Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/St Scholastica Day riot/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 14 May 2025 [1].

St Scholastica Day riot

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not often a corked wine ends up with three days of rioting, ninety dead and a grudge between town and gown that still lingers, but that's what happened in Oxford in 1355 on the feast day of St Scholastica. Any and all constructive comments are, as always, most welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review. My absolute favourite Wikipedia article. Reads like a skirmish from the Hundred Years' War - which was ongoing at the time. More on this later.

  • No ISBN for Crossly and Elrington?
And should "Vol. 4, the City of Oxford" be 'Vol. 4, The City of Oxford'?
  • Cites 3 and 16 are inconsistent with cites 52 and 53 re case.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog: these sorted. I look forward to any more comments you may have. Looking at the first FAC, you were quick to put your name down then too! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the town was also made to pay the university a fine of one penny for each scholar killed." Inserting 'annual' or similar in that would make its meaning a little clearer. (I only know this because I queried last time.) In both the lead and the article.
    Done - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1349 the Black Death affected the town; there are no reliable figures for the deaths in the city." Which gives a reader no idea at all as to how bad it might have been. I can give you two solid modern sources estimating that it killed 45% of the population of England, and a very thorough and reputable 2004 source giving 62% +. Including something like this would at least give a reader some idea of the scale.
    Done - SchroCat (talk) 07:13, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fined the town's authorities 80 marks", "fined £200 in damages" etc. My way of putting this sort of thing in context is the footnote "To give a very rough idea of earning power, an English foot-soldier could expect to earn £1 in wages for, usually seasonal, military service in approximately three months." Let me know if you would like the source.
    I've connected it to agricultural workers instead, which should serve just as well. - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is as a result of the settlement following the riots." Try it without the "as".
    Done - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the practice was allowed to drop". Maybe "drop" → 'lapse'?
    Done - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest that in Background you mention that England was 18 years into the Hundred Years' War - Edward was to campaign in both France and Scotland within a year. His son was to fight the Battle of Poitiers and capture the French king the next year. By 1355 tens of thousands of Englishmen had served in the military and experienced battle. Eight years before he had led the largest English army to be deployed overseas prior to 1600. Thousands of these men were convicted felons serving in exchange for a pardon. Between the Black Death and the near constant warfare, with large numbers of battle-hardened and/or traumatised men moving between more-or-less civil and military activities it was a toxic societal background which I feel a little more could be made of.
    I've added something to the resolution section - explaining the speedy closure of the matter, given the other pressures on him. I've done some research to try and find anything that comes close to the 'toxic society' being a factor in the riots, but I've drawn a complete blank, unfortunately. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Gog. A few done and I'll be back in the morning with the rest. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All now addressed, hopefully satisfactorily. - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MS

[edit]
Image
  • All of them have alt text for their captions and the images in public domain have a US tag.
Lead
Background and Dispute
  • Could Royal charter be linked in this section as it is the first occurence (the Resolution section comes later)?
  • The article Excommunication has been linked twice in the same section.
  • Small "c" in "chancellor" in these sentences -
    • In 1349 scholars from Merton College rioted to have John Wylliot, their preferred candidate, elected Chancellor of the University;...
    • The following morning, in an attempt to stop any recurrence of the violence, the Chancellor issued a proclamation at the churches of St Martin and St Mary that no-one should bear arms, assault anyone or disturb the peace.
Resolution

A fine article overall. Minor suggestions above. MSincccc (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim

[edit]

Didn't take Gog long to gravitate to this article, I see. Drawn by the body count, no doubt, though it wasn't on the Crécy scale.

I dunno. 93 dead Englishmen is more than was reported at the time for either Crécy or Poitiers, two major battles with tens of thousands of combatants. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow, not much from me. I supported on the article's previous appearance here and I haven't found much to carp or quibble about now that it has reappeared.

  • "which stood on Carfax, in the centre of the town" – but as you tell us later it wasn't called Carfax at that time I think perhaps you need "the street now known as..." or some such here. And American "on" rather than English "in"?
  • "the resulting melee turned into a riot" – the OED and Chambers both give "mêlée" its circonflexe and aigu.
  • "63 members of the university" – this is a bit vague: did "members" include undergraduates, graduates, dons and support staff?
    Possibly. The sources don't specify, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The number of students killed in the riots is variously given as 63" – this looks a little odd to my eye. I'd have expected "variously given as" to be followed by more than one figure.
  • "the work is in Latin and many are held in the Bodleian" – the work is but many are? Not quite right, possibly.
  • "petitioned Thomas Wolsey about who held jurisdiction on various points" – might be helpful to explain in passing who Wolsey was.
  • "One unintended corollary of the growing power of the university was that the town's weakened authorities did not accommodate plays or theatre until the sixteenth century" – I struggle to understand why the civic authorities' weakness prevented plays and theatre until the sixteenth century. Did the University authorities object and put the kibosh on them?

That's all I can come up with, apart from quibbling with your preamble on this review page: whatever was wrong with the wine, it wasn't corked. Cork wasn't used as a stopper for wine bottles till the 17th century. But I digress. No apologies required, constant digression being the saving grace of senile reminiscence. – Tim riley talk 15:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim; all done. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. The article meets all the FA criteria, in my view. I find it chilling how cheap life was then in Oxford (but then anyone for Gaza in 2025?). 16:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Comments

[edit]
  • As a parent of a current Oxford University student, I feel drawn to this one, so will review it in due course. I'll also advise said student that if he is unhappy with the quality of beer in any establishment in which he drinks, maybe express it in a calmer manner...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PMC

[edit]

