Talk:Pietro IV Candiano

Too many inaccuracies
The previous text contained a significant number of inaccuracies. Some these can be considered as being serious, such as the the people of Venice rebelling against the father of Pietro IV, (Pietro III) who was the doge and who was exiled, when what actually happened was the other way round., Piero IV rebelled against his father. It was the bishop of Torcello, not the bishop of Castello who was blinded and exiled and an explanation for this action was not provided. The mentioned inaccuracies are:

1)	The people of Venice did not try to kill Pietro III 2)	Pietro IV did not save his father’s life. Pietro IV rebelled against his father. This was thwarted by the people. It was the father who managed to save his son’s life, not the other way round. 3)	Pietro IV did not exile his father. His father did not manage stop the people from exiling his son. 4)	Pietro IV did not return to Venice to fight his father. He returned when his father died. 5)     Berengar II did not give Pietro IV support for an assault on Venice. Pietro IV did not attack Venice. Berengar allowed him to go to Ravenna where he seized some Venetian ships. 6)	Marina Cadiano was not the Daughter of Giovinazza. She was the daughter of Waldrada 7)	Pietro IV did not have the Bishop of Castello blinded and exiled. It was the bishop of Torcello. 	8)	Waldrada of Tuscany was not a Lombard. She was the granddaughter of Hugh of Provence. 9)	Pietro’s relations with Otto I did not anger the Byzantines 10)	The Byzantines did not threaten war and their action was not about contraband. They banned the sale of military material to the Arabs. 11)	Pietro did not have to consent to end the trade with the Muslims altogether. He had to stop the sale of military material to them. 12)    Pietro I Orseolo, did not live Waldrada an inheritance. Waldrada claimed her dowry back (Testatorsilens (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC))