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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Goslar Precedence Dispute is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
I have removed this sentence from the article because something seems to be missing from the sentence; I can't tell what "it" refers to:
"Tuomas Heikkilä (see bibliography) suspects, therefore, that it was a synod of the Archdiocese of Mainz, possibly in opposition to the transitional government of Anno II."
-sche (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I translated the article from German Wikipedia. The "it" appears to refer to the occasion on which this first (Christmas 1062) incident took place. It makes sense that because the king was elsewhere, Heikkilä suspects it was a synod (i.e. church-only meeting). The sentence could be modified as follows: "Tuomas Heikkilä (see bibliography) suspects, therefore, that the occasion of this first dispute was a synod for the Archdiocese of Mainz, possibly convened in opposition to the transitional government of Anno II." --Bermicourt (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! That makes sense; thanks for clarifying. I've re-added the sentence, joining it with the previous sentence in a way that I hope makes things clear. -sche (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I understand why you changed the word "bloodbath", but reading the reference it also uses the same term, so maybe that's how it's referred to. Or maybe we could change both sections to e.g. "The confrontation at Christmas 1062" and "The bloody fighting at Pentecost 1063". I can't think of a one-word alternative for "bloodbath" that indicates the extraordinary fact that people were killed and wounded in this, what appears to us today, to be a pathetic dispute. But we didn't live in those times... --Bermicourt (talk) 08:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