Signing on! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PMC; just the very gentlest of gentle nudges on this... - SchroCat (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many apologies, here we go.
Lead
  • "students' accommodation" suggest swapping to "student accommodations", purely to be neurotically consistent with the plural "university halls" (won't die on the hill of it)
    'student accommodation' or 'students' accommodation' would be much more common in BrEng (as is 'university halls'). We aim to confuse! - SchroCat (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise the lead looks pretty reasonable to me, although given Borsoka's concerns, I'll look again when I'm done the article
Background
  • "while there were lay students, those who attended were called clerks" I was confused about the connection here. After a little googling, I see that "clerk" is derived from "cleric", so presumably it was originally a religious title/position. That may not be obvious to most readers. Could we footnote?
    Certainly: now done. - SchroCat (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link tonsure?
    Linked - SchroCat (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having reached the "unpunished" statement which was so problematic to Borsoka, I have thoughts (see subsection below)
    • To the accusation of close paraphrasing: it is close to the source, but it's also the kind of simple statement of facts where there are not many other ways to write it without tying ourselves up in knots of elegant variation
    • I think the source is actually fairly clear that neither the university nor the legal system undertook to punish many of these acts
      • The context of the paragraph is coroner's inquests. Coroners are judges. Their inquests are legal proceedings. It's pretty clear that the law is involved here.
      • The author then states that many of these incidents "seem to have been countenanced by the University". okay, "to countenance" is to support or approve of something, so that covers the University not giving a shit that their students were doing riot-murders.
      • Then in a new sentence, the author writes that these "offences frequently went unpunished". We've already established that the University is countenancing these, so it makes no sense for the author to be referring again to University punishment. In the context of the fact that we started out talking about coroner's inquests, I think it's fairly clear that he's saying that the legal system also did not care that students were doing riot-murders.
      • In light of this, I think the original version, "unpunished by the university or the law", is more accurate to the text, and more clearly communicates to the reader that neither of the big power players here, the university or the legal system, cared to punish the students for being hoodlums
    • I do think it may be worth emphasizing that the students were claiming religious privileges to escape punishment, since I think that does make it somewhat more clear why they were being let off the hook
    The source only mentions the religious privileges in connection with the 1314 riot, so I've added it there. - SchroCat (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that the info about previous incidents of violence could be condensed a bit. There's quite a bit of detail about individual incidents that at this stage don't appear to have a direct bearing on the Scholastica riot, whereas a more general overview might be more effective. I reserve the right to reassess this comment after I'm done, I just don't want to forget to write it now.
  • I'm not entirely sure the paragraph about student on student riots is needed, since this is a student on townsfolk riot. Could be condensed?
    I've trimmed off the last part, but increased it with the benefit of clergy explanation - SchroCat (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute
Resolution & Aftermath
  • It's not entirely clear why the Bishop's response was to ban the townsfolk from religious services. Does the source go into greater detail about that?
    No details on why, unfortunately. My OR is that I think the church would always favour the university (it was seen as at least a quasi-ecclesiastical body), and an attack on the university and students would be considered an attack on the church, so the townsfolk needed to be punished - and putting their souls in jeopardy by refusing them access to services etc was certainly a punishment. - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the interdict was lifted by the Bishop of Lincoln" - do we know when?
    It seems to suggest it was at the time the royal charter was issued, but doesn't clearly says this, so I've gone with over a year later, which requires no reading between the lines. - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A series of poems, "Poems Relating to the Riot Between Town and Gown on St. Scholastica's Day", was written; the poems are written" it may not be plausible to write around, but the flow is a bit awkward with the repetition of poems 3x and written 2x
    Reworded a little. - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume the poems are anonymous, but we should say so
    They are similar to those of a named friar, so I've put in a possible connection to him. - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does Rigg cite the following verse as an example? If so, we should say as much, if only to introduce the verse a bit. Right now it's just there.
    OK. - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion of theatre is curious to me, mainly because it's not entirely clear from the text why it's such a big deal that the town didn't have these facilities. Would it be possible to briefly touch on the significance?
    There isn't anything about the significance, just that there weren't any plays being performed to speak of, unlike towns of a comparable size like York or Wakefield, where there was a thriving theatre culture. - SchroCat (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several previous mayors...were fined" do we know when these happened? Even the latest one, at least. I'd be interested to see how far the fines persisted
    Me too, but the reporting is as bald in detail as out reporting of it, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything I have, sorry again for the delay. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much PMC. I think I've covered everything, but please let me know if I've missed anything out. I haven't yet added back in the "by the university or the law" line, but will leave it pending until others have chipped in on the point. (And no need to apologise - I'm just delighted and grateful for your comments). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The changes look good to me, so I'm happy to support. Well done! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks PMC - I'm very grateful for your comments, which have been a great help. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Subsection for discussion of "unpunished"

