Talk:Pope Alexander VI

Video Games

Surprised that Assassin's Creed is not included in the "In Popular Culture" Section, as Rodrigo Borgia is the Primary Antagonist of Assassin's Creed II. The Assassin's Creed wiki pages link to this Article, and there are many online records of the events of the games which detail his conflict with Enzo. The Final Battle of the game takes place after Rodrigo has become Pope Alexander, so it is not a case of mistaken identity.

If a lack of sources is the issue, here are some that provide detail about the character in the games (including from the developers themselves): https://www.giantbomb.com/rodrigo-borgia/3005-13230/

https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/characters/Assassins-Creed/Rodrigo-Borgia-Pope-Alexander-VI/

https://callumhonoursproject.wordpress.com/2016/04/12/case-study-rodrigo-borgia-assassins-creed-2/

https://www.ubisoft.com/en-us/game/assassins-creed/valhalla/news-updates/130Q6PvXH25FgKdWoFnjWK/travel-to-naples-and-help-the-auditores-take-down-rodrigo-borgia-in-the-latest-update-from-assassins-creed-rebellion 220.244.143.36 (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The section is already WP:TRIVIA, more of it is not needed. Veverve (talk) 12:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Your sources consist of a wiki, a content farm, a blog, and a WP:PRIMARY source. I'm not seeing enough coverage for this to be WP:DUE. Elizium23 (talk) 12:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Found some sources from published books.

1)https://books.google.com/books?id=blw4EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA48&dq=Alexander+VI+assassin%27s+creed&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Alexander%20VI%20assassin's%20creed&f=false (pages 48-49 by Springer Nature)

2)https://books.google.com/books?id=oGoDEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA37&dq=Alexander+VI+assassin%27s+creed&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Alexander%20VI%20assassin's%20creed&f=false (P.37 by Cambridge University)

3)https://books.google.com/books?id=X7xbxA4HjLIC&pg=PA126&dq=Rodrigo+Borgia+Assassin%27s+creed&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Rodrigo%20Borgia%20Assassin's%20creed&f=false (p.126 by Routledge)

4)https://books.google.com/books?id=GZxVYsBCdbkC&pg=PT108&dq=Alexander+VI+assassin%27s+creed&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Alexander%20VI%20assassin's%20creed&f=false ( Visible ink press) Kwesi Yema (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Still WP:UNDUE WP:TRIVIA. Veverve (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

"Alex 6" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Alex 6 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 14 § Alex 6 until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Tomb of Popes Borja ( Callisto III and Alessandro VI).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

You can't just say "or".

"Alexander's papal bulls of 1493 confirmed or reconfirmed the rights of the Spanish crown in the New World following the finds of Christopher Columbus in 1492." There needs to be context for this claim. PortsManteau (talk) 05:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Follow the wikilink provided? There were two bulls, of different ambits. The description is accurate. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

GJ Meyer material

@Sira Aspera: One would have thought that you would be familiar with WP:BRD by this point. Discuss first, waltz around on the revert button afterwards. - You are removing the reasoned opinion of a well-respected historian on grounds of personal preferences. It is a minority opinion, and for that reason it gets a directly attributed minority mention. Our entire group of articles on the Borgias remains happily stuck on the current (likely misapprehended) interpretation of Alexander's "offspring"; noting that there exists some degree of dissent is hardly WP:UNDUE. Further, you then went ahead and glommed the cite for Meyer's book onto a statement that he directly disagrees with, which is even worse because misleading. So no, I strongly disagree with the removal of this material. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

If I have a preference, it seems fair to say that you has too, since your answer seems to indicate that you favor Meyer's opinion. I am not so interested in the matter as to do in-depth research on his life, but what I have found makes me doubt his qualification as a "respected historian": from what I have seen, he neither studied nor worked as such in the academic field, just wrote popular book with many assumptions and little evidence with many assumptions and little evidence bent to fit what he wants to prove which sell, and given that he doesn't have an academic reputation or position to maintain, it is certainly a strategy he can support. But it doesn't seem to me at all that the historians were sensitive to his research: in ten years since the book came out I have not seen others historians take up his theses, and there would be work to be done, given that Meyer has essentially completely rewritten the Borgia's history. This confirming for me the impression I had formed while reading his book. The disagreement among historians Is mainly regarding Borgia's children concerns statements such as of Giovanni or Laura, actually controversial, or of Goffredo, which Borgia himself doubted, but I cannot recall academic works that doubt that Borgia had publicly claimed as his Vannozza's children. I don't pretend to have read all the new works, but it is such an exceptional hypothesis that if it had had solid foundations it would be quite widespread at this point. So no, I don't consider this source reliable and I find it exaggerated to dedicate half a paragraph to it twice,, structured among other things, in terms of phrasing ad position, suggestes he is right despite all.

When moving the quote, it was not deliberate.

Since my opinion essentially remains that of the summary and you have an opposite one, a debate between just the two of us seems useless to me because I don't think either of them will convince the other, so I think that either we wait until someone else comes forward or look for a compromise formulation.

Good day Sira Aspera (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)