This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Catholicism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Should he really be called an italian? His Cardinalate doesn't make him Italian, if anything it makes him a citizen of the Papal States/Holy See, at that time at odds with the Italian government, and he chose to be buried in England.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 00:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The historical criticisms of Gasquet speak about falsehoods without explicitly naming them. They are not very specific and to not even seem to require an example. In any case, the biography of Gasquet ought to be more completed, with controversial elements especially needing to be explained. 184.108.40.206 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC).
Yes, but that is a citation. Such criticisms exist - the article should not debate his reputation, just report the views on it. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
The problem lies in a detailed critique of Gasquet's failings as a historian without telling us virtually anything about his work as a historian. The average reader comes across the criticism and is a little confused by the lack of context. Just needs expansion. Gabrielthursday (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)