Talk:Edward I of England

Massacre at Berwick

The important fact that Edward slew perhaps seven thousands, and likely more, at Berwick is obscured by a reference in a link to a particular bloody attack. Many articles in wikipedia include such facts in biographies, like that of pope Benedict VII of Avignon who only helped slay five thousand at Cesenai (when he was a cardinal). Edward's article might also mention his singular achievement of killing off the biggest burgh in Scotland and add it to his proud death toll. 1f2 (talk) 12:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sack of Berwick (1296) says that estimates of deaths are from 4000 to 17000 and some sources say all were massacred and others that women were spared. There do not seem to be reliable sources for a definite estimate. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the issue is more whether it is described as a "bloody attack" (as here) or captures that it features a massacre of civilians? It doesn't sound like there is much doubt that Edward ordered some kind of civilian massacre. Jim Killock (talk) 11:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nuh uh 203.82.38.4 (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended this to say there was a massacre, without getting into numbers, as that seems to be the main point (not just a "bloody seige"). Jim Killock (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 November 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for a move at this time. Like the discussion two years ago, there is almost an exactly even split among participants, with proponents of both viewpoints correctly marshalling points of policy in favor of their preference. Throughout this encyclopedia there are instances of English monarchs whose titles include "of England" and monarchs whose titles do not, so it is apparent that both formulations are permissible in appropriate conditions. This, therefore, boils down to a question of preference as to which conditions suffice for this purpose, a question to which this discussion has yielded no clear answer. I glean from the discussion that a separate nomination limited to Edward IV and Edward V would be more fruitful, and might be the best next step to pursue. BD2412 T 02:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Edward I of England → Edward I
• Edward II of England → Edward II
• Edward III of England → Edward III
• Richard II of England → Richard II
• Edward IV of England → Edward IV
• Edward V of England → Edward V
• Richard III of England → Richard III

– A proposal to bring the articles in line with WP:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility): "Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed." No disambiguation is needed in these cases.

The concise titles reflect common usage, which is a policy requirement (WP:COMMONNAME). All biographies of Edward I, Edward II, Edward III, etc cited in our article call them simply Edward I, Edward II, Edward III, etc. Examples include Prestwich's Edward I, Phillips' Edward II, and Ormrod's Edward III. They perfectly fit WP:RECOGNIZABILITY too, which requires titles to be recognizable to people who are familiar with the subject area; everyone familiar with Edward V will recognize that the article titled Edward V is about Edward V.

The proposed moves are also in line with WP:CONSISTENT, which says: Wikipedians have consistently shown that consistency does not control: Disambiguation. For instance, just because Georgia (country) exists, there is no reason to have articles titled, for instance, Azerbaijan (country), Armenia (country), etc. This applies to natural disambiguation, as well; the existence of Querétaro City and Chihuahua City does not mean we have to retitle Guadalajara to Guadalajara City (emphasis in original).

