Talk:William of York

message: The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article.-- Jreferee 22:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: *There should be consistency about whether to refer to him as "William" or "Fitzherbert" - both are presently used.
** Bother! I thought I caught all of those... I think I have them all now! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Some points for attention

message: *Grammar is wrong in third sentence of lead. Suggest reword: "He was a relative of King Stephen of England, and the king..." 
*Early life, several points'
**"New sources say that she..." Is this "she" Emma, or another putative mother? If the former, suggest replace with "Emma", if latter with "his mother"
**1090s is a plural term, no apostrophe{[done}}
**After 1114, it's no longer really "Early Life". It's also a massive time jump, within the same sentence, from 1114 to 1141. Suggest you divide this section between "Early life" and "Appointment as archbishop"
**Text says "elected" 1141, box says "enthroned". Shouldn't they say the same?
*** Heh. Enthroned is the technical ecclesiastical term for the first time a bishop/archbishop goes to his cathedral and has this little ceremony where he sits in his cathedra (bishop's chair) and everyone goes ooohhh and aaaahhh. (well, the oohs and aahs are optional). The box is set up for enthroned and I can't really change it. We don't actually KNOW when he was enthroned, and I suppose I can bop Secisek again about the silliness. Supposedly there is some fancy dancy new box to use, but I'm not bothering to change them just yet. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A few more helpful hints

message: I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of April 4, 2008, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: Pass
:2. Factually accurate?: Pass
:3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
:4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
:5. Article stability? Pass
:6. Images?: Pass
  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.</div>
Brianboulton (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Successful [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] nomination

message: At the moment the article says he is venerated in the Catholic Church alone, but this would be surprising to me because in the Anglican churches in York, his coat of arms is still featured on them too. The York Minster also uses St William's College as a place for conferences and banquetting. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am pretty sure he is venerated elsewhere also, but I don't have any sources for that so I didn't include it. I'd be glad to see it if sources for it can be found. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Venerated in Church of England?

message: I was wondering whether a little more background should be added about the Cistercian monastic breakaway and dispute, which seems to be one of the bases of Cistercian enmity to William. William seems to have been the King's candidate and issues relevant to the investiture controversy appear to arise.  Xandar  03:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It really should be added, but I've been concentrating on trying to get the rest of the medieval bishops fleshed out some, and William hasn't managed to grab my interest that much. The whole political climate at the time is very convoluted, around the time that William faced issues with the Cistercians at York, there were also problems in the Diocese of Durham, with William Cumin being intruded into the see there by the King of Scots. Also, William's time in York coincided with the height of instability in England as a whole, what used to be known as The Anarchy, although that terms fallen a bit out of favour with historians. You have King Stephen and his brother Henry of Blois, who was Bishop of Winchester and sometime papal legate pushing their candidates, with the Cistercians, who were pretty powerful in the north of England and had a Cistercian on the papal throne, pushing for their own candidates. Mostly, the investiture crisis in England is over by now, it's more politics here, and (personal opinion here, historians are divided on the issue) the weakness of Stephen's rule. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Right I'll try to add a bit more from the (borrowed) book, but in the run-up to Christmas, it may not be for some days.  Xandar  00:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cistercian dispute

message: :"FitzHerbert took up residence with one of his friends, and a distant cousin, Roger II, King of Sicily". 
I think that's a false statement. Since his parents are small nobles of Hampshire whose ascendance is not known, I can't see how he could be a cousin of a king of Sicily... Is that what Christopher Norton really wrote? PurpleHz (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget that William's a relative of King Stephen, who was the son of  the daughter of the Conqueror, who in theory was related to the Guiscard house. Norton says on page 118 "At his point William took himself off to the kingdom of Sicily, where he spent some time with his distant cousin, King Roger, and with Robert of Selby, the chancellor of Sicily, a man of great wealth and loaded with honours." He sources this to John of Hexham, p. 318 in Arnold's edition. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: His relation with Stephen has been discarded since. See Burton and the article sentence "New research, however, suggests that Emma might have been a daughter of Hunger fitz Odin, who held lands in Dorset in the Domesday survey". So there is a contradiction in the article itself. PurpleHz (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distant cousin of Roger II of Sicily ? 

message: A file that you uploaded or altered, :File:William of York.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  PurpleHz (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly unfree File:William of York.jpg