Talk:Pope Alexander VI/Archive 1

Archive 1

references

I've added back template:1911 in the references section. We may no longer be using it heavily here, but clearly it is a reference. Also, though, there are clearly other references and none are explicitly cited. I, for one, would greatly appreciate if someone who knows what sources were used for this extensive article would cite some of the references they used. -- Jmabel|Talk 06:53, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Why not

Alexander VI was Born Roderic de Borja (not Rodrigo Borgia). Borgia is the italian form of the surname (worlwide known), but I think it would be fine to put the real-born name, as well as mentioning that was born in Xàtiva, then in the Kingdom of Valencia , a part of the Crown of Aragon, that , of course, is Spain nowadays.

User:Tonipares 83.53.234.138 17:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to add, preferably with citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

What happened to the rest of the article?

Has this article been vandalized? It stops at the end of the first paragraph. I loaded it three times.

Whatever it was, it loads fine now. Are you still having a problem with it? - Jmabel | Talk 04:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Borgia / Borja

Why now "Borja" before "Borgia" in the lead paragraph. I have never seen "Borja" used in English, only in Slavic languages or in Spanish (I suspect it may be used in others). Not changing for now, but an explanation would be appreciated. - Jmabel | Talk 00:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Seeing no response, I will edit accordingly. - Jmabel | Talk 18:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is called Borga. There is no need for the alternate name to follow every single use of the word on Wikipedia. Such information should be discussed at length in the main article and not at all elsewhere, where it interrupts the flow. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No, actually, the article is called Borgia (Borga is a redirect to something else entirely), but, weirdly, the article called Borgia begins by referring to Borja. - Jmabel | Talk 02:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, we seem to be back and forth over whether his birthname was "Rodrigo" or "Roderic". - Jmabel | Talk 01:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jmabel; the form is usually seen as "Borgia" and should be written as such in the article. —Lowellian (reply) 21:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

IMO, this article is fairly POV against Alexander VI. For example "Pope Alexander VI's career is not known for great political ideals and his actions generally do not indicate genius." This is quite literally, a loaded sentence, and shouldn't be used in Wiki. It is the same with "Even if the stories of his immoralities, poisonings, and murders are not all true, there is no doubt that his greed for money and his corrupt nature led him to commit a great number of crimes." This simply cannot be presented in as fact or an unbiased opinion (which it most certainly is not). Epsoul 04:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably both more or less verbatim from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica and if retained (which I think the latter should be) should be attributed. - Jmabel | Talk 05:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think that explicitly quoting the Encyclopaedia Britannica is the right way to do it. If the text from the Britannica has NPOV problems it should be made NPOV, not just shoved inside quotation marks and called dandy. -Senori 00:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no rule at all against our quoting attributable opinions from what are considered reasonably authorititive sources (and this one has the advantage of being in the public domain, thus absolutely freely quotable). NPOV doesn't mean that article are opinion-free. It means that the narrative voice does not state opinions, and that we strive for balance in matters where there is a wide range of scholarly or critical opinion. Which means that if some other authority has a significantly different assessment than the 1911 EB, then we should quote that as well. But it is certainly OK to include attributable, knowledgable summarizations of someone's character or legacy. - Jmabel | Talk 07:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect it would be difficult to find anyone who thinks very highly of Alexander VI. john k 08:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the current form is more NPOV, but I think it's probably significantly worse stylistically. -Senori 23:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, we're just kinda stuck there. At least this approach allows us to somehow include the vivid 1911 EB writing without violating policy. Beats removing it entirely. - Jmabel | Talk 06:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about Alexander VI, and am not claiming that he was a great pope, but this article is definitely POV and the section on his education exemplifies this. Seriously what does a possible murder have to do with his education or election, and why is his misteress and ten children mentioned in that section? It seems to detract from the actual point of the section. Chooserr 06:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone seriously claims that he was a great pope or even a good one. The fact that someone like Machiavellie admired his politics should be cause for concern. Why in the world is the neutrality of this article disputed? There are maybe a few sentences which express opinion, but far more accounting of bad things that this pope did or consented to. To the people railing against the neutrality of this article I ask; how could an article about such a man be made neutral in your opinion?-Andy

It wouldn't matter if he was worse than Hitler, NPOV doesn't, and shouldn't be reserved to saints.

