Talk:Pope Leo XIII

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

term: Papal bull[edit]

Shanedidona removed the use of the term bull, which derives from a Latin term and is not etymologically related to the other senses of the English word "bull"; thus not an insult. I'm fixing to revert. --Jim Henry | Talk 22:39, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Revert[edit]

'On February 20 1878, he was elected to succeed Pope Pius IX. His election was unusually quick, occuring on the exact day Pope Pius died. Thus, there was no sede vacante period between Pius IX and Leo XIII.'

This statement is downright incorrect. Pius IX expired on 7 February 1878. Mapple 18:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

His Holiness[edit]

There have been several reverts of "His Holiness" on this page by User:Mike H. referring to the fact that this title only applies to the current pope. I have reverted this edit after learning that no, it doesn't only apply to the current Pope, it can apply to all Popes throughout history. Regarding the actual inclusion of this honorific, I refer to the Dalai Lama's page where he is referred to as His Holiness but not when labeled on the page. I think that initially the title should be removed while used later in the article as it would vernacularly or in the titling of pictures, perhaps as a way of resolving this cross-article conflict. Also, maybe we could center this discussion on His Holiness instead of spreading it around to each individual pope?--TheGrza 22:40, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

styles infobox[edit]

A discussion occurred at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Style War proposed solution about a solution to the ongoing style wars on Wikipedia. The consensus favoured replacing styles at the start of articles by an infobox on styles in the article itself. I have added in the relevant infobox here. FearÉIREANNCoat of arms of Ireland.svg\(caint) 23:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Information from another page[edit]

I found this on the Annum ingressi site, and am not sure what this has to do with the letter, but someone may want to put it on this page:

*[[Leo XIII]] awarded a gold medal [http://www.wings.buffalo.edu/aru/preprohibition.htm] to a fashionable [[19th century]] [[cocaine]]-laced wine called ''[[Vin Mariani]]''. <ref> [[Paolo Mantegazza]] a prominent [[Italy|Italian]] [[neurology|neurologist]], [[physiologist]] and [[anthropologist]], isolatied of [[cocaine]] from [[coca]] leaves and experimentally tested it on himself in 1859. Afterwards, he wrote a paper titled ''Sulle Virtù Igieniche e Medicinali della Coca e sugli Alimenti Nervosi in Generale'' ("On the hygienic and medicinal properties of coca and on nervous nourishment in general"). described the effect of cocaine on [[cognition]]. </ref>

The first bit came from this article! The second bit is from Paolo Mantegazza. Imacomp 20:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


Someone should put this into the article as his cocaine approval and authentic "controversial" material to some are essential on wiki articles. Youlookadopted 00:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I have come across adverts for the wine in newspapers/periodicals of the time. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright Infringement?[edit]

A Significant part of the article (especially near the end) appears to be a copy of Catholic Encyclopedia Leo XIII especially near the end, with common phrases such as "Under Leo the religious orders developed wonderfully; new orders were founded, older ones increased, and in a short time made up for the losses occasioned by the unjust spoliation they had been subjected to." Naraht 21:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Daisy89, it appears it was you who completely revised the article. Could you please state your sources? If it is the Catholic Encyclopedia, well, that work appears to be in the public domain (see here). However, there was an article already in existence before your complete revision, which if I am correct is actually a complete replacement of the article. I am not sure the current text is better than the previous text, especially since the language is rather old-fashioned, no matter whether you wrote it, or the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1910. Classical geographer 19:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Today I have reinstated the original article - that is, the version before major edits by User:64.252.74.192 and User:Daisy89 (who might or might not be two different persons). I feel the original as it was found on Wikipedia before 6 March 2007 was more concise, more to the point, and wikified on top. It's a pity that many people - including me - spend lots of valuable time on wikifying a text that apparently comes straight from the Catholic Encyclopedia (even though Daisy89's edit summaries suggest otherwise - especially "elaborated much more please do not delete worked very hard"). On the other hand, I do believe there's some interesting stuff in the Catholic Encyclopedia version, and therefore I have inserted (and adapted, of course) a few paragraphs from that source. Classical geographer 18:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)[edit]

In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that when either of two styles such as 14 February or February 14 is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason. Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) [1] Ujntul a few days ago, all dates in the Leo XIII article were in the February 14 order. Therefore it was inappropriate to change this article from one style to another. --Thomaq (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Later on in the article you cite, you'll see that wikilinking the date will result in you seeing the date in the style set in your preferences.
February 14 = 14 February, Bazj (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Guys, can we work out here which format it should be? Whether autoformatting is used or not, our readers still see what you key in. The relevant balance is between MOSNUM on "retain the original format" (which was US for the first year at least) versus "strong ties to a country" (I don't think Italy 1900 figures much there, but argue it out here). Tony (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Most recent popes (Pius IX, Leo XIII, Piua X, Pius XII, Pius XII, Paul VI) all used US format until someone tried to change it a few days ago. John Paul II uses EU format. The papacy is a world institution not Italy, we should leave things rhe way they are, because as Wikipedia states: it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so--Thomaq (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but can we take the high emotion out of it? Frankly, it shouldn't matter that much to you. Please inform me immediately if there's any trouble at other pages over date format. Tony (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't see any reason to use American Dating format for an article that intimately concerns an Italian, where International Dating is more appropriate. Not without a good reason. Sure, the Roman Catholic Church is a global institution, but so to is the British Commonwealth, and I can't see any reason to use American Dating in the biographical article on the current head of the Commonwealth, Queen Elizabeth II. Or for any previous British monarch, including the time when they reigned over what is now the U.S.. When there's an American (or Filipino) pope, then American Dating format would be appropriate for their biographical article. I've been working my way through the popes, changing the date formats to International Dating, and I'd appreciate that my careful work on this article be restored. Including unlinking dates, please. --Pete (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Could I ask people to take a breath of fresh air and relax about which format is used. I can't believe people are so emotional about whether day or month comes first. If it's some kind of nationalistic kick, please remember that the US military uses international, and many newspapers in the UK and Australia use the so-called US format. I was more concerned at the mess the dates were in until a few days ago. Can we let this one sit for a while and get back to more important stuff (if it is worth diverting our time and talent there at all)? Tony (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
American Dating format is inappropriate for this article. End of story. I'm particularly annoyed at having my careful work undone for no good reason. --Pete (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

The complete ommission of his cocaine addiction (see Vin Mariani) seems rather inappropriate, it should be given a mention given that Leo XIII personally endorsed the wine.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.99.19 (talkcontribs) 07:33, 23 Jun 2009

I have added a line about the wine to this article. Elizium23 (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd add to that the failure to mention his sudden departure from Brussels as Nuncio after only 3 years - he was declared persona non grata in 1846 by the King of Belgium, reputedly for interfering with the State education policy. There is, however, no evidence in his Letters of the period of this, and it's hard to understand when one realises the Government of the day was Catholic and would therefore have welcomed his support! As the meme suggests, the post of Nuncio would normally have been followed by promotion to Cardinal, but in Pecci's case, it was followed by a demotion to Archbishop in a relatively out of the way Archdiocese: it took another seven years to make that step to the Red Hat.
A second question arises from Anna Pecci-Blunt, who named her Cometa gallery for her grandfather's papal insignia. That therefore establishes that her father Gioacchino Pecci, the head of Leo's Garda Nobile and main gatekeeper for access to him, was only a nepote, as he's conventionally described, in the circumlocutory meaning of the word. Private data from the Association d'Argenteuil, the family association of the descendants of Count Frederic de Meeus, the Belgian Finance Ministeer, President of the Societe Generale and richest man in the country who had a pivotal role in creating Belgium as a monarchy, suggests that the Nuncio was a frequent visitor to the Count's eldest daughter Anna at Argenteuil, the family home at Ohain south of Waterloo, which may bring both of my points together: I would have said that impregnating the eldest child of the richest man in the country, to whom the King owed his throne, would be a fairly safe way of being declared Personan non grata! Certainly in the later years of their lives she, as Head of the ArchiAssociation of the Eucharist, had extraordinary access, reporting directly and uniquely to him, as Pope. To retain a degree of neutrality in this, it should also be observed that Leo's mother was also Anna. Of course, this cannot be mentioned on the front page as it is private data, but it can be mentioned here as a possible vade-mecum for anyone wishing to pursue the matter.
Given that the result is an incorrect description of his relationship with Leopold I, then I think the question of POV can be upgraded to a formal question of NPOV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.59.21 (talkcontribs) 11:48, 6 December 2014
No, since WP:NPOV considers only viewpoints contained in reliable sources, private inaccessible information has no bearing on the neutrality of the subject treatment. Elizium23 (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae[edit]

It seems remiss - with regard to the article section "Relations with the United Kingdom and the Americas" - to not have a link to this papal letter to Cardinal Gibbons and the U.S. bishops. It is one of Leo's principal statements of "policy" and attitude towards the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.60.165 (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Taxil hoax[edit]

Why the article does not even mention it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.192.248.201 (talk) 06:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

cocaine[edit]

