Talk:Pope Benedict XIII

Untitled
May I suggest that #1 above should be moved to Antipope Benedict XIII? - Montr&eacute;alais


 * Me too!. Err, I mean, I wanted to include the fact that he moved to the seaside fortress of Peñíscola. But I don't know the date, so I couldn't shove it. -- Error

Fear of 13
Removed because lack of citation. Note also that in the same century, two other popes took # 13 (Innocent XIII, just preceding, and Clement XIII three popes later), so it's not enough to say that fear of the number 13 was rampant at the time. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Pope Benedict XIII. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://mysite.verizon.net/res7gdmc/aposccs/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Early actions removal
In redoing several of the conclaves from the 17th century as well as the 1724 one that elected Benedict XIII, I've been relying heavily on Baumgartner's recent work Behind Closed Doors. His assessment of Triple Crown is that it was an entertaining but inaccurate source, because it reported every rumour and scandal as fact. Given this critique and the content included here, I've removed it. If anyone has objections, I'd be happy to discuss. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Triple Crown is scandalously bad, and appears too often in Wikipedia because it is accessible and it is in English. It is cited by people who aren't familiar with the topic they are working on. --Vicedomino (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Image: Benedict XIII plaque
Reading the placque, it becomes apparent immediately that the contents has nothing to do with Benedict XIII except as a date. The text has to do with the dedication of a staircase built at the expense of the French Cardinal Melchior de Polignac. I think the image should be removed. --Vicedomino (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Main photograph
Since 26 March, was changing a contemporary portrait made by Giuseppe Bazzani for an anonymous undated one because "the quality is better". I'd reverted because I think that according to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism/Archive 2020, the portrait made by Bazzani is more relevant because it was made by a known contemporary artist and it is dated during the pontificate of Pope Benedict XIII. Nonetheless, because Orson thinks I'm trying to "compete" or "win a competition" against him for similar changes in the past, I think it would be better to open a vote or consensus for all users to decide together which one everybody think is the most suitable image for the main infobox, taking into account Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism/Archive 2020. Thanks for collaboration. 79.145.148.64 (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I do not appreciate you twisting my words I simply stated that every compromise we’ve come to has always been what you wanted which if you think about it really isn’t a compromise. Orson12345 (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * because in the last discussions I'd explained you the reason for revert the change with references and objective information of the portraits, and also in some of that's talks we changed together an image which was historically contemporary with it's subject made by and an also contemporary painter (see Pope Clement XI). But your argument for revert my changes here was that the anonymous and undated portrait has got better quality and, for that, Bazzani's one have to be "removed" or put in another place. Personal preferences are not an objective argument for change an image for another in an encyclopaedia. For that I "twisted your words" as you said —and if you think this, I'm sorry for that because my intention is collaborate for doing constructive and reasonable changes, not compete with other users— when you reverted again my reversion and answered me saying that "you don’t think that it’s right for you to compromise every single time we have an interaction", because there are some changes that you'd done in the past and in which I was agree with you (example: the portrait of Pope Paul III), but in those in which I think that your argument for the good quality isn't appears to be objective, I treat to talk with you and explain you why I think this, restore editions which need it and treat to find an alternative option if it is recquired and trat to collaborate. Please, don't think that I like to revert you, because it isn't my point of view. 79.145.148.64 (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Most image changes you have made I don’t agree with I don’t think having a known date and author is more important than the quality of the image itself. Of course having a known author and date is nice but not at the price of the image. But I eventually stop reverting it because it’s not worth the argument and I’d rather come to a compromise. And the example you gave with Paul III the image I got rid of and replaced with the original image wasn’t one that you put so we didn’t have to come to a compromise just because you agreed with what I did doesn’t mean you compromised. And with Clement XI I didn’t like the portrait you put in the infobox but I knew you weren’t going to let it be changed so I decided to compromise and adjust lighting of the portrait to make it less dark so I compromised not you. Orson12345 (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * if you was disagree with those changes, you should have to tell me in that moment, and we would searching another alternative, but you didn't did it, and with retouching the photograph for remove darkness you give an impression that a consensus was obtained. But these are differences that I think we have to discuss in our talk pages. In this I think that we have to explain objective reasons for letting other users to give their opinion too. 79.145.148.64 (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

There were time that I told you I didn’t agree with the image you put. But I don’t want to argue with you we can just agree to disagree. I will no longer interfere with your edits. Orson12345 (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)