Jump to content

Talk:Ralph de Luffa/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

  • Because there was one big Crisis that was driven by the papacy, but in each kingdom/region it was fought out differently. So we have the famous one in Germany-to-be, with Canosa, etc (That's your Henry IV). Then we have the English one between Anselm and William II and Henry I. I'm not sure where you're seeing the link to a subsection of Anselm's article? I don't have one in here that I can see. I link to Anselm, but the only links about the investiture crisis are to the Investiture Crisis/Controversy article. Our IC article is rather scattered, but it covers both the German bits and the English bits. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's more that he avoided the appearance of expecting "gifts". Reworded to "He also allowed only freely given gifts from his flock, avoiding all appearance of extorting donations." Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • what "disputes between the bishop and Battle Abbey"? I very quickly scanned Battle Abbey and didn't see these, but could easily have overlooked them... were all of the disputes "not large", or only the early ones?
  • Most dioceses had disputes with abbeys within their territory in the middle ages. The ones between Chichester and Battle were worse than usual, they were quite nasty and invovled the bishops' rights to inspect the abbey, etc. The abbey article ... well... sucks. If you want to know more about the disputes, read about it in Hilary of Chichester, where it flared up the worst. I've clarified this a bit more with "During Luffa's episcopate, he and the abbey disputed over the right of the bishop to be entertained..." Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except Luffa isn't exactly a family name... but I've changed it to Luffa throughout. (Medievalists usually go for first name all the time, thus the problems I have with this silly convention ...) I believe I got them all. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I also prevail upon you to rework the WP:LEDE of Investiture Controversy in order to mention the English bits, and show a connection between them, and mention that the English bits were the eventual conclusion? I was really thrown for a loop by the sudden addition of three Henrys in the timespan of a single clicked wikilink, and I assume others will be too. besides, the current IC lede isn't in conformance with WP:LEDE; it isn't a stand-alone summary of the article. .. That's all I'm asking for, but if you are heroically pure and holy and true of heart, you could unscatter or clarify the whole IC mess. But I'm not actually asking for that great undertaking from you... just .. could you fix the lede of the IC article... :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PASS GA. Good work! Ling.Nut (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]