As you can see in that article, there are claims (purportedly is in the description of the image depicting the pope) that this pope advertised cocaine use and that he awarded the Frenchman Mariani a Vatican Gold star to make cocawine. In this article however, I don't see the word cocaine once (ctrl + f "cocaine"). So, how much is true about this. Thanks 81.68.255.36 (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No source per WP:Reliable. History2007 (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The pope gave his backing for products that contained coca, the plant used to make cocaine. However, it is quite different to use coca in a product than using cocaine. They share a common ingredient, yes, but so does margarine and napalm, for example. Or poppy seed chicken and opium. Approval of one does not give approval of the other, and a pope granting his approval for a wine is hardly worth mentioning in the article compared to his overall life and papacy. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 16:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about that. If he made policy while under the influence it could be very relevant. The main item at issue is reliability.MartinezMD (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Image/coat of arms[edit]

In this edit [1] user Xanderliptak clearly stated that in his opinion there is consensus that History2007 and Scolaire also think images need actual sources. Hence, the new image that some IP (may be a sockpuppet) added, can be deleted. There is further discussion on the talk pages of the users mentioned above, to the effect that History2007 and Scolaire have rejected Mr Liptak's personal creation of a coat of arms for Leo XIII. History2007 (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Image was sourced, please follow the citation to this Vatican site.
Also, a consensus is not two people going to someone's talk page, as concerned editors to the article would be unaware of the dialogue. To build a consensus, you need to list it at the relevant article so editors may be notified and weigh in. As you and the other editors noted, three people at the WikiProject Heraldry was not deemed sufficient consensus to weigh in on the matter, so two is definitely not enough here.
That edit you are citing of mine, Scolaire undid it and added images without sourcing, so he violated his own "consensus". And that "consensus" of two people you are citing refused to allow secondary sources (id est Internet), so that consensus is invalid per Wikipedia:Secondary source. So there is nothing to argue against the image. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 13:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The long and short of it is that you want to add an image you have created by yourself based on your own artistic design. Two editors oppose that. In Wikipedia that means: you have to accept their joint decision. In any case, you accepted a certain arrangement, namely NO image and I just went back to your own accepted version. Period. History2007 (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
You don’t have a consensus. Three editors have stated at the WikiProject heraldry that my artistic designs do not change the meaning to a coat of arms, because it is the colours and symbols on the shield that matter. Besides those three at the WikiProject, I also have the support of four other editors. That gives me seven in support, where as you and twoo editors are disapproving. If there is any consensus, it would appear to be in my favour. You simply don't like me illustrating, and you are going to any means to prevent it. You are making this personal. Now, either conform to your standards and start removing any and all images without a linked source, or stop the petty argument. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 15:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I do not agree. You are in a minority here. History2007 (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
You must be confused about what a minority is. You and two editors are against, that makes a total of three against. I have myself and five other editors in support of my illustrations and/or have notified you that they are heraldically accurate. That means there are twice as many people supporting my position as there is you. That makes you the minority, I am afraid. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 16:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
No. I was going to ask for a 3rd opinion, here and Talk:Octobri_Mense, but once Scolaire arrived, that was the 3rd opinion, so I stopped there. There have been no other editors on this page. History2007 (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
You're operating off of best two out of three? Who agreed to that? Have you even read the sources provided you, or are you still blindly arguing simply because you dislike me? You didn't want to talk about heraldry apparently because you didn't want to admit you were unknowledgeable, rather focusing your argument on I-don't-think's and well-prove-it's rather than taking the time to understand something.
And what good will asking a heraldry question on an encyclical article? You really should go with the Heraldry WikiProject on that, since, ya know, it's the Heraldry WikiProject. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you keep talking about me, let me clarify some things about myself please. Of course, in Wikipedia one can not speculate on the motives and intentions of other users and one assumes good faith at all times. So let me provide you with a few pieces of information about my own intentions. I edit with a user name and I do not use Wikipedia as a means of promoting a business or service. I promise. When I wrote probability measure the other day, I did not add my name to it so people would call me for consulting work on risk assessment afterwards. I did that because many people were clicking on that page and got no information. I did that just as a free service for whoever anted to read it. I am not an artist. I do not post my own artwork on Wikipedia and hope to increase my reputation, and get further business. I am not here to use Wikipedia as an advertising medium. Does that answer your question? History2007 (talk) 10:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you think I am trying to build a business off Wikipedia because my name appears in the filename of my images that I drew? Well, how about you actually assume good faith and stop with the insinuations. Perhaps, just perhaps, I do know what I am talking about. I mean, the Heraldry WikiProject did back me up. Perhaps I put my name n the images because I am the one that made those images.
You don’t want to talk about heraldry, you got offended that I said you show no knowledge in the subject. Was I supposed to pretend you were an expert? You want me to pretend that your lack of knowledge is expertise somehow? You have to admit you do not know everything but are willing to learn before I can teach you. Otherwise you are just going to ignore anything you read or are told because it is not what you expected. When you are ready to have an open mind, then perhaps we could actually have an intelligent conversation about the subject at hand. Face it, I have been arguing against three people rather persistently and even was blocked by one of your friends because I tried to remove the images you guys have issue with. I am not leaving. You might as well listen a bit so this can finally be resolved. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 18:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the other editors are not my "friends" for I do not think I had interacted with them before. We just happen to agree on this topic, and our assessment of the situation differs from yours. And, I would like to point out that your "I have been arguing against three people rather persistently" and "I am not leaving" statements are now running into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, namely sticking to a viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it. It is another Wikipedia policy that needs to be respected by you. History2007 (talk) 04:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
How many times do I have to point out to you that my supporters outnumber yours? It is you, Scolaire and O Fenian that are opposed; that is only three. It is myself, Malke2010, Surtsicna, Tamfang, 206.116.73.178 and Seven Letters that are in support; that is six. The support is double the opposition. Oh, and a WikiProject also stated the illustrations I create are legitimate heraldic works.
The facts are aligned with me and the numbers are on my side. Yet, you somehow think there is consensus for you? How? So no, I am not going away because you are persistent. You do not have the support, you never did. You flat out lie when you talk about things going your way. The consensus is for my images to add them. I was compromising when I sourced the images. So, since this is now settled, and the consensus is clearly on my side, I am reading the images. If you have any issue, please source it first and then take it to the Heraldry WikiProject again. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 05:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry, your claimed supporters have never edited this page, nor commented on it. History2007 (talk) 05:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
You stated the community supported you, but you are here alone. Are you counting editors that are not commenting here? And I am counting editors who support my illustrations. And the Heraldry WikiProject's statement that my illustrations have been accurate and meet all heraldic requirements. They do not need to comment here, they did at the WikiProject and my talk page. And there is the precedence of the other hundred or so papal articles that show the coat of arms of the popes. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 06:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration[edit]

Since people are insisting, on both sides, that I get involved here, here I am. I'm actually having a hard time trying to figure out just what it is about XANDERLIPTAK's images that people are so uptight against. There is nothing on this talk page to indicate why they cannot be used. They appear to be based off referenced sources, and coat of arms are mutable from design to design of the same CoA. So explain here why they are not acceptable. It does appear to an outside observer that some editors have decided they don't like his edits or images and that's the end of it. I've been considering approaching some with a suggestion of a topic ban for everyone involved in these Wikipedia wide edit wars, but I'd like to here a sensible story for why these are or aren't acceptable. And keep it simple, and provide Wikipedia policies to back up the arguments on both sides. Any personal attacks or comments against other editors will be viewed harshly, keep it to policy and guidelines. And remember voting has no place here. Six people can not like it and the one person still be in the right. Canterbury Tail talk 11:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to my request for advice. I had asked for a 3rd opinion, but once Scolaire arrived, a 3rd opinion could no longer apply. Actually, I have not expressed an opinion on the other coats of arms on other pages, except for blocking the canvassing issue. The reason I objected to this image was that it looked so very different from ALL the other papal coats of arms in Wikipedia, and from the papal coats of arms I had seen in Rome and of those of recent popes on the Vatican website, e.g. John Paul II or Benedict XVI. I am pretty familiar with the papacy, the Vatican etc. and his design is just far, far removed from usual. The Loe XIII coat of arms used a month ago was pretty much like those of the other popes. Once the debate started, I even went out and found a source for comparison, but one which is actually a 3d rendering on a door. The reason I was quite surprised to see the Litpak design was that it was so visually unlike any other papal item on Wikipedia or those I had usually seen e.g. for Pope John XXIII, etc. His design is so highly ornate that it is just too far from what the norm in the papal coats of arms are. His design may or may not satisfy some obscure regulations regarding heraldry, but most of the public out there is unaware of those. If Mr Liptak is given the right to redesign the coats of arms of all popes in Wikipedia and replace them with the initial argument that his image "has a larger size", then he will in time single-handedly redefine the entire coats of arms of all popes on Wikipedia with designs that would "shock the dead popes out of their graves" but which would satisfy some heraldry constraints. Given that Wikimedia images are used the world over, the general public, unaware of the fact that these designs are purely the creations of Mr Liptak will assume them to be the actual papal coats of arms. Hence Mr Liptak will dictate the definition of papal coats of arms across Wikimedia and the world over. Not an advisable situation. Again, if his design had not been "so far off" from the other papal coats of arms, that would have probably not started this debate, but I think the reason other people may be objecting on other pages (and I am guessing now) is that in other cases his designs are "historically inaccurate" in that they never appeared on flag during a war, but are artistically within some heraldic parameters unknown to the general public. The only users I have seen comment on the Leo XIII issue are myself and Scolaire and the other users who have commented have been on the other designs he has had. Hence regarding the Leo XIII item it is myself and Scolaire who have reverted him and no others who have edited this page. As I said, on the Leo XIII issue he is in the minority. But why take my word for it? Given that this page is marked as part of WikiProject Catholicism and WikiProject Christianity, those people should really be providing the final opinion on what symbolism best applies to popes, for this discussion is likely to have far reaching consequences. I did not post and ask opinion on those two projects, in order not to create the impression fo canvassing, but it would be best if you could please seek opinions therein, to obatin an informed viewpoint on papal matters. Thanks.History2007 (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

