Talk:Princely Abbey of Stavelot-Malmedy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articlePrincely Abbey of Stavelot-Malmedy has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 2, 2009Good article nomineeListed
January 5, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

April 2009[edit]

What is the connection to Stavelot? isn't it the same or at least related? Just curious as I'm not familiar with the place. -- Alexf(talk) 19:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Principality was the entity governing Stavelot (and Malmedy) from the Middle Ages until the French Revolutionary Wars. So yeah, same place :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 14:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Principality of Stavelot-Malmedy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.


Starting GA review. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail criteria assessment

  1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
  2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
  3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
  4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
  5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

No problems found when checking against quick fail criteria, starting substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    • I made some minor copy-edits.
    b (MoS):
    • Picture galleries such as that at the bottom are deprecated.
      • Looking at MOS:IMAGES and WP:IG suggests that the use of the gallery in the Art section is encouraged — three images put there as thumbnails would be too long for the section. Can I persuade you to change your mind on that point? :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 20:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK I take your point. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would consider using the {{Multiple image}} template rather than a gallery - it allows you to group the thumbnails, while still allowing you to integrate the images and text. See, for example, Vincent van Gogh. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem isn't grouping the thumbnails, the problem is that there are three images that want to be in that section, but the section isn't very long, so integrating the images and text isn't really possible, simply because the images would overflow the text; {{Multiple image}} wouldn't solve that problem. I'd maintain the use in this article is precisely the kind of situation where MOS:IMAGES and WP:IG encourage the use of an image gallery. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 16:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    • No dead links.
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    • Ref #1 [1] is to French Wikipedia, which is not allowed; likewise ref #4 [2], Eupedia; likwise ref #11 [3], English Wikipedia; ref #14 [4], French Wikipedia; ref #21 [5] French Wikipedia; ref #27[6] French Wikipedia; ref #35 [7] English wikipedia; ref #36 [8] is a personal page, WP:SPS; ref #37 [9] is a personal page.  Done
      • Thank you; that's an even more useful list than the one I was using; there are some sources there I didn't realise weren't allowed. Thanks! :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 20:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, Wikipedia or any other wikis are not RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The final circular references have been removed. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 12:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its scope.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    • Consider re-using the picture gallery images within the text.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    • Some issues above which need fixing. On Hold. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC) OK, all fixed noe - I removed the reference to Fr Wiki in ref#2 as this is unneccessary, we can assume good faith. Happy to promote to GA status. Thanks for your hard work. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've been looking at the references; I'll continue to do so. Thanks for the input! — OwenBlacker (Talk) 20:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidacy[edit]

This review is transcluded from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Principality of Stavelot-Malmedy/archive1.
Please make any pertinent comments there.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 15:13, 5 January 2010 [10].

Principality of Stavelot-Malmedy[edit]

