# Talk:Edith of Wilton

This source (https://blogs.bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2017/06/making-a-good-impression.html), even though it's from a blog, might be a good and useful source for this section. The trouble with it currently, though, is that the text in the last part of section isn't supported by anything in this source or from the second source used, so I've removed it as per WP:BURDEN. Fortunately, I've found another source to replace much of the possibly-disputable content: the marvelous book by Katie Ann-Marie Bugyis (see Bibliography). Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Figureskatingfan. Thanks for your work. Most of your sources look fine, but not Baring-Gould and Dunbar. They are over a hundred years old and were not experts on the period. They are not reliable sources.
I think it would help you if you could get access to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography as it has a lot of useful information written by leading experts. For example Barbara Yorke starts her article on Wulfthryth at [1] 

Wulfthryth [St Wulfthryth] (d. c. 1000), abbess of Wilton, was queen of England, the second consort of King Edgar, for a brief period before her appointment as abbess. Details of Wulfthryth's parentage are not known, but she must have been of noble birth like her cousin Wulfhild, with whom she was educated at Wilton. Edgar (943/4–975) appears to have wanted to marry into their family and Wulfhild was his first choice as a bride; but when she persuaded him she would rather enter a nunnery, he married Wulfthryth. Although there has been some debate about whether Wulfthryth was a full wife or just a concubine, the late eleventh-century hagiographer Goscelin states that she and Edgar were 'bound by indissoluble vows' (Wilmart, 31) and the legitimacy of their daughter Edith is implied by the recognition of her as the ‘royal sister’ of Edgar's sons Edward and Æthelred.
One other point is that I think the statement that Wulfthryth was Edgar's cousin is almost certainly a mistake by Hollis. It is not in other sources and marriage (or sex) between first cousins was then prohibited as incestuous. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Wow, I'm kinda surprised that Hollis was wrong. I know that we're technically not supposed to use dictionaries or other encyclopedias as sources, but I think that in the case of writing about saints, we need to, since much of what's written about them are from hagiographies, which are technically dictionaries. I'm sure you know that Bugyis has noted that scholars are using hagiographies more now, especially in the last 10-15 years, so it makes sense that we, the hagiographers of Wikipedia, also use them.
I disagree with you about Dunbar and Baring-Gould. Yes, they're older sources, but so are many hagiographies. I mean, if there were English translations of Goscelin, I think we should use them. Many articles that use older sources simply quote them because they're in the public domain, a practice I disagree with, so I avoid doing it. My understanding is that Dunbar and Baring-Gould were experts, perhaps not about the periods saints were alive, but about saints in general. I agree, though, that we should use them and other older sources sparingly, and when they conflict with other, more recent sources, we should either not use them or note the conflict. I do think, however, that there are plenty of better alternatives, like Yorke, Ridyard, and Hollis, so perhaps for this article, I shouldn't depend upon the others so much. I will consider this carefully and perhaps make the appropriate changes. My question for you, though, is: how are Dunbar and Baring-Gould not reliable? Is it just because of their age?
This is such a good conversation to have, especially about these more major saints like Edith. Thanks for your feedback; it's so valuable.  Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
It is partly because of age that Dunbar and Baring-Gould are not reliable. Even the best scholars then are dated because scholarship has advanced so much over the last hundred years. However, the main reason is that they were not experts on the period. I cannot find anything on Dunbar, but she wrote a general book about saintly women, and she could not have been an expert on all periods. Baring-Gould according to his article was a "Anglican priest, hagiographer, antiquarian, novelist, folk song collector and eclectic scholar." In other words a dabbler who knew a little on many subjects and was an expert on none. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I think we have different understandings of the meaning of "hagiographer". The normal meaning is a biographer who is credulous about their subject and reports miracles as fact. It is true that historians use them more than in the past, but that is because they contain much useful information and historians are more confident nowadays about separating the facts from the mythology. Hagiographies should not be used by Wikipedia editors, as separating fact from fiction would be original research, which is forbidden. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Dudley, I don't think that the controversy about if Wulfthryth was Edgar's cousin belongs in Edith's bio, so I just used Yorke to support that Wulfthryth was a royal and removed Hollis as a source. Instead, the controversial statement belongs in Wulfthryth's article, which I may work on someday. If I were, instead of separating fact from fiction, I'd say that although Hollis states that she and Edgar were cousins, Yorke in the ODNB (and perhaps in other sources, if they could be found) says that they were not. If I were to be brash enough to use Goscelin as a source in WP, I might say that "Goscelin says this and that", and then compare it to what other sources/historians say. That's not OR; that's reporting what the sources state about the subject. Really, we're already doing that: reporting what Hollis, Yorke, Ridyard, ect. say about Goscelin.