If I had to pick one policy, I would pick Wikipedia:Consensus. The objections to Xander's edits are many and various, but the bottom line is, he is editing against consensus. There are two images at issue: the O'Neill coat of arms (pre-existing version) and Pope Leo's coat of arms (pre-existing version). The history, from my point of view is as follows:

  1. I posted on Xander's talk page, querying the relevance of the O'Neill image to certain articles, the sourcing of the image, and the size of the thumbnail.[2]
  2. Cavila posted, agreeing with my points re relevance and reliable secondary sources, and adding that the ornamentation, if meaningless, "only muddles things".[3]
  3. O Fenian posted to Talk:Irish people, saying, "The arms are clearly not the same [as previous images], and I too would request a source for this image to prove the depiction of it is not some creative invention."[4]
  4. Rannpháirtí anaithnid (RA) said that " since it is a Gaelic/ancient Irish symbol that is being described, I don't think a heraldric symbol is appropriate."[5]
  5. RepublicanJacobite said "If this is somebody's original artwork, WP is not the place for it."[6]
  6. RashersTierney posted on Xander's talk page, saying that the "bot-like application" of his image to several more articles was a bad idea, and said, "Upping the ante during a heated dispute is rarely a good strategy."[7]
  7. At Xander's suggestion, I asked a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology[8]. In response Tamfang said that "stylewise this is a really weird choice: if anything it makes me think of Albrecht Dürer rather than Legendary Ireland. (Ugly too.)"[9]
  8. In response to Xander's assertion that "the shield is unimportant", Tamfang said, "It's true that any two renditions of argent a sinister hand gules are legally equivalent, but that doesn't oblige me to blind myself to the image's inappropriateness on other grounds."[10]
  9. Surtsicna said that the image of the coat of arms of Mary of Hungary was sourced (??).[11] 7 Letters said the O'Neill arms would be "acceptable" but added, "I am not familiar with the particular arms in question".[12] Note: apart from Tamfang, these are the only two Wikiproject members to have commented on the question at all.
  10. Most recently, Tamfang said, "A naïve person like me might infer from such a 'long line' that people are unhappy with the image for a variety of reasons."[13] As far as I am concerned, that is the "verdict" of the Wikiproject.
  11. History2007 posted to Xander's talk page, saying that his "artistic version" of Leo XIII's coat of arms was "less accurate" than the one it replaced.[14]
  12. History2007 asked Xander to refrain from canvassing.[15]
  13. Xander then added his Leo image to German, Spanish, French, Hungarian, Italian (five articles), Dutch, Polish, Portugese and Russian articles. On the Leo XIII talk page of German Wikipedia, User:Muck said that Xander was replacing a very beautiful image with his own creation, adding that it "reminds me rather of self-promotion and therefore SPAM, sorry."[16]
  14. Snowded reverted yet another edit this morning with the edit summary: "I can't see a community consensus and you are going the right away about earning a community ban with this disruptive editing."[17]

In his favour, Xander can cite Malke 2010,[18] who as far as I know has never edited any Irish- or Catholic Church-related article, and 206.116.73.178,[19] who claims to be "the primogeniture to the Prince of Tyrone" and who seems to be commenting on this image, rather than the disputed images.
I hope this clarifies the matter a bit. Scolaire (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I was not aware that Mr Liptak's disputed coat of arms of Leo XIII was also reverted out of German Wikipedia, for the reasons they gave. Thanks for the info. However, the prince of Tyrone is not related to the Leo XIII discussion at all. History2007 (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
User:Scolaire, I have edited Irish and Catholic related articles, but even if I had not, editing on a page is not a requirement for giving an opinion on edits made on a page. All of these articles, except Leo, are on my watchlist.
In looking over the list above, I'm not seeing an answer to Canterbury Tail talk 's request to show why the images are unacceptable on Wikipedia.
The comments you've taken from talk pages and listed above, do not show any real consensus, but rather seem to suggest a weak understanding of what heraldry and renderings of CoA's is really all about. That's understandable as few editors are going to know everything on a topic and heraldry and CoA's are really a speciality area.
That aside, I think what is really happening is that everyone is concerned about changes in the articles. That is understandable. Everybody gets a little territorial on articles they routinely edit. And, like you, all the editors you've listed are very good editors on these various articles.
As such, I suggest keeping an open mind enough to rethink what all of you are really objecting to here. I've not found any Wiki policy that objects to the images. And the renderings are beautiful and add to the visual content on the articles. Give things a rest for a few days, then take a second look.Malke2010 16:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Apologies, Malke. Not that I was questioning anybody's right to an opinion, anyway - my only point was about what the consensus is among interested editors. But if the articles are on your watchlist then you certainly are an interested editor.
As regards "giving things a rest for a few days", I have. My last post on the matter was four days ago. This is my second look. I'll leave if to Canterbury Tail to decide whether I have answered his question. Scolaire (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Malke, I would like to point out that the selection of the coat of arms for a pope can not be based on its beauty, but on how representative it is as a papal symbol, and how "true to origin" it is. If beauty is the measure, over time coats of arms get designed for dead people that would shock those people if shown to them when they were alive. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that needs to reflect the facts not set trends. I do not find the Litpak image beautiful, but what if tomorrow, Giorgio Armani, Prada or Heaven forbid Versace set their designers to design a new fashionable set of logos for all popes, within heraldic parameters, that have a very different look, and try to add them to Wikipedia, is that of benefit to the readers of Wikipedia? Is this a fashion show or an encyclopedia that tries to inform readers about facts and images as they are/were. What if someone thinks that Leo looks tired in that photo, retouches the photo to make him look better, and argues on aesthetic grounds for the photo. Over time as changes happen, Leo gets to look more like George Clooney in a papal outfit. That is not how Wikipedia can operate. Re-inventing history is not the business of Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It mostly appears to be an issue of WP:I Just Don't Like It and Wikipedia:I Didn't Hear That. All discussion amongst the heraldry editors is that my illustrations are heraldically accurate. The above was about the O'Neills of Ulster illustration, so it is irrelevant to this discussion. However, if you read through the argument you will see that Tamfang, Cavila, Seven Letters and Surtsicna have all stated the illustrations are heraldically accurate as I have insisted, and that no one at the WikiProject Heraldry stated the images were inaccurate.

The image was sourced, as can be seen here. My image depicts the same coat of arms; note the blue field with the green cyprus growing, a white fleur de lis on either side of the tree, a white fesse running across the tree and a yellow comet at the dexter canton. You will also note the shield is likewise ornate, but the shape of the shield is irrelevant, and it is the colours and symbols that actually matter. You may also compare my illustration to other papal coats of arms to see that such ornature is common, despite the claims by History2007 otherwise:

x150px 4365 - Milano - Palazzo Giureconsulti - Stemma Medici di Marignano - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto 14-July-2007.jpg Fontana dei fiumi, stemma.JPG Arms Clemens XII Musei Capitolini.jpg Innocent9.jpg Quattro fiumi g.JPG Medici-family-crest.png

As you can see, such ornature is not only common, it takes on a broad and varied form. Actually, my version is more closely aligned with these other Italian designs and the sourced painting given above. It is also the only version available on Wikipedia that mimics this style, the other images are done in an English style. And, according to History2007, "coat of arms for a pope can not be based on its beauty, but on how representative it is as a papal symbol, and how 'true to origin' it is". That would be my illustration which shows papal symbols and is true to the Pope's Italian origin and is true to the Roman origin of the papal seat. Showing the arms of the Pope in an English style would only be an inappropriate attempt to Anglicize the papacy and the Pope.

