Talk:History of the papacy

message: Copied from the Talk page on Popes.
The status of Italy can be roughly divided into eras:
*Imperial era 42-395, 
*Western Imperial Era 395-476, 
*Herulian era 476-491, 
*Ostrogothic era 491-553, 
*Byzantine Era 553-751, 
*Lombard Era 751-756, 
*1st Era of the Papal States 756-1309 (vacant 1268-71), 
*Avignon Era (the "Babylonian Captivity") 1309-1377, 
*2nd Era of the Papal States 1377-1798, 
*Napoleonic interruptions 1798-1814, 
*3rd Era of the Papal States 1814-1870, 
*Savoyard Era 1870-1929, 
*Vatican Era 1929-. 
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_curiosities"
I know it is a very bald stub at the moment - but my knowledge of the subject is limited.
Jackiespeel 16:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: agree 2404:7AC0:4286:9A78:473B:8472:59AB:6FBE (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Old stuff

message: I have begun improving the article, starting with a bit about Simon Peter. Now is not the best time to be working on Wikipedia, however, so I expect to be developing this article more tomorrow. Thank goodness tomorrow is Friday! ★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement 

message: I think there are some points for us to consider here.  My understanding is that the text was forged by a cleric who thought that it would help the papacy in establishing temporal authority against emperors.  I don't think there is any evidence that it was actually commissioned by the papacy (which found out it was a forgery when everyone else did), and in some ways it was rather unwanted, or at the least it was a two edged sword.  On the one hand, it established legal grounds for the pope's temporal domains.  However, the papacy wanted to content that its authority came from God and St. Peter.  However, if temporal authority instead derived from an emperor, then it meant that a subsequent emperor could possibly have the jurisdiction to take it away, or at the least it further imperial claims that the emperor was hieratically above the pope (at least temporally).  So it was a more problematic document than the current text explains, if (of course) my understanding is correct. Lostcaesar 19:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Donation of Constantine

message: I have proposed a History task force on Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General which would cover this article among others. Please read the proposal, comment on it and consider joining. --Richard 17:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for a task force on the History of Christianity 

message: This section consists essentially of cut and pastes with minor changes from the following url: http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ac65. The use of this material should be acknowledged. I am a novice here so don't know the etiquette. Should this be corrected by the original author?
Here's the language from the original source of the material for comparison:
"The first pope to indicate the real potential of the papacy is Leo I . . .With the collapse of imperial authority in the western empire, as Visigoths, Vandals and Huns move around almost at will, the papacy finds itself well placed to take a lead in temporal affairs. Ambrose in Milan has already demonstrated how a bishop can exert spiritual authority over an emperor. During Leo's pontificate Rome is threatened by Attila the Hun (in 452) and Gaiseric the Vandal (455). He negotiates with both, and is traditionally credited with persuading Attila to turn back short of Rome and with convincing Gaiseric that the city should not be utterly destroyed. Whatever the exact truth of his achievement, his actions predict a broader role for the papacy."
Rickrack (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The section should be rewritten to present the relevant information without infringing on copyright.  I don't have the time to do it right now so I've removed the offending copyright violation.  --Richard (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leo the Great 

message: A added some pictures of recent popes. I tried to add some missing aspects. The important postwar years and the persecution of the Church during that time, the substantive liberal opposition after Vatican II, the pontificate of Benedict XVI, and the accomplishments of John Paul II in the area of Church doctrines. I cut back very long repetitive descriptions of the Sedisvcantist, who in the context of theis article on 2000 year papal history, should not be overrepresented, especially in light of the main article which repeats everything again. I hope not to step on anybody with these additions. I am a little familiar with the topicas I worked extensively on Pius XII and  to a minor degree on Pius IX, Pius X, Pius XI and Paul VI, who all need much more TLC. -:)) 
--Ambrosius007 (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions 

message: These changes—introduced by User:Resolver-Aphelion, and re-introduced almost certainly by the same user under the IP addresses: 71.200.152.62 and 64.26.71.25—are unsourced, point-of-view pushing, or otherwise dis-improvements.
*The new picture is worse than the old. The old one depicts the handing off of the keys, and important event in the doctrinal account. The new one is just a statute.
*"Pope" and "church" should not be capitalized every time they are used. Pope should only be capitalized when it starts a sentence or refers to a specific pope. Church should only be capitalized when it refers to the Catholic church, not the generic Christian church.
*Blatant point of view pushing has been introduced. For example, the insertion of "(that is, pretenders who were not truly Popes)" after antipope or indulgences described as "donation money" instead of "sale."
*The account of the Western Schism has been re-written from a papal-centric point of view. Hence, "re-affirming" used to describe novel changes and the description of the Eastern churches as having "broke communion," as if they had ever acknowledged the primacy of the papacy.
*This user also seems to be grammar challenged (e.g. "... now there was three men ...").
*The weasel word mashup about "many catholics called for" in regards to the Renaissance papacy. This is taken from the more prosaic, and less factual portions of the Catholic Encyclopedia. 
I invite this editor to cite sources and write from a neutral point of view, rather than just finding new IP addresses to push all of these changes from. This article does not need any more unsourced content, especially unsourced content designed to push a POV. Savidan 23:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits reverted 

message: In my first post I made a specific suggestion for the lede which was dissed as agenda-pushing: a quite baseless, high-handed and unwelcoming response contrary to the spirit of wikipedia.  The lede was then promptly re-written ignoring my suggested version, as well as those of other editors.  This arbitrary re-write centres on an awkward and ill-expressed sentence which I have criticised for its use of a faulty and even incoherent phrase "institution surrounding/ the pope of the Catholic Church". I have already explained the problem with it: the papacy is not an institution surrounding anything or anyone.  As for the solecism "pope of the Catholic Church" that is, I imagine, an old argument settled long ago – see the talk page in pope, and observe that pope of the Catholic Church re-directs to pope.  It should be blindingly obvious that I have made concrete suggestions and castigating my remarks as "general musings" is inappropriate and uncalled-for.   Meanwhile I propose amending "pope of the Catholic Church" to "pope" as a first step to addressing the manifest defects of the lede.   As for the "inadequate appreciation of the scope and specificity of the article or any holistic approach to write such an article" which I am accused of, I shall only observe that Savidan wrote in here on 2 March:- This article is a top-level overview of the history of the Catholic Church. It should be a readable summary of 2,000 years of history of a global organization. If that delineates the "scope and specificity of the article", no wonder my comments make no sense to him (or her). Ridiculus mus (talk) 11:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not the only one that thinks the papacy is an institution.  See Psuedo-Richard below.  The lead should summarize the article, and that was the main thrust behind my recent changes.  There is a little "solecism" in "pope of the catholic church" but not much.  There are other bishops who call themselves pope today, and more that have done so historically.  Plus, both articles are high value links to get put early on.  Also see my comments below.  I should have said "papacy", not "catholic church." Savidan 22:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For crying out loud, I am NOT objecting to reference to the papacy as an institution. See my proposed lede above (again, and again, and again).  As for other "popes", there is no possibility of a disambiguation issue in an article on the History of the Papacy.  "Catholic" gets its link in the change I have already made to the lede. Ridiculus mus (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lede 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Great Schism 1054.svg Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 7 November 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Attacco garibaldino contro i francesi 30 aprile 1849.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: .
The citation is missing for the above quote from Wilken. --Zfish118 (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Citation 

message: I recently read big chunks of The Pursuit of Glory which covers European history between 1648–1815.  There was a fair amount of material on the Catholic church and the papacy which was completely new to me. I came here to gain another perspective and I find that the period 1689–1775 has no coverage at all.  Disappointing. — MaxEnt 13:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The big gap between 1689–1775 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of the papacy. 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/20140906031754/http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090309133314/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20050424_inizio-pontificato_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20050424_inizio-pontificato_en.html
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) 17:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Moneytrees🌴Talk🌲Help out at CCI!  02:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright problem 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* Palazzo dei Papi.JPG
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion