Talk:Zucchetto

Christianity: Catholicism / Oriental O. / Syriac / Anglicanism Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Catholic Church portal This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is within the scope of the Syriac Christianity work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Low-importance).

Fashion Low‑importance

	Fashion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Jewish Headwear

What is the name of the equivalent worn by Jews, and shouldn't this article link to that? DirkvdM 08:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish men wear a kippah, also called a yarmulke, and this has nothing to do with the Christian ecclesiastical zucchetto. Jewish men cover their heads as a matter of humility and respect before God, and the 'skullcap" is merely a matter of convenience for indoors and hot weather -- a top hat or fedora is just as acceptable. The zucchetto has become a sign of ecclesiastical rank and office and developed to cover the tonsured head of the clergy in cold weather. It makes as much sense to link this to yarmulke as it would to link yarmulke to baseball cap.HarvardOxon 21:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a rather excellent discussion of the zucchetto, camauro, kippah/yarmulke and other skullcaps in the PSD that is linked at the end of the article - http://www.hatsuk.com/skullcaps.pdf -- ALoan (Talk) 13:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the article you refer to is full of speculations and errors. I am removing the link. Israeld 17:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the Kippah does mention that the zucchetto is somewhat linked; so here we have two articles that do not agree with each other. 81.208.165.173 03:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sad to see the citation go; I don't see the "speculations" or "errors" in that article, Israeld. You made no mention of what those speculations and errors are, and it looks solid enough to me - aside from which fact, Dieter Philippi of the cited The Philippi Collection recommends the book that grew out of this article[[1]]. Djathinkimacowboy 14:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External link replaced. If someone has a beef with it, the reasons ought to be outlined clearly when the edit to remove it is done. Otherwise it just looks like POV or OR to delete it. I have noted that in my edit summary. Djathinkimacowboy 15:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Catholic bishop once told me that one advantage of his zucchetto was that he always had something appropriate to wear to a synagogue. JHobson3 (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to [[2]] the Zucchetto predates the Jewish Kippah/Yarmulke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.116.165 (talk) 08:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Norbertines

"A white zucchetto is worn by Premonstratensian prelates" -- surely all Premoonstratensians, not just (or not at all) prelates (who would probably wear the relevant episcopal or other colour)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.1.229 (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misc.

While technically true, the proposition "popes since John Paul II have kept up this tradition" looks more meaningful than it is, since there has only been one pope since JP2. The statement makes it (that two consecutive popes have traded zuchetti with visitors) seem more significant than is. One could diminish the significance (and have the statement be equally true) by saying, "Only two popes have done this," or "Only recently etc." Someone will ask why I didn't change the sentence myself. One reason is that I am lazy; it is easier to write why the sentence is problematic than to change it and the surrounding paragraph. Another reason is "Give a man a fish, etc." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.88.246.84 (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, you are wrong as anyone who reads papal biographies will know. The first pope of whom we are aware of doing this is Pius XII. In keeping with that tradition and Pius' spirit, the faithful who are brave enough have carried on the tradition - it isn't really in the pope's hands and no pope has ever refused a trade. Your reasoning is not sound. Djathinkimacowboy 15:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zucchetto of the bishop...

is called "violet" or "Church violet", according to the "Code of Canon Law" among other sources. It is technically a shade of amaranth, but that nomenclature is not used for the zucchetto. This article says it is "purple". While that is technically correct as the original Latin is "purpura", it is erroneous in the modern sense. Djathinkimacowboy 02:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Today's edits...

...are clearly unsourced in themselves. There is in the cited references all the data required. The zucchetto used to be lined with leather for warmth and reinforcement. Now the entire article has been jeopardised by the editor who reverted the work. So have fun, and abandon hope ye who enter here. Djathinkimacowboy 18:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because I care about this article greatly, I have added what citations I can. For the moment, I can do no more. Come and help make improvements, I invite all. Djathinkimacowboy 10:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing how every little edit is going to be deleted otherwise, thus carrying this to the brink of edit warring, I hope my three citations for one sentence will be quite sufficient. As to the rest, citations confirmed and added. I've done enough with this article, and I hope editors lesser acquainted with the subject will be careful with this article henceforth. Djathinkimacowboy 23:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup, some edits, and questions about sources

