Talk:Simon I de Montfort
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group. | ||
 |
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
|
 |
Simon I de Montfort is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments, explaining the ratings and/or suggest improvements.) |
|
 |
Simon I de Montfort is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:
|
|||
Does this person link to either of those people listed at Simon de Montfort, and ought this person be added to that disambiguation page? Agent 86 01:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bertrade de Montfort
You have Simon I de Montfort's daughter Bertrade as born about 1059 on this page and about 1070 on her page. Which is the more accurate date? Beverly Patterson 24.183.219.220 02:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- I just noticed that, too. I would guess, judging from her husbands' ages (especially Philip Capet's), and the date of her daughter's birth, that the later birthdate is more likely correct. Don't quote me, though. Cheers, Lindsay 15:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Chinese section
I have again deleted the supposed Chinese connection. Verifiability requires more than just a web site with a wild theory, but is aimed at published scholarly consensus, and this clearly does not represent such a consensus, but rather an (as far as I can tell) unpublished pet theory. Perhaps you can provide some details on what exactly the cited article has to say about this - I admit I can't read it, but between the original and your summary, I see nothing but "name's the same" speculation. On what basis is the 'Nisiduling Simengpan' in the Chinese source identifiable with Simon de Montfort? I don't think he can even be shown ever to have gone to Byzantium, let alone to be a messageboy for a rebel brother-in-law of an Emperor. Simon died before the First Crusade, which first established a pattern of flow of French nobles in that direction. The name Simon, in the form of Simeon, was reasonably common in the Empire, and a search would probably show a score of named candidates. So again, did the author have any basis other than the apparent similarity between the given names of the Byzantine envoy and the French noble? Otherwise this is still unverified. Agricolae (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Let me just add that this is basically covered by Wikipedia:Fringe theories. This suggestion has not (as far as I can tell) passed any kind of peer review, and I can't find any evidence that mainstream historians are even aware of it. Agricolae (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
