Talk:Geoffrey (archbishop of York)

Who was he?

Illegitimate son of Henry II, or of Geoffrey Plantagenet? john k 13:21, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Found a 1911 Britannica article on him, presumably. I'm also assuming that his half-brothers were Richard I and John of England; same time period, family, etc... and I'm moving the page to Geoffrey, Archbishop of York.

Moves

Can we decide on ONE page for this article and stick with it? I'm tired of fixing redirects... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Clergy) supports Geoffrey (Archbishop of York), not the current pagename. Fram (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That had been my understanding, which is why I didn't complain when you moved it back in Sept... but ... now... it's moved again. Whee. (Didn't want you thinking I was complaining about YOUR move, Fram, sorry if you took it that way) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's quite allright, just wanted to explain why I moved it. No offence taken at all. 04:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Assesment

Why is this High importance in the Lincolnshire project? Most individuals seem to be low, and I can't see anything special here.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No clue. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done OK, that's a bit better.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Manuscript titles

Normally these don't take italics, as they are objects rather than works (unless they are unique texts etc), so treated like buildings etc. Johnbod (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I italicized it because i treated it like a work of art - like a painting. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, but that is not the correct treatment. Johnbod (talk) 12:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

So is it in quotations or just plain? I honestly thought it worked best as italics so that folks could see that it was not just plain text, but obviously I was wrong, so I have no clue what it should be.... I know that things like Cotton Vitellius A.iv get plain text, but I figured if it actually acquired a name rather than a ms accession string, it was a work of art. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Just plain, like Book of Kells, Lindisfarne Gospels etc. They are names of objects rather than titles of works. I think people get confused because things like the Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry are italicised (not in our article though) because they are in foreign. Johnbod (talk) 01:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Blech. Done, but ugly. (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 13:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Carcharoth's points...

I went ahead and compared this article with the ODNB entry using this tool. Looking at the output, it appears to me that the only possible matches could be:

1. "was probably named after his paternal grandfather geoffrey of anjou"
2. "the identity of his mother is uncertain"
3. "there is little evidence that he"
4. "held a legatine council at york"
5. "capture of the king of scots"
6. "from prioress alice of clementhorpe"

The rest of the results I turned up (an impressive 259!) were phrases that matched but were not necessarily the same place. So this tool turns up a match on "the english bishops" between "an excuse to eliminate a rival another complication was that the english bishops had appealed to the papacy because geoffrey had not been" in wikipedia against "noteworthy and his bravery in 1173 4 and in leading the english bishops against john in 1207 was typical his relatively numerous archiepiscopal". There were some other spots where the same short phrase such as "papal judge delegate" or "geoffrey appealed to" or "bishop of winchester" where the similar title is unavoidable.

I'm more than happy to fix any of the above that need fixing, but I'm not thinking this is a major problem, it's often unavoidable to phrase some things the same when conveying the same information, which is the case of bit about being named after his paternal grandfather. The second one is a bit more difficult, and was probably me being brain dead. (Or it could be that Malleus or someone else copyedited it back into phrasing similar to Lovatt's later in the article building process, but however it appeared isn't important as fixing it if needed.

As to the structure being similar, that's largely unavoidable when the logical arrangement of both articles is chronological. I'm not inclined to go with a thematic approach to any biographical article, I think we're best served by chronology especially here.

As for the article being similar in word count to the ODNB, if I leave out much stuff, the article will fail on comprehensiveness concerns. I tried to summarize as much as possible, but when there isn't a full book length treatment, it's often difficult to summarize totally. I think the main reason to read this rather than Lovatt is that I'm including other opinions where they differ from Lovatt as well as giving other historian's opinions on Geoffrey.

