Talk:Universal power

message: The rest of this article is in the Spanish Wikipedia. Looks interesting, but needs translation by someone truly skilled in both languages. Cbdorsett (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: "The emperor and the pope maintained their respective authorities through diverse factors such as territorial dispersion, low level of technic[clarification needed] and productive development in feudal mode of production, and social and political tendency of feudalism  to decentralization of power."
Problems: 
-Assumes a particular politically-slanted ('feudal mode of production' is a Marxist idea) view of the Middle Ages. 
-The emperor and pope retained their (central) authorities through a tendency to decentralization? Makes no sense.
-What is a 'low level of technic'? If 'technology' is meant, what does a low level of technology have to do with this? There are legitimate connections (lack of easy information flow, necessity of a large portion of the population to work in agriculture) but it needs --at least-- an explanation of why it is relevant.
"The universal powers continued into the early 19th century until the Napoleonic Wars"
Wrong as stated; the Pope's secular power in the Papal States was restored after Napoleon's defeat and lasted until 1870; his religious relevance remains to this day. What is presumably meant is that the situation of two universal powers ended with the end of the Holy Roman Empire in the Napoleonic Wars, but this should be what is actually said. 
"Given the Caesaropapism of the Byzantine Empire, the situation in the Western World after the decline of the Roman Empire assumed an exceptionally powerful position of the Bishop of Rome. As the only patriarch  in the Western World, his status was soon converted into that of a primate."
Problems:
-Why does the Caesaropapism of the Byzantine Empire (the Eastern Roman Empire) mean that the Bishop of Rome (in the former Western Roman Empire) is more powerful?
-'Assumed' doesn't make sense here, but it's not clear what is meant. 'Led to', 'allowed', 'required', 'demanded'?
-The question of the primacy of the See of Rome in early Christian history is debated, and this isn't the right place to address it, but just stating one side ('the Bishop of Rome didn't have primacy until after the fall of the Roman Empire') is POV. 
128.194.250.86 (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Major issues with this article

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: no consensus. No consensus to move right now, but consensus the article could be merged with Dominium mundi. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Universal power →  – The expression "universal power" is vague. I feel giving the title a precision would not hurt and could avoid some erroneous hyperlinks in the long term. Moreover, a search on Google Scholar (see the search with the term 'emperor' added) and on Google Books indicate the expression "Universal power" is not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC at all. Veverve (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 15 January 2022