Nominator(s): OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the required criteria. Fwiw, I am the primary editor of this article. OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Technical check No dabs or deadlinks, but WP:alt missing or inadequate 14:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Good point; thanks. I'l address that imminently. -- OwenBlacker (Talk) 14:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added alt tags, as suggested. They're probably not the best wording in the world, but I think they should at least be adequate. -- OwenBlacker (Talk) 15:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Referencing is inadequate, just looking at first four refs. 1 lacks access date, unclear why it is RS, 2 lacks a publisher and looks like one copied from french Wikipedia, not actually seen by editor, 3 lacks access date, publisher, unclear why RS. 4 lacks publisher, unclear why RS. Other refs similar faults, some are to tertiary or otherwise dubious sources. Also uses Wikipedia as a source including this. Doesn't look ready for FA to me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of those issues were dealt with in the GA review (here). To be clear and summarise, you want access dates against the online references (and justification that the sources are adequately reputable). Can you be more specific as to which references you do not feel are reputable? Also, where is there a reference that uses fr.wiki as a source? It's quite common for reference sections to mention that foreign-language Wikipedia articles have been used; I wasn't aware this prevented FA status. Sorry, not wanting to seem defensive, just not quite sure what specifically you would expect to see changed in order for the article to be FA-worthy, so I know which particular areas to work on over the next few days :o) -- OwenBlacker (Talk) 16:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Online versions of books and journals don't need access dates, since the content is unchanging, but web-only content does. Web sites and books need a publisher. As a rule, general encyclopaedias are not considered RS unless the content referenced is verifiably by an expert on the topic. Foreign languages aren't indicated in a consistent fashion. I'll have a more through look tomorrow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, I'll go through and take another look at those. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added access dates to all the Web references. I couldn't see any inconsistent language references. I've added publishers to book references where possible (given some of the books are very old, this isn't always possible, but the disambiguation that providing a publisher provides is surely effected by hyperlinking to the source in question). A few sources are tertiary, as you mention; in the main, that's because there aren't an awful lot of secondary sources for a small state of the Holy Roman Empire. I think it's safe to assume that the Encyclopædia Britannica and Merriam-Webster have suitable editorial policies still to be considered reliable, no? *GRIN* — OwenBlacker (Talk) 00:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This article makes use of the articles Principauté de Stavelot-Malmedy, Abbaye de Stavelot and Malmedy from the French Wikipedia and the article Stavelot on the English Wikipedia. In what way? If you have read them for ideas, that's fine, if you are using them as references, obviously not. If you are copying across references that you cannot/have not checked, that may be a cause for concern. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, obviously. But individual sentences are referenced, which should demonstrate adequately that references aren't being copied across without checking them. Please assume some good faith, eh? ;o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • File:Stavelot-Malmedy.png needs author death date to verify out of copyright Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It really doesn't — the file is on the Commons, and is from a work (The Historical Atlas) widely used for PD imagery both across the Wikipedias and elsewhere; this should be plenty enough information for a Wikipedia. I have added William Robert Shepherd's year of death (1934) to the image page nonetheless. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I note your replies. I'm not an expert on RS, so I'll probably wait until others have reviewed the sources before making any further comment Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Agree with Jimfbleak it doesn't look ready. The referencing seems rather a hodge-podge of online sources, with the "Flags of the World" website the most commonly used reference. Johnbod (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Finding alternative references was indeed very challenging; I'm happy to try to look further, but I'm not sure more reliable sources are out there; we are discussing a relatively small state of the HRE, after all :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose is often ungainly:"Several sources note that the two abbeys held disputes between themselves, with Stavelot assuming primacy over Malmedy, to the latter's discontent; new abbots were invested in Stavelot on behalf of both abbeys, however." - the two references for this, by the way, date from 1762 and 1788. "The villa's lands occupied the borderland between the bishoprics of Cologne and Tongeren,[8] the territory previously having been part of the Frankish Empire, its independence dating to before the time of Charlemagne." - what does this mean? It was an "independent" villa? "A rejoiceful procession back to Stavelot paused en route to celebrate Mass on the banks of the Meuse, with a great crowd and further mirables". Johnbod (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can reword that; I'll look through the whole article for wording, given a few comments have made that point. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite a plethora of references, the "Art" section is of doubtful accuracy. As far as I can see from the many works I have just used to expand Stavelot Bible, the binding (no doubt originally in precious metal with jewels) is not a "high point of mediæval art" as it has been lost, in the French Revolution if not before; the reference citing the British Library has been misread. Although the question is uncertain, most experts don't seem to think that the metalwork objects produced for the abbey were actually made there. There is no link for Mosan art, the most relevant article here. "The abbey at Stavelot was one of the leading centres of mediæval artistic production" is a near-quote from the EB, but there it refers to a particular region, a particular period, and a particular medium. To expand it to cover "mediæval artistic production" in general is too much. The same might be said for the two plaques from the retable, which is largely famous because there is a 17th century drawing of the whole thing before it was destroyed. Johnbod (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the area I know the least about. I'd be very grateful for any help you could offer on rewording here, please? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll do a draft. Johnbod (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having said all that the article is interesting and useful, so I hope it will receive the polishing it needs. Stavelot Abbey ought to redirect there rather than the town. Johnbod (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment Looking around for the art section, it becomes clearer that there are gaps here. This is a fully online 300 history of Ètudes historiques sur l'ancien pays de Stavelot et Malmédy, which is of 1848, but for example mentions a serious sack of Stavelt in 1249, after which (from another source) it appears the abbey was unable to replace treasures important for the pilgrimage business for a century. That & the list of abbots on German WP make it clear that by the end of the Middle Ages the abbacy usually went to bishops of Liege, Tournai or Cologne, themselves usually the offspring of princely families. The Bavarian royal family supplied all the abbots from 1581 to 1657, at which point the Furstenberg's took over, then the Lorraines, taking one to 1731. The principality seems to have been a juicy little tit-bit in the power-politics of the Empire, and this needs coverage. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • First, what exactly did you mean by the reply to Jimfbleak above that "Yes, obviously". Did you mean that you read each reference in the various wikipedias and verified that they said what the article said? Or that you just used the articles for ideas?
    • The latter. The articles formed the basis for the article, to provide a framework for the article. I then researched and expanded the article to form the prose you see now. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heraldica is cited as a resource in WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. FotW is quite widely used as a reference, to the extent that it has its own template: Template:FOTW, again referenced from WikiProject H&V. "The Foundation for Medieval Genealogy (FMG) was established in 2001 by a group of British genealogists and historians with a special interest in the medieval period. In January 2002 we formally registered the FMG as a not-for-profit organisation with the Charity Commission for England and Wales." They all seem like they should meet the requirements to me, no? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the Heraldry wikiproject says use it doesn't make it reliable for these purposes, nor is a site devoted to Flags going to be reliable for history. I could possibly see the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy being reliable. To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. The best method is a mix of all of the above. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 19. Did you actually check the 1929 edition of Burke's Peerage or did you just use the website? Also, Burke's Peerage isn't very reliable for older nobility, and a 1929 edition is going to be less so. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The latter, hence the reference (if I'd read the reference itself, I wouldn't make mention of the website). — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a lot of 1700's and 1800's sources in the references section, why are these older sources reliable? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are generally the only texts that provide any information about the subject. On the whole, they are old encyclopædias and histories of the region. I don't believe that WP:RS suggests they shouldn't be considered as such… — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • A quick check on Google books turns up this listing of sources that mention the foundation of the monastery. Many of these are recent. This search for monastery and history gives another set of sources that are possible for searching. This is google scholar for history and the monastery. And that's just the beginning of the search. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also see a lot of reliance on the Encyclopedia Britannica, Catholic Encyclopedia, etc, all of which are tertiary general purpose encyclopedias. Thesea are not necesarrily the best sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, though there are very few better sources around… — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 45, did you check the Servais ref itself or did you just look at the website given? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think the title is not correct. I would prefer Imperial Abbey of Stavelot-Malmedy or monastic principality of Stavelot-Malmedy. I personnaly think the prose is often ambiguous. I provide a few examples:
    • "Saint Remaclus founded the Abbey of Stavelot on the Amblève river circa 650[5][6] out of what had been a villa." Was this villa a ruin? Was it still active?
    • "its independence dating to before the time of Charlemagne." The independence of the Abbey or of the villa? What does mean independent at those past times? It was a fiefdom, wasn't it? When? During the reign of Sigebert III.
    • "The monastery of Malmedy is considered by the historians and the hagiographers to be slightly older than the monastery of Stavelot" From the first part of the section, it seems Stavelot was first founded (on the villa's territory). Contadistinction?
    • " The abbey church in Malmedy was dedicated to St Benedict.[11]" This sentence appears as an orphan in the section. It provides almost no information.
    • "the abbeys played an important cultural role in Lotharingia, particularly thanks to prince-abbot Christian." Which one? Why in Lotharingia? Why not in Europe? Lotharingia has had a very short lifetime!
    • "Through the seventh and eighth centuries, the two abbeys followed their mission of evangelism, along with forest clearance, but suffered the same decay as elsewhere with the collapse of the Carolingian Empire, with the principality in the custody of lay abbots — temporal guardians — from 844 to 938, including Ebbo, archbishop of Rheims, Adalard the Seneschal, Reginar and Giselbert, dukes of Lorraine, and the like.[18][19][20]" Could you please cut this sentence into two or more? Avoid "and the like". Which decay? "Collapse of the Carolingian Empire" It is not clear whether the Carolingian Empire collapsed!
Vb (talk) 09:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some very useful comments, thank you. I shall have a good look through later and make improvements (or provide my rationale for not doing so, for discussion) as appropriate. Thanks all. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 15:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm entirely happy for the article to be moved to Imperial Abbey of Stavelot-Malmedy, which already redirects to the article. The current title is where the stub article was before I worked on it; I have no strong feeling on the matter either way. I'll look at rewording the examples you give above shortly. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not too sure about changing the name - this is the name used in English by the website for the abbey. In the French, German & Dutch WPs there are separate articles for the Abbey and state: Principauté de Stavelot-Malmedy] and Abbaye de Stavelot in French. If the article were named for the abbey the scope would naturally change, and that there is, for example, no description of the present or former buildings at either abbey would mean the article would not meet the criterion for comprehensive coverage. Johnbod (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • On reflection, I have to agree with User:Johnbod and disagree with User:Vb. I don't believe changing the article title is either necessary or desirable. I do believe that "Imperial Abbey of X" would also be an appropriate title for the state itself, and not just the abbey, but I do think that the current title is the most appropriate. I'll address the rewording comments shortly; some changes have already been made, but I don't agree with all the comments, I'm afraid. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 15:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Two more Comments: In the section Art one find: "The abbey at Stavelot was one of the leading centres of mediæval artistic production.[37]" and in [37]: "One of the leading centres of artistic production was the abbey of Stavelot." However in the context of [37] it is clear that the abbey of Stavelot was a leading center of Mosan art and not of the mediæval artistic production as a whole. About the title of this article: a bit of googling around shows that the name principality is often accompanied by adjectives like monastic or ecclesiastical. I think this is important because, just as for the prince-bishopric of Liège, the nature of this fiefdom was utterly distinct of secular ones. Vb 09:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The paragraph "The coat of arms, granted to the town of Stavelot in 1819, is also the coat of arms of the abbey — parted fesswise between an image of St Remaclus and the wolf, which in Stavelot's founding legend carried bricks for the building of the abbey after having killed Remaclus's donkey.[10][32][48]" is misplaced and does not belong to the art section. Vb (talk) 09:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Thanks for adding alt text. The alt text that you contributed is first-class. However, some images lack alt text, or need to be marked as purely decorative, and one of the templates generates a map whose alt text needs improving:
Eubulides (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. I've dealt with all of those except the Prinsenvlag, which is included by {{flagicon}}; looking at the source, I can't see how to alter the alt tag there. I didn't realise that we'd gained the ability to add alt tags in the infobox, though; thanks for pointing me to that! — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for doing all that; the alt text is much better now. I fixed File:Prinsenvlag.svg by creating {{Country data United Kingdom of the Netherlands}} and changing the article from "{{flagicon|Dutch Republic}} [[United Kingdom of the Netherlands]]" to "{{flag|United Kingdom of the Netherlands}}", and struck the items that have been fixed. However, the items not crossed out above still need fixing. Also, there's a problem with the newly introduced alt text: it contains many details that cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images. These details include "Coat of arms of Stavelot", "St Remaclus" (twice), "the" (in "the abbey"), "legendary", "along the banks of the Meuse", "Bible" (twice), "St Sebastian", "Byzantine", "each containing portions of the True Cross", "Gabriel", "Lower Rhenish–Westphalian Circle", and "Holy Roman Empire". Please see WP:ALT#Verifiability for why details must be verifiable directly from the image, and please see WP:ALT #Proper names for why proper names typically should not be in alt text. Eubulides (talk) 07:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Foolishly, I'd not read WP:ALT in adequate detail; again, thanks for pointing me to that. I've made all these edits apart from the two from the map in Template:Lower Rhenish–Westphalian Circle — I'm not convinced the prose makes sense or is useful without those two names, both of which can be derived from the context of the map within the template. I'd like to argue that the context, thus, makes the two names permissible, despite the recommendations of WP:ALT#Proper names. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 12:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for the changes. As a non-expert looking at that map, I'm afraid I have to disagree: it's not at all obvious to a non-expert that the colored region is the Lower Rhenish–Westphalian Circle and the white region the Holy Roman Empire: it could just as easily be the other way around. I attempted to fix it by adding a proper caption to the image, and then removing the corresponding info from the alt text as per WP:ALT#Repetition. I also reworded some info in the infobox alt text that I couldn't otherwise verify from the images. Eubulides (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Aaah, I see what you mean. That's much better. Thank you for helping with that! — 15:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm really sorry, but I have to oppose. The article has some serious historical problems. Anachronisms like describeing a 7th century abbot as "prince-abbot" of course the infobox: 651, Holy Roman Empire, successor state, the "Frankish Empire", colored coat of arms, and so on. Also imbalanced ... huge history section, a bit for geography and art, but nothing else. Parts of article uncited, e.g. "In 1659, a Capuchin convent was built in Stavelot.", and most of the sources used are frivolous, outdated or tertiary (e.g. "Saint Remaclus founded the Abbey of Stavelot on the Amblève river circa 650[5][6]") Article appears to cite primary sources directly or at least only with a non-modern editorial [Principality_of_Stavelot-Malmedy#cite_ref-Laws:p8.2C_10_25-0], and (to repeat slightly) many of the sources it uses are 19th and 18th century and thus probably out of date (and this might also explain why the article is so packed with anachronism). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I definitely agree with some of those points; I've corrected the anachronistic references to prince-abbots. The predecessor state to the Imperial Abbey, however, was indeed the Frankish Empire, I'm not sure what you would prefer to see here, nor do I understand the problem with a coloured coat of arms. I fail to see why old references are less likely to be accurate, however — we accept Bede as a reference for Anglo-Saxon England, for example. There are very few more-modern references for what was a small state in the Empire, surely it's better to have old references (which, as they're about then-recent history, are likely to be pretty accurate) than none? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 15:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, there are quite a number of reasons why old references are less likely to be accurate. I'm afraid that if you don't realise that yourself, you'll just have to take my word on it. And quoting Bede directly, or a similar source, is WP:OR and isn't recommended unless you are a specialist historian.
      • The assertion "The predecessor state to the Imperial Abbey ... was indeed the Frankish Empire" is just wrong. The Frankish realm wasn't an Empire until 800, and besides that the abbey was just an abbey that was part of a series of different kingdoms: the notion that it was a state within the best part of a millennium of its foundation is yet another anachronism. Francia was no more a "predecessor" to any of its monasteries than the Kingdom of England was a "predecessor" to Durham Cathedral Priory. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

coat of arms[edit]

coat of arms: http://www.goeast.be/de/business/standort/gemeinden/malmedy/history.html http://www.kreiter.info/familie/docs/reiseberichte/malmedy/malmedy.htm http://geo.uni.lu/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1477&Itemid=306 --88.207.213.162 (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup tags from May 2016[edit]

@Sigehelmus: You added cleanup tags {{Cleanup reorganize}} and {{Copy edit}} to this article in May. Are there specific problems you would like to see addressed? I can't see anything wrong with either of these aspects myself, but I've done a significant amount of the work on this article, so I am willing to believe I'm overlooking something.

If you could comment here with what the specific problems you've identified are, then I can make some effort towards addressing them. Thanks! :) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 14:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Princely_Abbey_of_Stavelot-Malmedy&oldid=1212533416"