Talk:Pope Leo XIII/Archive 2

Arbitration
Since people are insisting, on both sides, that I get involved here, here I am. I'm actually having a hard time trying to figure out just what it is about XANDERLIPTAK's images that people are so uptight against. There is nothing on this talk page to indicate why they cannot be used. They appear to be based off referenced sources, and coat of arms are mutable from design to design of the same CoA. So explain here why they are not acceptable. It does appear to an outside observer that some editors have decided they don't like his edits or images and that's the end of it. I've been considering approaching some with a suggestion of a topic ban for everyone involved in these Wikipedia wide edit wars, but I'd like to here a sensible story for why these are or aren't acceptable. And keep it simple, and provide Wikipedia policies to back up the arguments on both sides. Any personal attacks or comments against other editors will be viewed harshly, keep it to policy and guidelines. And remember voting has no place here. Six people can not like it and the one person still be in the right. Canterbury Tail  talk  11:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding to my request for advice. I had asked for a 3rd opinion, but once Scolaire arrived, a 3rd opinion could no longer apply. Actually, I have not expressed an opinion on the other coats of arms on other pages, except for blocking the canvassing issue. The reason I objected to this image was that it looked so very different from ALL the other papal coats of arms in Wikipedia, and from the papal coats of arms I had seen in Rome and of those of recent popes on the Vatican website, e.g. John Paul II or Benedict XVI. I am pretty familiar with the papacy, the Vatican etc. and his design is just far, far removed from usual. The Loe XIII coat of arms used a month ago was pretty much like those of the other popes. Once the debate started, I even went out and found a source for comparison, but one which is actually a 3d rendering on a door. The reason I was quite surprised to see the Litpak design was that it was so visually unlike any other papal item on Wikipedia or those I had usually seen e.g. for Pope John XXIII, etc. His design is so highly ornate that it is just too far from what the norm in the papal coats of arms are. His design may or may not satisfy some obscure regulations regarding heraldry, but most of the public out there is unaware of those. If Mr Liptak is given the right to redesign the coats of arms of all popes in Wikipedia and replace them with the initial argument that his image "has a larger size", then he will in time single-handedly redefine the entire coats of arms of all popes on Wikipedia with designs that would "shock the dead popes out of their graves" but which would satisfy some heraldry constraints. Given that Wikimedia images are used the world over, the general public, unaware of the fact that these designs are purely the creations of Mr Liptak will assume them to be the actual papal coats of arms. Hence Mr Liptak will dictate the definition of papal coats of arms across Wikimedia and the world over. Not an advisable situation. Again, if his design had not been "so far off" from the other papal coats of arms, that would have probably not started this debate, but I think the reason other people may be objecting on other pages (and I am guessing now) is that in other cases his designs are "historically inaccurate" in that they never appeared on flag during a war, but are artistically within some heraldic parameters unknown to the general public. The only users I have seen comment on the Leo XIII issue are myself and Scolaire and the other users who have commented have been on the other designs he has had. Hence regarding the Leo XIII item it is myself and Scolaire who have reverted him and no others who have edited this page. As I said, on the Leo XIII issue he is in the minority. But why take my word for it? Given that this page is marked as part of WikiProject Catholicism and WikiProject Christianity, those people should really be providing the final opinion on what symbolism best applies to popes, for this discussion is likely to have far reaching consequences. I did not post and ask opinion on those two projects, in order not to create the impression fo canvassing, but it would be best if you could please seek opinions therein, to obatin an informed viewpoint on papal matters. Thanks.History2007 (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

