Talk:Papal tiara/Archive 1

Pictures

Can we cut down the size of this picture so the article doesn't spread into the right margin? -- Zoe

Zoe, Papal Tiara is double capitalised. It is not written as Papal tiara any more than we write George bush. (Though I'd love to let you use Papal tiara if I can use Georgem bush.

PS: which picture? JtdIrL 06:06 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

The picture of the pope. Are Papal Throne, Papal Robes and Papal Household all capitalized? Why is this word capitalized? - Zoe

There are five pictures of popes and one antipope. Which one is the problem, and what exactly is the problem? At what size window? The right margin of the page? Of the image border? --Brion 06:12 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

Zoe, is it better now? I see nothing wrong with the images, but one of the URLs for the external links is very long, and Internet Explorer wouldn't break the line if the window wasn't wide enough, forcing the right margin of the page outside of the window. I've made the link inline so the URL is hidden, and it looks fine for me in IE now. --Brion 06:18 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

• If Papal Throne = the physical object, being described as such, yes, as in the Papal Throne.
• If Papal throne = the papacy, no.
• Papal robes: no.
• Papal Household: yes, always, just as the Royal Household should be. It is a formal name.
• Tiara on its own - lower case
• a papal tiara - lower case
• In this case, the title is about the Papal Tiara, the formal name for the object. The use of the definite article and its context makes it a full proper noun.

Em, which pope? Pius X? Pius XI? Pius XII? John XXIII? Paul VI? 'Gregory XVII'? There is a few popes in there. PS - what do you think of the article overall? JtdIrL 06:22 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, Brion, that fixed the problem. -- Zoe

Interesting article! This is one of the reasons I like Wikipedia, I have a quick look at a link from recent changes and get caught up reading about something new to me :)

I have a question:

<snip>As Pope Pius XII's coronation was filmed and shown in cinemas around the world, had his papal tiara contained such words, they would have been captured by the camera and seen by millions worldwide in theatres.

<snip again>Even if, contrary to all the evidence a triple tiara with those words on it did exist and had been photographed (presumably placed on the coffin of the late pope), in the absence of modern photographic technology or even zoom lens, with constant movement during the funeral ceremony and slow shutter speeds, the chances a camera being able from a distance (and given the restrictions imposed on photographers during a papal funeral, it would have to have been at a distance) to capture lettering on a tiara are remote in the extreme.

These two paragraphs seem to contradict each other (possibly due to my misunderstanding them). Could they be clarified somehow?

-- sannse 11:01 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)

Sure. The funeral of Leo XIII took place in 1903, and Pius X's in 1914. Pius XII was crowned in 1939, so technology had improved. But the key difference is that I meant that people could witness Pius XII's coronation on film, which would show more than a long range photo. In addition, cameras did get close to Pius XII during his coronation, to within a few feet. In the case of the funerals, any shots would have been long distance, rather than up close next to the coffin. But I will reword the article to clarify this. Glads you like the article, BTW. I'm quite chuffed with how it turned out. I think being able to use images enhances any article. :) STÓD/ÉÍRE 21:21 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)

I have checked the article using Mozilla, to make sure there are problems with images shifting, etc. Averything seems OK. STÓD/ÉÍRE 01:16 Mar 29, 2003 (UTC)

---

A note of possible interest originally posted to alt.talk.royalty on 13 July 2003 under the title "Re: Haitian coronations regalia?"

You have it a bit askew here. Pius VII (Barnaba' Chiaramonti) was crowned with a tiara made of papier-mache. He was elected by the conclave "in exile" in Venice, without any of the traditional regalia at hand -- Rome then being in the hands of the French. A sodality of women of the nobility made the crown for him, and decorated it with their own jewels. That particular tiara is still a part of the Vatican treasury. It may never have been worn again, although I have heard an anecdote that Pius IX (Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti) wore it at least once after 1870, as a sign of abnegation and humility.

You can find fuller details of Pius VII's election and coronation in <Papal Elections in the Age of Transition> (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2000), chapter 1.

-- Someone else 05:49 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Vicarius Filii Dei

Do you think the very lengthy section on the Vicarius Filii Dei controversy might be moved elsewhere? It seems somewhat secondary to the main article, and partially reproduces material at Vicarius Filii Dei. - Montréalais

To be honest no. The reason I put it here is because for millions of people, the moment they hear of a papal tiara they think of 666. It is one of the biggest myths about Roman Catholicism. It is one of the topics that if you don't go into detail about it here people who believe it is true will immediately assume you have censored out a key fact. I have been in enough edit wars to know that if some big belief (usually some urban myth or politically inspired analysis) is explicitly not dealt with in detail in the main article, it leads to people adding in the stuff they think you have censored. It is the soft of thing that if put in a daughter article will simply be put in here again anyway by someone, except what will be put in will be a grabled version of the myth as fact. This way, no-one can claim this mytical 'truth' has been censored out and the detail put in is such only the most fanatical believer of the nonsense would try to add in a justification for the looney myth in the page. Having it here is the best way to nail the myth and so avoid someone constantly trying to edit it in. FearÉIREANN 04:59, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, I guess people must be saner in this country cos I've never heard it. Be that as it may, how about something like: "A widely-circulated myth, etc.,etc., states that there exists a single Papal Tiara and that it has VFD, etc., etc., etc. This is not true. See Vicarius Filii Dei for more details." Or something. - Montréalais

It is widely believed among fundamentalist protestants and born again christians. And no I don't think it needs to be removed, because as I said, it is the sort of thing that unless explicitly umabiguously dealt with on site will have people presuming you are censoring the 'truth' and adding in the myths. It is the British genocide and the Irish famine, etc, daughtering it off does not work. Ordinary readers would go to the link. But those who fanatically believe it is true will simply try to add it in, producing edit wars, as I have first hand experience of *sigh*! That is why I went into it in such detail, so that even the most fanatical believer in the myth is left in no doubt as to the facts. It is one of those things you need to nail on site. Anywhere else does not work. FearÉIREANN 19:04, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Tiara of Silvester

<snip>Unfortunately many of the earlier priceless papal tiaras (most notably the tiaras of Pope Julius II--designed by Ambrogio Foppa and which cost a massive 100,000 ducats, one third of the papacy's annual income, when a parish priest was paid 25 ducats a year--and Pope Saint Silvester) were destroyed,...

