Talk:Pope Gregory VII

I have several problems with this section.

(I) Making a subsection for a single comment on papal clothing gives undue emphasis and weight to a bit of trivia. "Vestments", it seems to me, may be the wrong word. Paravicini-Bagliani seems to be questioning the idea that popes began to wear everyday white regular attire when Pope Pius V, a Dominican, insisted on retaining his regular garments he wore as a Dominican. It is not challenged that popes (and indeed every cleric) wore white vestments during liturgical functions. Perhaps "Papal Attire" is a better fit for the context. At least, IMHO, the subsection head should be removed.

(II) The comment rests on a single report in a highly POV newspaper source, L'Osservatore romano, a subsidiary organ of the Vatican Communications dicastery (department, office). The second citation is to a blog, which is not permitted on Wikipedia, and which, in any case, is only a summary reference to what was in "Osservatore romano".

(III) The "Osservatore romano" article seems to be the original research, or at least the original idea, of Paravicini-Bagliani. As such, it is unsupported by any scholarly opinion, certainly any other opinion in print. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to publish new and original theories, and certainly not ones which have not been submitted to testing and comment by leading authorities in the field. I quote from WP:FRINGE, under "Reliable sources": "Wikipedia policy prohibits original research. The no original research policy strongly encourages the collection and organization of information from existing secondary sources, and allows for careful use of primary sources."

I would draw attention to the portrait of Pope Calixtus III (Alfonso Borja) (1455–1458), which shows him in full pontifical vestments, wearing a white alb (Roman alb, rochet), with a black garment beneath it (not a white one). This is one bit of evidence that needs careful consideration before Paravicini-Bagliani's theory can be taken seriously, let alone given its own subsection in a Wikipedia article.

Perhaps, as an alternative to deletion (it is trivia, after all), the subsection could be transferred to a footnote, with the warning that it is an original opinion, unsupported by secondary or tertiary sources.

--Vicedomino (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC) Reply

I would support the deletion of the entire section. It appears to be a direct copy and past from here. Which would be a violation of WP:COPYPASTE. The section appears to have been added by an ip user in 2013. See edit

Because it is a copy and pasted original opinion, I see no reason it should be kept. It is a fairly minor part of the article in my opinion.

ThinkHat (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC) @Vicedomino:Reply