Talk:William of Tyre

message: The illumination (right) of crusaders catapulting heads into the besiged city is from a ms of William's Histoire d'Outre Mer; is this illustrating the Siege of Nicaea? It makes a lively illustration, as the event is generally deemed apocryphal. --Wetman (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, we'd have to find an image that includes the surrounding text. Unfortunately all the ones online seem to include only the pictures. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: William of Tyre is mentioned in Roger of Wendover in the year of 1188 , it does not matter if you think Roger of Wendover thought of another person - he is still mentioned - then you might say in the article that you think he meant another one - but you cant undo it .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Understandable science (talk • contribs) 
:Yes, Roger says it was William, but Roger was writing a generation later, and all other evidence shows that William was dead before then. Possibly Roger knew William's name and his work, and assumed that the archbishop of Tyre in question must have been William; however I don't remember the exact arguments and I will have to look them up. I'm pretty sure there is a discussion of the situation in Stubbs' edition of Roger. It would still be worth mentioning here, as long as we also mention that Roger was mistaken. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, maybe I mean Luard, not Stubbs. The edition in the Rolls Series, anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, the Vatican won't have any specific information on anything from 1188...they'll need to use the same sources we use. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Roger of Wendover

message: I've left some comments above but unfortunately they appear in every banner rather than just one...if anyone knows how to fix it, please do. Hadrian89 (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I was wondering what you meant by this! I've just noticed Talk:William of Tyre/Comments. I don't know how to put that link in the banner either though. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I sorted out the date of his death (I'm not sure where I got the idea that 1185 was the standard date...). I still can't find anyone who comments on Roger of Wendover's statement that William was at Gisors...it's pretty obvious that Roger had William's book, knew that an archbishop of Tyre was at Gisors, and assumed it was the famous William, but I guess I can't say that without a reference. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew I had read it somewhere. It was in Krey's introduction to the translation, right under my nose all along. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: What's this: "LCCN: n50025192"?? --Catalaalatac (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authority control 

message: Good article. Green Cardamom (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice article. 

message: Substituted at 10:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: I'm fine with the fact that yall list all this information but could somebody possibly post his real name on here not just his title?Joeshmoe1 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 20:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: William is his only name, as far as anyone knows. If he had a family name, he never mentioned it. His parents or grandparents may have been from Europe, but we have no idea where. So, all we know is that he called himself Guillelmus in Latin, and we call him William in English. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  William of Tyre  

message: The article mentions William's hostility towards the Templars, but not the Hospitallers. This seems odd, given that i.) the Hospitallers were arguably just as important as the Templars in the 12th century Levant, and ii.) William's hostility towards the Hospitallers was just as strong as towards the Templars. 
For just one example, see especially XVIII.3–8: here, William recounts the entire history of the Hospital over several pages, purely in order to portray them as turning away from piety towards greed and incorrigibility: e.g. 'the Hospitallers have neither reverence towards God nor regard for any man, except those whom they fear'. See also Edbury & Rowe, pp. 124–7 for this.
If people are fine with it, I'd propose adding a few lines on William's hostility to the Hospitallers next to the bit on his Templar hostility. Drivingrevilo (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  William & Knights Hospitallers