Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Theobald of Bec/archive1


 * 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 Karanacs 16:50, 21 July 2011.

Theobald of Bec

 * Nominator(s): Malleus Fatuorum; Ealdgyth - Talk 23:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it's time for a much less obscure (although still obscure) personage here. Theobald is quite well known in historian circles, as he was an important figure in his time period, known for his patronage, his activities, and his own personal qualities. Most folks won't have heard of him, but they will have heard of one of his proteges - Thomas Becket, who was a member of Theobald's staff and was Theobald's successor at Canterbury. The article's had two peer reviews, and has been extensively copyedited by Malleus, who shares the nom with me (even though I know he's going to whine about it.) I promise the next nomination will be more "bad boy" than Theobald, who even when he was being bad (like when he disobeyed the king) was still doing it for a "good" reason. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nitpicking, but be consistent in how you shorten titles for citations - for example, compare FNs 19 and 40, or 9 and 42
 * Why not include both editors for Hollister?
 * Page(s) for Hayward? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ACK! I even pinged you ahead of time, hoping to manage to avoid Nikkimaria nitpicks on my FAC (I DREAM of getting the refs right on just ONE FAC..) but no... you managed to find errors! Woe is me! (Did the act work??? I'll get right on these...) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, refs fixed to standardized names, pages in the Hayward full citation, but .. both editors for Hollister? My copy only has one editor. I don't list frost up in the shortened refs, because she didn't do the research on the book, she merely edited after Hollister died unexpectedly. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, so Hollister's the author and Frost just the editor? If so, is there some way to make this clearer in the bibliographic entry? Right now it looks (to me, at least) as if both were editors. (Sorry about missing these things on the ping!) Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added "(author)" after Hollister's name. Or, alternatively, I could just eliminate Frost, if you don't like my solution. (I'm going to start working on the "ref-queen-of-nitpickers" award for you soon...) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment: There are issues with the lead prose (I've not gone through the rest yet):-
 * "He was a Norman, but his exact birth date is unknown." Conjunction inappropriate, as the two facts are unrelated.
 * "somewhat turbulent" is a bit redolent of an editorial judgement. I'd drop the "somewhat"
 * "On one occasion Stephen forbade him to attend a papal council, but Theobald defied the king and sneaked away to the council on board a fishing boat, which resulted in the confiscation of his property and temporary exile." This level of detail shouldn't be in the lead (the story is repeated almost verbatim in the text), and "sneaked away" is hardly neutral, encyclopedic language.
 * "...to have him canonised as a saint" - tautology. surely? What else can you be canonised as?

Brianboulton (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I got most of those... except the last one. I see that as more an explanation of what the linked term means, than a tautology. Not everyone is going to realize what canonization is. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Images check out. J Milburn (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Very well written, but a few quick thoughts: Looking very good, and it's an important, interesting and encyclopedic topic to boot. Good work. J Milburn (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * primacy is a dablink
 * "As archbishop his behaviour was moderate in comparison to that of his main rival, Henry of Blois." I don't really understand what this means
 * "on a Vita, or Life of the 12th-century mystic Christina of Markyate" Again, sorry, I don't follow
 * "Theobald had sworn fealty to Stephen, but does not appear to have been an active partisan of Stephen's, nor to have felt that his fealty to Stephen required him to recognise any claims of Stephen's heirs to the throne." Ref?
 * "Theobald was the only non-French bishop present" He was born in France?
 * "The only English bishop specifically named was Henry of Blois" When I first read this, I got the impression it was "Henry, and maybe a couple of others" but the next line implies there were many.
 * You mention Theobald consecrating Foliot twice
 * "his body was found to be uncorrupted" What does this mean?


 * Replies
 * Theobald was indeed born in Normandy, but he was an English bishop, i.e., bishop of an English diocese. I admit though that one tripped me up too on first reading. I think we can maybe re-word that to avoid the "Huh?" effect. Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. see what you think. Malleus Fatuorum 00:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Works for me, thanks. J Milburn (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed the first mention of Foliot's consecration, as I think the second covers everything that needs to be said. Malleus Fatuorum 00:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Uncorrupted" means undecayed. Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, I think a great big "reportedly" may be useful. I'm no expert on decomposition, but that's not common, right? J Milburn (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say impossible, but heh, he was (almost) a saint! I'll leave that one for Ealdgyth. Malleus Fatuorum 00:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a note, I'm at an art festival for the weekend, so it'll be Monday morning (my time) before I can get to these... sorry for the delay! I'm utterly bushed, but it was a day of good sales of our photographic prints so it's a good bushed. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Fixed the dab. Changed the "moderate" to "less political". Removed the sentence missing a ref .. still not sure where that crept in unreffed. He was the only bishop from a non-French diocese - I cannot find this in the text now, presumably Malleus fixed it? Suspension of Henry of Blois - clarified this a bit, let me know if this is clearer to you. (it's a bit complicated, unfortunately, and hard to convey). Malleus got the Foliot bit, and the last... uncorrupted means not-decayed. Doesn't mean embalmed, but kinda mummified. And it's not as unusual as you might think - and none of my sources use "reportedly" ... the modern historians accept that the body was uncorrupted so I don't feel comfortable adding a "reportedly" here. Barlow in the ODNB says "Although a little shrunken, the archbishop's body was intact and rigid, so that some people hailed him as a saint." Saltman says ".. Theobald's body was found uncorrupted ...". Let me know if I need to clarify further. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Reasonable answers, and it's now much clearer. Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. An excellent article. J Milburn (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment - compiled a list of prose points on talk page (to avoid spamming the main FAC page for delegates). If needed the points can be moved here, but the list is a bit long. Most points are not critical, but recheck the article for overly "colorful", confusing or vague phrases (especially when looking at the article from a layman's perspective). GermanJoe (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggested prose improvements and clarifications per talk Done. GermanJoe (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to be a pain, or anything, but does that mean you support or is there something missing you'd like to see done before you'd be willing to support the article? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do final check as soon as i got a bit time, looking good. GermanJoe (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See final summary below, to keep discussion in chronological order. GermanJoe (talk) 11:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments: I haven't finished reading the article yet, but it looks very good so far. I've completed to the end of the Civil War section and a few nit-picks so far. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Canterbury's claim to primacy over the Welsh ecclesiastics was resolved during Theobald's term of office when Pope Eugene III decided in 1148 in Canterbury's favour.": From the reading in the lead, this seems almost an aside and not directly connected with Theobald.
 * "… a number of other future bishops and archbishops served as his clerks including Roger de Pont L'Evêque, John Belmeis, John de Pageham, Bartholomew Iscanus, William de Vere, and William of Northall.": Is this level of detail necessary in the lead, or could it be cut to "a number of other future bishops and archbishops served as his clerks".
 * "Theobald died in 1161 after a long illness, following which unsuccessful efforts were made to have him canonised as a saint.": This reads as if the canonisation attempt came after his illness rather than death; could this be swapped around?
 * "and helped secure an orderly succession to the monarchy." To me, this is covered by the death of Eustace in the previous paragraph. Adding this as well suggests that Theobald was involved in a further innovation to the "rules" of succession.
 * "The modern historian Frank Barlow speculates" Is "modern" necessary? I think the later use of "contemporary" covers any medieval historians/chroniclers, and there is a possible ambiguity with a person who studies modern history in the current phrasing.
 * "The historian Avrom Saltman suggests that, if admissions were spaced regularly throughout William's abbacy, Theobald would have become a monk in about 1117, but qualifies his estimate with the statement that 1117 "seems to be rather late"." Is there any reason to suppose that the admissions would be spaced regularly? And is Saltman not undermining himself here? (I realise this is not your idea, but it seems a little odd!)
 * "over his own brother Henry, the Bishop of Winchester": Not clear on first reading if this is Stephen's brother or Theobald's brother.
 * "Stephen feared that Henry would be too powerful as archbishop, and would attempt to control the king." Odd phrasing as Stephen was the king and this makes it sound as if the king was someone else.
 * "had himself crowned": Creates a mental image of Stephen sitting placing the crown on his own head! Could this be re-phrased, for example "arranged to be crowned by X before either Theobald II…" --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * First one - it was not something that Theobald pursued with great enthusiasm, but it is a vital event in Canterbury's history, so it's well worth a note in the lead. Second - cut the names. Third - done. Fourth - last bits of lead now read: "During his time as archbishop Theobald augmented the rights of his see, or bishopric. Historians of his time and later were divided on his character and he is often overlooked in the historical record, mainly because of the fame of his successor." Fifth - I really do prefer "modern" historian here ... Sixth - Saltman's doing the usual historian cover-your-ass thing here, and he devotes a good bit of space to the concept, so I do need to mention it, unfortunately. Seventh - changed to "over Stephen's own brother" Eighth - I'm afraid if I go "Stephen feared that Henry would be too powerful as archbishop, and would attempt to control Stephen." that we're getting too many Stephen's in there... there are already a lot in this paragraph. I can't really say "control royal government" as there is only a very skeletal "governmental" system in place, and royal government WAS the king, basically. Ninth - Stephen DID have himself crowned .. he didn't do the actual coronation, but he was the force behind getting the quickie coronation done - so while I'm open to suggestions on better wording, we need to retain the sense that Stephen was pushing the event forward and that it happened fast ... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

More comments, inclined to support :
 * "Before his death, Celestine forbade Theobald "to allow any change to be made in the position of the English crown, since the transfer of it had been justly denounced, and the matter was still under dispute".[28] This became the papal policy, and was a significant change from the recognition of Stephen as king by Pope Innocent II.[29] It essentially forbade Theobald to crown any successor to Stephen, especially while Stephen was still alive.": I slightly lose it here. Did the papacy support Matilda? Celestine did not like Stephen and so the papal position switched from Innocent's support of Stephen. But then Celestine would not allow the transfer of the crown nor the appointment of a successor to Stephen, who he did not want to be king? It's very possible I'm missing something obvious.