History2007 also mentioned some sort of global domination, "he will in time single-handedly redefine the entire coats of arms of all popes... will dictate the definition of papal coats of arms across Wikimedia and the world over", which is simply ridiculous. I can not believe I have to do this, but I promise I have no global domination conspiracies at hand here. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Those images are NOT of Leo XIII, but of the Medici family, other popes, etc. As for the source, again, I found that. You had designed yours beforehand without a source. Why not post 2d imags of papal arms, e.g. the predecessors and successors of Leo XIII, e.g.
Now, which one is the odd man out here? As for a TRUE ITALIAN STYLE, is the Vatican Website Italian enough? Or should we call the Vatican and tell them that they are doing it wrong? History2007 (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
History2007, Xander's is the one that is historically accurate. You're depending on the stylized renderings made for a website. They look computer generated. Xander is going by actual historical renderings. He's not trying to make Leo look like George Clooney. But the Vatican Website sure is. Xander's image is the most historically accurate.Malke2010 18:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
So please let me understand this. You are accepting that "Mr Litpak's rendering differs from the Vatican website", but stating that "Mr Litpak is more accurate than the Vatican website". Is that what you are saying? Then we need to inform the Vatican of their errors. History2007 (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The Vatican website has a computer generated image. If you visit the Vatican you will see User:Xanderliptak's version. Also, may I suggest it might be better to refer to this editor with the accepted format User:Xanderliptak, or the shortened form, Xander, and not call him "Mr. Liptak."Malke2010 18:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Please let me understand this again, you said "If you visit the Vatican you will see User:Xanderliptak's version". Is that correct? Exactly which room in which building in the Vatican do I need to go to to see that? Have you been there? Please clarify that statement. Or is it the Secret Archive that you refer to? I found that source myself. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec)History2007, I've been to the Vatican several times, but on none of those occasions was Leo XIII and his CoA's on my mind. But the place is loaded with CoA's of all the Pope's, and they are all as ornate as the photos Xander has provided as well as his rendering. So if you go there, happy hunting. But to save you a trip, might I suggest you just send an email? I'm sure a curator there will be happy to clarify things. I don't know about the Secret Archives, and I couldn't get into the Archives as I didn't have an acceptable reason. Just wanting to 'pop in and have a look' didn't sway the keepers there.Malke2010 19:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Malke, Next time, just tell them you have new info about the Vatican bank. They will let you into the Secret Archive immediately. Getting out will, however, be another story. Wink. History2007 (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That is right, the images I showed are of numerous popes. That was my point. The style in my illustration is common, as you can see by so many different popes from so many different time periods using the same ornate style. It shows my images are based on a long historic precedence.

It was you, History2007, that stated a “coat of arms for a pope can not be based on its beauty, but on… how 'true to origin' it is”, and my image matches the original source. It does not matter that the source was found by you or it was found after the illustration was introduced into the article, all that matters is the image is accurately and appropriately sourced. Can you provide an original source for those computer graphic versions? You will be hard pressed, considering all but the last two popes died before computer graphics existed.

Also, you will be hard pressed to find a source that would refute what the Heraldry WikiProject told you, that shield-shape is irrelevant. Look up original and historical paintings and carvings of papal coats of arms, and you will see each rendition presents the arms on a new shield shape. You will also notice the colours and symbols are the same on each version. Read up at Heraldry and Coat of arms. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not need to be the judge of heraldic items. An encyclopedia should not operate on our "professional judgement". What I based my objection on, and still do, is what Malke already agreed to, namely that "your design and the Vatican website have significant differences". Malke stated that your design "is more accurate", I say let the Vatican decide that. Are we going to redesign Benedict XVI's coats of arms too and inform him that we have a better one he needs to add to his Vatican page? I don't think so. Wiikipedia should not set trends, but follow them and report on them. That is what encyclopedias do, report on what there is, not create new information. History2007 (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── History2007, I did not say that. You've interpreted what I've said as that. And to make it worse, you put quotations around it all as if you are quoting me directly You did it earlier as well. I was going to comment then, and didn't but I must now. I haven't agreed that the designs have 'significant differences,' nor is it appropriate to frame the discussion with your refactoring of my comments by putting quotaton marks around them as if I'd said it like that. I do understand that you are especially exercised about this issue, and you are trying to sway the argument your way. But that's not the way to do it. Please don't do that again. And I agree with Scolaire's comment below. Let CT read it over and state his suggestions/opinions.Malke2010 20:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It is clear to me that you said that his version was more accurate than the Vatican website and that if I go to the Vatican I will see his design. I asked for a building/room and I received no reply. I think your statement that "his version is historically more accurate" is there to see. History2007 (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I have not 'agreed,' to anything. His rendering is what you'd see at the Vatican. It is historically accurate, and by that I think it's apparent I mean the traditional rendering, and not the computer graphic. And nobody is claiming the computer graphic is 'wrong,' as such, but it doesn't replace the other renderings. It doesn't render them void. The computer graphic is made for the place it's being displayed, the Internet and flags. Xander's matches the ones made for the places it is displayed, namely buildings, etc. And you've yet to come up with a Wiki policy that would prevent use of Xander's renderings. Take a break for now. It doesn't have to be decided today. There's no urgency to it. The images are not even on the articles at this time, as far as I am aware.Malke2010 20:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Guys, I think we've talked enough for the moment. We've each stated our case once. How about we let CT take the next step? Scolaire (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Scolaire, I was just about to ask Leo to come and join the discussion himself - in the end he knows best. But seriously, in the absence of Leo, I think we need the opinion of WikiProject Catholicism to decide what is "papal". It is important for Wikipedia to seem uniform to a new user, so if they click on Wikipedia or the Vatican website they do not feel they get different items - that maintains the credibility of Wikipedia. New readers will not look at project vexillology and 90% of them might think it is a form of vaccine. So we must conform to the Vatican website. History2007 (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
By all means, put a note on WT:CATHOLIC linking to this section. That would be reasonable. I just think we involved editors should take a break and give CT and other neutrals room to breathe. Scolaire (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely good idea.Malke2010 20:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer Scolaire, message was left. Now, where do we leave a message for Leo? History2007 (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I suppose I should point out that the Vatican has not had issue with my artwork in the past, [20]. 20:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
What was that art? This item? Or another item? Now if you can produce a letter saying they will use this item on their web site that will settle it. Until then.... History2007 (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
When you were over at WT:CATHOLIC did you happen to notice the two different renderings of the Papacy emblem? [21]? And the Wiki rules don't require the Vatican to use one of Xander's renderings on their website in order for his renderings to be used here.Malke2010 21:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Boys, stop it! Scolaire (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Boys is an assumption. But let us do stop for a while. I will go and listen to some appropriate music. See you later & Cheers. History2007 (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration: break[edit]

Hello. user:Malke 2010 asked for my opinion, because I added another papal symbol to Wikipedia. I don't know how this makes me an expert about the coat of arms olf Leo XIII, but since missing qualification never managed to stop anybody around here, why should it stop me?

First of all: What is THE coat of arms of Leo XIII. At the wikipedia projects we can find

100px C o a Leone XIII.svg Leone 13.jpg.

