Talk:Edith of Wilton

Seal section

This source (https://blogs.bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2017/06/making-a-good-impression.html), even though it's from a blog, might be a good and useful source for this section. The trouble with it currently, though, is that the text in the last part of section isn't supported by anything in this source or from the second source used, so I've removed it as per WP:BURDEN. Fortunately, I've found another source to replace much of the possibly-disputable content: the marvelous book by Katie Ann-Marie Bugyis (see Bibliography). Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Sources

Figureskatingfan. Thanks for your work. Most of your sources look fine, but not Baring-Gould and Dunbar. They are over a hundred years old and were not experts on the period. They are not reliable sources.

I think it would help you if you could get access to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography as it has a lot of useful information written by leading experts. For example Barbara Yorke starts her article on Wulfthryth at [1]

Wulfthryth [St Wulfthryth] (d. c. 1000), abbess of Wilton, was queen of England, the second consort of King Edgar, for a brief period before her appointment as abbess. Details of Wulfthryth's parentage are not known, but she must have been of noble birth like her cousin Wulfhild, with whom she was educated at Wilton. Edgar (943/4–975) appears to have wanted to marry into their family and Wulfhild was his first choice as a bride; but when she persuaded him she would rather enter a nunnery, he married Wulfthryth. Although there has been some debate about whether Wulfthryth was a full wife or just a concubine, the late eleventh-century hagiographer Goscelin states that she and Edgar were 'bound by indissoluble vows' (Wilmart, 31) and the legitimacy of their daughter Edith is implied by the recognition of her as the ‘royal sister’ of Edgar's sons Edward and Æthelred.

One other point is that I think the statement that Wulfthryth was Edgar's cousin is almost certainly a mistake by Hollis. It is not in other sources and marriage (or sex) between first cousins was then prohibited as incestuous. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Wow, I'm kinda surprised that Hollis was wrong. I know that we're technically not supposed to use dictionaries or other encyclopedias as sources, but I think that in the case of writing about saints, we need to, since much of what's written about them are from hagiographies, which are technically dictionaries. I'm sure you know that Bugyis has noted that scholars are using hagiographies more now, especially in the last 10-15 years, so it makes sense that we, the hagiographers of Wikipedia, also use them.

I disagree with you about Dunbar and Baring-Gould. Yes, they're older sources, but so are many hagiographies. I mean, if there were English translations of Goscelin, I think we should use them. Many articles that use older sources simply quote them because they're in the public domain, a practice I disagree with, so I avoid doing it. My understanding is that Dunbar and Baring-Gould were experts, perhaps not about the periods saints were alive, but about saints in general. I agree, though, that we should use them and other older sources sparingly, and when they conflict with other, more recent sources, we should either not use them or note the conflict. I do think, however, that there are plenty of better alternatives, like Yorke, Ridyard, and Hollis, so perhaps for this article, I shouldn't depend upon the others so much. I will consider this carefully and perhaps make the appropriate changes. My question for you, though, is: how are Dunbar and Baring-Gould not reliable? Is it just because of their age?

This is such a good conversation to have, especially about these more major saints like Edith. Thanks for your feedback; it's so valuable. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

It is partly because of age that Dunbar and Baring-Gould are not reliable. Even the best scholars then are dated because scholarship has advanced so much over the last hundred years. However, the main reason is that they were not experts on the period. I cannot find anything on Dunbar, but she wrote a general book about saintly women, and she could not have been an expert on all periods. Baring-Gould according to his article was a "Anglican priest, hagiographer, antiquarian, novelist, folk song collector and eclectic scholar." In other words a dabbler who knew a little on many subjects and was an expert on none. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I think we have different understandings of the meaning of "hagiographer". The normal meaning is a biographer who is credulous about their subject and reports miracles as fact. It is true that historians use them more than in the past, but that is because they contain much useful information and historians are more confident nowadays about separating the facts from the mythology. Hagiographies should not be used by Wikipedia editors, as separating fact from fiction would be original research, which is forbidden. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Dudley, I don't think that the controversy about if Wulfthryth was Edgar's cousin belongs in Edith's bio, so I just used Yorke to support that Wulfthryth was a royal and removed Hollis as a source. Instead, the controversial statement belongs in Wulfthryth's article, which I may work on someday. If I were, instead of separating fact from fiction, I'd say that although Hollis states that she and Edgar were cousins, Yorke in the ODNB (and perhaps in other sources, if they could be found) says that they were not. If I were to be brash enough to use Goscelin as a source in WP, I might say that "Goscelin says this and that", and then compare it to what other sources/historians say. That's not OR; that's reporting what the sources state about the subject. Really, we're already doing that: reporting what Hollis, Yorke, Ridyard, ect. say about Goscelin.