Which Pope Silvester? The list of popes shows a Pope Silvester I and a Pope Silvester II. I'd imagine it means Silvester I as he was lavished with gifts by Constantine, but no telling from context which is meant. -- Long, Tall Texan 00:15, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

There are a total of THREE official popes named Sylvester (not two) [guess I should look at the list of popes and make some corrections]. Only Pope Sylvester I has been canonized, so the reference to him in the original text of the article can only refer to him (Saint Sylvester) so there is no need for a distinguishing remark for such a small note to the body of the text. Incidentally, there is also an antipope by the name of Sylvester IV (1105-1111) as part of the struggles between Holy Roman Emperor Henry V and the Holy See at the beginning of the 12th century. This likely explains why no pope since has chosen the title of Sylvester. Nicodemus75 01:43, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

One of the funnier popes: He was bishop of Sabina when elected pope in January 1045 by a Roman faction that had driven Pope Benedict IX out of Rome. The following month, however, Benedict's supporters in turn expelled Sylvester, and Benedict then sold the papacy to the archpriest Giovanni Graziano, who became Pope Gregory VI in May 1045. (Britannica). I've added him to the list, although Pope_Silvester_III (from an "unnamed encyclopedia"?) classes him as an antipope. Markalexander100 04:21, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am not sure of the source on this, but it is incorrect. Both official Vatican lists as well as The Oxford Dictionary of Popes list Sylvester III as a canonical Pope. There must be some confusion with Sylvester IV, who is considered an anti-pope from 1105-1111. I will make appropriate adjustments to the article in question. Nicodemus75 05:34, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wow. A Oxford did a whole dictionary on Popes? Nifty. Thanks for straightening these out Nic75. As a Baptist, I naturally have a huge curiosity and slight knowledge of Catholic tradition and affairs. --Long, Tall Texan 00:54, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

Father Lucian Pulvermacher

I cut the paragraph below, since it has very little to do with the topic. It might be useful for an article on Mr Pulvermacher, though.

However not all self-proclaimed rival 'popes' have opted for a tiara. Reverend Father Lucian Pulvermacher, OFM Cap., who was 'proclaimed' as 'Pope Pius XIII' in the United States in 1998, did not opt for a 'coronation', possibly because his 'church', unlike the Palmar de Troya movement, seems to lack the sort of major resources required to mount such a ceremony; only 28 people attended the raising of the new 'pope', who had previously just been a priest, to the episcopy, at a ceremony held in a hotel ballroom. The new 'pope' instead took a papal Oath of Office. But his coat of arms does use the papal tiara image.

Markalexander100 05:04, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with your removal of this paragraph for the following reasons (I am not the paragraph's author): The use of the tiara by modern Catholic break-away movements (whether that use be physical or in the "papal" coat of arms) is germaine to the very matter of the modern history of the use of the tiara. The ultimate fate of the use of the tiara by the Roman Catholic Church in a future coronation ceremony may hinge upon the persistant use of the tiara by the sedevacantist groups (as well as other groups which elevate anti-popes). The "True Catholic Church" headed by Fr. Pulvermacher, is one of these sedevacantist groups. Secondly, the use of a papal tiara by the Palmar de Troya movement makes mention of that movement noteworthy, and this paragraph is a useful contrast which shows that the use of the tiara is not uniform by the varying sedevacantist sects. Finally, it is important to note that the "True Catholic Church" has lodged a criticism of the Roman Catholic Church for the setting aside of the Papal Tiara (something not done by SSPX, the principal NON-sedevacantist Catholic break-away movement), even though they themselves did not use a tiara in the inauguration of the anti-pope Pius XIII.