If I had to pick one policy, I would pick Consensus. The objections to Xander's edits are many and various, but the bottom line is, he is editing against consensus. There are two images at issue: the O'Neill coat of arms (pre-existing version) and Pope Leo's coat of arms (pre-existing version). The history, from my point of view is as follows: In his favour, Xander can cite Malke 2010, who as far as I know has never edited any Irish- or Catholic Church-related article, and 206.116.73.178, who claims to be "the primogeniture to the Prince of Tyrone" and who seems to be commenting on this image, rather than the disputed images. I hope this clarifies the matter a bit. Scolaire (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I posted on Xander's talk page, querying the relevance of the O'Neill image to certain articles, the sourcing of the image, and the size of the thumbnail.
 * 2) Cavila posted, agreeing with my points re relevance and reliable secondary sources, and adding that the ornamentation, if meaningless, "only muddles things".
 * 3) O Fenian posted to Talk:Irish people, saying, "The arms are clearly not the same [as previous images], and I too would request a source for this image to prove the depiction of it is not some creative invention."
 * 4) Rannpháirtí anaithnid (RA) said that " since it is a Gaelic/ancient Irish symbol that is being described, I don't think a heraldric symbol is appropriate."
 * 5) RepublicanJacobite said "If this is somebody's original artwork, WP is not the place for it."
 * 6) RashersTierney posted on Xander's talk page, saying that the "bot-like application" of his image to several more articles was a bad idea, and said, "Upping the ante during a heated dispute is rarely a good strategy."
 * 7) At Xander's suggestion, I asked a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. In response Tamfang said that "stylewise this is a really weird choice: if anything it makes me think of Albrecht Dürer rather than Legendary Ireland. (Ugly too.)"
 * 8) In response to Xander's assertion that "the shield is unimportant", Tamfang said, "It's true that any two renditions of argent a sinister hand gules are legally equivalent, but that doesn't oblige me to blind myself to the image's inappropriateness on other grounds."
 * 9) Surtsicna said that the image of the coat of arms of Mary of Hungary was sourced (??). 7 Letters said the O'Neill arms would be "acceptable" but added, "I am not familiar with the particular arms in question". Note: apart from Tamfang, these are the only two Wikiproject members to have commented on the question at all.
 * 10) Most recently, Tamfang said, "A naïve person like me might infer from such a 'long line' that people are unhappy with the image for a variety of reasons." As far as I am concerned, that is the "verdict" of the Wikiproject.
 * 11) History2007 posted to Xander's talk page, saying that his "artistic version" of Leo XIII's coat of arms was "less accurate" than the one it replaced.
 * 12) History2007 asked Xander to refrain from canvassing.
 * 13) Xander then added his Leo image to German, Spanish, French, Hungarian, Italian (five articles), Dutch, Polish, Portugese and Russian articles. On the Leo XIII talk page of German Wikipedia, User:Muck said that Xander was replacing a very beautiful image with his own creation, adding that it "reminds me rather of self-promotion and therefore SPAM, sorry."
 * 14) Snowded reverted yet another edit this morning with the edit summary: "I can't see a community consensus and you are going the right away about earning a community ban with this disruptive editing."


 * Interesting. I was not aware that Mr Liptak's disputed coat of arms of Leo XIII was also reverted out of German Wikipedia, for the reasons they gave. Thanks for the info. However, the prince of Tyrone is not related to the Leo XIII discussion at all. History2007 (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Scolaire, I have edited Irish and Catholic related articles, but even if I had not, editing on a page is not a requirement for giving an opinion on edits made on a page. All of these articles, except Leo, are on my watchlist.


 * In looking over the list above, I'm not seeing an answer to Canterbury Tail   talk  's request to show why the images are unacceptable on Wikipedia.


 * The comments you've taken from talk pages and listed above, do not show any real consensus, but rather seem to suggest a weak understanding of what heraldry and renderings of CoA's is really all about. That's understandable as few editors are going to know everything on a topic and heraldry and CoA's are really a speciality area.


 * That aside, I think what is really happening is that everyone is concerned about changes in the articles. That is understandable.  Everybody gets a little territorial on articles they routinely edit.  And, like you, all the editors you've listed are very good editors on these various articles.


 * As such, I suggest keeping an open mind enough to rethink what all of you are really objecting to here. I've not found any Wiki policy that objects to the images.  And the renderings are beautiful and add to the visual content on the articles.  Give things a rest for a few days, then take a second look. Malke  2010  16:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Apologies, Malke. Not that I was questioning anybody's right to an opinion, anyway - my only point was about what the consensus is among interested editors. But if the articles are on your watchlist then you certainly are an interested editor.
 * As regards "giving things a rest for a few days", I have. My last post on the matter was four days ago. This is my second look. I'll leave if to Canterbury Tail to decide whether I have answered his question. Scolaire (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Malke, I would like to point out that the selection of the coat of arms for a pope can not be based on its beauty, but on how representative it is as a papal symbol, and how "true to origin" it is. If beauty is the measure, over time coats of arms get designed for dead people that would shock those people if shown to them when they were alive. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that needs to reflect the facts not set trends. I do not find the Litpak image beautiful, but what if tomorrow, Giorgio Armani, Prada or Heaven forbid Versace set their designers to design a new fashionable set of logos for all popes, within heraldic parameters, that have a very different look, and try to add them to Wikipedia, is that of benefit to the readers of Wikipedia? Is this a fashion show or an encyclopedia that tries to inform readers about facts and images as they are/were. What if someone thinks that Leo looks tired in that photo, retouches the photo to make him look better, and argues on aesthetic grounds for the photo. Over time as changes happen, Leo gets to look more like George Clooney in a papal outfit. That is not how Wikipedia can operate. Re-inventing history is not the business of Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It mostly appears to be an issue of WP:I Just Don't Like It and Wikipedia:I Didn't Hear That. All discussion amongst the heraldry editors is that my illustrations are heraldically accurate. The above was about the O'Neills of Ulster illustration, so it is irrelevant to this discussion. However, if you read through the argument you will see that Tamfang, Cavila, Seven Letters and Surtsicna have all stated the illustrations are heraldically accurate as I have insisted, and that no one at the WikiProject Heraldry stated the images were inaccurate.

The image was sourced, as can be seen here. My image depicts the same coat of arms; note the blue field with the green cyprus growing, a white fleur de lis on either side of the tree, a white fesse running across the tree and a yellow comet at the dexter canton. You will also note the shield is likewise ornate, but the shape of the shield is irrelevant, and it is the colours and symbols that actually matter. You may also compare my illustration to other papal coats of arms to see that such ornature is common, despite the claims by History2007 otherwise:



As you can see, such ornature is not only common, it takes on a broad and varied form. Actually, my version is more closely aligned with these other Italian designs and the sourced painting given above. It is also the only version available on Wikipedia that mimics this style, the other images are done in an English style. And, according to History2007, "coat of arms for a pope can not be based on its beauty, but on how representative it is as a papal symbol, and how 'true to origin' it is". That would be my illustration which shows papal symbols and is true to the Pope's Italian origin and is true to the Roman origin of the papal seat. Showing the arms of the Pope in an English style would only be an inappropriate attempt to Anglicize the papacy and the Pope.

History2007 also mentioned some sort of global domination, "he will in time single-handedly redefine the entire coats of arms of all popes... will dictate the definition of papal coats of arms across Wikimedia and the world over", which is simply ridiculous. I can not believe I have to do this, but I promise I have no global domination conspiracies at hand here. [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  17:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Those images are NOT of Leo XIII, but of the Medici family, other popes, etc. As for the source, again, I found that. You had designed yours beforehand without a source. Why not post 2d imags of papal arms, e.g. the predecessors and successors of Leo XIII, e.g.


 * Now, which one is the odd man out here? As for a TRUE ITALIAN STYLE, is the Vatican Website Italian enough? Or should we call the Vatican and tell them that they are doing it wrong? History2007 (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * History2007, Xander's is the one that is historically accurate. You're depending on the stylized renderings made for a website.  They look computer generated.  Xander is going by actual historical renderings.  He's not trying to make Leo look like George Clooney.  But the Vatican Website sure is.  Xander's image is the most historically accurate. Malke  2010  18:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * So please let me understand this. You are accepting that "Mr Litpak's rendering differs from the Vatican website", but stating that "Mr Litpak is more accurate than the Vatican website". Is that what you are saying? Then we need to inform the Vatican of their errors. History2007 (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The Vatican website has a computer generated image. If you visit the Vatican you will see User:Xanderliptak's version.  Also, may I suggest it might be better to refer to this editor with the accepted format User:Xanderliptak, or the shortened form, Xander, and not call him "Mr. Liptak." Malke  2010  18:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please let me understand this again, you said "If you visit the Vatican you will see User:Xanderliptak's version". Is that correct? Exactly which room in which building in the Vatican do I need to go to to see that? Have you been there? Please clarify that statement. Or is it the Secret Archive that you refer to? I found that source myself. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)History2007, I've been to the Vatican several times, but on none of those occasions was Leo XIII and his CoA's on my mind. But the place is loaded with CoA's of all the Pope's, and they are all as ornate as the photos Xander has provided as well as his rendering.  So if you go there, happy hunting.  But to save you a trip, might I suggest you just send an email?  I'm sure a curator there will be happy to clarify things.  I don't know about the Secret Archives, and I couldn't get into the Archives as I didn't have an acceptable reason.  Just wanting to 'pop in and have a look' didn't sway the keepers there. Malke  2010  19:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Malke, Next time, just tell them you have new info about the Vatican bank. They will let you into the Secret Archive immediately. Getting out will, however, be another story. Wink. History2007 (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That is right, the images I showed are of numerous popes. That was my point. The style in my illustration is common, as you can see by so many different popes from so many different time periods using the same ornate style. It shows my images are based on a long historic precedence.

It was you, History2007, that stated a “coat of arms for a pope can not be based on its beauty, but on… how 'true to origin' it is”, and my image matches the original source. It does not matter that the source was found by you or it was found after the illustration was introduced into the article, all that matters is the image is accurately and appropriately sourced. Can you provide an original source for those computer graphic versions? You will be hard pressed, considering all but the last two popes died before computer graphics existed.

Also, you will be hard pressed to find a source that would refute what the Heraldry WikiProject told you, that shield-shape is irrelevant. Look up original and historical paintings and carvings of papal coats of arms, and you will see each rendition presents the arms on a new shield shape. You will also notice the colours and symbols are the same on each version. Read up at Heraldry and Coat of arms. [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  19:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not need to be the judge of heraldic items. An encyclopedia should not operate on our "professional judgement". What I based my objection on, and still do, is what Malke already agreed to, namely that "your design and the Vatican website have significant differences". Malke stated that your design "is more accurate", I say let the Vatican decide that. Are we going to redesign Benedict XVI's coats of arms too and inform him that we have a better one he needs to add to his Vatican page? I don't think so. Wiikipedia should not set trends, but follow them and report on them. That is what encyclopedias do, report on what there is, not create new information. History2007 (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

