Difference between revisions of "Talk:Edward II"

Latest revision as of 20:48, July 25, 2012

Gaveston and the Despensers get guernseys in History solely for their relationships with Edward. Unless one is to do the WP thing and mention everything it is simpler to leave them where they are. I will put them into Search though. AlanE 15:47, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Query

Hey, I just saw that the Edward II article was pretty bad, and I have access to a number of sources on him at the moment so I was going to fix it up a bit, providing I have enough time. I have a question though: in your manual of style or somewhere it says that we should avoid mentioning a person's sexuality unless they have self-identified as something. As it stands the entire article basically spends it's time skirting around the issue of his sexuality, without either addressing it directly, or talking about anything else. The question I was wondering was how should I fix this? As I see it the options are to remove mention of it completely (this is the less satisfactory option as his sexuality was considered politically important at the time and also in modern works) or to move discussion of this part of his life to a separate section where I would (very) briefly outline the arguments in recent scholarship both for and against his supposed homosexuality (or bisexuality or whatever they had back then) and why this is at all relevant. If you could tell me which would be more appropriate from a policy standpoint that would be good. Cmurphynz 06:57, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

This post should really be at the relevant talk page. From my knowledge of Edward II I would say that his possible sexuality is relevant because rumours of it had a big impact on his reign. He was clearly very close to certain men who then took on important roles within his administration. I should caution that there is no real credible evidence that he was actually homosexual - rumours and innuendo were apparently as rife then as they are now, and all "accounts" of his homosexuality tend to come from much later biographers. I would put it in a section at the start, and then tie in the issue to his administration and its legacy later on in the article. --DamianJohn 08:16, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

The above has been copied and pasted fromUser Talk:Aschlafly AlanE 20:08, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

I wrote this article, and most of my others on this site, with the aim of giving a teenager - in other words, one of Andy’s homeschoolers - a resource that gave them the bones with some flesh but not so much as would confuse the issue. Something that whetted their appetite sufficiently to want to enquire further. (You may not know, but back in the early days of this project, that resource was the stated aim of Conservapedia, one I embraced and (poor fool me) still think is right. I asked : “what would I have wanted if I came across a reference in a novel or magazine or article on a kindred subject when I was 14 to 16?” I have shown a series of these articles to high school teachers – both State and private – and two lecturers in Medieval History at the local university. One quibbled about this, others about that, but generally the articles were of about the size of what they would have written given the same parameters and generally correct unless you want to quibble. Their quibbles were almost always on matters of emphasis rather than fact.

I know I was followed about by CP’s resident professional historian, Dr. RJJensen and my forays into classical music by JDWPianist, now a Doctor of Music in Vienna. Not a lot was changed - more in the Music, but John D. had the decency to discuss his modifications. Recently I have read them for the first time in 3 years or so and seen improvements I can make. (I did do them in a bit of a hurry.) But, given the criteria stated above, none of them is “pretty bad”. At least not to a person of good will and a person who understands their stated aim.

sorry, it's not actually that bad. I think that i read the article and then read a number of other things before making the comment. Actually it is at least as good as anything that I could do from scratch. my apologies.Cmurphynz 01:19, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

If you want to lift the age of the target audience, go for it. I would, though, appreciate your mentioning it to me first instead of doing a deliberate offside and plastering it all over the Owner’s user page.

I would be most happy to help. AlanE 22:47, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

And so what is your opinion of the issues raised above? I don't think CMurphy meant any offence by raising the issue with Andy, but I also don't think anyone needs to ask anyone's permission to suggest changes to articles. I don't think there is any call for you to get offended whenever someone doesn't ask your permission about altering an article you wrote over 3 years ago. --DamianJohn 00:07, 22 July 2012 (EDT)[[

I was not so much offended as surprised. That article, or articles like it (King John, Edward I , Henry VI, Wars of the Roses and some Explorers articles were all vetted by "professionals" here (well after the act of course - they were social occasions) and at least passed, given the criteria I quoted. I have criticised edits, but they have been two liners or obvious vandalism or trolls back in the good ol' days but never have I said an article that has obviously had some work put into it is crap, which is basically what he said. Not without getting onto the article's or editor's talkpage first. Common courtesy. Look at my chats with Joachim or JDWPianist's talks with me. Cheers. AlanE 01:01, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

You are taking it personally when it clearly was not intended to be so. It makes no difference who wrote it. If you aren't prepared to have your work edited mercilessly then do not submit it here.