I have not re-inserted the paragraph, but perhaps we can agree to it's re-insertion. Note that a page already exists for Fr. Pulvermacher --Nicodemus75 06:00, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, the article already says that "At least one" claimant uses the tiara, which already implies that there are others who don't. Surely we don't need to know that 28 people attended a ceremony which did not involve the tiara, or where? Markalexander100 07:32, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you have considered the points I have attempted to make. The "True Catholic Church" does make use of the tiara in the "papal" coat of arms, which is the same capacity in which the tiara continues to be "used" by the Roman Catholic Church (apart from it's use on the feast of Ss. Peter & Paul at the Vatican). Anyone using this article as a source for current developments with regards to the use of the tiara would be interested in the views and uses by sedevacantist groups and other traditionalists as they represent (collectively, not individually) the principal public objectors to the setting aside of the tiara. As I have argued above, the argument and use of tiaras as propogated by the sedevacantist groups throughout the world is relevant to any discussion about current uses of the tiara because these uses may have an impact on the decisions taken following the next Papal Conclave as to the tiara's use in a subsequent pontificate. The information contained in the paragraph concerning the small number of persons present at anti-pope Pius XIII inauguration is clearly included to demonstrate the diminutive nature of the this particular sect - but has nothing to do with whether or not mention should be included in this article with respect to sedevacantist use of the tiara. While I agree that it isn't particularly relevant that 28 people attended such a ceremony, the use and capacity of use (in this case, lack of formal use, but inclusion in a coat of arms) by the "True Catholic Church" is relevant to current developments concerning the Papal Tiara. Perhaps a separate heading should be included in the main body of the article dealing with illegimate or unofficial use of "papal" tiaras by schismatic groups. Nicodemus75 14:34, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've no objection to mentioning the relevant parts. How about Another breakaway group, the True Catholic Church, uses the tiara in its coat of arms but not for coronation. Markalexander100 02:48, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I think another section with content about unoffical or illegitimate uses of tiaras by schismatic groups might be the best solution. I notice you removed the photo of anti-pope Greogry XVII, even though there is mention of it in the article. I'm not sure why you did this (maybe a mistake because the photo was originally placed under an incorrect heading), but since that is the only pseudo-tiara currently in actual use, the photo strikes me as a relevant addition to the page. I think it also makes sense to take this mention and the discussion we are having about anti-pope Pius XIII into a separate heading that isn't included in the discussion of Paul VI being the last pope to use the tiara. Give me your thoughts on a separate heading altogether, which I think makes the most sense for multiple reasons. This would be a perfect place to re-include the photo of anti-pope Gregory XVII, which is an interesting photo to have in the article showcasing the continued use of tiaras by a rival claimant (more so than photo after photo of historical tiaras). Nicodemus75 04:56, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think the most important thing about how to deal with the schismatics is to be brief. Fundamentally, this is an article about papal tiaras, and a tiara used by someone who isn't a pope isn't a papal tiara. The Greg 17 pictures is still there in the Greg 17 article; I think a brief mention in the text is quite enough coverage of him here. Markalexander100 08:14, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree that some respect should be paid to brevity when discussing the schismatics. However, I do not agree with your assertion about the fundamental nature of the article. As I've stated previously, anyone actually reading this article with an interest on the current developments on the use of the Papal Tiara will be interested to what extent schismatic groups are making use of it (at the risk of repeating myself, this is germaine because it is very likely to impact the decisions taken about future official use of the Papal Tiara by the Roman Catholic Church. Your statement that a tiara used by an anti-pope isn't a papal tiara (and thusly doesn't have a real place in the article), seems to rather beg the question. It isn't at all sensible to have a separate article on the subject of "Antipapal Tiaras" - the only sensible place for an entryabout the use of such crowns is under the Papal Tiara entry. While the crowns used by schismatic popes may not be "Papal Tiaras" in the strictest definition, they surely aren't anything else (in terms of their classification) - simply by definition, they 'pretend' to be papal tiaras. I have come to appreciate that you fail to see the relevance of discussion of use of the tiara by schimastic groups, but I contend that there is simply no other sensible place for an entry about their use outside of this article. Nicodemus75 23:16, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think the more important point is that the language in the excised paragraph is not neutral in its phrasing. It is very biased and not in an encyclopediac tone. It is also my opinion that the article would not gain largely from its inclusion and its excision does make a long read a little easier to handle.

-- Long, Tall Texan 01:00, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

I don't propose a separate article on Antipapal Tiaras, but I do propose confining mention of the schismatics to the relevant facts. I am only aware of three: Greg was crowned with a tiara; Lucian wasn't; Lucian uses the tiara in his coat of arms. That can be dealt with very briefly. All the other information about these characters belongs in their own articles, not here. Markalexander100 03:19, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Paul VI Laying Aside the Tiara

There are some problems with the following paragraph that I would like some input on before I simply edit it:

Pope Paul VI was the last pontiff to wear a tiara. At the end of the Second Vatican Council, he descended the steps of the papal throne in St Peter's Basilica and laid the tiara on the altar in a dramatic gesture of humility and as a sign of the renunciation of human glory and power in keeping with the renewed spirit of the Second Vatican Council. It marked a renunciation of one of the three possible reasons for the existence of the three tiers of the crown; secular power, which in any case had ended in 1870 when the Papal States joined the rest of Italy to form the Kingdom of Italy. Popes initially refused to accept their loss of the Papal States. In an act of defiance, they refused to leave the Vatican, describing themselves melodramatically as the 'prisoner in the Vatican'. Paul's removal of his tiara was intended to forever symbolise the papacy's renunciation of any desire for secular power.

Unfortunately, most of this paragraph is not factual, but rather POV. I'd like some input on how to properly edit this section. First, the symbolic laying of the tiara on the altar at the close of the Second Vatican Council is "sign of the renunciation of human glory and power in keeping with the renewed spirit of the Second Vatican Council," as stated in the article, however the following claims are not accurate. Firstly, and most importantly, the issue of the Papal States was NOT decided by Paul VI laying the tiara upon the altar, but rather by the Concordat of 1929 (The Lateran Treaty) between Mussolini's facist government and Pius XI wherein the Papal Claims to the Patrimony of Saint Peter were renounced and the Vatican City State acknowledged by the Roman Catholic Church as the temporal territory of the Pope (this was slightly amended in 1984 with the Italian government). I am not sure where the author has gotten the idea that the papacy has "renounced any desire of secular power", but the Vatican City State is still a sovereign nation-state ruled by the Pope as head of state. Next, I have been struggling with how to deal with the fact that Paul VI in Pauline constitution Romano Pontifici Eligendo of 1975 requires a coronation ceremony for the new pontiff, and this constitution is still in force to this day (it has not been abrogated). In other words, the pontifical coronation IS prescribed by current Church Law. The prescription of a coronation obviously intends a "crown" (how can you be coronated without a crown?), so the intention indicated above was not Paul's intent.

Further, the reason given by Pope John Paul I for not having a coronation ceremony is that he begged the church's understanding feeling the burden of his office, and instead opted for an installation ceremony. John Paul II opted for a simpler installation ceremony "out of deference to his short-lived predecessor's burden of office and grand ceremony". In fact, John Paul II, at his installation, SPECIFICALLY stated in his first public address that the law and history of the Church required a Papal Coronation, rather than an installation - reminding the world that the ceremony of coronation was not abolished and was expected to return.