I don't find Dunbar and Baring-Gould as the kind of hagiographer Goscelin is, who we know was credulous about his subjects and had an agenda writing about their lives; in Edith's case, it was to fundraise for Wilton. Dunbar and Baring-Gould wrote dictionary/encyclopedia type of hagiographies. There are weaknesses about them, like their ages, but I believe that they're valuable resources for Wikipedia. We need to be more inclusive regarding our sources in order to write about women's lives, especially about medieval women. Again, I think this is an important conversation to have, especially about female saints.  Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Ealdgyth can you give your view on Sabine Baring-Gould and Agnes Dunbar as sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 06:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Dudley Miles, In principle, Baring-Gould is a RS, but apart from a list of Calendars he only states one source, “The Life of S. Edith attributed to Gotschlin”, which limits him. Moonraker (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Why do you think he is an RS? His article says that he wrote 1242 publications, including on ghosts and werewolves, so he could not have been an expert on Anglo-Saxon history. The newslettter of the Sabine Baring-Gould Appreciation Society at [2] describes his Lives of the Saints as hagiography. Anglo-Saxon history is my main subject, and I have never seen him cited or referred to in any book or article on the subject. Wikipedia articles on history should be based on academic historians, not popular writers who often make mistakes and sometimes fill in gaps in their knowledge with invention. These books can be obtained through public libraries, but this takes time, and some editors prefer to use old popular works which are available online because they are out of copyright. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Greetings, I just nominated this for DYK and was a little confused because I couldn't find the review page except via page history (it can be found here) at the top, in the Good article banner (for comparison, it is linked in this article).
@Amitchell125 and Figureskatingfan: Do you know why this happened? –LordPickleII (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@LordPeterII, I'm not sure, perhaps there's a bot that was supposed to transclued it but did not? Hey, would you withdrawing the DYK nom? I wanted to wait until April Fools, just for this hook or something like it: "...that Edith of Wilton was called "the laziest saint in England"? I've never had a DYK on April 1, and I thought that this would be perfect for it. I mean, that's one of the reasons I submitted it to GAN in the first place. I probably should've stated my intentions here, but it never occurred to me that someone else would bother to submit it to DYK. ;) Thanks, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
@Figureskatingfan: Ah, sorry! Didn't mean to steal it from you, I just thought I'd nominate some quality articles before they're ineligible. Anyway, I could also just switch the hook and go for April's Fool with the current nom? I think you'll still get credited as the author, and I have QPQs to spare. But if you prefer, I can also withdraw and let you have a fresh start. –LordPickleII (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
@LordPeterII, no that's fine if you continue the nom but moved it to the April 1 section. I just figured that it was too early, again probably not. Thanks for nominiating it in the first place! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
@Figureskatingfan: Alright, I'll switch to your hook and April's Fool then (you can ofc participate in the nom discussion). Nominations for April 1 are accepted year-around, you just have to nominate in the usual timeframe (~seven days) after achieving GA status. It'll be a long time in the hold for this one, but I believe the record is longer ^^ –LordPickleII (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)