I only comment here because you mentioned me above. My main concern is that the text "remained unpunished by the University" implies that the University had the legal capacity to punish its students for murders or other violent acts. Did it indeed have? Based on the background's section I rather understand that church courts/magistrates had the authority (but it is unclear, so should be clarified). For me, the text that the crimes "remained unpunished ... by the law" is ambiguous, implying that there was an act saying that Oxford students could not be punished for public violence. I doubt this was the case: they were unpunished because they had clerical status in contrast with the townpeople with whom they were fighting. Borsoka (talk) 04:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the university had the legal capacity to punish its students. Most organisations can and will punish an individual who has committed a crime: the individual can be given a fine by the police and be sacked from work or expelled from school or university. The university has a form of jurisdiction over their students (they did then, they do now). Neither the law nor the university punished these students. - SchroCat (talk) 04:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we are in the middle ages: if canon law said that clerics could only be punished by a church court, no one else had the authority to punish them. Borsoka (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Borsoka, I think SC is correct in his reply here. You may be overthinking the meaning of "punish" as being something done under the auspices of the legal system, but that isn't necessarily the case. Being expelled, for example, is a punishment for bad behavior, but it is decision made by the administration of the university, not the legal system. I am not sure I understand why you think the source is implying that there was an act saying that Oxford students could not be punished for public violence. There does not have to be an official act permitting whatever for the law to just not give a shit. Consider the thousands of rapists who go uncharged every year simply because there is no will to investigate, arrest, charge, and punish them. There is no law that decriminalises rape, but because nobody cares, they get away with it. So again here. For whatever reason - it looks like religious, primarily - neither the university nor the legal system really cared about students doing murder. (Consider also that this was in the year 1355, when society was considerably more violent and the law considerably less sophisticated than it is today.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my comment above about canon law. We are in the middle ages. (Actually, medieval law was much much more sophisticated than modern law, because people did not have the same status: clergy, noblemen, burghers, peasants, slaves, Jews were treated differently by legislation and many groups had their own courts of justies. For instance, clerics could not be sentenced to death and they were not imprisoned, but sent to a monastery by church courts.) Borsoka (talk) 05:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did read your comment. Did you read mine? You have responded to almost none of it. I think this discussion will be more constructive if we are discussing the text and not one another's commenting, so let's both agree to focus on that going forward.
I don't understand your confusion on the matter. Again, I think you are overthinking the definition of "punishment". If canon law prevented the legal system from inflicting criminal punishment on clerics, then that accounts for why they were not punished by the legal system. It does not prevent the University, as an organization, from inflicting its own administrative punishment on the students, such as expulsion or suspension. The reactions of the legal system and the law are different animals here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read. The article's text emphasised that the students were not punished by the university or by the law, although the cited source does not say this, and this silence is not by chance: only church courts had the authority to punish clerics for murders and violent acts in any way. You are both assuming that the university could have expelled or fined a cleric for murdering a layman, but this assumption is not verified by the cited sources. The cited source only says that the University protected its students. Could we write that the murderer remained unpunished by his wife if we could cite a relaible source saying that his wife protected the murderer? Borsoka (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And the university would have been able to take action of its own, if it so desired, but chose not to. They were punished neither by the university or the law.- SchroCat (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
although the cited source does not say this - this is where we disagree, because by my reading, it clearly does. this assumption is not verified by the cited sources - it is a reasonable inference from Musgrave's statement that the university "countenanced" the murders. If the University authorities were helpless in the eyes of the law, he would have said so, but he didn't. He chose to use the word "countenanced", as in, accepted, supported, or tolerated. Could we write that the murderer remained unpunished by his wife... The word "punishment" generally refers to a consequence imposed by an authority (parent, court, school, job, etc), so we probably wouldn't in a formal encyclopedia setting, because unlike the University over its students, a wife is not usually considered an authority over her husband (although husbands should be careful which wives they argue that to). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A new assumption: you are assuming that universities had any authority in cases of murders commited by clerics in the 13th and 14th centuries, although anybody who ignored the privileges of clerics and the jurisdiction of church courts risked serious sanctions, such as excommunication. However, I think we do not need to discuss this issue any more. The present wording ("there were no punishments given to the students") is fully in line with the cited source. I would add an example about possible reasons, but otherwise I do not challenge this text. Borsoka (talk) 06:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was fully in line with the sources before too. - SchroCat (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SC, and I repeat that I think the previous version is more informative and more accurate because it tells the reader who exactly was doing the not punishing. It might help if other users weigh in as well so a consensus can be developed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked closely I concur with PMC: SC's text accurately reflects the source and is more informative. Tim riley talk 12:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, the cited sourced should be reflected not editors' assumptions: "The university protected the students, and there were no punishment given to them.", or something similar. Borsoka (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're on (or possibly passed) the point of bludgeoning in this review, given this is the third section you are commenting in. As PMC has said, it would be best to hear from others, rather than constantly from you. Let them have their say without further bludgeoning and maybe a consensus will have a chance to develop. - SchroCat (talk) 10:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As other opinions have been solicited here’s mine.
The disagreement is over whether this:
"Many of these went unpunished by the university or the law."
Is accurately sourced to this:
"A large percentage of entries on the Oxford coroners’ rolls deal with riot-deaths. Indeed, of the twenty-nine coroners’ inquests held between 1297 and 1322, twelve were concerned with murders committed by scholars, many of which seem to have been countenanced by the University. Such offences frequently went unpunished."
I think it is because "countenanced" means at least tolerated if not approved of by the university, and "coroners’ inquests" covers the "law". It is not close paraphrasing as there are limitations on the ways of saying such straightforward facts. I prefer SC's original sentence: it is truer to the meaning of the source. Graham Beards (talk) 10:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am of the same view as Graham Beards, immediately above. Tim riley talk 11:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support (and two comments) from Graham Beards

[edit]
  • Can you live with this fused participle "with armed gangs coming in" ?
  • I had to read this twice, "the town burghers surrendered the rights of their respective entities to the King." I don't want to seem thick, but "entities"?

A lovely article, which is clearly of FA standard. Thanks. Graham Beards (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Graham. Both these tweaked - I hope satisfactorily. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Pbritti

[edit]

Adding my two cents. More to come. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • "On 10 February 1355—Saint Scholastica Day" Here, the saint's day is written differently than in the lead, where it is presented as "Saint Scholastica's Day" and the proper noun is linked completely. Per MOS, we should link the full proper noun in both places. While it's not consistent with the name of the article, "St Scholastica's Day" (with the abbreviation and possessive) is the correct form.
  • Not something I'd insist on, but the position of bailiff is not immediately obvious to those without at least a passing familiarity with medieval offices. Perhaps a two word description of the post? Certainly not mandatory.
  • "After the rioting ended both" My understanding is that there ought to be a comma between "ended" and "both".
  • The first two are done. The third isn't, as it's fine in BrEng not to have a comma after the introductory date or phrase. Many thanks for these and I'd be delighted if you have any more. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At least one previous mayor had refused to take part" This strikes me as a bit different in meaning from the statement "several of his predecessors", which seems to indicate at least two mayors tried and failed to end the ceremony.
  • On a similar note, I think we would benefit from clearly indicating that the penance was perceived as a humiliation by the city's government. Adding that to the start of the final paragraph in the Resolution section would also provide a more natural transition.
  • Although I think it probably was taken that way by the city, I don't think there's anything to actually say that. Cheetham, for example, calls it "this humiliating ceremony", but that doesn't actually say the city council found it humiliating (it could be percieved as Cheetham's personal view of the ceremony). - SchroCat (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merton College, Oxford appears to be linked twice in the body. They are separated by quite a bit of text, but I think this still constitutes overlinking.