I'm going to apologize in advance if this seems snippy or anything, but this review is really draining me, as I'm not sure what you want and I'm really getting the feeling of moving goalposts here. I'm also getting just a whiff of a feeling that this review was motivated because of the discussion last month about FAC nomination statements. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion last month about FAC nomination statements? That's got nothing to do with this at all (I had almost forgotten that). I'm rather saddened you would seek to ascribe motives here. Anyway, trying to move on from that, I accept that my style of reviewing can be draining, but I never feel comfortable supporting unless I feel I've reviewed an article properly. I had been preparing some work on another article, but will leave that now until tomorrow and look again at this, though it may take me a while to gather the points together. Carcharoth (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel that my own impression was "ascribing motives" but I did think that I rather publically disagreed with you. I did point out that it was a feeling I was getting myself, and I'm happy to withdraw that feeling with your statement that it had no bearing. Unfortunately, many others on wikipedia aren't quite so pure of motive, as I've found to my chagrin many a time. And if you accept that your style of review can be draining, maybe it might be best to consider how you might make it less draining for the nominators as well as yourself? I totally understand the desire to thoroughly review .. I've been accused of reviewing too deeply myself, but the thing that makes it draining to me is the long discourses on things that aren't related to the article itself... I still am completely puzzled by the link about Douie's family that you posted. It might be better if you did all of your points in one sitting, rather than posting some, letting the nominator reply and resolve most of them, leading the nominator to think that the review is done when shortly afterwards there is another long post about more points that need to be dealt with. If there was some indication of when the whole process might end, I'd be much happier and eager to deal with your points, but right now, I just figure that when I reply and get most of the current issues resolved, there will be ANOTHER batch of discussion. And in fact, your post above seems to confirm this is coming. Can we deal with the possible too close paraphrasing you brought up also, because having THAT hanging over my head is just making my stomach very upset. It's not much fun to be obliquely accused of plagarism. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I rarely (actually, never) do a review in one sitting. I always have to read the article several times and go through cycles of comments as I seem to pick up different things on each re-reading. I also have a bad habit of making notes during the day at quiet moments, e-mailing them to myself, and posting them in a batch in the evening, which probably doesn't make things any easier for nominators. If it helps, I'm away most of this weekend, and this is actually the last of my concerns. What I should apologise for is not raising this particular point earlier. I had an impression that there were similarities in the texts I was reading, and should have brought that up at the start of my review. Anyway, I hope what I've posted below helps to clarify things. Carcharoth (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Comparisons

Here are some side-by-side comparisons (with some comments) where I think the paraphrasing could be improved:

Article: "he refused to make Burchard treasurer before the archiepiscopal election had been ratified by the papacy"

ODNB: "he refused to install the new treasurer until his own election had been papally confirmed

Ordering of the sentence is identical, with minimal rephrasing.

Article: "Richard then sent Geoffrey north to Scotland on a diplomatic mission to escort William the Lion to Canterbury"

ODNB: "Richard sent him north in November to act as escort to William the Lion, who was to pay homage to the English king at Canterbury"

Ordering of the sentence is identical, with minimal rephrasing.

Article: "the papal legate Giovanni di Anagni not only confirmed the election, but rejected the various appeals made by the cathedral chapter against Geoffrey"

ODNB: "the papal legate Giovanni di Anagni, dismissing all appeals against Geoffrey, ratified his appointment"

Some reordering and paraphrasing, but essentially the same sentence.

Article: "In early 1190 Geoffrey stopped services in the cathedral and excommunicated Henry Marshal and Burchard in retaliation for a dispute during an earlier church service. Richard consequently summoned Geoffrey to the king's presence in Normandy, where he was preparing to go on the Third Crusade, and insisted on the earlier fine being paid, This the archbishop-elect was unable to do because Hugh du Puiset, who was Justiciar, hampered attempts to collect revenue for the fine. Richard then re-confiscated Geoffrey's lands, increased the amount of the fine, and demanded a promise that Geoffrey would not visit England for three years. The pope stepped into the dispute and ratified the election, thus enabling a reconciliation between the king and the archbishop at Tours in June. Geoffrey's estates were returned to him in July, after paying 800 marks of his fine."

ODNB: "Further difficulties followed at York. At Epiphany 1190, after an undignified fracas during vespers the previous evening, Geoffrey suspended minster services and excommunicated the ringleaders, Henry Marshal and Burchard du Puiset. Richard then summoned Geoffrey to Normandy and demanded his £2000, but Hugh du Puiset, left in England as justiciar, had prevented Geoffrey from raising the money. Richard therefore ruthlessly confiscated his estates, increased his fine, and made him promise not to return to England for three years. On 7 March the pope confirmed Geoffrey's election, thus forcing Richard's hand, but not until June were the brothers reconciled at Tours, and not until July at Vézelay, whence Richard set off on crusade, were Geoffrey's estates restored, following a payment of 800 marks.

