# Talk:William the Carpenter

Okay,
I started this article with sources and notes. I am not sure how I messed up the reference notes.  I hope I used the correct format.  I know there will be cleanup following! ANY help appreciated for this beginner!
John R. Carpenter
Jrcrin001 (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice, but the references do need a LOT of cleanup. Also, is any of this copied directly from other books or websites? It often reads like it is...if so we will have to fix that as well (although I see a lot of it just cut and paste from other Wikipedia articles). Also, since he probably isn't Galdemar Carpanel, we don't need all that info at the bottom. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I removed the Galdemar Carpenal references.  Many of the references are direct copy and paste with where they came from. As a start, the reference notes are awkward. Being inline would be better. But, I agree they need to be reduced and cleaned up.  I have a tendency of being verbose because I do not want to miss things.
John R. Carpenter
Jrcrin001 (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Inline references done. Old references are now Notes. I could use help in trimming notes. Feel free to edit. Any help appreciated.
John R. Carpenter
Jrcrin001 (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

One last thought. Would it help to move Notes to the discussion page?
John R. Carpenter
Jrcrin001 (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been trying to look this over to see if I can edit it into a proper article, but I'm not sure I can do that with the current text.  To be honest I think the best solution would be to junk the entire thing and start over. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There, I've cut out all the irrelevant stuff, which was almost the entire article. I'll try to expand it and add references later. Also, he seems to have been a simple lord or a viscount, not a count, so maybe we could just name the article "William the Carpenter". Adam Bishop (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay. I was expecting the notes to go. The term "chop chop" fits and renaming is not a problem. "In 1084, this King confirmed the privileges accorded by his predecessors to the Abbey of Holy Father of Melun, and to the prayer of the viscount."  See also:
http://www.terra.es/personal4/mosqueado/christian%20leaders.htm#Baldwin%20of%20Boulogne
But, do not confuse him with other Willam de Meluns like ...
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/special/lifemann/tournmt/froisisa.html
I'll watch and see how you redo it. I am curious. John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There, I've finished with everything relating to the crusade, although obviously it would be nice to say more about his family, and life prior to the crusade (and, if we can find anything, his life and death in Antioch). I see you had some references for that already, but it was kind of hard to use them in the state they were in. We'll figure it out though, I'm sure. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I added some cites, where cites needed. They can be cleaned up later. I also redid the info box. I'm not sure if it is the  best one or not. 
In the line where you reference his nickname "carpenter", you gave no reason for it other than he created a slaughter like a "butcher" on the battlefield. If he was a butcher - in the context of the time - then he would have been called William the butcher. But, he was not called as such. The nickname came from the association with the carpenter trade. From the view point of his peers, his mighty (aka weighty) strokes were precise and neat - something worth commenting on - like a carpenter shaping wood. Gibbons states, "... William, viscount of Melun, surnamed the Carpenter, from the weighty strokes of his axe ..."
Also interesting is the sentence, 'William then "spent the whole of the night...in Bohemond's tent, lying on the ground like a piece of rubbish." '  
In all the material I have found, none have him laying on the ground "like a piece of rubbish." He lay "like an evil thing" which could have many meanings, but not as inanimate trash. 
'Like an evil thing' is probably a reference to the "evil thing" as in the Bible. For example;  Psalm 141:4 "Incline not my heart to any evil thing ..." Or, Matthew 12:35 "A good man out of good treasure bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of an evil treasure bringeth forth evil things ..." Or better yet, Ecclesiastes 8:5 "He who keepeth the commandment shall feel no evil thing ..." this because the crusade was a commandment and his desertion caused him to lay "like an evil thing."  This matches the concept of the time in which it was written and is supported by a later phrase that he (and others) should be blotted out from the Book of Life.