 * "when Eugene summoned the English bishops to the Council of Rheims in April 1148, the king forbade them to attend. Instead, the king appointed three bishops...to attend" Could this be tweaked as it sounds a little odd: it says the king would not let the bishops attend, but then lists the ones he allowed to attend.
 * "but also to keep the papacy from favouring Henry Murdac..." Favouring how? Was this about the Canterbury-York primacy, or simply favouring him in the dispute over the election?
 * In the section on his first exile, it may be useful to add some dates. Presumably the pair were reconciled before the second exile as the king attended the council, but the article does not say so.
 * Very minor, minor point: Ref 33 is to English Church while all other ones are English Church 1066-1154.
 * Sourcing and coverage is excellent and spot checks of Knowles' Monsatic Order and Barlow's English Church revealed no problems. (Not that I had any doubts, I was just really happy to have one of the print sources for once!)
 * Overall, this is an excellent piece of work and I will be happy to support once these minor points are cleared up. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * RL is biting my butt, it'll be tomorrow before I get to these, but none of them look that difficult to deal with. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * First one - I've attempted to clarify by pointing out when Innocent recognized Stephen (it was back in 1136ish) so hopefully this is clearer? Celestine never officially supported Matilda, but he basically quit supporting Stephen. (Probably so that when Stephen died the papacy could play "kingmaker" and extort concessions... but that's just my opinion). Second - changed to "...in April 1148, the king forbade the attendance of all of them." Third - clarified this a bit... let me know if this works a bit better? Fourth - added the one date I'm sure of .. the exact date of reconciliation with the king isn't in any sources I consulted. (I suspect that they kinda settled and didn't make a big deal about it.) Fifth - fixed. Thanks for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Support: An excellent article; my queries have been cleared up or explained. --Sarastro1 (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Support: Nice work and thanks for addressing all concerns quickly and constructive. A few minor point and suggestions for tweaks, not withholding support:
 * link "Alberic of Ostia"? in text and infobox
 * Life at Bec: "No documents survive from Theobald's tenure as abbot" ==> past tense?
 * Civil War: "But Matilda was less sanguine, and secured the support of the Scottish king, ..." ==> i am not sure, "sanguine" is the right term here - why would she be hopeful or optimistic at all? (she just got robbed ...). Maybe "But Mathilda strived for her claim, and secured ..."?
 * Disputes with Stephen: "The king and archbishop reached a truce in August." ==> "The king and [the] archbishop ...", two persons with two distinct titles.
 * Patronage and household: worth linking "Bologna" to "University of Bologna" and Oxford to "University of Oxford"? The paragraph is about teaching and schools after all.
 * Death and legacy: "In terms of his legacy, Theobald perhaps suffered because he was overshadowed by his successor, Becket." ==> trim "Perhaps Theobald's legacy suffered because he was ...".
 * ''Modern historians have been kinder than his contemporaries; the historian Frank Barlow says of Theobald that he was " ==> trim "Modern historians have been kinder than his contemporaries, Frank Barlow notes that Theobald was "..."." GermanJoe (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed all of the above but the documents one - I think in this case, present is correct as we are discussing current time frame. Thanks for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll leave the additional University links up to your judgement - they contain a little bit of background info, but are probably not essential. GermanJoe (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Support with further nitpicks (you can't escape!). Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "as Becket's family also came from the same part of Normandy" - also+same seems a bit redundant
 * Confused: why does the fact that he was considered "old" at his death give a birth date of 1090? Would he not be old if born in 1085 or 1095?
 * "because Waleran of Meulan was lay patron of Bec, and was attempting..." -> "because Waleran of Meulan, the lay patron of Bec, was attempting"?
 * "the Empress could not be crowned because she did not hold London or Winchester" - confused again. Aren't they at Winchester at this point, and isn't she supported by the Bishop of Winchester?
 * "during the years between 1142 and 1148" -> "between 1142 and 1148"?
 * "But in September 1143, Henry's legatine powers lapsed when Pope Innocent II, who had made the legatine appointment, died. No new pope was elected until Celestine II on 26 September 1143" - if the old pope died and the pope was elected in the same month, that doesn't seem to warrant "no new pope was elected until"
 * "Theobald's presence in the country posed a threat to Stephen's authority, and Stephen quickly settled" - what does settled mean in this context?
 * What is a "primate" as regards this article?
 * "later he taught briefly at Oxford, in the 1140s" -> "in the 1140s he taught briefly at Oxford"?
 * Why is he categorized as both Anglo-Norman and Norman? The former is a subcat of the latter. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Removed the "also" from the Becket/Theo family bit. I have no idea, I'm just reporting what the source states ... I've reworded the second part to "...suggesting a birth date of perhaps around 1090 to one modern historian." (I hate it when my sources are not clear about WHY they make some jump in logic...). With Waleran, took your suggested wording. Oops, not sure how that Winchester snuck in there... it's really London that quashed Matilda's attempt at being crowned ... they basically hated her and she never had a hold on the city. Removed the Winchester here (the situation is slightly more complicated than this little section makes it out, but the broad outline is correct... no one needs to know HERE all about the endless debates about why Matilda did some of the stupid things she did...) Removed the "during the years". I've reworded the Celestine bit (who knows what my brain was thinking... ). Now reads "and Stephen quickly settled the differences between the two." instead of just "settled". I thought about using "Stephen quickly capitulated." which is basically what he did (Stephen was very good at talking brave and then crumpling.. if he'd faced a man or a woman not quite so handicapped as Matilda, he'd never have lasted...). I've linked to Primate (bishop) which basically sorta explains it. Took your suggestion on Vacarius. I have no idea on the cats, I removed the Anglo-Norman one... I generally ignore cats - people come in they add them, they leave, and I often can't figure out why they are switching them around... He wasn't really Anglo-Norman, his ancestry was pretty much all Norman. Thanks for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments. - Dank (push to talk) 15:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good so far. Educate me on this: "The exact date of Theobald's birth is unknown; the only clue to his age is that when he died in 1161 contemporaries considered him to be an old man,[3]  suggesting a birth date of perhaps around 1090 to one modern historian."  I generally ask writers to put the source that backs up an opinion immediately after the opinion, so I don't have to go poking through nearby cites to figure out who said what.  Do you tackle this issue in a different way?  Should I know to look at the previous cite or the next cite to find out who the "modern historian" is? - Dank (push to talk) 15:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know how long copy editors can keep up being fussy about the them/their distinction in "He was elected unanimously by the monks of Bec without them having consulted with the Archbishop of Rouen ...", but one thing that seems to quiet everyone down is rewording when possible. It seems to me that it's hard to misinterpret "He was elected unanimously by the monks of Bec without consultation with the Archbishop of Rouen ..." (who else would have been consulting him?), and if you agree, then that would be my advice. - Dank (push to talk) 15:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "whereby" (not one of my favorite words) usually means "by which". Is that what it means in this sentence? "Theobald resisted for 14 months before a compromise was reached through the intercession of Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny, whereby Theobald gave a verbal profession to Hugh." - Dank (push to talk) 15:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Most historians consider that Stephen arranged the election's timing to ensure Henry's absence.": I've seen this meaning of "consider"; I'm not a fan, and neither is cambridge.org, but if there's a dictionary you like that supports it, carry on. - Dank (push to talk) 15:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * #1. - the immediately following cite (to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article is the applicable one here. #2. The monks could have also consulted with the king/duke and/or any lay patron of the monastery - and usually did. #3. Changed to "the results of which were that". #4. I think that wording was a Malleus copyedit, but I wouldn't swear to it. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * On #2, I'm not asking who else they would have consulted, I'm asking who else other than the monks could be meant by "without consultation with the Archbishop of Rouen" ... if there's no other logical candidate, then most copy editors favor my workaround here. On #3 ... let me see if I can do that with fewer words.  On #4 ... if Malleus likes it, that's fine, I'll make a mental note. - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't swear to it that it was my doing, but it may well have been. If memory serves I think I changed it from Ealdgyth's "Most historians feel ...". My dictionary gives "To judge, deem, or have as an opinion" as one of the meanings of "consider". Malleus Fatuorum 15:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * On #2, given that they could have consulted with others, I'm kinda of the opinion it needs to stay this way, unless Malleus disagrees. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I just hate "without consultation with". Let me look at that sentence again. Malleus Fatuorum 15:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed to "The monks of Bec unanimously elected him to be their new abbot without first consulting the Archbishop of Rouen, Hugh de Boves, who consequently threatened to void the election." Malleus Fatuorum 16:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "which narrates the events and gives a more central role to Theobald, instead Henry of Blois": Is that missing an "of"? - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, which I've put in. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support for half of it on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, Theobald_of_Bec. (I know my standard disclaimer says I don't support or oppose BritEng, but I make the occasional exception for the really good stuff.) - Dank (push to talk) 16:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.