I intend on editing the paragraph quoted above, as well as including these relevant comments on the potential return of the use of the tiara in a future coronation ceremony, but thought that some input in advance on this issue may be well advised. Nicodemus75 05:28, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

While I don't feel the paragraph is out of line, I'd say just edit in the basic facts and edit out the farcical statements. Statements as to why a pope didn't have a coronation belong in HIS article. If the removal of the tiara at 2nd vatican council doesn't impact it's modern use, don't mention it. Just state that tiaras weren't used with these popes as they entered the papcy by installation, not coronation, but Church Law indicates that use of the tiara and future popes' coronations are expected.

--Long, Tall Texan 01:10, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

So does anyone know if Pope Benedict XVI has indicated yet whether or not he will use the tiara or whether he will chose the coronation or the simpler installation?
JesseG 01:25, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Significance of the three crowns

Hi all, that section perplexed me a bit. So many possible explanations for the three crowns' meaning were trotted forth without one which seems glaringly, screamingly obvious at least as a potential candidate to this ex-Catholic: the Trinity! Is it known for a fact that the three crowns definitely do *not* represent the Trinity, or is this a possibility that should be added to that section? -Kasreyn

It certainly is an idea. But none of the sources I found actually raised it. I was surprised myself as it seemed a reasonable interpretation, but as wikiepedia is not based on independent research but interpreting existing research, I decided not to put it in. But by all means do if you think it worth mentioning. FearÉIREANN 23:06, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pius VI

Pius VI's "planned murder" is POV, and extremely original research. Edited to conformity with the Catholic Encyclopedia [and the Britannica]. Septentrionalis 19:50, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) PS: "murder" remains unsourced w/o names of primary accounts - and secondary source where they were found.

According to contemporary accounts he was targeted for murder, a standard practice in regime change situations, as our own period shows (America's attempts to kill Saddam by bombing where they believed he was, during the war, is a modern example). He was described as being pushed into the carriage at force, ending up on the floor, and raced at speed without his belongings, wearing just a cassock, and driven at such speed they had to slow down in case the carriage toppled or a horse fell, to Tuscany,

In order to believe the reverted text, one must believe that the French removed Pius VI from Rome to foil a French assassination plot, which is absurd. Septentrionalis 20:36, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As to the Catholic Encyclopedia being neutral, by chance I've just been reading it in the last hour for some research on papal conclaves, and it proved exceptionally biased: one article praised a rather infamous nineteenth century cardinal's policies in the Papal States in glowing terms that would do Pravda in the days of Stalin proud. It was so worthless I ended up leaving it and seeking better sourced, less POV information elsewhere. Everytime I have the Catholic Encyclopaedia I have come away frustrated at its chronic bias. Some of its stuff wouldn't be tolerated here or in any professionally edited neutral encyclopaedia. That's my view. After tonight's experience with it I've given up on it. I checked 9 articles and all 9 were deeply POV and heavily propagandistic. FearÉIREANN 23:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course the CE is not neutral - that's its value here. In order to believe the "murder", one must believe the CE suppressed it - to preserve the reputations of Napoleon and the Roman Republic; which is more absurd. Septentrionalis 20:36, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No. The Catholic Encyclopaedia sees itself as having to be overly cautious because as the Catholic encyclopaedia it is aware, as is any publication perceived to be close to an institution or organisation, that what it says can be seen (often wrongly) as reflecting the official view of that institution or organisation. So to avoid getting an organisation or institution into trouble, they state facts and leave out factually established background context that explained the facts. The Catholic Church has never formally accused the French soldiers of trying to kill the pope because accusing the French of trying to kill the pope would be controversial for many French people.

Similarly official British publications writing about the Irish famine mention the number of deaths but until Tony Blair said it was OK to to do, never pointed out the established fact, proven in Britain's own archives, that it was a British government's own laissez faire economic policies that turned a crisis into a catastrophe. Belgian encyclopaedias were loathe to go into detail on the disgraceful role of a Belgian king in exploiting parts of Africa, even when the archives demonstrate the extent of what had happened. US publications, whether government-owned or independent but identified with America, play down the full US role in the coup that brought Pinochet to power in America, and to this day the supposed American media reflects American policy in the world rather than detailing criticisms, for example, of American policy in Israel, in South America, in the mid-east. As a result when the 9/11 attack happened, while the rest of the world saw the attacks as 'understandable but unacceptable' (ie, understandable that there was a popular anger against the US given colossal blunders in foreign policy for decades, but completely and utterly unacceptable that such an attack could happen) Americans, having not realised the extent of their mistakes their country made in foreign policy because no-one told them, reacted with incredulity, asking 'how could anyone hate us? What have we ever done to annoy people?'

The Vatican's own archives and independent sources make it unambiguously clear that the pope had to be removed at speed because they believed that he was about to be killed. This was confirmed to them subsequently. Whether the pope's death had been ordered from on high, or whether it was just some local freelancing from local commanders, is a matter of debate. The very manner of the exodus shows how real those concerns were. If he wasn't in danger, he could have been removed in an orderly way, with his possessions, staff, etc. Flinging a sick man dressed only in a cassock into a carriage and racing at such a high speed that the driver had to asked to slow down because those in the carriage feared it could overturn, is strong circumstantial evidence in itself, even without the archival stuff, that there was a clear, credible and immediate danger to the life of the Holy Father. (Not he first time either. Pius IX had to be disguised as a stablehand to get him safely out of Rome in 1848.)