We already have pre-Conqueror kings under concise names (e.g. Edmund I) as well as the Tudors Henry VIII, Edward VI, and Elizabeth I; the Stuart James VI and I; and the post-Union George III, George IV, William IV, Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI, Elizabeth II, and now Charles III. Surtsicna (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Polyamorph (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - as much as my personal preference is in opposition to this, that's now how !votes should be cast and consensus made. Our policies and guidelines as they stand now are in clear support of this, and I must be as well. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Estar8806 is referring to the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) that resulted in the consensus to endorse the use of concise titles/titles without unnecessary disambiguation. Surtsicna (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This was never their common name, and most of them have popular theatrical plays under that name, written by the literary hack William Shakespeare. Wikipedia keeps getting worse policies. Dimadick (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The vast majority of sources referring to them without the appendage suggests that these are, indeed, their common names. The plays (which are not primary meanings) will be as unaffected as they are now when these short titles redirect to the long ones. In fact, the plays are an argument in favor of the move: everyone who knows about Richard III thanks to the play will expect to find the article about him at Richard III, not Richard III of England, as neither Shakespeare nor Shakespeare scholars call him Richard III of England. Surtsicna (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's their most common name in the English language at the present time, and the current most-common name is what we use to determine what an article's title is, not what their most common name was hundreds of years ago when they were alive. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Strongly oppose - bringing up the bios doesn't help, as in context, the shorter version will always be "widely used": in context, "Cameron" is the WP:COMMONNAME for David Cameron, but that does not make it a suitable title. "of England" does nothing to harm the titles. It makes them WP:RECOGNIZABLE. It makes them WP:PRECISE. It makes them the WP:COMMONNAME. And, it also respects WP:NCROY, which says article titles are normally in the form "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}. It makes extremely little sense to have Henry I of England, William II of England and Henry V of England right next to the ones which have the kingdom bluntly hacked off their titles. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "Cameron" is not a suitable title because it is not precise. That is why it does not redirect to David Cameron. Edward I is precise. That is why it redirects to Edward I of England. Appending "of England" does not do anything for recognizability; nobody familiar with Edward I will fail to recognize the name Edward I. Similarly, appending "of France" does not do anything for the recognizability of the name Emmanuel Macron. Obviously appending "of England" does not "make them WP:COMMONNAME"; they are not called that in published sources. And you are purposefully misquoting WP:NCROY, which says what you say it says only for monarchs "whose common name is ambiguous or not the primary meaning". Surtsicna (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "Purposefully misquoting" - no, not really. Maybe apply a tiny bit of WP:AGF next time. And don't give me lectures on WP:PRECISE when you are now seeking to make seven titles less so. Best, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The sentence you quoted says, in full: "In the case of kings ... whose common name is ambiguous or not the primary meaning, article titles are normally in the form "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}." The previous sentence says: "Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed." If you somehow missed this when you quoted the latter part of the sentence, I apologize (though I will be surprised because you took part in the discussion that led to this wording).
  It is worth underlining that WP:PRECISE says that article titles "should be no more precise than" what is needed to unambiguously define the subject. Edward III unambiguously defines Edward III; titles such as Edward III of England, Edward III, king of England, Edward III, king of England and duke of Aquitaine, etc, are what WP:PRECISE calls "too precise". Surtsicna (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - For goodness sake, it's helpful to see which country the monarch is reigning over or primarily reigning over, by reading the article title. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not the job of article titles to define the subject. That is why we do not have titles such as Barrack Obama of the United States or Ernest Rutherford (New Zealand physicist). Surtsicna (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We'll have to disagree, where monarch bios are concerned. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Surtsicna: We also don't title the article simply "Obama", even though we clearly could. If we were to count all the instances where that surname is used by itself to refer the president in reliable sources, we'd find that it greatly outweighs any other form... but it's still not the form we use. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I really don't think it's too much effort to just read the first sentence of the article to see which country the monarch is reigning over. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We're in disagreement then. My position hasn't changed on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Clearly oppose; Tim O'Doherty and GoodDay both make good and succinct and accurate points. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 18:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nominator. I'll add that the names of Shakespeare's plays favor the proposed move, NOT keeping the current titles. Killuminator (talk) 06:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:CONCISE, and WP:NCROY. All of our article naming policies and guidelines support these moves. There is simply no good policy-based justification for inserting a natural disambiguation into an article title when it is clearly not needed. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  inserting a natural disambiguation into an article title when it is clearly not needed is bog standard with biographies. See Leibniz, Hitler, Gorbachev, Reagan, Obama, Oprah, Stalin. Why don't titles like "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart" and "Pablo Picasso" bother people? Shakespeare's been mentioned by three editors in this discussion and only one used his full name. His article could certainly be moved to a more concise title that is also satisfies common name. Srnec (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - has clarity and brevity, and conformity with historical and academic conventions (ODNB, Brittanica Library and numerous peer-reviewed publications). Bill Reid | (talk) 10:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per brevity, since all of the proposed titles redirect to the nominated titles. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The change to NCROY to prefer short titles was just made and I disagree with it. If I had known about the proposal to modify the wording, I'd have opposed it. Regardless, the policy page should just be a summary of the consensus from community discussions; we'll see how this RM goes, but if there's sufficient community opposition, I'd consider that cause to reconsider this recent change to NCROY and potentially revert it. Anyway, getting back to the merits... the shortest name is not always the best. Sometimes the additional clarification is helpful, and worth paying a slight cost in concision. Monarchs who aren't commonly referred to with last names are a classic case where just their first name is not necessarily enough. SnowFire (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  +1 Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. SnowFire says it pretty well. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support In probably all of these cases, the English monarch is the primary topic. Why distinguish them from minor counts and dukes who are not nearly as notable? Векочел (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - if this were really that big an issue and just that detrimental to the quality of those articles, wouldn't they have been raised at, er, the articles' FACs? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The article title has nothing to do with the quality of an article's content. These are two distinct issues, and FAC isn't the forum for discussing an article's title. That is done through WP:RM. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No—FAC deals with every aspect of the article, which obviously includes the title. A few weeks ago regarding an FAC-hopeful at PR, I asked the nom if the page should be moved as I believed it was against a guideline. By your logic of "the forums are different", no progress would be made outside the very limited bubble of FAC, including requests for copyediting by GOCE for the professional writing criterion, Commons requests for the image criterion, and source and comprehensiveness checks using Earwig and TWL as tools. RM is just another venue to improve articles, and FAC reviewers aren't barred from ... well, suggesting improvements, which would then go through RM. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) has been updated since all of the FAC for these articles. And are you trying to argue that Featured Article titles should never be changed because any objection to the article title should have been brought up at the FAC? Speak now, or forever hold your peace? Rreagan007 (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Nope. Try again. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, for the same reasons already clearly elaborated above by SnowFire and Tim O'Doherty. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for consistency and recognizability and for the reasons I've laid out in past RMs. If this move goes through, it means going from John, King of England to Henry III of England to Edward I. Such an approach is confusing, not clarifying. I see virtually no cost to having "of England" in these titles. It is perfectly natural. Just because some particular combination of name and numeral has a primary topic is not a good reason to reduce the title anymore than the fact that some surnames have a primary topic is a good reason to go around lopping first names of article titles (see my comment above). Srnec (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose there were multiple monarchs with these names. adding "of England" clarifies which one the article is about. SKAG123 (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, there were not; and even if there were (which there were not), these here would be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Surtsicna (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per above. I, unlike some, apparently, don't assume that "Edward I" automatically refers to the English version. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Edward I already redirects here, and always has, so the assumption is long-standing and very well grounded. Surtsicna (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, per nom. Like Estar8806, this is not my personal preference, but who cares about that; it is what policy clearly requires. I assume that the closer will ignore all !votes based on personal preference, this is not a vote. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There are five basic criteria for article titles and I think the current title is better by three (recognizability, precision, consistency), neutral by one (naturalness) and inferior by one (concision). That naming the kingdom increases recognizability should, I think, be uncontroversial. Not everybody will know that there was no Richard II of Scotland. That it increases precision is also obvious, since, strictly speaking, even "Edward I" is ambiguous. Because of the changes to NCROY and the inconsistent outcomes of various RMs in recent years, it is not as obviously more consistent than it would have been in the past, but I still think that, given the continued preference for the "[name] [numeral] of [kingdom]" format (per NATURALDIS) across western European monarchies and the unavailability of undisambiguated titles for many kings (e.g., John, Henry V, Philip IV), the preemptively disambiguated forms can be used consistently in a way that the short forms (alongside the current NATURALDIS format) can't be. As for naturalness, I think both forms are equally natural in prose or speech. It all depends on context (whether the kingdom must be named or not). The proposal, however, is certainly more concise. Editors do not agree on how to weigh these in every given case. I put a lot more emphasis on consistency and a lot less on concision than most editors who support these moves. Srnec (talk) 01:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, Srnec. Your interpretation of "recognizability" is incorrect. It is not the job of the article title to define the subject. If it were, then the title of this article should be Edward I, king of England, not just Edward I of England. Please see how recognizability is defined at WP:RECOGNIZABILITY so that we can finally stop misinterpreting it (though I have already underlined it in the opening comment). "Edward III" is recognizable because a person who is familiar with Edward III will recognize that the article titled Edward III is about Edward III. A title such as Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor would not be recognizable because a person who has only heard about Charles III would not know that the article is about Charles III. Likewise, consistency: it has been noted both in the WP:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) RfC and in the opening comment of this request that the WP:CONSISTENT policy explicitly excludes disambiguation. That we have Republic of Ireland is no reason to have Republic of Croatia instead of just Croatia; and so having Henry II of England is no reason to have George VI of the United Kingdom instead of just George VI. Surtsicna (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I stand by my interpretation of recognizability. I am not asserting that it is the job of the article title to define the subject. The article Charles III is about a fellow I first heard by that name only a little over a year ago, long after I first heard of Charles III. I see no reason why I should know that the Wikipedia article entitled "Charles III" is about the present king of Canada. Srnec (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Pageviews for these various Edwards. Killuminator (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Gog, policy is ambiguous. People disagree for a reason. You're allowed to too: the diktat of the recent NCROY RfC doesn't make null and void all other viewpoints. Otherwise, this page would be moved without discussion, or this RM would be completely unanimous. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the books given as examples for WP:COMMONNAME purposes are all part of the Yale English Monarchs series, so it's arguable that they're already disambiguated. It would be prudent to cast a wider net, just to be sure. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Tim O'Doherty's sensible and policy-based comments above. Zacwill (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zacwill, Tim O'Doherty's comments are not policy-based. Policy has been cited to refute them. The WP:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) guideline has recently been amended, after a long and thorough discussion, to embrace these proposed titles precisely in order to bring the guideline in line with policy. Therefore, the current titles are against the policy and the guideline and the proposed titles are in line with them. Surtsicna (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim O'Doherty's comments are policy based, unless you've invested yourself with the power to discredit WP:AT (that is, when it suits you, of course). And WP:NCROY is not policy anyway. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, your comments contravene WP:AT policy. It has been explained how: your interpretation of WP:RECOGNIZABLE does not match what WP:RECOGNIZABLE says. WP:RECOGNIZABLE is about readers familiar with the subject recognizing that the article is about that subject. It is not about defining the subject to a person who knows nothing about it. You have not disputed that explanation. Surtsicna (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surtsicna: If the amendment to the guideline yields RMs that are too contentious to muster clear support, then I'd take that as a sign that the amendment may need to be revisited. Guidelines are most successful when they build upward from what we agree works best, and in this case I'm not seeing a lot of agreement that removing the "of England" works best. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huwmanbeing, the amendment to the guideline is the result of an RfC that was explicitly based on the RMs that have taken place over the past decade, that have led to titles such as Elizabeth I, Edward VI, Henry VIII, Elizabeth II, etc; Louis XIV, Louis XV, Louis XVI, etc; Carl XVI Gustaf, Gustaf V, etc; Juan Carlos I, Alfonso XII, Felipe VI, etc; and, just this month, Wilhelm II and Harald V, Olav V, Haakon VII, etc. The guideline is being built upward from over a decade of community consensus. And I can guarantee to you that these articles are never going back to the lengthy form. Once you chop off the unnecessary disambiguation, it is difficult to convince people to put it back in. It does not even matter whether the moves proposed here succeed now; the policy is constant and the trend of matching royal biographies with it is steady. They will get there now or soon enough. Surtsicna (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult, but not impossible, as you know, having sneakily moved Eystein I of Norway and Eystein II of Norway from the titles they arrived at after RMs earlier this year. You also ignore all the RMs that have failed over the years, including ones recently for Victor Emmanuel III of Italy and Vasily I of Moscow, plus also Franz Joseph I of Austria and Louis IX of France. —Srnec (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: relisting for clearer consensus, notifying wikiprojects Polyamorph (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Vital articles has been notified of this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Biography has been notified of this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject England has been notified of this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Politics has been notified of this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject London has been notified of this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• relisting comment currently this is in the waters of "no consensus". relisting second time (after first relisting by Polyamorph) to achieve clear consensus. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:CONSISTENT. Vpab15 (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Both WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:CONSISTENT are addressed in the opening comment. Surtsicna (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (procedural)– WP:LOCALCONSENSUS! The recent WP:NCROY policy change is very clear here that the correct format is not including a country when disambiguation is not needed- all of the Oppose voters are arguing for why they oppose the recent change to policy. My preferred article title if it were not for policy saying otherwise would be King Edward I of England, with both the country and the title included in the article, but WP:NCROY is also clear in not supporting the regular use of "King" or "Queen" in article titles. If any of the oppose voters were to open a discussion on modifying WP:NCROY, I would welcome that, but this RM is very much not the right place for expressing discontent with policy by trying to ignore its existence. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 08:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  NCROY is not policy. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  NCROY is a guideline which defines how the policy WP:TITLE should be applied in relation to royalty and nobility. It should be followed unless there's a good reason not to do so. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A.D.Hope: Yes, it's a guideline. That's important to emphasize because others have repeatedly and wrongly asserted above that it's policy. Guidelines can be helpful and we should attempt to follow them, but only where it makes sense and leads to titles that we agree better meet our WP:CRITERIA — and in this case I just don't see that it does. ╠╣uw [talk] 16:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm aware the guideline wording has recently been changed after a long discussion. Nevertheless, it represents the current consensus and so shouldn't be disregarded unless there is a good, specific reason to do so. What is that reason in this case? A.D.Hope (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear here- are you proposing keeping the articles in this RM at their current titles whilst also leaving WP:NCROY unchanged? Because as far as I can tell, that would result in WP:NCROY being completely meaningless, if one of its core points is not being followed by a large number of articles. I'm failing to see the advantage in abolishing standardized naming policy. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 16:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not proposing anything, I just don't support the moves proposed by Surtsicna. If it turns out that some RMs prompted by the amended NCROY fail to muster consensus, then yes, that might mean the guideline should be revisited, but that would be a separate discussion. (And to be clear, this would in no way mean abolishing standardized naming.) ╠╣uw [talk] 20:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think multiple RMs failing to reach consensus would be a good indication that the new NCROY guideline isn't working in practice. It's only chance that this RM hasn't yet failed – there's clearly no consensus and it's been well over seven days. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's clear in this RM that there is widespread opposition to the new guideline (half of the support votes are purely on policy grounds rather than down to any belief that the proposed titles are better) and so regardless of the way it is closed, there is absolutely demand for revisiting WP:NCROY. I'm just not convinced that outright ignoring it in an RM is the best way of showing discontent with it: hypothetically if this RM were closed as "no consensus", but then a discussion of changing the WP:NCROY policy also ended in "no consensus", you'd be left stuck with a status quo of conflicting consensuses at different places meaning that a guideline which exists is being widely ignored. I don't see how this is at all good for Wikipedia. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 03:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems entirely possible that the LOCALCONSENSUS was the decision to update NCROY. One of the ways the community sends feedback that a policy isn't working is via consensus discussions like these. Otherwise it's a chicken-and-the-egg issue - I would be inclined to revisit at the NCROY talk page but only after we have prominent no-consensus results in discussions like this as evidence the change isn't working, which can't happen if we "procedurally" keep moving in favor of the new version. SnowFire (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia talk:NCROY is the venue for discussing changes to WP:NCROY. The community has already sent its feedback: a decade-old trend of articles being moved to titles such as Elizabeth II, Carl XVI Gustaf, Alfonso XII, Wilhelm II, Louis XIV, Maria Theresa, etc, and the numerous failed attempts to reappend the unnecessary disambiguation. This feedback was explicitly mentioned as the motivation to update NCROY, and the resulting change reflects the decade-old, well-established change in practice - as well as being congruent with policy. Surtsicna (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Surtsicna: I didn't know about the NCROY debate, or I would have weighed in there. I only noticed after RMs started being filed with this new rationale. What would you have someone do in a case like that? It seems very anti-Wikipedia to say "too late, you missed a discussion you didn't know about so therefore your opinion is not allowed to ever matter." RMs discussions are still where community consensus is found, policy pages only reflect that existing reality, which is why I hope the eventual closer does not place too much emphasis on a very fresh update to a guideline that is clearly controversial.

  More generally - setting aside this particular case - just as a factual statement, we've had weird policy updates before that get quickly rolled back after it turned out the rest of the community wasn't on-board once they found out. Not saying that the NCROY case applies (you would obviously disagree), but the point is that procedurally there needs to be some sort of option to handle when this case may have happened, and the simplest is just to register disagreement with the new policy in consensus discussions IMO. SnowFire (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Tim and SnowFire—blindlynx 16:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Provisional support. Using Google Scholar, '"Edward I"' returns 123,000 results and '"Edward I of England"' returns 4,020 results, and a glance at the first few pages of both results suggests that almost all are about the English monarch. The nature of the results in both cases appears to be similar – journal articles, some books, etc. To narrow the results, the bibliography of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article on Edward I is useful. The sources used in the article can be safely assumed to represent a good number of the core works on the Edward I, and none of their titles use a territorial designation. It's clear that academics are comfortable using 'Edward I' without qualification in their titles in works about the king.

Given the above, 'Edward I' does not need to be further disambiguated with a territorial designation according to WP:NCROY, as it is the WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RECOGNIZABLE, and WP:PRECISE. If the same is true of the other articles listed then they should be moved. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The ODNB uses plain "Edward I" because it focusses solely on historical figures from the UK, though, which would be reflected in using - well - British sources. What we want here is a WP:WORLDVIEW. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The titles of the sources in the ODNB bibliography were created independently of the context of the dictionary, so their exclusive use of ‘Edward I’ without territorial designation is quite persuasive. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the above, the 'additional reading' in the Encyclopedia Britannica article is much the same, and a Jstor search produces many 'Edward I' articles but far fewer with 'Edward I of England' in the title. It's possible that there are thousands of sources which use 'of England' that I'm not picking up on, but I don't think it's very likely. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WORLDVIEW such as Richard II being called Richard II by the national dictionaries of biography of Germany,[1] Croatia,[2] Norway,[3], Ireland,[4] Italy?[5] This is not about a world view. This is about forcing consistency against policy at the expense of reason. The insistence that Wikipedia should know better than ODNB, Britannica, and Shakespeare is mind-blowing. Surtsicna (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Using the same method, I can show that Henry II is unambiguous and that Louis XII isn't. In short, it doesn't work. Srnec (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The dictionaries were not cited to prove or disprove ambiguity. Surtsicna (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth bearing in mind that, according to WP:CRITERIA, only reliable English-language sources need to be considered when choosing an article title. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — our naming conventions are clear that we should avoid unnecessary disambiguation. No one here has presented a case that this disambiguation is necessary; therefore we should follow the guideline as written. If it needs to be rewritten, this is not the correct page. – bradv 22:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Why should we? We don't need the "Barack" on front of Obama to disambiguate him. Or the "Mahatma" on front of Gandhi. We routinely use unnecessary disambiguation in biographies. Srnec (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We use the name Barack Obama because that is his name, as an explicitly stated exception to WP:CONCISE. Edward's name was not "of England", nor do historians treat it as if it were. It is an appendage used here only because NCROY used to mandate it, and it is not mandated anymore because that requirement was against policy. In fact, the only parallel one can make is between Edward I of England and Barack Obama of the United States. Surtsicna (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Complex response, because this should not have been a mass-RM with these entries, as they are not alike:

  Support two: Edward IV and Edward V, since neither are ambiguous with other monarchs (there are no Edward IV (disambiguation) or Edward V (disambiguation)) – per WP:CONCISE policy and WP:DAB (we do not "pre-disambiguate" unambiguous titles to make them conform to other titles that by necessity are disambiguated), and also WP:PRECISE (we are only as precise as necessary). WP:CONSISTENT is not an argument in favor of the long names; it means to use consistent base names, and to use consistent disambiguation patterns when disambiguation is necessary. It is not and never has been an argument to add unnecessay disambiguation strings.

  Oppose all the others because they are ambiguous with other monarchs (not just with other random stuff like plays on the corresponding disambiguation pages), so they should be disambiguated, even if the short forms are (at present, anyway) primary redirects to their articles.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  SMcCandlish, none of these are ambiguous with other monarchs. There is no other monarch named Edward III, for example; there was a duke, but not sovereign, and the king is by far and wide the primary meaning. Similarly we have other women named Queen Victoria and Elizabeth II and another man named Barack Obama. Surtsicna (talk) 08:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Um, did you actually read the associated disambiguation pages at all? Edward the Confessor was the third King Edward of Anglo-Saxon England, so that's ambiguous enough. Edward the Martyr was 2nd Kind Edward of A-S E. Edward I (disambiguation) lists 3–5 other monarchs (depending on whether you count "disputed" ones). Richard II of Capua was monarch of the independent Principality of Capua, and one other entry at the associated disambig page might similarly qualify (can't tell from his tiny stub article, and I'm not familiar with the figure in question). Ditto Richard III of Capua. As for the latter two, whether you want to consider continental princes in that specific sense of prince to be monarchs is a debate you could have with someone (and probably lose; cf. our own article Prince's lead: "Prince is also a title of nobility (often highest), often hereditary, in some European states." I.e., a monarch.) But there is no question that for some subset of readers they will definitely be considered monarchs, so they are ambiguity sources. And this might not matter anyway; the fact that there are any "Foo V of Somewhere" cases at all, dukes or counts or not, is probably sufficient cause to consider these names ambiguous. Whether someone was a count or a king or yadda yadda is not knowledge we can presume someone already has; it may be exactly what they are trying to find out.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The English monarchs are the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in each case, which generally means further disambiguation in the article title isn't needed – compare London to London, Ontario. There might be an argument for making the various disambiguation pages the primary topics, but in my opinion that should be a separate discussion.