So, getting back to the article itself, what are your thoughts on the issue of whether the conjecture about Edward II's sexuality and specifically whether it should be included in the article and in what form. --DamianJohn 01:21, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

It has to be mentioned. In a 5 or 600 word article like this though, why go into it in any depth. (The same can be said of William Rufus and Richard I. Both of those two could be called "jocks" in its American college sense of the word, who preferred the rough companionship of the field and dressing room to the company of ladies but that's just my thoughts from 50-odd years of reading this stuff. They might have been gay.) One of the reasons for Edward's downfall was the perception amongst the barons of his lack of "manhood" in its chivalric sense of the time. That may not mean he was gay but his friendship and patronage of Gaveston and the younger Despenser especially gave a certain impression. Isabella may have borne him 4 kids but all that means he fulfilled his royal duty. And Isobella's taking up with Mortimer encourages the impression that he was not quite up to it as a male. But to go into this in an article of this size would make it so unbalanced that I you would have to go more deeply into other things - the struggle over Gaveston with Thomas of Lancaster and the wrangling over the Gloucester estate - all very boring stuff and not really needed in an article aimed at teenagers. That he was most like gay or bisexual would not be important enough for a 300 worder, and would be worthy of discussion in a 2500 assignment but in something the size of this article I think it should be mentioned but not made a matter of importance.

It's a matter of choice really. AlanE 02:25, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

I guess I agree with you, except for the part about any of it being boring. Edward II's reign was anything but boring. I also agree that there isn't actually anything concrete that paints him as gay, just a whole lot of supposition, and a lot of it coming from his enemies. I suggest that CMurphy should have a go and add what he thinks appropriate and if it is not good we can edit or even remove it. After all, it just takes a click of a button to revert. --DamianJohn 03:18, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

As I said i bit higher on the page, the article is not actually particularly bad, i can't really remember why I said that. I'm sorry if I shouldn't have put that question on ASchfly's user page, but i'm kind of new and it was a policy question so i wasn't really sure where to put it. I am actually a bit busier than I had thought over the next week or two, but I will try to do something on the weekend maybe. sorry if I caused offense.Cmurphynz 01:19, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

Ok, now i don't want to disagree with you anymore :) but I would probably say that the possibility that some of his favorites were also lovers would be important enough to fit in something a fair bit smaller than 2500, if only because that is the assumption made by many of his enemies (in fact some seemingly unrelated accusations are basically just saying the same thing) but I can certainly see your point now.Cmurphynz 01:30, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

First to Damian: Night editing had started by the time I could get back to you on Sunday. Strangely, the edit button didn't show all day Monday; now at six-something on a cold Thursday I have the time to answer. Yes, its not boring to you, nor me. None of the reigns of the medieval monarchs is boring - but what I tried to do in these mini-essays was give a quick pen-portrait of those that were not already covered here - which was most of them; English medieval history was hardly touched when I started. So instead of just writing articles on the kings, I surrounded them with links, so if a place is mentioned, a battle or a person who has a bearing on the narrative I wrote about it - admittedly many are stubs, but I found this as a way of filling in the almost tabula rasa that had been this place and its times in this wiki. In this article I thought the subject of Edward's sexuality to be important enough for a mention but not so important as to go into the supposed manner of his death or, for that matter, that of Hugh Despenser. My intentions in most of my articles on the various subjects I know about has been to pique the interest of the readers as mine was when I was in my early teens and starting out on this adventure over 50 years ago. It's why I tend to use the odd vernacular phrase (like "state of play") or throw in a song, or poem or a quote from "1066 and All That". It's also why I never use the wiki style of subject headings, but write them like they appeared in the venerable reference books I grew up with. I have the resources - here in this room - to go on and on about these subjects, but I am not an academic and I try and give a base of information that people can build on if they like.

CMurphy, g'day. I suppose I wrote the above to you too. Forgive me for sounding a little proprietorial. You had me scurrying to the article and found nothing really wrong with it that could not be put down to taste or the preference of a different emphasis. Do what you wish to do; it is a wiki and I have no right to complain. AlanE 16:41, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

CM, I have just found your apology - thank you. AlanE 16:48, 25 July 2012 (EDT)