In the original Gesta version, "Then William lay all that night, like an evil thing, in the tent of Bohemund. On the next day at early dawn he came shamefacedly and stood in the presence of Bohemund, who, addressing him, said, "O, the misfortune and infamy of all France, the disgrace and villainy of Gaul! O, most evil of all whom the earth endures! Why did you so vilely flee? Was it, perchance, for the reason that you wished to betray these knights and the host of Christ, as you betrayed others in Hispania?" He was entirely silent and no speech proceeded from his mouth, almost all those of Frankish race gathered together and humbly asked Lord Bohemund not to let anything worse befall him." The reference is "Gesta Francorum" Circa 1100-1101, an anonymous writer connected with Bohemund of Antioch wrote the Gesta francorum et aliorum Hierosolymytanorum (The Deeds of the Franks) This text was used by the later writers as a source. See Also: Rosalind M. Hill, ed. and trans., Gesta francorum et aliorum Hierosolymitanorum: The Deeds of the Franks (London: 1962), [Latin text with English translation.]. The Sufferings of the Crusaders - 3. The Gesta Version.
So based on the above, I question the accuracy of the translation ("like a piece of rubbish") in the book you cited and use in the article when others can be used. 
The following two lines from the current article refer to a possible alias or alternate of his WTC. 
- Godfrey of Bouillon granted William lands on 17 July 1100, the day before Godfrey died. The land was contested by Bohemund.[citation needed]
- William eventually settled in the Principality of Antioch as a vassal of Bohemond.[10]
These refer to "Galdemar" and "Galdemar Carpenal" and are questionable without an understanding of the name variants and confusions of similar names which were removed earlier. These two lines should probably be removed.
Thoughts or comments?
John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

One other item.  The lineage for the "House of Melun" is on another page which inclues WTC. What is the best way to link that lineage in this article?  See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melun#Melun.2C_ancient_family_.28or_household.29
John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The quote from Tyerman was the only reference I could find that actually said why he was called that, at least among modern books; I suppose Gibbon would be okay for a quote like that, although I generally don't like quoting a secondary source that old on Wikipedia. There must be a primary source they were all using, and if we can find that, it would be a great addition to the article; otherwise it's just speculation to say he had precise and neat strokes with a battle axe, or whatever other reason.
The "piece of rubbish" quote is from Rosalind Hill's translation of the Gesta Francorum. Where is yours from? August Krey's collection? That's okay too but Hill's is more recent and is the standard translation. The Latin does literally say "evil thing" but neither Hill nor Heinrich Hagenmayer, who also edited the Latin, say it is specifically a Biblical allusion; Hagenmayer says it means "something worthless or frivolous that men hate to look at." "Piece of trash" seems fine, since "evil thing" is too literal and sounds weird in English. Plus, it's from the standard published translation, and Hill is a better judge of the Latin than either of us.
For the last two lines, if it refers to Gualdemar, then it should be removed; the one I added, that he became a vassal of Bohemond in Antioch, is from the most recent sources and specifically refers to William, not Gualdemar, so we can keep that.
I saw the lineage in the Melun article, but where does that come from? I'll be at the library in a couple of days so I'll see what I can find. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
After looking some more, none of those Bible passages say "mala res" in Latin; "mala res" doesn't seem to occur in the Bible at all, actually. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
See the Gesta Francorum specifically the page of "The Sufferings of the Crusaders - 3. The Gesta Version." at:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/gesta-cde.html#antioch2

See Also: Rosalind M. Hill, ed. and trans., Gesta francorum et aliorum Hierosolymitanorum: The Deeds of the Franks (London: 1962), Latin text with English translation. I reviewed the latter at the local State College Library. Both are identical in their translation that "William lay all that night, like an evil thing, in the tent of Bohemund."  Whether it sounds wierd/literal or not, it is an accurate translation and not a modern PC version that reinterprets anything that could be a "Christian" reference. Please note I cited them above, but failed to properly show the online link to the Gesta.