A professional historian doesn't just look at primary and secondary sources but looks at their context. Could the author of this have had to underplay/overplay an account? How reliable was the source? What do contemporary accounts show? Do those accounts match or clash with the actions of those at the time on the ground? The Catholic Enclopaedia plays down some sensitive issues that are demonstated from other sources beyond reasonable doubt. In areas where it can play up something without causing problems, as in personal biographies, it does so. Of all the primary and secondary sources I have consulted when writing about Catholic history, I have found it to be one of the least reliable, and most untrustworthy of publications, with facts played up or played down and decontextualised not because of historical accuracy but because of its perceived need not to cause problems, real or imagined by its editors, for the Catholic Church (eg, its dodgy account - to put it mildly - of the Catholic Church's links with right wing French royalism in the late 19th century) I don't so much take what it says with a pinch of salt but with a bucket of salt. You should be extremely cautious relying on it. It veers from the accurate to the preposterous in its accounts of events and people and everything it says needs to be doublechecked for accuracy, agenda and context. FearÉIREANN 22:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia [|expects] its articles to summarize well-established published sources. Doubtless you will have no trouble finding a citation. Septentrionalis 15:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disputable points

First, does any of the polemical matter on Pius VI belong here at all, rather than Pius VI?

The chief source for the following is Ludwig Pastor's History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages.

• Napoleon's troops is wrong. Pius was expelled on February 20, 1798. Napoleon had been recalled and reassigned; he was about to be sent to Egypt. He was not First Consul until the coup of Brumaire: November 9, 1799 - almost two years later; three months after Pius's death - upon which he ordered that Pius be buried.
• Are Single Cassock and flung confusions with the expulsion of Pius VII in 1808? Pius VI was given three days to pack. See Christopher Hibbert, Rome, p.234.
• Pius was escorted out of Rome by the French, under Berthier's orders. He was settled in Siena and Florence, then under French control, in the the Grand Duchy of Tuscany. Pastor, 40, p.354-5. For Berthier, see Lebbvre, French Revolution, II p.224 (tr. Hall, New York and London 1964)
• I find two possible threats to Pius's life. He could have been in danger from

the Roman mob, or French plunderers; and the French might not have minded if he caught a fatal chill in the Tuscan winter. Both these are quite possible; neither of these is planned murder.

• The funeral of Pius belongs, not in this article, but in his own.
• Several Cardinals remained in Rome, at Pius's orders.
• Pius lay unburied because his entourage insisted he be buried in Rome; they then prefered that it be unsanctified rather than presided over by a Consitutional priest. "[Cardinal] Spina was able to prevent a Constitutional Biship from presiding at the funeral, but he had to refrain from taking a personal part in the ceremony so as not to give his silent consent to a deed that was directly contrary to his master's last wish." Pastor, 40 p.391
• Pius VI was not unburied at his successor's coronation. He was buried at Valence on 30 January 1800; he was disenterred for reburial at Rome 24 December 1801; his second funeral was on 19 February 1802. Pastor 40, 392-3

Septentrionalis 17:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bibliography

• Hugh Gough, The Terror in the French Revolution (Palgrave) (ISBN 0333601394) is a vividly titled pamphlet. But the only mention of the Papacy is "because the civil constitution [of the clergy] had not received Papal approval" (p.15 of 79). It ends, properly, in 1795; it discusses no point mentioned in this article - and is middle-of-the-road on the extent and intelligibility of the Terror

Its inclusion is padding. Septentrionalis 17:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tarot

Sorry, I'm not the best at editing on wikipedia but "The most obvious explanation of the woman in the tarot cards is the whore riding the beast, as described in Revelation 17." sounds like POV to me.

Pius VII

• Returned to Rome in triumph, July 18011800; his predecessor was disinterred for burial in Rome December 1801. I would like to know what source is supplying Jtdrl with these gruesome tidbits. Septentrionalis 04:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

(The whole discussion may be non-NPOV, especially considering that Pius VII's first exile was three months as a guest of the Austrian government - but I do not intend ro edit for that - I share the POV that the cult of Pius the Prisoner was self-serving tosh. Septentrionalis 04:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

and his second exile was largely at Fontainbleau palace. Septentrionalis 20:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• Was crowned at San Giorgio Maggiore, which is not St. Mark's, but is hardly cramped. See [1].
• What is the source that Pius VII's tiara was made from the fragments of former tiaras? If they were indeed broken up as plunder, how did the First Consul retrieve them? (I am not denying the claim, but it should be sourced). Septentrionalis 22:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Pius VI

Since the issue is apparently still live, I bring back the evidence:

The chief source for the following is Ludwig Pastor's History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages.

• Napoleon's troops is wrong. Pius was expelled on February 20, 1798. Napoleon had been recalled and reassigned; he was about to be sent to Egypt. He was not First Consul until the coup of Brumaire: November 9, 1799 - almost two years later; three months after Pius's death - upon which he ordered that Pius be buried.
• Are Single Cassock and flung confusions with the expulsion of Pius VII in 1808? Pius VI was given three days to pack. See Christopher Hibbert, Rome, p.234.
• Pius was escorted out of Rome by the French, under Berthier's orders. He was settled in Siena and Florence, then under French control, in the the Grand Duchy of Tuscany. Pastor, 40, p.354-5. For Berthier, see Lebbvre, French Revolution, II p.224 (tr. Hall, New York and London 1964)
• I find two possible threats to Pius's life. He could have been in danger from

the Roman mob, or French plunderers; and the French might not have minded if he caught a fatal chill in the Tuscan winter. Both these are quite possible; neither of these is planned murder.

• The funeral of Pius belongs, not in this article, but in his own.
• Several Cardinals remained in Rome, at Pius's orders.
• Pius lay unburied because his entourage insisted he be buried in Rome; they then prefered that it be unsanctified rather than presided over by a Consitutional priest. "[Cardinal] Spina was able to prevent a Constitutional Biship from presiding at the funeral, but he had to refrain from taking a personal part in the ceremony so as not to give his silent consent to a deed that was directly contrary to his master's last wish." Pastor, 40 p.391
• Pius VI was not unburied at his successor's coronation. He was buried at Valence on 30 January 1800; he was disinterred for reburial at Rome 24 December 1801; his second funeral was on 19 February 1802. Pastor 40, 392-3
• Duffy summarizes this all in the phrase Refused Christian burial (emphasis mine) which is a vast simplification, and defensible only on the assumption that schismatics cannot be Christians (and that the Constitutionél clergy were schismatic). I follow Pastor's three page, detailed account.
• If the marker was paid for the commune, as seems likely, its wording was required by law. (In fact, most of this pother is a claim that Pius VI should have been above the laws of France.)