I don't find Dunbar and Baring-Gould as the kind of hagiographer Goscelin is, who we know was credulous about his subjects and had an agenda writing about their lives; in Edith's case, it was to fundraise for Wilton. Dunbar and Baring-Gould wrote dictionary/encyclopedia type of hagiographies. There are weaknesses about them, like their ages, but I believe that they're valuable resources for Wikipedia. We need to be more inclusive regarding our sources in order to write about women's lives, especially about medieval women. Again, I think this is an important conversation to have, especially about female saints. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Ealdgyth can you give your view on Sabine Baring-Gould and Agnes Dunbar as sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 06:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Dudley Miles, In principle, Baring-Gould is a RS, but apart from a list of Calendars he only states one source, “The Life of S. Edith attributed to Gotschlin”, which limits him. Moonraker (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Why do you think he is an RS? His article says that he wrote 1242 publications, including on ghosts and werewolves, so he could not have been an expert on Anglo-Saxon history. The newslettter of the Sabine Baring-Gould Appreciation Society at [2] describes his Lives of the Saints as hagiography. Anglo-Saxon history is my main subject, and I have never seen him cited or referred to in any book or article on the subject. Wikipedia articles on history should be based on academic historians, not popular writers who often make mistakes and sometimes fill in gaps in their knowledge with invention. These books can be obtained through public libraries, but this takes time, and some editors prefer to use old popular works which are available online because they are out of copyright. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Edith of Wilton

• ... that it was said that Edith of Wilton (pictured) "violently" protected her own body long after she had died? Source: Ridyard also reports that not only did Edith protect the convent's properties, she protected, at times violently, "one further possession which was essential to its prestige, its prosperity and even its identity—the body of St Edith herself", source in the article
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Austregilde
  • Comment: Maybe the hook could be rephrased, or even another one suggested. My first attempt at abducting Good articles by other people for showcasing here :P

Improved to Good Article status by Figureskatingfan (talk). Nominated by LordPeterII (talk) at 20:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC).

• Comment: Please wait a bit if intending to review, GA author has special preferences for this. –LordPickleII (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• ALT1: ... that Edith of Wilton was called "the laziest saint in England"? source in the article

I've switched to ALT1 at Figureskatingfan's request, who would like to have this run for April's Fools. Thank you. –LordPickleII (talk) 23:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• ALT2: ... that because she did very little work after her death, Edith of Wilton was called "the laziest saint in England"?

Maybe a slightly more agressive one for April's Fools, open to other variants. @Figureskatingfan I just thought that this would also make a good "Halloween" nom with a variant of my original hook (violent ghost nun and stuff), but alas we have no special event for that. –LordPickleII (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• ALT3: ... that because she did not help her convent enough after her death, Edith of Wilton was called "the laziest saint in England"? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Alt 2 is still catchy, but better than the previous in order to clarify the real facts. JeBonSer ^{(talk | sign)} 12:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Just checking in with @Figureskatingfan to ask if that ALT2 hook was okay? And also again, please hold for April 1. –LordPickleII (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Everyone, I like the 2nd hook better too, since it's just ambigious enough. One of the reasons I submitted this article to GAN was so that we could submit it to DYK for the main page on April Fool's Day. The quote from the source, calling St Edith a "lazy" saint was just too good and too funny to not share. I don't care for the violent ghost nun idea because it's too wrapped up in our current sensibilities, whereas while the lazy saint line does fit our sensibilities, it also fits the Middle Ages'. My hook version is a bit more accurate; it wasn't that Edith didn't work hard enough because she did miracles for other people outside Wilton Convent, it was that the nuns there felt that she wasn't doing enough for them, which pissed them off. At any rate, thanks for submitting this to DYK, LordPeterII. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@JeBonSer: Can you confirm you did approve this for April's Fools? And now there's an ALT3 suggested, can you check it, too? Although @Figureskatingfan I think ALT3 might really be too "calm" for April's Fools, since it essentially accurate, not slightly misleading (even ALT2 is only barely). I mean, you could actually run ALT3 in a regular queue. We might actually need something a bit more flashy. Compare the April's Fool DYK from last year. –LordPickleII (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm okay for Alt3 and much better. JeBonSer ^{(talk | sign)} 21:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@JeBonSer, LordPeterII, and Figureskatingfan: In general, our April Fools' Day hooks involve not just humour, but a little bit of misleading – we're observe a prank-themed holiday here at DYK, after all. Because of that, I don't think any of these hooks would quite cut it for AFD, but I think ALTs 1 or 2 would make for fantastic quirky! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Then how about if we combine the original hook and ALT1:

ALT4: ... that Edith of Wilton, who was called "the laziest saint in England" (pictured), "violently" protected her own body long after she had died? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figureskatingfan (talk • contribs) 16:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• ALT5: ... that Edith of Wilton was too lazy after her death?

