Talk:Pope Joan/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Scholarly consensus

This has come up before, and the fact is that the scholarly consensus about the Joan story is that it's fictional. The story can't be attested until centuries after she died, among other things. A number of relevant sources were mentioned, for instance, here. There are a few modern writers who claim the story is true, but they're not historians so far as I can tell, and historians don't take them seriously.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, the sources speak to a clear consensus among experts in the field that the story is a myth. Novelist Diana Cross and the Daily Mail aren't historians.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but the anon keeps reverting. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

And from time to time people will continue reverting it, because, as it's been already said before by different users, this article is clearly written from a biased officialist Catholic POV. Consensus hs one simple and only meaning, in all languages: if one single person disagrees with it, it is NOT a consensus. You may call it a near-consensus, you may say that "most scholars agree", I would even let you go with "almost all scholars agree", but you guys KNOW that there are reputable academicists and authors who deffend her story, and yet you are just chosing to ignore them just because they contradict your personal beliefs.

I have provided link and reference to the former editor of "The Catholic Herald", British scholar and writer Peter Stanford, who concluded in his huge book entirely about Pope Joan that "Weighing all this evidence, I am convinced that Pope Joan was an historical figure, though perhaps not all the details about her are true". It is blatant proof that the last sentence in the opening paragraph of this wikipedia article is simply incorrect - the addition of one simple word ("most", even "almost all" if you'll feel better with it) would make the article academically correct, but the same users who have previously been accused by other users of turning this article into a biased piece of Catholic propaganda keep removing my correct references and continue ignoring any authors who do not 100% agree with their absolute certainty on such a historical matter on the grounds that it "must be discussed first". Well, then; let us discuss it, then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.8.107.196 (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

In response to this, like Diana Cross, Peter Stanford isn't a historian. He's a journalist, and his book is not well regarded by others in the field. As I said above, it was harshly reviewed by John C. Moore in Speculum (July 2000, Vol. 75, No. 3, pp. 726-727). The sources by actual scholars speak to a consensus that the story is a myth. Allain Boureau's standard work on the topic is called The Myth of Pope Joan, for crying out loud. Claims that stating this fact is somehow "Catholic propaganda" are baseless and inappropriate.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that "his book is not well regarded by others in the field" is absolutely irrelevant - and otherwise arguable: the book you cited isn't well regarded by Peter Stanford himself, either. And you are incorrect about Peter Stanford being just a jornalist and therefore his opinion being irrelevant to the article (which would be a debatable position, even if your facts were right). But he actually *is* a historian: Peter Stanford graduated in History from Oxford. And he was for years the editor of the Catholic Herald, and of other renowned catholic publications as well.

So, summing it up: historian and former editor of the renowned Catholic Herald Peter Stanford says that, "given all the evidence, I believe Pope Joan was real". I cannot in any possible way conceive how this could or should be completely disregarded and vetoed from a supposedly impartial article, other than because of the fact that it doesn't suit the preconceived personal opinions of what certain people regarding what the (clearly not completely neutral) point of view presented in this article should be.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.8.107.196 (talk • contribs)

Anon, please sign your posts with four tildas (~~~~) so we can keep track of who's saying what. According to Wikipedia's policy on Neutrality, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". Stanford is not a historian, his work isn't well regarded by others in the field, so he can't be considered a reliable source for the Pope Joan legend. When we have multiple sources speaking to a consensus among the experts that the subject is a myth, we can't override it on the strenght of one of the few modern books that disagrees.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Once again you claim that Stanford is not a historian, when he indeed is. Again, the fact that his work isn't well regarded by others (what others? who? says who?) by no means means it shouldn't be mentioned in wikipedia; he is a renowned Catholic editor, a Cambridgean historian, and his views (which are not his alone) must be mentioned, even if you then want to point out all of your pals who dismiss his claims, as long as you actually ref your claims and they have real arguments.

