Talk:Ralph de Luffa/GA1

GA Review

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

• Ref for Toman (ed.) Romanesque pp. 320–321? Ling.Nut (talk) 06:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Bishop of Winchester-elect? Or Bishop-elect of Winchester? Ling.Nut (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• I prefer the former, but obviously I've been inconsistent. Suggestions? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• My head is spinning. Too many Henrys and investiture crises.. why does one "crisis" mention Henry IV, and another link to [[Anselm of Canterbury#Conflicts with King Henry I? Ling.Nut (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

• "as well as only accepting gifts from his flock."? I assume this is contrast to other Bishops who accepted bribes from... someone...? Ling.Nut (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• "Ralph gained... Ralph ordered". I was under he impression that we refer to folks by their family names here at Wikipedia... am I wrong...? Ling.Nut (talk) 07:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

• Colonge? Cologne? Ling.Nut (talk) 07:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks! I sorta find the phrase "This information comes from" to be sorta distracting, but it's not a big deal. Looking at other things... Ling.Nut (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Here's a suggestion, and it's just a suggestion; feel free to disregard: "It was during Luffa's tenure of the see that the first disputes between the bishop and Battle Abbey started, although these were not grave until half a century later, during the episcopate (?) of Hilary of Chichester." Ling.Nut (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Added (with source). Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

• Ugh. Isn't it kinda unfair to expect someone to redo another article for GA status? (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• I won't hold you hostage on this matter. I'm appealing to your well-known noble character. Past my bedtime.. g'night. :-)Ling.Nut (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'll try. Second mare is on heavy duty foal watch (she's REAL close) so noble character is rapidly making way for "cranky-lack-of-sleep".... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

PASS GA. Good work! Ling.Nut (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)