Talk:Pope Stephen/Renaming, Archive II

''This is an archive of previous discussion, moved because of its excessive length. Responses to it should be made elsewhere, normally at Talk:Pope Stephen, rather than on this archive page. Quoting relevant portions elsewhere, especially when commenting on it, is of course appropriate. Summarization and/or refactoring of it, elsewhere than on this page, would be a service to the community.''

This continues a discussion whose start is at Talk:Pope Stephen/Renaming, Archive I.


 * I'm waiting for Jerzy's answer. The shame is we are only two to take part in ths "controversy". What if he doesn't answer? Švitrigaila 16:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * _ _ I won't disappear, especially as i agree that some kind of moves are needed. (Actually, i'd go so far as to say that your proposal may be better than the status quo, but IMO the titles should be changed once on the basis of conensus rather than anyone's fait accompli having to be untangled, and i think we can do better (maybe slightly better, maybe a lot better) than what you've advocated.
 * _ _ BTW, don't forget, who appears to be an unregistered user with a stable IP and a substantial body of contributions, rather than a collection of casual editors who have happened to draw the same IP # by chance. They may simply be waiting for this to develop into a discussion more worth particpating in.
 * _ _ While it's too early to be throwing up our hands in despair, BTW, we can, if it proves to be necessary, bring Requests for comment our discussion, and get wide attention for the matter. But we need to hash it out further before that would be productive.
 * _ _ I'm not sure how much time i'll manage to put in online this weekend, but there's more that i already know i want to say, and yet more that i want to think further about. Sorry if several days' silence has inconvenienced you. I'll set aside what i was abt to tackle, and see if can put some more down in the next 7 hours. --Jerzy•t 22:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer. Bring the discussion wherever you want, if it produces results all contributions are welcomed. But I'm too lazy to do it myself. I hope we'll find a solution as soon as possible, or else, the current titles will remain in their current state and that's what nobody wants...
 * For the name of Stephen's page, I propose Stephen (pope elect). I've never understood why, on english Wikipedia, you use the title "Pope" before the name in the title of the page. I think the name alone is enough, with the title in parenthesis only where there are ambiguous pages of the same name. For exemple, it's far simpler to write  John Paul II  than  Pope John Paul II , or  John II (pope)  than  John II . But that's another debate... Švitrigaila 23:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * _ _ I suppose i could regret it in the morning, or on Monday, but look: if that's another debate, why are you bothering to comment on everyone else being out of step with you? I'm glad you're happy to drop that question, and i hope you can review what has gone before, or at least go forward, in the same state of mind.
 * _ _ I say that because i've just spent several hours trying to grasp what has gone before, after having stepped away for a few days. I'm clearer now about what i've responded to, and what i've drafted responses to but not posted, and what i tend to just shake my head about. But i don't claim to have a grasp of the discussion. Except for this: i think i've said several times in different ways what i see as central, which is stated compactly at Naming conventions and in some detail at Naming conventions (common names), which is that we want the most common names, or in other words the most commonly used names, of topics, when they don't create confusion. Perhaps i've responded in too much detail, or let you pull me away from what those guidelines imply is central: we need to know what is common usage, and not just assume it.
 * _ _ My impression is that that need is a big problem in this discussion: i don't think you've addressed it with more than
 * your personal opinion about what is common, and
 * what seems to me to be your philosophical outlook that what the most recent pope approves as another pope's name is the Platonic essence of that other pope's name.
 * WP has no position on that, because we don't do essences here: we respond to common usage. And unfortunately that's harder to establish than what the Vatican list says.
 * _ _ (You may feel this is unfair: i'm not offering to do more than give plausible arguments for how the two sets of numberings may well both be common enough that users of each must be accommodated roughly equally. Life is not fair, and the positions we find ourselves in are not symmetrical. You're advocating for the hard-to-verify position, because you think it's right, but your being right doesn't matter if you've got no evidence. I'm advocating for what i expect the WP community (excuse me, i realize that i mean the en: community) will regard as the default approach, bcz i think that approach has to be upheld unless and until there is compelling evidence otherwise. The task that happens to fall to me is the easier one.)