Comment

[edit]
"Constructive" and Fowler are not natural companions; the less we see of him at FAC, the less trolling happens and the less dramah is stirred up. Either way, I care not one iota about his comments. The article—this article that stands now—is here for examination by reviewers, who seem to happy with it, so far. - SchroCat (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In essence SC is correct, if rather enthusiastic in the way they express it. Each FAC starts with a clean slate. Previous nominations are listed at the top of each nomination page and if any reviewer feels that any issues in them still apply they are free to bring them up again. In the case of previous opposes a coordinator will usually have at least skimmed them, and if they feel it necessary will bring them up again themselves.
"Constructive": usually the community self polices. Ultimately the coordinators decide what if any weight to give a comment. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Borsoka

[edit]
  • I think a very short introduction to the scholars' (and possibly the townspeople's) privileges is needed to better understand the context of the events. I would also add a general statement about the causes of frequent conflicts between townspeople and scholars.
  • I will go through the sources when I'm back, but much of this is not in any of the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • My main concern about the whole article is that the basic question "why?" remains unanswered several times. Why was the relationship between the university and the town/scholars and townfolk tense? Why were the scholars unpunished several times? I think chapter "Town and University" in Crossley (1979) contains relevant background information. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the first part of the fourteenth century the population was aware of the decline of Oxford's fortunes, and this coincided with disturbance and unrest between the town and university. I would delete it. First of all, there is no reference to the decline of Oxford's fortunes between 1301 and 1349.
  • On the occasions when peace settlements were imposed on the two sides, the outcome favoured the university. I would delete it because the statements raises the question "Why?", and subsequent sentences explain the whole issue in details.
  • Many of these went unpunished by the university or the law. Why? Were the acts sanctioned sometimes only by the university, sometimes only by the "law"? I do not understand the reference to "law" in context.
  • Not in the source. There was nothing "sanctioned" by either university or law, but we don't claim there was.
    I'm not sure what's confusing about saying someone wasn't punished by the law - can you clarify where the confusion lies? - SchroCat (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt that murders were not punished by law (whatever the term "law" means in context). Could you quote the text verifying this statement? Borsoka (talk)
  • My problem is that the sentence is not fully verified by the cited source, which says "Such offences frequently went unpunished", without any referenct to the university or "the law". The phrase is also closely paraphrased. After rephrasing it, I would also add an explanation, because the cited source states that in a specific case studens "claimed having claimed ‘privilege of the clergy’, fled to sanctuary - thereby incurring banishment - or escaped altogether".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Borsoka (talk • contribs) 16:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for deleting the unverified statement in an attempt to stop my silliness ([2]). You could save much time for both of us if you were more cooperative. For instance, if you had checked/quoted the cited source as I proposed above you could have fixed the problem without forcing me to add a tag in the article. Borsoka (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Your WP:POINTY actions and the untruths you have written are more than silly: they are disruptive. If you had waited before you added a childish oppose, then there may have been cooperation, but while I was travelling I had no chance to do anything too much, but despite me asking for a few days, you didn't bother and just opposed. That's a piss poor approach to take. Asking for me to give you a source when you had access to it and being pointy and adding tags is worse: there's no point in asking for cooperation if you're going to play stupid games to disrupt a review. - SchroCat (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think my actions are disruptive, you can take me to ANI. I added my childish oppose after it became clear that you are unwilling to address major issues that I raised. Believe me or not, I had no access to the cited source when I requested a quote. Now I am not surprised that you did not want to qote the text that did not verify your full text. I still want to help you to improve this article. For instance, you could address the issue I raised below. Borsoka (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "you are unwilling to address major issues that I raised": that's yet another bald-faced lie. Look at your comments and see how many have been addressed and corrected. You think that's me "unwilling to address major issues"? FFS: just because you think something doesn't mean I have to agree with it, and I've pushed back where I do not agree with a comment you have made. You can be as "surprised" as much as you want. I didn't even bother digging it out because you were not clear in your opening statements which particular parts you were not happy with or why: that only came much later when it became clear you already had the text: why piss about asking me for a copy when you already had it? You could have been constructive and said 'Looking at the source, it doesn't mention the university or the law when saying no-one sanctioned them'. You didn't: you played silly buggers and asked for a copy. It's no surprise cooperation is not forthcoming when disruption and stupid game playing is going on and when you turn around and make up fatuous lies that are so easily shown as such. - SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are really entertaining, so I invite you to my Talk page to share your negative thoughts about myself. However, could you address the issue below? This action might improve the article. Borsoka (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...there were no punishments given to the students. Why?
Not covered in the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I quote it again: the [students] "having claimed ‘privilege of the clergy’, fled to sanctuary - thereby incurring banishment - or escaped altogether" - an example from the same source. Borsoka (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) No, your text mentions coroner courts held between 1297 and 1322: "Violence continued to break out periodically and 12 of the 29 coroners' courts held between 1297 and 1322 concerned murders committed by students. Many of these went unpunished." (2) The cited source covers the same period, explaining one of the 12 cases that "went unpunished": "Indeed, of the twenty-nine coroners’ inquests held between 1297 and 1322, twelve were concerned with murders committed by scholars, many of which seem to have been countenanced by the University. Such offences frequently went unpunished. After a riot between Northernmen and Southern-men in 1314, of thirty-nine students known to have committed manslaughter, only seven were apprehended, the others having claimed ‘privilege of the clergy’, fled to sanctuary - thereby incurring banishment - or escaped altogether." Borsoka (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same problem still applies. The privilege of the clergy only affects some of those from the 1314 riot. I’m not going to apply that to everyone between 1297 and 1322. As a reminder, this article is about the St Scholastica day riot, not generally about violence in medieval Oxford, so readers don’t need to know every detail of everything that preceded it. At the moment we are briefly covering the background to give some context: it is a poor step to bloat the background too much with extraneous detail. - SchroCat (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the cited source only mentions the 1314 riot from the period. If the cited source's author thinks that this is relevant in the context, this could also be mentioned in the article to give an example why the students were not punished. Especially, because we know that most students were clerics. Borsoka (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’Could’, but I don’t intend to. We’re too far away from the riot and moving in the wrong direction with this. This is not an article about all medieval violence in Oxford. I’ll pass on this suggestion. - SchroCat (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So do you want to delete all references to previous riots? Or do you only want to emphasise that the rioters went often unpunished without mentioning the possible reasons? In the second case, why? Borsoka (talk) 03:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve already explained and I don’t intend to repeat myself. You’ve left your oppose, and that’s fine, but I’m not going to waste my time dealing with things I’ve already dealt with. - SchroCat (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the antiquarian Anthony Wood, among others,... I would delete "among others".
  • There were reports that some of the clerics were scalped... By whom? (I assume they were scholars and were scalped by the townsfolk, but I am not sure.)
