Talk:Pope Leo XIII/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Opinion

Okay, I started the section above but haven't had the time previously to come back to it. To this point I still can see no reason why the images cannot be used. Coats of Arms, as has been pointed out, are not a fixed exact image that can never change, they are mutable as long as they keep within the rules of heraldry. I also cannot see any Wikipedia policy that would prevent these images from being used. All in all, throughout the arguments above, all I'm really seeing is I don't like it and no real reasoning to back it up. Yes the images could be less stylistic, but they're still within the rules of heraldry as far as I can tell (I'm no expert here.) Canterbury Tail talk 11:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree with that.Malke2010 12:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If one cannot see why this image cannot be used, there is also NO reason why the previous image cannot be used. Can you see a reason why the previous image can not be used? Hence the Laptik group has no inherent advantage in placing their image. However, the deciding factor is that in the above, Mr Laptik expressly agreed that WP:STATUSQUO applies. Hence given that there is no consensus, WP:STAUSQUO states that the previous version should be maintained. Hence, by that argument the page must be maintained as it was prior to his arrival. Those are written Wikipedia processes. History2007 (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No, no reason the previous ones can't be used, however saying something is adequate and therefore cannot be replaced by something else, is a faulty argument. Remember, Be Bold. Images get replaced by better quality, better visuals, better shots all the time. If some people think the image can be improved upon, is higher resolution, is more consistent with real world examples, or simply offers more to the reader, then there's no reason they can't be replaced with new versions. And remember Status Quo means good faith reverting. I don't like it reverting is not good faith. Canterbury Tail talk 12:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, however, if you read the current situation above, you see that Mr Laptik and Malke are on one side, myself and Scolair on the other with one editor who is either 50/50 or 49/51 in our favor. Hence there is no consensus in favor of his group, and WP:STATUSQUO was designed for that situation. To maintain the status quo. And my first revert of him was in total good faith. Hence that policy applies. Their group cannot claim any inherent advantage. If there had been many other editor comments that would have been anther story, but as is, the only other comment was on German Wikipedia, which also says that his image is lower quality - there is no support for it apart from Malke. History2007 (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail is correct. This is just WP:IDL and nothing more. And the other editors, except for Scolaire, are not objecting to it. It's really just you. There's no reason the image can't be included in Leo XIII's page. It would be helpful if you would reevaluate your reasons for not wanting it and try to work towards a compromise.Malke2010 13:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I will wait for Scolaire to respond. But given that Mr laptik has already agreed to the application of WP:StatusQUO, I think that policy applies. I do not expect you to change sides half way through the discussion, but I would point out that if the German Wikipedia comment had been in favor of you, you would have been emphasizing it. And it is not that I just do not like it, I gave detailed reasons above, please read above. And of course, WP:IDL is also a "two way street" in that your objection to the previous image would be subject to it. Hence we do have a mirror-image situation, which however, gives your group a disadvantage in that Mr Liptak's would require a disclaimer based on the other comment here. So that image has no support except you. History2007 (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the German Wikipedia. Therefore, no, I would not be applying it. In my opinion, what other Wikipedia's do or do not do, has nothing to do with this discussion. Scolaire is a good editor, and I am interested in what he has to say. Some kind of compromise will have to be taken.Malke2010 15:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

History2007, I accepted your status quo on the items it required you to accept that coats of arms images needed to be reintroduced and that all three versions available were heraldically correct. There was only a very small armorial image in an infobox, I added another in the article with a caption that specifically detailed what the reader was seeing. I replaced nothing, I removed nothing, instead I added to the information and clarified details. So it was a good faith edit.

Everyone has already weighed in, including Scolaire. Canterbury Tail has seen your argument and Scolaire's, and still has handed down his opinion that the image can be included again. I remind you that this was the admin you went to for help on this issue. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 16:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the STATUSQUO issues is not as you describe - but not surprising that we do not agree. And I see no final agreement yet, except that STATUSQUO applies. And I think the point to go back to is the point that I first reverted your addition. History2007 (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, did you not jump the gun here? Your last addition of your disputed image is formally objected to. If you can add that image, there is NO reason for me not to be able to add another image. But I will wait for further input. History2007 (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note the above is my opinion, and while I'm an administrator it does not represent a dictate or an administarial decision that the images must be inserted. This is my opinion, and not a formal arbitration outcome. Strictly speaking this isn't an issue that should need admin interaction, it's a very basic simple content dispute. Canterbury Tail talk 19:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. Now can I ask you some questions? Did you read History2007's post explaining why he/she believes the images are inappropriate? Did you read my post showing how the edits are against consensus? Did you read any of the posts that say that conformity with the rules of heraldry is not at issue here? Have you any response to make to those detailed arguments, or can you justify summing the whole lot up with the one word IDONTLIKEIT? And why do you continually emphasise be bold and ignore bold, revert, discuss? Seeing as you started this discussion, and you've given us your executive summary, I think we deserve some explanation. Scolaire (talk) 07:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I read them. To respond to each one. History2007's is an incredibly bad argument, the crux of which is basically, well if we let him do this, then he may do it elsewhere and then it'll be the world standard for coat of arms. That's not an argument, that's an I don't like it trying to come up with a reason. At least it's how it reads.

Your one pulling together a load of comments from other users. It's still a lot of I don't like it, or some seeing an edit war and trying to stop it with no regard for the content. There are some arguments about sources, but I think they've been provided satisfactorily since. There are some comments related to the way they are being replaced, which are valid concerns but not really arguments against doing it. Consensus doesn't seem entirely to be a proper consensus here, there is a bit of voting going on (which isn't really valid on Wikipedia) and not a lot of strength of arguments.

XANDERLIPTAK's arguments on the other hand are more compelling. He shows where in the real world papal CoA have been shown of similar styles. He shows how heraldry is pliable in artistic expression, something we all seem to acknowledge anyway. Strength of argument wise, he is proving his point much more than the against. All the against's seem to have is numbers and weak policy pointing of consensus, which isn tenuous at best and doesn't seem to be the consensus that you think it is.

However at the end of the day this is the opinion of an uninvolved outside editor. This is not a formal arbitration decision, this is not an edict or anything like that, it is another editors opinion. Canterbury Tail talk 11:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

However, there is yet no single compelling reason as to why Liptak's design should be preferred over any other, more common design that matches those used on the Vatican website. And again, in my view WP:STATUSQUO clearly applies. But we have been down that road now. History2007 (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope. No reason they cannot be used. Also no reason they should be used. All down to preference and the vagaries of the BRD cycle. Consensus is weak, but consensus can also change. Canterbury Tail talk 12:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

And this is your opinion as an uninvolved editor? Sorry to bang on like this but I do think that clarity is important. Scolaire (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Scolaire, I think CT has expressed his opinion. What seems to me now is that either we have no image, or we have all images-- or we continue the standoff. One way would be to have a gallery of coat of arms at the end where all 3 are shown, another would be to have no coat of arms. I think having them all at the end, as a gallery, may end this discussion. History2007 (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

A gallery seems a bit much, especially since they all depict the same arms. The JPG should be cut out because JPGs do not display well and because the SVG is almost identical, the SVG should be used for the infobox because it is so simple and will display well in the small area provided and still be discernable and then the PNG should be used for the larger picture because there is more detail that will show well. You still have multiple versions shown, which will allow readers to see by example that coats of arms are malleable to some degree, but not in a way that takes up undue space. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 18:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Translation: Yours will get the most prominence under that argument. History2007 (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The SVG would actually be in the lede, which means it would have prominence. The PNG would be the same size as the many numerous other images on the page, and it would be the 11th down. That is hardly a "prominent" post. I suppose you won't be satisfied with any compromise offered, though. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 12:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, two letters: N and O. I would have accepted two compromises: a gallery, where all get equal weight, or your image as smaller size and the one that looks like the Vatican website, and needs no qualifier, as larger. So of the 3 possibilities, I can accept two. History2007 (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The PNG is the image that most resembles the source from the Vatican. Where is this image that "looks like the Vatican website" (sic)? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 23:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess we must have different optometrists. Anyway either of the other two are similar to the Vatican website. History2007 (talk) 05:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Take a better look at the source from the Vatican. See the source has the keys and tiara placed over the shield? The shield is in Baroque style? The whole thing is done with much detail and ornately? This is mirrored in the PNG image, as other editors have also tried at length to explain to you. An English styled heater shield with the keys behind the shield is not like the source at all. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 18:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Opinion: break

Yes, that was the link I found. But I meant these as general comparison:

• 
  Pope John Paul II
• 
  Pope Benedict XVI
• 
  Pope John XXIII
• Leo XIII
  Leo XIII
• 
  Leo XIII
• 
  Paul VI
• 
  Pius XII
• 
  Pius X

These are the general depictions and the last 2 popes are on the Vatican website. History2007 (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

