Talk:Elisabeth of Schönau

"not canonized"
Could this be changed to "pre Congregation" to clarify that she is indeed considered to be "in the canon" but it happened before the Congregation for Saints was created? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

women were essentially powerless
This sentence is sourced, but it is still simply an opinion and perhaps the article could indicate this. "While celibacy offered women a sense of freedom, a woman could not officiate in the central practices of the Christian religion, leaving women essentially powerless." Perhaps "While celibacy offered women a sense of freedom, a woman could not officiate in the central practices of the Christian religion, leaving women essentially powerless (as per a common modern interpretation)." --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing a definite ideological bias in this article216.120.209.6 (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, the bias is evident but probably unintentional and caused by too heavy a reliance on one publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.0.29 (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The bias is strong, and arguably wrong, given that there were medieval women who wielded considerable influence. It seems to represent a very narrow-minded, stereotypical view of the Middle Ages. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Egbert, Eckebert, Ekbert
It's useful to mention once that these forms of the name all occur (if they do) as equivalent, but then I think it is more useful just to use one form in the article, and the form linked to in the corresponding Wiki article (otherwise the question naturally arises, why change it?). --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)