This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Someone has gone through this article and added footnotes sporadically where they believe that "modern historians" have rejected claims of sexual activity. This won't do. By all means state which "modern historians" have challenged the view and why as part of the section discussing each of the claims. But without having a source that says specifically "modern historians have generally rejected this claim about pope x" then we are reinforcing bias. Particulalrly concerning where the "modern historians" cited turn out to be Catholic priests (!) - hardly impartial and reliable sources to fall back on. I accept some editors get uncomfortable with this topic but let's try and be as neutral as we can shall we?Contaldo80 (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi friend! Yes I did add these footnotes.
I hear your concern that without having a source that says specifically "modern historians have generally rejected this claim about pope x" then we are reinforcing bias. That is why I have weakened the language somewhat, in the places I've reinserted footnotes. We shouldn't say "generally" without a source confirming there is a majority consensus disputing, I completely agree. That was a poor wording on my part. However, I still think the footnotes are a good idea as readers who are scrolling through the list can see them and then refer to the details for more information about which modern historians dispute the claim..
Side note: I think mentioning that one historian is a Catholic priest is a good idea, so thank you for adding that. But saying that by virtue of his position his work is {{hardly impartial and reliable sources simply reinforces bias in the other direction, so priesthood is no reason to exclude reputable historians. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 09:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