Lastly, all this has nothing to do with the tiara. "If you want to send a message, use Western Union" Septentrionalis 20:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The present text on the funeral is factual and NPOV. If any mention is made of this outside Pius VI, which does, this is it. But what does it have to do with the Tiara? Why is it here? Septentrionalis 16:57, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

The whole issue of why a special papal tiara was needed needed the context of the chaos that surrounded the papacy at that time. The farce surrounding the death and non-burial of the previous pope is useful to contextualise and symbolise that chaos. Context is important sometimes in history: even if the specific case in a literal sense isn't 100% relevant, what the case tells contextualises the directly relevant information. It is standard in historical research to provide that context by this means. Without the information, a reader may not fully understand the chaos of the time, of which the new tiara was one result. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 18:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the reasons Pius VII was being crowned on a small island off Venice will suffice, don't you? Septentrionalis 18:34, 6 May 2005 (UTC) Removing for length.

No I don't. You lose context. It is poor historical writing to do that. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 20:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

While I have your attention, please place those books you inserted without actually seeing (this includes the four turn-of-the-century tracts, doesn't it?) in a separate section, without the label Source; this will be both shorter and clearer. Septentrionalis

I saw them all right. I received photocopies of the relevant sections from an expert in papal ritual. But the photocopies don't contain the front page details with information on publishers, etc. I emailed John to see if he could supply me with full details but he informed me that he too lacks that information. (He photocopied them from a book when he was a student doing a PhD. As often happens with photocopies - I've lost count of the number of times that has happened to me amid bundles of photocopies when cramming for exams, etc - he lost the front pages from the sheets.) I've asked the Central Catholic Library to see if they can chase up the information.FearÉIREANN^(talk) 20:23, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Picture caption

"Pope John XXIII (1958-1963) wearing his own Tiara given by the people of his home region in 1959. Because his election was so unexpected, they had not the time to have a tiara manufactured for his actual coronation. As shown above he used the 1877 tiara." can be read to mean that either he is wearing "his own Tiara" or that he is wearing "the 1877 tiara" or that somehow they are the same. Please could someone knowledgable clarify? --Theo (Talk) 09:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I hadn't noticed the potential confusion until you pointed it out. I have reworded it slightly, and said 'below' with reference to his coronation picture. Hopefully that clears it all up. Well spotted. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 20:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Presence of tiara on Benedict XVI's coat of arms

The article states, "In a controversial break with tradition, Benedict's personal coat of arms does not show a tiara in the ornaments; it being replaced by with the papal mitre." However, the image and text accompanying Benedict's coat of arms (from Papal Coat of Arms) indicates that the tiara is now present. Should the paragraph in this article be amended to reflect this? HorsePunchKid→龜 05:18, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

It's not the tiara on Benedict coat of arms: it resembles the tiara, but is in fact the mitre.

I've temporarily blocked the article. It is today's featured article on the main page and has been bombarded by vandalism. (I've blocked two vandals already for repeat vandalism.) FearÉIREANN^(talk) 19:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Part 3 vandalism remains

Someone with unlock capability needs to restore the material on part 3: weight of the tiara --Fred 19:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

will do. well spotted. I missed it. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 19:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 19:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Unfortunately"

Unfortunately many of the earlier priceless papal tiaras ... somebody should remove the word Unfortunately since its an opinion

relocated comment made by Eelozano on 19:05, 2005 Jun 5

I don't follow. 99.99% of people would regard the destruction of a historic priceless object, whatever it is, as unfortunate, whether it is a building like the US Capitol of the UK Houses of Parliament, an ancient book like the Book of Kells, historic Buddha statues in Afghanistan, ancient mosques, churchs, synagogues, temples, artworks by da Vinci or some of the finest mediæval silver objects by some of the most skillful craftsmen. Wikipedia is opposed to expressing POVs. But that does not mean that consensus views cannot be expressed and the overwhelming view of just about everyone on the planet is that the loss of these objects robbed future generations of the chance to see remarkable and irreplaceable mediæval metalwork. It is not saying that there destruction was "unfortunate" because they were papal items, but because of what they were, important historic artifacts that were unique examples of mediaeval skills, evidence that could have been studied by future generations seeking to learn about mediæval metalwork and artistic decoration. Calling their destruction "unfortunate" is being diplomatic. The official legal description of their destruction today if it happened would be crimes against culture and there would be an international outcry if anyone did today what Napoleon's soldiers did then. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 05:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am sure that there are many people who find it unfortunate that the papal tiara's were destroyed. I am however also very sure that there are many who find that there destruction was not so unfortunate (unaffected) or fortunate. These tiara's are a symbol of the catholic church so you already have a large population of non-catholics that will see this as POV. Although I don't see this as a large problem I think it should be changed. Eelozano

Think of it from a historical perspective, then, instead of invoking a dichotomy between Catholics and non-Catholics. The statement isn't supporting the "pro-Catholic" stance; it's supporting the "pro-preserving-history" stance. It just so happens that the two coincide on this issue. Perhaps you should consider a more explicit phrasing, along the lines of: "Because of their historical significance, it is unfortunate that the tiaras were destroyed." I think most people would consider the qualifier obvious and redundant, though. HorsePunchKid→龜 19:03, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

I just wanted to bring it up. If there isn't a large consensus in favor of removing the word 'unfortunately' then I have little objection to not removing it. As long as the point is out in the open at least :) Eelozano

Silly joke which I will not add to the article

"The Triregnum should not be confused with the Triple Crown." JHCC 14:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Remove repetitions, add details

This article is so REPETITIVE - - how many times do we need to be told that Pius VI was the last to be crowned, that a new and lighter tiara was made for him, that John Paul I kept his tiara on the counter during the synod, that neither he nor John Paul II was coronated, and so on? Whereas these and other details are of course relevant in an article about the papal tiara, they need not be repeated endlessly.

