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

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 decker ^talk 01:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of sexually active popes

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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?
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.
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 I know that there are Popes that are rumored to have been sexually active, with some historical documents having been found that comment on whether the acts did or did not occur.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
(｡◕‿◕｡) 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]

Keep Very interesting intersection discussed in reliable sources. Specific sourcing issues and concerns with original research are best discussed on the article's talk page. --BDD (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
WP:LISTN. Warden (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - per
WP:NOBODYCARES --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:41, 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:
(｡◕‿◕｡) 04:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Wikipedia does not report allegations (see

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]

Delete. The topic in itself is not notable, and there have been no reliable sources offered to suggest that it is. There are plenty of sources on the sexual activity of individual popes, but this listing requires more than that. There are reliable sources on the theme of "bad" popes - but this list is bigger than that - it has a list of popes who were married before they became pope - the Catholic Church has never had a problem with that. So possibly what is required is a split to List of popes who had previously been married and List of popes who were sexually active during their pontificate. But even if restricted it to the "bad" popes, it's hard to see how this intersection deserves a list - there are lots of other areas of misconduct one could target - e.g. simony. The bad popes were generally bad in lots of different ways. St Anselm (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The other thing is, why single out popes? Why not List of Presidents of the United States who had extramarital affairs while in office? St Anselm (talk) 09:14, 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: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
]
Keep Non-trivial encyclopedic matter, though the list is in poor condition. Dimadick (talk) 15:18, 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.