History2007, I did not say that. You've interpreted what I've said as that. And to make it worse, you put quotations around it all as if you are quoting me directly You did it earlier as well. I was going to comment then, and didn't but I must now. I haven't agreed that the designs have 'significant differences,' nor is it appropriate to frame the discussion with your refactoring of my comments by putting quotaton marks around them as if I'd said it like that. I do understand that you are especially exercised about this issue, and you are trying to sway the argument your way. But that's not the way to do it. Please don't do that again. And I agree with Scolaire's comment below. Let CT read it over and state his suggestions/opinions. Malke 2010  20:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It is clear to me that you said that his version was more accurate than the Vatican website and that if I go to the Vatican I will see his design. I asked for a building/room and I received no reply. I think your statement that "his version is historically more accurate" is there to see. History2007 (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not 'agreed,' to anything. His rendering is what you'd see at the Vatican.  It is historically accurate, and by that I think it's apparent I mean the traditional rendering, and not the computer graphic.  And nobody is claiming the computer graphic is 'wrong,' as such, but it doesn't replace the other renderings.  It doesn't render them void.  The computer graphic is made for the place it's being displayed, the Internet and flags.  Xander's matches the ones made for the places it is displayed, namely buildings, etc.  And you've yet to come up with a Wiki policy that would prevent use of Xander's renderings.  Take a break for now.  It doesn't have to be decided today.  There's no urgency to it.  The images are not even on the articles at this time, as far as I am aware. Malke  2010  20:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Guys, I think we've talked enough for the moment. We've each stated our case once. How about we let CT take the next step? Scolaire (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Scolaire, I was just about to ask Leo to come and join the discussion himself - in the end he knows best. But seriously, in the absence of Leo, I think we need the opinion of WikiProject Catholicism to decide what is "papal". It is important for Wikipedia to seem uniform to a new user, so if they click on Wikipedia or the Vatican website they do not feel they get different items - that maintains the credibility of Wikipedia. New readers will not look at project vexillology and 90% of them might think it is a form of vaccine. So we must conform to the Vatican website. History2007 (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * By all means, put a note on WT:CATHOLIC linking to this section. That would be reasonable. I just think we involved editors should take a break and give CT and other neutrals room to breathe. Scolaire (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely good idea. Malke 2010  20:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the pointer Scolaire, message was left. Now, where do we leave a message for Leo? History2007 (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I suppose I should point out that the Vatican has not had issue with my artwork in the past, . 20:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What was that art? This item? Or another item? Now if you can produce a letter saying they will use this item on their web site that will settle it. Until then.... History2007 (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * When you were over at WT:CATHOLIC did you happen to notice the two different renderings of the Papacy emblem? ? And the Wiki rules don't require the Vatican to use one of Xander's renderings on their website in order for his renderings to be used here. Malke 2010  21:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Boys, stop it! Scolaire (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, Boys is an assumption. But let us do stop for a while. I will go and listen to some appropriate music. See you later & Cheers. History2007 (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration: break
Hello. user:Malke 2010 asked for my opinion, because I added another papal symbol to Wikipedia. I don't know how this makes me an expert about the coat of arms olf Leo XIII, but since missing qualification never managed to stop anybody around here, why should it stop me?
 * First of all: What is THE coat of arms of Leo XIII. At the wikipedia projects we can find

.


 * At http://asv.vatican.va/en/arch/access.htm Vatican itself presents a picture of Leo's coat of arms and all over the internet you will even find more adaptions.


 * So which of these is THE one and only true coat of arms of Leo XIII. The heraldic description of the coat of arms is: "Azure affixed in a a plain a cypress vert between two fleur de lis argent and accompanied in the canton by a comet Or overall a fesse argent." So every creation showing this actually shows the coat of arms of Leo XIII. That's what is shown on all of these coats of arms. So all of them show the coat of arms of Leo XIII. The only one of the coats of arms connected to this dispute, which is not the personal coat of arms of Leo XIII, is the one used in the article now. Did anybody really want this to happen?


 * If all of these coats of arms are THE coat of arms of Leo XIII, which one to use for this article. I personally can live with all of them. I want to thank each of the artists for doing such a great work. We should be thankfull to be able to hold such debates, because they are only possible because we got a choice. I will always prefer a dispute to the killing argument "it's the only one we got, so we have to take it". If all of them can be used, which one to use now. Perhaps we should try to discover which of these coats of arms reflects Leo XIII best. Which one would he have chosen?. I don't know and can not find a source about his tastes in arts. All I know is how his contemporaries saw coats of arms and therefore saw his coat of arms too. At http://www.lovingit.co.uk/tag/leo-xiii we can see the coat of arms on his tomb. At http://www.flickr.com/photos/59377019@N00/219087352 we can see another excample of contemporary adaption. The only one of the artworks we can choose of, which represents the spirit of this time, is File:Coat of arms of Pope Leo XIII by Alexander Liptak.png. There we can see the need to impress whatever the costs and the decoration for decoration purpose only. So if we want to show a historical context, we have to choose this coato of arms. On the other side, this good adaption ot the time spirit of the second half of 19th century brings problems. If File:Coat of arms of Pope Leo XIII by Alexander Liptak.png should be used, there should be a footnote, which explains that this is no original contemporary artwork. To make people think this would be an adaption really used by the pope would not be the style of this enceclopedia. That's a problem the other two designs do not have. Without doubt they are the work of our time.