At http://asv.vatican.va/en/arch/access.htm Vatican itself presents a picture of Leo's coat of arms and all over the internet you will even find more adaptions.
So which of these is THE one and only true coat of arms of Leo XIII. The heraldic description of the coat of arms is: "Azure affixed in a a plain a cypress vert between two fleur de lis argent and accompanied in the canton by a comet Or overall a fesse argent." So every creation showing this actually shows the coat of arms of Leo XIII. That's what is shown on all of these coats of arms. So all of them show the coat of arms of Leo XIII. The only one of the coats of arms connected to this dispute, which is not the personal coat of arms of Leo XIII, is the one used in the article now. Did anybody really want this to happen?
If all of these coats of arms are THE coat of arms of Leo XIII, which one to use for this article. I personally can live with all of them. I want to thank each of the artists for doing such a great work. We should be thankfull to be able to hold such debates, because they are only possible because we got a choice. I will always prefer a dispute to the killing argument "it's the only one we got, so we have to take it". If all of them can be used, which one to use now. Perhaps we should try to discover which of these coats of arms reflects Leo XIII best. Which one would he have chosen?. I don't know and can not find a source about his tastes in arts. All I know is how his contemporaries saw coats of arms and therefore saw his coat of arms too. At http://www.lovingit.co.uk/tag/leo-xiii we can see the coat of arms on his tomb. At http://www.flickr.com/photos/59377019@N00/219087352 we can see another excample of contemporary adaption. The only one of the artworks we can choose of, which represents the spirit of this time, is File:Coat of arms of Pope Leo XIII by Alexander Liptak.png. There we can see the need to impress whatever the costs and the decoration for decoration purpose only. So if we want to show a historical context, we have to choose this coato of arms. On the other side, this good adaption ot the time spirit of the second half of 19th century brings problems. If File:Coat of arms of Pope Leo XIII by Alexander Liptak.png should be used, there should be a footnote, which explains that this is no original contemporary artwork. To make people think this would be an adaption really used by the pope would not be the style of this enceclopedia. That's a problem the other two designs do not have. Without doubt they are the work of our time.
Personally I would prefer someone to drive to the museum of the Vatican and take a picture of the historical coat of arms so we have an original picture which does not violate any copyrights. Since we do not have it, we will have to decide for a contemporary or a modern design. As I said, I can live with all solutions because all of them are good work and none of them will damage Wikipedia. I prefer a historical approach, but that's just my personal taste which is no better than the taste of others. So simply let the majority decide.Thw1309 (talk) 11:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
None of the images above are "THE coat of arms of Leo XIII". All of them are representations of the coat of arms. The difference between them is that, while the simple images represent the essential elements of the coat of arms as you describe them - "Azure affixed in a a plain a cypress vert between two fleur de lis argent and accompanied in the canton by a comet Or overall a fesse argent" - plus two keys, a triple crown and a tassel, Xanderliptak's image respresents, as you put it, "the spirit of this time". The elements on all of the images are the elements that are on the actual coat of arms as shown in the photos you link to, but the embellishments on Xander's image are not the embellishments on the actual shield or shields on the pope's tomb, his livingroom wall or anywhere else. It is a creative interpretation of the shield and therefore original research.
There is far more at stake here than this one image on this one article. If a precedent is set here it means Xander is at liberty to replace perfectly good CoA images on dozens - probably hundreds - of articles and anybody who interferes with him in any way faces a topic ban for supposed breach of IDONTLIKEIT (see CT's post above). In such a situation, consensus would no longer mean anything. Scolaire (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Thank you, Thw1309, for that thoughtful explanation. I agree, it's fine for Xanderliptak to post his images.Malke2010 16:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
My take on this: Thw1309's statement that "If File:Coat of arms of Pope Leo XIII by Alexander Liptak.png should be used, there should be a footnote" while the others do not need a footnote means that in Thw1309's view, all images are equal, but Mr Liptak's is somewhat more/less equal, i.e. it is the "odd man out" as I stated above. However, Scolaire Mr Liptak does not have the resources to replace all the coats of arms or 200 images. But, if someone leaves a message right now on Versace, for them to join the discussion, Heaven forbid they have the resources for it - and they may get the idea. And if I were their marketing director, I would leap at the opportunity to do it. Even worse would be the Benetton Group. Do you remember their advert campaigan with the bloody Tshirt of a soldier from Sarajevo that attracted a lot of attention and made piles of money although/because it was condemned in the press. A set of new papal logos with the "Papal United colors of Benetton would be a great campaign for them. Finally, if Malke can mail out engraved invitations for comment, can I do that too? History2007 (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
History2007, I sent out no invitations. I did not WP:CANVASS. You left a message on the WikiProject Catholicism talk page asking for comment on this issue. I know that Project very well, and they don't respond rapidly to questions. However, I also know that Thw1309, is a member of the WikiProject Catholicism, and he had also created an image of the Papal Emblem that is being used on Wikipedia. So I asked him to please comment since he has experience in this and the other members of the project do not.Malke2010 16:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you can. But bear in mind that Xander has already sent out a second round of invites, and so far hasn't got a single bite. Neither has your post on WT:CATHOLIC.
If you doubt Xander's resources, take a look at his Commons page, then look how many articles each image links to. Remember, I said hundreds of articles; it would take very little to reach the two hundred mark. Scolaire (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Scolaire, I did look at it now. Conclusion: I think this is a GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY for Benetton. I think if I go to Benetton with the idea, they will talk me into becoming their marketing director. Wikipedia: The land of commercial opportunity. History2007 (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
CT: Please clarify if sending out invitations now amounts to canvassing. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
You have your answer from WT:CATHOLIC. The issue is resolved.Malke2010 16:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Thw1309 is responding as a member of the WT:CATHOLIC. You've got your response. This issue is resolved.Malke2010 16:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering the date of the Pope’s reign, it is likely there are still copyrights over the images, paintings and artwork. Such copyright usually expires something like 120 years after first publication (not date of creation) or the life of the artist plus 70 years. It is likely that the copyright still exists for another 20 years or so on such images.

Oh, and if my version is not acceptable, then the other versions definitely are not because they are even less like any available original source. That means that every papal coat of arms must be deleted according to this argument. On every article. That is a rather extreme stance, to demand the deletion of images off some hundred or so articles simply because you want to keep my image off.

And History2007, stop 'giving your take' on other people's comments, please. The other editor’s do not need you to reinterpret what they write, they are very well capable of commenting and letting their comments stand alone without your 'help'. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 16:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect Mr Liptak, I can type what I like about my take on any situation, as long as I do not offend anyone. History2007 (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I do find it offensive when you refactor my comments by restating them in your favor then adding quotation marks to them as if that is what I'd said.Malke2010 17:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Another response from the Catholicism project: It seems to me that there is a very serious potential problem here. There does not seem to be a specific artistic representation of the coat of arms as described in the text. However, there is the description. My own choice, if such were possible, would be to either contact the Vatican for an image of the coat of arms as it was seen in contemporary art, if there is such an image, or to perhaps create some sort of standardized represetation of the external crossed-keys image which could be used in all such coats of arms. Obviously, getting some sort of image of the coats as it was pictured at his time would probably be the best. However, this may be a serious enough matter to make a comment at the appropriate guideline or policy pages for more informed and knowledgable input. John Carter (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)John Carter, Xanderliptak is using historical references for Leo XIII's CoA's.Malke2010 17:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
One of the most common mistake with heraldry is assuming there is only one and singular true rendition. There is not. Actually, what might be best is to use the SVG image in the info box, as SVG images scale down well and is so simply rendered that when shown smaller it will still be easily discernable, and then use the more detailed image as a larger example of the arms in the more ornate style common for the time period. This way it presents the papal emblem and symbols in both a contemporary-esque manner and, at the same time, shows readers alternative renditions. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 18:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
That's a good solution.Malke2010 19:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry John, what do you suggest as the next step? History2007 (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Some additional comments.

1. Even I know that about 120 years after the creation the copyright of the creator should have expired. There is another aspect you forget: To take a photograph of something creates a new additional copyright of the photographer. If this would not be the case, I would have copied one of the photos showing the contemporary coat of arms.
↳A copyright protects against photographing and redistributing a work of art, as well as someone from simply copying the work of art and redistributing it as his own. Almost all works of art are redistributed by photographing it in some shape or form, and if did not protect against this, then it would essentially be useless. The only time a copyright is created for a photograph that contains a copyrighted work of art is for three-dimensional works (which is done on a case-by-case basis, usually anything placed in a public location is free game while private collections generally are not) or when an image contains a copyrighted work but that work is not the focus of the image (say, a group of friends standing in front of a work of art that forms the backdrop). There is a threshold that includes labour, diligence and originality for copyright protection, and photographs and simply copying a work of art does not meet all of these thresholds. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
2. Wikipedia is an international project. So request a photo of a contemporary version of the coat of arms. A photo of an original historical work is better than any painting. In Rome there should be at least one Wikipedian.
3. Xanderliptak has the right to change every picture he wants to change. That's what we are telling every Newbie when we ask him to BE BOLD. He only takes a risk to have his creations, which represent much work, being deleted by a majority of other editors. We can not vote about what's true, but as a democratic project we can and will vote about what we want to happen. So in the end the majority (or an allmighty administrator) will decide the fate of these pictures. If someone does not want to take this risk, he first should discuss such changes in the related Wikiprojects. Then he will be backed up by a large group of editors and can be quite sure to see his work in the article.

Thw1309 (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree. Thanks, Thw1309.Malke2010 21:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Thw1309, Yes, in Rome there is at least one Wikipedian and 12 Google employees with cameras. They will probably have it all online before we finish this debate. However, given the random nature of consensus, depending on who happens to be presented on a page at a give time, and the long term implications of Benetton using its forces, I think you will see that the situation is not that simple. In any case, why don't we all suggest that Georgio Armani redesigns these logos, his staff will do a great job and it will be elegant. And they have enough home computers to open up Wikipedia accounts and secure the necessary votes for a consensus. They could even get their girlfriends to vote.... Wiki-times are a' changing... Wink. History2007 (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Coat of Arms of Leo XIII, St. Peter's Basilica. [22].96.41.74.205 (talk) 02:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
In 2000 the Vatican issued a set of se tenant stamps with popes and their coats of arms, and the closest to the stamp is the image Leone 13.jpg I would say. (SG stamp number 1259.) 92.20.115.16 (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Policy page[edit]

Thank you IP. Is that IP one of the editors who forgot to login? However, after thinking about this I think that link is no longer of any value to me. I must agree with John Carter that:

  • "However, this may be a serious enough matter to make a comment at the appropriate guideline or policy pages for more informed and knowledgable input".