  • The charter... I would specify that this is King Edward's charter.
Done. - SchroCat (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The situation was exacerbated by a lack of a cathedral in the town, which meant no religious plays were performed for pilgrims. I would delete it, for it is not connected to the riot.
  • One unintended corollary of the growing power of the university was that the town's weakened authorities did not accommodate plays or theatre until the sixteenth century, largely because the small and weak guilds were not able to produce them. The situation was exacerbated by a lack of a cathedral in the town, which meant no religious plays were performed for pilgrims. I would delete both sentences because the cited source does mention the riot, but does not make direct connection between it and the lack of theatres in Oxford. That Oxford had no cathedrals and the guilds ceased to exist by the second half of the 13th century had no connection with the riot (at least according to the cited source). "Oxford was not a cathedral town and therefore not a religious center where pilgrims would congregate and the performing of plays could serve a religious need. ... <<By the second half of the thirteenth century, many of the trade guilds...had ceased to exist;>> ... The first overt clash recorded between Oxford and the new University took place in 1209, and the violent climax of terror was reached in the famous St. Scholastica's Day riot in 1355. The throne consistently supported the University in this conflict by granting it more and more authority...so that by the beginning of the sixteenth century the town of Oxford was practically governed by the University. Thus, it does not appear strange that the town did not nurture any plays;..." Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does not make the connection between the lack of cathedrals, the decline of guilds and the riot. It does make a connection between the riot and the lack of theatres in Oxford. We reflect the source. There is no Synth: that’s a false claim. - SchroCat (talk) 05:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is not a false claim. Do you say, if I found a source stating that it was raining on St Scholastica Day in 1355, I could expand the article about information of average number of rainy days in Oxford between the 13th and 16th centuries? The source does make a connection between the lack of theatres and the growing power of the university as a consequence of a series of riots in Oxford, but not between the lack of theaters and St Scholastica Day riot, furthermore there is absolutely no connection between the lack of cathedrals and the riot in the cited source. Borsoka (talk) 05:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now you're using logical fallacy to twist the point. I shall add information about the lack of cathedral, which should put this silliness to bed: the source makes a connection between the riots and a lack of theatres/plays: we need to do the same to be honest to the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 07:12, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we can agree that we do not agree on this point. I say that a source that only tangentially mentions the riot as a background to the lack of theatres in Oxford cannot verify the two statements. Borsoka (talk) 07:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the practice was allowed to lapse By whom and why?
  • Not given in the source. Common sense would suggest that the university didn't kick up a fuss, given it was all a bit silly after so long, and obviously a possible cause of friction, but that's my OR that isn't covered by either source used, nor any of the others I've looked at. - SchroCat (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Lead): ...on 10 February 1355, St Scholastica's Day I would rephrase to avoid two mention the same term twice: "on 10 February 1355, the feast day of St Scholastica".
Done - SchroCat (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Lead): ..., which stood at the crossroads now known as Carfax,... I would delete this.
  • (Lead): ...reports of clerics... I would clarify that these were scholars (if indeed this is the case).
  • (Lead): Violent disagreements between townspeople and students had arisen several times previously, and twelve of the twenty-nine coroners' courts held in Oxford between 1297 and 1322 concerned murders by students. The University of Cambridge was established in 1209 by scholars who left Oxford following the lynching of two students by the town's citizens. I would delete it. I feel if extremly out of context between texts about the riot and the royal judgement. Borsoka (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don’t think so. It’s the background to the riot, but for Wiki leads we don’t have background in the opening paragraph, but a v brief summary of the event. It’s valid info, and I think worth retaining as it is, where it is. I certainly won't "restructure" it to the end of the lead.- SchroCat (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we start with the background there would be very real complaints from all quarters, so that’s not going to happen. The first paragraph has to carry the main event of the article. I’m not going to leave the background out if the lead, as that would then fail WP:LEAD. - SchroCat (talk) 05:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not, if the first sentence would properly introduce the event as a violent conflict between students and townspeople in Oxford. This would be fully in accordance with our relevant policy: "The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where." Presently, we are informed that St Scholastica Day riot occured on St Scholastica Day, and nothing more in the first sentence. Borsoka (talk) 05:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a guideline, not a policy; it has a measure of flexibility and shouldn't be taken as holy writ. And the article follows in in letter and spirit: we say that it was a riot on St Scholastica's day: that is what the guideline tells us to do. If you really want a sentence that also includes a lot more background, I am sure I could introduce bad writing and bloat it to a monumental size with all sorts of bits and I'm sure someone would oppose based on MOS:LEADCLUTTER. But presently, the sentence does exactly what the guidance tells us to, and the opening paragraph fleshes it out further. - SchroCat (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m away from my sources for a day or so, but will deal with the remainder on my return. - SchroCat (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the time being, I think the article does not meet FACR 1a (lead section) and 1b (the lack of explanations). Furthermore, it may contradict WP:SYNTH. Borsoka (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interjecting: I think the lead structure makes sense to me, similar to how event articles on Wikipedia are generally written: describing the event, the background and then the aftermath. Also in my source review, I don't believe there are strong cases of WP:SYNTH since the facts presented by the sources are also in context describing the background of the event.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 06:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:LEADSENTENCE is obviously ignored (that a riot is named after St Scholastica Day occured on that day is not a surprise for anybody). Could your refer to FAs which follow the pattern you are mentioning above? The cited source attributes the lack of theatres first of all to the lack of cathedrals, than to the decline of guilds in the 13th century, finally to the growing power of the universities as a consequence to a series of riots (among them mentioning St Scholastica Day's riot). This apporach is not reflected in the article. Borsoka (talk) 06:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple historical articles that follow this pattern, but I'm not going to dignify your misguided oppose by wasting my time digging them out. As has been explained above, we follow the guidance at LEADSENTENCE. - SchroCat (talk) 08:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fully understand you do not want to search for articles. It would obviously be a time-consuming process. My oppose is quite obvious at the very beginning of the section. I still think the article needs significant improvements. Borsoka (talk) 08:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a complete waste of time. They are there (I know, because I've reviewed many of them and written a few others). Your oppose is noted, but it's based on your misunderstanding of a guideline that isn't reflected in the realities of a few hundred FAs written by dozens of editors over the last fifteen years or so. - SchroCat (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I highly appreciate that you have written and reviewed FAs, but MOS:LEAD is only one of the reasons I am opposing this article's promotion. Borsoka (talk) 08:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have missed what I have said entirely, but I won't try and explain further. - SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Allow me to do a source review on this. I noted in the previous FAC some chaos was stirred up regarding claims of "primary sources" and the citation formatting, but even from my understanding of Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC, and having undertaken source reviewing elsewhere before, I don't see any of the so-called issues pointed out. So, I shall ignore all that and do my own.

