Talk:Pope Innocent XI

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

Monaldi and Sorti
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)

The Telegraph actually has the following:

'A Vatican spokesman said: "It seems strange that they would accuse us of conspiracy. Certainly, if their historical novel has managed to sell 15,000 copies in Italy, they should be happy. This is a good figure for that type of book."

A Mondadori spokesman disputed the book's sales figures and added: "We are the Italian publishers of Dan Brown [the author of The Da Vinci Code], which was much harder to release, so I don't think we would have been troubled by the suggestions in this book."'

These responses seem much more cool-headed and plausible, but my opinion isn't really relevant. The point is that all of this information from a historical novel playing such a central role in this Wiki page is problematic. I really think that some comment from historians on this matter is fundamental. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrusrex1545 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)

Well, the publisher did have a very reasonable response to the charge. They publish the Da Vinci Code?! So...this seems very implausible to me. I've really seen no solid evidence that confirms the charge besides the word of the authors themselves... User:Cyrusrex1545

I don't understand why Monaldi and Sorti's claims are included in an encyclopedic article on history. They are novelists, not historians. Until scholars have researched Monaldi and Sorti's claims, and subjected their findings to peer review, these assertions belong to speculative, not substantial history. Vereverde (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Blacklisted... Withdrawn from publication in Italy
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)

Canonisation in 2001
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)

Kelly
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)
 * The reference is listed in the "references" section. Coemgenus 11:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Elizium, I'm not sure if you are familiar with secular mainstream UK media (perhaps you only read Catholic media?) However, I feel I need to point out that the Independent is not classified as a "tabloid" but is a respectable newspaper. As such I see no reason to doubt that it meets the test of verifiability. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I edited the last section in the article to delete a reference to John XXIII being found incorrupt. The vatican has stated that his preservation is the work of an embalming technique as well as being placed in a triple lined coffin into which no air could penetrate. Sharbel23 (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Baldassare Erba-Odescalchi
'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) (why is there a background colour?) --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Background color due to a single blank space at the beginning of your sentence. --Vicedomino (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Trivial news sources?
I am always for more references but I want to be clear first what the specific problem is? Contaldo80 (talk) 11:51, 1

May 2017 (UTC)

Condemnation of slavery?
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)

Coelestis Pastor
One sentence article can easily fit under "Encyclicals", it's already mentioned there. Manannan67 (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)