Talk:Pope Leo XIII/Archive 1

styles infobox
A discussion occurred at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Style War proposed solution about a solution to the ongoing style wars on Wikipedia. The consensus favoured replacing styles at the start of articles by an infobox on styles in the article itself. I have added in the relevant infobox here. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Copyright Infringement?
A Significant part of the article (especially near the end) appears to be a copy of Catholic Encyclopedia Leo XIII especially near the end, with common phrases such as "Under Leo the religious orders developed wonderfully; new orders were founded, older ones increased, and in a short time made up for the losses occasioned by the unjust spoliation they had been subjected to." Naraht 21:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Daisy89, it appears it was you who completely revised the article. Could you please state your sources? If it is the Catholic Encyclopedia, well, that work appears to be in the public domain (see here). However, there was an article already in existence before your complete revision, which if I am correct is actually a complete replacement of the article. I am not sure the current text is better than the previous text, especially since the language is rather old-fashioned, no matter whether you wrote it, or the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1910. Classical geographer 19:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Today I have reinstated the original article - that is, the version before major edits by User:64.252.74.192 and User:Daisy89 (who might or might not be two different persons). I feel the original as it was found on Wikipedia before 6 March 2007 was more concise, more to the point, and wikified on top. It's a pity that many people - including me - spend lots of valuable time on wikifying a text that apparently comes straight from the Catholic Encyclopedia (even though Daisy89's edit summaries suggest otherwise - especially "elaborated much more please do not delete worked very hard"). On the other hand, I do believe there's some interesting stuff in the Catholic Encyclopedia version, and therefore I have inserted (and adapted, of course) a few paragraphs from that source. Classical geographer 18:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
''In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that when either of two styles such as 14 February or February 14 is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason. Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. See: Manual of Style (dates and numbers) Ujntul a few days ago, all dates in the Leo XIII article were in the February 14'' order. Therefore it was inappropriate to change this  article from one style to another. --Thomaq (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

February 14 = 14 February, Bazj (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Later on in the article you cite, you'll see that wikilinking the date will result in you seeing the date in the style set in your preferences.

Guys, can we work out here which format it should be? Whether autoformatting is used or not, our readers still see what you key in. The relevant balance is between MOSNUM on "retain the original format" (which was US for the first year at least) versus "strong ties to a country" (I don't think Italy 1900 figures much there, but argue it out here). Tony  (talk)  12:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Most recent popes (Pius IX, Leo XIII, Piua X, Pius XII, Pius XII, Paul VI) all used US format until someone tried to change it a few days ago. John Paul II uses EU format. The papacy is a world institution not Italy, we should leave things rhe way they are, because  as Wikipedia states: it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so--Thomaq (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, but can we take the high emotion out of it? Frankly, it shouldn't matter that much to you. Please inform me immediately if there's any trouble at other pages over date format. Tony   (talk)  00:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't see any reason to use American Dating format for an article that intimately concerns an Italian, where International Dating is more appropriate. Not without a good reason. Sure, the Roman Catholic Church is a global institution, but so to is the British Commonwealth, and I can't see any reason to use American Dating in the biographical article on the current head of the Commonwealth, Queen Elizabeth II. Or for any previous British monarch, including the time when they reigned over what is now the U.S.. When there's an American (or Filipino) pope, then American Dating format would be appropriate for their biographical article. I've been working my way through the popes, changing the date formats to International Dating, and I'd appreciate that my careful work on this article be restored. Including unlinking dates, please. --Pete (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Could I ask people to take a breath of fresh air and relax about which format is used. I can't believe people are so emotional about whether day or month comes first. If it's some kind of nationalistic kick, please remember that the US military uses international, and many newspapers in the UK and Australia use the so-called US format. I was more concerned at the mess the dates were in until a few days ago. Can we let this one sit for a while and get back to more important stuff (if it is worth diverting our time and talent there at all)? Tony   (talk)  13:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * American Dating format is inappropriate for this article. End of story. I'm particularly annoyed at having my careful work undone for no good reason. --Pete (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae
It seems remiss - with regard to the article section "Relations with the United Kingdom and the Americas" - to not have a link to this papal letter to Cardinal Gibbons and the U.S. bishops. It is one of Leo's principal statements of "policy" and attitude towards the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.60.165 (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Information from another page
I found this on the Annum ingressi site, and am not sure what this has to do with the letter, but someone may want to put it on this page:

*Leo XIII awarded a gold medal to a fashionable 19th century cocaine-laced wine called Vin Mariani.

The first bit came from this article! The second bit is from Paolo Mantegazza. Imacomp 20:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone should put this into the article as his cocaine approval and authentic "controversial" material to some are essential on wiki articles. Youlookadopted 00:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I have come across adverts for the wine in newspapers/periodicals of the time. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Taxil hoax
Why the article does not even mention it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.192.248.201 (talk) 06:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Image/coat of arms
In this edit user Xanderliptak clearly stated that in his opinion there is consensus that History2007 and Scolaire also think images need actual sources. Hence, the new image that some IP (may be a sockpuppet) added, can be deleted. There is further discussion on the talk pages of the users mentioned above, to the effect that History2007 and Scolaire have rejected Mr Liptak's personal creation of a coat of arms for Leo XIII. History2007 (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Image was sourced, please follow the citation to this Vatican site.


 * Also, a consensus is not two people going to someone's talk page, as concerned editors to the article would be unaware of the dialogue. To build a consensus, you need to list it at the relevant article so editors may be notified and weigh in.  As you and the other editors noted, three people at the WikiProject Heraldry was not deemed sufficient consensus to weigh in on the matter, so two is definitely not enough here.


 * That edit you are citing of mine, Scolaire undid it and added images without sourcing, so he violated his own "consensus". And that "consensus" of two people you are citing refused to allow secondary sources (id est Internet), so that consensus is invalid per Secondary source.  So there is nothing to argue against the image.   [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  13:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The long and short of it is that you want to add an image you have created by yourself based on your own artistic design. Two editors oppose that. In Wikipedia that means: you have to accept their joint decision. In any case, you accepted a certain arrangement, namely NO image and I just went back to your own accepted version. Period. History2007 (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You don’t have a consensus. Three editors have stated at the WikiProject heraldry that my artistic designs do not change the meaning to a coat of arms, because it is the colours and symbols on the shield that matter.  Besides those three at the WikiProject, I also have the support of four other editors.  That gives me seven in support, where as you and twoo editors are disapproving.  If there is any consensus, it would appear to be in my favour.  You simply don't like me illustrating, and you are going to any means to prevent it.  You are making this personal.  Now, either conform to your standards and start removing any and all images without a linked source, or stop the petty argument.   [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  15:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not agree. You are in a minority here. History2007 (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You must be confused about what a minority is. You and two editors are against, that makes a total of three against.  I have myself and five other editors in support of my illustrations and/or have notified you that they are heraldically accurate.  That means there are twice as many people supporting my position as there is you.  That makes you the minority, I am afraid.   [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  16:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No. I was going to ask for a 3rd opinion, here and Talk:Octobri_Mense, but once Scolaire arrived, that was the 3rd opinion, so I stopped there. There have been no other editors on this page. History2007 (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You're operating off of best two out of three? Who agreed to that?  Have you even read the sources provided you, or are you still blindly arguing simply because you dislike me?  You didn't want to talk about heraldry apparently because you didn't want to admit you were unknowledgeable, rather focusing your argument on I-don't-think's and well-prove-it's rather than taking the time to understand something.


 * And what good will asking a heraldry question on an encyclical article? You really should go with the Heraldry WikiProject on that, since, ya know, it's the Heraldry WikiProject.   [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  22:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you keep talking about me, let me clarify some things about myself please. Of course, in Wikipedia one can not speculate on the motives and intentions of other users and one assumes good faith at all times. So let me provide you with a few pieces of information about my own intentions. I edit with a user name and I do not use Wikipedia as a means of promoting a business or service. I promise. When I wrote probability measure the other day, I did not add my name to it so people would call me for consulting work on risk assessment afterwards. I did that because many people were clicking on that page and got no information. I did that just as a free service for whoever anted to read it. I am not an artist. I do not post my own artwork on Wikipedia and hope to increase my reputation, and get further business. I am not here to use Wikipedia as an advertising medium. Does that answer your question? History2007 (talk) 10:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, you think I am trying to build a business off Wikipedia because my name appears in the filename of my images that I drew? Well, how about you actually assume good faith and stop with the insinuations.  Perhaps, just perhaps, I do know what I am talking about.  I mean, the Heraldry WikiProject did back me up.  Perhaps I put my name n the images because I am the one that made those images.


 * You don’t want to talk about heraldry, you got offended that I said you show no knowledge in the subject. Was I supposed to pretend you were an expert?  You want me to pretend that your lack of knowledge is expertise somehow?  You have to admit you do not know everything but are willing to learn before I can teach you.  Otherwise you are just going to ignore anything you read or are told because it is not what you expected.  When you are ready to have an open mind, then perhaps we could actually have an intelligent conversation about the subject at hand.  Face it, I have been arguing against three people rather persistently and even was blocked by one of your friends because I tried to remove the images you guys have issue with.  I am not leaving.  You might as well listen a bit so this can finally be resolved.   [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  18:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, the other editors are not my "friends" for I do not think I had interacted with them before. We just happen to agree on this topic, and our assessment of the situation differs from yours. And, I would like to point out that your "I have been arguing against three people rather persistently" and "I am not leaving" statements are now running into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, namely sticking to a viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it. It is another Wikipedia policy that needs to be respected by you. History2007 (talk) 04:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * How many times do I have to point out to you that my supporters outnumber yours? It is you, Scolaire and O Fenian that are opposed; that is only three.  It is myself, Malke2010, Surtsicna, Tamfang, 206.116.73.178 and Seven Letters that are in support; that is six.  The support is double the opposition.  Oh, and a WikiProject also stated the illustrations I create are legitimate heraldic works.


 * The facts are aligned with me and the numbers are on my side. Yet, you somehow think there is consensus for you?  How?  So no, I am not going away because you are persistent.  You do not have the support, you never did.  You flat out lie when you talk about things going your way.  The consensus is for my images to add them.  I was compromising when I sourced the images.  So, since this is now settled, and the consensus is clearly on my side, I am reading the images.  If you have any issue, please source it first and then take it to the Heraldry WikiProject again.   [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  05:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, your claimed supporters have never edited this page, nor commented on it. History2007 (talk) 05:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You stated the community supported you, but you are here alone. Are you counting editors that are not commenting here?  And I am counting editors who support my illustrations.  And the Heraldry WikiProject's statement that my illustrations have been accurate and meet all heraldic requirements.  They do not need to comment here, they did at the WikiProject and my talk page.  And there is the precedence of the other hundred or so papal articles that show the coat of arms of the popes.   [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  06:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)