This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I don't think the word "revealingly" should have been added to the description of one of the quotes in the article. I think the reader can come to that conclusion for himself.--Heathcliff 21:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
The former text read: "Theodora, whom Liutprand revealingly characterized as a "shameless whore..[who] exercised power on the Roman citizenry like a man [emphasis added]]." Liutprand's subtext is that the natural power structure has been reversed.Knowledgeable Wikipedia readers read Talk pages too, so the point has been well made, one way or the other. --Wetman 04:10, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Someone needs to add links to these sources that are referred to in the article, i.e. "as an unsympathetic source records". It is stated more than once, but there are no immediate links to these sources in the article [no footnotes] even though an explanation as to why they are the sources about Pope Sergius III is included. SailorAlphaCentauri 16:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Just from the first line, one can see a clear lack of neutrality. "papacy was just a a pawn of..." surely is not a neutral point of view. Can we get this looked at? GrimmC (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Read the references cited and primary source material regarding Sergius; you may find the most pov material on this article charitable in comparison. Sergius made an enemy of the man who would turn out to be his most prominent historian.184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Its been nearly a year since the above and the neutrality of this article is still suspect.They call me Mister Tibbs (talk) 07:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I have corrected that first line, and provided a source for it. Are there any further specific issues of neutrality that need to be addressed? Oatley2112 (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)