Wikipedia:Featured article review/Edward I of England/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Edward I of England

Edward I of England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As of 2 July 2024, 11:02 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. A FAR coordinator will advance or close this nomination when consensus is reached.
Toolbox
Notified:
Military history WikiProject English Royalty diff for talk page notification

I am nominating this featured article for review because, during the FA process the article went through, three large areas of historical research were omitted. Thus currently it does not meet the criteria that the article needs to be:

  • 1.b comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context and
  • 1.c well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature

I have since addressed one of those, but had no feedback. I intend to address the other two but would like to ensure my work is reviewed as I do so.

The areas that were not addressed during the FAC process were

  1. Anglo-Jewish historical research: Edward's actions are a large subject of discussion in this literature, which contends that he has particular significance for the history of antisemitism and for English identity, which incorporated an antisemitic element as a result of the expulsion. (These topics were notably missed in Prestwich.) These issues have now been addressed to a minimum level by myself but need a check for FA standards.
  2. Welsh history: Edward I is of particular significance to Welsh history. 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. These items need expanding in the "Legacy" section at least. The literature on Edward I from a Welsh perspective was unfortunately contended not to exist during FA review.
  3. Irish history: The literature on Ireland was not consulted; Ireland is not covered in the article at all, except to mention Edward governed it and it provided him income. Themes include 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. Thus although an absentee landlord, current Irish historical research sees him as signficant for the difficulties of Ireland that continued in the centuries following.

Additionally, a check should be made regarding Scottish sources and perspectives.

These areas should also be looked at:

  • Religious views: the article may not fully capture the nature of Edward's 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 Edward's key advisors around 1290 is often held to have impacted the latter part of his reign. This doesn't seem to be discussed. Also, Edward encouraged Eleanor 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. This is now touched on this but it could do with discussion earlier.

The reasons for several of these areas being missed appear to include an over-reliance on Michael Prestwich's biography. It received significant academic criticism for missing several of these areas, and being overly concerned with war administration and finance; which I have noted on his Wikipedia page.

Key texts that need consulting include:

  • For Wales, "The Age of Conquest: Wales 1063-1415" by RR Davies from 2001, and A History of Wales by John Davies.
  • For Ireland, "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

As mentioned, I would not like to see this article demoted and I am willing to do the work on Wales and Ireland particularly, and anything further on Anglo-Jewish matters. There is a question on structure for that section also. A point may emerge around article length and there may need to be cuts to meet FA criteria. This I would certainly need help with.

If it is better that I simply work on these areas, complete that and bring the article back to FAR afterwards I can do that. But I haven't got much feedback on the page and feel reluctant to do more work without a little guidance.

Jim Killock (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by KJP1

My view is that a FAR, a year after the article's promotion, is not needed. If I can try and summarise, you think there are three areas where something/more needs to be said;

  • Edward and the Jews;
  • Edward and Wales;
  • Edward and Ireland;

and two areas that may need a bit more coverage:

  • Edward's religiosity;
  • Edward and Eleanor.

My suggestion would be that you write brief, sourced, paragraphs on each of these, covering the additional points you think need to be made, and place them on the article Talkpage. Then, see what other involved/interested editors think. I stress brief for two reasons - firstly, your comments to date are rather long and this may discourage editors from engaging with them; secondly, there are always challenges around what to include, and not include, in an FA. Edward reigned for 35 years and packed a lot in, as well as being quite busy before his accession. Therefore, you're never going to be able to cover everything. Indeed, we already have spin-offs, e.g. Conquest of Wales by Edward I, Edict of Expulsion etc. and it may well be that further spin-offs, Edward and the Jews / Edward in Ireland etc. could be an answer. KJP1 (talk) 08:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with that but I'd note the main reason for non-engagement AFAICT is probably that the main editor is in semi-retirement and no longer working on the page. There will be existing pages for all these topics, but for an FA standard, the page has to reasonably represent all the relevant literatures, AIUI, ie, other parts might need trimming, if it came to a question of overall length. As now the article arguably violates NPOV, through omission of some of the more uncomfortable aspects of his reign.Jim Killock (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that the OP has found sufficient deficiencies in the article to justify a trip to FAR. Per
    policy, if they attempted any major changes they could be reverted, while the talk page is quiet enough to suggest it would be an unprofitable exercise.
    In the meantime they have built a solid case. They have identified fundamental omissions which don't only breach WP:FA? but Wikipedia policy and pillar also.
    More broadly, it highlights the problem with a lack of expertise at FAC. There may not be always much we can do about that, but we must accept the consequences of it all the same. While the review of this article received an at first glance thorough examination, with the exception of a couple, most of the reviews were for prose and spelling and the source review lightweight. The latter, at least, could have e highlighted gaps in the scholarship.
    Still, it's not too late. I'm sure we're all grateful to JimKillock for highlighting these issues and for expressing willingness to step up to the mark and address them. Cheers! ——Serial 12:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Either way, FAR or Talkpage, it would be immensely helpful if JimK could provide suggested paragraphs for inclusion, which would look to address the said omissions. I think that would greatly assist other editors in assessing the issues, and how they might be addressed in the article, having regard to weight, length etc. KJP1 (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will crack on with this for sure. It may take me a few days to find time to start; altogether I would think probably 3-4 weeks are needed for me to find spare time to look at all the things I've mentioned. The Wales paras are the easiest for me. Jim Killock (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No hurry and no problem! Edward I is not my period, but I do have some experience of compressing prose into tight, FA, pargraphs. If I can help at all in terms of reviewing the prose, I'd be delighted. Serial is your man for reviewing the content. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both of you for the kind words and offers of (potential!) help. Jim Killock (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KJP1@Serial Number 54129Ping in case you are able to help: I've linked to the work I have already done for checking re Anglo-Jewish policies, and drafted the changes regarding Wales from Welsh sources below. Jim Killock (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JimKillock - Not forgotten this, just busy irl this week. Will take a look at the weekend. KJP1 (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward's Jewish policies: text check

