Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sexually active popes (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I find a rough consensus to keep (as well as improve the content of) this list article, with the discussion touching on WP:LISTN, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. There are clearly some suggestions of renaming the article as well, but there's no resolution on that question here. j⚛e deckertalk 01:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of sexually active popes

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of sexually active popes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TRIVIA and WP:OR. Note also that many of the sources used to construct the list are dubious by their very nature. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is laugh out loud funny. Maybe merge with main pope articles where applicable? PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably delete I've not checked every pope, but looking at nine of them, in every case the allegation is repeated in the main article on the pope. I agree with PortlandOregon97217 that it's amusing, but also that it's probably not encyclopedic. One argument for keep is that it relates to Criticism of the Catholic Church#Criticism of Catholic actions in history where you could claim that Catholicism is flawed because many of its popes were hypocrites. There are other articles like Clerical celibacy where some of the info might be merged, but the fact that much of it is dubious rumor makes it problematic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Catholic Church is very involved in matters of sex, so the hypocrisy of some of its supreme leaders is a legitimate (or is that illegitimate) issue. Pope Alexander VI is a particularly notorious example, being the father of Cesare and Lucretia Borgia. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question/comment. I kind of can't help but ask: isn't the idea of sexually active popes generally considered a notable one? I know that there are Popes that are rumored to have been sexually active, with some historical documents having been found that comment on whether the acts did or did not occur. What I guess I'm saying is that what we should be considering here isn't whether or not the claims are in fact true, but rather whether or not the allegations of sexually active Popes would be something that is documented and talked about in reliable sources. I'm going to say that barring a complete lack of sources, I'm leaning towards keeping this because the idea of it is something that has been covered in at least one History Channel show, if I'm not mistaken. I would recommend that if kept, the article be renamed to List of allegedly sexually active popes and some of the text in the article be rephrased to be less "this totally happened" and more "this was alleged to have happened by claimant so and so". I do think that this has merit as a list, especially considering that the concept of sex in the Church and of the Papacy specifically is something that's covered in various sources. However, I will try to find more sources before giving an official "keep" vote. I just want to specify that we're not really here to vote on whether or not these really happened or should be included in the articles, unless of course one of the claims is added with a "source" consisting of Bob Smith thinking that Pope John Paul II looked at a woman too long and that meant she was secretly his hidden mistress.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not trivia, and not OR or SYNTH either, given the existence of extensive writings on the subject. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A lot of things from early days have dubious sources - we'll have to lose a lot of saints, gods and mythical heroes if we insist on the same level of referencing as a BLP requires. I agree with Tokyogirl that 'alleged' should be in the title for the article, but would suggest that this title should be kept as a redirect. None of the subjects are likely to sue us, and nor are any of their descendants.... To my mind, this is a valid topic, and looks well done. Peridon (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Replacing my post accidentally deleted by the poster below. Peridon (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as horribly POV anti-celibacy tract. It throws together early popes from before the time when celibacy was established as a norm, wild youths who settled down, and three groups of allegedly sexually active clerics. And I stress "allegedly", because the reportage used as source material is often questioned by our sources: for instance, all four entries in the last group use the word "allegedly". I think we could possibly get away with List of popes accused of sexual peccadilloes or something like that, but throwing all of these five groups together is painfully biased, especially since only the last two groups stand accused of sexual activity while they held the office. Mangoe (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that those popes (particularly early church figures) who were previously married or sexually active when there was no requirement for celibacy, do not deserve to be in the same category as those who clearly violated celibacy rules, or who allegedly used prostitutes (Pope John XII), or were accused of incest (again Pope John XII). So Popes accused of adultery/fornication or Popes accused of violating their oaths of celibacy would be better articles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article discusses context, though. This is precisely why a list is more prudent in this case than a category. --BDD (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree that there is any inherent POV here, or that this is an "anti-celibacy tract". The list presents objective information from which readers can draw their own conclusions. On the one hand, the fact that there were early-era non-celibate popes who reigned honorably might be fuel for an argument that celibacy is unnecessary. On the other hand, given that the last pope mentioned here ruled in the 1500s, one might reasonably reach the conclusion that celibacy has worked as it was intended, at least for Popes, for more than 400 years. Neither of these conclusions (nor any other) is promoted or mandated by the list. In my opinion, a list limited to popes accused of one sort of sexual indiscretion or another is more likely to have POV controversies than does this one.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that the context of the activity discussed is well outside that of the modern, celibate papacy. It's like have a List of actors who have killed people: OK, John Wilkes Booth would surely be on the list, but so would Clark Gable and any number of actors who were soldiers or sailors or airmen. Only nine of those listed were actually alleged to have been sexually active as pope when they were supposed to be celibate. Mangoe (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The title doesn't mention whether they were supposed to be celibate or not. Personally, it doesn't worry me whether they did or didn't and I wonder if you aren't perhaps showing a bit of PoV. The list looks remarkable neutral to me, and actually shows far less naughtiness than I had expected. Peridon (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean WP:NOONECARES? You linked to a small essay on (ironically) civility. --BDD (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if this is WP:OR, it's the best-cited OR in the encyclopedia. There is no serious doubt that many ostensibly wellbehaved popes in fact had mistresses and children, and the fact is significant both humanly and politically (I won't comment on any religious overtones). While of course there is some doubt in very ancient sources, gee, that's true of all historical documents. This is a well-constructed and intelligent article. Anyone reading it hoping for trivia and titivation will be seriously disappointed. A valuable part of Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the subject is widely covered in RS - whole books have been devoted to popes' sex lives, and the subject is highly notable both historically and regarding current Church affairs. Malick78 (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename as suggested above to something like Popes accused of sexual misconduct. It's a great article and not really a list. Given the Catholic Church's obsessive interest in the sexual conduct of others it is only right that its own history be subject to this sort of analysis. In fairness the article should document when celibacy became a requirement (in case that excuses some of the article's subjects). For a policy-based argument, well it's not trivia, and its subjects are inherently notable, and it is all very well sourced. Mcewan (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My problem with renaming with the term "sexual misconduct" in the title is that it insinuates that all of the contact was "bad". Not all of the sexual activity of the Popes could be termed as misconduct. Some of them were sexually active within the bounds of marriage, some of them were married while under Holy Orders, but some of those marriages were before celibacy was an absolute requirement. I do think that a list discussing the sexual history of the Popes would be good, but I think that labeling it "sexual misconduct" would be inappropriate when not all of this was actually misconduct. Especially since some of the acts were only alleged and not actually proven. That's why it's better to use a more neutral title and put alleged in the title. I found this in the past AfD and I think it's probably the best title so far: List of popes alleged to have been sexually active. It's neutral and leaves in the potential that some of the sexual activity listed in the article did not actually occur.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not report allegations (see WP:NOT a rumor mill) and "alleged" is known here as a "word to avoid" (see WP:ALLEGE). I do not object to the existence of this article, but I object to the retention of allegations, even if they are labeled as allegations, when they are not well-substantiated by a reliable historical record. The historical record does not have to be neutral, per se, but it should be free of the motivation to spready calumny against the popes or the church. Let me give you a modern example. If the Huffington Post article says that a celebrity "was reportedly seen smoking marijuana" and that is added to Wikipedia with a citation, then I remove that as a violation of the WP:BLP policy. Even the HuffPo does not know if the allegation is true, because they said "reportedly". WP:BLP does not apply here to popes long-gone, but WP:RS does, so the article should be reduced to that which can be firmly supported by scholarly historical records. As for the title, perhaps a more WP:NPOV phrasing would be List of non-celibate popes. Elizium23 (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Basically that's a matter for normal editing, not AfD. Clearly we should minimize the use of editorializing adjectives. As far as claims in ancient historical documents are concerned, we probably will never know whether they can be fully substantiated, so we just have to go on the evidence, and reporting it with "according to X" is correct. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Er, presidents don't run an organisation which claims to tell us how to behave morally and go to heaven, perhaps.Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you meant this as an argument, but I wouldn't be surprised if one could find sufficient sources for such a topic. Interest in the topic likely soared in the late Clinton presidency, and is already discussed in reliable sources in the context of Kennedy. --BDD (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt, but you know quite well that being the head of a church is something rather different. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have not been convinced by the arguments that have been advanced for deletion thus far. WP:TRIVIA applies to lists of disconnected, miscellaneous, information within articles (not articles which are themselves lists). The subject of Popes accused of sexual improprieties has been extensively discussed in a variety of published works such as Sex Lives of the Popes and Vicars of Christ by Peter de Rosa, so WP:NOONECARES is not a convincing argument. I am also not convinced that WP:OR is a satisfactory reason for deletion. Many of the statements made in the article are already associated with WP:RS citations. Admittedly more citations are still needed and some specific statements may indeed be WP:OR, but these are surmountable problems that can be resolved by adding further references or deleting certain problematic assertions. However, I would support splitting the article, something along the lines of List of married popes and List of popes accused of sexual improprieties. For example, some of these popes lived in the 9th to 11th centuries, a time not noted for its wealth of reliable and objectively written historical documentation. It may be very difficult or impossible to provide a reliable source supporting the factual nature of an accusation, but we should be able to source the fact that an accusation was made. --Mike Agricola (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic the popes' sexlife is notable, as it is written books about it. It is issues with the article, as the heading and the section "Background" is poorly sourced, and may contain original reaseach. NPOV is may also affected. This is, however, no reason to delete the article (WP:IDL), as it could be improved by ordinary editing. I find the use of a list ok, as the criterias for inclusion is used in the articles heading. Grrahnbahr (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit Without even looking at content, the article was created 2004, and has been hit by many editors, so deletion is a longshot. It's also a valid topic (though StAnselm makes some good points above). However, there is obvious OR and bias. There are also editors trying to get away with pretty silly npov through implication: "however, it believes it does not undermine the Catholic doctrines considering...". Long paragraphs of text that are not listing "sexually active" popes don't belong here. All of that should be deleted or moved. This is a list, not an article, and it risks becoming a pov fork. Keep article, edit to delete/move non-list content. Openverse (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_sexually_active_popes_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138022437"