If you look back at my orginial posted article and notes from the online , I cited several comments regarding his battle axe use and him being a well built person. If he was just a normal build, like other warriors of the time, then this would not be worth commenting about. I am still shaking my head that anyone can take the nickname "le charpentier" (the carpenter) and get "butcher." During that time period, nick names were given for a specific reason. Changing from one who cleaves wood to one who carves up animals for food is not logical.  If you are aware of sword, knife, and infighting, it all can be called "butchery" today, but to be notable then, that took skill above the norm.  More later.
John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I also cited the online Medieval Sourcebook which you have seemed to have dismissed.
The text (below) is part of the Internet Medieval Source Book. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history. Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use. Paul Halsall December 1997. <halsall@murray.fordham.edu>
SEE: MEDIEVAL SOURCE BOOK Web page at: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook.html
My cites on the Melun line were deleted during the chop chop but the basics are from:
Grand Dictionaire Universel DU XIX Siecle Paris 1873 Tome 10 (page 1488) & the 1838 version (pages 1399-1400. 
du Bouchet, History of Courtenay, pp 194ff. 
Cabinee de M. de Clairembault. 
De Pairs De France by Joyeuse - Genealgie de la Maison de Melun. Pg 221+. 
The Viscounts and Counts of Melun are listed in ES (Detlev Schwennicke, "Europäische Stammtafeln," Neue Folge) Volume VII, Tafels 55 & 56. 
There are some more but they go into orginal sources.
John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "modern PC" anything; "mala res" isn't a Biblical reference, it's just a Latin idiom. And "charpentier" in Old French, which is what William would have spoken, can also mean "butcher" or someone who commits a massacre, according to my Old French dictionary. In Latin, "carpentarius", which is what the Gesta and Albert of Aix call him, can even mean a wagon-driver. There is nothing in the crusade chronicles, at least, that mentions a battle axe, and he certainly is not portrayed as brave or strong. There may be other sources (that monk from St. Remi for example) but I suspect this is all later speculation that has been taken as fact. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
By the way - sorry about the "chop chop" comment; I was trying to inject some lightheartedness, because I know how much it sucks to see an article edited so mercilessly. I did not intend it to be an insult. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry about the phrase "chop chop" because it fits! "Mala res" is incidential. I would like to see that old French dictionary that uses any form of the word "Butcher."
Now, there is no doubt in my mind that WTC was involved in "butchering" the Jews and others. That is historical fact, but ... his nickname has nothing to do with "butchery" in the context of that time. Using modern references or that which is PC now, should not change how his peers referenced him.  Below is a review of references to his build, axe, and why he was feared in combat.  Following that is a dictionary definition of the name Carpenter.
I think I have covered the "rubbish" error in reference and now the nickname in the context of time. Please remember that a knight had to be an expert not only with the sword and lance, but the ax and knife.  Indeed the most common weapon seen on many battlefields of the time was the ax. Probably a single blade one at that! Of the two weapons that can be hammered upon the enemy is the sword and the axe.  John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Web page at: http://flying.swpi.edu.cn/books/ewjd/g/gibbon/hor/258.htm  Please note "William" and "axe."
The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon (1737-1794). Chapter LVIII: The First Crusade.
"... ^97 Among the chiefs, three heroes may be found without fear or reproach: Godfrey of Bouillon was supported by his magnanimous piety; Bohemond by ambition and interest; and Tancred declared, in the true spirit of chivalry, that as long as he was at the head of forty knights, he would never relinquish the enterprise of Palestine.  But the count of Tholouse and Provence was suspected of a voluntary indisposition; the duke of Normandy was recalled from the sea-shore by the censures of the church: Hugh the Great, though he led the vanguard of the battle, embraced an ambiguous opportunity of returning to France and Stephen, count of Chartres, basely deserted the standard which he bore, and the council in which he presided.  The soldiers were discouraged by the flight of William, viscount of Melun, surnamed the Carpenter, from the weighty strokes of his axe; and the saints were scandalized by the fall of Peter the Hermit, who, after arming Europe against Asia, attempted to escape from the penance of a necessary fast.  Of the multitude of recreant warriors, the names (says an historian) are blotted from the book of life; ..."