 * Personally I would prefer someone to drive to the museum of the Vatican and take a picture of the historical coat of arms so we have an original picture which does not violate any copyrights. Since we do not have it, we will have to decide for a contemporary or a modern design. As I said, I can live with all solutions because all of them are good work and none of them will damage Wikipedia. I prefer a historical approach, but that's just my personal taste which is no better than the taste of others. So simply let the majority decide.Thw1309 (talk) 11:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * None of the images above are "THE coat of arms of Leo XIII". All of them are representations of the coat of arms. The difference between them is that, while the simple images represent the essential elements of the coat of arms as you describe them - "Azure affixed in a a plain a cypress vert between two fleur de lis argent and accompanied in the canton by a comet Or overall a fesse argent" - plus two keys, a triple crown and a tassel, Xanderliptak's image respresents, as you put it, "the spirit of this time". The elements on all of the images are the elements that are on the actual coat of arms as shown in the photos you link to, but the embellishments on Xander's image are not the embellishments on the actual shield or shields on the pope's tomb, his livingroom wall or anywhere else. It is a creative interpretation of the shield and therefore original research.
 * There is far more at stake here than this one image on this one article. If a precedent is set here it means Xander is at liberty to replace perfectly good CoA images on dozens - probably hundreds - of articles and anybody who interferes with him in any way faces a topic ban for supposed breach of IDONTLIKEIT (see CT's post above). In such a situation, consensus would no longer mean anything. Scolaire (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)Thank you, Thw1309, for that thoughtful explanation. I agree, it's fine for Xanderliptak to post his images. Malke  2010  16:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * My take on this: Thw1309's statement that "If File:Coat of arms of Pope Leo XIII by Alexander Liptak.png should be used, there should be a footnote" while the others do not need a footnote means that in Thw1309's view, all images are equal, but Mr Liptak's is somewhat more/less equal, i.e. it is the "odd man out" as I stated above. However, Scolaire Mr Liptak does not have the resources to replace all the coats of arms or 200 images. But, if someone leaves a message right now on Versace, for them to join the discussion, Heaven forbid they have the resources for it - and they may get the idea. And if I were their marketing director, I would leap at the opportunity to do it. Even worse would be the Benetton Group. Do you remember their advert campaigan with the bloody Tshirt of a soldier from Sarajevo that attracted a lot of attention and made piles of money although/because it was condemned in the press. A set of new papal logos with the "Papal United colors of Benetton would be a great campaign for them. Finally, if Malke can mail out engraved invitations for comment, can I do that too? History2007 (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * History2007, I sent out no invitations. I did not WP:CANVASS.  You left a message on the WikiProject Catholicism talk page asking for comment on this issue.  I know that Project very well, and they don't respond rapidly to questions.  However, I also know that Thw1309, is a member of the WikiProject Catholicism, and he  had also created an image of the Papal Emblem that is being used on Wikipedia.  So I asked him to please comment since he has experience in this and the other members of the project do not. Malke  2010  16:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, you can. But bear in mind that Xander has already sent out a second round of invites, and so far hasn't got a single bite. Neither has your post on WT:CATHOLIC.
 * If you doubt Xander's resources, take a look at his Commons page, then look how many articles each image links to. Remember, I said hundreds of articles; it would take very little to reach the two hundred mark. Scolaire (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Scolaire, I did look at it now. Conclusion: I think this is a GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY for Benetton. I think if I go to Benetton with the idea, they will talk me into becoming their marketing director. Wikipedia: The land of commercial opportunity. History2007 (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * CT: Please clarify if sending out invitations now amounts to canvassing. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You have your answer from WT:CATHOLIC. The issue is resolved. Malke  2010  16:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thw1309 is responding as a member of the WT:CATHOLIC. You've got your response.  This issue is resolved. Malke  2010  16:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering the date of the Pope’s reign, it is likely there are still copyrights over the images, paintings and artwork. Such copyright usually expires something like 120 years after first publication (not date of creation) or the life of the artist plus 70 years. It is likely that the copyright still exists for another 20 years or so on such images.

Oh, and if my version is not acceptable, then the other versions definitely are not because they are even less like any available original source. That means that every papal coat of arms must be deleted according to this argument. On every article. That is a rather extreme stance, to demand the deletion of images off some hundred or so articles simply because you want to keep my image off.

