Talk:Donation of Constantine

message: According to Norman Cantor, the first record of and the first usage of the Donation is in the 750's.  It was presented by the Pope to Pepin III to legitimize the Pope's coronation of Pepin to replace the Merengovian kings.  The Papacy hoped to thus establish the doctrine that earthly kings were subject to the approval or approbation of the Church.  The Donation of Pepin (the land claims discussed earlier) were payback from Pepin to the Papacy for placing him on a throne he had no legitimate claim to under the doctrine of personal inheritance that was then the norm.  Elde 07:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  First usage of the Donation 

message: I think Ncholas of Cusa should be named as well for giving the first philologic arguments which showed that it was a falsification (see e.g. []).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.32.5.229 (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nicolaus Cusanus

message: Generally an encyclopedia article gives more than an offhand clue what the article is about within the first paragraph, the lead section or the first sentence.  Reading just the first paragraph of this article the reader will take away nothing about what was forged.  Please, if you are en editor of this article, at least give the reader information about what was forged in the first paragraph.  It's actually important.  --KP Botany (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's this article about? 

message: An editor says that unspecified "scholars" have pointed to Paul, younger brother of Pope Stephen II, as likely to be the forger of the Donation document ("a likely suspect").  As source for this statement, he cites an unspecified part of the 1922 book by Christopher B. Coleman, The Treatise of Lorenzo Valla on the Donation of Constantine.  What seems to be an extract from the same book given here does not support the statement.  In the extract, Coleman does not attribute the forgery to Paul himself.  He says the style of the document recalls that of the chancellery of Pope Stephen and, "more particularly", of Pope Paul I, and adds: "In short, the language of the Donation seems to point to the papal chancellery as the place of its origin, and the pontificate of Paul I (757-767) as the most probable time."  Coleman says nothing of the view of "scholars" (plural), but only gives his own view, declaring it most probable that the forgery belongs to Paul's papacy, not to when he was only the younger brother of Pope Stephen.  Coleman says "it may well have been under (Pope Paul I's) influence that this document came into existence" - not that Paul himself forged it either before or after becoming pope.  If the extract is indeed from the book given as basis for the statement inserted into the article, as it seems to be, the statement requires revision.  Esoglou (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The above comment suggests incorrectly that Coleman points only to the time of Paul's papacy, and not to Paul as an individual as the perpetrator. In fact, Coleman writes here "The first part of #4 [of the Donation] is very similar to part of a letter of Paul I's in 757" (page 7). Clearly Coleman mentions this by way of suggesting that the author of the Donation and of Paul's letter were the same person. Assuming that Paul wrote his own letter, this means that Coleman is putting this similarity forward as evidence that Paul may himself have been the writer of the Donation -- which is also consistent with Paul's personal devotion to Sylvester, as mentioned by Coleman on page 8.Herbsttag (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Herbsttag, please cease and desist from adding trivia about a recent novel to this article. It is undue. See WP:UNDUE, thanks. Note that it is irrelevant what material other articles may contain. Numerous articles contain inappropriate or trivial material that should be removed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: FreeKnowledgeCreator, your "cease and desist" message is a legalism intended to represent yourself as some kind of Wikipedia overlord, which I don't believe exists. You say that my post is "undue" and refer to the entry on due and undue weight. That paragraph concerns itself only with undue ideas or theories, such as the idea that the Earth is flat. My edit contains no ideas or theories but simply mentions a recent book that treats the Donation in a fictional mannner. If you think this is inappropriate you are out of line with huge numbers of wikipedia editors who add relevant mentions of literary or artistic treatments of historical persons or events -- entries that are not deleted and that, I'm guessing, many Wikipedia users find interesting and useful. Particularly so with a topic like the Donation, which up until now has been an arcane topic discussed only by medievalists. If you're a medievalist yourself with an interest in the Donation, then I'd think you'd also be interested by LeVay's effort to bring the topic to the attention to a wider audience.Herbsttag (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You are mistaken in your understanding of the principle of due weight. It covers all article content. I will be removing the reference you added to a novel, since it is trivial and inappropriate. Please don't edit war to restore that material. You are the editor who wants to include it, and it's up to you to establish a consensus in its favor. If you can't do that, it stays out. Note that WP:NPOV states that, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." A novel is not a reliable source, and the views of its author don't count as significant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: FreeKnowledgeCreator, NPOV has to do with value judgments, not with which facts to include. That's made clear by the five stated principles for achieving NPOV: 1) Avoid stating opinions as facts. (My edit states no opinions.) 2) Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. (You haven't contested that my edit is factually correct.) 3) Avoid stating facts as opinions. (My edit doesn't do that.) 4) Prefer non-judgmental language. (My edit doesn't express any judgments.) 5) Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. (My edit doesn't express any views. Stating that a fictional work lays out a certain plot is not espousing the view that this plot corresponds to historical reality.) Besides the issue of NPOV, you say that the edit is trivial and that I need to establish a consensus that it should be there. But the idea that the edit is trivial is your value judgment. I haven't heard that an editor needs to establish a consensus in favor of his or her edits, any more than an editor needs to establish a consensus to remove an edit. Consensus is the ideal, yes, but in the absence of consensus your personal judgments as to the triviality of edits (absent any factual inaccuracies) should not sufficient grounds for removing them. If you look at entries for notable persons (e.g. Constantine, Charlemagne) you'll see that they include cultural references such as fictional treatments, and the same is true for notable events. In fact, some events, such as the Battle of Waterloo, have so many cultural references that they are farmed off into a separate entry. (Obviously that's not appropriate in the case of the Donation.) I'm not going to continue a playground edit war, but I ask you to reconsider your reasons for removing this edit.98.154.238.18 (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand by my position that the content you wish to include is trivial and inappropriate. I hope you are not seriously contesting the principle that some content might be trivial and inappropriate for articles, and therefore undeserving of inclusion. It would be impossible to edit at all if one did not accept that principle. Plainly, editors must use their judgment about what is trivial and what is not. In cases of disagreement, consensus is certainly necessary to include material: WP:CONSENSUS. You clearly don't have consensus at present. You are welcome to try to establish consensus for your edits if you wish. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that you're mistaken when you say that "[I] don't have consensus at present." According to the page WP:Don't revert solely due to "no consensus" "Consensus is not unanimity, and is thus not canceled by one editor's objection." I'm not aware that any other editor supports your position: The only other editor who has weighed in, Esoglou, shortened my entry and placed it under a separate heading (which I think was an appropriate edit), but s/he did not suggest that it was inappropriate on account of triviality. You've cited several WP pages WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:CONSENSUS, but none of them provide justification for reverting my edit.98.154.238.18 (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that removing material on grounds of triviality is indeed permitted by Wikipedia's policies. You certainly seem to have a way of interpreting everything so that it supports your position, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: User at IP 98.154, I put your edit under the heading "In fiction" because I did not want to impose my sole opinion against your insistence on having this trivial unscholarly information in the article.  It is no longer my sole opinion.  I agree with FreeKnowledgeCreator.  Get even one editor to agree with you before you again insert matter on the basis of your sole opinion of its suitability.  Esoglou (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Esoglou, I respect your and FreeknowledgeCreator's opinions and I won't repost the edit unless legions of editors come to my defense. I do think you're mistaken, however. If by "scholarly" you mean "accurate" I agree with you 100%. But I suspect you mean "academic", and that is not a criterion that Wikipedia holds to -- if it did, few people would be qualified to edit it and even fewer would be interested in reading it. BTW, is there some kind of record for the ratio of talk to text that we may have broken? :)Herbsttag (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pope Paul I as alleged forger of the document 

message: Should it be named the Pseudo-Donation of Constantine since it's not geniune? [user:uknown]
: I hope to prove soon, that The Donation of Constantine, was indeed a truth, and not a forgery as someone stated.  philipofBVMPhilipofBVM (talk) 05:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Donation of Constantine 

message: Reading through Eusebius, one sees that Constantine did restore a number of churches and properties that had been confiscated from the Church. It may be helpful to include in this article what was actually given by Constantine to the Church (as testified by historical witness) in order to contrast it with the contents of the document to which this article pertains.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.101.92.14 (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Historical "Donation of Constantine" 

message: Does anyone know which volume of the Annals contains the forgery denunciation of the Donation? There are well over 10 volumes, so narrowing down the citation would be useful. Sylvesterjay (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baronius Citation