Epsoul 21:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Are there any ideas for how the article can be made NPOV without deemphasizing the misdeeds or universal dislike of this Pope? Hitler's article isn't exactly glowing, either. -Senori 07:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that this article reads POV, and agreed that it reflects the popular assessment current in 1911 (and long afterwards). The way to make it NPOV would not involve merely rewording the article, or simply arguing from first principles in the Talk section. What is needed is some reading from print material that reflects current research (be it academic articles or monographs, or standard texts covering the subject) and a discussion of Alexander's mixed reputation which reflects the traditionally black view as well as any newer assessments (all referenced, of course). Anyone up to the task? --Iacobus 00:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Do remember that "NPOV" does not mean that the end result is always half-favorable, half-unfavorable. It means (1) that the narrative voice of the article remains neutral and (2, really "undue weight" rather than NPOV) that the opinions expressed be roughly proportional to how widely those opinions are held by competent authorities. - Jmabel | Talk 01:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Admission of Iberian Jews

I propose to add the following segment, titled as above:

Alexander VI distinguished himself by continuing the medieval popes' tradition of relatively benign treatment of Jews. After the 1492 expulsion of Jews from Spain, some 9,000 famished Iberian Jews arrived at the borders of the Papal States. Alexander welcomed them into Rome, declaring that they were "permitted to lead their life, free from interference from Christians, to continue in their own rites, to gain wealth, and to enjoy many other privileges." He similarly allowed the immigration of Jews expelled from Portugal in 1497 and from Provence in 1498.

Aldrichio 05:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

date of election

The date of his election was recently and anonymously changed from August 10 to August 11. Since no source was cited, I have no idea whether this is a correction or vandalism. Does anyone know? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:32, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica here says that he emerged as Pope Alexander VI "on the night of Aug. 10–11, 1492".Hairouna 23:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Are we really supposed to cite our competitors as sources? (:-) 38.100.34.2 17:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Date of Pope Alexander VI Election

• Name:

Pope Alexander VI Born: Rodrigo Borgia

• Dates:

Born: January 1, 1431 (Spain) Died: August 18, 1503 (Rome)

• • Pope: August 11, 1492 - August 18, 1503 (11 years)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyelander (talk • contribs) 12:24, 12 December 2004

An odd footnote

I note that the then Roderic de Borja was co-prince of Andorra for five years, whilst Bishop of Urgell. If I read it right, this makes Alexander VI the only Pope to have been a head of state before his elevation; worth mentioning in the article? Shimgray 15:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...this seems questionable. during the Middle Ages, most bishops would have had considerable secular authority, equivalent to Alexander's authority over Andorra as Bishop of Urgell. The only unique thing about Andorra is that it, unlike other similar entities, has survived to the present day. 18:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mmm, and I suspect this would have been especially the case in (say) Germany. (Durham would be a classic example, but none of its bishops reached the Papacy SFAIK.). Ah, well; I'll keep it for the personal stock of undocumented trivia... ;-) Shimgray 19:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think all that remains here is the moderately interesting trivia that Alexander was the only Pope to be head of what today remains a state before his elevation. Not really worthy of a mention. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:28, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Actually this bit of trivia would spice up the article (not that it is not already interesting). 38.100.34.2 17:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Gnostic Saint?

How Did he get in to the list of gnostic saint's? What did he do to get that title. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.48.74.68 (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Thank Aleister Crowley for that. See Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica. -Senori 01:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Contrary View

For a milder opinion on Alexander, see William Durant's RENAISSANCE volume from his STORY OF CIVILIZATION. Durant's opinion is too lengthy to give in full here, but he makes these points (1) Nearly all the Renaissance popes had illegitimate children, so Alexander shouldn't be singled out for that (2) The military campaigns could be justified as defending Italy against foreign invasion, and Cesare was genuinely the best man for the job, so Alexander was not necessarily "aggrandizing his family" (3) Alexander's death took place during a malaria epidemic in Rome and was not necessarily suspicious. (4) His enemy and successor Julius II (who also had illegitimate children and went on military campaigns) may have paid scandal-mongers to blacken Alexander's reputation, including the secretary who gave gory details of his death (5) In general the corruption was a symptom of the times, not the pope, and would eventually culminate in the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter-Reformation, which raised the standards by which we now judge religious leaders. CharlesTheBold24.30.124.40 02:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ecclesiastical favorable opinion

According to the Xativa cathedral, his fellow Xativans have a statue of him, and the abbot, Arturo Climent Bonafé has published a collection of his articles for Levante - El Mercantil Valenciano titled "Homage to Pope Alexander VI" (in Spanish) that you can buy at the Xativa cathedral. --84.20.17.84 08:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

misc

Yes, MT, this serves as an indication that sometimes extracting materials from other sources is not such a good idea, and creates even more work than a completely new article would have generated.

The entire article is so biased that one is tempted to question the accuracy of the details. On the other hand, it does serve as an interesting example of how standards in knowledge distribution have changed over time - no one would accept this as acceptable "reference" work nowadays. I'll add it to my "attention" list for later (at work now, sadly) - MMGB

Yes, it sounds as if loving your children is a capital sin. For some brave Wikipedian ready to NPOV this, the typical defense for Alexander VI is that its bad name does not come from his deeds but that he favored his family and Spaniards instead of Italians who eventually wrote History. And as a note, I think that the whole family spoke the Valencian dialect of Catalan among themselves. -- Error 02:56 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

I have to argue that perhaps a secular leader could have fathered numerous illegitimate children and fostered Machiavellian tactics to oust the current leaders and put his own progeny in power. However the pope is supposed to be the "Vicar of Christ" and thus the supreme example of Christian morals and conduct. To have a pope violate every commandment in the Book is simply beyond the moral pale, and a contradiction in terms. Ddddan 21:27, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I should like to mention that nowhere does the Church claim or demand that the pope should be "the supreme example of Christian morals and conduct." That, in fact, would be Jesus Christ, Himself. The pope, rather, is typically acknowledged to be as sinful a man as any other, despite (or perhaps because of) his special position.Zerobot 03:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to try to revise this page a bit when I get a chance. However, if anyone has particular sources that praise the Pope, it would be a great idea to put them in their own section or arrange them as rebutting the charges that are held by the majority of historians as well as most of his contemporaries. Simply because they reflect poorly on him is no reason to call the article as lacking in neutrality. (RookZERO 19:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC))

I'm going to spend time over the next couple of weeks NPOVing this. Also there are any number of revisionist opinions that debunk just about everything written in this section. Frankly, there is a reasonable case that Alexander was an expert administrator - exactly what was needed by the church at the time - and, if he was somwehat ethically challenged, this was no more than other prominent individuals at the time.68.36.205.137 21:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

In the biographical section on his election to the Papacy, I replaced the word "simony" with the more appropriate "bribery." Although simony involves money and corrupt clergy, it specifically refers to act of selling ministerial work or sacraments for money; e.g.: a priest offers to say mass for the soul of a deceased love one in exchange for money or for that new palace he's always wanted. With regard to this papal election, the other Cardinals would have no need of sacraments or ministry from the future pope, so what we're talking about seems to be an allegation of basic bribery; i.e. trying to buy votes. User:68.13.176.42 09:04, 26 October 2010

Somewhat strange edits

Without citation or summary User:212.116.177.148 recently made a series of edits that seem in some cases to reverse the sense of statements, etc. I'm not expert on this subject; could someone who knows it better please comment on these edits? Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk July 1, 2005 07:01 (UTC)

Division of South America

Why is there no mention of Alexander's arbitration between Portugal and Spain? I wanted to link to this article, and was shocked to find nothing here. Jd2718 18:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ibids

I've just fixed two Ibids which were orphaned over two years ago by this edit. I think I'vegot this right, butsomeone should double-check that. Also, please read Wikipedia:Footnotes#Style recommendations regarding "Do not use Ibid, op. cit. or similar abbreviations in footnotes.", and see Wikipedia:Citing sources/Example edits for different methods for some better alternatives. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This Information lacking here?

"In 1496, Alexander VI approves a purity statute for the Hieronymite Order[1]." taken from Limpieza de sangre; or there?

Hieronymite Order, purity statute, Estatutos de Limpieza de Sangre.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.206.228 (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Secularism

The words secular or secularism are used a couple of times in this article. I kind of see what is meant because Alexander was separating the spiritual role of the church (which, it seems, he saw as truly belonging to the church) from the temporal assets of the church, which he treated as his own. This is a very odd use of the word secular and one might better use the word nepotism to describe what he did. I think the word secularism shouldn't be used like this, unless accompanied by an explanation of why the term is used. Yaris678 (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"Spaniard" help?

I see "Spaniard" everywhere used as an adjective. As far as I know, it should be "with Spanish help", not "with Spaniard help". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.58.196.244 (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Controversial

Is it really accurate to say that Alexander VI was 'one of the most controversial' popes of his era? That would imply that a significant number of people think his papacy was a good thing... 'universally detested' isn't 'controversial'. 165.91.166.118 (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

This article needs to be watched for vandalism. I removed "the pope has a faggot worm" from a sentence in the book section. Dr. Morbius 21:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This article has been vandalized. 118.97.57.157 (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed the entry regarding his death which previously stated he was assassinated by Ezio Auditore of Assassins Creed and updated it to read he contracted Roman Fever (which is the official cause of death according to the Catholic Encyclopedia). Segdae22 (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Inflammatory, unsourced material

I've removed some claims of "the truth" by User:Mazarin07 that appear to have from a non-neutral POV. Given the apparent bias and lack of citations, I feel this was an appropriate action. Those with more expertise in the area could either cite or refute these edits, which appear in the page's history. Kufat (talk) 02:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

unencyclopedic writing

This is just too much:

and a curious contrast, characteristic of the age, is afforded by the fact that a family so steeped in vice and crime could take pleasure in the most exquisite works of art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.86.78 (talk) 07:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Legacy

I suggest removing the references to Alexander VI having to do with Bramante, Michaelangelo, Raphael, etc. None of them came to Rome until the papacy of Julius II. See "Basilca, R. A. Scotti", not to mention the Wikipedia article of St Peter's. Fredminderbinder 4 Dec 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 13:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC).