Entire paragraph structure is identical in article and source, with minimal paraphrasing.

Article: "Simon was supported by the cathedral chapter, who elected him to the office in defiance of Geoffrey. Simon then attempted to appeal to the papacy, and traveled to King Richard in Germany. The king refused to allow Simon's appeal to Rome and tried to summon Geoffrey to Germany to resolve the issue."

ODNB: "Defiantly the chapter elected Simon themselves. Geoffrey appealed to Rome: Simon proceeded to Germany, where Richard forbade the appeal and summoned Geoffrey."

Similar sentence structure. Minimal rephrasing. Confusion over who was doing the appealing, Simon or Geoffrey?

Article: "In January 1195 Geoffrey was ordered to appear in Rome to answer various charges, under the threat of suspension from office if he did not appear by 1 June."

ODNB: "In January 1195 a papal commission at York headed by Hugh of Lincoln cited Geoffrey to appear in Rome on 1 June on pain of suspension."

Same content, just shuffled around a bit.

Article: "Richard forbade Geoffrey to go to Rome, and when Geoffrey protested the king confiscated Geoffrey's estates once more. This left Geoffrey vulnerable when Walter held a legatine council at York in June 1195."

ODNB: "Forbidden by Richard to proceed to Rome, moreover, Geoffrey did not appear in June, and when he expressed his grievances to the king, Richard disseised him for his insolence, leaving him virtually powerless when Hubert Walter triumphantly held a legatine council at York on 14–15 June."

Very similar content and sentence structure.

I hope this makes my concerns clearer. I know it is difficult to recast material like this, but I think the wording and also the sentence structure of this article does need to move away from that used by the ODNB where that source is cited. Carcharoth (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you're taking the piss. Try paraphrasing that. Malleus Fatuorum 01:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The point, Malleus, is that it is not just content and words - sentence structure and paragraph structure can be carried over as well (and most tools fail to detect this). Most of the above is minor stuff, but that paragraph I've quoted above is a classic example of the same content (more-or-less) being contained in the same structure within a paragraph from beginning to end. Carcharoth (talk) 01:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The point Carcharoth, is that you are talking shit. Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll work on this in the morning, my other job is kinda busy tonight. Thank you for offering concrete examples (and I don't know that I necessarily agree that they are all issues, I'm willing to rework to satisfy you.). Ealdgyth - Talk 01:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Reworks

The first one is now "Geoffrey then went to York, but until his election was ratified by the pope he refused to allow Burchard to take up his office. This stance was supported by most of the York cathedral chapter." There is a limit to how far the reordering can go here since the chronological aspects of the events only allow so much leway. The second is now "Geoffrey then was sent by Richard to escort William the Lion from Scotland to Canterbury." The third one, because of the papal legate phrase, only has so much you can do with it. I've reworked to "when Giovanni di Anagni, the papal legate, not only confirmed the election, but rejected the various appeals made by the cathedral chapter against Geoffrey." which is probably the best we can do given the

That whole paragraph, I'm unconvinced that I can change the order without seriously muddling the chronology. I've changed the first part to "In early 1190 Geoffrey ordered a halt to religious ceremonies in the cathedral.." I can't use another word than "excommunicated". I've reordered a bit more later on, but the bare bones of the chronology is pretty much set in stone, and there is only so much we can do with this. i've made an effort on it.

The next one (Simon's appeal), I've clarified who was appealing. Again, given the chronology, the sentence structure will be close because of the need to keep things in order, but I've made a pass at it. On the next one (the 1195) there really is nothing I can see to do about this. The chronology is tight and I think I've done my best here to paraphrase. The last one, I've reworked to "Geoffrey protested to the king after Richard forbade Geoffrey's projected journey to Rome and in retaliation the king confiscated Geoffrey's estates once more. This left Geoffrey vulnerable when Walter held a legatine council at York in June 1195."

