killock (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also corrected on Edward I of England for Prestwich's Edward I. --Jim Killock (talk) 10:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Brookes & Pevsner is not used.
 * Done--Jim Killock (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Several works are missing publisher locations.
 * I think these are done now. --Jim Killock (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Cite 57 should be p., not pp. Cite 19 has the reverse.
 * Done --Jim Killock (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Cite 63 should use an en dash, not a hyphen. Ditto cite 19.
 * Done --Jim Killock (talk) 06:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also done: I've made a quick visual check for any other p vs pp errors in the citation list; I couldn't spot any. --Jim Killock (talk) 07:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ISBNs need their hyphenisation standardising.
 * Clarification requested: can I remove these entirely as the standardisation? Or do I need to add in ISBN format hyphenisation? --Jim Killock (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * (Unsolicited comment: most reviewers will expect some sort of third-party ID for sources, particularly books: where an ISBN exists, it should be given. Whether you use hyphenated or unhyphenated ISBNs is up to you: those with strong opinions generally go for unhyphenated, as it helps when using them in online searches and so on. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, that would be my preference as it is less fiddly and is less distracting on the page (at least in my view). Will do that now. Jim Killock (talk) 10:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Done Jim Killock (talk) 10:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As the article is about England, USvar usage - such as "likely" instead of 'probably' - are best avoided.
 * Done: changed to "most likely"; I am surprised to be using something that sounds US English. Had it down as clipped English. --Jim Killock (talk) 07:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "selected individuals given grants of property". Perhaps 'selected individuals were given grants of property'
 * Done --Jim Killock (talk) 07:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "The expulsion had a lasting negative impact". This does not seem WP:NPOV. Does the consensus of the HQ sources support it. Might be easier to remove "negative".
 * Done, see discussion below --Jim Killock (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Jews were viewed as the direct jurisdiction and property of the king". "property": as in slaves? And the first bit is bad grammar, try 'Jews were viewed as being under the direct jurisdiction ... of the king'.
 * Done the grammar edit. See discussion below re "property". --Jim Killock (talk) 06:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Done I've added to the explanatory note: The Church held that Jews were condemned to servitude for the crime of crucifying Christ, while they did not convert. This carried over into legal formulations. I have added source for this. Jim Killock (talk) 08:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "making them subject to the whims of the king". No need repeat "the king". Maybe something like 'making them subject to his whims'?
 * Done. --Jim Killock (talk) 06:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "A very small number of Jews were wealthy, as they were allowed to lend money at interest". This reads as if only a small number were allowed to lend money.
 * Done. --Jim Killock (talk) 06:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "as this constituted the sin of usury." The presentation of this as a fact begs the question of why lending at interest is permitted now. Maybe 'as this was considered the sin of usury' or similar?
 * Done. --Jim Killock (talk) 06:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "As capital was in short supply and necessary for development, Jewish loans played an important economic role in England's development." Would it be possible to avoid using "development" twice in the sentence? It may be helpful to specify economic development. Could a brief example be given? (I am more familiar with loans of the period being for ostentation and/or warfare.)
 * Will check: I think the main example is monastic construction, but also castle building (which is explained as necessary for security to create markets, towns and economic development, rather than being just a "warfare" expense) --Jim Killock (talk) 06:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Done: add a couple of examples and additional cite. --Jim Killock (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Explain in line what "The Holy See" is.
 * Done. --Jim Killock (talk) 06:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "had placed restrictions on Jews from mixing with Christians" This doesn't make sense. Do you mean 'had placed restrictions on Jews mixing with Christians,'? Or perhaps 'had placed restrictions on Jews preventing them from mixing with Christians'?
 * Done. The restrictions ran both ways (were imposed on both groups). --Jim Killock (talk) 06:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "ideas of conspiracy". Conspiracy to what?