I think this issue is larger than this single coat of arms or Mr Litpak's design. It is a policy issue for Wikipedia and must be addressed as such. At some point the mass addition of artistic works that replace existing items and can be traced back to an artist will be considered spam and advertising, and I would like to see Wikipedia policy address where that point begins. It can not be done with this type of talk between a few people guessing about this item and all waiting for a magic messenger from somewhere to give them a winning vote. Even in cases where the art can not be traced back to the artist, and there is no spam issue, it is not clear when "historical designs" may be replaced by new designs at will, just because 3 editors happen to prefer that. That would mean a total loss of history in the encyclopedia - a case of "encyclo-amnesia" for key historical elements. In any case, once I find out how to post on the policy page, I will ask for advice there, regardless. So let us just wait for John to say where he thinks the policy page is, unless someone here knows that. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no one "policy page". Issues with Xander's images have already been raised at the Conflict of interest noticeboard and Original research noticeboard. In neither case was there any response from an uninvolved person. The only tangible result was that Xander was able to claim, with some justification, that editors who didn't like his images were forum-shopping. I agree with what you say: this is a very important issue and needs to be centralised so that we don't get hung up on individual popes or medieval Irish kings. But you need to choose your forum very carefully (and not rely on John Carter to do so), have a realistic expectation that the question will be taken up there, and prepare the case thoroughly so that people will see immediately and clearly what the policy issues are, and not get the impression that it's a personal spat between two editors.
Wikipedia talk:No original research might be one place to raise it, but don't rush into it. Ask yourself: if (a) there is no discussion, (b) people just take the generic "drawing your own seems fine to me" line, or (c) it degenerates into another slanging match like here, what then? Scolaire (talk) 07:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Those are mostly "notice boards" that enforce policy. I will need to find where policy is set. And actually John knows things pretty well. IElse we contact the board of directors by regular US mail. History2007 (talk) 11:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
No. You two have brought this to notice boards, article talk pages, user talk pages and WikiProjects; this has been spread across a dozen pages because you have been Wikipedia:Forum shopping. You two have taken it to these dozen pages, and you two have brought it here (even posting invitations to the discussion elsewhere). It ends here.
There are editors who do nothing but illustrate Wikipedia. That is not spam, there is no advertising or promotion, nothing is being sold and there is no profit to donating time and illustrations to a free encyclopedia. Your suggestion that adding an image here will result in some sort of New World Order is ridiculous and seems a rather paranoid. No one responds to your notice board posts because illustrating and adding images to Wikipedia and because improving Wikipedia violates no policy. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 14:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Eh, no. We two did not bring it to COI or OR noticeboards; that was somebody else entirely. I took it to the Heraldry project essentially because you told me I was too chicken to do so. History2007 brought it to WT:CATHOLIC because it concerns the Catholic Church. We didn't post any more invitations than you did. Please try to get your facts straight. Scolaire (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I do not agree, but then that is not surprising. Is it? You probably forgot about the German Wikipedia user calling you a spammer. But let that be. History2007 (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
It sounds like it's time for Canterbury Tail to weigh in here. There is no policy to keep Xanderliptak from putting up his historically accurate, sourced, renderings. I think it's time for the admin to weigh in on this and perhaps make a comment about the demands being made here and how they keep changing. The forum shopping is transparent. An editor who has put up his own rendering on WikiProject Catholicism has given you his opinion. This isn't a question of original research. It isn't a question of this either. It's just this and that's not a reason to keep this discussion going.Malke2010 15:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Canterbury Tail is not going to weigh in again - see this on his talk page. He suggests - would you believe? - taking it elsewhere. Scolaire (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
This issue goes beyond Mr Liptak. That is why I started a new subsection here. I want to know what stops me from suggesting to a whole pile of designers to redo the coats of arms of all the popes and obliterate the history that exists within Wikipedia. I am tired of the single image issue: this is a wider discussion now and in time will percolate above. History2007 (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

History2007 is now arguing that no artist or designer should be allowed to contribute, that they should be banned. This is now beyond ridiculous, it is ludicrous.

Nothing stops a "whole pile of designers [from redoing] the coats of arms of all the popes", and there is no problem if they actually did that. Every image of the papal coats of arms up now was created by an artist or a designer, because coats of arms can only be created by an artist or designer. They are an idea, aconcept, that must be put to paper or fresco or stone. You can not simply find it in the wild and photograph it. There is no policy against artists and designers contributing because many things can only be expressed by an artist or designer, and because there is value and knowledge in art just as there is in word. In fact, there are Wikipedia projects that exist only to illustrate Wikipedia articles.

There is also historic precedence for famous artists and designers to emblazon a coat of arms in their own style. Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and Raffaello, for example, all were commissioned by multiple popes to do just that.

And if you are "tired of the single image issue", then you are in the wrong place. This discussion is only about images on the Pope Leo XIII article. If you want to discuss a larger scope, go somewhere else than the Pope Leo XII page, because this is not a policy page nor is it a notice board page. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, your charm and your civility. But obviously we do not agree. History2007 (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
You are welcome, I am glad you appreciate my humble comments to your page.
This also appears to be a case of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. History2007 responds to every comment personally as if additions to the conversation were in fact comments addressed to him (he has 24 replies just in this arbitration alone). His statement that this arbitration is over because he declared it over and has decided to move the discussion to yet another place is evident of his attempts at ownership. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
No: [23]. History2007 (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi. I'm not uninvolved, as I have a connection with Malke2010. Doesn't matter, though, because I'm not here to weigh in. :) I only want to suggest that, if people are looking for a proper forum for a larger debate, an RfC linked to Wikipedia talk:Images might be appropriate, as it seems to be very much a question of image choice and placement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this specific image, WP:STATUSQUO, as stated above decides it. As usual, an Rfc can, of course, always be invoked as the long road to hell, but only after everyone involved has absolutely decided that they wish they had never heard of Wikipedia. Yet, I had thought of that already, if no other policy can be crafted. History2007 (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
An RfC has been launched about this at Wikipedia talk:Images. I don't believe the RfC belongs there as written, however, as it is very much about this image and this article, not a broader issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. But now that Mr Liptak has accepted the application of WP:STATUSQUO the issue regarding this image should be resolved rather quickly. The broader issue does need to be addressed, and may indeed also be addressed with STATUSQUO, provided the Versace does not have 7 PR agents helping them form consensus. But that is another story. History2007 (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Status quo merely dropped your argument that the arms were some how false or fabricated, and dropped your argument that no heraldic illustrations would be introduced into the article. But since you appealed to status quo, the coats of arms are back in. The RfC and Image page will decide which and where now. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Current situation[edit]

  • For Liptak design: Mr Liptak, plus 100%, unfailing support from Malke.
  • In between: Thw1309 is 50-50 and does not mind either way, or perhaps 51/49 since he wants a note/disclaimer attached to Mr Liptak's design, but not the others.
  • Against Liptak design: History2007 and Scolaire on English Wikipedia. A user on German Wikipedia who called it SPAM.

Since the Liptak group has no consensus, by WP:STATUSQUO, I see no reason for adding that image. History2007 (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

What does German Wikipedia have to do with it? And I find your post highly offensive.Malke2010 20:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Images states, "if you have contributed or found an image that stands out from the crowd, you are invited to nominate it for inclusion on the Featured pictures list." Since History2007 believes my image stands out so much from the usual coats of arms used, perhaps he should nominate it for a featured image. :-D [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 23:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of German Wikipedia (which just showed a general feeling towards that addition), still there is no consensus for your image and by WP:STATUSQUO no reason for adding it. That is all. History2007 (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You will notice that the article, before your edits and mine, included an image of the Pope’s coat of arms. The status quo would return armorial illustrations to the article.
Also, you are not understanding the Wikipedia:Status Quo guideline. You are required to “revert a good faith edit only after discussing the matter…if you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it, if possible – reword rather than revert”. You did not do this. The image was sourced and ample information was provided to show that the image was heraldically accurate. There was nothing lacking in the edit you reverted then. It is also “particularly important to provide a valid and informative explanation when you perform a reversion”, though you have yet to cite any sources that state the disputed image is inaccurate in any way. Instead, you are relying on gut feelings that the Heraldry WikiProject is wrong as well as some four or five other editors who explained this all to you at length. Hardly a valid explanation for your actions when you have sources and facts contradicting you. This is also a consensus built on fact against your argument.
But I accept your status quo proposal, and now we can move on to discuss which of the three images should be reintroduced into the article to maintain the status quo prior to all edits in question. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 06:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Clearly StatusQuo was before your arrived. No question. Any attempt at reading otherwise would be Wikilawyering for sure History2007 (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Erratum[edit]

Since I'm actually on a wiki-break, I'm not here to stick my oar in or offer moral support, but it gets on my nerves somewhat when my name is brought up for something I never said. Now I'm not a position to tell whether Xander's in the habit of deliberately misrepresenting other people's opinions or just a bit confused at times, but for the record, I'm not among those who "have all stated the illustrations are heraldically accurate as I have insisted" (above) nor did I, as claimed here, agree "to an extent on the aesthetics at least". I merely insisted that you can't just pull an image off a self-published website (problem 1), silently add your own fluff (problem 2) and 'forget' about sourcing your work, saying 'Hey, I've created it' (problem 3). Hope it all works out in the end. Cavila (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the first, the Vatican is self-published, yes, but is that an issue? It is the official site of the sovereign nation and the Holy See, and I believe it is the most reliable source we could use.
Remember you were referring to my statements about quite another image. Cavila (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The other editors introduced the O'Neill argument here, and it was the first thing they brought in to argue with. That "this can not be used here because we stopped that form being used there". [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Concerning the second, the "fluff" is Baroque art, and can be seen in the contemporary images of the Pope's arms as provided in numerous links above. It was the style used in the Vatican and on the Pope's tomb.
See above. Again, may well be, but the image is not accompanied by any sources for that view nor by any sort of explanation which allows readers to understand what it is they're looking at. WP:Verifiability and all that. Cavila (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The image was sourced and meets all heraldic facts and traditions. Simply because not all readers can understand heraldry is no reason to exclude it. Many advanced mathematics, physics, chemistry and so forth would be deleted with this argument. The image was verified, it was sourced, and if you feel it need more clarification then you add to, not remove, the information. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Concerning the third, you are right, I reread your posting and you did not mention heraldic accuracy. You said, "Now, I understand you were merely trying to replace the old image with one which is more accurate, apart from the fluff, and arguably better looking, to boot, but at least try to be careful about the context in which you place the image, clarify if necessary, and produce some proper references (which shouldn’t be too difficult)." I mistook your "arguably better looking" statement as one of support. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 23:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I would have taken that as supportive, as well.Malke2010 23:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Opinion[edit]

Okay, I started the section above but haven't had the time previously to come back to it. To this point I still can see no reason why the images cannot be used. Coats of Arms, as has been pointed out, are not a fixed exact image that can never change, they are mutable as long as they keep within the rules of heraldry. I also cannot see any Wikipedia policy that would prevent these images from being used. All in all, throughout the arguments above, all I'm really seeing is I don't like it and no real reasoning to back it up. Yes the images could be less stylistic, but they're still within the rules of heraldry as far as I can tell (I'm no expert here.) Canterbury Tail talk 11:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree with that.Malke2010 12:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
If one cannot see why this image cannot be used, there is also NO reason why the previous image cannot be used. Can you see a reason why the previous image can not be used? Hence the Laptik group has no inherent advantage in placing their image. However, the deciding factor is that in the above, Mr Laptik expressly agreed that WP:STATUSQUO applies. Hence given that there is no consensus, WP:STAUSQUO states that the previous version should be maintained. Hence, by that argument the page must be maintained as it was prior to his arrival. Those are written Wikipedia processes. History2007 (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
No, no reason the previous ones can't be used, however saying something is adequate and therefore cannot be replaced by something else, is a faulty argument. Remember, Be Bold. Images get replaced by better quality, better visuals, better shots all the time. If some people think the image can be improved upon, is higher resolution, is more consistent with real world examples, or simply offers more to the reader, then there's no reason they can't be replaced with new versions. And remember Status Quo means good faith reverting. I don't like it reverting is not good faith. Canterbury Tail talk 12:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, however, if you read the current situation above, you see that Mr Laptik and Malke are on one side, myself and Scolair on the other with one editor who is either 50/50 or 49/51 in our favor. Hence there is no consensus in favor of his group, and WP:STATUSQUO was designed for that situation. To maintain the status quo. And my first revert of him was in total good faith. Hence that policy applies. Their group cannot claim any inherent advantage. If there had been many other editor comments that would have been anther story, but as is, the only other comment was on German Wikipedia, which also says that his image is lower quality - there is no support for it apart from Malke. History2007 (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Canterbury Tail is correct. This is just WP:IDL and nothing more. And the other editors, except for Scolaire, are not objecting to it. It's really just you. There's no reason the image can't be included in Leo XIII's page. It would be helpful if you would reevaluate your reasons for not wanting it and try to work towards a compromise.Malke2010 13:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I will wait for Scolaire to respond. But given that Mr laptik has already agreed to the application of WP:StatusQUO, I think that policy applies. I do not expect you to change sides half way through the discussion, but I would point out that if the German Wikipedia comment had been in favor of you, you would have been emphasizing it. And it is not that I just do not like it, I gave detailed reasons above, please read above. And of course, WP:IDL is also a "two way street" in that your objection to the previous image would be subject to it. Hence we do have a mirror-image situation, which however, gives your group a disadvantage in that Mr Liptak's would require a disclaimer based on the other comment here. So that image has no support except you. History2007 (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know anything about the German Wikipedia. Therefore, no, I would not be applying it. In my opinion, what other Wikipedia's do or do not do, has nothing to do with this discussion. Scolaire is a good editor, and I am interested in what he has to say. Some kind of compromise will have to be taken.Malke2010 15:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
History2007, I accepted your status quo on the items it required you to accept that coats of arms images needed to be reintroduced and that all three versions available were heraldically correct. There was only a very small armorial image in an infobox, I added another in the article with a caption that specifically detailed what the reader was seeing. I replaced nothing, I removed nothing, instead I added to the information and clarified details. So it was a good faith edit.
Everyone has already weighed in, including Scolaire. Canterbury Tail has seen your argument and Scolaire's, and still has handed down his opinion that the image can be included again. I remind you that this was the admin you went to for help on this issue. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 16:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, the STATUSQUO issues is not as you describe - but not surprising that we do not agree. And I see no final agreement yet, except that STATUSQUO applies. And I think the point to go back to is the point that I first reverted your addition. History2007 (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Wow, did you not jump the gun here? Your last addition of your disputed image is formally objected to. If you can add that image, there is NO reason for me not to be able to add another image. But I will wait for further input. History2007 (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note the above is my opinion, and while I'm an administrator it does not represent a dictate or an administarial decision that the images must be inserted. This is my opinion, and not a formal arbitration outcome. Strictly speaking this isn't an issue that should need admin interaction, it's a very basic simple content dispute. Canterbury Tail talk 19:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. Now can I ask you some questions? Did you read History2007's post explaining why he/she believes the images are inappropriate? Did you read my post showing how the edits are against consensus? Did you read any of the posts that say that conformity with the rules of heraldry is not at issue here? Have you any response to make to those detailed arguments, or can you justify summing the whole lot up with the one word IDONTLIKEIT? And why do you continually emphasise be bold and ignore bold, revert, discuss? Seeing as you started this discussion, and you've given us your executive summary, I think we deserve some explanation. Scolaire (talk) 07:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes I read them. To respond to each one. History2007's is an incredibly bad argument, the crux of which is basically, well if we let him do this, then he may do it elsewhere and then it'll be the world standard for coat of arms. That's not an argument, that's an I don't like it trying to come up with a reason. At least it's how it reads.
Your one pulling together a load of comments from other users. It's still a lot of I don't like it, or some seeing an edit war and trying to stop it with no regard for the content. There are some arguments about sources, but I think they've been provided satisfactorily since. There are some comments related to the way they are being replaced, which are valid concerns but not really arguments against doing it. Consensus doesn't seem entirely to be a proper consensus here, there is a bit of voting going on (which isn't really valid on Wikipedia) and not a lot of strength of arguments.
XANDERLIPTAK's arguments on the other hand are more compelling. He shows where in the real world papal CoA have been shown of similar styles. He shows how heraldry is pliable in artistic expression, something we all seem to acknowledge anyway. Strength of argument wise, he is proving his point much more than the against. All the against's seem to have is numbers and weak policy pointing of consensus, which isn tenuous at best and doesn't seem to be the consensus that you think it is.
However at the end of the day this is the opinion of an uninvolved outside editor. This is not a formal arbitration decision, this is not an edict or anything like that, it is another editors opinion. Canterbury Tail talk 11:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
However, there is yet no single compelling reason as to why Liptak's design should be preferred over any other, more common design that matches those used on the Vatican website. And again, in my view WP:STATUSQUO clearly applies. But we have been down that road now. History2007 (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Nope. No reason they cannot be used. Also no reason they should be used. All down to preference and the vagaries of the BRD cycle. Consensus is weak, but consensus can also change. Canterbury Tail talk 12:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
And this is your opinion as an uninvolved editor? Sorry to bang on like this but I do think that clarity is important. Scolaire (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Scolaire, I think CT has expressed his opinion. What seems to me now is that either we have no image, or we have all images-- or we continue the standoff. One way would be to have a gallery of coat of arms at the end where all 3 are shown, another would be to have no coat of arms. I think having them all at the end, as a gallery, may end this discussion. History2007 (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
A gallery seems a bit much, especially since they all depict the same arms. The JPG should be cut out because JPGs do not display well and because the SVG is almost identical, the SVG should be used for the infobox because it is so simple and will display well in the small area provided and still be discernable and then the PNG should be used for the larger picture because there is more detail that will show well. You still have multiple versions shown, which will allow readers to see by example that coats of arms are malleable to some degree, but not in a way that takes up undue space. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 18:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Translation: Yours will get the most prominence under that argument. History2007 (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
The SVG would actually be in the lede, which means it would have prominence. The PNG would be the same size as the many numerous other images on the page, and it would be the 11th down. That is hardly a "prominent" post. I suppose you won't be satisfied with any compromise offered, though. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 12:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Again, two letters: N and O. I would have accepted two compromises: a gallery, where all get equal weight, or your image as smaller size and the one that looks like the Vatican website, and needs no qualifier, as larger. So of the 3 possibilities, I can accept two. History2007 (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The PNG is the image that most resembles the source from the Vatican. Where is this image that "looks like the Vatican website" (sic)? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 23:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I guess we must have different optometrists. Anyway either of the other two are similar to the Vatican website. History2007 (talk) 05:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Take a better look at the source from the Vatican. See the source has the keys and tiara placed over the shield? The shield is in Baroque style? The whole thing is done with much detail and ornately? This is mirrored in the PNG image, as other editors have also tried at length to explain to you. An English styled heater shield with the keys behind the shield is not like the source at all. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 18:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Opinion: break[edit]

Yes, that was the link I found. But I meant these as general comparison:

These are the general depictions and the last 2 popes are on the Vatican website. History2007 (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

These are not the general depictions of the last two Popes. There are multiple depictions there. And Benedict's arms are more Germanic in style (he is from Germany), while the arms of John Paul were done in a more continental style popular in Poland and France (he was from Poland). Note that the Italian Popes of the last century all used Italian styles popular to their time period. So, a Pope who used a Baroque style would best be suited with a baroque style coat of arms. Per your own argument. But, when you proposed this you likely could not tell the difference between Germanic, Polish and English, let alone Italian and Baroque, styled arms. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I will provide my response here, to optimize the response. Please read through it. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Please don't do that. Response is optimized by putting new posts at the bottom of the page. Unless what you meant to say is "read what I said before, I'm not going to repeat myself", in which case it would be better just to say that. Scolaire (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

An image of Pope Leo's XIII coat of arms is to be added to the article. However, there are three images to choose from, so if editors would please discuss which image below they would prefer.