  With Edward the Elder, Edward the Martyr, and Edward the Confessor we don't need to worry about confusion with the later Edward I, Edward II, and Edward III because the epithets of the first three form part of their WP:COMMONNAME and also serve as natural disambiguators. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a bit too aggressive, SMcCandlish. I am a major contributor to these topics. I know very well about Edward the Confessor. I also know that he is never called Edward III. Nobody, neither historians nor non-experts, will ever read or hear the name "Edward III" and think of Edward the Confessor because Edward the Confessor is not Edward III. An ambiguity may only exist in an alternative universe in which Edward the Confessor too is called Edward III. In this universe he is not. Do you deny WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as a principle or do you believe that Richard III is not overwhelmingly likelier to refer to the king of England than to the prince of Capua? Surtsicna (talk) 13:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There's nothing "aggressive" in disagreeing with your interpretation of several DAB pages and their content, and wondering whether you examined them closely, because they all contain other monarchs but you said they didn't. Being disagreed with doesn't magically make you a victim. Our disambiguation pages (and article titles, ultimately) do not exist to make experts happy. They exist to help readers find what they are looking for, readers who often have an unclear idea of the proper name(s) of something. A reader who heard "Edward the Confessor, the third King Edward of England" in a documentary, and hours later comes to Wikipedia remembering only "Edward" and "third" is very likely to try "Edward III". PRIMARYTOPIC might be an overriding concern here, but there is a substantial body of editors at WT:NCROY and WT:ROYALTY convinced that all articles of this sort should be at a "Foobar X of Bazquux" article title pattern, no matter what. A compromise position is to use the shorter names when they are not ambiguous, and use the disambiguation when there is ambiguity with other monarchs (or, some might prefer, with other biographical subjects at all). PRIMARYTOPIC is ultimately a guideline, to which exceptions can apply. Various exceptions are applied, like putting most US placenames in "City, State" format even when not ambiguous (except for some major metropolitan areas like Chicago and Los Angeles). I lean toward disambiguating monarchs in cases of any doubt as an acceptable compromise between the extremes of "never disambiguate them unless forced to by failure of consensus to identify a primary topic", and "always disambiguate them to have a consistent name format". Both of those views have signifant bodies of editors behind them (see RfC at WT:ROYALTY), regardless of PRIMARYTOPIC. PS: Anyone who doesn't think there's a lot of potential confusion between Edward the Confessor and Edward III is probably British and needs to re-examine WP:BUTIKNOWABOUTIT. I even spent my formative years in England and would not have been certain these were not the same historical figure without checking.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but the article title being 'Edward III of England' would be no help to your hypothetical lost reader because both Edward III and Edward the Confessor ruled England. There's definitely a case for disambigution where two or more monarchs have similar common names, but that's not the case for the three Anglo-Saxon Edwards and three Plantagenet Edwards. A.D.Hope (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It is perfectly possible to express disagreement in a less biting fashion. I am not British, and the chance of someone hearing about Edward the Confessor being called "Edward the Confessor, the third King Edward of England" on TV and then deciding to look him up not as Edward the Confessor but as Edward III is about as significant as someone deciding to look up Elizabeth of York under Elizabeth II after learning that she was England's second Queen Elizabeth; or George W. Bush under George III after learning that he is the third George to have been president of the US. We have never entertained such extremely unlikely scenarios when deciding article titles. Surtsicna (talk) 09:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The English monarch is clearly the primary topic. Jasp7676 (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all as either unambiguous or clear primary topic. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Tim O'Doherty. History6042 (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out above, Tim O'Doherty's rationale relies upon a faulty reading of WP:NCROY, which says that "of England" should only be added when disambiguation is needed. See point 3 under the section "Sovereigns". – bradv 23:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of this. History6042 (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim O'Doherty's reading was not "faulty". Tim O'Doherty's reading was an equally correct interpretation of NCROY. Your interpretation is also correct. We disagree, because guideline/policy is ambiguous and "unnecessary disambiguation" is not a well-defined thick black line. But then again, you've disagreed with me in every discussion we've had, so I'll leave it there. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I'll continue to oppose these changes as they further the anglo-centric view of naming conventions which is something we should be avoiding. El Dubs (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What does this comment even mean ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 18:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It means that they think it is Anglo-Centric to remove "of England" from these titles. History6042 (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It means that, in the eyes of Wikipedians, the moment his mom died the current king of the UK became the instant primary topic for a name (Charles III) nobody had called him before. And RMs for names as distinctive as "Victor Emmanuel" and "Franz Joseph" fail! (To be clear, I'm not accusing the nominator of this bias.) Srnec (talk) 01:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Other people have already put out solid arguments, but I would like to note that Tim O'Doherty's comment about WP:NCROY is currently misleading. The first sentence of the bullet point Tim cites states Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed. This advice falls in line with our article title policy at WP:PRECISE, which advises against adding unnecessary disambiguation. Secondly, the proposed article titles are consistent with many existing articles and fall under a consistent naming pattern; as was mentioned in the previous discussion, this is also a pattern that Britannica employs in their own article names. It is also abundantly clear that these are their common names; subtracting the hits for their disambiguated name from their undisambiguated name on Google ngram still returns far more hits than their disambiguated names. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 18:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Tim O'Doherty is getting very damn tired of explaining his viewpoint repeatedly to people. You say: only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed. Let's see: more than one Edward I? Looks like it. Therefore, disambiguation—the very point of a DISAMBIGUATION page, which exists—should be used <---->IN MY OPINION<----> (which, contrary to popular belief, I am entitled to) in line with the current wording at NCROY. Yes, policy is ambiguous. Yes, that is the point of this RM: to discuss a page move based on the current merits of a policy. You are entitled to your opinion as well. It does not make mine any less worthy. Alright? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I sympathise with you, Tim. While some debate can be helpful, we should ultimately trust the closing editor to evaluate RM comments. It's inappropriate that your interpretation of NCROY has been singled out for critique so frequently in this thread. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, A.D. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What is particularly tiring is seeing the same old arguments being rehashed at every monarch's RM, despite being contrary to the applicable policy and guideline. Thanks, Tim (and some others here) for keeping debate on track, and sticking to policy- and guideline-based argument. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, Tim. What's also tiresome is seeing RM after RM being opened, to get a monarch bio page moved to "Name" style. A trend that's picked up since (likely) the changes at WP:NCROY. But of course, each of us have our own views on how these bios should be named. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Close

It's been nearly 3 weeks now. 'Bout time for this RM to be closed. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay @A.D.Hope - I've gone ahead and put a in closure request at WP:CR. Hopefully we can get someone uninvolved to close this soon. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, estar8806. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks to Tim O'Doherty for reverting the WP:SUPERVOTE close by someone deeply involved in this topic at a previous RfC and lately at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 11#RfC: How should articles on sovereigns of current European monarchies be (re)titled?; that was a good revert.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Side note - Wish there was a place where editors could be notified of these RMs, when they take place. For example, I believe a lot of editors missed out on the recently closed RM for the Norwegian monarchs, Haakon VII, Olav V & Harald V. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are listed at the WikiProject pages and at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now, if only we could get the RMs to slow down. Let one close, before opening another one. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jewish policies of Edward I

Hi there, I've been compiling sources regarding the Hereford Mappa Mundi and its meaning as a promotion of the cult of Thomas de Cantilupe and as a defence of the expulsion of the Jews, and I came back to look at how the Expulsion is presented here relating to Edward. I think the page, while generally very excellent, could do with expanding on the topic of Edward's Jewish policies. To be fair to the authors, it's clear that historical research has been quite slow to take up these themes and much of the work to detail Jewish life and the treatment of Jews in medieval England has been relatively recent and run in parallel to the more mainstream sources whuch have tended to downplay these issues, so it is hardly surprising that Wikipedia would reflect this tendency. However it would be nice to rectify this neglect in the historical record!

Themes could include: Edward's religious beliefs on Jews and relations with the church regarding them; anti-Semitic familial influences on him; the use of Jewry and buying of foreclosed Jewish loans to facilitate centralisation of wealth and power within the aristocracy; attempts at conversion of the Jews (currently mentioned briefly); violence against the Jews in the wake of restrictions on them; Edward's experiment with expulsion in Gascony; and after the expulsion, his sponsorship of the cult of de Cantilupe and of the blood libel cult of Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln, as anti-Semitic propaganda to reinforce his position as defendor of Christians against Jews.

