Talk:March–April 1605 papal conclave/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Seraphim System (talk · contribs) 21:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

1a

""Baronius had critiqued the claims of Spanish monarchs in ecclesistical affairs in his histories, and this led to hatred of him by the Spanish monarchy to the point where the publication of the 1605 volume of his Annales Ecclesiastici that contained this criticism had been banned in Spanish territory"

this sentence is missing a period, and also would benefit from being split in two and tweaked slightly. I would suggest something like "...,and this led the Spanish Monarchy to hate him. Baronius' conflict with the Spanish Crown escalated to a point where publication of his book critiquing the monarchy, Annales Eccleiastici (1605), was banned in Spanish territory." ... or something to that effect.

Done TonyBallioni (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"with both cardinals yelling at the other "

needs to be reworded

Done TonyBallioni (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3a Is it possibly to clarify why Aldobrandini supported Baronius? I assume it's related to the conflict with the Spanish monarchy? Would it be possible to expand on the Montalto-Medicis? Also, do we know who Philip did support? Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support was actually due to family reasons. Aldobrandini had wanted a creation of his uncle, Clement VIII (Baumgartner). I've updated to explain this. I've also added to background section how family ties were important in papal elections of this period and tweaked the language of the Aldobrandini-Montalto faction sentence to emphasize this. See below re: Montalto-Medici. Pastor goes into much more detail than more recent sources do on this, and all he mentions is that Joyeuse convinced the Montalto to support Medici. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the background section is quite ready yet. If the source does not clearly establish a relationship between the events in France and papal factionalism in this conclave, additional sources may need to be used.I think adding a wider range of sources may help with this. The background section might benefit from more context about the Medici Popes, and the relationship with France. If sources do not exist to directly connect the significance of the Hugenots to this factional conflict with the Medicis, then maybe it should not be mentioned at all. But I think there are still sources to explore for this? One of the challenging things in history articles is providing enough context, without straying off topic. I think with the addition of Joyeuse, it does cover most of the main issues of the Conclave itself, but the narrative is still a bit disjointed. Aldobrandini did eventually join the French faction— Signoretto and Visceglia say it was Joyeuse that persuaded him. Signoretto and Visceglia discuss, for instance, that the as the cardinal-nephew Aldobrandini wielded significant influence, but it wasn't enough to elect his first preferred candidate—in the end he had to throw his weight behind the French faction. I also found it confusing to refer to it as the "Montalto faction" before making it clear that Montalto and Farnese were part of the Spanish faction. Additionally there were some minor grammar issues, like passive voice and comma placement—I've corrected it this time, but please be aware of this for this future. It's getting there, but I don't think it's quite ready to pass yet. Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphim System, there's a lot to chew off here but here goes:

Disagree pretty strongly with your suggestions for the background section: the Hugenots had nothing to do with the conclave and aren't mentioned in any sourcing, nor in the article. Henry IV's conversion and subsequent attempts to influence the conclave after that are, however. The background mentions Clement trying to decrease the influence of the Spanish and increasing French presence, and the subsequent sections of the article make this play out prettt clearly. It would be useful to add an additional mention that Leo XI was related to the French queen.

Aldobrandini was initially allied with the French from the beginning with Baronius, who was also acceptable to the French. When it became clear Baronius wasn't going to be pope is when they had to convince him again. I can flest this out in a bit more detail later today.

