Talk:Pope Pius II

Neutrality

There are serious issues regarding the neutrality of this article. The style in which it is written resembles praise, as shown by the nummerous unnecessary adjectives describing how superb and eloquent his actions are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.178.250 (talk) 03:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, same prise and 'unnecessary' adjectives are used for many other enlightened rulers. Ie. Joseph II, Maria Teresa, Frederick II, Catherine II... Every historically well perceived ruler on wikipedia and in history books is full of them, and by that merit you should put neutrality tag on all of them. Pius II is just an example of universally loved historical person. I've jet to read a report that didn't show him in a good light. Who knows if that was the case in real life, but since we can only base this article on his documented actions and personality, this is the only thing that an encyclopedic article should have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.176.212.84 (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• This article is hopelessly biased in favour of Pius. There is little mention of the PORNOGRAPHY he wrote and mention of only two children, when Gregorovius claimed Pius II fathered 12. There are many peacock terms and the article needs to be severely cut. Malick78 (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

for more on Enea Silvio Piccolomini, Pope Pius II and for some of his writings (letters and commentarii (his memoires) go to http://home.planet.nl/~golds067/navigat.htm

Section on Pius II's Reputation

There are no references to support this section and it is not written in a neutral tone.

The section on his personality, called "Reputation" on the wiki page, is labeled as sounding like an obituary. Should it be shortened down to about a paragraph noting how he went from being a worldly chap who wrote erotic novels to being a pretty devout guy sincerely trying to kick the infidels out of Constantinople? This would be my suggestion. As it reads now, it is certainly more laudatory than informative.

Yes. Also, that's his reputation says who?. Without referencing the sources, what was written can not be taken seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.18.106.105 (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Movie on Pius II Election conclave

There is a fairly good movie, which details (don't know how accurately) Pius II Election Conclave. Its called The Conclave [[1]].

Anyone know how to get the actual Pope's account of his election?

Amendezg (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pope Pius II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141026214929/http://cuapress.cua.edu/res/images/books/frontmatter/PIRA.pdf to http://cuapress.cua.edu/res/images/books/frontmatter/PIRA.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

gay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.39.81.146 (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Burial of Pius II

The following statement is made in the article: " He died two days later, on 14 August 1464, and was succeeded by Pope Paul II. Pius II's body was interred in the church of Sant'Andrea della Valle in Rome, while an empty cenotaph was built in St. Peter's Basilica. Later, the cenotaph was moved to Sant'Andrea as well." It is unreferenced.

It is also wildly wrong. Sant'Andrea della Valle was not begun until 1591. The body of Pius II, who died in 1464, could not have been buried in that church for more than 140 years. In fact it was buried at the Vatican, in Old St. Peter's Basilica, in the Chapel of S. Andrew. When his nephew, Pius III, died, his body was buried, at his own order in his Will, next to the body of Pius II in the Chapel of S. Andrew in S. Peter's. Demolition of Old St. Peter's began, on orders of Julius II, in 1506, and the tombs were moved to the crypt (grottoes) of S. Peter's. In 1612, when S. Andrea della Valle was completed, the bodies of the two popes, and part of their funeral monuments, were moved there, and re-entombed on 1 February 1613.

• His earliest biographer, Bartolomeo Platina, wrote that he was buried in St. Peter's Basilica, at the altar of S. Andrea, under the supervision of Cardinal Francesco Piccolomini, his nephew. Bartolomeo Platina; Onuphrio Panvinio (1568). Historia B. Platinae de vitis pontificum Romanorum, a D.N. Jesu Christo usque ad Paulum II. venetum ... (in Latin). Cologne: Maternus Cholinus. p. 327.
• The inscription on the new monument, which gives the essential details and dates, can be found in: Vincenzo Forcella, Inscrizioni delle chiese e d'altri edificii di Roma, Vol. VIII (Roma: Ludovico Cecchini 1876), p. 262, no. 660.
• C. Pericoli Ridolfini, Sant'Andrea della Valle (Rome 1988), pp. 16-17.
• Carol Richardson (1998). "The Lost Will and Testament of Cardinal Francesco Todeschini Piccolomini (1439-1503)," Papers of the British School at Rome, Vol. 66 (1998), pp. 193-214, at p. 201, note 43.

--Vicedomino (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

To add to article

Why is Historia rerum ubique gestarum not mentioned in this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

redundant passage, suboptimal source

Citing Michael de la Bédoyère to make the concluding statement is more than a litte off. The book quoted is The Meddlesome Friar and the Wayward Pope, not really a RS when you think about how much else is out there. The content 1. "had led the dissipated life of a gentleman" and 2. "difficulty of practicing continency, a difficulty he did not surmount" is explained in detail above, no need for it a second time. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Totally agree. The author is a journalist, not a historian. The quotes are his personal opinions, not general belief. What the article needs is more facts, and narration; not more opinion. Vicedomino (talk) 03:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

thanks for your help with this article; it still has a long way to go. I will wait for someone else to chime in and then delete the passage in question. --Melchior2006 (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the passage and reformulated some other clunky passages. --Melchior2006 (talk) 04:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)