Also, more detail on the traditional coronation ceremony would not be out of place - - who places the crown upon the papal brow, for instance? Have there been deviations from the norm? Who was the earliest pope to possess a crown, courtesy whom, was there no pope before John Paul I who eschewed this arguably unseemly pomp? Many such questions ought to find mention.

-Anon

Open letter to user:jtdirl

We need to talk

Again, I'm glad to see you've returned to editing here overtly. Your research is good and your edits are generally a credit to Wikipedia, though perhaps the less said about stuff like this the better!

We need to talk about your recent behaviour. It's not just the blast of vile hatred directed at me, it's your behaviour as an admin that really bothers me. As an admin you shouldn't use your powers to take part in personal disputes, or to win edit wars. That's just plain wrong.

In your acceptance of sysop nomination you talk of "highest standards of accuracy, inpartiality and correctness", "an absolute determination NOT in any way to personally abuse the responsibilities", and that these are responsibilities you "would take very seriously".

You published my personal details here on 1 September, restored them twice over when others deleted them, locked your page in an attempt to stop them being removed again, and when another admin unlocked the page and removed them, you then attempted to justify your actions here. Regardless of how you feel about me, this sort of behaviour is never justified.

You then logged out, created this sockpuppet account, vandalised another user's page, logged out again and commented on the sockpuppet's page, claiming that I had driven you off Wikipedia and was now attacking another user. Then, in case nobody noticed, you made the same allegations on WP:ANI. In fact, there was no evidence at all to link me with your actions, as an examination of your accusations reveals.

How do I know it was you? I can't check the IP addresses of the sockpuppet(s) you created. But if we look at the Dublin-based anon's edits, we can find a clear link with you through those edits of Talk:Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, looking at the edits made within a few minutes of another on 23 August.

For confirmation, I asked David Gerard, who has access to the IPs. David looked up the IP address and uncovered your shenanigans. Perhaps he would like to publish his findings.

But before we get to that stage, I'd like to ask you to make a clean breast of it, and explain exactly how you think you can continue to be an admin after this sort of atrocious behaviour. Your actions are far worse than anything I've done.

It is clear to me, and to anyone who has followed your career, that although you value sysop power very highly, you put the responsibilities associated with it at a lower priority than your own vanity.

For that reason, although I ask for an apology to me for all the injustices you have committed, I don't expect to receive one. Instead I expect to see more of your peculiar circular reasoning in the edit summaries as you repeatedly revert this message, and when you are finally moved to make some self-serving comment, it will be to express the vain hope that I will give up. You've spent several months expressing this hope that I will leave Wikipedia and quit pointing out your errors, and I wonder when the message will finally sink in that it's not going to happen.

I enjoy contributing far too much to leave the project and apart from the usual sort of minor spelling corrections I do to amuse myself, I've made substantial contributions under other accounts, as I am quite sure that David Gerard would tell you, if he wasn't quite so discreet about revealing personal information.

So I'm not going to leave, and I don't expect you to. We can make life difficult for each other, or we can find a solution, but we aren't going to make any progress without a bit of honesty on your part.

This rant has no place on this talk page

Take it to user pages.--Nicodemus75 23:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Can't. He's protected his talk page. Seems he doesn't want to talk.

Latin Mass & return of tiara

Since I've been rv'd on this twice maybe I need to explain myself more. The issue is this bit: "the tiara has not been abolished, merely laid aside in terms of usage. Thus a future pope could decide to be crowned and wear one of the Triple Tiaras: the recent increased usage of some traditional elements, most notably the Tridentine Mass, which in an about turn is now being approved for usage more widely,[18] might open up the prospect of a return of what was the papal symbol pre-Second Vatican Council." The footnote is a big long excursion into another topic, and a pretty eccentric excursion at that.

Sure, the recent increased usage of traditional elements might open up said prospect...and maybe it will also open up the prospect of a return of the sedia gestatoria. Probably not though. This strikes me as highly speculative. The article right now reads just a bit too much as though it were written to support a wishful-thinking, eccentric hypothesis that the tiara is on the way back. The purported context sounds more like argument to me, and as such doesn't belong in an encyclopedia artice. Isn't it enough just to note the possibility that a Pope could bring it back, and be done with it?

Moreover, the tone of this article is occasional inappropriately breezy and chatty (see especially that footnote 18 referred to above) and this needs to be minimized.--Transf1o 20:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The information you keep deleting is quite correct. The tiara is seen as one of a number of symbols that conservative catholics which to see used. All it does is point out that the return of some of the symbols, such as the restoration of the usage of the Tridentine Mass in St. Peters, the new pope's opposition to reordering of church sanctuaries, etc has increased speculation that the tiara could still come back and that its abolition may not be a 'done deal. Pope John Paul II himself ridiculed the basic claim that was used to attack the tiara's usage, namely that it symbolised a claim to temporal power. While the current pope controversially chose not to use it (something that had led to widespread criticism of him from conservatives) and removed it from his coat of arms, the Vatican openly used a version of his arms including the tiara in official documents. While Transflo may think the article is "inappropriately breezy and chatty" that is clearly a minority view, given that the article is a featured article had has been widely praised off Wikipedia. (A New England newspaper referred to this article as "the definite source of information on the triple tiara" while the Irish Times has also referred to this article. I got an email some months ago saying that the article was also listed as a "must see" web page in a Franciscan magazine which apparently awarded it "10/10" for research, content and accuracy.) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Prisoner of the Vatican

While Pius IX did declare himself a prisoner of the Vatican, it is worth noting his sucessors did as well. In fact, until John XXIII, Popes ate supper alone to emphasize this fact. Allegedly John ended this practice for the simple reason of not wanting to eat alone.