These are not the general depictions of the last two Popes. There are multiple depictions there. And Benedict's arms are more Germanic in style (he is from Germany), while the arms of John Paul were done in a more continental style popular in Poland and France (he was from Poland). Note that the Italian Popes of the last century all used Italian styles popular to their time period. So, a Pope who used a Baroque style would best be suited with a baroque style coat of arms. Per your own argument. But, when you proposed this you likely could not tell the difference between Germanic, Polish and English, let alone Italian and Baroque, styled arms. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I will provide my response here, to optimize the response. Please read through it. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't do that. Response is optimized by putting new posts at the bottom of the page. Unless what you meant to say is "read what I said before, I'm not going to repeat myself", in which case it would be better just to say that. Scolaire (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment

An image of Pope Leo's XIII coat of arms is to be added to the article. However, there are three images to choose from, so if editors would please discuss which image below they would prefer.

File:Coat of arms of Pope Leo XIII by Alexander Liptak.png File:Leone 13.jpg

There is room for a large image with a caption in the article and a smaller image in an infobox. If you would like to suggest one of the images to be captioned in the article and a different image for the infobox, that is also an option.

The sources provided here and here, as well as a discussion at the Heraldry WikiProject and several heraldic books have shown all three images to be heraldically accurate. So now it is merely a matter of taste and opinion.

[tk] XANDERLIPTAK 21:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a response at the RfC on Talk:Images. It suggests "using the SVG only" (bold in original). Please note also the comments on the way the RfC was framed. I think you ought to take Moonriddengirl's advice and close that RfC to allow a more neutral one to be opened. Scolaire (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There is also an ongoing RfC at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, Do images need to be verifiable? I have brought up the question of drawings in general, and this one in particular, I hope in a fairly neutral way. Contributors to this discussion should feel free to comment, but I would ask that you not personalise it, or turn the RfC into a battleground. Scolaire (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The editor also stated the SVG "works better at thumbnail size than any of the alternatives" before suggesting using it. However, we are not limited to only one image in the article. So, the SVG can be used in the infobox where it would appear as a small thumbnail and still be easily read as the editor suggested. We can then use the PNG image, which that editor found "beautiful", in the article larger so that is can be easily read and the detail seen. Especially since we can not find a contemporary and detailed painting, as the editor suggested using, which has its copyright information readily available to us. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 10:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Translation: You want your image to have the most real estate. History2007 (talk) 11:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I am speaking English on the English Wikipedia, I do not need "translation". Also, this is a discussion about an image, not me. Please direct your comments to the issue at hand, because arguments of "I don’t want this image in because I don't like him" do not work well. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Translation: This discussion is cyclic now. Time to stop. History2007 (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Restart of revert cycle

Recent changes by Mr Litpak were without consensus and need to be reverted. Arguments he used have been used before, and were not accepted at large. Nothing has changed since then. History2007 (talk) 05:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There was an SVG image of the Pope's coat of arms that that has been in the article for quite some time, and I added a larger PNG image as well. It was established and there is consensus that both images are accurate, and therefore the two images were added in good faith. You removed images out of personal bias without assuming good faith edits, but you were given time to build consensus for your actions, yet you failed to do so. Status quo of the article included images of the Pope's coat of arms, so the article was returned to that state. Also, other articles on popes include images of coats of arms, showing a strong and extensive precedence for including such imagery. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You have been repeating this very same statement for a while now. But there was no consensus in your favor before, and there is not now. Your reverts were unilateral. History2007 (talk) 08:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Only because it is the answer to each and every issue you try to bring up. An editor added an image. I added an image. Consensus is that these images are accurate, and between taking good-faith and the precedence of other articles, these images should appear on the page. You removed the additions made to the article without taking good-faith. Your actions were destructive, while my actions and the actions of the other editor were constructive and added to the article. You were told by numerous editors and an admin that you were arguing without merit, and even your initial supporters had to succumb to the fact the images were legitimate. The article was returned to its state before you started deleting and removing information without consensus. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 09:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I will wait for others to comment. History2007 (talk) 09:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You have had two months. Every issue you have brought forth has been shot down or ignored. You posted to the conflict of interests notice board. Nothing. The original research notice board. Nothing. You brought up technicalities to the Heraldry WikiProject and it was explained to you that you were mistaken. The only argument you have is that you do not like how the Pope's coat of arms looks, which is not reason enough to revert two good-faith edits by two different editors, and which is not a good enough reason to delete any and all heraldic images from an article, especially when every other papal article shows the respective pope's coat of arms on his page.[tk] XANDERLIPTAK 10:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, many of your points are simply not true, and stating them repeatedly or in bold letters does not change the facts. And the aggressive tone you used on my talk page in unnecessary and non-productive. I suggest you read WP:CALM several times before you continue this discussion. History2007 (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, at your request I will ask my 'highly aggressive and harassing question' here: What issue do you have with me or my illustrations that cause you to be so constantly hostile to me? And that prevents you from holding an actual discussion with me without dismissing me or ignoring me completely? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 03:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I will wait for other users to respond. History2007 (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This case seems to be closed. The coat of arms has appeared in this article for over four years and other papal articles include coats of arms as well, so without any further dissent the status quo would be to include the heraldic images once again. History2007 believes that once discussion has ceased for three days [1], the matter is closed. This certainly meets his own criteria for closing this issue. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 13:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No it is not. As usual we do not agree. The only issue is that you have pressed the revert button more often than anyone else on this page (count them), and that is not of any value. History2007 (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

After an editor was absent from discussion for three days, History2007 said, "the IP is not coming back, so can we conclude this please?" Three days without comment was long enough for History2007 to claim a discussion was ended, this one has remained without comment for months. I cite History2007's own words and declare this issue closed. And if History2007 would stop vandalizing and ignoring consensus, I would not have to revert him so often. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 01:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually not only do we differ on logic, we also differ on arithmetic. You have been reverted by other editors more often than anyone else on this page. It is a question of "counting the reverts". Would you like to count the number of times you have been reverted on this page and provide a summary? History2007 (talk) 06:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

How about you go for it, History2007. The only times I have been reverted where when History2007 refused to give in to consensus and wished to drag this argument to but another notice board or WikiProject. where History2007's argument was either deemed insufficient or simply ignored, and the other editors thought that it prudent to wait out the endless procedures and technicalities History2007 employs. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 11:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Again we differ both on logic and arithmetic. On the page Leo XIII:

• History2007 has been reverted by the following users: {Xanderliptak}.

• Xanderliptak has been reverted by the following users: {History2007, Scolaire, Snowded, Monnriddengirl}.

Is that clear? History2007 (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not. You said you'd provide a summary, you didn't. I was reverted because each time you would bring up another issue. Conflict of interest, original research, isn't modern enough, isn't old enough and so on; all of these arguments have failed or been ignored. Thus, the current edit hasn't been reverted by anyone else because you ran out of technicalities to stall with. And number of reverts has no weight on an argument anyways. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 05:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Belated third party

I've only skimmed some of the above discussion, but one of the basic principles of traditional European heraldry is that the textual blazon is the definitive reference for the coat of arms, and that many alternative artistic renderings can all be acceptable as implementations of the textual blazon. Of course, some renderings may have special artistic merit or historical interest, and some may be unsuitable for Wikipedia use because they are still in copyright (but if someone creates a new artistic rendering of the textual blazon, then that person owns the copyright on that particular artistic rendering, and can license it for use on Wikipedia). AnonMoos (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed

Tags do not become obsolete after a certain time; an editor has requested verifiability of a fact in this article and so a citation to a reliable source should be provided before the tag is removed. I agree that a source can be found for this fact, and I don't think it is worth removing the statement from the article. Certainly an event such as blessing the first camera would be newsworthy and available in news articles somewhere. I Googled to see if I could find a source; the first hit was victorian-cinema.net; it is possible this is paraphrased from Wikipedia, because there is a link back to this article. Other sources did not meet WP:RS criteria. I think with some care we can find a source. Please do not remove maintenance tags without fixing the problem. Elizium23 (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You are right, tags have no expiration date, unlike milk bottles. He should not have removed the tag. Anyway, I added a couple of refs and a link to the actual photo of the wave. [2]. It is a WP:RS source.History2007 (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

cocaine

As you can see in that article, there are claims (purportedly is in the description of the image depicting the pope) that this pope advertised cocaine use and that he awarded the Frenchman Mariani a Vatican Gold star to make cocawine. In this article however, I don't see the word cocaine once (ctrl + f "cocaine"). So, how much is true about this. Thanks 81.68.255.36 (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No source per WP:Reliable. History2007 (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The pope gave his backing for products that contained coca, the plant used to make cocaine. However, it is quite different to use coca in a product than using cocaine. They share a common ingredient, yes, but so does margarine and napalm, for example. Or poppy seed chicken and opium. Approval of one does not give approval of the other, and a pope granting his approval for a wine is hardly worth mentioning in the article compared to his overall life and papacy. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 16:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that. If he made policy while under the influence it could be very relevant. The main item at issue is reliability.MartinezMD (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Disputable edits upsetting article structure