Moved to talk page to simplify feedback

Wales I: Edward I of England#Conquest of Wales

Moved to talk page as mostly resolved

Wales II: Edward I of England#Legacy

Moved to talk page

Ireland

Next steps

I will try to write up the section on Ireland next, once I have Davies 1998 British Isles book. I have access to the two volumes on Ireland, Frame 1998 and Lydon 2008a mentioned. --Jim Killock (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from KJP1

With apologies for the delay in getting to this, a few comments. A caveat to start, Edwardian history is definitely not my period, and thus what I'm not able to judge is the weight that would be appropriate to give to the differing views on the Jewish and Welsh (and subsequently Irish) issues. That said:

  • In general, the suggested additions to the Jewish/Welsh issues seem quite reasonable.
  • In relation to the Jewish issue, we now have two, well-sourced, paragraphs, featuring a range of views. These seem reasonable. I'm not myself quite clear on the connection that is being drawn between the tomb of Little St Hugh and the Eleanor Crosses. The text says "is likely to have been an attempt by Edward"; it seems to be suggesting more than just a stylistic similarity, but some form of connected political aim. Is it possible to make it clearer?
    • The background is that they were built in the same style by the same craftsmen working for the Royal household. This has led historians to pick up on a linked political purpose, as both are political objects. Since Eleanor had an "unsavoury" reputation regarding Jewish loans and land seizures, it is most likely that she was being associated with the cult of St Hugh, in order to "clean up" her reputation, as someone who venerated a Christian child supposedly ritually murdered by Jews. However, although the evidence is quite clear, it is also historians making educated calculations, not a matter of simple fact. At the same time, Edward's promotion of the cult is absolutely established and his purpose entirely clear. I'll take another look as the point re Eleanor is a difficult point to convey. --Jim Killock (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Checking, I had placed this information into an end note, regarding the link between the Eleanor crosses and the tomb design. I could edit the main body, to say something like "creating a visual association" or "probably to associate Eleanor's memory with the cult". --Jim Killock (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I can't judge is whether the emphasis given to this issue by historians would warrant it being a separate section. It would, of necessity, still be quite brief. That said, a 4.4. would not seem too problematic?
  • Wales - moving the coverage of the 1287/1294 rebellions further down seems reasonable, and creates a better chronology. The other changes don't seem controversial to me.
  • Legacy - losing the sentence on contemporary English views of the Welsh campaigns again doesn't seem controversial, it's not directly sourced. Where I would diverge from JimK is in ditching Morris and having only the views of Welsh historians, Davies/Davies. Include them, certainly, but not exclusively.
    • Just quickly on this: the current "Legacy" structure is "views on Edward, from an older English; modern English; Scottish; Welsh; Ango-Jewish perspective", rather than dealing with aspects of his reign.
    • I think more fruitful that pro contra on each aspect may be to bring the question of Edward and the English Crown as either an English or British phenomenon, and the associated power dynamics into focus, as this has been an area of active discussion (there's 3-4 histories written like this, not yet consulted, noted below). The question raised by Morris (was it justified) isn't really discussed in the literature (much?) AFAICT, it was just used as a proxy answer to "Do we have information about Welsh historians' view of Edward?" as a reviewer noted this was missing. --Jim Killock (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I would tweak the clause "R. R. Davies finds Edward to engage in the 'gratuitous belittling of his opponents', being 'one of the most consistent and unattractive features of his character as King'" to read something like "R. R. Davies considered Edward's repeated and 'gratuitous belittling of his opponents', to have been 'one of the most consistent and unattractive features of his character as king'".
  • Character - following on from the above, it would seem reasonable to reflect something of this in the "Character" section. It doesn't currently have anything on how he was/is seem from a Scottish/Welsh/Irish perspective, and that would be useful to have. But it would again need to be quite brief.

I hope that editors with much greater knowledge of Edward will be able to chip in, particularly on the issue of DUE which buidhe notes above. KJP1 (talk) 07:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for this @KJP1. I'll wait some further feedback before making edits. Jim Killock (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Nikkimaria; I have been busy with other things but want to do the Ireland section next. This won't be so much work as looking at Scotland, and the British context, both of which need me to do significant reading. I think I may as well transpose the edits re Wales at this point. Jim Killock (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Irish section drafted Jim Killock (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New sections on Ireland and EWSI perspectives

Fromer status, Ireland: Mentioned in passing as a source of revenue.
Sentences on Ireland added to "early life": Split control caused problems. Between 1254 and 1272, eleven different Justiciars were appointed to head the Irish government, encouraging further conflict and instability; corruption rose to very high levels.[1]
Section on Ireland, added to Law and administration: Edward’s primary interest in Ireland was as a source of resources, soldiers and funds for his wars, in Gascony, Wales, Scotland and Flanders. Royal interventions aimed at maximising economic extraction.[2] Corruption among Edward's officials was at a concerningly high level, and despite Edward’s efforts after 1272 to reform the Irish administration, record keeping was poor.[3]
Disturbances in Ireland increased during the period. The weakness and lack of direction given to the Lordship’s rule allowed factional fighting to grow, reinforced by the introduction of indentured military service by Irish magnates from around 1290.[4] The funnelling of revenue to Edward’s wars left Irish castles, bridges and roads in a state of disrepair, and alongside the withdrawal of troops to be used against Wales and Scotland and elsewhere, helped induce lawless behaviour. Resistance to 'purveyances', or forced purchase of supplies such as grain, added to lawlessness, and caused speculation and inflation in the price of basic goods.[5] Pardons were granted to lawbreakers for service for the King in England.[6] Revenues and removal of troops for Edward’s wars left the country unable to address its basic needs, while the administration was wholly focused on providing for Edward’s war demands;[7] troops looted and fought with townspeople when on the move.[8] Gaelic Ireland enjoyed a revival, due to the absence of English magnates and the weakness of the Lordship, assimilating some of the settlers.[9] Edward's government was hostile to the use of Gaelic law, which it condemned in 1277 as "displeasing to God and to reason".[10] Conflict was firmly entrenched by the time of the 1297 Irish Parliament, which attempted to create measures to counter disorder and the spread of Gaelic customs and law, while the results of the distress included many abandoned lands and villages.[11]
Legacy section on Scotland, Ireland and EWSI perspective
Former text, Scotland: G. W. S. Barrow, in his biography of Robert the Bruce, accused Edward of ruthlessly exploiting the leaderless state of Scotland to obtain a feudal superiority over the kingdom followed by his determination to reduce it to nothing more than an English possession.[12]
Applied replacement text: G. W. S. Barrow saw Edward as ruthlessly exploiting the leaderless state of Scotland to obtain feudal superiority over the kingdom and reduce it to an English possession.[13] In his view, Edward's insistence on war and misapprehension of Scottish capacity for resistance created a "bitter antagonism … which endured for centuries".[14]
Former text, Ireland: nothing mentioned
Applied additional text: (after Wales and Scotland, same paragraph) Irish historian James Lydon regarded the thirteenth century and Edward's reign as a turning point, as the Lordship extracted resources for his wars, failed to maintain peace, and allowed a resurgence in the fortunes of Gaelic Ireland, leading to prolongued conflict.[15]
Prior, EWSI perspective: nothing mentioned
Applied additional text: A number of historians, including Simon Schama, Norman Davies, and historians from Scotland, Wales and Ireland, have tried to assess Edward's reign in the context of the development of Britain and Ireland.[16] They emphasise the growing power of the law, centralised state and crown across Europe, and see Edward as asserting his rights within England and regarding the other nations of Britain and Ireland.[17] Centralisation tended to imply uniformity and increasing discrimination against peripheral identities and hostility to Irish and Welsh law.[18] While this group of historians do not see Edward as having conducted a planned policy of expansionism,[19] they often see the tactics and results of his policies as often having caused unnecessary division and conflict.[20]
Legacy section regarding Edward's assessment
Prior revision: See 09:04, 29 May 2024
Current version: See 07:12, 8 June 2024
Diff: See Legacy section diff
Additional changes to Legacy section regarding modern assessments: The section on modern assessments of Edward lacked depth and contained errors regarding the commentators views. This has been rewritten to reflect the positions of the historians mentioned, which do not uniformly regard Edward as "great" as previously drafted. Rather, all see him as highly significant, but differ in their assessment of his motivations, strategic sense and the nature of his impact as to whether generally or highly positive, or containing negative elements.
Character section on EWSI perspective
Previous: Nothing mentioned
Applied additional text: Edward is often noted as exhibiting vindictiveness towards his defeated enemies, and triumphalism in his actions.[21] Examples include the seizure of fragments of the Holy Cross from Wales after its defeat in 1283, and subsequently the Stone of Scoon and royal regalia from Scotland after defeats in 1296.[22] Some historians question Edward's good faith and trustworthiness in relation to his dealing with Wales and Scotland, believing him to have been capable of going back on his word or behaving duplicitously.[23]
Character section on religion
Previous: missing role of propaganda, crusader angle, personal certitude
Applied additional text: Edward's use of the church also extended to war mobilisation including disseminating official justifications for war, usually through the issue of writs to England's archbishops, who distributed his requests for services and prayers.[24] Edward's architectural programme also had an element of propaganda, sometimes combining this with religious messages of piety.[25]
Note: More to follow
Lead inclusion of additional perspectives
Previous: Did not include impacts on Ireland, negative evaluations of relations with Wales and Scotland, or antisemitic policies in general.
Applied additional text, lead para 2: In Ireland, he had extracted soldiers, supplies and money, leaving decay, lawlessness and a revival of the fortunes of his enemies in Gaelic territories.
Previous text re criticisms: At the same time, he is also often condemned for his wars against Scotland and for expelling the Jews from England in 1290.
Applied additional text re criticisms, end of lead: At the same time, he is also often condemned for vindictiveness, opportunism and untrustworthiness in his dealings with Wales and Scotland, coupled with a colonialist approach to their governance and to Ireland, and for antisemitic policies leading to the expulsion of the Jews from England in 1290.

