Talk:Patrimonium Sancti Petri

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The tone of this article lacks a certain dispassionate, encyclopaedic quality... phrases like "one of the true Faith", and the end of the second section, reading:

The time was ripening for Rome to abandon the East, turn toward the West, and enter into that alliance with the Germano-Romanic nations, on which is based our Western civilization, of which one consequence was the formation of the States of the Church. It would have been easy for the popes to throw off the Byzantine yoke in Central Italy as early as the time of Iconoclasm, but waited wisely until it was clearly establish that the Byzantines could no longer protect the pope and the Romans against the Lombards, and they founnd another power that could protect them, the Frankish kingdom, in the middle of the eighth century.

Who was this written by? The PR department at the Vatican would write better, and have a more subtle display of bias...

I completely agree. Even though some of the bias tone has been reduced by recent changes made to the article, it still challenges Wikipedia's Neutrality policy in my opinion, specifically because it lacks a non-judgemental, factual tone. Here's an example:

The pope thus became the champion of all the oppressed, the political champion of all those who were unwilling to submit to foreign domination, who were unwilling to become Lombards or yet wholly Byzantines, preferring to remain Romans.

The language here is not only unclear, but is somewhat bias towards a religious view rather than a historical one. This article still needs a lot of work. Whoever has the time to make the necessary changes should keep Wikipedia's viewpoint on religious subjects in mind [from Wikipedia's NPOV page] "Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view must be mentioned if it can be documented by notable, reliable sources, yet note that there is no contradiction". This could be a problem, considering that one of the sources in question (according to the discussion on the NPOV noticeboard) are the editors of the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. I suggest someone back this information up with a completely different source, as well as change the language and tone of the article to achieve a more neutral and factual point of view.--Tabbboooo (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)