The article is well-cited to plenty of academic sources. The only trivial concern I have is the potential use of using a couple of Oxford University sources as it could be considered WP:PRIMARY with some concerns of bias, but even then, such commentary are published plenty of centuries after the event. Also it's Oxford; it's a renowned reputable university. There are also sufficient in-line citations when citing to Oxford publications. Overall, the sources are of high-quality.

Spot checks:

  • Ref 1 I would actually cite both pages 75 and 81, since page 81 shows the map and 75 itself is just the description.
  • Ref 8, 10, 15 (both times) check out
  • I will like to see the relevant quote from History Today to support Ref 21. Either link a screenshot via imgur or just quote.
  • I can't really find in Ref 25 about the bailiffs partaking in the violence.
  • Ref 30 checks out. But I found it in page 100
  • The references of FN 33 check out
  • FN 34, 35, 46 check out
  • I was initially confused that for FN 55 you linked to a book of possibly a different title and author... until I double checked that Lawrence is the author of the said chapter.
  • I might want a couple of screenshots of pages from Cobban, for FN48 and 60. And also Ref 52 for the poem, if it's possible.

Overall, rather satisfactory. Will be happy to pass the source review once a couple of issues are cleared up.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 10:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sending the pages once again. Also a minor prose comment: Maybe also for like monetary values (e.g. £200) I wonder if you can give like the modern inflated values? I suppose 200 pounds is actually a lot more money back then.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 09:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve done them as a footnote, along with a wage comparison.
Thanks very much for your efforts here. They’re much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find no further issues. Happy to pass.
Addendum: I actually also have an ongoing FAC which is pending a source review and I would appreciate if you are also able to take a look. But you aren't obliged to. Thanks.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 00:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ZKang123: I found three unverified statements in the article although I only checked three sentences (two of them have been fixed) (by now all of them have been fixed: [3], [4]). Furthermore, I also found a closely paraphrased sentence. Did you check each sentence? Borsoka (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my honest opinion, I think you are being needlessly aggressive and grilling too hard into a veteran FAC nominator. I also did my spot-checks every five footnotes and my main concern was ensuring the facts are as stated as per the cited sources. Is that not enough for a source review? Must I scrutinise every citation and sentence such that you are satisfied? I might not have as much experience in source reviewing, but I have done plenty for various GANs and other FACs, and familiar enough with how source checks should be done. Also, why should I satisfy to your unreasonable expectations, since you aren't a FAC coordinator or the nominator? --ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 07:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have already read FAs and FACs written by veteran FA nominators that were filled with unverified sentences. Each FA nominator are expected to be cooperative and I am too old to accept arguments that "I have written and reviewed dozens of FAs and I know how to write an FA". When I started the review this was a tabloid article listing sensational facts now it begins to resemble an encyclopedic article. No, you need not to satisfy my expectations. I only indicated that each sentence I compared with the cited source contained unverified claims. Borsoka (talk) 02:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with ZKang123 that Borsoka's contributions to this review have become aggressive and unhelpful. This is not the way we conduct our transactions in Wikipedia. Tim riley talk 11:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I started the review this was a tabloid article listing sensational facts now it begins to resemble an encyclopedic article. This is a tremendously arrogant statement for any reviewer to make at any FAC, and does not appear to be borne out by the difference between pre- and post-Borsoka versions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather say I am tough when reviewing. If I wanted to list examples of agressive and arrogant comments and edit summeries, I would add the following items: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. According to my experiences both in WP and real life, aggressivity and arrogance to critical (or tough) statements are typical signs of uncertainty about the quality of our work. I maintain that I have reviewed few FACs of lower quality than this one. The article has improved but I still cannot regard it as an FA. Borsoka (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More silliness. I am entirely entitled to disagree with suggestions you make - and I have done so when they did not improve the article. Thank you for those comments that did improve it, but the ones that were poor were turned down. If you endlessly push something that has been refuted, it's unsurprising that people get irked as a result. Now, you've said your piece, left your oppose and I think we can all move on with no more bludgeoning required. - SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We agree: nominators are entirely entitled to disagree with suggestions reviewers make, and reviewers are entirely entitled to oppose an article's promotion if they think the article has not significantly improved. Yes, I leave my oppose, and we can move on. Borsoka (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from UC

[edit]

Another enjoyable read. I will try to avoid unkind remarks about Oxonians in what follows. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Definitely "St Scholastica Day" not "St Scolastica's"? Most saints' days are normally said in the possessive (e.g. tomorrow is St George's Day, not St George Day, as are other feast days (e.g. "All Hallows' Eve"). A non-scientific scan on Google Books seems to favour the possessive, though most of those are hardly HQRS. I notice we go for the possessive in the body.
    • The title was like this when I got here, and I noted that sources are split between the two forms, so left it like this. Like many of the sources, we talk about something happening on "St Scholastica's day", but refer to the events as the "St Scholastica Day riot" (aside from in one quote, where I've retained the original use of the possessive). - SchroCat (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Consistency is king -- I must admit that the distinction doesn't make much sense to me, but you're within your rights to make it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • My usual question on The town was fined 500 marks: was that a lot? Later, we have the EFN A medieval English mark was an accounting unit equivalent to two-thirds of a pound., but that only pushes the question to how much 2/3 of a pound was worth. There's a better EFN a bit later that could be adapted with a routine calculation.
  • The practice was dropped in 1825; in 1955—the 600th anniversary of the riots—in an act of conciliation the mayor was given an honorary degree and the vice-chancellor was made an honorary freeman of the city.: this sentence hinges on the reader knowing that a mayor is a civic official and the vice-chancellor a university one: suggest "the city's mayor was given an honorary degree, while the university's vice-chancellor" or similar.
    Done - SchroCat (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has anyone put an oar in to say why the state (monarchy?) seems to have had such a soft spot for the students -- probably in general, rather than in this specific case? My naive assumption would be class, but it sounds like that isn't quite right, since the authorities seem to have fairly consistently sided with fairly ordinary students against fairly prominent townsfolk.
  • Academic teaching has been ongoing at Oxford since 1096: any way to slightly hedge/fudge this so that we don't categorically state that nobody learned anything in Oxford in 1095?
I don't think so, no -- I'm a secondary teacher, and my boss is the "Deputy Head (Academic)". UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, swapped to 'university', although technically that may be a bit misleading, as it wasn't a university at that stage. - SchroCat (talk) 07:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would something like "formal", "institutional" work, or else "academic colleges have been operating..."? I don't know how far the latter works for the very early stages of what the university was. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of those really do it for me for various reasons. 'Formal' and 'institutional' seem wrong (neither signify a level of education) and I'm not sure we can go as far as 'academic colleges' - the source doesn't and I don't think it was that structured at that point. - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Academic teaching has been ongoing at Oxford since 1096; as a university it grew rapidly from 1167 and was given a royal charter in 1248,: I would think about rephrasing this. We start the sentence with "Oxford" referring to the city: that city is not a university, but contains one by the same name. How about "its university grew rapidly..."?
  • "Clerk" is derived from the Latin word clericus and originally meant "man in a religious order, cleric, clergyman", according to the Oxford English Dictionary: we normally attribute matters of opinion or statements that we consider doubtful, so I would probably cut here -- the attribution suggests that we're not sure of this, and we have the footnote to show on whose authority we're saying it.
  • The secular clergy made up most of the student population and between 1200 and 1500, some seventeen per cent of the students were monks: I would explain this term, which looks at first glance like an oxymoron -- especially as its meaning is critical to understanding the force of the underlined bit. I might also be tempted to reverse: something like "Around seventeen per cent of the students were monks, while secular clergy -- other priests and deacons -- made up the majority of their numbers". Was there a third category?
  • Reading that way round makes it look like secular clergy made up the majority of the seventeen per cent...
  • Henry V went there and he probably makes up most or all of it! - SchroCat (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so could we say that seventeen per cent were monks, and the remainder were overwhelmingly secular clergy, in that order? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done - SchroCat (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1334 Oxford, a town of 5,000 residents, was the ninth wealthiest settlement in England. -- two citations and two footnotes! Any way to collapse those down?
  • including some who settled in Cambridge to start the university that year. The university remained shut: unfortunate repetition, as there are two different universities here. Suggest "that city's university ... Oxford's university".
  • Many of these went unpunished by the university or the law: this could be slightly ambiguous (do we mean that sometimes the law didn't punish them (but they were sent down), sometimes the university didn't punish them (but they were beheaded)...? I'm chewing on whether adding either helps ("Many of these went unpunished, either by..." -- I don't think that does!). I think it works with "both": "Many of these went unpunished by both the university and the law" -- like "the elephant went unnoticed by both of my great-aunts". I suppose we could equally just say "went unpunished"?
  • There's a consensus elsewhere on this page that the additional wording is helpful in clarifying matters, so I don't think removal is right, so I've gone with 'both'. - SchroCat (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • civic authorities requested that a papal legate intercede to bring the matter to a close. Included in Niccolò de Romanis's judgement in 1214: I would be tempted to allow this to breathe and state absolutely explicitly that de Romanis was that legate. Suggest something like "That legate, Niccolò de Romanis, included in his judgement of 1214 a clause..."
