# Talk:Rüdiger Huzmann

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rüdiger Huzmann/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 23:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I'll take this one. It usually takes me about a week to get to reviewing things but ping me if it goes over that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos, here's your requested ping :) But no need to rush, I'm unlikely to respond much before Thursday anyway. —Kusma (talk) 09:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Whoops! On it :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the review! I'll get to work on your comments. —Kusma (talk) 09:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Generic reviewing style disclaimer: Typically I point out structural things related to the GA criteria like completion and prose clarity, the rest are miscellaneous thoughts or questions. I'm open to discussion if you disagree with a comment or don't think it's relevant, and I will never fail an article for not implementing suggestions that aren't directly related to the GA criteria.

Not very much is known... - Nitpick - not sure "very" is needed. Not a hill I'd die on, just that it's the kind of thing they'd fuss over at FAC
Removed.
One of his predecessors at the school was Benno. - without context, this is not especially meaningful to the reader. Did Huzmann have a specific connection with Benno? Otherwise why highlight him as a predecessor?
The source uses Benno to highlight the importance of the school; I've tried to give a little more context.
I feel like "Role in the Investiture Controversy" could do with a paragraph break somewhere.
Done
Together with Burchard of Basle... - who's this guy?
Bishop of Basel, now in the text.
On receipt of the letter, Pope Gregory excommunicated Siegfried I - why him and not everyone else?
My sources don't say. I believe it was because Siegfried as highest ranking bishop was the leader of the pack (the archbishop of Mainz was the primas Germaniae).
which meant accepting to be excommunicated - this is a bit awkward but I'm not sure how to reword it. "Despite knowing that he would be excommunicated, Huzmann stayed loyal to the king"?
Something like this is better, reworded.
Actually, this whole sentence is kind of long. Could it be split somewhere?
Split.
In 1084, Clement III... - not sure this sentence needs to be in here, as it's not really about Huzmann
Basically the story is that there were two popes and two kings of Germany and they all excommunicated the other side. Maybe I should trim some of it as it is more about the Investiture Controversy / Henry vs Gregory than about Huzmann, but maybe some context helps. In any case, I've added an extra sentence about Huzmann at the end.
The additional context helps. As an aside, the idea of two sides complete with a pope and a king for each is oddly comical. "God says he doesn't like you guys anymore." "Nuh-uh! He told us he doesn't like you guys anymore."
Who restored Huzmann the second time? The article mentions two excommunications, but only one restoration.
I haven't seen this written out explicitly, but as I understand it, the problem went away after they had counter-excommunicated Gregory and chosen their own pope (there was a conclave in Rome in 1084 confirming Clement as pope, but the Catholic Church later decided to ignore that and declare him an antipope).
I love it. Everyone just sticks their fingers in their ears and pretends that guy was never here.
Prince-Bishopric of Speyer - the articles Prince-Bishopric of Speyer and Bishop of Speyer seem to state that Speyer wasn't a prince-bishopric until the 1300s or 1500s (unclear which is correct), both of which are well after the timeframe for Huzmann's rule. I can't read the source and verify unfortunately - could you clarify?
Those articles are wrong (or misleading). Prince-bishop has it right. Basically the bishop ruled territory from 888, and so he was a prince-bishop. I've removed the sentence from Bishop of Speyer, as I could not find out what changed in 1546.
History of the Jews in Speyer seems to indicate that the Jewish refugees welcomed by Huzmann were actually fleeing pogroms, not just a simple fire, and that he actively invited them to come by granting the protective charter, with the emperor's approval. This article omits the pogroms and is written in a way that suggests that the refugees arrived first, then received the charter. Thoughts?
My most extensive source on this, Chazan 1987, which you can read on archive.org if you have a free account there, just mentions that they were "fearful of burgher animosity" so it isn't clear there was a pogrom (and there's no source for a Mainz pogrom in 1084 in the History of the Jews in Speyer article; all I could find was the 1090s pogroms). It also says they were welcomed by Huzmann, and that there was a charter of invitation. I don't see a clear timeline. I've combined two sentences in the hope of not giving the wrong impression of knowing what was first.
I can't find anything explicit about a pogrom in 1084. This source (unknown reliability) mentions earlier pogroms plus a fire in 1084. This book (probably reliable) tells of the Jews fleeing after a fire, and Huzmann inviting them after he learned of the situation. Another source says "expelled ... accused of arson ... welcomed with open arms in Speyer". I think what is in the article is reasonably accurate.
For this comment and the previous one about prince-bishop-ness - I trust you know the subject area and can assess the sources better than I can, so I'm satisfied with your responses.
No other GA-criteria concerns - copyright, POV, images, etc, all look fine. I see no reasons to be concerns about the sourcing, which all looks reliable, and is cited inline appropriately.
No rush on replying! Cheers, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review Premeditated Chaos! I've changed some things and not changed some others. Let me know what you think. —Kusma (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
@Premeditated Chaos, here's another ping :) There are some things I haven't done, but I'd like to hear whether you accept my argument not do them. —Kusma (talk) 08:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Sorry about the delayed response. I didn't bother re-responding to most of the comments as generally I found your changes addressed any concerns I had. I think this is a pass. Thanks for your patience with me as a reviewer! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Great, cheers! —Kusma (talk) 06:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)