Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Papal Tiara/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Papal Tiara

self nom When I started this article in February 2003 I did not expect that it would grow as it did or contain as much information as it did. I knew next to nothing about this topic when I started it but was curious. I discovered recently that during the papal conclave a journalist colleague had been using wikipedia as a sourcebook for papal information. Had Benedict XVI been crowned he intended to use this article for his newspaper article on papal crowns. So I guess this article has been a success, largely thanks to the work of so many wikipedians over two years. I think it should be showcased as an example of how Wikipedia can take an obscure topic and produce what is probably the most thorough article on this topic anywhere. FearÉIREANN 03:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

• Support-powerful article. The amount of information is incredible, as well as the structure and organization. A worthy article to be featured. <<Coburn_Pharr>> 05:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support. A very good article on a somewhat obscure topic, just what Wikipedia is all about. Rje 13:06, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Object Nice article indeed, but lead section needs to be longer, a ==References== section must be added and many more inline citations should be included. --mav 16:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • It looks to me like all of these objections have been addressed - the lead is now 4 hefty paragraphs, and it has 20 footnotes. →Raul654 16:25, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. It's always great to see a well-researched articles like this (judging from the number of publications given at the end), but the references require some polishing. If the publications in the "Additional Reading" section were used as sources or to fact-check, the section should be renamed "References". Some of the documents lack a name for the publisher (only the name of the city is included).
  • That is because many old texts either used long out of existence publishing houses or in many cases (God knows why!) used to use city of publication. In other cases, the information can from books that quoted from older texts but only gave place of publication. I used the reference to the older book.FearÉIREANN 00:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • This is v. poor technique, especially on a controversial subject. Use Inter-Library Loan, cite only the modern source, or indicate which books have not been seen. (See comment on Bibliography for dangers involved.) Septentrionalis 04:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• As mav above says, it would be useful to add footnotes to make it clearer where in the source documents some of the facts in the article come from (ex.: on what data is the average tiara weight that is given in the article based?). The "Symbolism of the Triple Tiara" strikes me as particularly weak in that area. Formulations like Some have linked [the tiara] to..., Others have given a spiritual interpretation..., Yet another theory..., and Other theories suggest... do not have their place in featured articles, unless they are backed with names and quotes for the advocates of the different theories. Also, is there not an inconsistency about the "papier mâché" tiara. In the section dedicated to it, the author(s) write(s) It is rumoured to have been worn by one later pope, Pius IX, sometime between 1870 and his death in 1878., yet in "Weight of the tiara", a few sections earlier, on can read Because of the weight of the older tiaras, some elderly popes, notably Pius IX and Leo XIII, though they had been given many tiaras during their reign, opted where possible to wear the papier-mâché tiara in their final years.. Was Pius IX the only pope to wear that tiara after Pius VI or not? (commented coninuted below)
  • No. But it was never stated that they wore it (it would be an admission that their health was failing.) It was just recorded in old diaries of people in the papal court that they were doing so, and hoping no-one would get close enough to notice which one it was, as a lot of the tiaras look the same from afar. FearÉIREANN 00:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • That is not made clear in the text. Phils 16:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Another section that would need closer examination is "The Papal Tiara and the 666 controversy". What are the four definitive sources that Protestants sometimes give, and Which Protestants claim they are definitive? Is Uriah Smith (author the publication cited in the 4th footnote) the source of all these claims? If so, he should be named, not Protestants in general. This is exactly the kind of statement that needs to be sourced with footnotes. I think the article should clearly enumerate the four objections, explain why these four are considered (and by whom) definitive, and if necessary, mention the Catholic counter-arguments, instead of pretending However none of the sources seem to stand up to detailed examination and proceeding to counter the "Adventists' claims" in a most vague and sometimes incomprehensible manner (In fact the tiara some Seventh-day Adventists has the words was actually manufactured decades after the supposed sighting of the words on the tiara supposedly seen at Mass. - I understand a word was ommitted after 'Adventists', but when was the tiara manufactured, and when was it supposedly sighted?). This just to confirm that mav's objection is justified. Apart from needing better referencing, a quick copy-edit would be a good thing (some commas missing, etc.) I know I ask for this quite often and could possibly do it myself, but we have enough skilled copyeditors around, so that we don't need a non-native English speaker to do it. Phils 18:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• The 666 claim