Talk:Thurstan

GA Review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * jackturner3 (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * jackturner3 (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * jackturner3 (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

On the third sentence in the Controversy section, Ralph is mentioned in the first sentence. Do you want me to clarify it two sentences later that he's still the archbishop of canterbury? I've tried to reword the sentence a bit, but the whole episode is muddled in the histories, so I'm not sure how much clarity we can shine here. I THINK I've clarified the other issues, I left the clarify tags in to make things easier to find again. If I've got them clarified, could you take them out? Ealdgyth | Talk 16:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, this make a lot more sense now. I'll go ahead and promote the article and remove the clarify tags. -- jackturner3 (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The Standard
I'm having some difficulty with understanding why my link to essentially identical Medieval standards (mounted on carts together with altars or other religious objects) found in Italy, Carroccio, was removed. The link allows the reader to compare similar instances and make deductions for him or herself, a link is not identical to an assertion and, in my opinion, does not need the same level of inline citation. Just because the writer of a work alluded to in the text was ignorant of the fact that cart-mounted standards existed beyond the instance of the Battle of the Standards should not enforce the same ignorance on the reader of a wikipedia article.

Cart-mounted standards were used throughout Italy and they are first recorded well before the date of the Battle of the Standard (1030 in Milan). The same type of standard was also used in Hungary in the 12th century (see Battle of Sirmium) As the Thurstan article stands it gives the impression that Thurstan's action in erecting his large cart-mounted standard was an innovation when it was really just a northerly expression of a pre-existing phenomenon. Given the close connections between the Church in England and the Papacy based in Italy it would be incredible if a senior churchman was entirely ignorant of Italian matters.Urselius (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It was removed from the sentence you placed it in because the source given for that sentence does not mention the connection between the two types of standards. If you have a source that explicitly links the standard in the battle of the standard with a carroccio, then please feel free to add it along with the source, otherwise, it's original research to conclude that the two were related. If you don't have a source, then it's certainly possible to add a "see also" link at the bottom of the article mentioning other types of medieval standards. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * “A carroccio made an appearance in England with the English army fighting for King Stephen at Northallerton in 1138 (the Battle of the Standard).” Jim Bradbury, The Routledge Companion to Medieval Warfare, Routledge (2004)  p.238  ISBN: 978-0-203-64466-9


 * A citation from a published book.Urselius (talk) 08:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sainthood
Now that Thurstan has been proved to be a Saint, I believe that we should rewrite his article so that it fits the articles of other Saints. Such as having his title of saint above the article name figure (you know what I mean), and having his feast day (alongside other details) put on the main details in a more clear and concise manner. 2A02:C7C:7B32:1B00:68E2:5BE7:1512:144C (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)