This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
A fact from Roger le Poer appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 April 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
"It is possible that Matilda and Roger of Salisbury were married prior to Roger of Salisbury's elevation to the episcopate, but this is unlikely." How about "It is possible that Roger of Salisbury was married to Matilda prior to his elevation to the episcopate, but this is unlikely." That avoids the repetition.
"Another possibility, that the younger Roger was the same as Roger of Ramsbury, archdeacon of Wiltshire, is less likely, as it is known that Roger of Ramsbury was not closely related to Adelelm, the nephew or son of Roger of Salisbury.[6] The historian Diana Greenway, in the Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1066–1300, argues that the latter identification is unlikely.[7]" I'd perhaps introduce the possibility in the first sentence, and then discuss its unlikelihood/opposition to it in the second sentence.
Let's try "The historian Diana Greenway in the Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1066–1300 takes this view." as the second sentence. That work better? Ealdgyth - Talk19:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
"Roger's two nephews" Firstly, which Roger, and secondly, are these nephews or "nephews"?
Roger of Salisbury, and they are almost 100% to have been nephews, not disguised sons, as you can read in their two articles (both of which I've worked up to FA status... smell a featured topic on the elder Roger's family coming sometime??) Ealdgyth - Talk19:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Odd question, but what would he have been known as in life? We must know this from his signature, surely?
"Roger". He would have gone by a number of other identifiers over time, but "Roger" would have been the main name used for him. Ealdgyth - Talk19:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
"Roger was sent into exile after his family's disgrace." By whom? Were the rest of his family exiled, too?
We don't know. It's assumed he went into exile but the sources don't say who ordered it. His dad died, his cousins Alexander and Nigel were briefly out of political office but held on to their bishoprics, and the non-episcopal members of the family lost office. After Stephen's reign, some members of the family enjoyed a bit of a return to power, but they lost any sort of cohesion. Ealdgyth - Talk19:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Slightly intrigued by the Greenway sources, but if you're happy that they're reliable, I am too. I'm probably just misunderstanding what I'm looking at.
No, the Fasti is the gold standard of episcopal research for the period. It's an actual published book also, British History Online just has the ability to reprint it online also. Ealdgyth - Talk19:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm seeing the name mentioned in a lot of literature, but they either seem to be passing comments listing no further info than you give or references to an unrelated(?) Irish chap from a few decades later. As such, I'm happy to promote this article at this time. J Milburn (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply