Talk:1241 papal election
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1241 papal election article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
 | 1241 papal election was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 7, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the papal election in 1241 is often cited as the first papal conclave due to the confinement of the cardinal electors to the Septizodium (pictured)? | |||||||||
GA Review
edit- This review is transcluded from Talk:Papal election, 1241/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I put this article on hold for the following reasons:
- It badly needs a copyedit. There are plenty of English grammar mistakes. Three that really jumped at me: before his pulled back to Apulia, angered by rumors than a non-Cardinal would be elected, traveling not the election.
The lead is too short.The ==Context== does not do its job well. The sections should talk about when & how the old pope died, how cardinals were convened, why pope warred with emperor, politics involved, etc. The section lists Sixth Crusade as the main article, yet mentions nothing about it in the text. The discussion "conclave vs. election" seems to be misplaced (would look better in "legacy" section or similar).- Why ==Accounts== just talk about one witness? There surely must be other sources. Expand, incorporate somewhere else, or remove.
Renata (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe I have satisfied your first three comments (I have re-read the article and run a spell check, but grammar is not my forte so please let me know if you caught anything else specific). As for the accounts section, this discusses the only primary source of note that I was able to discover and his impact on secondary sources. To wit, there are no other notable accounts of the election, and no sources available for expansion. Thus, I find your recommendation to be counterproductive, unless you happen to know of any sources I have overlooked. The sectioning of notes about the primary sources is important for parallelism with other election and conclave articles, among other things. Removal clearly would not improve the article. Savidan 23:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for a quick response.
- The lead looks nice. Context is so much better, but would benefit from a couple citations and incorporation of Gregory's date of death. I would move up legacy to after aftermath. I think "the election was the first of many protracted vacancies" is not quite correct - if I understand it, you mean the vacancy after the death of Celestine IV. And election cannot be a vacancy, anyway.
- The copyedit is really needed. I would be glad to help, but my English is not much better. Can you ask around if any editors would be willing to help out? The article is sometimes even hard to read because of rather awkward phrasing.
- The accounts section really bothers me as I know it does not give a full view of primary documents concerning the election. For sure there must be a ton of official Vatican documents, letters (a quote is present from Frederick's) & such. There are two accounts of people wanting to dig up the dead pope. Whose are they? Paris says two cardinals were poisoned, but the text say they died of disease, so there must be another account. Whose? In short, I see a point mentioning Paris and his "poison" view when talking about the deaths of the cardinals, but not as a separate section knowing that discussion about all other sources is missing. Renata (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- It is closing to a week and I don't see improvements being made... What's the status? Renata (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Christ's Faithful People
editI deleted the references to this source, on the grounds that it is partisan and sectarian, as well as misleading. Vicedomino (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Henderson, 1894
edit"It is likely that the cause of death was dysentery, ..." I have added to the footnote a warning that this is pure speculation−with no support in contemporary accounts. It also contradicts the paragraph immediately above, which states that the pope-elect was old and ill already−which is vouched for in the contemporary accounts. Moreover, Henderson's expertise, Germany in the Middle Ages, is tangential to papal elections, and has little weight, if any, as an authority. Vicedomino (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
History of Popery
editThis book is a religious tract, from the point-of-view of English Protestantism. The quotation at n. 16, ...a "feeble, ignorant, old fanatic" who was "destitute of any other qualification"... is the author's own polemical thrust, unsupported by evidence. I propose to delete it. Vicedomino (talk) 06:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)