Hsia and Baumgartner are both pretty clear in that the factions were loyal to the individuals/families. The faction that supported Montalto did support Spain, but this shouldn't de-emphasize that they were led by Montalto. I think the current wording demonstrates this and is faithful to the sourcing. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask for a second opinion. For instance, if the Hugenots had nothing to do with the conclave, I don't know why Henry's conversion is mentioned. If the sources mention it, but don't explain it any further, then I agree that makes writing the article more difficult. But personally, I found it extremely confusing. Marguerite de Valois was intimately connected to the Huguenot and Catholiscm power struggle. She was a devout Catholic, married to a Hugenot, and the statement that Clement annulled the marriage after the conversion and Henry married Medici to ensure a Catholic succession raises more questions then it answers, even after reviewing what sources I have available to me. I will also try to track down the sources you have used, but as a GA reviewer I can't get too involved, so I think waiting on a second opinion is the best idea here. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we're quite there yet, I'd prefer to try to resolve the issues with one reviewer, but am fine with a second if need be. The Hugenots are not significant in the course of the conclave but the lifting of Henry's excommunication by Clement VIII is exceptionally important: it was part of Clement's efforts to decrease the influence of Spain, which had a direct bearing on the conclave that saw the Spanish exclude or attempt to exclude both French-supported candidates. Same with the annulment, Clement was working to create a France more close to the papacy and the marriage of Henry IV to a relative to the future Leo XI is significant to the fact that he supported Leo in the conclave. That connection does need to be fleshed out more in the text, and I'll do it later today. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then I will put the review on hold instead? It is interesting that Clement VIII, an Aldobradini, would take an action that would help the election of a Medici, when his nephew initially opposed the Medici candidate and supported Baronius. It is also interest that Marguerite de Valois, who was blamed for failing to convert her husband to Catholiscm, should later have her marriage annulled to ensure a "Catholic succession." There must have been a reason for the annulment, such as failing to produce an heir. Can you give me the Chapter number from Baumgartner? I would like to go over it to help me with the review.Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the relevant chapter number in front of me right now. It is pp. 138-140 though. I wouldn't say that Clement was taking action that would help elect a Medici be elected pope, so much as grant an annulment that a newly Catholic monarch wanted, and then arrange for his remarriage to a family he knew was solidly Catholic. That was the impression I got from the sourcing, but I will check with non-conclave specific sourcing. Baumgartner is probably the most extensive recent English-language history of conclaves, but he was an academic writing for a broader audience rather than an academic writing for an academic audience, so he tends to focus on the details directly relevant to the conclave. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Marguerite was the daughter of Catherine de' Medici—she was Catholic, so that probably isn't the reason. I think if something doesn't add up it should be confirmed in multiple sources to make sure it is a widely held view. In this case, the idea that Clement married her off to ensure a Catholic succession in (France?) does not add up—unless it is because Marguerite did not produce any children. However, the strong implication from the way this is current written is that Marguerite is not Catholic, and that was the reason for the annulment. This can be improved. There are also still some other wording issues that can be improved while the article is on hold, I see once instance where the past perfect form of to be is used, instead of past simple, and a few cases where wording could be more concise without compromising the meaning of the sentence. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simpler explanation: he had mistresses and wanted to marry one of them. Clement/his commission only granted the annulment after the Catholic mistress died. Marriage to a Medici ensured that Henry's new wife after the annulment would be Catholic. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphim System, please see the additional changes. I've spelt out more in the election section that it was seen as a victory for France, and added information about the annulment that should clear up your confusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to put it on hold for 7 days or close the review now? Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any additional suggestions or improvements that would need to put it on hold, I'd be happy to hear them. If you can't think of anything else and its met what your review standards are, please feel free to close. Your call as reviewer. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to fail an article for one grammar mistake, but Baronius had critiqued the claims of Spanish monarchs in ecclesistical affairs in the volume of his Annales Ecclesiastici that had been published in 1605. This led the Spanish monarchy to have such an intense dislike for him that the publication of the volume which contained his criticism had been banned in Spanish territory. should be past simple, not past perfect I think? (In other words has been should be was?) Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like past perfect over past simple there since it was published the same year as the conclave and preceded it. Its not a huge deal, so I'm fine with the change if you think its necessary, but do think the past perfect conveys the ordering of events better. I also just updated the Aldobrandini section of the election of Leo XI as I mentioned I would do above. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Seraphim System reread the sentence you were talking about in context, and have made the change. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think the expanded sections look good, the expansion of the background and the extra adds about Aldobrandini made the whole narrative come together nicely, I think this is about ready to pass. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

I would have thought Henry IV of France was already Catholic? Is this because he was excommunicated? Even if he was excommunicated, why would that have effected the succession? Was Marguerite de Valois not Catholic? Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henry IV was raised Protestant (Catholic baptism notwithstanding), and was a pretty prominent one at that. This was during the period of the French Wars of Religion, and probably the thing he is most remembered for at least among European history surveys is saying "Paris is well worth a mass" regarding his conversion in order to achieve secular power. Baumgartner does not go into detail about the relationship with Marguerite de Valois, but does make a note that the marriage to Marie de' Medici secured a Catholic succession. I could speculate about why he draws that conclusion, but it is presented as a fact without reasoning in the sourcing, so I think going beyond that would be WP:OR. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IT seems also that the Montalto and Farnese were allied with the Spanish against Baronio. They supported Tolomeo Gallio but the French cardinal François de Joyeuse was able to convince Montalto and Aldobrandini to support Medici. Signorotto, Gianvittorio; Visceglia, Maria Antonietta (2002-03-21). Court and Politics in Papal Rome, 1492–1700. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-139-43141-5. (p. 122) Jedin, Hubert; Dolan, John Patrick (1980). History of the Church: Reformation and Counter Reformation. Burns & Oates. (p. 615) ... think this would be helpful? Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the source re: Joyeuse from Pastor. Much older source, but Baumgartner views him as reliable despite the age of the text. It is more specific than Jedin and Dolan, who are an excelent source but cover the conclaves very briefly. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also added the bit from Signorotto and Visceglia. Thanks for the page citation on that. I had reviewed it previously, but didn't see it. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]