Just thought of ALT5 above; this is how I would imagine an April's Fool hook for the article. @Figureskatingfan would that work for you? It's maximally condensed to leave out most context, leaving readers confused as to why someone would be called lazy after their death. It also doesn't use quotation marks anymore – basically ALT5 can no longer be used in a regular queue, only on April 1. @Theleekycauldron or is it still too tame? :D –LordPickleII (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Yah, I'm good with the ALT5, since I have no idea how to write an AFD DYK hook. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@LordPeterII and Figureskatingfan: there might not be a viable AFD hook based on this fact – it's not one that easily lends itself to the AFD flavour. How about this as a normal quirky hook: theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• ALT6: ... that Edith of Wilton was criticized for not working after her death?

@Theleekycauldron: I'm fine with ALT6, although I personally perfer ALT5. I concede to your expertise in this matter, however. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

well I do appreciate that ;) the issue with ALT5, I think, is that it would publish a criticism as fact. I personally wouldn't mind, since the criticism is plainly absurd, but not everyone agrees with that assessment, and the difference in hookiness is only slight. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

ALT5 was only intended as a try for April's Fools Day, otherwise it is a little too distorted imo. I'm sorry that this won't be able to run for April's Fool after all, Figureskatingfan, but I believe ALT6 will still get many views in a regular queue. –LordPeterII (talk) 10:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron:, but I have my heart set on getting this on AFD. I'm okay with ALT6 if that'll help it happen. If not, and it's going to be in the normal queue, then I'd like to go back to ALT2. That being said, I still don't understand your reasoning behind rejecting ALT1 or ALT2 for April 1st. I mean, it's funny, it's ambigious, it has the potential for readers to go to the article to check out what it means. It's also potentially educational because it may peak enough attention for readers to want to learn about the process of canonization, both in modern times and during the Middle Ages. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. I've yet to change my mind on April Fools', so I'll throw to Gatoclass for a sanity check. Gatoclass, what do you think about these hooks for AFD? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree that ALTs 1 and 2 do not work as AFD hooks, because they are too explicit and contain no element of deception or surprise. ALT5 I find a bit clunky quite frankly. ALT6 is concise, to the point, and outwardly absurd to the point of disbelief, so in my view makes an ideal AFD hook. Gatoclass (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Gatoclass:. I'm good with ALT6 then. Yippee! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I've moved the nomination :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Great! Glad that this worked out in the end.

... but some technical thing: I was just informed by DYKHousekeepingBot that this nomination was "incomplete". I think I've had that happen before, but forgot why; do you know what it means @theleekycauldron? –LordPeterII (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@LordPeterII: hmm... shoot a talk page message to Shubinator for me, would ya? Seems like the bot's not recognizing that the nomination is on the AFD page. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Will do. –LordPeterII (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Question: Why is the GA review not linked?

Greetings, I just nominated this for DYK and was a little confused because I couldn't find the review page except via page history (it can be found here) at the top, in the Good article banner (for comparison, it is linked in this article). @Amitchell125 and Figureskatingfan: Do you know why this happened? –LordPickleII (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@LordPeterII, I'm not sure, perhaps there's a bot that was supposed to transclued it but did not? Hey, would you withdrawing the DYK nom? I wanted to wait until April Fools, just for this hook or something like it: "...that Edith of Wilton was called "the laziest saint in England"? I've never had a DYK on April 1, and I thought that this would be perfect for it. I mean, that's one of the reasons I submitted it to GAN in the first place. I probably should've stated my intentions here, but it never occurred to me that someone else would bother to submit it to DYK. ;) Thanks, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Figureskatingfan: Ah, sorry! Didn't mean to steal it from you, I just thought I'd nominate some quality articles before they're ineligible. Anyway, I could also just switch the hook and go for April's Fool with the current nom? I think you'll still get credited as the author, and I have QPQs to spare. But if you prefer, I can also withdraw and let you have a fresh start. –LordPickleII (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@LordPeterII, no that's fine if you continue the nom but moved it to the April 1 section. I just figured that it was too early, again probably not. Thanks for nominiating it in the first place! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Figureskatingfan: Alright, I'll switch to your hook and April's Fool then (you can ofc participate in the nom discussion). Nominations for April 1 are accepted year-around, you just have to nominate in the usual timeframe (~seven days) after achieving GA status. It'll be a long time in the hold for this one, but I believe the record is longer ^^ –LordPickleII (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)