Talk:Colloquy of Poissy

Comments
There seems to be little to support the Protestant POV, instead, more focus on Catholic embarrassment: ie. 'It was a deep humiliation for the proud Roman hierarchy of France to be compelled to listen to a long tirade by Beza against a cherished Catholic doctrine' Markabbott01 19:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).   -- Ok, this was the boilerplate. Yes, the article is not WP:NPOV. That's because it's from a 1913 encyclopedia. It needs cleanup and sourcing. Sandstein 20:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of highly prejudicial phrases in this document, such as referrring to one of the parties as insolent. And, I think it is original research to compare Queen Elizabeth I of Engalnd with Queen Catharine Medici of France. They, their powers and histories are regraded by most observers as different as chalk and cheese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.145.81 (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Catholics, Calvinists, Lutherans...
According to the article

"The Cardinal of Lorraine had asked whether the Calvinists were prepared to sign the Confession of Augsburg, a matter of dissension between them and the Lutheran Protestants."

Why would the Catholic cardinal care about agreement between Calvinists and Lutherans? Weren't they both equally heretics, as far as he was concerned?

Top.Squark (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 21 April 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. No opposition and seems clear enough. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Colloquy at Poissy → Colloquy of Poissy – See ngram Many of the Google results for the current page title or old or not reliable. Many of the results for the proposed title are reliable sources. JFH (talk) 03:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Old version of page retained per WP:Parallel histories
When carrying out the above page move, I found the target article had a nontrivial history, including text which was later merged into this article itself, before redirecting. As required by WP:Parallel histories, for attribution purposes, I have retained that old version, which is now stored at, and made a note to that effect in the edit summary during my move. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)