Talk:Laudabiliter

message: The invasion of Ireland began, at first, in 1166 AD — according to a previous version of this article.  Did History change ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.68.244 (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of invasion 

message: "No further official reference to the Bull of 1555 nor to Laudabiliter was ever made again — neither by the Papacy nor by the Governments of England, Ireland nor Spain. It must be presumed that the low-level Papal diplomatic recognition of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1914 and the establishment of full diplomatic relations between the Holy See and the Irish Free State in 1922 both entailed the implicit final consignment of Laudabiliter to the dusty archives." 
"Dusty archives" is an out of date cliche. Most archives are not dusty and mouldy and the documents held by archives are far from dead in this part of the world. John Kelcher, Sound Archivist, New Zealand.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.144.32.165 (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dusty Archives 

message: I'll be expanding each section some more over the coming days. --Domer48 (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article expansion 

message: Domer48, what are you doing reverting a copy edit? Do you think it is productive to revert additions of wiki-links, grammar fixes, and MOS italics? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: He's done it again. Hard to assume good faith when he's just dissed your work without explanation. -- Evertype·✆ 08:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Domer48, I've placed a request at ANI over your behavior on Laudabiliter. Regards, --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting a copy edit 

message: The last sentence "It must be presumed that the low-level Papal diplomatic recognition of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1914 and the establishment of full diplomatic relations between the Holy See and the Irish Free State in 1922 both entailed the implicit final consignment of Laudabiliter to the archives." is very bad. It starts with an unsourced presumption and ends up with a bit of poetry which has no clear meaning. "Implicit" seems like OR, and what does "final consignment to the archives mean"? -- Evertype·✆ 07:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR at the end 

message: The is about three red links created during the expansion which I will create articles on over the coming days. I've removed the unsources sections and will expand them also. --Domer48'fenian' 08:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red links 

message: The article has been entirely rewritten over the past two weeks. I'm going to:
# Copy edit the article as it stands
# Edit the (essentially) new article
I'd suggest the author of the (essentially wholly) new article take a back seat for a while. Your work is appreciated Domer, let others now do theirs. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is no were near finished! Now I’ll be asking for a review of it when it is. So I’ll be carrying on with what I’m doing thanks! --Domer48'fenian' 19:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You've been at it for two week. The article has been totally rewritten. How much longer will you be owning it for? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy edit and review 

message: I've removed the 1311 letter and the 1317 Remonstrance from a mere subsection; they stand on their own. It's also clear to me that Laudabiliter was an extension of Pope Adrian's work in Norway as papal legate in 1152-1154, centralising the church's power and bringing in the peripheries of Europe, and making us pay for the privilege. If it hadn't been Henry II it would have been some other king, sooner or later.Red Hurley (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Slight reformat

message: This encyclopedia is written collaboratively. This series of edits, particularly their edit summaries, are not in the interest of the producing good quality articles:
*
*
*
One editor in particular has done stellar work on imporiving the depth and quality of this article, but no-one owns it. Step back and allow others to improve the article also in good faith. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting copy edits 

message: Ya'll should consider 'protecting' the article. 'Tis alot better then having disputing editors blocked (which doesn't help the article dispute resolution). GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection 

message: I've twice removed the "papal bull" section from this article only to be summarily reverted by Domer. None of the other articles I randomly checked from List of papal bulls has a detailed section about bulls in general -- they all just wikilink to the Papal bull article, and I think this should do the same. Thoughts? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps Domer48 could explain why he thinks it is necessary to include a generalised section on papal bulls in this article, when a general article already exists, to which can be linked from this article. On the face of it, I can't see a reason. Mooretwin (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Papal bull section 

message: It, or a version of the text, also appeared in the Magnum Bullarium Romanum published by the Vatican in 1739, which I've cited. Does anyone know if any Irish clergy challenged the wording at the time (i.e. in 1739)? Obviously it was challenged afterwards, but given the mindset of 1739 I believe that the published versions were accepted at the time as holy writ.Red Hurley (talk) 10:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Other 1739 source

message: I've moved the wikisources up as it is more useful for casual readers to find them quickly. And then wade into the historical controversy if they like.Red Hurley (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources moved up

message: Here's a copy of L in the Vatican archives, noting that the original grant was made in, er, 1196.Red Hurley (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and this picture in the Vatican of the grant being made, with suitable (or unsuitable!) green drapes all around.Red Hurley (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Copy of an artistic work before 1923, therefore Wikipedia:Public domain, therefore we can add it to this article. --RA (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 16th century copy

message: I've added 2 more items suggesting that L existed (or something very like it was understood to exist). Also the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath (not Arborath) was written after the 1317 remonstrance.Red Hurley (talk) 07:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 1185 and 1331

message: The picture of Giraldus Cambrensis is wrong. Imo, William of Newburgh is depicted here (with the wrong first name Walter in the description on Commons). --Eusc (talk) 01:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Giraldus Cambrensis-picture

message: "Laurence Ginnell cites the (Roman Catholic) Dr. Malone as evidence pointing to the Bull's illegitimacy. Dr. Malone states regarding the Laudabiliter "there does not appear to be in the domain of history a better authenticated fact than the privilege of Adrian IV to Henry II." -How does a "better authenticated fact" prove "illegitimacy"? If this makes sense to someone else, feel free to re-instate it. Mannanan51 (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Laudabiliter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020531054013/http://members.foothills.net/ricefile/bull_of_pope_adrian_iv.htm to http://members.foothills.net/ricefile/bull_of_pope_adrian_iv.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the section The Bull Laudabiliter the word privileges links to a redirect to Social privilege. The latter refers to a concept that has been developed from the nineteenth century onwards but not to privileges granted by the Pope. Priviligia also seem to be a class of documents - how should this be dealt with? Autarch (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Bull Laudabiliter - privilegia