 * _ _ You've said (repeatedly if my impression is correct) that the Vatican says it's the right approach, which is a tantalizing indication that you're likely to be right, but falls short of verifying what the common usage is. I understand that it's the Vatican's approach, but much as i would like your attractively simplifying view to turn out to be the truth, i see so far nothing beyond that tantalizing indication that says so. I hope you can change that situation, because i can't imagine myself taking that task on in your stead. --Jerzy•t 06:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll just answer about what you call "your personal opinion about what is common".
 * I've checked all the dictionaries and books I have at home about the subject. All are in French. Here are the results:
 * The most commonly used dictionary used here for a century is "Le Petit Larousse illutré" (The little illustrated Larousse), it's a 1784-page encyclopedic dictionary with a half for proper names. I have three editions of it: 1938, 1995 and 2006. The last two ones have a list of popes, which is not the Vatican's one (Pope Benedict V is called an antipope, Pope Benedict IX's second reign is omitted and the popes of the great western schism are called "popes of Rome", "popes of Avignon" and "popes of Pisa" without the "anti-" prefix). On this list, the ephemeral Stephen is omitted and further Stephens are called "Stephen III (II)" to "Stephen IX (X)" without any explaination. In the dictionary's articles, only Pope Stephen III has a separate article, and he's called "Stephen II", without any remark about his name.
 * The 1938 edition gives a surprising result. There is no list of popes in it, but a seperate article for each pope. The Stephens are numbered from Stephen I to Stephen IX, with no remark about the numbers.
 * I have a 1910 edition of "Le Larousse pour tous" (The Larousse for all). It's a two volume encyclopediac dictionary made by the same publishing compagny. There is no list of popes, but an article for each Stephen. They are numbered from Stephen I to Stephen IX without the ephemeral and without remark about that choice. Those two exemples show me (but that may be a personal opinion) that the status of pope of the ephemeral Stephen was already contested by historians far before 1961...
 * Another featured dictionary in France is "Le Petit Robert" (the little Robert). There are two volumes, the first one is a language and grammatical dictionary and the second one a proper names encyclopedia. The second volume has a list of popes, which is not the Annuario pontificio's one. In fact, it's the same than the Larousses's one: Pope Benedict V is an antipope and Pope Benedict IX has reigned only twice. Every pope has a separate article with a number of rank. The Stephens are numberd from Stephen I (23th pope) to Stephen IX (152th pope) without any mention to the ephemeral and no remark about their numbers. Pope John Paul II is numbered as the 262th pope.
 * A third well known dictionary here is "Le dictionnaire Hachette" (the Hachette dictionnary), but I don't have it at home. It has a bad reputation (it's far cheaper than the others and the editor was accused of plagiate). I just remember having consulted it in a shop and I laughed when I saw Antipope Alexander V and Antipope John XXIII where called "popes of Pisa" and Antipope Felix V was called "antipope of Pisa"!
 * There is a kind of general purpose non-alphabetic 2000 page encyclopedia called "Quid". I have the 1993 edition. It's full of mistakes (at least one per page!) and the mistakes are never corrected from a year to another. The given list of popes is exactly the Annuario pontificio's one, with John Paul II as the 264th. Popes Stephen are numbered up to IX. There is a note about the ephemeral Stephen and a complete explaination about his case.
 * I have the full edition of Michel Mourre's "Le Dictionaire encyclopédique d'Histoire" (The encyclopedical dictionary of History), often just called "Le Mourre". It's a very complete eight volume 5000 page historical encyclopedia published in 1978, a very great work. There is no list of popes, but on the article "Étienne" (Stephen), it's written: Name borne by nine popes. Only Pope Stephen III has a separate article and he's called Stephen II, with no remark about the number.
 * And finally, I have Philippe Levillain's "Dictionaire historique de la Papauté" (Historical Dictionary of Papacy), a very well documented one volume 1776 pages encyclopedical dictionary published in 1994 and entirely devoted to the subject of popes from Peter to John Paul II. It has been translated in engish and you can find its references here. On the general list of popes, the ephemeral is indicated in parenthesis under the name "Stephen II" and the phrase "dead three days after his election before having been consacreted a bishop, then not considered a pope". The next Stephens are simply called "Stephen II" to "Stephen IX" with no further explaination.
 * In the same dictionary, each pope has a separate article. The ephemeral is called "Stephen (II)" with parenthesis and has a very short article. The further Stephens are called "Stephen II (III)" to "Stephen IX (X)" with no explaination about the double number. The real explaination is given in the article "Onomastic (papal)". By chance, the english version of this article is on-line here.
 * And those are all the sources I have to establish "my personal opinion about what is common". I have no other. I have absolutely no source at home saying the ephemeral Stephen was a legitimate pope or Stephen IX is more often called "Stephen X". Now, I'm waiting for the sources you can give that will say the contrary.
 * I have not decided to change the popes Stephen articles by a sudden mania. This moves seems to me as justified as the renaming of Leningrad into Saint Petersburg. It's not for me the occasion of expressing a personal taste for controversies. Be sure I'm waiting for your answer. Švitrigaila 13:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * _ _ Thank you, i think that specific research is helpful.
 * _ _ However, what you've added continues your focus on reference lists and reference-book bios (which i also find much more accessible than other research), a very narrow and atypical kind of usage. You moved me a millimeter off of my determination not to research this myself: far enough to do a Google search on
 * "Pope Stephen"
 * The result of "about 66,600" hits pushed me, at least for the moment, at least the full millimeter back into that determination. But permit me to digress for a moment:
 * I disclaim any reaction other than amusement at a coincidence, in noting the appearance of the storied Number of the Beast 666, accompanied only by zeroes. (Now, on the other hand, if the search had been for Pope Nicholas ... [wink].)
 * My new beta-test Google Toolbar reacted to my keyin by suggesting completion of the search term as "pope stephen iii" and so on. You'll be pleased to know that the list did not include "pope stephen x". On the other hand, it also omitted "pope stephen viii", so standing alone, it doesn't mean anything.
 * _ _ (In view of
 * my statements, in the context of "verifying what the common usage is", that
 * i can't imagine myself taking that task on in your stead
 * and
 * my statement that the burden of proof against the default lies with those advocating disregarding the existance of a presumably better established standard,
 * please clarify whether what may be your challenge to my decision reflects, e.g.,
 * your intention of gently challenging it by doing so tacitly,
 * my saying too much, or saying it via syntax that is too complex, for the effort you are willing to make in this (which might explain the many points you have never shown evidence of weighing),
 * etc.)
 * _ _ This page has now passed the nominal 32kB limit. I had already begun planning an archiving and refactoring of it, after the experience of getting back up to speed on it. Please forgive my impending lack of response, until i can carry that out. --Jerzy•t 22:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

''This is an archive of previous discussion, moved because of its excessive length. Responses to it should be made elsewhere, normally at Talk:Pope Stephen, rather than on this archive page. Quoting relevant portions elsewhere, especially when commenting on it, is of course appropriate. Summarization and/or refactoring of it, elsewhere than on this page, would be a service to the community.''
 * Sir,
 * I must confess I have often some difficulties to understand all you write, and must rely on a bilingual dictionnary and make huge efforts of concentration. Don't forget I'm a foreigner. I learn every day, but this time is too much for me. In brief: I haven't understood anything of your last intervention.
 * About Google's occurencies, when I look for "pope stephen", I have 39800. When I capitalize "Pope Stephen", I get 70800 answers. I didn't know Google was case sensitive, and that the results are not the same depending of the language version used. I've not understood the joke about Old Nick. Sorry.
 * About "challenging your decision", I have read it thrice and still don't understand what your decision is and what I must do to challenge it. May you, please, explain it by simple phrases? If there are other questions you think I have not answerd, can you ask them again clearly?
 * Švitrigaila 23:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)