Feedback requested

I've done most of what I hope to do now, I might tidy up some Scottish points later but for me the FAR changes are done. If @

Nev1, @Mike Christie --Jim Killock (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Jim Killock, could you move your notes and resolved commentary to the review talk page? This one's getting a bit hard to follow at this point, and that may be discouraging others from weighing in. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nikkimaria I've moved the notes and commentary I can move and linked to them. Hope that helps. Jim Killock (talk) 07:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Sources for convenience

Not yet consulted

  • Allen Brown, R.; Colvin, H. M.; Taylor, A. J. (1963). The Middle Ages. The History of the King's Works. Vol. I. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

not consulted in this round

Citations

  1. ^ Lydon 2008a, pp. 180–81, 193–4.
  2. ^ Lydon 2008a, p. 181.
  3. ^ Lydon 2008a, pp. 193–4.
  4. ^ Lydon 2008a, pp. 185–86.
  5. ^ Lydon 2008a, pp. 196–7, 202–3.
  6. ^ Lydon 2008a, pp. 202–3.
  7. ^ Lydon 2008a, p. 201.
  8. ^ Lydon 2008a, p. 203.
  9. ^ Lydon 2008b, pp. 271, 273.
  10. ^ Davies 1990, p. 115.
  11. ^ Lydon 2008b, pp. 272–3, Lydon 2008a, p. 203
  12. ^ Barrow 1965, p. 44.
  13. ^ Barrow 1965, p. 44.
  14. ^ Barrow 1983, p. 408.
  15. ^ Lydon 2008a, pp. 185–86, 203, Lydon 2008b, pp. 272–3
  16. ^ Schama 2000, pp. 168, 185, 203, Davies 1999, pp. 314, 325, Frame 1990, pp. 142–4 Barrow 1983, p. 306-9, 408-9, Davies 1990, pp. 22–30
  17. ^ Schama 2000, pp. 168, 185, 203, Davies 1999, pp. 314, 325, Frame 1990, pp. 142–4 Barrow 1983, p. 306-9, 408-9
  18. ^ Davies 1990, pp. 118–9, Frame 1998, p. 172
  19. ^ Frame 1990, p. 142-3, Schama 2000, pp. 185–6, Davies 1999, pp. 314–5
  20. ^ Davies 1990, pp. 62–3, Barrow 1983, p. 408, Frame 1998, p. 172
  21. ^ Frame 1990, p. 142-3
  22. ^ Davies 1990, p. 125-6
  23. ^ Barrow 1983, pp. 394–5, Davies 2000, pp. 346–7
  24. ^ Bachrach 2004, p. 396.
  25. ^ Stocker 1986, p. 115.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Edward_I_of_England/archive1&oldid=1232163169"