And History2007, stop 'giving your take' on other people's comments, please. The other editor’s do not need you to reinterpret what they write, they are very well capable of commenting and letting their comments stand alone without your 'help'. [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  16:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * With all due respect Mr Liptak, I can type what I like about my take on any situation, as long as I do not offend anyone. History2007 (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I do find it offensive when you refactor my comments by restating them in your favor then adding quotation marks to them as if that is what I'd said. Malke 2010  17:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Another response from the Catholicism project: It seems to me that there is a very serious potential problem here. There does not seem to be a specific artistic representation of the coat of arms as described in the text. However, there is the description. My own choice, if such were possible, would be to either contact the Vatican for an image of the coat of arms as it was seen in contemporary art, if there is such an image, or to perhaps create some sort of standardized represetation of the external crossed-keys image which could be used in all such coats of arms. Obviously, getting some sort of image of the coats as it was pictured at his time would probably be the best. However, this may be a serious enough matter to make a comment at the appropriate guideline or policy pages for more informed and knowledgable input. John Carter (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)John Carter, Xanderliptak is using historical references for Leo XIII's CoA's. Malke 2010  17:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * One of the most common mistake with heraldry is assuming there is only one and singular true rendition. There is not.  Actually, what might be best is to use the SVG image in the info box, as SVG images scale down well and is so simply rendered that when shown smaller it will still be easily discernable, and then use the more detailed image as a larger example of the arms in the more ornate style common for the time period.  This way it presents the papal emblem and symbols in both a contemporary-esque manner and, at the same time, shows readers alternative renditions.   [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  18:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good solution. Malke 2010  19:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry John, what do you suggest as the next step? History2007 (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Some additional comments.
 * 1. Even I know that about 120 years after the creation the copyright of the creator should have expired. There is another aspect you forget: To take a photograph of something creates a new additional copyright of the photographer. If this would not be the case, I would have copied one of the photos showing the contemporary coat of arms.
 * ↳A copyright protects against photographing and redistributing a work of art, as well as someone from simply copying the work of art and redistributing it as his own. Almost all works of art are redistributed by photographing it in some shape or form, and if  did not protect against this, then it would essentially be useless.  The only time a copyright is created for a photograph that contains a copyrighted work of art is for three-dimensional works (which is done on a case-by-case basis, usually anything placed in a public location is free game while private collections generally are not) or when an image contains a copyrighted work but that work is not the focus of the image (say, a group of friends standing in front of a work of art that forms the backdrop).  There is a threshold that includes labour, diligence and originality for copyright protection, and photographs and simply copying a work of art does not meet all of these thresholds.   [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  22:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 2. Wikipedia is an international project. So request a photo of a contemporary version of the coat of arms. A photo of an original historical work is better than any painting. In Rome there should be at least one Wikipedian.
 * 3. Xanderliptak has the right to change every picture he wants to change. That's what we are telling every Newbie when we ask him to BE BOLD. He only takes a risk to have his creations, which represent much work, being deleted by a majority of other editors. We can not vote about what's true, but as a democratic project we can and will vote about what we want to happen. So in the end the majority (or an allmighty administrator) will decide the fate of these pictures. If someone does not want to take this risk, he first should discuss such changes in the related Wikiprojects. Then he will be backed up by a large group of editors and can be quite sure to see his work in the article.

Thw1309 (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree. Thanks, Thw1309. Malke  2010  21:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thw1309, Yes, in Rome there is at least one Wikipedian and 12 Google employees with cameras. They will probably have it all online before we finish this debate. However, given the random nature of consensus, depending on who happens to be presented on a page at a give time, and the long term implications of Benetton using its forces, I think you will see that the situation is not that simple. In any case, why don't we all suggest that Georgio Armani redesigns these logos, his staff will do a great job and it will be elegant. And they have enough home computers to open up Wikipedia accounts and secure the necessary votes for a consensus. They could even get their girlfriends to vote.... Wiki-times are a' changing... Wink. History2007 (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Coat of Arms of Leo XIII, St. Peter's Basilica. .96.41.74.205 (talk) 02:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In 2000 the Vatican issued a set of se tenant stamps with popes and their coats of arms, and the closest to the stamp is the image Leone 13.jpg I would say. (SG stamp number 1259.) 92.20.115.16 (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Policy page
Thank you IP. Is that IP one of the editors who forgot to login? However, after thinking about this I think that link is no longer of any value to me. I must agree with John Carter that:


 * "However, this may be a serious enough matter to make a comment at the appropriate guideline or policy pages for more informed and knowledgable input".