I realize that you got chastized in the past about an ODNB entry, and totally understand that you wish to avoid that. I, however, have been chastized for NOT citing to the ODNB when I was trying to use a variety of sources ... see Talk:William de Vere. I've tried my best to rework the above, if that's not enough for you to support, I suspect I'm not going to be able to do any better, given the chronological issues involved... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to make it clear that just because I tried to make an effort to meet the above concerns, that I'm not convinced they are serious issues of close paraphrasing. Given the chronological issues involved, I'm not convinced at all, but was willing to work with another editor to resolve their concerns. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank-you for that. All I wanted to do was to be able to discuss some elements of the text composition and sourcing and explore other possible wordings. It would be nice to be able to have a discussion like that without the personal comments that Malleus made here and elsewhere, but I'll take that matter to his user talk page (and I hope Malleus will reply there and not here). I realise that this can be a very touchy subject, but it should be possible to discuss it calmly on Wikipedia (as you have done) without editors either becoming very defensive or aggressive (that kind of reaction just discourages editors from ever daring to mention the possibility). On the matter of whether my concerns were valid or not, it is possible to disagree in good-faith on an issue like this regardless of who is right or not. Paraphrasing from one's sources is not a precise process and different writers will take different approaches. If I have time, I may try and illustrate this by providing examples of how I might have phrased things given the sources available. Carcharoth (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to make clear that I do not think Malleus' approach was necessarily bad either. He didn't hide his opinions behind a false front, which is something that too often happens. I had to sit away from the computer for a while before I could calmly reply above. You need to realize that the way you approach reviews isn't easy on nominators at all, and that this whole long discussion process is very very very draining. When that happens, tempers are going to fray. I tend to react to that differently than others, but a bit of understanding about the strain you're putting nominators under would be helpful. Have you ever nominated something you've written for FA? While it's not required to have shepherded an article through a few FACs in order to review, it really does help with understanding things from the other side. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

But the whole effect of what Malleus said has been to distract from what was meant to be discussed (the phrasing of parts of the article) and we are now discussing other things (some editors do this intentionally, in this case it is just Malleus being Malleus). I repeat: "All I wanted to do was to be able to discuss some elements of the text composition and sourcing and explore other possible wordings." Can you accept that, or is it never acceptable to discuss such things? Anyway, at this point, I think anything not related to the article is best discussed somewhere else. Please feel free to continue at my talk page if you wish, and if you do I'll reply there to some of what you say above. Carcharoth (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Outdated sources

FWIW, pointing here to two outdated sources, more to avoid later editors adding them in error.

• Britannia Biographies (Edited from Richard John King's "Handbook to the Cathedrals of England: Northern Division", published 1903)
• Dictionary of National Biography (1889 entry by Kate Norgate, as transcribed on Wikisource)

I do still think Norgate should be mentioned somewhere, but probably only in the context of her work that was cited by Lovatt. Carcharoth (talk) 05:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Additional notes

Putting here for consideration some additional notes I made while reviewing the article, but which I didn't want to clutter the FAC with.

• Looks self-published, but see: here for some listing of sources.
• The following could be linked, or the mentions of Geoffrey there tidied up (on the principle that the editors of this article are best placed to ensure stuff about Geoffrey elsewhere in the encyclopedia is accurate): De nugis curialium, The Devil's Crown. It seems this Geoffrey was left out of Devil's Brood (not sure about that).

I realise the TV series may be considered trivia (and would need checking in any case), but I doubt there are many instances of Geoffrey featuring in such works, so I'm mentioning it here for the record (it would be nice to track such mentions using 'what links here', but it is difficult to distinguish genuine links from those resulting from Template:Bishops and Archbishops of York). Carcharoth (talk) 06:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I actually own the Plantagenet Ancestry (Genealogy is a hobby). Genealogical Publishing Company isn't a self-publishing company, but a reasonably respectable publisher of genealogical works in the US. They tend to lean towards records mostly, but their more recent ancestral works are generally pretty good. Most of those sources listed in that entry are primary sources - I hadn't seen the Yorkshire Archaelogical Journal bit, I'll try to look it up at some point, but given its from 1943 and only two pages, it's probably not very useful (the fact that Lovatt didn't use it is also a mark against it), but good to have it for completeness. Nor had I seen the New England Historical and Genealogical Register article, but given the journal, it's likely not very useful either (probably much like our own article, but from a genealogical perspective). Interestingly, I hadn't seen the Maud, illegitimate daughter of Henry II before.. will have to investigate that. On the general rule of "unless it's covered in secondary sources that tell us something about the subject" I generally don't include TV/Movie roles unless they're covered by some sort of secondary source that sheds some light on the subject of THIS article - so the fact that some actor played Geoffrey in a TV series isn't really worth listing here. If that happens, then we would start listing all the times he's appeared in a romance novel or historical novel ... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'm glad some of that was of some use, and even if readers don't read about this in the article, they may end up reading about it on this talk page, and hopefully it will be of use to future editors as well. Carcharoth (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Becket material