Grand Dictionaire Universel DU XIX Siecle Paris 1873 Tome 10: (See also: Herve De Melun's notes) (page 1488)
"Guillaume I. du nom, viscount de Melun, fut surnomme Charpentier, a cause u'il ne se trouvoit point d'armes qui pussent resister a l'effort de ses oups. "La pesanteur des siennes le faisoit apprehender dans les combats."
Guillaume I., of name, Viscount of Melun, was named, Carpenter, because no weapon (opponent's weapons that is) could be found that could resist the power his strikes. The heaviness of his (weapons) resulted in him being feared in combats".  Carpenters must of, at the time, been among the most "well build" people... " 

Concise Oxford Dictionary, 10th Ed. 
carpenter
· n. a person who makes wooden objects and structures.
· v. make by shaping wood.
– DERIVATIVES carpentry n.
– ORIGIN ME: from Anglo-Norman Fr., from OFr. carpentier, charpentier, from late L. carpentarius (artifex) ‘carriage(-maker)’, from carpentum ‘wagon’, of Gaulish origin.
artifice /"A;tIfIs/ (name variant: artifex)
· n. clever devices or expedients, especially to trick or deceive others.
– ORIGIN ME (in the sense ‘workmanship’): from OFr., from L. artificium, based on ars ‘art’ + facere ‘make’.

Well the modern English definition of carpenter is not much use here. Unfortunately the big Tobler-Lommatzsch Old French dictionary is not online but I will check it when I get a chance. I was using the smaller dictionary by A.J. Greimas; Frederic Godefroy's is online and you can see what it says about the charpent- root.
I know that Gibbon says he used an axe; but where did Gibbon get that information from? Even when Gibbon does not give a footnote, as in this case he does not, we can generally tell what his sources were. It is obvious in that chapter that he was reading the First Crusade chronicles, and William of Tyre, and logically of course he couldn't be using sources that were not available to him in 1776, and I don't think he ever used unpublished manuscripts, so this should be simple to find. Likewise the Grand Dictionnaire Universel doesn't say that he used an axe, but I'm sure they were using the same sources as Gibbon. And assuming that axes were a common battlefield weapon, were they common for knights or for foot-soldiers? It seems odd to me that a knight would be carrying an axe, but I suppose that William had Norman ancestry and if I remember correctly the Normans did use axes, although that was almost two-hundred years prior to William's time. Even if he did use an axe, what does that have to do with carpentry?  Does this imply that William was known for shaping his opponents into furniture, or that carpenters were generally brutal axemen?  Are carpenters known for their proficiency with an axe? Was the carpenter expected to provide his own wood?  Possibly, sure, but I think, like "mala res",  you are taking this too literally and ignoring the subtleties of the original language. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Under Charpenter: "action de taillader a coups d'epees, de tailler en pieces" - Now my French is ten times worse than my German, but this phrase seems to fit. Roughly an action to gash at or hit (attack?) with a blade (sword), to cut in parts.
Check out Battle axe and the picture in Morgan Bible - note all the axes and the date range.
Under Axe It opens with, "The axe, or ax, is an implement that has been used for millennia to shape, split and cut wood, harvest timber, as a weapon ..."  And under Battle axe — "In its most common form, an arm-length weapon borne in one or both hands. Compared to a sword swing, it delivers more cleaving power against a smaller target area, making it more effective against armor, due to concentrating more of its weight in the axehead. However, it allows much less precision than a sword does." Someone strong enough and more precise with the axe would be most feared in combat by hammering down devastating blows through arms and armor.
Most people have the concept of armored knights on horseback with only lances and swords ala the spectacle of the tournaments. That was play war. In real war, like the First Crusade, the rules were survival. In a melee anything goes. A lance was nice put it tended to break or be lost. The sword was nice because it was the customary weapon of Knights but it was a primary slasher. The ax was common to all (Knights and commoners) and more than one could be carried on the back thus giving additional protection until they were needed. The ax was often used like a hammer or mace, but with a blade to cleave with. Not only could it shape wood, but flesh.
