Talk:Claudius of Turin

Redundant
This list doesn't belong in this article:

Main views

 * He opposed worship of images, relics and crosses,

Already in the cited fact in the article.


 * he forbade pilgrimages to Rome to obtain absolution,

Already in the cited fact in the article.


 * he refused to accept the authority of the pope who wasn't apostolic in his way of life,

Already in the cited fact in the article.


 * he denied infallibility of the Church,

''If you are suggesting Papal infallibility, it was not dogmaticaly declared until the 19th century. If you mean the Magistarium, please cite.''


 * he thought of the Eucharist as a symbol of Christ's body and blood,

''The phrase transubstantiation was not current yet, not until centuries later. Again, if this is fact, please cite needed.''


 * he teached that a man is saved by faith alone and must not rely on his works for his justification.

''Indulgences were a product of Pope Urban II Crusade of 1095, Claudius predates the controversy by several centuries. This wasn't a big issue until the time of Luther. If this is so, please cite.''

Also reverting (and why:)

Claudius was opposed by Dungal, Jonas of Orleans and Theodmir, but his authority seems to have been too well established and Claudius continued unharmed with his reforms and views until his death in 839.

''"seems to have been" Pointing out how something "seems" has nothing to do with what wikipedia is. If it is fact, state it and cite it. If its speculation, cut it.''

Some believe Louis the Pious considered him later a Heresiarch

''You added "some". This is wrong, "some" do not believe it. The Oxford Dictionary of Christianity believes it and every reader can tell this because the fact is cited. Adding "some" here only introduces weasel words.

Lastly:''

...(at a personal request of the emperor)

''I have cited facts in this article that state the Emperor was trying to discredit Claudius. Your introduction of weasel words above is to set up this parenthetical. Please cite it when you return it to the text and perhaps give some facts explaning why he the emperor would be double dealing with the bishop.''

The article is just a stub, any cited facts would be welcome additions. -- SECisek 14:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There is some stuff I can add, but I have found contradictions between sources, since Claudius undoubtedly dedicated much of his work to the Emperor and was a member for a time of his court circle. The Emperor probably even requested some of his writings, but it has also been stated that the emperor requested Jonas and Dungal to write against him. Srnec 05:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

What is the source? Add it, cite it, and then discuss it. Something clearly went wrong at some point between him and the emperor but I do not know what or exactly when. -- SECisek 07:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Great work, Srnec! I'll see what else I can add. -- SECisek 04:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sending it for GA. I think, given the limited subject matter,  this is as good as it is going to get. -- SECisek 10:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, though I think there is some information that could be used to augment the article. Srnec 03:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have more, be bold. Don't worry about the GA review. I have two articles ahead of this one that have been up for GA for over week with no review yet, so we have time. -- SECisek 03:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

GA review comments
Hello, and here are my comments on the current state of the article relating to promoting it to WP:GA. Corrected, cited, and also fixed linked Catholic Encylopedia article form 1913. It does sound like WP:OR. Not mine and no cite, so I cut. Ditto another questionable assertion. Again, knowing how keen the editors are who nominated this article, I'm putting it on hold rather than failing it for the time being. You have seven days, the clock is ticking! The Rambling Man 09:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:DATE for advice on when birth and death dates are uncertain. I think you're nearly right but you may wish to consider the use of “fl.”.
 * Lead says "bishop from 817", main article says "around 816 or 817", Bishop of Turin article which you link to states 818. This needs work.
 * "... is remembered for ..." - most noted for?
 * "He was attacked in written works by St Dungal and Jonas of Orleans." - was he attacked for his radicalism? Can we clarify that in the lead?
 * "Claudius is often supposed to have been from Spain." - uncited, and I don't like the phrase - make it more encyclopaedic by saying something like "Several sources suggest that Claudius was from Spain..." and cite the sources you're talking about.
 * "This belief was supported ..." it's not clear how - perhaps you need to state that Urgel lived in the Spanish Pyrenees (or wherever he was supposed to have lived!).
 * The mixture of whether he was or wasn't from Spain is a little confusing to read.
 * "to whom Leidrad presumedly had boasted of his pupil" - this sounds like original research. If it's a quote from a citation then place into quotes and cite.
 * "(before 811)" - strangely placed, write it into the prose.
 * You've linked "his father's empire" to Carolingian Empire - this link is not clear to the non-expert reader, perhaps state both and link the Carolingian Empire directly.
 * "saecular" - presumably secular?
 * Last couple of statements in "Early career and the imperial court" have no citation.
 * "It was important that the bishop of Turin be a man who was loyal to the emperor." - again, a little OR-ish unless you can cite something directly.
 * "He made attacks on the use of images, relics, and crosses.[3] He opposed pilgrimages to obtain absolution and he had little regard for the authority of the Pope,[3] teaching that all bishops were equal." - flow into one sentence.
 * "Claudius last appears..." sounds like a plot synopsis! Can you say something more like "The last recorded appearance of Claudius..." or similar?
 * "His writings, most extant works are biblical commentaries, are personalised." - reads awkwardly.
 * Not sure either image is 100% relevant to this article - I could be convinced though...! Better, I hope.
 * "...a famous apology ..." - famous to whom?


 * I'm on it! -- SECisek 09:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of this work isn't mine and we will need to see if other editors turn up to defend their work. I will start working to support it never the less. -- SECisek 10:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

All cited or reworked, ready for more. -- SECisek 12:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, good stuff. A couple more things before I pass it:
 * "The last recorded act of Claudius is in a charter of the monastery of St Peter at Novalesa in May 827. He was dead by the time Dungal finished his Responsa contra peruersas Claudii Taurinensis episcopi sententias late in 827, so it is presumable that he died that year." - these need citations.
 * "...respect amongst the Frankish nobility.[10] It was important..." - you could flow these two together to read better.
 * Reference [4] needs a title.
 * "The Corinthian commentaries remain unpublished today, though it was they that sparked the controversy concerning icons and pilgrimages." could do with a citation to substantiate the claim.
 * Orleans or Orléans? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Rambling Man (talk • contribs).
 * I think that's it...! The Rambling Man 15:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, fine. Good work, it's now up to GA standard. The Rambling Man 12:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (I hate GA nomination processes and stuff...) I notice that all the things you mentioned as sounding OR-ish were definitely in my sources, but I decided not to cite every single sentence. There is a hard balance to strike there. Wikipedia becomes a little ponderous if every fact is cited, so it becomes a matter of deciding what others will like to see backed up with a page number. Srnec 05:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Claudius of Turin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928062109/http://www.museudiocesaurgell.org/laseu/uk/sorigenv.htm to http://www.museudiocesaurgell.org/laseu/uk/sorigenv.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)