 |
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved. |
[edit] image in need of more details
I removed the following image from the article. Because the only thing we know about it from the uploader is that it was created by a non-notable artist Riccardo Cenedese. Without further information about when it was created and where it is located, etc. it does not add anything to the article which already has numerous images. If anyone can supply further details to make an informative caption, please feel free to return it to the article. Active Banana (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
[edit] External links
Youtube is almost NEVER an appropriate external link. Most clips are copyright material posted by someone other than the copyright holder WP:ELNEVER or are homemade content made by non-experts WP:SELF.
Currently in the linkfarm of external links, there is one link to a documentary film that does appear to meet the criteria as "professionally examined" content presented by the copyright holder. Active Banana (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Taking your point on youtube, I thought we were supposed to link to things we referenced. I didn't realize that linking to reference material was equivalent to a link farm. If it is, I will cease and desist. --Bluejay Young (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- The way most pages including this one, are set up, if a website is cited as a source within the article, then it should not (unless it is the official website of the topic of the article) be re-listed as an External Link. (The other style of sourcing articles has a "Sources" section which lists the full biblographic content of each source once and a "Footnotes" section for footnotes which merely contains the author name and page. While that style more closely imitates the look of traditional footnotes in academic papers, in my opinion, it does not utilize the capabilities of electronic footnoting - and in collaborative editing environment without close oversight such as Wikipedia, can easily lead to loss of citing and sourcing information.) Active Banana (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Someone has flagged Zenit as an unreliable source. Zenit is a news agency -- kind of the Tass, UPI or Associated Press of Catholic news. Its website is zenit.org. I'm not sure whether news agencies are supposed to be reliable sources or not -- I thought they were, but who knows, things change here all the time -- so will just leave it at this point. If it is not appropriate of course go ahead and delete it. --Bluejay Young (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- From their website]: "We aim to view the modern world through the messages of the Pope and the Holy See;".
- I interpret that phrase as openly declaring that they are not attempting to be neutral in their presentation of information, and so much caution should be applied when determining whether to use them as a source.
- If however, they have a reputation for accuracy, fact checking and not pushing a particular adjenda; and the above statement merely identifies which subject matter they look at, I will remove my objection. Active Banana (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- I figure it's like the Christian Science Monitor. --18:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Atheist Brother
I remember seeing on the news that one of his brothers had emigrated to Australia and was an atheist. Bostoner (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
[edit] The papal Angelus
The Angelus ought to be always in italics. But I am not going through this whole article and doing that. I hope that failing to cite the Angelus correctly is noted by some helpful editor. Djathinkimacowboy 07:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
[edit] John Cornwall
Why is Yallop cited extensively but John Cornwall's biography and journalistic investigation book, which is a comprehensive rebuttal of Yallop, not cited? Djathinkimacowboy 16:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Cornwel was commisioned to reboute Yallop. But he did not do it. He gave more evidence in favor of Luciani's murder than denial of it.--71.178.106.120 (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- No. I've read Cornwall's book and his conclusions are much better researched and presented than Yallop's. Cornwall does not believe Luciani was murdered but rather died of natural causes - but outlines incompetence and downright corruption across layers of the Catholic Church. I agree we should use more Cornwall in the article. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)