"The Roman Curia is the complex of dicasteries and institutes which help the Roman Pontiff in the exercise of his supreme pastoral office for the good and service of the whole Church and of the particular Churches. It thus strengthens the unity of the faith and the communion of the people of God and promotes the mission proper to the Church in the world." - Ap. Const.Pastor Bonus, Art. 1
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Vatican City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Vatican City State 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.
This page, as originally written, depends entirely on Baumgartner. My own research into the contemporary accounts suggests that his is not a reliable account. I have tried to fix things where I could, and have added some documentation (which refutes what is attributed to Baumgartner, e.g. the notion that Wolsey got 20 votes, and the notion that Enckenvoirt wasn't there), but I don't think I have succeeded in improving the article. It departs from the sources too many times. The whole text, I fear, needs to be junked and a new start made by somebody. The map of the battle does not add anything to the argument.
For a well sourced, and very different, treatment of the Conclave, take a look at
I don't oppose the addition of more primary or secondary sources, but it is dangerous to throw out sourced secondary content on this basis (see WP:PRIMARY). Please try to note the disagreement in sources rather than nuking one in favor of the other. Savidan 05:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
One's original research into thecontemporary accounts is not suited to Wikipedia, which is simply a reader's guide based on published sources. Deleting unbiased statements supported by cited sources because one disagrees with them is probably not the best approach.--Wetman (talk) 05:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
It should be noted that, when I added other material it was because the article was a one-source article, and possibly in violation of Baumgarten's copyright. I note also that, as I write in 2016, nobody else has stepped up in the last seven years. --Vicedomino (talk) 04:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I note that the reference in the text to Gianmaria del Monte is red-bracketed. He can be found listed in Wikipedia as Pope Julius III. The actual del Monte at this Conclave of 1523, who allegedly nearly won, is Antonio Ciocchi del Monte, Suburbicarian Bishop of Albano. I don't know if the Gianmaria del Monte comes from Baumgarten, but whether it does or not, it is wrong. Giovanni Maria Ciocchi del Monte was made a cardinal by Pope Paul III in 1536. --Vicedomino (talk) 04:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)