I think this issue is larger than this single coat of arms or Mr Litpak's design. It is a policy issue for Wikipedia and must be addressed as such. At some point the mass addition of artistic works that replace existing items and can be traced back to an artist will be considered spam and advertising, and I would like to see Wikipedia policy address where that point begins. It can not be done with this type of talk between a few people guessing about this item and all waiting for a magic messenger from somewhere to give them a winning vote. Even in cases where the art can not be traced back to the artist, and there is no spam issue, it is not clear when "historical designs" may be replaced by new designs at will, just because 3 editors happen to prefer that. That would mean a total loss of history in the encyclopedia - a case of "encyclo-amnesia" for key historical elements. In any case, once I find out how to post on the policy page, I will ask for advice there, regardless. So let us just wait for John to say where he thinks the policy page is, unless someone here knows that. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, there is no one "policy page". Issues with Xander's images have already been raised at the Conflict of interest noticeboard and Original research noticeboard. In neither case was there any response from an uninvolved person. The only tangible result was that Xander was able to claim, with some justification, that editors who didn't like his images were forum-shopping. I agree with what you say: this is a very important issue and needs to be centralised so that we don't get hung up on individual popes or medieval Irish kings. But you need to choose your forum very carefully (and not rely on John Carter to do so), have a realistic expectation that the question will be taken up there, and prepare the case thoroughly so that people will see immediately and clearly what the policy issues are, and not get the impression that it's a personal spat between two editors.
 * Wikipedia talk:No original research might be one place to raise it, but don't rush into it. Ask yourself: if (a) there is no discussion, (b) people just take the generic "drawing your own seems fine to me" line, or (c) it degenerates into another slanging match like here, what then? Scolaire (talk) 07:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Those are mostly "notice boards" that enforce policy. I will need to find where policy is set. And actually John knows things pretty well. IElse we contact the board of directors by regular US mail. History2007 (talk) 11:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No. You two have brought this to notice boards, article talk pages, user talk pages and WikiProjects; this has been spread across a dozen pages because you have been Wikipedia:Forum shopping.  You two have taken it to these dozen pages, and you two have brought it here (even posting invitations to the discussion elsewhere).  It ends here.


 * There are editors who do nothing but illustrate Wikipedia. That is not spam, there is no advertising or promotion, nothing is being sold and there is no profit to donating time and illustrations to a free encyclopedia.  Your suggestion that adding an image here will result in some sort of New World Order is ridiculous and seems a rather paranoid.  No one responds to your notice board posts because illustrating and adding images to Wikipedia and because improving Wikipedia violates no policy.   [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  14:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Eh, no. We two did not bring it to COI or OR noticeboards; that was somebody else entirely. I took it to the Heraldry project essentially because you told me I was too chicken to do so. History2007 brought it to WT:CATHOLIC because it concerns the Catholic Church. We didn't post any more invitations than you did. Please try to get your facts straight. Scolaire (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not agree, but then that is not surprising. Is it? You probably forgot about the German Wikipedia user calling you a spammer. But let that be. History2007 (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It sounds like it's time for Canterbury Tail to weigh in here. There is no policy to keep Xanderliptak from putting up his historically accurate, sourced, renderings.  I think it's time for the admin to weigh in on this and perhaps make a comment about the demands being made here and how they keep changing.  The forum shopping is transparent.  An editor who has put up his own rendering on WikiProject Catholicism has given you his opinion.  This isn't a question of original research.  It isn't a question of this either.  It's just this and that's not a reason to keep this discussion going. Malke  2010  15:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Canterbury Tail is not going to weigh in again - see this on his talk page. He suggests - would you believe? - taking it elsewhere. Scolaire (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This issue goes beyond Mr Liptak. That is why I started a new subsection here. I want to know what stops me from suggesting to a whole pile of designers to redo the coats of arms of all the popes and obliterate the history that exists within Wikipedia. I am tired of the single image issue: this is a wider discussion now and in time will percolate above. History2007 (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

History2007 is now arguing that no artist or designer should be allowed to contribute, that they should be banned. This is now beyond ridiculous, it is ludicrous.

Nothing stops a "whole pile of designers [from redoing] the coats of arms of all the popes", and there is no problem if they actually did that. Every image of the papal coats of arms up now was created by an artist or a designer, because coats of arms can only be created by an artist or designer. They are an idea, aconcept, that must be put to paper or fresco or stone. You can not simply find it in the wild and photograph it. There is no policy against artists and designers contributing because many things can only be expressed by an artist or designer, and because there is value and knowledge in art just as there is in word. In fact, there are Wikipedia projects that exist only to illustrate Wikipedia articles.

There is also historic precedence for famous artists and designers to emblazon a coat of arms in their own style. Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and Raffaello, for example, all were commissioned by multiple popes to do just that.

And if you are "tired of the single image issue", then you are in the wrong place. This discussion is only about images on the Pope Leo XIII article. If you want to discuss a larger scope, go somewhere else than the Pope Leo XII page, because this is not a policy page nor is it a notice board page. [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  17:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments, your charm and your civility. But obviously we do not agree. History2007 (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You are welcome, I am glad you appreciate my humble comments to your page.


