Talk:Robert de Todeni

Domesday ...

Domesday is a primary source. We don't use it to determine what's important to discuss - we use secondary sources (like Fleming or Keats-Rohan) to determine that sort of information. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

1. Domesday was in its day considered a secondary source compilation of original returns. It is rife with mistakes and inconsistencies. It is considered a primary source because of a court decision regarding land ownership issues. Numerous civil cases have been argued where it differed from primary source documents, yet its elevation to primacy causes it to usually be considered the ultimate authority. In the Middle Ages, the Book's evidence was frequently invoked in the law-courts. As recently as the 1960s, it was still referred to in court cases regarding ancient land and property rights.

2. Citing a contemporaneous secondary source of the 11th century compiled only two decades after major events occurred is more objective than a 20th century secondary source cited to support the false statement that Domesday lists Robert as Lord of Belvoir. There is no such statement in Domesday. The closest one can impute from Domesday is that Robert controlled some surrounding property, which was the statement I added to the article and added two Domesday references. A secondary source that cites some of his donations that thereby imputes his main manor would be a valuable citation, but nether you nor I have done so. The reality is that Robert was like many Norman lords; he was able to keep Belvoir from being listed in Domesday.

3. Citing a primary source that attests to the accuracy of an objective Wikipedia statement is allowed, especially when allows the reader better understanding of the subject of the article.

4. The article is currently well written although misleading through omission of some details. It is a start-class article. Robert was Lord of some manors yet only tenant-in-chief of others, he was surrounded by competing Lords of various powers, and had administrative problems. Perhaps these topics could be investigated in someone's future research, which could be then cited on Wikipedia. But I doubt it will be done soon because similar studies have already been completed on other nobles of his era.

5. Some inferences can be gleaned by the reader who hyperlinks to articles regarding nobles whom he displaced, with whom he was allied and those who inherited or purchased his lands. So the names of these people should be added; Thorgautr Lagr (who I have no information about) should not be the only name especially since he was not located in Robert's most important domain, Belvoir. The different locations Robert controlled could be covered in separate paragraphs, even the marital alliances that resulted from proximity.

6. By deleting the Open Domesday Online links you are inhibiting people from using relevant information. It is not Wikipedia policy to delete links to secondary or primary sources that thousands of people over the centuries consider relevant in proving the truth of a statement; it appears to be your policy – a policy you should change. Domesday Book is critical to understanding the period in which it was written.

7. For example the article states "Belvoir, Lincolnshire", when to date every secondary and primary source I have seen states "Belvoir, Leicestershire". I let it stand because Wikipedia is verifiable but not reliable as a source. Yet your operant theme is preventing people using Wikipedia from finding accurate secondary and primary information. Before deleting anything on Wikipedia ask yourself, "Is it true?", then ask yourself, "Can I find a better source?", and then, "Does this information better fit a different page?" You need to loosen the reins. 162.212.89.6 (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)