 * Harder: in this case, conspiracy to murder and mock Christians, but this goes very wide; writers drawing on antisemitic tropes have Jews conspiring to do whatever fantasy might come into their antisemitic minds. The idea is that Jews conspire, not that they are after something specific. The English innovation here is to fantasise about secret Jewish conspiracies. --Jim Killock (talk) 06:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Amended: to "and the accusations began to develop themes of conspiracy and occult practices". Let me know if this is clearer. --Jim Killock (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "after the death of a boy Hugh". 'after the death of a boy named Hugh'.
 * Done. --Jim Killock (talk) 06:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Such stories coincided with the rise of hostility within the Church to the Jews." This s not cited.
 * Done. --Jim Killock (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not far in and am picking up a lot of things which should have largely been sorted before FAC. I can see that it has had two relatively recent visits to PR and I am aware that the waiting list at GoCER - it badly needs a copy edit - is three months, so there is a limit to what you can do. I think not going with a FAC mentor - the bit in bold in the second paragraph of the FAC instructions - is unfortunate, but I can guess that they are thin on the ground in practice. Nevertheless, IMO the article is not yet ready for FAC. It needs a fair bit of work, which FAC is not equipped to provide. I am, therefore, leaning oppose. I shall sleep on it and then probably pick a random paragraph or two from further down the article tomorrow to see if I have so far just had a run of bad luck. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for these so far, I will find time to fix them ASAP. They are really useful.
 * On process, I asked for a FAC mentor, but I was advised by User:Dudley Miles that this was not needed and I should just get the text peer reviewed; he then gave me very helpful comments there. I'm new to this but my experience of Peer Review has been that it is slow to get much helpful response. GA was much more helpful. (And of course, I have done PRs myself for others to ensure that I am giving as well as asking.) I think Dudley's very helpful review was the first time out of three or so goes I have had to get anything substantial from it. Of course it may be that I am just being a bit impatient in these cases and rather than a few weeks, I should be waiting longer for responses, but I get the impression that people looking seem to regard the job as done once one person has responded.


 * Now dealt with: On the two factual matters (Jews as "property") this is well cited and mentioned also in Edward I of England in the same manner ("The Jews were the King's personal property, and he was free to tax them at will."); the same point was raised and discussion took place at its FAR. The reasons are complex, rather hazy and rarely expanded upon except in discussions of the theological background; as church opinion against Jews hardened, it was regarded that they were in permanent slavery for their sins of obstinacy in the face of the message of Christ's salvation, doomed to permanent servitude as punishment while they refused to convert. From another perspective, as Jews were outside of the Church and "Christian" society, the King had to take direct responsibility for them. From a third, the Crown after Crusader violence in 1190 tended to push this line in part to define the relationship as protection in return for unlimited taxation. However the position seems to be more theology and legal theory than practical reality and daily experience, excepting that the Crown would periodically mass arrest Jews to extract taxation in return for their release, for instance. As with many things in this article, information on this can be added but there is a question how much is needed to understand the expulsion itself; ie sufficient context vs a full history; points like this tend to be skipped in most other short accounts beyond the bare statement of the situation.
 * On the "The expulsion had a lasting negative impact" - the impact cited extensively was that it helped make the English national identity actively anti-Semitic. The sources don't necessarily explicitly say that anti-Semitism in the national identity was a "negative" impact, it is more taken as read: they say that anti-Semitism was and is negative, and that the impact was to include it into English identity. So I have taken out "negative", in case this implies a NNPOV, but you may wish to re-read this to see if it may read as if this "impact" could in fact have been a good one, or that WP takes a "neutral" view on racial prejudice. If I am honest that paragraph now does read in rather a cold and clinical manner, and might be read as if Edward's actions could be seen as a cause for celebration. Jim Killock (talk) 04:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Quick update that I made some light copyediting to the main text. The copy is where help is most likely to be needed IMHO, the source formatting now being hopefully sorted and source checking regarding scope and accuracy ought to be pretty decent although of course I do not rule out quibbles. Jim Killock (talk) 10:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Additional tidy-ups made to
 * include OL refs throughout books where they exist;
 * add sources from those in reading list to reinforce the refs in the body;
 * remove further reading section as now redundant;
 * remove duplicate and irrelevant links in external links section.