I have made some edits to the article along the following lines. First, I have standardized the citations and moved them into a more aesthetically pleasing and convenient format. Next, I have made some edits to the first paragraph to make clear all the different language versions of the name of this headpiece. (There is a reason there is an inter-language thing on the sidebar; this isn't Wiktionary. So only a few variations are necessary.) Then, I have moved some of the paragraphs here into sections so the flow of the article can be better identified. Lastly, I have some issues with the sources that have been provided. First, I have searched the Code of Canon Law for the term submitrale. Nothing comes up. What canon mentions the submitrale? (It was given as a source for that fact. I have removed it because I do not believe that the Code of Canon Law ever even mentions the mitre.) Second, I have removed the statement: so as to avoid appearances of Roman Catholic 'popery' because it does not have an encyclopedic tone (in fact, it seems incendiary). As for the sources that are supposed to justify this statement, Philippi never says explicitly that color is a distinguishing factor between the Anglican skullcap and the Catholic zucchetto. The book by Wray mentions absolutely nothing whatsoever about the skullcap, so I have no idea why it was included to cite that statement. And I don't know what McCloud says because I don't have the book and even if I did, there are no page numbers provided for many of the citations that come from any of the book sources. (This is another problem.) So that is what I have done and why I have done it. — AJDS ^talk 07:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your work is appreciated. I'm sure the article will benefit. Now, as to the mitre, it is stated as law that the zucchetto be worn beneath it at all times, but I did not have the exact placement for that... I doubt anyone can find it easily. (You certainly will not see "submitrale" listed in Canon Law, and do not know why you'd look for the term there.) As to the "popery" remark, that was the Anglican reverend's phrase, not anyone else's, hence it was in quotation marks. I regret not having cited that correctly if that was indeed the case. As to McCloud's book, I am privileged to own it, it costs $1,000 on the market right now and I can't help it if no one else has it. As to page numbers, that is not a requirement for citations, only a suggestion. Djathinkimacowboy 21:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The zucchetto is a descendant of the beret. It is most commonly made of silk or polyester fabric, always sewn together in eight triangular panels. Jutting from the centre of the zucchetto at the top is the "stem", known as stirpis or stirpes. It is made of a twisted loop of silk cord and is meant to make the handling of the zucchetto easier. The stirpes is the main distinction between the zucchetto and the Jewish kippah. Originally, the zucchetto was lined with thin leather (chamois) as an insulator; this was also meant to help keep the shape of the zucchetto.^[1]

Diff here[3].

Move and restructuring appreciated. Djathinkimacowboy 22:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:: Whilst I am not restoring this, which you removed, at least not now, I do not think you had any just cause to remove it. Also, Kilgour makes clear, as do other sources I didn't bother to add, the zucchetto is a descendant of the béret and I do not think you should remove that just because you can't seem to find it. I have no real issue with the remainder of fine improvements you made here. Much of it was not my writing. Djathinkimacowboy 21:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am rescinding any remarks I made above that are obsolete or improper. I may have been reading another version and not the actual article! Djathinkimacowboy 21:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that items in question were merely moved and restructured. Overall an excellent job, Alekjds. Djathinkimacowboy 22:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Glad to collaborate in improving this article. You did some very nice work improving it before I made the few aesthetic and functional changes that I did. Cheers. — AJDS ^talk 00:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ McCloud, Henry (1948). Clerical Dress and Insignia of the Roman Catholic Church. The Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee. Pps. 79-81

so what about later popes?

I am seeing the remark "has outfitted seven popes beginning with Pius IX in 1846". OK, those would be Pius IX (elected 1846), Leo XIII (1878), Pius X (1903), Benedict XV (1914), Pius XI (1922), Pius XII (1939), John XXIII (1958). Why the reference to "seven popes"? What about the later popes? (starting with Paul VI, elected 1963)

There was an embarrassing moment involving John XXIII's robes just he was elected in 1958, but that did not involve the zucchetto. An aide apparently gave him medium-size robes by mistake, although the tailor later said the large size had been made according to the measurements of Angelo Roncalli (new Pope John XXIII). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.52.3 (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zucchetto. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20060110151229/http://www.hatsuk.com:80/skullcaps.pdf to http://www.hatsuk.com/skullcaps.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 18:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

@Jzsj: might be up for assessing this article. Elizium23 (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Bishop Edik Baroni at Cathedral St. Anthony.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] McCloud, Henry (1948). Clerical Dress and Insignia of the Roman Catholic Church. The Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee. Pps. 79-81

[1]