Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stigand


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:08, 7 September 2008.

Stigand

 * Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk, User:Ning-ning, User:Ruhrfisch

Another medieval bishop, this time not a monk. Infamous in English history, Stigand got the blame for the "wicked and corrupt" Anglo-Saxon Church right before the Norman Conquest. He served six kings of England - Cnut, Harthacanute, Harold Harefoot, Edward the Confessor, Harold Godwinson, and William the Conqueror. He held both the Archbishopric of Canterbury and the Bishopric of Winchester at the same time, and amassed enough wealth that his estates rivaled the king's. Eventually, he was deposed and died in captivity. Certainly not a "nice" man, but clearly influential in history. Co-nom with User:Ning-ning who did a lot of the copyediting, and with User:Ruhrfisch who put up with my PRing this twice and helped a lot with making it clearer. User:Karanacs kindly helped with the copyediting also. Images were checked over by User:Elcobbola. Please tell me where I can improve the article! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

P. S. Oh, yeah, help me catch up to the hurricane writing people! They are taking over the world at this rate! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments Just some picky points:
 * DONEHe was pretty clearly born in the 10th century, but there is no suggestion of this in the article & the long lead does not give the 1020 date by which his career was well underway.
 * Unfortunately, no source says that he was "clearly born in the 10th century" or for that matter that he was clearly born around any time. The ONDB is totally silent on his birthdate. I've put in some indications of dates in the lead, which should help. I'd also point out (and this is OR which is why its not in the article) that it's perfecly possible he was only in his 20s when he became a chaplain. The canonical age for bishoprics was about 30 at the time (I'd have to dig pretty deep to find that) but priest of a church would fit with an age of about late teens or 20 or so, so it's not necessarily clear that he was born before 1000. We're hampered by the fact that we don't know how old he was when he died in in 1072 or so. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that, but surely something like "presumably born around the turn of the century" is justified? If he was much older than 72 when he died, people would have commented on his extreme age as well as his extreme wealth, no? Otherwise the puzzled reader is left to do the maths anyway, & guess how old a royal chaplain might have needed to be. Johnbod (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I think that's falling into the OR category. I mean it when I say that nothing I have seen speculates on his birthdate. There have been no serious biographies of him. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reword removes the problem Johnbod (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * DONE"Later Norman writers accused Stigand of uncanonically crowning Harold Godwinson as king of England after the death of King Edward in 1066" perhaps should not appear in the lead without a caution as to why they would say that.
 * This one is tied into the bit below about the uncanonical crowning, answered below. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed this to "Stigand was present at the deathbed of King Edward and at the coronation of Harold Godwinson as king of England in 1066." which avoids the whole propoganda claim. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * DONE"Although it doesn't appear that Stigand ever visited Rome.." bit informal.
 * Changed to "Although it does not appear that Stigand ever traveled to Rome,...", if that's not enough, please let me know. Thanks for catching that "doesn't"! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * DONE"However, a recent study of his wealth and how it was earned, shows that while he did engage in some exploitative methods to gain some of his wealth, other lands were gained through inheritance or through royal favour.." Why "however"?
 * Removed the however, it was a remnant of some of the copyediting. I tend to be a bit free with 'howevers' as well as commas... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * DONE"Modern historians views range from viewing him as a wily politician to being a horrible ecclesiastic" are these contradictory views? "Horrible" is not at all helpful here. Johnbod (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what I get for quickly adding something so that I could get in John's quotation... reworded to "Modern historians views tend to see him as either a wily politician and indifferent bishop, or to see him purely in terms of his ecclesiastical failings." which hopefuly shows that there is a range of thought on him, but without the "horrible" which you rightly objected to! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * DONE In general, apart from the Norman take on the AS church, they would be specifically keen to claim that Harold's coronation was illegitimate, as no doubt many of your references point out, but is not really brought out here.
 * One reason I haven't really gone into that here is that it really wasn't a reason that Stigand was deposed. It has more bearing on Harold and William, not so much on Stigand. Stigand's problems stemmed from his pallium issues and his holding of the two richest bishoprics in tandem. However, I'm open to suggestions on what and where you'd like to see a bit more? I'm presuming that you're looking for something along the lines of "Norman writers after the conquest often claim that Stigand crowned Harold. This is generally considered propaganda, and not true, as it was in William's interest to protray Harold as uncanonically crowned.  If Harold was not properly crowned, then William was merely claiming his rightful inheritance, and not deposing a rightful king."? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well "This is generally considered propaganda, and not true" is more than I know, but otherwise yes, something like that. William had other reasons for claiming he was "was merely claiming his rightful inheritance, and not deposing a rightful king", but that would have helped. Especially I think the bald statement in the lead, perhaps not needed, should be given context. Johnbod (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added that sentence into the correct section, and pruned the sentence in the lead as given above. Let me know if this works and makes sense to you? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There are only 3 images. We must have some more relevant ones, no?
 * I'm open to suggestions, but Canterbury Cathedral isn't the cathedral he knew, his tomb isn't extant. The other churches he was involved with, I didn't turn anything up on Commons, mainly because they aren't extant. I'll get to the rest tomorrow, thanks, they are very helpful! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We have a decent C11 portrait of Leo IX at any rate. Johnbod (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That image has no source given, so I don't dare use it in the article, even though it comes from Commons. I was able to fix the Bayeux tapestry pic sourcing because I bought some books on the tapestry. I have no idea where they scanned that image from ... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK

End of comments by Johnbod (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Comments dealt with. Nice article. Johnbod (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Johnbod! Thanks for finding some issues that I'd missed! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * All images check out fine.
 * Sources
 * http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/26523 redirected to http://www.oxforddnb.com/auth/login.jsp?url=%2Fview%2Farticle%2F26523 - login needed. Might want to note that alongside the inline ref (it's done in the refs section but if you click the footnote you don't see that).
 * Fixed, thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that I've requested an equivalent "format" parameter for the cite encyclopedia template. If it gets added, you can feel free to use that instead of adding the fee required note within the title (which is, in my opinion, a bit misleading :-) Budding Journalist 09:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Everything else seems good. —Giggy 09:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. As Eagldyth noted, I did do a copyedit of the article recently.  I found it very interesting - these medieval church officials certainly lived unusual lives.  I also did an image check - all are PD and look good. Karanacs (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments - What are you doing, nominating your own articles? Get back to checking sources, slave! :P ...Anyway, some minor comments:
 * "Neither the year nor the date of Stigand's birth is known." Isn't the neither redundant ("The year and date of Stigand's birth is unknown." ?)
 * Removed the offending 'neither' Ealdgyth - Talk 15:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Stigand did not travel to Rome to receive a pallium,[2] the band worn around a neck that is the symbol of an archbishop's authority,[44] from the pope. " - was this the custom? it's not really made clear.
 * Yes, it was the custom. Hold on while I dig out a reference for the bits I'm about to add. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarified with sourcing. (grins). Can't neglect the sourcing! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Stigand was later accused of simony, but all such accusations date to after 1066, and are thus suspect" - who accused Stigand of simony? If it was the Popes, I don't think their motives need be questioned.
 * Norman chroniclers were the accusors. I'll make that clear. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * - Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, above concerns resolved, I'm going to read over it again. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 13:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - some dense prose, but well-written and fairly interesting (at least, as interesting as it can be to a guy who doesn't have an interest in the subject :P) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 23:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.