did originally feature in the article in detail but another user thought it overlapped on a specific article on the topic and reduced it to a summary. I'll re-insert the original detail. (The supposed sighting, BTW, was in 1834. Yet the Seventh-day Adventists then claimed that the tiara in question is the one used to crown Pius XII. That tiara was actually made in 1877! Their reliability on this issue is of that scale. Lol. Re the meaning of the triple tiaras, the problem is that many different theories are espoused as no-one really knows. What I did was pull together the most widely mentioned ones, but the mentions are often in obscure documents. But I'll retrace the research. FearÉIREANN 19:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I still don't like the formulation "Four definitive sources are sometimes given" (and all the other some-s in that section), but I'm probably overly picky, but you've already done a lot to improve the article. Phils 16:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • This website, http://www.truecatholic.org/nop/p6tiara.htm, is probably one of the sources that were supposed to be used in the article. I have no clue on where this website got it's information, but this group claims that when the Pope ditched the Tiara, he "told the world that he is not the Pope of the Catholic church." Zscout370 (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Not yet of feature quality. Has recurrent POV problems, which may have provided the impetus for the article, but are unsuitable for a FAC.Septentrionalis 04:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • What POV problems do you see? Unless the authors know what they are, they can't be fixed. Therefore your objection may not be actionable. - Taxman 21:14, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • There have been recurrent efforts to use the article as a POV, exaggerating the (quite real) sufferings of Pius VI and Pius VII to make Napoleon and Pius IX look bad. See talk page for some of the issues. I would regard this as largely (but not entirely) solved by the present text, if the same assertions did not keep reappearing. Septentrionalis 22:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
      • There is also the question of whether the bibliography in fact represents books that any Wikipedian has actually seen, on which this page (above) and the talk page disagree. It certainly used to include one book which said nothing about tiaras or the subject matter of the article at all. If this is the case where I have checked, how is the rest of it? Septentrionalis 22:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Historians regularly mention books they have used in understand underlying trends that may have shaped their ideas. Hugh's book on the French Revolution was informative in contextualising the growing movement that saw a break in the concept of the alliance of 'throne and altar' of mediaval times to one based on the rights of man. The papacy in that period and for a century afterwards continued to be attracted to the concept of 'throne and altar' and opposed to the principles of the 'rights of man'. Indeed some of the principles of the French Revolution were only accepted as late as Vatican II. Understanding the changing conceptionalisation of monarchy and its symbols in the nineteenth century is an inherent part of this article and that book formed a useful source for understanding the changing secular world versus the world of traditional Catholicism. Using references is not about looking through indices to see if the word tiara exists in them. But as you seem to have a problem with the standard method of using references, to keep you happy in your non-historical understanding of using references I removed the book. (BTW a book I am reading on mediaval concepts of family uses as one of its references an article about 1940s Northern Ireland social traditions. And Scandal and Betrayal, an acclaimed account of the theft of the Irish Crown Jewels includes in its biography An Encylopaedia of British Literature, Art and Culture as well as The Real World of Sherlock Holmes. I suppose you disapprove of these two and want those books condemned because the books mentioned in the references don't actually mention mediaeval families or the Irish crown jewels?) FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 23:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I need to look at this article more to see if it does fit the FA status. To Jtdirl: Though many of the sources might be in PD, still list the sources in the references. I would also pay attention to the Pope Benedict XVI article, since we are not sure about the status of the arms of Benedict XVI either will ditch the tiara in favor of the mitre or the tiara will be restored. I would also try to clear up any copyvios, if at all. I still thank Jtdirl for pointing this out on my talk page, but I still need to comb though this. Zscout370 (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This is beautiful! But lead section can be improved, which is not going to be a big deal. muriel@pt 08:26, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Ok, I looked at the article and I believe, with a little work, the article can be FA status. Zscout370 (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support Awesome article. Bratsche^{talk random} 03:42, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Support: Very interesting Giano | talk 08:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object: most images have incomplete source information (there is a good argument for fair use here, I think, but that's no excuse for a lack of proper attribution). —Steven G. Johnson 05:26, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Right now, I am trying to find photos of the various crowns. For Paul VI, I found [1]. This was cropped, then used on Wikipedia, but was replaced. The photo being used now was taken from [2]. Most of the photos used for the articled