 * This also appears to be a case of Ownership of articles. History2007 responds to every comment personally as if additions to the conversation were in fact comments addressed to him (he has 24 replies just in this arbitration alone).  His statement that this arbitration is over because he declared it over and has decided to move the discussion to yet another place is evident of his attempts at ownership.   [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  17:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No: . History2007 (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm not uninvolved, as I have a connection with Malke  2010 . Doesn't matter, though, because I'm not here to weigh in. :) I only want to suggest that, if people are looking for a proper forum for a larger debate, an RfC linked to Wikipedia talk:Images might be appropriate, as it seems to be very much a question of image choice and placement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding this specific image, WP:STATUSQUO, as stated above decides it. As usual, an Rfc can, of course, always be invoked as the long road to hell, but only after everyone involved has absolutely decided that they wish they had never heard of Wikipedia. Yet, I had thought of that already, if no other policy can be crafted. History2007 (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * An RfC has been launched about this at Wikipedia talk:Images. I don't believe the RfC belongs there as written, however, as it is very much about this image and this article, not a broader issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. But now that Mr Liptak has accepted the application of WP:STATUSQUO the issue regarding this image should be resolved rather quickly. The broader issue does need to be addressed, and may indeed also be addressed with STATUSQUO, provided the Versace does not have 7 PR agents helping them form consensus. But that is another story. History2007 (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Status quo merely dropped your argument that the arms were some how false or fabricated, and dropped your argument that no heraldic illustrations would be introduced into the article. But since you appealed to status quo, the coats of arms are back in.  The RfC and Image page will decide which and where now.   [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  19:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Current situation
Since the Liptak group has no consensus, by WP:STATUSQUO, I see no reason for adding that image. History2007 (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For Liptak design: Mr Liptak, plus 100%, unfailing support from Malke.
 * In between: Thw1309 is 50-50 and does not mind either way, or perhaps 51/49 since he wants a note/disclaimer attached to Mr Liptak's design, but not the others.
 * Against Liptak design: History2007 and Scolaire on English Wikipedia. A user on German Wikipedia who called it SPAM.


 * What does German Wikipedia have to do with it? And I find your post highly offensive. Malke  2010  20:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Images states, "if you have contributed or found an image that stands out from the crowd, you are invited to nominate it for inclusion on the Featured pictures list." Since History2007 believes my image stands out so much from the usual coats of arms used, perhaps he should nominate it for a featured image. :-D   [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  23:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of German Wikipedia (which just showed a general feeling towards that addition), still there is no consensus for your image and by WP:STATUSQUO no reason for adding it. That is all. History2007 (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You will notice that the article, before your edits and mine, included an image of the Pope’s coat of arms. The status quo would return armorial illustrations to the article.


 * Also, you are not understanding the Wikipedia:Status Quo guideline. You are required to “revert a good faith edit only after discussing the matter…if you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it, if possible – reword rather than revert”.  You did not do this.  The image was sourced and ample information was provided to show that the image was heraldically accurate.  There was nothing lacking in the edit you reverted then.  It is also “particularly important to provide a valid and informative explanation when you perform a reversion”, though you have yet to cite any sources that state the disputed image is inaccurate in any way.  Instead, you are relying on gut feelings that the Heraldry WikiProject is wrong as well as some four or five other editors who explained this all to you at length.  Hardly a valid explanation for your actions when you have sources and facts contradicting you.  This is also a consensus built on fact against your argument.


 * But I accept your status quo proposal, and now we can move on to discuss which of the three images should be reintroduced into the article to maintain the status quo prior to all edits in question.  [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  06:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Clearly StatusQuo was before your arrived. No question. Any attempt at reading otherwise would be Wikilawyering for sure History2007 (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Erratum
Since I'm actually on a wiki-break, I'm not here to stick my oar in or offer moral support, but it gets on my nerves somewhat when my name is brought up for something I never said. Now I'm not a position to tell whether Xander's in the habit of deliberately misrepresenting other people's opinions or just a bit confused at times, but for the record, I'm not among those who "have all stated the illustrations are heraldically accurate as I have insisted" (above) nor did I, as claimed here, agree "to an extent on the aesthetics at least". I merely insisted that you can't just pull an image off a self-published website (problem 1), silently add your own fluff (problem 2) and 'forget' about sourcing your work, saying 'Hey, I've created it' (problem 3). Hope it all works out in the end. Cavila (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Concerning the first, the Vatican is self-published, yes, but is that an issue? It is the official site of the sovereign nation and the Holy See, and I believe it is the most reliable source we could use.
 * Remember you were referring to my statements about quite another image. Cavila (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The other editors introduced the O'Neill argument here, and it was the first thing they brought in to argue with. That "this can not be used here because we stopped that form being used there".   [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  19:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Concerning the second, the "fluff" is Baroque art, and can be seen in the contemporary images of the Pope's arms as provided in numerous links above. It was the style used in the Vatican and on the Pope's tomb.
 * See above. Again, may well be, but the image is not accompanied by any sources for that view nor by any sort of explanation which allows readers to understand what it is they're looking at. WP:Verifiability and all that. Cavila (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The image was sourced and meets all heraldic facts and traditions. Simply because not all readers can understand heraldry is no reason to exclude it.  Many advanced mathematics, physics, chemistry and so forth would be deleted with this argument.  The image was verified, it was sourced, and if you feel it need more clarification then you add to, not remove, the information.   [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  19:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Concerning the third, you are right, I reread your posting and you did not mention heraldic accuracy. You said, "Now, I understand you were merely trying to replace the old image with one which is more accurate, apart from the fluff, and arguably better looking, to boot, but at least try to be careful about the context in which you place the image, clarify if necessary, and produce some proper references (which shouldn’t be too difficult)."  I mistook your "arguably better looking" statement as one of support.   [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  23:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have taken that as supportive, as well. Malke 2010  23:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)