Talk:1769 papal conclave

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Roman Curia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Roman CuriaWikipedia:WikiProject Roman CuriaTemplate:WikiProject Roman CuriaRoman Curia

European Microstates: Vatican City

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Microstates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of European Microstates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European MicrostatesWikipedia:WikiProject European MicrostatesTemplate:WikiProject European MicrostatesEuropean Microstates
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Vatican City portal This article is supported by WikiProject Vatican City (assessed as High-importance).

Catholicism Mid‑importance

1769 papal conclave is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Catholicism task list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : see Draft articles
Assess : see Category:Unassessed Catholicism articles; Category:Unknown-importance Catholicism articles
Cleanup : Blessed Virgin Mary (see the talk page)
Collaborate : Invitation template needed, see Category:WikiProject invitation templates
Copyedit : Cuthbert Tunstall
Expand : Angelus; Roman Catholicism in Kosovo; Bishop Adolph John Paschang; Cum sæpe accidere; Altar Society; American Board of Catholic Missions; Bernard Häring
NPOV : Americanism (heresy); Ensoulment
Photo : see Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Catholicism
Stubs : see Category:Stub-Class Catholicism articles; Category:Catholic Church stubs
Update : Peer review; John Aloysius Maguire
Verify : Archdiocese of Glasgow; Archbishop of Westminster; Bishop; Saint Mungo; Sanctification; Westminster Cathedral
Other : Watch recent changes for Catholicism articles

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

1769 papal conclave has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 8, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
April 10, 2018	Good article reassessment	Kept

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 23, 2008.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Joseph II of the Holy Roman Empire was allowed to enter the papal conclave, 1769, in spite of restriction of the attendance to cardinals?

Current status: Good article

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of September 8, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.

Congratulations!!!Eduhello (talk) 08:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Papal conclave, 1769/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Kept as a Good Article. Improvements made during reassessment. AIRcorn (talk) 09:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm requesting a GAR for this. I have gone through and removed a significant amount of self-published sourcing, which would not be acceptable today. After getting rid of the most obvious issues with the self-published sourcing (the lists based on Adams and Miranda), I see that Adams is still used as a source several times, and that there doesn't appear to be any English sourcing that is recent, and I can't speak to the accuracy of the Polish sourcing, being unfamiliar with those authors. That isn't to say older sourcing on papal conclaves is bad (it certainly has a place as sometimes it is all you can get), but I am uncomfortable basing an entire GA off of it without references to more recent reliable sourcing. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs substantial revision. The summary is skeletal. The headings need to be rethought, starting with "Death of Clement XIII', which notes his death but largely provides the historical context for the conclave. The writing is substandard and sometimes written for insiders ("red hat") or in need of clarifying definitions ("crown cardinal" "cardinal-nephew"). Note the half sentence beginning "Respectively ruled at the time...." There are many idiosyncratic usages: "the law of the conclave", "the appointment [election?] of Ganganelli". The point of view is at times not encyclopedic ("Fortunately, he did not press them..." fortunately for whom?). The use of papabile is peculiar (neither too old nor too unhealthy?). There are factual problems. The "territories around Avignon, Benevento and Pontecorvo" were not seized, they were threatened, according to the source, the Catholic Encyclopedia. Joseph II did not travel to Rome incognito, though the figure he cut was unusual. See for example History of the Fall of the Jesuits in the Eighteenth Century, pp 54-5. And what, one might ask, did these monarchs have against the Jesuits in the first place? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources

Derek Beales, Joseph II 2 vols 1997, 2009
The Jesuit Suppression in Global Context: Causes, Events, and Consequences Cambridge 2015
- Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - An older source that current academic historians consider reliable would be Pastor (and it is available online in the public domain). It is older, and tends to use glowing language about holy cardinals, etc. but in terms of facts, it is still one of the standard reference works. This is the volume that should include the 1769 conclave. Right now, I don't have the time to verify everything in here to it/prune, etc, but listing it in case any other project members want to take a stab at bringing this article up to current standards. Baumgartner's 2003 book is also very useful, but you'll also need a hard copy. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: Is this ready to be closed? AIRcorn (talk) 07:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This really needs to be closed one way or the other. AIRcorn (talk) 09:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Aircorn, I've reviewed the changes people have made since I opened this, and I feel it now is in line with the GA policy. Not exactly sure how to close one. Sorry about the time length on this. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - No problem. There is a reassessment open from December so this is practically speedy compared to that one. I really just try to keep these from getting too stale. The instructions on closing are at WP:GAR (Individual reassessment #8 and #9). Number 8 is easy, 9 is a pain (I have been trying to get a bot to do this, but no luck so far). I will do it for you and link the diff here so you can see it. Thanks for taking an interest in the quality of old Good Articles. AIRcorn (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - diff It is actually not to bad when an article is kept. If it is delisted all the class ratings need to be changed, the green dot removed from the article and the article removed from the list of good articles as well as updating the article history template. AIRcorn (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]