Vicarius Filii Dei

I'm simply noting here an inconsistancy within wikipedia, as the article entitled "Pope" sub-title "History of Papal titles," indeed lists and describes "Vicarious Fili Dei" as a current Papal title. However, from this article: "Contrary to what some believe or have believed in the past, "Vicarius Filii Dei" is not one of the pope's titles."

Neither have reference, and one or the other must be corrected. A once over didn't reveal to me that this inconsistancy had ever been brought up in either article's talk page.

Well spotted. A small minority POV pushers have been pushing the myth of Vicarius Filii Dei all over the net (some of them have specifically targeted Wikipedia). Obviously they've slipped it into the pope article again *sigh*. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it has been taken out again, but I don't see it now. Vicarius Filii Dei translates as "Vicar of the Son of God". The Pope does have the title Vicarius Christi, translating as Vicar of Christ. Perhaps that is where the confusion lies. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Quite a bit of chat here that seems irrelevant to the topic...

In any case, I want to draw attention to a statue of St. Peter in the collection of Metropolitan Museum. Peter is shown fairly young, and is tricked out in, among other things, a fairly tall, conical cap with a bit of a tassel at the top. I am pulling a blank on the date of the thing, but early Middle Ages sounds about right.

Isn't it interesting that some descriptions (not all) of the manadatory cap of the major flamens is of a conical item topped with a special item (a twig with a tuft of wool, as I recall, for the Flamen dialis and so on).

One wonders — all that nice Christian lore aside — if the papal cap is just another survival of ancient religious symbols, appropriated by Christian priests to assert their status. There is the curly-headed staff of bird-watching augurs (the lituus), now carried by Western-rite Christian bishops, and even employed by them in marking out the templum while consecrating a church, in just the same way as was done in pagan days. No shepheard's staff there. There is the herald's kerykion -- as it can be found in museum collections, with its two snakes facing each other, now carried by many Eastern-rite bishops, though some now "sanitize" the snakes by abstraction.

In short, Christian priests took over lots of things from those who came before. Would it be surprising to find that a Roman bishop adopted as his official headgear something that linked him to the old priesthood he hoped to supplant -- or had supplanted? --djenner 22:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Double Tiara

Not quite, but close. An edit on June 20 effectively doubled the text of this article. The second version "seems" to be the original, the first version a copy-edit of it, so the first copy was retained. Lima or someone else may want to check that. Gimmetrow 21:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Minor review

I've initiated a minor FAR for this article. I hope that someone can address the concerns I've raised there. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Minor review

I am new to wikipedia. Just done some minor revisions in the "666" section. Some sentences and phrases with regards to the Seventh-dayh Adventist church were somewhat general and had an unbalanced feel to them. I tried to address that. Stefanbs 02:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of the Papal Tiara

Think you guys ought to see the picture of the Pope with Patriarch Bartholomew I (currently showing at http://www.ecupatriarchate.org/), where the Pope is using his personal coat of arms with the tiara above it...!

Nainfa 00:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, in my excitement (and wishful thinking), I thought the mitre was the tiara... :o( Nainfa 02:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Weirdness at the End

Could someone take a look at the end of the article? It seems to be a very long web address. Missjessica254 18:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Pope hat

Should we put in there anywhere that it is sometimes in pop culture referred to as a "pope hat" Yes, it could be offensive to some people but.....I have heard it called that --Gen. S.T. Shrink *^{Get to the bunker}* 21:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The papal tiara is made of three crowns attached to form a giant quasi-hat, and is no longer worn, while the modern pope hat is less of a crown is more of a hat (it's a type of mitre). The term "pope hat" is in common informal usage, and currently redirects to Papal regalia and insignia, although that article doesn't mention the term. -Agyle 10:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tiara-1877.jpg

Image:Tiara-1877.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:BXVI_CoA_like_gfx_PioM.svg

I would argue that the image Image:BXVI_CoA_like_gfx_PioM.svg does indeed include a the papal tiara, or something designated to resemble it, but is simplified. The article, or the signature under the picture to be precise, states the opposite. --Ouro (blah blah) 13:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Pope hat

the search "pope hat" redirects to here instead of to the article on the mitre. The tiara was never called the "pope hat" and I think the term may have even come into existence since the last time the tiara was used.

Anyways, the point is that "pope hat" should redirect to the mitre article. I know little of wikipedia and thus do not know how to do it myself, so I brought it up here. Thank you. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.188.113.180 (talk) 09:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting Coincidence

In the 1968 film The Shoes of the Fisherman, Pope Kiril silences the crowd during his coronation by removing the papal tiara as soon as it is placed on his head, saying, "Jesus Christ, whose vicar I am, was crowned with thorns. I stand before you bareheaded because I am your servant." In real life, every new Pope since then has eschewed the papal tiara. Coincidence? Jimpoz (talk) 07:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Significance of 1798

There's a reference to 1798 that doesn't make sense: "Over twenty silver tiaras exist, of which the earliest, the sole survivor of 1798, was made for Pope Gregory XIII in the 16th century." The previous sentences cover events which happened hundreds of years earlier, so the context switch is confusing. 192.91.173.36 (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Seventh Day Adventists have a complex chronology that includes 1798. They apparently slipped it in with no reference. I corrected the Latin translation, which was unsourced and altered to fit their pov.97.112.218.67 (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I took out the Latin translation. It is unsourced and is incorrect. It was obviously done by someone who doesn't really know Latin.97.112.218.67 (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

As in the Vicarius Filii Dei article the blog quote has been deleted.97.112.218.67 (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I amended the last section. There was no evidence presented that these words have ever been on a papal tiara or that they are an official papal title. Please keep POV out of the article.97.112.218.67 (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)