that whole section is written in a rather fanciful tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.86.78 (talk) 07:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

POV, but well-put

The following phrase was recently cut. I agree it's POV but it's so well put; does someone know where it comes from so we can quote and attribute it? "…a curious contrast, characteristic of human nature, is afforded by the fact that a family so steeped in vice and crime could take pleasure in the most exquisite works of art." -- Jmabel | Talk 03:32, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Even if you can find a source for this, it still has no place in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.86.78 (talk) 07:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Children

How many children did he father? Once, the article said 10, but I can't find it again. One movie I saw, Luther (2003 film) said he only had 5. Emperor001 (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The correct answer is,... he had NONE! any sources reporting Pope Alexander VI fathered these alleged offspring haven't done their research, including Wikipedia authors.

The persons mentioned as his children are in fact his grad-nephew's and grad-niece fathered by the son of Pope Alexander's sister Juana, William-Raymond whom our scarlet mistress was married to. William-Raymond died in 1481 and Vanozza (Pope Alexander's alleged mistress) remarried Dominic de Arignano who was NOT the first husband as claimed elsewhere on Wikipedia pages.

All children of Vanozza(dei Cattanei or de Cathaneis)Borgia and William-Raymond had been born in Spain, not Italy. And if you study the time frame of the births, Pedro-Luis 1460(not even listed), Giovanni 1474, Cesar 1476, Lucretia 1480, and Jofre 1482 and the movements of Pope Alexander VI, who was primarily based in the Italian peninsula all these years with the exception of a 1472-1473 visit to Spain as Papal Legate, it is a falsification to claim them to be the offspring of Pope Alexander VI.

for better source material see -

1) Material for a History of Pope Alexander VI His Relatives and His Time, Peter De Roo, The Universal Knowledge Foundation, NY., 1924

2) The Borgia Pope Alexander the Sixth, Orestes Ferrara, trans. F.J. Sheed, Sheed & Ward, London 1942

3) The Meddlesome Friar and the Wayward Pope, Michael de la Bedoyere, Hanover House, Garden City, NY., 1958

4) The Truth about Rodrigo Borgia, Pope Alexander VI, N. Martin Gwynne, Tradibooks, Sainte Croix du Mont, France, 2008 (see pg 30 immediately on google) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.185.92 (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

¶ I tend to doubt that Rodrigo had no children of his own. But the article mentions, in the sidebar, a son named Ottaviano, whom I have found nothing about. He is not mentioned in the charts of the Borgia family tree -- altho I have found a single reference to another son, Pedro Luis, died 1485, before Rodrigo became Pope. Perhaps Ottaviano was the son of one of Rodrigo's many mistresses. In any case, I would appreciate it if someone would find out and clarify about Ottaviano & Pedro. Sussmanbern (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Cesare ? (Is it possible to mention that Pope Alexander VI actually sired children?)

I know who 'Cesare' is; however there is no connection made in this article: his name just appears from nowhere. Until then i have removed 'Cesare' section. Is it possible to mention that Pope Alexander VI actually sired children? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.144.34 (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Counting popes

The article says Alexander worked in the Curia under "five popes – Pius II, Paul II, Sixtus IV and Innocent VIII – ". Now I'm a math Ph.D., so counting is certainly not one of my strengths, but that looks like just four popes to me. 209.179.92.52 (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Opinions of Sixtus V and Urban VIII

In the lead there is a following sentence: Two of Alexander's successors, Sixtus V and Urban VIII, described him as one of the most outstanding popes since St. Peter. However, as far as I know, neither of these Popes remarked that he's talking specifically about lexander the Sixth, but simply about "Pope Alexander". Actually, there was a Pope with this name greatly admired in the early modern age, but it was 12th century Pope Alexander III, not Alexander VI Borgia!! For example, Pope Alexander VII took his name in honour of Alexnder III, not Alexander VI (see. Pastor, History of the Popes, vol. 31, p. 9). I really doubt whether Sixtus and Urban had Borgia in their minds CarlosPn (talk) 07:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Game reference

From the article: "...His death revolves around the secret "Assassin", who in the game is Ezio Auditiore de Firenze, who spares him after defeating him in the vault room (In-Game) of the Vatican....." Not clear. Does he die or is he spared? He may be a pope but he can't have it both ways... even in a game. -- Buster7 (talk) 12:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• He lives in the game; I'll clear it up if it hasn't been changed already. Jasca Ducato (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Also related to the game section, the part where it says that Rodrigo fled and recovered the staff. The part about him recovering the staff I don't recall happening. In the beginning of "Brotherhood" the staff gets sucked into the ground while Ezio is trying to recover it, and Rodrigo is long gone by this scene. I haven't finished the game, but anyone who has: does Rodrigo recover the staff at some later point, or is this an inaccurate description? TransOceanic (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I've finished the game, so spoilers for those who still wish to. Rodrigo is killed in "Brotherhood" by Cesare, with a poisoned apple, if memory serves me correctly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.115.185 (talk) 05:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Incest

Recently added, no citation: "(He was also suspected of incest with his own daughter Lucrezia.)" I don't think such a remark should be in an article without citation. I am removing it. If someone has a decent source for this, please re-insert it with citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

A similar sentence is included in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, with a citation. I can't find the source cited, though. -Senori 05:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one that posted it, but if I can find a credible citation without having to look too far I'll restore it. The allegation was widespread during his lifetime. (RookZERO 19:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC))

I believe the Catherine Murphy book "The Pope's Daughter" about Julius II's daughter mentions this rumor, however it has been a while since I read. It's in the early chapters explaining why Felice Della Rovre didn't get the same treatment as Lucrezia. 164.76.176.136 00:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)llewllynn (llewllynn 20:49, 4 April

Of course, this should be posted as part of the mytholgy created aroud his figure. If I can find the time for it, I will also include the rumours about him practicing dark magic, which became very widespread shortly after his death. --John Caves Goldenbear (talk) 06:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Biased towards Alexander

This article seems to be biased in favour of the subject and quotes Mallett far too much (Mallett defends Alexander far too much, and is cited too often). Alexander's sex life is largely omitted (where are the orgies, and the "Joust of Whores"??), that Cesare killed his brother his glossed over (yet Cesare's page happily admits the possibility), and what about Julius II's opposition?: "He desecrated the Holy Church as none before", said Julius of his predecessor, and had Alexander's apartments closed for 300 years! This article should even have an POV tag as a warning.Malick78 (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2013 (

A very interesting point, I'm sure, but I think that, in that case, the article should also highlight the fact that orgies were a highliy common paractice for popes (and high ranks of the Church in general) during that period, making Alexander VI's hobbies no different from those of his predecessors. It is very interesting, and perhaps there should be a section about it, how the fact of him being a non-italian pope (and not having a good relationship with the Italian and Roman elites) has affected his image and his legend. --John Caves Goldenbear (talk) 07:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Orgies

Throught wikipedia Alexander is referred to as the pope who hosted orgies in the palaces, yet in this article this is depicted as a fabrication (with only one spurious citation tho). What is correct? John Holly (talk) 07:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

http://one-evil.org/people/people_15c_Alexander_VI.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.96.60 (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

In my oppinion, it is not a fabrication. However, it has probably been somewhat exaggerated. This might be partly due to the reasons I suggest in the "biased towards Alexander" section. Moreover, I think that we should bear in mind that orgies were a highly common practice for popes, bishops and cardinals during this period.--John Caves Goldenbear (talk) 09:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Plaque outside the Archbishop's Palace

I put back the full image of Plaque outside the Archbishop's Palace, Valencia in the section "Archbishop of Valencia" as:

- One can see the original Spanish text
- It is related to that section

Carrasco (talk) 13:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Borgia corruption seeded the reformation I must take issue with this comment under Legacy "It has been noted that the alleged misdeeds of Alexander VI are similar in nature to those of other Renaissance princes, with the one exception being his position in the Church." which seems to totally ignore the future split in Christiandom.

“Fourteen years after his death, the corruption of the papacy that Alexander VI exemplified - particularly the sale of indulgences - would prompt a young monk by the name of Martin Luther to nail a summary of his grievances on the door of a church in Germany and launch the Protestant Reformation.” Second citation more background on Martin Luther. Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the door of All Saints' Church in Wittenberg on 31 October 1517, sparking the Reformation. 09:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)09:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)09:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)09:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)09:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)09:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)09:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)09:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)09:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)09:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)09:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)09:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)09:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)09:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)09:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)09:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)09:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)09:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)09:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)09:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)09:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)09:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)09:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)AndrewHart500 (talk)

Glad to see these edits by user AndrewHart500 were undone. The quotation on "sale of indulgences" implying it was general policy of the popes/Church made clear this person doesn't have knowledge or depth on the topic at all. Sale of Indulgences as an approved norm is entirely mythically, or more correctly a fabrication continually repeated the last 500 years in anti-Catholic propaganda. It might be true to say the same myth helped spur on a separatist reformation but this is completely different from what was first implied by the quotation taken from his poorly referenced link.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.209.61.22 (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2014

Roderick or Roderic

An editor changed "'Pope Alexander VI, born Roderic Llançol i de Borja " to "Pope Alexander VI, born Roderick Borgia (Valencian: Roderic Llançol i de Borja". But should it be "Roderick Borgia" or "Roderic Borgia"?