Staying away from the FAC as I've said I'm moving on from that now, but putting these other notes here in case they are of use (they arose from me following up that point I raised about the Becket image and Geoffrey processing to London via the tomb of Becket after the conflict with Longchamp's soldiers):

• At the FAC I pointed out that the ODNB article said that "Geoffrey processed to London via Becket's tomb at Canterbury".
• The current (2 October 2011) version of William Longchamp states: "Longchamp's men laid siege to the priory, and after four days forcibly removed Geoffrey. The violence of the attack reminded the public of Thomas Becket's martyrdom, and public opinion turned against Longchamp." - this is cited to Gillingham's 1999 work on Richard I. That cite was added to that article (featured, also edited and written by Ealdgyth) with this edit on 12 March 2008.
• The 1995 Given-Wilson and Curteis Royal Bastards chapter has an account of this incident here, which also makes clear the comparisons drawn between this incident and the death of Thomas Becket (they say that "the parallel was obvious to all").
• The Becket connection is also made by Lovatt, and the relevant page of her longer published work on Geoffrey (English Episcopal Acta: York 1189-1212) can be seen here (the wording used is "obvious parallel with the fate of Becket").

On the basis of all the above, it would seem logical to add this in some form to the article, as no less than three sources mention it: Gillingham, Given-Wilson/Curteis, and Lovatt. I would normally do this myself, but in this case I think it best I just leave these talk page notes. Carcharoth (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I've seen this and intend to take action on it, but have just been utterly drained the last few days and not able to get to it. Don't worry it will get taken of. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I left this for a few weeks, which then turned into more than a month, but was wondering if you still plan to add anything about this? I'd be happy to add something based on the sources I can access (Lovatt and the chapter in Given-Wilson/Curteis), but as you may still have access to Gillingham (which I don't), I'm leaving this talk page note first. Carcharoth (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I do plan on it, but with the holidays my real life stuff has gone bonkers. If you want to add something based on what you have, I can then add to it with Gillingham, if you'd like. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Added. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Burial Site?

When I came upon this article, it stated that he is buried at Grandmont, in Normandy. There is no such town. There is a Grandmontine chapel called Notre-Dame du Parc in Rouen, situated on a street named (perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not) for Geoffrey's father, Henry II of England.

A website claims that this church is indeed Geoffrey's burial site.

The infobox, however, states that he died and was buried at the Priory of Saint Michael at Grandmont, which is not in Normandy. It is in fact in Saint-Privat, located in the Hérault département of France. It is also a priory of the Grandmontine order.

Can someone verify this so that the article is not contradictory? Either way, what's here is wrong. I'm going to change the infobox. Someone please check facts before reverting or making further changes... this needs verification. Iamvered (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

You can verify it yourself - see the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry for Geoffrey (used as a reference) which states "Perhaps Geoffrey entered a French monastery during the last years of his life. He died in Normandy on about 18 December 1212." and then there is the Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1066-1300: Volume 6: York (which is also used as a reference, and is here: http://british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=8457 and states "Refused kg.'s demand for subsidy 1207, went into exile, d. abroad 1212 (T. Stubbs p. 401), at Grandmont 18 Dec. (F. Godwin, De Praesulibus Angliae, ed. W. Richardson (Cambridge, 1743) p. 677 n.; cf. T. Stapleton, Magni Rotuli Scaccarii Normanniae (2 vols., 1840-4) II pp. clxix- clxx). Buried at Notre-Dame de Grandmont (A. C. Ducarel, Anglo-Norman Antiquities (1767) pp. 37-8, quoting epitaph on tomb)." I wonder if the burial place got garbled sometime in the past - as the article states "He was buried at a Grandmontine monastery near Rouen." which is enough detail, I'd say. It doesn't sound like the tomb is still extant, if I had to guess if it's not, it was likely a victim of the French Revolution (like many other tombs). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so my second change— here's what I have for research:

1. The village of Grandmont containing the Motherhouse was absorbed into St. Sylvestre, a town in Auvergne: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Grandmontines

2. Notre-Dame du Parc, now called St. Catherine's Church, is what's left of the Grandmontine abbey near Rouen: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapelle_de_Grandmont

3. It was indeed in this church, and not the Priory of St. Michael at Grandmont in Auvergne, that Geoffrey was buried, according to http://grandmont.pagesperso-orange.fr/Rouen.html (a page devoted to the Grandmontine Order)-- La chapelle eut le privilège d’être choisie, pour sépulture, par de puissants personnages. Le premier fut Geoffroy, Archevêque d’York, fils naturel d’Henri II, mort en 1212. (TRANSLATION: The chapel had the privilege of being chosen as a sepulchre by powerful historical figures. The first was Geoffrey, Archbishop of York, natural son of Henri II, who died in 1212.

4. The neighborhood around St. Catherine's was formerly called "Grammont." — http://www.memoires-urbaines.fr/sites/default/files/megaville_15_p51.pdf

5. More on St. Catherines: http://www.76actu.fr/galerie-photo-rouen-la-discrete-notre-dame-du-parc_20750/ — a French news site

Is this substantial enough evidence that my change is valid? Iamvered (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that most of those sites are reliable - the two wikipedia pages definitely aren't. (The english page is very unsourced). Number 3's source is a personal website by someone retired (see http://grandmont.pagesperso-orange.fr/pour_en_savoir_plus.htm). The other two sites I didn't investigate. THe problem is ... all of this is OR - when we have two sources (as mentioned above) that give less precise but close enough information (and you cannot really argue with the reliability of the ODNB and the Fasti - both are pretty much top end academic sources for this sort of biographical detail.). We can drop the specifics and just put in what is actually in the article. Infoboxes should summarize the article - that's their function. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Ancestry section

Is still unsourced, even after I removed it once and had it returned by the editor who added it. Nor does it add anything to our knowledge of Geoffrey that isn't already in the article - we have a good discussion of who his mother is, and his father is noted, as well as him being named for his paternal grandfather. None of the rest of his remote ancestors had any bearing on him - he did not go on to inherit the throne so we don't need to trace his inheritance of hte throne. I think it should be removed, but the IP addresses who added it have taken issue with this on my talk page. When I pointed out that it should be discussed on the article talk page, I got told it was all my issue, and not an issue with the information being unsourced, that it was sourced. Thoughts? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Obviously it is unsourced, and I agree it adds nothing. I just restored your last version, Ealdgyth. It looks like a similar family tree at the Henry II of England article, only shunted across by one generation: that article is a GA, and the family tree there is unsourced also, though I note it was added in 2008, long before the GA review. My guess is that it might be acceptable in a GA, but I can't see it as part of an FA: the only sourcing is WP, which as any fule kno is not a reliable source. A propos of nothing in particular these family trees look counter-intuitive to me – my brain wants the ancestors on the left, as in a time line! Nortonius (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

All the other sons of Henry II (at least the legitimate ones) have their ancestry listed. How are they different to Geoffrey? And have you done a market survey by asking people if it 'adds nothing'? Some readers will look up people solely for their ancestry. It is not unsourced...why do you seemingly lack common sense? It will stay on there, and you can be immature and remove it, but I'll edit it back. It's not causing harm, and it gives people an insight into his ancestors who primarily may just be starting to learn about the Plantagenets.

The part about being an ambitious man is unsourced, maybe I should remove that because it is a baseless claim with Ealdgyth speculating that he was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎86.151.216.213 (talk • contribs)

The family tree is unsourced. The "part about being an ambitious man" has two sources. The mature thing for you to do would be to stop insisting on anything, and work here for consensus. Nortonius (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

"Geoffrey's ambitions may have included being King of England". If that was sourced, there'd be no "may" about it. I'm working for the consensus, whereas you want it to be for your own viewing. You talk about wanting ancestry on the left, but all family trees pretty much anywhere lean towards the right or upwards - not left. The family tree is sourced. Henry II was a grandchild of Henry I who in turn was a son of William the Conqueror. You're clutching at straws now. You say to me 'stop insisting on anything' yet you insist on removing my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎86.151.216.213 (talk • contribs)