I found this article's Table of Contents in a poor condition, and wanted to fix the problem. However, it appears the section heading levels were flattened out on December 31 as part of a series of individual edits which I may or may not agree with, such as changing between British and American orthography, placement of interpunctuation with respect to quotation marks, and which kind of dash to use in a citation. I was tempted to revert them all regardless for lack of edit summaries, but decided to post this note about it instead, to save everyone's time and let someone with more experience than me do the right thing. As a non-native speaker of English, I prefer to remain neutral in the British/American disputes, and I don't know WP policy on quotation marks (if there is one). But the structure of the article, and therefore its Table of Contents, is in a mess. --SM5POR (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I've undone everything except for one grammar fix. The headings definitely need to be multi-level, and switching from British to American spelling goes against WP:ENGVAR, and most or all of the punctuation changes were contrary to MOS:LQ. I don't know about dashes in citations, but there's nothing to stop the IP, or anyone else, restoring that part of the edit, preferably with an explanatory edit summary. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

The complete ommission of his cocaine addiction (see Vin Mariani) seems rather inappropriate, it should be given a mention given that Leo XIII personally endorsed the wine.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.99.19 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 23 Jun 2009

I have added a line about the wine to this article. Elizium23 (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd add to that the failure to mention his sudden departure from Brussels as Nuncio after only 3 years - he was declared persona non grata in 1846 by the King of Belgium, reputedly for interfering with the State education policy. There is, however, no evidence in his Letters of the period of this, and it's hard to understand when one realises the Government of the day was Catholic and would therefore have welcomed his support! As the meme suggests, the post of Nuncio would normally have been followed by promotion to Cardinal, but in Pecci's case, it was followed by a demotion to Archbishop in a relatively out of the way Archdiocese: it took another seven years to make that step to the Red Hat.

A second question arises from Anna Pecci-Blunt, who named her Cometa gallery for her grandfather's papal insignia. That therefore establishes that her father Gioacchino Pecci, the head of Leo's Garda Nobile and main gatekeeper for access to him, was only a nepote, as he's conventionally described, in the circumlocutory meaning of the word. Private data from the Association d'Argenteuil, the family association of the descendants of Count Frederic de Meeus, the Belgian Finance Ministeer, President of the Societe Generale and richest man in the country who had a pivotal role in creating Belgium as a monarchy, suggests that the Nuncio was a frequent visitor to the Count's eldest daughter Anna at Argenteuil, the family home at Ohain south of Waterloo, which may bring both of my points together: I would have said that impregnating the eldest child of the richest man in the country, to whom the King owed his throne, would be a fairly safe way of being declared Personan non grata! Certainly in the later years of their lives she, as Head of the ArchiAssociation of the Eucharist, had extraordinary access, reporting directly and uniquely to him, as Pope. To retain a degree of neutrality in this, it should also be observed that Leo's mother was also Anna. Of course, this cannot be mentioned on the front page as it is private data, but it can be mentioned here as a possible vade-mecum for anyone wishing to pursue the matter.

Given that the result is an incorrect description of his relationship with Leopold I, then I think the question of POV can be upgraded to a formal question of NPOV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.59.21 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 6 December 2014

No, since WP:NPOV considers only viewpoints contained in reliable sources, private inaccessible information has no bearing on the neutrality of the subject treatment. Elizium23 (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Bulgaria section--incorrect link

The "Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg" link in the Bulgaria section links to the wrong person. 76.202.192.102 (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Defending the papacy section

there is a statement that "all episcopal or papal utterances were to be approved by the government before their publication"

There is a citation (number 22) to a german biography but the specified page (105) in that biography doesnt refer to such a claim.

Also it seems unlikely as the new italian government was attempting to placate the Pope at the time.

I don't want to just remove it if it is true but i'd like someone more knowledgeable than me to double-check. Grward (talk) 23:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Gioacchino Pecci

Just raising it here before I make the change. Leo XIII's birth name was Gioacchino Vincenzo, not Vincenzo Gioacchino. One of the citations is a complete book of his biography, and it says he was Gioacchino Vincenzo. The Catholic Encyclopaedia gives his name as Gioacchino Vincenzo. The only source which says Vincenzo Gioacchino, familysearch.org, says there are 7 sources for his name, and when you look they're mostly British newspapers that actually call him Joachim Vincent. Silas Maxfield (talk) 08:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Footnote

the information about Benedict XVI could be moved to a footnote 2804:D84:2280:2400:445E:C8B8:6259:A33C (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)