Also, I couldn't help noticing that many of the sources being listed as "proof that Pope Joan didn't exist" actually point out simply that there being no proofs that Pope Joan did exist - which is a completely different thing. There are thousands of people mentioned in Wikipedia who most scholars agree that there isn't enough proof to assert that they surely existed - but, as long as they can't prove either that they did not exist, they cannot be categorically called fictitious. Hundreds of Catholic figures and characters, including dozens of popes, fall into this category (as stated by one ABC News article that I had previously reffered to, and that you guys also unsurprisingly simply censored off the article).

To sum it up, I believe this whole article is completely biased and partial, and its neutrality should be disputed and reviewed - and, judging from this very same talk page, I am far from the first person who points this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.8.107.196 (talk • contribs)

Again, please sign your posts with four tildas (~~~~). For something to be included in Wikipedia, it must be attributed to a reliable source relevant to the topic. Additionally, we give more weight to stronger sources, and less or no weight to weak sources. Peter Stanford isn't a historian. He describes himself as a "writer, journalist and broadcaster". He's got an impressive output but he's got no credentials in history, medieval studies, or some other relevant field, and his works don't appear to be well regarded by the experts in the field. I already mentioned the Speculum review; Thomas F. X. Noble's review in The Catholic Historical Review (October 1999, Vol. 85, No. 4) is also very critical. Those are just two I found at my library.

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Considering that all the other sources by historians speak to a consensus that Joan was a myth, Stanford's claim that she may have been real is exceptional. But his book is not an exceptional source.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Cúchullain. Peter Stanford is not a historian and should not be used as a source for any historical article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

This is all nonsense. First of all, nowhere in the Wikipedia rules is it said that only historians serve as reliable source, whereas journalists or other academicists do not. Second of all, there is not even an official definition of what a historian is or is not! Third of all, if there were a definition, it is absolutely certain that someone whose one and only graduation career was History, in Cambridge, qualifies as a Historian. And fourth of all, if you like sources, Peter Stanford is called a "Catholic historian" by the BBC; a "religious historian" by Real-Islam.org; an "acclaimed religious commentator and historian" by Michael Arditti; an "avid writer and historian" by William Burgess Jr; and is labeled a "religious historian" in the documentary "Did Jesus Die?", and therefore in iMDB, of which he participates.

All that taken into account, I think it is pretty clear that the fact that Stanford is not a historian or is not a serious writer is definitely NOT a consensus; and therefore the claim that all modern historians agree that Joan did not exist is definitely NOT a consensus either, what makes the current version of this Wiki page inaccurate, reflecting only the partial, biased position of some Wiki editors.

I have no doubt there is a very clear case for at the very least disputing the neutrality of the current version of this article. 189.8.107.196 (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Sources must be reliable for the topic at hand for their viewpoint to be included. Stanford has no credentials in history or medieval studies, his book is pop history, and it's not regarded by other scholars in the field. It's probably worth a mention in the article body, but we shouldn't change the introduction based on his book.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I had just made the first Wiki post of my life above, complimenting the anonymous OP for what I see as a long-overdue rebuff against what is clearly a bias in this "article" (which indeed looks more like a piece of officialist propaganda), and even my comment was censored out of this talk page.

So, I repeat: kudos, OP. Kudos. This article is the most blatant example of what a neutral article is NOT that I could find in years around the community.179.148.187.148 (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems like there is controversy enough to allow the controversy to be featured in the article. It's obvious to me that, in order to provide readers with information (which is the objective of Wikipedia), the evidences gathered by scholars to support the hypotesis of her existence should be featured with sources, as well as the fact that the larger portion of scholars do not believe her historical existence, with the reasons to such discredit an sources too. Omitting controversy clearly jeopardize the neutrality of the article and prevent readers from knowing the most to continue their research outside wikipedia or knowing the most about the topic as an end in itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.222.109.81 (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

179.148.187.148: Your previous post was removed because it violated our no personal attacks policy and the talk page guidelines. You can compliment an editor without insulting others.

191.222.109.81: What "jeopardizes the neutrality of the article" would presenting fringe theories as if they're on par with the viewpoints of experts on the topic. As I said, we can mention Stanford in the article body, but we can't act as if he's on par with the academic sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I love the irony: if you google "expert on Pope Joan", all (and I mean it in the dictionary sense of the word "all", not in the usage of this article, where it is used to mean "almost all") and every single result that shows up on Google refers to Peter Stanford, and exclusively to him. Not one mention to all the putative serious "experts on the topic", only and exclusively mentions to whom the article deliberately chooses to ignore. The more we dig it, the more clearly it gets that there is strong bias in this article's writing and editions.189.8.107.196 (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Google searches are not a standard of quality we allow here, especially since the algorithm on which google searches are based customizes search results to each person/computer based on past searches. I, for example, get nothing on Peter Stanford when I google "expert on Pope Joan".Farsight001 (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

What you just said is incorrect. Google the term including the quotation marks, "expert on Pope Joan", with both quotation marks at the beginning and at the end, and you'll see that every and all results that exist in Google refer to Peter Stanford. The customization only regards the order of the results, not what results show up, in such a case when there is such a limited number of results. Anyway, your statement will only be helpful - I ask all users who come here to try googling the phrase including quotation marks and see which statement is true.189.8.107.196 (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You did not read what I said. Again, google search results are automatically modified based on your past searches. Therefore, everyone who searches for exactly what you said to search for will each get their own, UNIQUE, different results. It is not just the order of the results. But again, and regardless, google searches are nor our standard for inclusion. WP:RSIs our standard. Peter Stanford does not qualify.Farsight001 (talk) 05:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the IP has caused an amount of disruption, and I appreciate that hackles have been raised as a result. But let's remember that he or she is a newbie. We do have to allow a certain amount of latitude, while at the same time getting the message across that edit-warring is unacceptable. We also have to ask ourselves, is there any merit in his or her case? Having read the article, and looked at some of the edits that were reverted, I believe it does have some merit. The question that is being answered in the article – and it is reflected in the title of this thread – is whether there is today a scholarly consensus in favour of her existence, but it is reasonable and right also to ask the question, are there people in the 21st century that give the idea credence? Thus, we have Peter Stanford, a reputable writer, Donna Cross, a novelist notable enough to be reported by ABC News, and the Daily Mail, a well-known British tabloid, all saying they believe she existed, at least on some level. Stanford is included in the "Modern analysis and critique" section, Cross's opinion is not mentioned and she is relegated to the "In fiction" section, and the Mail is rejected out of hand. I think that both WP:NPOV and WP:DUE are consistent with including all three in the article, and I think there would be no harm in reflecting that in the lead. For instance, the last sentence might be re-written to say something like, "Pope Joan is now widely accepted to be fictional. Nonetheless, the legend remains influential in art, literature, drama, and film, [Rustici, 2006] and a small number of 21st-century writers and journalists have expressed the belief that the legend is at least partially true." Scolaire (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

But none of those people are actually reliable sources for the subject. None of them are scholars of history. We don't typically cite non-experts as sources for information on a subject. And a tabloid? Almost NEVER useful.

Also, regarding NPOV and DUE - I would point to those policies as evidence that these sources should NOT be included. NPOV does not mean that we have no point of view, but that the article reflects the point of view of the RELEVANT experts. These people listed here saying Joan was real are NOT relevant experts. The idea is fringe, and as policy states, fringe ideas should NOT be included because they are fringe - even if a relevant scholar or two espouses them.Farsight001 (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have misread what I wrote (it was a bit wordy so that is forgivable). I don't propose to cite any of them as evidence that she existed; I propose to cite all of them as evidence that there are people of some consequence in the world today who say they believe the legend, at least to some extent. WP:DUE says, "Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view." I think my proposal makes it crystal clear, and that is why I said it is consistent with policy. Scolaire (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Due is also clear that fringe ideas should not be included at all. These people are clearly fringe.Farsight001 (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

They are clearly not fringe. One is a newspaper editor, one is a novelist who carefully researched her subject, and the third is a newspaper with a wide circulation. They are a minority, but in no way can they be classed with flat-earth theorists or 9/11 Truthers. Anyway, why do you have such a problem with adding a short half-sentence to say that there are people that differ from the "scholarly consensus"?

