Talk:Henry Symeonis
Appearance
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Henry Symeonis appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 February 2025 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Did you know nomination
[edit]- 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 SL93 talk 22:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
( )
- ... that up to 1827, University of Oxford students had to vow never to reconcile with Henry Symeonis, although it appears that by the 1650s everyone forgot why or who he even was?
- Source: "Even by that time, one suspects that the oath was of such antiquity that no-one knew anything about it and it was thought best to leave it be ... The oath against Henry Symeonis continued in the University’s statutes for centuries after the events of 1264. ... it was finally abolished five and a half centuries later. The records of the decision taken in 1827 are frustratingly brief and unenlightening."[1]
- ALT1: ... that the University of Oxford held onto its grudge with a certain Henry Symeonis for five and a half centuries, long after everyone forgot who he even was?
- ALT2: ... that the University of Oxford ignored a royal command to reconcile with Henry Symeonis, put the grudge into its statutes, and held onto it for c. 550 years, even after forgetting who he was?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Johnny Gaudreau
- Comment: I have no idea which of these hooks I would choose. Everyone's opinion is welcome.
Surtsicna (talk) 11:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC).
Really interesting article! Well-sourced, long enough, and new enough. QPQ done. All hooks cited and in the article. Though quite long for DYK hooks, I think the subject deserves it. The first hook is the most interesting in my opinion, but maybe replace "1650s" with "17th century" to make it punchier and to hew it closer to the article. Best, Tenpop421 (talk)