Talk:Pope Innocent XI

message: This article mentions nothing about the Pope's kidney stones, which attained a particularly large size.—RJH (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renal calculi 

message: What do professional historians have to say about their thesis?  
Also, it appears that none of the sources regarding a soft censorship in Italy do any interviews or investigation of the publishers or the Vatican itself.  Come on!  Do we simply trust the testimony of the authors, who have obviously received more hype because of their treatment by the Italian press?Cyrusrex1545 (talk) 08:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It rang false to me, too, that's why I added the  tag.  If you find anything to contradict it, I'd be glad to take it out.  --Coemgenus 12:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monaldi and Sorti 

message: Again, I don't see that the citations offered give any evidence for these "facts," except for the testimony of the authors.  At least, it should be changed to "The authors of Imprimatur claim..."  Don't you agree? Cyrusrex1545 (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted... Withdrawn from publication in Italy 

message: It seems to me ridiculous to include a fragment about the reopening of the canonisation process in 2002 a suspension a year later due to novel Imprimatur - this is based entirely on the claims of the authors of the novel. I haven't found any single source that would independently support the information that such move had ever been thought by the Vatican in a recent years. This seems to be simply a part of promotion campaign of these authors, for which there should be no place in wikipedia - at least not in the article about Innocent XI (perhaps in the articles about Imprimatur novel or its authors). CarlosPn (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Canonisation in 2001

message: This article refers to an article (work?) by "Kelly" but does not give the necessary details.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansjoseph (talk • contribs) 06:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference is listed in the "references" section. Coemgenus 11:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kelly 

message: 'He is also a relative of his sister's grandson Baldassare Erba-Odescalchi'  Of course he's related to his sister's grandson - is this relevant for some reason?  If so, who is B E-O, worthy of mention here but not of an article of his own? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the statement is peculiar.  I tried to fix it.  He was a small scale nepotist. --Vicedomino (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Background color due to a single blank space at the beginning of your sentence. --Vicedomino (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baldassare Erba-Odescalchi 

message: According to the article Lourenço da Silva de Mendouça, Innocent condemned slavery on March 6th, 1686. I see no mention of this here, surely it should be included. LastDodo (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Condemnation of slavery?

message: One sentence article can easily fit under "Encyclicals", it's already mentioned there. Manannan67 (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: support merge. This seems like a no-brainer. Cue 18 editors popping up to explain to me exactly why it's not a no-brainer at all. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joyous! (talk • contribs) 04:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a better target would be the topic of the encyclical, Miguel de Molinos, where the contents are already described and where there is better context. Klbrain (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Klbrain (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Coelestis Pastor''