at loctaed at http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/claims.htm. I do not know what copyright status every picture holds, but at least we are getting somewhere. Zscout370 (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Another image of the papal tiara on Pope John XXIII: http://pirate.shu.edu/~wisterro/cdi/John%20XXIII%20-%20tiara.jpg. Zscout370 (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The tiara of Pope Pius IX: http://www.nd.edu/~bshweb/pics/tiara.gif. Zscout370 (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object POV mainly on anti-pope thing! -Pedro 00:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Same as above and what do you mean by "on anti-pope thing"? What POV problems do you see? Unless the authors know what they are, they can't be fixed. Therefore your objection may not be actionable. - Taxman 21:14, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry??? Not actionable?! this Pope Gregory XVII thing is surely intended to offend catholics and redicularizes the article. What that has to do with the article? is to make him noticeable? Did he died? I didnt knew that he had born. And I dont live that faar from Seville. I completly disapprove an article with such a biased info. I'm very faar from being a fundamentalist catholic. it is POV. This and Sealand are some of the articles that make wikipedia seem ridiculous. And passing this to a featured article?!?! I'm not offending the author that surelly has edited the article in good faith.object object object-Pedro 18:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
      • How the heck can the so-called Pope Gregory XVII thing be intended to offend Catholics? That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Firsty it doesn't mention a Pope Gregory XVI at all. It mentions someone who claimed he was Pope Gregory XVII. Secondly that mention is patently NPOV. It points out that the papal tiara is such a powerful symbol of the papacy that a wannabe pope felt it necessary to wear his own one. That is a fact. You may not like the fact, but is is a fact and an NPOV article cannot ignore such a fact. FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 20:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
        • It is a non-important person, the image is very ridiculous. I've also a tiara at home, do you want to talk about it also? It is so powerful that people that dont go no more to the church (except on marriages and baptisms) have it at home. That would be a fact if I really had it at home. Did really the catholic church said that man was the anti-pope? Probably they've never heard of him. I think the article is going to controversial issues, with unknown people, trying to make them famous. -Pedro 02:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The rules for the FAC say you have to object with specificity, which, in all his commentary, Pedro has not done. His objection is therefore inactionable. →Raul654 16:28, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • your comment is the confirmation that this "feature article candidates" became a facade. The articles you (admins) dont like you dont say nothing, create the most mirabulous objections, or remove them quickly from voting, but if you like you withdraw other peoples arguments, I was pretty well specific. I'm not saying to remove the info on anti-popes, we should touch it with a simple paragraph, not refering to ANY supposed anti-pope, unless he is famous, giving the status that it has in the article, it is POV. -Pedro 01:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support Interesting and informative article.  =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 17:21, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • this one you approve, but in Goa you were commenting on blog content issues... this one also has.--Pedro 18:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
    • And which blog were you referring to in this article?  =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 19:55, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • supposed.anti.pope.that.no.body.knows.and.cares.about.blog.com -Pedro 02:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- ALoan (Talk) 12:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support Gorgeous article. Well written, and with excellent visual references. Kudos. --JohnDBuell 17:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
• Wow. I had no idea there was so much to be known about papal crowns. Good job. Support. Edeans 20:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Clear language and solid research. --Theo (Talk) 10:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object for now. I hate breaking a string of supports, but I'm going to have to complain about the incredibly short section on Tiara envy. Could that section be renamed and include its current info (only better developed) plus something about Pope Gregory XVII? It seems strange to have just a picture of him and nothing in the text. Maybe the "The triple tiara in Tarot" section could be added too - name the section "Non-catholic tiaras" or "Papal tiara spinoffs" or something. Another thing that annoyed me is the seemingly random wikilinking of years. Is there a reason for that? Or can I/someone go through and wikilink all of them? Also, is there a reason that american units (pounds) are preferred over metric units (kilograms) for a european subject? --Spangineer ∞ 00:01, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Gregory XVII' is not mentioned in detail because it wasn't a real pope, just a diluded priest who fanatised that Christ had appeared to him and told him that he was going to be pope and would then be crucified in Jerusalem!!! (He actually died in his bed in Spain!) He isn't in himself relevant to the article, though there is an article on wikipedia on him. The only relevance was that he showed the symbolic power of the papal tiara by having one in his own 'coronation.'
  • As to the wikifying of dates, go ahead. Bits were added in but not fully wikified.
  • Re tiara envy and the tarot - it is simply a matter of space. The article already exceeds the 32k advised maximum size recommended to make the article friendly to all browsers. There simply wasn't space, and while they are relevant in giving a cultural link to papal tiaras, they are a bit off message. One couldn't really drop bits about the actual papal tiara to make room for an interesting but overall side issue, though if more information becomes available, a linked article might be an option.
  • As to the use of pounds: actually they aren't American units. They can be called American Units or Imperial Units and are still used in some parts of Europe. (Ireland is officially metric, yet don't ask me what my height is in metres - I only know it in feet and inches. Ditto with my weight. Most people I know think in miles, drink in pints, etc. In fact we use a strange combination of both metric and imperial.) They were written in lbs because that was the weights quoted in my sources and, as a longterm user of the Imperial System, I still think in them and couldn't be bothered trying to change them into units I don't use. (To be honest I couldn't even remember how to do it.) I don't think it is accurate to presume that European topics should use metric and American topics imperial. I know Americans who use metric and Europeans who use imperial. FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 00:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Could the image at least be moved up to the place in the article where he is talked about? Are both images of Paul VI necessary? The current image placement makes it look like adding the image was an afterthought. Spangineer ∞ 11:03, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • I would have thought the reason for the two Pope Paul images are obvious. One shows a clear image of Paul's unique tiara, which is worth seeing. The other shows its usage at the moment he was crowned, again an important image to feature. As to image placement, it is standard in layout for images to be placed in articles (in newspapers, magazines, encylopaediae, etc) based on the need of the overall visual nature of the page, and not necessarily to be placed beside the point where the image is being discussed. If images were placed next to where they are being discussed, one would have an absolute mess, with some parts jammed with images, other large-sections imageless. That is not how professional layouts are designed. FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 20:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • The 32k limit is often exceeded for featured article candidates, and some of them go as high as 60k or even higher. In my opinion, adding 0.5-1k to a 39k article is worth it in this case. However, if you do think that it is merely a side issue, then just move the sections to their own articles and add links to them somewhere else in the article. I don't really care either way, but I strongly believe that a featured article should not have two underdeveloped sections, especially one that is a mere two sentences long. Spangineer ∞ 11:03, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • If they are that large they shouldn't. A warning appears on the screen pointing out that articles should not go much above 32K, for a range of reasons: technical, layout, browser, etc. Articles of that size are being broken up to bring them to manageable proportions. Re the supposed 'underdeveloped sections' they are not sections. They are simply minor by the ways at the end of the page. They are worth mentioning but in this article they just about warrant a line or two, certainly not a section. They simply are interesting titbits, nothing more. Articles often have a line or two about interesting titbits, without the need to blow them out of all proportion. Many articles have some such 'sections' running to only one line. FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 20:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Take the weight and divide it by 2.2. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
      • It's not a major concern of mine – I was just curious. The convention of which type of English spelling to use (British or American) generally is influenced by the location of the subject of the article, so I generally think the same should apply to units. But I was unaware that so many people around the world use the same stupid units as americans like me :). Spangineer ∞ 11:03, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • I maintain my support on this article receiving FA status, but how much of a distraction would it be to include both metric and imperial measurements when necessary? --JohnDBuell 00:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

They are in. I just left the pleasure of the calculation to someone else. I decided not to write the whole thing myself and to let others contribute! :-) FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 00:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The whole world uses mertic execept my strange country that I call home. Man, in my opinion, we should all go metric. It math and science classes really easy. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)