Would it be a good first step for me to compile some sources to draw on relating to this topic? Jim Killock (talk) 13:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We really need to keep in mind that Edward reigned for decent period and that we don't want to over-emphasize some aspects of his reign. In the end, Edward's policies towards Jews only affected a small part of his reign and his subjects. We should keep in mind the amount of coverage that a subject receives in current scholarly biographies of Edward to base our coverage of particular subjects. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying, Ealdgyth. Perhaps the other way to look at it is that there is significant criticism from Jewish history scholars as to whether these issues bave been getting enough attention by mainstream English historians, not only of Edward I, but also of other figures whose actions and views regarding Jews are diminished in the literature? Colin Richmond (1992). "Englishness and Medieval Anglo-Jewry". In Kushner, Tony (ed.). The Jewish Heritage in British History. Frank Cass. pp. 42–59. ISBN 0-7146-3464-6. is a good starting point on this, but there are plenty of others. He makes some good points on what the significance of Edward I's anti-Jewish policies are - both as views central to his world view and character, and also for long run in relations between Jews and gentiles in Europe. Jim Killock (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Jim. Thanks for weighing in. I took this article to FA a few months ago, where it was rigorously screened for academic comprehensiveness and whatnot. If there's one thing I learned from that ordeal, and from my experience on Wikipedia in general, it's that it is not our place to dictate academia. As a volunteer organization that draws its information from existing, trusted, and reputable research, it is the job of editors to compile said information in a manner that accurately reflects past and present academia, regardless of personal opinion. Whether Jewish history in regards to Edward I as a topic receives the attention it is due is neither here nor there, but I agree with my friend Ealdgyth in saying that this article probably isn't the best place to be inserting information this niche. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; perhaps the point is though that a significant strand of academic thought about Edward I (and this period in general) thinks the balance being struck is really off beam? Would it help if I set out who thinks this, why, and what they believe the significance of this imbalance is? For example: Edward I chose the Ninth of Ab for the occasion of his Edict of expulsion of the Jewry; a deliberate insult. This isn't generally highlighted in most accounts, and hasn't made its way into the article here, perhaps as a result. One has to ask why historians miss their inflammatory and derogatory significance, and the contention of historians studying the Jewish community is that their is an underlying reluctance of English academia to address the anti-semitism of Edward I and others. They also contend that it isn't correct to see the Jewish community's experience in this period as in some way a niche issue, given the precedents that English treatment of the Jewish community set (first national expulsion of Jewry, creation of the blood libel myth, etc). If Wikipedia is trying to summarise the balance of opinion of academia, then wouldn't Wikipedia's policies expect the historians who feel that balance is off kilter to have their views reflected, if they are a significant group with a particular consensus? Jim Killock (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE is still the guiding principle here. We are an encyclopedia, not a book-length treatment of Edward's reign. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's helpful, that seems to give guidance that minority views should be given some (but not equal) weight if they exist and are significant ("'Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject"). So would it be helpful if I set out what has been said about these questions by historians looking at the relevance and impact of Edward's Jewish policies in broad terms and by whom, and their explanations for these points not being discussed by their colleagues working on Edward I in other contexts, in order to assess what kind of weight that might be given? Jim Killock (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In order to hopefully constructively explain what this gap is, I've added a Historiography section to the (separate) dedicated page on the History of the Jews in England (1066–1290), explaining the long standing neglect of Jewish issues in most mainstream medieval accounts of the period. I've referenced three or four major luminaries of Jewish History complaining about this gap between the work in their field and how it is frequently ignored in mainstream works detailing the period. I've also provided references where this group of historians asserts the importance of these issues, both from a contemporaneous ("vital to an understanding of the political and social history of the region") and modern perspective ("it often seems that the treatment of their Jewish minorities by Edward I, Philip the Fair, and los reyes catolicos, much as those monarchs would have been disconcerted by the thought, is more 'relevant' to our own problems than any other feature of their respective reigns" or: "To explain what Hitler had done, scholars found they had to rewrite sections of earlier history").

It's also worth noting that Prestwich biography of Edward I, which is the main source quoted in this article, comes under particular criticism for his neglect of these issues by Richmond:

even the expulsion itself is fleetingly dealt with in Michael Prestwich's Edward the First, published in 1988. In a text of 567 pages the Jews get less than three. It is also evident that, however pressing were the financial circumstances, it was Edward's 'sincere religious bigotry' which impelled him to expel the Jews in 1290. Despite this, in a paper by Professor Prestwich entitled 'The Piety of Edward I', there is no mention of the Expulsion. One's suspicions that these omissions are more than simple negligence are deepened by some of the little Professor Prestwich has to say on Jewish topics in Edward the First. He writes, for example, that (and the italics are mine) 'there were stories of ritual child-murder and torture, which, although they now appear groundless on the basis of the recorded evidence, were generally believed' , and that 'the expulsion itself went surprisingly smoothly, and was not the occasion for massacres, as it might well have been'. (Colin Richmond (1992). "Englishness and Medieval Anglo-Jewry". In Kushner, Tony (ed.). The Jewish Heritage in British History. Frank Cass. pp. 42–59. ISBN 0-7146-3464-6.)

I'll probably keep working up the page on English medieval Jewish history (and the Edict of Expulsion page) so the general points are there to draw on later, but I'm hoping this is enough to open a conversation about what might be missing in this otherwise very erudite article. Jim Killock (talk) 13:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As others have commented, this is the general article on Edward, covering his entire reign, and too much detail on one issue may be undue. One option would be to do a new article, covering the expulsion of the Jews by Edward as a specific issue, which then could be linked to the main bio article. That would allow for a more detailed explanation both of the history and the historiography of the issue. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that a huge amount of material needs to be added, but some key points are missing.

For instance:

• "in 1279, in the context of a crack-down on coin-clippers, he arrested all the heads of Jewish households in England and had around 300 of them executed" The research shows this was a blatant and organised fit up, probably to generate income from property seizures from the dead; (a somewhat larger number of Christians were arrested 1270-90 but only 30 were hanged). This doesn't fully come across currently, nor that this was one of the biggest massacres of Jews in England, the only one organised by the state; and represents over 10% of the Jewish population (a literal decimation).
• It is widely held that anti-Semitism was running at a fever pitch during Edward's reign, not least because it was deliberately heightened by his policies. This is absent. See for instance the multiple intricate anti-Semitic artworks of the period, the rood screen at Loddon, Norfolk#Holy Trinity Church or the Cloisters Cross, for example (Stacey 2001, p 165) unparalleled at this point in Europe.
• "Their loan-with-interest business – a practice forbidden to Christians – had made many people indebted to them and caused general popular resentment." This is really misleading. Yes there was widespread resentment; but it worked like this: Edward overtaxes the Jews - the Jews are forced to foreclose the debts - this puts Knights of the shires lands up for grabs - Eleanor and Edward and their very rich mates buy all their land cheap - now everyone is angry. I bold this because this process is central to the creation of anti-Semitism in the landed Parliamentary classes and of course feeds into the church's narrative about usury and the dangers of the Jews. Eleanor's role in this was well recognised and commented on at the time ("The king would like to get our gold, the queen, our manors fair, to hold ..." ) There is a bit of this outlined at Eleanor of Castile; but it is better explained here regarding a slightly earlier period. See Hillaby and Hillaby 2013, pp 360-365. Or see Stacey 2001.
• The sentence: "The expulsion, which was reversed in the 1650s, followed a precedent set by other European rulers, including Philip II of France, John I, Duke of Brittany and Louis IX of France" doesn't reflect the balance of views I have read which see the permanent expulsion as unprecedented - all of the prior expulsions turned out to be temporary, lasting a few years or couple of decades.
• This not only generated revenues through royal appropriation of Jewish loans and property, but it also gave Edward the political capital to negotiate a substantial lay subsidy in the 1290 Parliament. This isn't completely true; he didn't ever collect but a fraction the loans and he gave away a lot of the property, including a synagogue gifted to Queen Eleanor's tailor. The lay subsidy at £110,000 however is the largest ever recorded in the middle ages, which points to the political importance of the expulsion, from the point of view of the landed classes (and to their heightened anti-Semitism, no doubt, at this point). Those looking at it closely (Stacey) are pretty sure this was a tit for tat bargain, rather than "spending political capital". But there are also plnty of signs of pre-meditation, such as Edward's expulsion of the Jews from Gascony in 1287 (not mentioned here) and then his friend Charles II of Naples does the same bargain in 1289 in Main and Anjou - taking a general taxation in return for the expulsion of the Jews. (See Huscroft 2006 for this copycat activity; see Stacey for the Parliamentary stuff (Stacey, Robert C. (1997). "Parliamentary Negotiation and the Expulsion of the Jews from England". In Prestwich, Michael; Britnell, Richard H.; Frame, Robin (eds.). Thirteenth Century England: Proceedings of the Durham Conference, 1995. Vol. 6. Woodbridge: Boydell Press. pp. 77–102. ISBN 978-0-85115-674-3.)
• There is nothing relating to his policies after 1290. Edward I spent a deal of effort bolstering his reputation and claiming credit for the expulsion. The obvious example is his sponsorship of the cult of Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln, where he renovates his shrine in the same style as the Eleanor crosses, includes memorialisation of Eleanor of Castile and puts the Royal crest on it ("A more explicit identification of the crown with the ritual crucifixion charge can hardly be imagined."). Less obvious is his promotion of the canonization of his friend and advisor Thomas de Cantilupe, on the basis that (along other things) Cantilupe had demanded the expulsion of the Jews. Overall, it is believed that to contemporaries, his great "successes" were Scotland, Wales, and the Jewish expulsion. See Stacey, Robert (2001). "Anti-Semitism and the Medieval English State". In Maddicott, J. R.; Pallister, D. M. (eds.). The Medieval State: Essays Presented to James Campbell. London: The Hambledon Press. pp. 163–77.
• As Stacey 2001 makes clear, Edward's relations with Parliament are dominated by the question of restrictions on Jews and loans. They only vote money as he agrees restrictions. Surrounding that is the question of courtiers and Eleanor buying up lands / bonds / debts.
• The analysis of his reputation in the article says that modern analysts often "denounce the King for his policies against the Jewish community in England"; which is correct, but begs the question, in what way? Without a bit of context, eg, that he is widely held to have operated a policy of state anti-Semitism, or to have been a "sincere religious bigot" this isn't at all clear.
• The impact of the precedents of his policies abroad is missed. Both in terms of Spain copying in the permanent expulsion model, the copying of state forced conversions (another first) and exporting of much more intense forms of anti-Semitism which had bred in the English crucible
• There is nothing to reflect the impact on English identity of the expulsion, which is widely held to have baked in a level of anti-semitism demonstrable in English literature from the 1300s to the 1600s, and an idea that Englishness was unique because there were no Jews in England. This is Edward's legacy and is surely a culturally significant fact.

AIUI @Ealdgyth's point about WP:UNDUE, the vast consensus from historians of medieval Anglo-Jewish history would allow for this to be added ("Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject"). Jim Killock (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meantime, while the above items still need looking at, I've taken Edict of Expulsion through a GA review so that we have a longer version of Edward's actions and the consequences of them to compare with.

I've also edited and sourced the material for his wife Eleanor of Castile. This explains a lot of the political anti-semitism.

I've also added details of the anti-Semitism in the church, to the articles for Bishops Robert Grosseteste, Saint Thomas de Cantilupe, Richard Swinefield and John Peckham. I've expanded the details around St Thomas de Cantilupe's cult and the anti-Semitic imagery found on the Hereford Mappa Mundi, and the link to Edward's promotion of the Little Saint Hugh Blood iibel including through the series of monuments known as the Eleanor crosses. These are useful background for understanding quite how deep the anti-Semitic feeling was among England's political and religious leaders, and landed classes, and Edward's clear association with it.

I don't wish to be a disruptive editor on this page, so what I would propose is that I make some minor corrections as outlined above, for instance regarding loans and unpopularity, and whether the expulsion was precendented or not.

Where more detail is needed, I propose I first add the information as efn footnotes. Then the editors can think about what information ought to be presented in the main text. Jim Killock (talk) 10:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and edited the sections, making the corrections noted, and adding a couple of important points, such as what happened to those expelled; and Edward's sponsorship of a blood libel cult as part of his post expulsion propaganda. Overall, this has increased the section from 163 to 387 words. I have added a further 143 words at the Legacy section to reflect the opinions of Edward from researchers looking at Anglo-Jewish history, and of English antisemitism in the following centuries.

In comparison, the Henry III of England article, which is also a FA, has 600 words on his Jewish policies in a devoted section, with plenty of further mentions in the sections on the Baron's War and relations with Parliament. (It is perhaps missing some information in the assessment section.)

Given that Edward's impact on the history of English and European antisemitism is arguably greater than that of Henry III, and that these topics are clearly important from a modern perspective, and that there is a very active academic field studying it, I feel these changes are quite proportionate.

Apologies however for editing quickly and directly, if this has caused anyone any issues or worries. Jim Killock (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a PS, I did a quick check on what sub-pages are getting traffic, linked from this article. Edict of Expulsion and Eleanor of Castile are at the top, wih about 10% of the traffic each, as a rough guide as to what people may be looking for on this page. I know that isn't the same as following the sources regarding the content. Jim Killock (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image of "Eleanor and Edward"

As noted on Eleanor of Castile, the statue featured at File:Edward I of England and Eleanor of Castile, Lincoln Cathedral.jpg was missing its heads and renovated in the nineteenth century. It would seem that it is not at all certain that it was originally meant to be of Eleanor and Edward, I've found references to the restoration and its controversy, but nothing to say that when it was remodelled, the intention was to depict Eleanor and Edward (which everyone seems to accept!). If kept, it should probably explain that the heads are nineteenth century conjectures made on the assumption that the statues were intended to be of the pair. Jim Killock (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other things that are missing from this article

Hi there, having spent some time reading this article thoroughly now, I think there are some fairly important omissions from it. Most would not require major fixes, but given this has a FA status I do think they need addressing. (There may be other issues, but these are the ones I am able to spot.) Most importantly:

• Legacy section: While Scottish historians' views of Edward are discussed, Welsh ones are not. Edward is typically seen by Welsh medievalists as a coloniser, someone who did immense damage to Welsh society, culture and self-confidence, which produced a lasting anger. Something of this needs capturing. He has also been said to have been prejudiced against Britons (eg, the Welsh speakers of Wales and Scotland). The sentence included from Marc Morris doesn't touch on these points; even if domination is considered inevitable, that wouldn't preclude an assessment of Edward's methods or resulting reputation.
• Ireland: Ireland is not covered in the article at all, except to mention he governed it and it provided him income. Irish historians will have something to say on him, even if he governed at a distance. Did he represent continuity or change in the process of England's colonisation of Ireland? Their assessment may need a mention in Legacy also.

These may be less urgent but would round out the article:

• Religious views: I'm not sure this fully captures the nature of his devotion. It covers his piety as actions, rather than as a belief system. There is commentary about his and Eleanor's piety giving them a sense that they were doing God's work, which makes sense as Crusaders, and explains better his sense of certainty while doing morally reprehensible things.
• Relations with Eleanor: particularly, the support of and the psychological impact of the loss of Eleanor and some of his key advisors around 1290 is often held to have impacted the latter part of his reign. This doesn't seem to be discussed. Likewise, he encouraged her to accumulate land wealth to reduce the call on his own funds, which was an important change for future queens but impacted a lot on domestic relations with the landed classes who were being dispossessed; it limited what he could do with taxation and was a driver in his policies towards the Jews. I've touched on this but it could do with discussion earlier.

Overall, I think several of these topics (and the related omissions on his Jewish policies) shows the danger of relying largely on historical biographies to construct a rounded picture of the subject. Other groups of historians have important views also, and are likely to express these in their own literatures, while biographies of English Kings will be written primarily from an English perspective focused on questions of English good governance and creating the foundations of the English nation. There's a temptation for the authors to hero worship, and to avoid or downplay difficult topics. For Wikipedia to reach a rounded and representative view as seen by all reliable sources, it is necessary to look for these other perspectives in their own literatures. Jim Killock (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding next steps:

• There are some good sources for Edward I and Wales, the period being a major topic of scholarship unsurprisingly. I have a 1988 textbook "Edward I and Wales" which covers many of the points. There is also in the references "The Age of Conquest: Wales 1063-1415" by RR Davies from 2001, and of course "Hanes Cymru" also in translation (A History of Wales). I note these were not found or considered in the FAC review although the question was brought up.
• Similarly there are some good texts regarding Ireland and Edward I, although I am not familiar with this period of Irish history at all. The first place to look appears to be "A new history of Ireland Volume II 1169-1534", which contains a dedicated chapter on Edward's Lordship, "The years of Crisis, 1254-1315" and a further chapter on the wars that were provoked in the period "A Land of War", both by James Lydon. There is by Robin Frame, "Ireland and Britain 1170 to 1450", and other works that may be of relevance. The themes from Lydon appear to be: the early takeover by Edward and some squabbling with his father; Edward treating Ireland as a revenue source and little else; corruption and incompetence in the administrators Edward appointed and repeatedly sacked; over-taxation to meet his war demands; speculation over food exports during the Welsh and Gascon wars; problems emerging from the Edwardian weak administration including a revival of the fortunes of the Gaelic areas' leadership, leading to regular wars in the period and following centuries. So not a very pretty record, and one that has parallels in Wales in terms of the methods of government.

I can probably do the section on Wales without too much risk of serious error, but it's harder for me to approach the Irish history texts without some help and review. It seems to me that it may be sensible to take the article back through a FA Review, especially as there doesn't seem to be much interest here in making further changes, and I understand that @Unlimitedlead is in semi-retirement. External review would also mean that any changes I suggest or make regarding Wales or the prior changes regarding Anglo-Jewish history and anti-semitism got some oversight; likewise anything done on religious views etc. Jim Killock (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We already have the article Conquest of Wales by Edward I. Why would we need a dedicated section here? Dimadick (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the lack of clarity.[1] I mean, the missing observations regarding Edward's legacy in Wales as is missing at the section Edward I of England#Legacy. See above, (The sentence included from Marc Morris doesn't touch on these points; even if domination is considered inevitable, that wouldn't preclude an assessment of Edward's methods or resulting reputation.) and also at FAC review ("Do we have information about Welsh historians' view of Edward?"; "As far as I am aware, there are no authoritative works on Edward I written from a Welsh perspective") which as I hope you can see, is not the case.

[1] NB: there is a section Edward I of England#Conquest of Wales.

Jim Killock (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a short review of reviews of Edward I at Michael Prestwich#Biography of Edward I. Fairly similar criticisms could be made of this article, which I think was largely based on it, looking at the citations. While the reviews are complementary about his scholarship, they frequently observe an imbalance of subject matter. Other than the aspects listed above, these include:

• Over-sympathetic treatment of his decisions, underplaying his mistakes and excusing his inconsistency and promise-breaking
• Lack of attention to Edward's impact on Wales and Scotland (not just legacy judgements, but actions and results)
• Inattention to the military tactics used
• Lack of attention to social and religious aspects
• Not consulting French language sources regarding Edward and Gascony

The reviews also raise an interesting question about the moral standards by which to judge Edward. On the one hand, he did what he felt he needed to do to be a strong and successful leader; on the other, his contemporaries knew and understood concepts like mercy, forgiveness and cruelty. This could be discussed in the legacy section.

These should be added to the things to look at during an FA review. Jim Killock (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FA review

Hi all, as mentioned above, I've put the page in for FA review so we can take another look at Welsh and Irish scholarship on Edward I, and perhaps review what is there about Scotland, Eleanor and a few other matters. I hope to put some work into this myself but especially given the lack of response or active editors here feel that I need some guidance making edits in these areas, some of which are less familiar to me. Jim Killock (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added possible material from Welsh scholarship to the review for checking, if anyone wants to take a look. Jim Killock (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The opening of his tomb by the Arch. Society should be fleshed out somewhat - a couple of lines about the reasoning for this would be helpful. 2603:6080:21F0:6000:6125:E89E:5017:DD82 (talk) 07:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found anything about this in modern sources yet, but I have linked to the original document which does explain their thinking. It's out of copyright so could be added to Wikisource if desired. Jim Killock (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gascon War

I added some additional background on the war. Further cites are available via link if the ones already provided on Edward don't go into enough detail (most are from Morris & Google's blocked access) but the improved links—Adolf, King of the Germans, instead of unlinked king of Germans or Guy, Count of Flanders, instead of a link to the landing page for Counts of Flanders—should be kept in any case.

Moreover, the expense of the war is mentioned but not the mess that happened because of it. Edward and Philip both provoked the church by levying additional taxes on its lands; Philip's feud led directly to Clericis Laicos, Unam Sanctam, and the Avignon Papacy and the aftermath is what led to Philip going after his kingdom's Jews and the Templars. Edward's troubles with Winchelsey are mentioned but several paragraphs down. It'd be better if there were a linked bit in the article connecting down to it and if there was more context for the bulls: Clericos Laicos was primarily in reference to Philip (or Philip & Edward together) and Etsi de Statu was entirely in response to Philip's embargo on precious metals & stones leaving France at the same time a Colonna uprising was pushing on Papal finances and not anything Edward was doing to his local clergy. — LlywelynII 05:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @LlywelynII I will add this to the list of issues at the current Featured article review. It would be great if you could point to some sources or suggest what needs to be added, at that review page. Jim Killock (talk) 09:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JimKillock: Nice to hear. I got pulled into a tangent creating an article for a source that got mentioned but am trying to improve the Gascon War stuff there. Hopefully will have as good a set of sources as are available without academic access to Brill & co. and'll try to remember to bring over some here. It's already so good though, I kinda wanna let you guys do it instead of getting into an edit war over small stuff: The connection downward (eg) could just be a short note and #hashtag link but maybe some of the local editors dislike 'em. Etc. — LlywelynII 04:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LlywelynII FA Review is helpful for avoiding edit conflicts as we're passing the changes through a review and discussing them before applying them. Brill is on WP library's list, anything sourced through WPL should be fine. I'm fine working from sources you suggest if you don't want to make your suggestions there, but I think you could otherwise check or suggest what is missing as it would be new to me; I've also quite a lot else to work through, Edward and Ireland / Scotland are in a similar position of needing a review; the "British Isles" historiographical perspective is also on the list. Jim Killock (talk) 07:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding FA Review

Quick note to say I've done what I believe is needed to finish the FA Review (there are other improvements that could be made but can be done more leisurely). I've also requested feedback, please respond if you have time or thoughts. Jim Killock (talk) 09:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]