Talk:Walter de Coutances

message: This text:
: To avoid a civil war in England, Richard gave Countances secret instructions to keep peace between John and Longchamp.  If the intrigues and political manueuvers between the two could not be resolved,  Countances was to sack Longchamp.  As it turned out, Countances would perform these instructions from Richard with adroitness.
I've reverted from the article, as it's all covered in the next paragraph as well as not being very encyclopedically written. "Sack" isn't encyclopedic. NOr is it needed to link "adroitness" nor "political". Ealdgyth - Talk 20:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted text... 

message: Coutances is not a surname.  His friend the chronicler Gerald of Wales would not be refered to as "Wales".  Coutances is a town of Normandy.  Walter should be refered to as "Walter". Wetman (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's treated as a surname by most sources - including the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article, which refers to him throughout as "Coutances". Since that's pretty much the only biographical treatment of his life, it's best to follow the sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Coutances" 

message: Maybe the difference between the various sources for Coutances' official entry of 24 February and 3 March (1 week) is that a new bishop would go on a tour of his diocese, making sure all the clergy knew he was there, ensuring their loyalty before doing the official enthronement ceremony as shown here  for example.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 11:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This would show that I was correct with 24 February 1185 from the references I found. Also the French article on him uses this date. --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again the source you're showing above is the DNB - which dates from 1887. We discussed this before. The French article sources that date to a 1932 source. We've discussed above the whole concept of older sources being superceded by newer sources. And your idea about a tour is WP:OR without a reliable source. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not saying I am going to change the 3 March 1185 date, since it is only a week off and makes no difference in the long run over some 800 years, but pointing out to you that Maybe the difference between the various sources  is because of the idea of a preliminary tour ahead of time BEFORE the official enthronement. You can keep your date.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  It isn't MY date. It's the source's date. We go by sources here... not by editor's opinions. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  It isn't MY date either, that of 24 February 1185. Got it from Dictionary of National Biography - which I believed at the time was correct, as it appears this source is used quite often by many other editors. But, don't get your blood pressure up - I'll leave the March date. Not worth fighting over a week difference in some 800 years. It's history, ancient history - hehehehe.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Heh, sorry, I didn't mean to add to the confusion by talking about touring the diocese over on the Reference Desk. That's what Christie is talking about. I just meant that it was something a new bishop would do, eventually (could be months before he got around to it though, if ever). Anyway, that has absolutely nothing to do with the date discrepancy here, so forget I mentioned it. Actually this reminds me of a discussion we were having about the death of Baldwin IV of Jerusalem on his talk page. Different medieval sources say different things, and these are interpreted differently by modern historians. No big deal. It's always nice to know an exact date but sometimes we just can't know. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see edit warring here, as I have left Ealdgyth's 3 March 1185 date alone after he put it in. I have not changed it. However there is a discussion that I obtained the 24 February 1185 date from the Dictionary of National Biography - which I believed at the time was correct as it is a source often used by many editors. If one has found another date of a week later, then that is fine by me -> and I never changed that from when it was put in. So, bottomline I see no edit warring going on, only disagreements as to which date should be used. That is NOT edit warring - as no edit has been reverted. Disagreements on a date is NOT edit warring. It is a discussion! Why do you think we have Talk Pages on articles -> even a ditsy blonde can figure that one out.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different dates