C o a Leone XIII.svg 100px Leone 13.jpg

There is room for a large image with a caption in the article and a smaller image in an infobox. If you would like to suggest one of the images to be captioned in the article and a different image for the infobox, that is also an option.

The sources provided here and here, as well as a discussion at the Heraldry WikiProject and several heraldic books have shown all three images to be heraldically accurate. So now it is merely a matter of taste and opinion.

[tk] XANDERLIPTAK 21:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a response at the RfC on Talk:Images. It suggests "using the SVG only" (bold in original). Please note also the comments on the way the RfC was framed. I think you ought to take Moonriddengirl's advice and close that RfC to allow a more neutral one to be opened. Scolaire (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
There is also an ongoing RfC at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, Do images need to be verifiable? I have brought up the question of drawings in general, and this one in particular, I hope in a fairly neutral way. Contributors to this discussion should feel free to comment, but I would ask that you not personalise it, or turn the RfC into a battleground. Scolaire (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The editor also stated the SVG "works better at thumbnail size than any of the alternatives" before suggesting using it. However, we are not limited to only one image in the article. So, the SVG can be used in the infobox where it would appear as a small thumbnail and still be easily read as the editor suggested. We can then use the PNG image, which that editor found "beautiful", in the article larger so that is can be easily read and the detail seen. Especially since we can not find a contemporary and detailed painting, as the editor suggested using, which has its copyright information readily available to us. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 10:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Translation: You want your image to have the most real estate. History2007 (talk) 11:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I am speaking English on the English Wikipedia, I do not need "translation". Also, this is a discussion about an image, not me. Please direct your comments to the issue at hand, because arguments of "I don’t want this image in because I don't like him" do not work well. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Translation: This discussion is cyclic now. Time to stop. History2007 (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Restart of revert cycle[edit]

Recent changes by Mr Litpak were without consensus and need to be reverted. Arguments he used have been used before, and were not accepted at large. Nothing has changed since then. History2007 (talk) 05:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There was an SVG image of the Pope's coat of arms that that has been in the article for quite some time, and I added a larger PNG image as well. It was established and there is consensus that both images are accurate, and therefore the two images were added in good faith. You removed images out of personal bias without assuming good faith edits, but you were given time to build consensus for your actions, yet you failed to do so. Status quo of the article included images of the Pope's coat of arms, so the article was returned to that state. Also, other articles on popes include images of coats of arms, showing a strong and extensive precedence for including such imagery. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
You have been repeating this very same statement for a while now. But there was no consensus in your favor before, and there is not now. Your reverts were unilateral. History2007 (talk) 08:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Only because it is the answer to each and every issue you try to bring up. An editor added an image. I added an image. Consensus is that these images are accurate, and between taking good-faith and the precedence of other articles, these images should appear on the page. You removed the additions made to the article without taking good-faith. Your actions were destructive, while my actions and the actions of the other editor were constructive and added to the article. You were told by numerous editors and an admin that you were arguing without merit, and even your initial supporters had to succumb to the fact the images were legitimate. The article was returned to its state before you started deleting and removing information without consensus. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 09:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I will wait for others to comment. History2007 (talk) 09:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You have had two months. Every issue you have brought forth has been shot down or ignored. You posted to the conflict of interests notice board. Nothing. The original research notice board. Nothing. You brought up technicalities to the Heraldry WikiProject and it was explained to you that you were mistaken. The only argument you have is that you do not like how the Pope's coat of arms looks, which is not reason enough to revert two good-faith edits by two different editors, and which is not a good enough reason to delete any and all heraldic images from an article, especially when every other papal article shows the respective pope's coat of arms on his page.[tk] XANDERLIPTAK 10:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, many of your points are simply not true, and stating them repeatedly or in bold letters does not change the facts. And the aggressive tone you used on my talk page in unnecessary and non-productive. I suggest you read WP:CALM several times before you continue this discussion. History2007 (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Alright, at your request I will ask my 'highly aggressive and harassing question' here: What issue do you have with me or my illustrations that cause you to be so constantly hostile to me? And that prevents you from holding an actual discussion with me without dismissing me or ignoring me completely? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 03:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I will wait for other users to respond. History2007 (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
This case seems to be closed. The coat of arms has appeared in this article for over four years and other papal articles include coats of arms as well, so without any further dissent the status quo would be to include the heraldic images once again. History2007 believes that once discussion has ceased for three days [24], the matter is closed. This certainly meets his own criteria for closing this issue. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 13:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No it is not. As usual we do not agree. The only issue is that you have pressed the revert button more often than anyone else on this page (count them), and that is not of any value. History2007 (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

After an editor was absent from discussion for three days, History2007 said, "the IP is not coming back, so can we conclude this please?" Three days without comment was long enough for History2007 to claim a discussion was ended, this one has remained without comment for months. I cite History2007's own words and declare this issue closed. And if History2007 would stop vandalizing and ignoring consensus, I would not have to revert him so often. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 01:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually not only do we differ on logic, we also differ on arithmetic. You have been reverted by other editors more often than anyone else on this page. It is a question of "counting the reverts". Would you like to count the number of times you have been reverted on this page and provide a summary? History2007 (talk) 06:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
How about you go for it, History2007. The only times I have been reverted where when History2007 refused to give in to consensus and wished to drag this argument to but another notice board or WikiProject. where History2007's argument was either deemed insufficient or simply ignored, and the other editors thought that it prudent to wait out the endless procedures and technicalities History2007 employs. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 11:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Again we differ both on logic and arithmetic. On the page Leo XIII:

  • History2007 has been reverted by the following users: {Xanderliptak}.
  • Xanderliptak has been reverted by the following users: {History2007, Scolaire, Snowded, Monnriddengirl}.

Is that clear? History2007 (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not. You said you'd provide a summary, you didn't. I was reverted because each time you would bring up another issue. Conflict of interest, original research, isn't modern enough, isn't old enough and so on; all of these arguments have failed or been ignored. Thus, the current edit hasn't been reverted by anyone else because you ran out of technicalities to stall with. And number of reverts has no weight on an argument anyways. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 05:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Belated third party[edit]

I've only skimmed some of the above discussion, but one of the basic principles of traditional European heraldry is that the textual blazon is the definitive reference for the coat of arms, and that many alternative artistic renderings can all be acceptable as implementations of the textual blazon. Of course, some renderings may have special artistic merit or historical interest, and some may be unsuitable for Wikipedia use because they are still in copyright (but if someone creates a new artistic rendering of the textual blazon, then that person owns the copyright on that particular artistic rendering, and can license it for use on Wikipedia). AnonMoos (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed[edit]

Tags do not become obsolete after a certain time; an editor has requested verifiability of a fact in this article and so a citation to a reliable source should be provided before the tag is removed. I agree that a source can be found for this fact, and I don't think it is worth removing the statement from the article. Certainly an event such as blessing the first camera would be newsworthy and available in news articles somewhere. I Googled to see if I could find a source; the first hit was victorian-cinema.net; it is possible this is paraphrased from Wikipedia, because there is a link back to this article. Other sources did not meet WP:RS criteria. I think with some care we can find a source. Please do not remove maintenance tags without fixing the problem. Elizium23 (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You are right, tags have no expiration date, unlike milk bottles. He should not have removed the tag. Anyway, I added a couple of refs and a link to the actual photo of the wave. [25]. It is a WP:RS source.History2007 (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Disputable edits upsetting article structure[edit]

I found this article's Table of Contents in a poor condition, and wanted to fix the problem. However, it appears the section heading levels were flattened out on December 31 as part of a series of individual edits which I may or may not agree with, such as changing between British and American orthography, placement of interpunctuation with respect to quotation marks, and which kind of dash to use in a citation. I was tempted to revert them all regardless for lack of edit summaries, but decided to post this note about it instead, to save everyone's time and let someone with more experience than me do the right thing. As a non-native speaker of English, I prefer to remain neutral in the British/American disputes, and I don't know WP policy on quotation marks (if there is one). But the structure of the article, and therefore its Table of Contents, is in a mess. --SM5POR (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I've undone everything except for one grammar fix. The headings definitely need to be multi-level, and switching from British to American spelling goes against WP:ENGVAR, and most or all of the punctuation changes were contrary to MOS:LQ. I don't know about dashes in citations, but there's nothing to stop the IP, or anyone else, restoring that part of the edit, preferably with an explanatory edit summary. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)