And please indent properly. I took considerable trouble already to make this section legible. Scolaire (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Fringe is not relevant to their fame. It is relevant to the popularity of the idea they are espousing and their expertise on the subject. Newspaper editors and novelists are no more experts on the subject of a mythical thousand year old female pope than a 5th grader is.Farsight001 (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

And I have a problem with it because, as I already pointed out, fringe ideas merit NO mention in articles.Farsight001 (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to continue arguing in circles. I've said my piece and I've nothing to add. Scolaire (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Farsight is correct. It would appear the Daily Mail article was written by Stanford, thus the same unreliable "source". The ABC article quotes one historian, "Valerie Hotchkiss, a professor of medieval studies at Southern Methodist University in Texas, says that the story of Pope Joan was actually added to Martin Polonus' manuscript after he died. Which negates Polonus' as a source. Consequently, no modern historian is quoted stating there was a Pope Joan, just a former nun, Mary Malone and a novelist Donna Cross. The ABC article does not appear to have any reliable sources stating Pope Joan existed and tries to take primary sources, heresay, and innuendo to build a case, but without comments from modern historians, it's not a viable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess we all know why the ABC article did not quote Tolomeo of Lucca who said, "All whom I surveyed except Martinus(Martin Polonus), relate that Benedict III was after Leo IV". --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Well spotted, Kansas Bear. I didn't notice that it was Stanford who wrote the Mail article. So there are only those two writers (and a nun) saying they believe there is something in it. But there's no use telling me that neither article is a reliable source for her existence, because I never said they were. I merely suggested that we note very briefly that there exist notable people who express these views. After all, the article re-states ten times that the legend has been debunked. Why bother to do that if you're not going to say that a few published authors adhere to it despite that. And one mention versus ten is certainly not undue weight, especially if it is "always clear which parts of the text describe the minority view", as required by WP:UNDUE. Scolaire (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all your sensible (and much needed) inputs, Scolaire. One observation: as you have correctly stated, "Stanford is included in the 'Modern analysis and critique" section'", indeed, but please note that any mention to him at all has only been there since yesterday, only because I dared putting him back there in clear "defiance" of literal threats by the above user's, who threatened to ban me if I insisted on inserting non-Catholic POV in the article.

Also, I do agree with you that it is pointless arguing on a bilateral way with said user - who, as you can see in his own Talk Page, has received almost complaints and warnings and feedback from almost one hundred different users, almost every single one of them complaining about the fact that said user will censor out every single bit of information that does not suit the officialist POV of the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore it is a waste of time trying to reach a consensus or an unbiased solution with said user (and the other couple of his supportes whose only jobs at Wikipedia are deffending one specific point of view across all articles - that being the Vatican's POV), especially while trying to write an article on a religious historian who raises doubts about the Roman Catholic Church's official position on a controversial topic, such as this one. Thankfully, Wikipedia's official standards are not subject to censorship and official propaganda of any kind.189.8.107.196 (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

If you're talking about the complains and warning on my talk page, anyone can clearly see that there are not anywhere near a hundred complains. I will also point out that every single one of them came from disruptive editors who were making false accusations. Most of them wound up quickly being blocked from editing for their behavior. Amusingly, their false complaints about me on the various moderator boards usually winds up exposing their own rule breaking and getting them reprimanded.

I will also point out that, in fact, I have edited many articles on many subjects in both directions and that it is a rule that we assume good faith of each other, so acting like I'm some Vatican shill is also against the rules here. Maybe, just maybe, the Catholic Church's official position and reality are actually in agreement here. Has that really not occurred to you?

Now if you would like to stop complaining about me and start collaborating, that would be awesome.Farsight001 (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

As it's been mentioned before, it's pointless arguing with people who are on Wikipedia with a very clear, non-neutral agenda, and who will refuse to even acknowledge the existence of dissonant voices on topics that said people consider sacred and, therefore, not open for discussion. Fortunately that is not the spirit of Wikipedia, though, and for that reason I have filed an official request for public dispute resolution by Wikipedia moderatosr: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Pope_Joan 189.8.107.196 (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It's pointless to argue with a person who is on Wikipedia with a very clear, non-neutral agenda, and who will refuse to even acknowledge the existence of an academic and local consensus on a topic that said person assumes a Catholic conspiracy behind, and therefore, may be countered with sensationalist tabloid garbage. Your request is a sham and your actions are tendentious. Please read WP:GEVAL. Wikipedia does not create an artificial balance between two sides when one is favored by academics of the relevant field and the other by conspiracy theorists and tabloids. Mainstream historians have not been cited for the claim that Pope Joan existed, they have been for the claim of non-existence. Only garbage sources have only been cited for the existence claim. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. What also concerns me is the combination of fringe/red flag ideas with personal attacks by 189.8.107.196 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) toward his/her perceived opponents. That, is a very telling and disruptive combination and should stop. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Lol, "their questioning of our religious dogmas are disruptive, therefore they must be stopped". And it's not personal attacks - the said user's own discussion page --just like that of the new user who just happened to show up here clear unbiasedly-- make it clear that both have huge records of accusations of being Catholic-biased, made by dozens of different users against them. Again, if you guys are so sure your point is right and the only logical one, you shouldn't be worried about receiving outside opinions and assessment by the Wiki community, which will be given, in due time (as Wikipedia states, there's no rush and no set timeline), at the appropriate Dispute Resolution page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Pope_Joan

I'm not Catholic, I don't accept the Pope's authority, I do not personally consider the office of Pope to be Biblical, but I do support the role of women in church leadership, and so vote for female ministers and deacons at my church -- so what concern do I have in this beyond sticking to academic sources? If anything, I should support the idea of Pope Joan, but I'm not going to let my personal preferences get in the way of actual history. Not supporting your pseudohistorical bias is not the same as supporting a Catholic bias. Try assuming good faith, instead of letting your tendentious bias make you blindly paranoid. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry

177.16.62.71 geolocates to the same location as 189.8.107.196, who was far from uninvolved.

177.76.41.164 (who filed the dispute resolution request) geolocates to the same location as 179.148.187.148, and these two addresses are just down the road from the first two. I find it hard to believe that anyone who would make this comment would file a dispute resolution request in good faith.

What's more, they all have a similar writing voice. I do not believe we have more than two individuals posting from all four IPs. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I started an sockpuppet investigation here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

One thing we can do is refuse to play along with them. We can pretty much ignore the dispute resolution request. When the page protection expires, if they continue, we'll revert and re-request protection. If they post here, we can dismiss their posts as tendentious attempts to game the system. If they want to participate, they should know we'll only consider listening when they lying to us about who they are. They can maintain anonymity, but we will not listen to someone who pretends to be several people. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. I just went to check the IPs that supposedly geolocate to the same "location" and they actually locate to two cities that don't even share a border with any cities that share borders with cities that share borders with one another. In other words, saying both IPs locate to the same location is as ignorant as saying Philaldelphia and New York are the same location. And, anyway, you better expect hundreds of different IP users from near locations in the next day: this article has been used as an example in college class as to how interest groups make Wikipedia unreliable :) 187.88.37.39 (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course you'd say that, you're another one of those users. I identified two pairs of IP addresses that were in the same location, and said that there are no more than two users. Your best chance for anyone to take you seriously is to quit lying and admit that you and a friend are using multiple addresses to dishonestly present yourselves as multiple people. Trying to mix up the pairings as a red herring only confirms for everyone that you're a liar trying to game the system because his pet POV doesn't have academic support. There's also the fact that IP tracking doesn't trace home addresses, just the hub that a house would be connected to: Someone in Barra Velha could easily alternate between a Camboriú and Joinville address. The other two addresses locate to their own same location, and could easily be accessed from Barra Velha via a VPN. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Non-neutral POV and need for external evaluation and moderation

This is getting ridiculous. The text said that Pope Joan's statue was removed in 1600 (wrong, it was 1601) "after protests". I edited it to:

In the 15th and 16th centuries, the Siena Cathedral featured a bust of Joan among other pontiffs; in 1601, Pope Clement XIII commanded the removal of the statue, which was rebranded as Pope Zacharias.[6][7][8][9][10]

And, at the edits reason: "To say that Joan's statue was removed "after protests" is clearly misleading, seemingly purporting that the people asked to have her removed. Added the fact that it was done by request of the Pope, and added 5 references to it"

Then, out of nowhere, a user reverted this edition saying that "Noone supports your fringe and red flag ideas". And that was that! No reason given, and 5 references were just butchered out because they happened to support the fringe and red flag ideas the user had just said no one supports!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎189.8.107.196 (talk • contribs)

Please, Wikipedia community, we need some serious external help over here!!

There is nothing wrong with Dr. K's edits. You are being tendentious and disruptive. You are clearly unwilling to accept the opinions of other seasoned editors, or to continue discussion while dispute resolution is underway, because you are currently edit-warring with an open request at WP:DRN. Your claim of POV is ridiculous. If there was ever a place for Catholic officialism and censorship on behalf of the Church, Wikipedia is not it. Your lack of ability to find reliable sources supporting what you say does not constitute a crisis on our part. Elizium23 (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

In other words, you not getting your way =/= POV conspiracy. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Erm... except that, in this particular complaint, the OP is right. The text indeed is misleading, the fact that the Pope requested changing the statue is historically accurate, and therefore this particular edit the OP had made was pertinent and correct, whereas the reversion of his edition back to an unreferred, ambiguously written statement was unjustified and unjustifiable. At the very least in this particular case, the OP's correction was correct and needed, and should be restored.177.76.41.164 (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The intro is just supposed to be a summary of the article body, and the full details on the Siena bust are already included in the body. It's not very well written or sourced, but it's there. Additionally, the material in the intro is cited, to Rustici; I'm not sure how you could miss that. The anon's version adds unnecessary details that would be better covered in the article body, and it actually misses some important details, presumably because the editor hasn't read the cited text. Rustici says that Florimond de Raemond started the protest against the statue in 1587. Florimond took it to Pope Clement VIII and in 1600 - not 1601, according to Rustici, Clement complained to the Grand Duke of Tuscany, who was the one who ordered the statue removed. Reportedly (Rustici's caveat), craftsmen reworked the statue into Pope Zacharias and put it back. Despite the anon's wording, the one good source they included (this) doesn't contract Rustici on these points.

It would probably be better to have all of this in the article body rather than the intro. I'll work on something shortly.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be better to remove the bit about the statue from the introduction; it is the best example of how the story was indeed universally believed and accepted even by the Church at some time in History. By the way, shortly put, and even if I am 100% sure that the "story" of Pope Joan is pure conspiracy theory, I will have to agree that while reading this article I actually thought for a minute that I was reading the Catholic boards I normally access, rather than Wikipedia. I hate to admit it, but the whole page is clearly proselitist, and the History of the page actually worries me - every single bit of not-exactly-complimentary-to-the-Vatican bit of information that was ever added to the page would quickly be removed by a handful of users, and the final product of such a clearly biased edition is the current anodinous, poorly-written, uninsteresting and un-Wikipedia-like page. I felt like I was having my head pushed for a hundred times into a chalkboard with the saying "Pope Joan didn't exist, Pope Joan didn't exist, Pope Joan didn't exist", all the while pulling me abruptly from as far as distant from all the conspiracy authors (which are actually pretty much a majority among the few people who really write about Pope Joan nowadays), all the while trying to cover my eyes and screaming into my ears "Don't listem to them, they don't exist, don't listen to them, they're not even listening to, they don't even exist"

So, my two cents, as a Catholic academicist: the page is biased. In fact, it is so blatantly biased it is currently anti-propagandistic to the Church: people who have ever heard about the legend and who know there are interesting facts that would corroborate the claim, and who know there are even cult, educated people who do profit millions of dollars by claiming she existed, will bump into this page and not be able to help noticing how biased it is, to the point that they will start even thinking... "Wow, of course it's pure conspiracy theory... but then why do these pals get so sentimental about it, and spend so much of their time working so hard to make this page so un-interesting, un-accurate, and un-controversial?" 177.16.62.71 (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

User Dr. K is acknowledged that he has, on purpose, removed twice the "disputed" label from the disputed paragraph saying it is not disputed as he knows the information to be true. He clearly does not understand how a "dispute" at Wikipedia works. A warning should be in place. 177.16.62.71 (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I reverted an edit by 177.16.62.71 removing some content. He/she was claiming, as far as I can tell from the edit summary, to restore a consensus/neutral version while discussion is ongoing. I only noticed it because it's unusual to see such an edit summary combined with an edit that does not appear to restore an immediately preceding version. However, I'm realizing now that my analysis of the edit history and thus the revert was hasty. Although the IPs do geolocate to the same place and seem to have similar opinions, my edit summary suggesting the same material was previously removed by 189.8.107.196 was not exactly accurate. I would have reverted my revert to defer to someone who has been following the thread more closely than I, but there have been subsequent edits. Instead I leave this message to apologize if I mucked anything up. :) --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Given that the IPs are almost certainly socks of the same individual, I think we can quit assuming that they're editing in good faith, and ignore them as tendentiously gaming the system. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. I just went to check the IPs that supposedly geolocate to the same "location" and they actually locate to two cities that don't even share a border with any cities that share borders with cities that share borders with one another. In other words, saying both IPs locate to the same location is as ignorant as saying Philaldelphia and New York are the same location. And, anyway, you better expect hundreds of different IP users from near locations in the next day: this article has been used as an example in college class as to how interest groups make Wikipedia unreliable :) 187.88.37.39 (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.88.37.39 (talk)

As I explain below, it's two pairs that each locate to the same location -- mixing up the pairs only makes you look dishonest, which fits with your location matching one of the pairs. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead

Apparently, dispute resolution is considered resolved unless people are at each others' throats on the article talk page. I have deliberately refrained from saying anything here, in order to make the DR process easier, but obviously I had it backwards. I want to protest in the strongest possible terms against the blanket refusal by certain editors to countenance the addition of a short, harmless half-sentence to the lead, a half-sentence that does not state a "minor viewpoint that Joan was real", but in fact says that "apart from a few non-academic, popular writers, no modern authority believes that she existed." Such a statement is more explicit than "Pope Joan is now widely accepted to be fictional", which is there now, and the absolute refusal to entertain an alternative and more informative wording is totally unreasonable. The whole thing smacks of ownership to me. Scolaire (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, nonsense. Editors are allowed to have differences of opinion. It's my opinion that this minor viewpoint doesn't carry sufficient weight to be singled out in the lead, and I cited sources to explain why. Frankly, I don't think you made a very compelling case for your proposed change beyond saying that you wanted it there.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Cuchullain. I would also like to add that I do not see any ownership here, despite the claims above. I only see consensus to not include non-scholarly views in the lead per undue weight. I also suggest compliance with AGF, regarding ownership claims directed by certain editors at perceived opponents. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Try an RFC

I have had to fail the dispute resolution at Scolaire's request. The disagreement about whether to include the minor viewpoint that she was real does seem to be a sticking point, although we all agree that most scholars think that she was fictional. There seems to be disagreement as to whether there is a consensus, and so the way forward is a Request for Comments. Since Scolaire wants to add a clause, and other editors think that the current lede is acceptable, I suggest (but cannot demand) that Scolaire write the RFC. If Scolaire wants help in ensuring that it is neutral, I will help. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)