John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, "carpenter" in Old French can mean someone who attacks with a sword. The Morgan Bible doesn't seem to show any knights with axes - they look like they are being carried by soldiers on foot. I still doubt that the axe was a common tool for either a knight or a carpenter. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I did a slight reorganization of the article and added conflicting translation of WTC "evil thing" or "rubbish." In reference, I use the older translation of the subject of the paragraph for clairification.
I redid the line where the new 2006 work conflicts with Gibbons and others regarding the nickname and providing references.
I took out the following line due to comments above. 
"Godfrey of Bouillon granted William lands on 17 July 1100, the day before Godfrey died. The land was contested by Bohemund."
I put a qualifier on the last line in the article where it may or may not refer to WTC.
In general, while the references (mine) need to be cleaned up and cited in the same manner as Adam Bishop's, the compromise I give may work.  Thoughts or Comments?
John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 23:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess that's okay. I'll keep looking for more sources. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC
By the way, what is this "Joyeuse - de Pairs de France, Genealogie de la Maison de Melun" book? I don't understand the reference and I can't find any trace of it. Does it have anything to do with Pere Anselme's Histoire généalogique de la maison royale de France? Adam Bishop (talk) 02:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Both have "Anselme." Do you think they are the same person? Maybe an older version?
"Anselme de Sainte-Marie (augustin dechaussee) - Histoire Genealogique et Chronologique de la Maison Royale de France, des Pairs, Grands Officiers de la Couronne et de la Maison du Roy et des anciens Barons du Royaume. (Reproduction de l'ed. de Paris: chez Estienne Loyson, 1674: Num. BNF de l'ed. de Paris: Bibliotheque Nationale de France, 1987. 1 microfilm Reproduction de l'ed. de Paris: Compagnie des libraires associez, 1730, 1730)"  
Then follows my handwritten reference to "de Pairs de France - Genealogie de la Maison de Melun" which may have been a subsection note. I have some other comments to microfilm pages, volumnes and contents on the old photostat copy which is getting hard to read.
There was a note regarding the duchy of Joyeuse related and apparently I put them together poorly in my wierd shorthand. But, now you know why I tried to shorten the reference.
John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 09:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, great, that's what I thought. The reference is fine now. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Another source problem - who is "Pierre, monk of S. Remi of Reims"? I've been trying to figure this out, since I haven't looked at the Grand Dictionnaire Universel yet, but I assume you must mean Robert the Monk; in that case the same thing is being quoted twice, but attributed to two different people, in the Melun article (and formerly here as well). Where does "Pierre" come from? Adam Bishop (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, another problem with Pere Anselme...I can't find any genealogy of the viscounts of Melun in there, at least not in the first three volumes, where it should be. Do you know specifically which volume and which page this is on? Adam Bishop (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, I have looked through all the chronicles of the First Crusade, and there is no mention of an axe, although I think I found out why Gibbon said there was. He probably misunderstood what Guibert of Nogent was saying. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Adam,  
You are finding things that I have not been able to find, nor others like "James A. Brundage" He wrote me the following in 2000; "As for William the Carpenter from Melun who participated in the first crusade, very little is known about him because scarcely any evidence survives. ... To the best of my knowledge, Riley-Smith and Bull have exhausted every scrap of evidence about the man that is known to survive. And at that, we know more about him than we do about most of the participants in the first crusade. Sorry I can't give you any more information, but I don't think there's any more information to give."
(James A. Brundage - History & Law University of Kansas - Member of the Medieval History Ring.)
The same for MGF forum ( http://genforum.genealogy.com/medieval/messages/ ) I frequented many years ago. It is nice seeing more material becoming available. I am impressed with the additional information.  While we may disagree here and there, the article is getting more interesting!
I will be off line for about a week, then I will work on your requests above. Regards!