The ambitions sentence is sourced - see Turner and Heiser Reign of Richard Lionheart pp. 77–78. The two authors state there "Richard treated Geoffrey Plantagenet, one of Henry II's illeigitmate sons and his father's chancellor, in much the same way that he did John. Geoffrey had too much ambition for Richard I to rest easily, because of his ambition, one historian calls him a 'formidable bastard'. The royal blood in Geoffrey's veins, though tainted by illegitimacy, may have encouraged in him visions of someday wearing the crown of England himself." It's that little "63" at the end of a sentence that tells you the information prior to it is sourced to that footnote. That's what's lacking in the ancestry section you're trying to add - there are no footnotes and thus we have no idea where the information came from. Other wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Way to insult readers' intelligence...so, something that would be well-known, as well as people with common sense...has to have a footnote? Makes sense...I think not. Then go and remove the ancestry sections of Henry II, Richard I, King John. They're unsourced. I mean, they were sons of Henry II but they couldn't possible share his ancestry. At the end of the day, there is nothing bad about the ancestry page being there. I read the supposed source...it doesn't clearly mention Geoffrey may have wanted to be King of England. Also, it says about his military ability...there is no source to say how he won against the Scots. He might have had superior numbers, luck, or those Scots were just an undisciplined mob. Please don't call the pot kettle black. And if we're going to say wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, then you'd be right. WikiPedia is a joke in itself. Smart people wouldn't use it anyway for the most part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎86.151.216.213 (talk • contribs)

I – uh, no I don't feel like banging my head on this brick wall any more right now, maybe later. In the meantime, can someone please restore the status quo ante? Nortonius (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article nomination discussion

I've nominated this article to be considered for Today's Featured Article, nomination discussion is at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Geoffrey (archbishop of York). — Cirt (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Consecrated -- as bishop

This might be ten dollars of explanation for a five cent edit, so apologies if this is excessive. I want to make what I'd normally call a minor edit, except due to the long back-and-forth conversation between Carcharoth and Ealdgyth about more substantive issues surrounding Geoffrey's consecration, I'm giving the reason here. There's also the fact that I noticed this issue because this is a featured article today (12 December 2014), and the sentence that caused me confusion is visible from the home page. When I read the introductory paragraph which says the pope ordered Geoffrey to resign (his bishopric) or be consecrated, my immediate response was that this must be a typo, and that the original author must have meant "or be excommunicated". The word "excommunicate" is used much more often by historians than "consecrate" when discussing a pope exercising temporal power. And the structure of the sentence could just as easily be interpreted as the pope [giving an order / making a threat] as the pope [giving an order: choose one of two options]. Anyone reading further into the article will understand that it is the second structure (one of two options) that was intended, but this is in the opening paragraph and the only part of the article that's visible to anyone seeing it as a featured article. I believe that a reader without further information is more likely to make the same assumption I did (order/threat). That's why I added the phrase "as bishop".AnneTG (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Edits

I made a little edit to Geoffrey (archbishop of York). Maymichael2 (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Was it a good edit or a bad edit? — LlywelynII 15:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Notability

"Geoffrey Plantagenet" I can definitely see and Fitzroy has its own article and a long tradition of being applied to kingly bastards... but while you can definitely find a source that capitalizes it "fitzRoy" or calls this guy "fitzPlantagenet", I don't think it really meets WP:NOTABILITY. Nothing except Plantagenet registers on ngram and about half of those are talking about the guy in Anjou rather than this guy. Still and all, 3–4000ish hits on Google Scholar.

But "fitzPlantagenet"? 1 hit. "Fitzroy"? 0 hits, except for one of John's kids. Is this something we're really committed to? or shouldn't we just call him Geoffrey with a Plantagenet dynasty link somewhere in the first part of the article and the rest in the PERSONDATA?

fitzRoy (or fitz Roy) is the usual spelling among scholars for this period. Fitzroy's a full surname, fitzRoy shows that it's a patronymnicish type thing. Alternative names are supposed to go in the lead ... we follow the MOS. Barlow's biography is pretty important in the field - he calls him fitzRoy consistently thorugh many of his works. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)