Talk:Stephanie of Courtenay

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 14:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the chronicler William of Tyre relied on the good memory of the old Abbess Stephanie of Courtenay when he recorded the history of the northern crusader states? Source: Buck (2017), p. 9: "Moreover, in commenting on his conversations with Stephany regarding her years in the north, William stressed that, although she was advanced in years, her memory was reliable for she was a witness to these events."
  • ALT1: ... that when her niece divorced the king of Jerusalem, the court's reasoning was so flimsy that a noted jurist had to ask Abbess Stephanie of Courtenay to explain it to him? Source: Hamilton (1978), p. 160: "Although the marriage was annulled on grounds of consanguinity, it is difficult to crédit that this was the real reason for objecting to it: the relationship between Agnes and Amalric was such a distant one that William of Tyre, who had been studying overseas when the annulment took place, had to ask the abbess of Sainte Marie-la-Grande to explain the grounds for it to him."
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Felis wenzensis

Created by Surtsicna (talk). Self-nominated at 17:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Stephanie of Courtenay; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: for ALT1. Thank you @Surtsicna: for writing the page! There doesn't appear to be any problems with newness, sourcing, neutrality, etc. so I'm happy to pass this nom. Personally, I think ALT1 is a little more interesting than ALT0, but both look good. Cheers from North Carolina! Johnson524 20:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)