John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Actually Marcus Bull probably covered all of this, but his book was out of the library, so I'll have to find it later. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, Robert Levine's translation of Guibert of Nogent is online, but without the page numbers. I'll fill those in when I get a chance to look at the actual book. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Aha, found the genealogy, it's in volume 5! Adam Bishop (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Another question: where do the dates of his birth and death come from? I see that the German article says he was at the Battle of Hastings, but the book they reference doesn't actually say that; I'm wondering if he is being confused with someone else who would have been old enough to be at Hastings. 
Also, I found a book called "Histoire de Melun" by Gabriel Leroy, from 1887. It wasn't very useful...it has a paragraph or so about the viscounts, but no list or names or dates or anything. Oh well. It could be useful for the Melun article, probably. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I admit I am shocked that such an obscure, minor person is still attracting so much attention 900 years later. I would just like to point out a few things that might not already have been made clear:
First, the connection to Ganelon is an interesting piece of trivia, and I did not think that that bit would be especially controversial.  I got it from John France's VIctory in the East, who got it from Desfourneaux, who got it from Boissonet, although Desfourneaux noted that the original connection was made by medieval jongleurs. Now, obviously, William is not the same person as Ganelon, if a person named Ganelon existed in the eighth century; but that is not what is being said here. The point is that the character of Ganelon in the Chanson de Roland (a fictional character in a work of fiction) may have been based on William's actions in Spain, assuming that the Chanson was written after the expedition to Spain or after the First Crusade, which it may or may not have been. Our anonymous friend apparently thinks this implies William is Ganelon, but I do not see how he can reach that conclusion unless he is being purposefully obtuse. 
Secondly, the idea that anyone can trace their ancestry back to William, especially anyone whose last name is Carpenter, is extremely flawed. I don't know about genetics and all that, and I realize a lot of genetic studies are being made by genealogists, but I don't think that stuff even matters here; I don't wish to denigrate the entire field of genealogy but if amateurs who happen to be interested in their own family history are conducting genetic studies in the same haphazard manner that they are conducting historical studies, I'm not sure I would trust the results anyway. The main point about William here is that his last name wasn't Carpenter. Of course, many last names, including Carpenter, come from nicknames, and surely many people whose last name is currently Carpenter had an ancestor who was a carpenter or who was called that for some reason. Does that include William? I doubt it, because there is no evidence that this was considered a surname, or that he passed the name on to his descendants. In fact, there is no evidence that he had any descendants.
Genealogists have apparently been using Pere Anselme's massive lists of French nobles, and that is all well and good, except that the work is 300 years old. History is dedicated to studying the original sources and the original languages for a better understanding of the past, and that wouldn't happen if we stopped with Anselme, or, for example, Edward Gibbon, who is apparently responsible for the idea that William carried an axe. Anselme and Gibbon are classic and important, but they are only human, they can be wrong (it is easy to see why Gibbon was confused but I suppose it would be "original research" to say so in the article...oh well). In Anselme's case, Duchalais published an article about the genealogy of the viscounts of Melun that showed why Anselme was wrong in certain cases. He showed that we don't know who William's father was, and we don't know if he had any children who succeeded him; presumably he was related to the other viscounts, but we don't know how specifically. In any case, the male line changed dynasties in the twelfth century when Viscount Adam married the daughter of his predecessor, so it doesn't even matter if William had descendants or not. (I can see how genetic studies might prove you are related to some other living Carpenter, but not how they would link you to a long-dead person, unless you are also using historical material - but in this case that just doesn't work.)
Lastly, I want to say that if you are offended by something that someone did 900 years ago, you may want to rethink your priorities. William was an interesting man who did interesting things, but those things have nothing to do with you. Take him as he is, and you will benefit from knowing a little bit more about the First Crusade than you did before. 
(By the way, apparently there will be a new academic article about William published in the near future, by historian Michael Bardot. I don't know what the content of his article is exactly, but hopefully it will help everyone understand William better. I will certainly let everyone know when and where it is published.) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me add a that I support Adam Bishop here in many of his main points, and I have disagreed with him in others. As a Group Administrator of the [Cousins Y-DNA Project] there is no confirmed genetic genealogy link back to William the Carpenter, aka William "the carpenter" De Melun, Lord and Knight of Melun, France. Indeed the farthest confirmed paper trail (genealogy) and genetic triangulation (Y-DNA) goes only back into the late 1500s.
For those who might be offended by the current article given compared to older research, wait and see. Don't get upset. Historians and researchers put different values on different material. As mentioned above, there will always be points of discussion. Not arguements or war or hostility, but reasonable talk and discussion.
I look forward to this new work by Michael Bardot. Research moves forward and I find the work and process "very interesting!"
John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I noticed something else that I'd like to bring to the attention of the talk page. The "Jerusalem Nobility" page of Medieval Lands project at the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy (http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/JERUSALEM%20NOBILITY.htm) lists William and Gualdemar Carpanel as the same person. We've talked about this above, but I wanted to expand on it. Their sources are William of Tyre and Du Cange, who mention only Gualdemar; the charter in Rohricht which is given in our article, which mentions the Carpenter; and Albert of Aix, who mentions both. I see that the version of Albert they are using is Guizot's French translation from 1824; this predates the Latin edition in the Recueil des historiens des croisades from the 1840s (or 1850s? Later than 1824 anyway), so Guizot's source for the Latin was the text published by Bongars in 1611. After checking all these, it is apparent that the mistake originates with Guizot, who translates "Guillelmus Carpentarius" in Bongars' text as "Gualdemar Carpenel" every time. If I had to speculate about why he did this, it is either a simple mistake because he didn't realize William the Carpenter was a different person, or perhaps he also had access to the original Latin manuscripts, and was comparing them to the Bongars edition. In the latter case, it's possible that both Gualdemar and William's names were abbreviated in a similar way (like "Glm Carp" or something with various lines and squiggles), and he read them as the same name, although as far as I am aware Guizot's version is just a straight translation of Bongars, so I'm not sure how likely that is. In any case, the newest edition of Albert, by Susan Edgington with both the Latin and the English, distinguishes between William and Gualdemar just as Bongars did (and as the RHC version also does). I can't really mention any of this in the article because it's the forbidden "original research", but I wanted to point out why Medieval Lands is an unreliable source in this case (and, sadly, probably in many other cases). By the way, if you so desire, you can check Guizot, Rohricht, Du Cange, Bongars, the RHC, and even some of Edgington online, which is pretty handy. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Often the most informative stuff at Wikipedia is found buried in obscure talk pages. Srnec (talk) 04:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Heh...is there a more visible place I could put it? Wikipedia:Reliable sources? Maybe just my user page. I e-mailed the FMG people too, so hopefully they'll change it. (I'm hesitant to investigate their site any further, I don't have time to correct everything!) Adam Bishop (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally Medieval Lands does not seem to be aware of either Anselme or Duchalais, and their viscount list starts in the 12th century. They have no information on the counts of Melun at all. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The quality at Medieval Lands fluctuates wildly, depending on what sources have been consulted etc. For example, the nobility of Navarre ([1]) is comprehensive, but no dukes of Naples mentioned from before 840 ([2]). Srnec (talk) 04:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The Medieval Lands guy said he would change it next time there is an update to the site. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
By the way, another thing about the battle axe - I see that "hâche d'armes" appears all the time in French books, and this seems to come from Michaud; the earliest French historian of the crusades that I know of, Louis Maimbourg, says the nickname came from either his skill at building siege engines, or because he cut down his enemies, as it was said at the time (referring to Guibet, presumably). Michaud relied a lot on Maimbourg, but since Maimbourg says nothing about a battle axe, I'd assume that Michaud got it from Gibbon.  But again, it's already bad enough that I said Gibbon misunderstood Guibert, so I won't put this in the article either. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me know if it is worth bywording any of the sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:9C97:5D01:FD12:B91A:E962:10BA (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)