Search on Google Books:

• "Roderick Borgia" 99 results
• "Roderic Borgia" 336 results
• "Rodrigo Borgia" 28,400 results

Search on Google.co.uk:

• "Roderick Borgia" 102
• "Roderic Borgia" 211
• "Rodrigo Borgia" 357 results

I have changed it from "Roderick Borgia" to "Roderic Borgia", because the later seems more normal.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

After going through the talk page, I realised from discussions in 2004-2005 that I should have checked for "Rodrigo Borgia". This is vastly more common in English.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Mistresses and family

Returning this section, after someone deliberately attempted to remove it from view

Children

How many children did he father? Once, the article said 10, but I can't find it again. One movie I saw, Luther (2003 film) said he only had 5. Emperor001 (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The correct answer is,... he had NONE! any sources reporting Pope Alexander VI fathered these alleged offspring haven't done their research, including Wikipedia authors.

The persons mentioned as his children are in fact his grad-nephew's and grad-niece fathered by the son of Pope Alexander's sister Juana, William-Raymond whom our scarlet mistress was married to. William-Raymond died in 1481 and Vanozza (Pope Alexander's alleged mistress) remarried Dominic de Arignano who was NOT the first husband as claimed elsewhere on Wikipedia pages.

All children of Vanozza(dei Cattanei or de Cathaneis)Borgia and William-Raymond had been born in Spain, not Italy. And if you study the time frame of the births, Pedro-Luis 1460(not even listed), Giovanni 1474, Cesar 1476, Lucretia 1480, and Jofre 1482 and the movements of Pope Alexander VI, who was primarily based in the Italian peninsula all these years with the exception of a 1472-1473 visit to Spain as Papal Legate, it is a falsification to claim them to be the offspring of Pope Alexander VI.

for better source material see -

1) Material for a History of Pope Alexander VI His Relatives and His Time, Peter De Roo, The Universal Knowledge Foundation, NY., 1924

2) The Borgia Pope Alexander the Sixth, Orestes Ferrara, trans. F.J. Sheed, Sheed & Ward, London 1942

3) The Meddlesome Friar and the Wayward Pope, Michael de la Bedoyere, Hanover House, Garden City, NY., 1958

4) The Truth about Rodrigo Borgia, Pope Alexander VI, N. Martin Gwynne, Tradibooks, Sainte Croix du Mont, France, 2008 (see pg 30 immediately on google) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.185.92 (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

¶ I tend to doubt that Rodrigo had no children of his own. But the article mentions, in the sidebar, a son named Ottaviano, whom I have found nothing about. He is not mentioned in the charts of the Borgia family tree -- altho I have found a single reference to another son, Pedro Luis, died 1485, before Rodrigo became Pope. Perhaps Ottaviano was the son of one of R'd many mistresses. In any case, would appreciate if someone would find out and clarify about Ottaviano & Pedro.108.45.61.247 (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.232.70.188 (talk)

Legacy

The legacy section looks very unbalanced. It does mention the criticism but overall it reads like an apologia of Alexander. It's tone is certainly not representative of the views of the overwhelming majority of historians who rank him among the worst popes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you could give examples.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Of what? The Legacy section as written looks like a revisionist attempt to rehabilitate the man. It ignores the overwhelming consensus among historians that Alexander ranks among the worst Popes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Please could you give examples of this "overwhelming consensus among historians".-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Here are a few from a quick search + my own library... [1], [2], [3], [4], The Bad Popes, Christopher Herbert in his book The Borgias and Their Enemies, Arnold Mathew in his book The Life and Times of Rodrigo Borgia, Pope Alexander VI. It's also relatively easy to find rankings of the best and worst popes via a Google search. Not all of these lists are done by persons with academic credentials but the bad lists ALL seem to include Alexander VI. There are a number of other historians who have compiled works on late Medieval - early Renaissance history who are uniformly negative in their assessment of him. One can look at the Cambridge History of Western Civilization which I don't have a copy of but recall many years ago ready a blistering assessment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I need to add a note here because I'm not sure how serious you were when requesting examples. If you honestly are unaware of the historical consensus regarding the subject of this article, you really should probably not be editing it. This falls under WP:CIR. I'm not trying to be snarky here. There is a reason I don't generally edit articles on techy subjects. That's because my tech competency level is pretty low. That rule applies to pretty much every subject on Wikipedia. A prerequisite for writing on a subject is that you have at least some familiarity with the subject. And based on your above comments, I have some concerns about that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources not on the opinions of editors. If you want the article to reflect an alleged consensus we need examples.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

And I have provided them. The only editorializing that I see here is the legacy section as currently written which thumbs its nose at the broad consensus among historians. Beyond which if we are going to weight a section about the subject's legacy with material favorable to them then there needs to be reliable source evidence that reflects a generally favorable opinion of the subject. When a section is written in the manner that the legacy section has been it raises serious questions about WP:NPOV and WP:AGENDA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

This is ridicolous. The whole article reads like an utter apology of the Borgia. It puts in bad light "the DEPOSED DESPOTS, the Orsini" and in general all Italians, who are depicted as envious of the Borgia, who have been allegedly either misunderstanding or slandering his (hear, hear!) enlightened government. Absolutely in poor taste.--79.27.56.58 (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

'Further Reading' and 'bibliography'

What is the rationale behind having two separate subsections, some distance from one another? Is it that you should read the 'Further Reading', but not bother with the 'Bibliography'? It seems to me that the material in the 'Bibliography' could be culled, leaving out some of the sex obsessed books, and the crime obsessed books, and those that are completely tangential. Then, the two sections should be combined into one, and alphabetized. --Vicedomino (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The Lead

The following statement is made in the Lead;

"He is one of the most controversial of the Renaissance popes, partly because he acknowledged fathering several children by his mistresses."

While Alexander VI did have several children and mistresses as well, that is not what made him controversial. In our own time, a Monsignor in New York, the nephew of a cardinal, kept a mistress in the Rectory; a bishop in Ireland had a mistress and a son; an Archbishop of Atlanta was sleeping with a member of the choir. None of them is controversial because of their sins. It is what Pope Alexander did in company with his sons when he came to the papacy that made him controversial: murder, poisoning, alienation of church property, the list goes on.

I'm afraid that too much of the material in the article, and too many of the references, are POV problematical. They represent the Roman Catholic apologetic, not the view of historians. I do not expect measured judgment from The Knights of Columbus or the website Rorate Coeli, and I think they could easily be replaced by more neutral sources. --Vicedomino (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Cleverly Removed Sections

Revisionism is wildly at work with this wikipage. I'd suggest there is much NPOV at work. As in Pope Alexander's time, dealing with propagandists can be tricky. Take for example this earlier section which was deliberately removed and further, even erased from the TALK pages.

Children

How many children did he father? Once, the article said 10, but I can't find it again. One movie I saw, Luther (2003 film) said he only had 5. Emperor001 (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The correct answer is,... he had NONE! any sources reporting Pope Alexander VI fathered these alleged offspring haven't done their research, including Wikipedia authors.

The persons mentioned as his children are in fact his grad-nephew's and grad-niece fathered by the son of Pope Alexander's sister Juana, William-Raymond whom our scarlet mistress was married to. William-Raymond died in 1481 and Vanozza (Pope Alexander's alleged mistress) remarried Dominic de Arignano who was NOT the first husband as claimed elsewhere on Wikipedia pages.

All children of Vanozza(dei Cattanei or de Cathaneis)Borgia and William-Raymond had been born in Spain, not Italy. And if you study the time frame of the births, Pedro-Luis 1460(not even listed), Giovanni 1474, Cesar 1476, Lucretia 1480, and Jofre 1482 and the movements of Pope Alexander VI, who was primarily based in the Italian peninsula all these years with the exception of a 1472-1473 visit to Spain as Papal Legate, it is a falsification to claim them to be the offspring of Pope Alexander VI.

for better source material see -

1) Material for a History of Pope Alexander VI His Relatives and His Time, Peter De Roo, The Universal Knowledge Foundation, NY., 1924

2) The Borgia Pope Alexander the Sixth, Orestes Ferrara, trans. F.J. Sheed, Sheed & Ward, London 1942

3) The Meddlesome Friar and the Wayward Pope, Michael de la Bedoyere, Hanover House, Garden City, NY., 1958

4) The Truth about Rodrigo Borgia, Pope Alexander VI, N. Martin Gwynne, Tradibooks, Sainte Croix du Mont, France, 2008 (see pg 30 immediately on google) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.185.92 (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

¶ I tend to doubt that Rodrigo had no children of his own. But the article mentions, in the sidebar, a son named Ottaviano, whom I have found nothing about. He is not mentioned in the charts of the Borgia family tree -- altho I have found a single reference to another son, Pedro Luis, died 1485, before Rodrigo became Pope. Perhaps Ottaviano was the son of one of Rodrigo's many mistresses. In any case, I would appreciate it if someone would find out and clarify about Ottaviano & Pedro. Sussmanbern (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.94.166 (talk)

Cleverly Removed Sections

Revisionism is wildly at work with this wikipage. I'd suggest there is much NPOV at work. As in Pope Alexander's time, dealing with propagandists can be tricky. Take for example this earlier section which was deliberately removed and further, even erased from the TALK pages.

Children

How many children did he father? Once, the article said 10, but I can't find it again. One movie I saw, Luther (2003 film) said he only had 5. Emperor001 (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The correct answer is,... he had NONE! any sources reporting Pope Alexander VI fathered these alleged offspring haven't done their research, including Wikipedia authors.

The persons mentioned as his children are in fact his grad-nephew's and grad-niece fathered by the son of Pope Alexander's sister Juana, William-Raymond whom our scarlet mistress was married to. William-Raymond died in 1481 and Vanozza (Pope Alexander's alleged mistress) remarried Dominic de Arignano who was NOT the first husband as claimed elsewhere on Wikipedia pages.

