Talk:Patrimony of Saint Peter

Untitled

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contradictory statements

These two are found in the same section:

"[In 754 CE the Pope] bestowed on Pepin and his sons the title of "Patrician of the Romans", the title the Exarch, the highest Byzantine officials in Italy, had borne. In their stead now the King of the Franks was to be the protector of the Romans and their Bishop. The pope in bestowing this title probably acted also with authority conferred on him by the Byzantine emperor"

followed by this

"Pepin's messengers visited the various cities of the [former] Exarchate and of the Pentapolis, demanded and received the keys to them, and brought the highest magistrates and most distinguished magnates of these cities to Rome. Pepin executed a new deed of gift for the cities thus surrendered to the Pope, and laid it with the keys of the cities on the grave of St. Peter in the Second Donation of 756 [CE]. The Byzantine Government naturally did not approve of this result of Frankish intervention. It had hoped to regain possession of the districts that had been wrested from it by the Lombards. But Pepin took up arms, not for the Byzantine Emperor, but for the sake of the Pope"

The second part of the statement - that the imperial government in Constantinople was opposed to what is essentially an usurpation by the Franks and the Pope in 756 CE - is indeed correct, we know that from historical sources dealing with Emperor Constantine V. In the light of that, the earlier statement that Pope "probably" gave imperial titles to Pepin in 754 [CE] with Constantinople's consent clearly cannot be true (starting with the very notion of Pope giving official imperial titles to the Franks, something that only the Emperor would and could do). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.108.34 (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 15 September 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 09:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

---

Patrimonium Sancti Petri → Patrimony of Saint Peter – Several sources seem to confirm the availability of a preferred English-language article title. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support. See here. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Striked vote from sockpuppet. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

What happened to the input of Nine Zulu queens? Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

 Comment: Reinstated as a strikethrough for reference. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: I don't understand what's the problem. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Chicbyaccident: Because Nine Zulu queens was confirmed as a sockpuppet, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE this user's votes must be striked through. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry about that. Including how that affected this talk page. In any case, the user(s) doesn't (don't) seem to have voted twice at this location. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Is the P in patrimony capitalized?

The recent WP move to decap nouns used as proper nouns suggests this should be a lower-case p. I think it looks out of place at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camerlengo_of_the_Holy_Roman_Church

as does the C in camerlengo.

Darcourse (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)