Talk:Papal election, 1268–71

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Papal election, 1268–71 has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
July 15, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
August 19, 2009 Good article reassessment Listed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 6, 2007.
Current status: Good article

General comments[edit]

Per WP:MOS, please limit use of parenthetical statements. Majoreditor 03:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed most of them. Savidan 06:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Is 'cardians' in the Procedure section an error, or a term that I don't know? It doesn't show up on Google or Wikipaedia searches. 15:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a typo. Fixed. Savidan 15:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Passed[edit]

This article is well-written, provides good coverage of this rather amusing Papal election, and cites thoroughly with scholarly sources. My only problem whilst reading this was the abundance of red links. As per the Links section in the Manual of Style, internal linking should not be done if the topic is not likely to ever get an article or would fail to become an article due to notability or other issues. I removed a few of the red links (town prefect, John of Toldeo...feel free to revert them) before reading some of the other Papal election articles and seeing that they also had lots of red links in their Electorate sections. I don't know what people have planned with all of these somewhat obscure, long dead cardinals, so I won't object strongly on this point. I've collapsed the list as in Papal conclave, 1549-1550. The pictures are excellent, by the way. Well done! --Meowist 02:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Papal election, 1268–1271/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I will do the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I have already read the article and have some comments. I feel that the article is close to, but does not meet the current GA Criteria. The Lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article, covering all the points brought up in the article. See WP:LEAD for more on this. The article discusses the politics surrounding the controversy, which goes a long way towards explaining why the election lasted so long. A statement on the politics at the time should be added to the lead. I'm also wondering if there were further developments that took place during the election process? With an election lasting nearly 3 years, I have to think that there was more that happened. Am I wrong? Were other candidates nearly elected? Was there more intrigue? Or was it fairly staid until the politicians and citizens of the city put the screws to the Cardinals? The article is very well referenced except for the lists of Cardinal electors. Is there a reference for these two lists? One should be added if the lists are to remain in the article. The images are good, the article is stable and the writing is ok. I would like to see more added to the lead, a reference for the two lists of Cardinal electors, and any further information regarding the nearly 3 year election. I will put the article on hold for a week and notify the interested editors and projects in the hopes that someone will take the lead and address these issues. If you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears as though quite a bit of work has been done to the article. Thank you for that. I feel as though it meets the GA Criteria and I will keep it as a GA. H1nkles (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Philip Benizi[edit]

"According to later accounts, not supported by the contemporary sources, after two months, the cardinals nearly elected Philip Benizi, general of the Servite Order, who had come to Viterbo to admonish the cardinals, but fled to prevent his election."

Who fled? Whose election was prevented?

By the text it seems Benizi should be the answer to both questions, but then the text needs to explain why he would flee to prevent himself from being elected. Or at the very least clarify he did not want to become pope. Also, was the elected pope required to be amongst the participants? (Why could the cardinals not elect Benizi even if he had left Viterbo?) (talk) 08:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


Can someone who reads Polish please check Ambrogio Piazzoni, Historia wyboru papieży, Kraków 2003, p. 194, and see why he dates the letter in question to June 22? Is he emending the text ('it must have been June, not August'? Or has he seen the original, which is different from what was reported by Felice Contelori, Vatican Librarian? Anno D(omi)ni MCCLXX, XI Kalendas Septembris [August 22, 1270], indictione XIII, Sede Romana vacante. Since Piazzoni is cited as an authority, one should know why JUNE is correct. Vicedomino (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


Bower is wrong in stating that the Election took place in the Cathedral in Viterbo. There are contemporary records which indicate that it was held in the Episcopal Palace, the Register of a Notary named Bassus [Cesare Pinzi, Storia della citta di Viterbo, illustrata con note e nuovi documenti in gran parte inediti Volume II (Roma 1888), p. 272 n. 2]. Conradus de Abiano, the predecessor of Alberto de Montebuono, is excommunicated quia Cardinales arctavit in palatio. (he locked them up in the Palace). I am removing the statements and the reference to Bower. Vicedomino (talk) 04:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)