All children of Vanozza(dei Cattanei or de Cathaneis)Borgia and William-Raymond had been born in Spain, not Italy. And if you study the time frame of the births, Pedro-Luis 1460(not even listed), Giovanni 1474, Cesar 1476, Lucretia 1480, and Jofre 1482 and the movements of Pope Alexander VI, who was primarily based in the Italian peninsula all these years with the exception of a 1472-1473 visit to Spain as Papal Legate, it is a falsification to claim them to be the offspring of Pope Alexander VI.

for better source material see -

1) Material for a History of Pope Alexander VI His Relatives and His Time, Peter De Roo, The Universal Knowledge Foundation, NY., 1924

2) The Borgia Pope Alexander the Sixth, Orestes Ferrara, trans. F.J. Sheed, Sheed & Ward, London 1942

3) The Meddlesome Friar and the Wayward Pope, Michael de la Bedoyere, Hanover House, Garden City, NY., 1958

4) The Truth about Rodrigo Borgia, Pope Alexander VI, N. Martin Gwynne, Tradibooks, Sainte Croix du Mont, France, 2008 (see pg 30 immediately on google) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.185.92 (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

¶ I tend to doubt that Rodrigo had no children of his own. But the article mentions, in the sidebar, a son named Ottaviano, whom I have found nothing about. He is not mentioned in the charts of the Borgia family tree -- altho I have found a single reference to another son, Pedro Luis, died 1485, before Rodrigo became Pope. Perhaps Ottaviano was the son of one of Rodrigo's many mistresses. In any case, I would appreciate it if someone would find out and clarify about Ottaviano & Pedro. Sussmanbern (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.94.166 (talk)

External Links

There are items in 'External Links' which are really bibliography. Just because an article can be externally linked does not mean that it becomes an external link. --Vicedomino (talk) 03:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pope Alexander VI. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426065604/http://attomelani.net/de_roo/volumeII_lowres.pdf to http://attomelani.net/de_roo/volumeII_lowres.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

No Crime?

The section about crime is ridiculous. Many serious historians described Alexander 6 and his family's crimes, you can start here. Implying that there was no crime and showing no dissent is very NPOV. Yishayl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yishayl (talk • contribs) 08:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 March 2021 and 12 June 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RenaissanceMan1389. Peer reviewers: Sinsterrez12.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Legacy (yet again)

Someone keeps removing maintenance tags from this section. The legacy section is a near whitewashing of Alexander's legacy and badly fails NPOV. See this discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The crime section is also patently NPOV. It's ignoring of sources (see the thread above) is so glaring that it raises concerns about the basic factual integrity of the article. I have tagged both sections and the article as a whole. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy ping Yishayl. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• Two facets here. One, there is increasing evidence that the philandering, debased Alexander VI image is indeed just that - a carefully constructed image with little basis in primary accounts. As an example of more modern scholarship, Meyer's The Borgias: The Hidden History gives a convincing rundown of contemporary sources that suggest a much less sensationalist reading. So there is a basis for a certain amount of "whitewashing", and our Borgia articles are still missing most of that.

Second, I am surprised at the contents of the current "Legacy" section because it consists of just counter-examples and counter-arguments, and not very good ones at that. For all that we are currently presenting what is very likely a made-up, unhistorical image of this person, we are bound by consensus in the field, and we can't have a Legacy section that expressly runs against that. It's just plain confusing. Unless we were to have a separate "Revisionist scholarship" section (which is not a good idea) this stuff needs to be integrated in context, not tagged on like a third opinion. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

(Re the crime section: similar - that needs to be expanded, presenting both current standard view and alternative readings.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The crime section is perhaps a little overly reliant on a single source but is useful info (that ought just be appended elsewhere). As for the legacy section, I'm going to tame some of the language to reduce POV violations. Feel free to revert if you feel they are inadequate. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, the more I read that the more we need someone with more in-depth knowledge to come through here and make sure the whole section isn't just revisionism. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

NPOV dispute, continued

@Elmidae: I appreciate the reality check on the cited source, but I must insist that the prose which I deleted is out-of-bounds in terms of neutrality. It's pure WP:PEACOCK, subjective adulation, and you've reinstated it in our own Wikivoice. I could also replace Borgia's name with the name of any other pope and nobody would be the wiser. Surely there are attributes of someone's appearance and personality that could be described in specific and neutral terms, but if this is all we can find in the "seminal book", then we don't want it at all. Elizium23 (talk)

The wikivoice is a problem, but the material is absolutely not an issue if attributed and presented correctly. Make that "De Roo states that ...", use actual quotes, and there you go. The relevant text is here (search for Chapter X). Of course it's hagiographic; de Roo is known for that. If it can be juxtaposed with other POVs then all the better, but it is not our place to cull historical sources because we feel they don't have a neutral tone of voice. The neutrality must on our end, not on theirs. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I have replaced the wikivoice with direct de Roo citations. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC)