Talk:William Stubbs

Untitled
Page reads as if it were written by an excited schoolgirl discussing her favourite pop star, no pretense at objectivity; I don't have the technical know-how to flag this page for NPOV, hence this comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.62.82 (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

There have been suggestions by modern historians that his acceptance of medieval chroniclers at face value, especially in his treatment of William II, makes some of his work flawed. In the case of William Rufus, his disagreements with Archbishop Anselm over Gregorian reform mean that the writing of monastic chroniclers were likely to colour their views regarding his character and the historical value of his reign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.211.92 (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Bias
Parts of the article are clean over the top and highly unencyclopedic, for example: "Bishop Stubbs belongs to the front rank of historical scholars both as an author and a critic. He stands out as a master of every department of the historian's work, from the discovery of materials to the elaboration of well founded theories and literary production". Wow. Norvo (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps more a case of citations needed. I am fairly certain that few scholars of the period would regard the passage quoted as necessarily ott, subject to the reservations in the next paragraphs of the article ("....not entirely unquestionable..."; " ...his ideas of a confrontational political framework have been superseded..." Qexigator (talk) 07:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The words quoted ("...belongs to the front rank of historical scholars...") are part of the Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.) article, which was contributed by "W.Hu.", i.e., the historian W.H.Hutton. I have added the citation in the text, which was otherwise covered by the general ref. to En. Brit.Qexigator (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Remove notice of 2008?
Is it not time to remove the notice dated February 2008: "This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations." ?Qexigator (talk) 10:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)