 * Jim Killock (talk) 10:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Gog and I'm not sure "English identity" is the right word to use. My understanding is that most historians date the formation of national identity to the 18th and 19th centuries. How does this apply to the average serf who might not have even known about the expulsion happening? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * (I'm assuming this agreement relates to the dropping of "negative" from "lasting negative impact on English identity"). It is a fair question re; identity; I will check what the texts say. In short, tho, it is discussed in these kind of terms; culture is experienced and projected through many activities, and even serfs were certainly made aware of key religious topics, of which, the "dangers" and "perfidy" of Jews was frequently one, before and after the expulsion. What alternatives could we consider? "English culture"? Open to suggestions. Jim Killock (talk) 08:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Shapiro: p45 has "between 1290 and 1656 the English came to see their country defined in part by the fact that Jews had been banished from it" and talks of "impulses in English culture" p46
 * Strickland talks of "the Anglo-Jewish dimension of the the current debate on the formation of English national identity during the Edwardian period" (p420)
 * Glassman talks of "the image of the Jew in the mind of the English people" (preface) and says "anti-Jewish sentiment was deeply ingrained in the fabric of English life throughout the next several centuries" (chapter one end)
 * We can settle on "culture" as a less controversial and more widely used term. I've changed to that. It does somewhat obscure the point that "we are this because we are not" but it avoids debates about whether a national identity did or did not exist, or what it consisted of. Jim Killock (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Title/capitalization
Probably not the feedback you were expecting, but the first thing I noticed is that the capitalization of the title seems to be wrong: on Google Scholar it seems to be 50/50 or even lean in favor of no capitalization in running text, so per WP:NCCAPS the title should be "edict of expulsion" or "edict of expulsion (1290)". This should wait until the FAC is closed to avoid administrative burden. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've no strong opinion on this; I'll go with whatever the norm / consensus is. I note some of the differences relates to whether it is "the specific" EoE or "an" eoe, ie whether it is a "proper name" per the WP policy; some is stylistic preference I guess. --Jim Killock (talk) 11:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The other comment I have is regarding the notes. In general, if the content is essential enough to belong in the article at all, it shouldn't be hidden in a note; whereas, if it does not contribute to reader understanding of the subject, it should not be included at all.
 * An example of a note that I don't think is done correctly is the one for archa. Especially in mobile devices, it is not always possible to access the note and so a reader may be left confused by this term (the only wiki link is in the note, not the text). Instead, I would give a brief explanation in text on first mention and remove the note. Alternatively, it seems to be a notable topic so it might also be helpful to stub it and put in a blue link.
 * Is there policy guidance on this as I'm getting it a bit wrong? I've understood notes to be "background, which might help clarify if the reader is in doubt about what is being asserted, where the detail isn't essential for an understanding of the topic at hand", but let me know if that is wrong. --Jim Killock (talk) 11:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've moved the main explanation of archa into the text and left the background in a note; this could be deleted if preferred. I'll have a think about a stub, but WP has got very difficult about doing short articles in recent years, even when referenced, I'm not sure I want to engage with that; I suspect many would feel it is a borderline on "notability". --Jim Killock (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Another example is the footnote saying the text was lost. This also seems better to incorporate into the article text.
 * Done --Jim Killock (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * For the first footnote, I don't understand what point this is trying to get across, so I would just cut it. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * People have a hard time with the idea that England might have been the first place to make a permanent expulsion of the Jews and editors frequently query or contest it; there is some greyness in that expulsions took place but were not permanent; the note is trying to explain that this permanence was not least the contemporary perception found in Jewish sources. Will try to make the note more understandable, but not the end of the world if it is cut. --Jim Killock (talk) 11:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Edited but feel free to check. Jim Killock (talk) 12:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "The permanent expulsion of Jews from England and tactics employed before it, such as attempts at forced conversion, are widely seen as setting a significant precedent, foreshadowing the 1492 expulsion in Spain, for example" rewrite, too many commas in this sentence. Foreshadowing is a literary device, so it's not a word I would use when referring to historical events. Was Ferdinand inspired by this expulsion? Or else, what is the supposed historical connection between these two events? It's quite vague.
 * Will go back and check the texts. --Jim Killock (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Edited: the texts I have cite the events as an "example" or "model" for later permanent French and Spanish expulsions or forced conversions. I've used "example", what Spanish or other sources say on the point I don't know. It seems a fair enough point tho. Jim Killock (talk) 12:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * " formal equality was achieved by 1858" maybe link Jewish emancipation?
 * Done: Have linked to this and the UK-specific article. --Jim Killock (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * "However English antisemitism persisted as an outlook into the twentieth century, leaving a legacy of neglect of this topic in general history books as late as the 1980s" needs a rephrase. I would write instead, "According to historian Colin Richmond, the topic was neglected in general history books as late as the 1980s due to lingering antisemitism in English society". Wikipedia can't really say what is an appropriate amount of coverage; that seems like an opinion based statement. Furthermore, your sentence almost makes it seem like there is no antisemitism in the UK in the 21st century. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. --Jim Killock (talk) 11:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this all seems sensible and very helpful, will work on these. Jim Killock (talk) 08:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:BritLibCottonNeroDiiFol183vPersecutedJews.jpg: source link is dead
 * Amended to https://blogs.bl.uk/asian-and-african/2020/07/anglo-jewish-deeds-from-medieval-england-a-treasure-trove-for-historians.html which marks it as PD. Jim Killock (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * File:Drawing_of_the_Shrine_of_Little_St_Hugh,_Lincoln_Cathedral,_William_Dugdale,_1641_crop.png: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @Nikkimaria this appears to be a scan that was only recently published from a manuscript collection, 1994. The immediate source is File:Drawing of the Shrine of Little St Hugh, Lincoln Cathedral, William Dugdale, 1641.png; and that takes us to Hillaby 1994; see p97, plate 3. It also appears as plate XXIIID for Stocker 1986. I would hope that, since copyright never affixed to any UK works before the 1700s, and for images rather later, that a scan of an unpublished 1643 work would be considered a verbatim copy of a work never in copyright. But I stand prepared to be contradicted!
 * If we can't use the original, there is a copy published in 1773 which can be used: Shrine of Little St Hugh of Lincoln redrawn by William Stukely from William Dugdale. Jim Killock (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Update: I've emailed the British Library to see if they claim copyright in their archival material. --Jim Killock (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Round objects to the BL; they claim copyright over everything they hold even though they created little of it. In these cases, the PD scan template is your friend; I am known to use it liberally :)    ——Serial Number 54129  18:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yuk to that, especially as UK law is now clear they are in the wrong; however, the issue is that it was only published in 1986, so for WP the copyright may apply. I note for such works published 1989 to present, they are in copyright until 2039 in the UK. I don't quite understand what this means for previously unpublished works that were published before 1989 as in this case. Obviously life plus 70 wouldn't apply. Jim Killock (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * yuk indeed! Apologies, I was talking about the Dugdale version, which as you say, is well and truly PD.  ——Serial Number 54129  19:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * gotcha, thanks! Jim Killock (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So BL have replied to say it's OK and the original is public domain. I'm not sure if there is a process at WP to retain records of these kinds of conversation but I can forward the emails if I know where they should go. Jim Killock (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator note: this has been open for more than seven weeks now and has picked up one support and has an unresolved oppose. It does not look like there will be a consensus for promotion anytime soon so I'm archiving this. Perhaps seek the help of a mentor who specializes in this area of topic to have it better prepared for a possible renomination. In any case, the usual two-week wait before another nomination will apply. FrB.TG (talk) 07:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC) FrB.TG (talk) 07:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)