  • a clause that stated that if a scholar was arrested by the civic authorities, they would have to hand him over to the bishop of Lincoln, the archdeacon of the town or the bishop's named deputy is requested: if requested, I think. We capitalise "Bishop of Lincoln" in the EFN, but not here: I think MOS:PEOPLETITLES favours the capital. I think this whole sentence could be done more concisely and clearly: perhaps "a clause requiring the civic authorities to hand over, if requested[by whom?], any scholar they arrested to the town's archdeacon, the Bishop of Lincoln, or the bishop's named deputy"?
  • Done, but not done the final part of rewording. The request would come from whoever of the town's archdeacon, the Bishop of Lincoln or the bishop's named deputy requested it. - SchroCat (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so "to the bishop of Lincoln, the archdeacon of the town or the bishop's named deputy, if any of the three requested?" UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done - SchroCat (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In February 1298 a citizen was murdered by a student; one of the students was killed by townspeople: the semicolon suggests (at least to me) that this was a revenge attack: was it? If not, suggest "a citizen was murdered by a student and a student killed..."
  • This was the first occasion that the town's bailiffs—officers of the court who executed writs—were recorded as taking part in the violence: we didn't actually say that they did take part in the violence: could we build them in a bit earlier and explain what they actually did?
  • 39 students were known to have committed murder or manslaughter; seven were arrested: MOS:NUM would like "7".
  • Cricket St Thomas in Somerset and de Chesterfield was the rector of Ipplepen, in Devon.: why the difference of comma?
  • You could consider multi-imaging the Swindlestock Tavern with one of what's now called the Carfax Tower (like this one), as it was once the tower of St Martin's.
  • The Chancellor of the University: here I think PEOPLETITLES wants lc.
  • chased them to the Augustine priory: I note with surprise that this form does get used, but as the proper noun is Augustine (like "Benedict", "Franciscus"), surely "Augustinian" is a better adjective?
  • to rally the respective supporters: I think we need "the respective factions' supporters, or a similar noun.
  • students locked and barricaded some of the town's gates, to stop an influx of outsiders coming at them from a new direction: I can't quite tell from this whether there was an influx on its way, or whether they were simply preempting one that might turn up.
  • any action that involved a student or the university on one side was dealt with by the university: cut, unless we mean that the town had jurisdiction when students were on both sides. Equally...
  • The town authorities were left with the power to take action in legal situations where it involved citizens on both sides; any action that involved a student or the university on one side was dealt with by the university: we could lead with the change -- that the town authorities lost the authority to take action in a legal situation involving a student or the university on either side.
  • meaning that renewed warfare with both France and Scotland was imminent: might be nice to have an EFN saying when (and that) it did actually break out.
The grande chevauchée was the 1356 one. In the 1355 one he marched to the Mediterranean and back - 675 miles. Suggest 'By the autumn of 1355 Edward III was in northern France leading an army against that of the French King, while at the same time his son the Black Prince led a destructive chevauchée 675 miles from English held Bordeaux to the Mediterranean and back.' or similar. You may wish to add more Wikilinks. I recommend citing to Rogers WC&S pp 296-304 for the former and Wagner pp 95-96 for the latter. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thansk Gog - much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • it was a unique position for any university in Europe: this seems to imply that some non-European universities had the same position?
Fair enough. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • One unintended corollary of the growing power of the university was that the town's weakened authorities did not accommodate plays or theatre until the sixteenth century: I need a bit of explaining as to how these two things are related. Is it that the city authorities were poor -- we say "weak", but what sort of strength do you need to put a play on?
    The source reads "Oxford was not a strong commercial center during the period when the cycles were being written and performed in England. Thus, there were no large and prosperous guilds to produce such plays in order to enhance the renown of the town and bring in tourists with pence to spend." (It's on JSTOR, so available), but the line of argument is shown, but not expanded upon. - SchroCat (talk) 11:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it quite right to lump guilds under "the town's authorities" and, later, "the civic authorities"? I know guilds had influence and clearly had a lot of power over their members, but I'm not sure I've seen them promoted to being part of the actual state apparatus. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They were part and parcel of the town's authorities - the Guilds were the power source for most. - SchroCat (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, but the mafia are the power source for many people in Sicily, but I'd be uncomfortable calling them "the island's authorities". Do you have a reassuring academic quotation you can throw out to calm my nerves? UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reworked it a little, although the official power of guilds was clear at the time (see the make-up of the City of London for example - the Court of Common Council was made up of guildsmen; Exeter was the same, and so was Oxford). However, I think if I dig out sources that show the direct correlation between the guilds and local authorities we could be open to a charge of SYNTH in making the connection from there to the lack of theatre, so I've tweaked what we have. - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • edited by the historian Thorold Rogers in 1891, and Medieval Archives of the University of Oxford: Vol 1, edited by the historian the Rev Herbert Edward Salter in 1920. The historian Jeremy Catto: I would cut the Rev (we don't call the others "Prof.", "Dr" etc etc -- MOS:HONORIFIC?). Anything to be done about the repetition here?
  • A couple of journals don't have ISSNs.
  • The plaque commemorating the site of the Swindlestock Tavern from 1250 to 1709: I would give this caption another look: as written, it suggests that the plaque commemorated that site for nearly 500 years, but hasn't since 1709.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/St_Scholastica_Day_riot/archive2&oldid=1290538824"