Jump to content

Talk:Magnifica Humanitas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 26 May 2026

[edit]

Magnifica Humanitas → Magnifica humanitasMagnifica humanitas – Papal encyclicals are named after the incipit (first couple of words), typically in Latin, so should not use title case. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Artificial Intelligence, WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard, and WikiProject Catholicism have been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 16:21, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: related discussion at Talk:Humanae vitae. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Seems it should be case by case. i.e., We can't use a general principle like that without reference to sources (esp the main source). The document is capitalized on the description of its official website page. First result on Google, all that. The other sources (like news orgs, including Vatican News) vary in how they capitalize it. natemup (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much every papal document seems to do title case on the actual document page itself, even though the widely accepted official capitalization is sentence case, c.f. Centesimus annus [1], Mater et magistra [2], Casti connubii [3], etc. The actual capitalization comes from the first two words in Latin and whether they are capitalized. Since the Latin text hasn't been released yet we can't know for sure but it doesn't really make sense for humanitas to be capitalized, which, as in English, is usually for names or for God, e.g. Ecclesiam Suam, Christi Matri, Pascendi Dominici gregis. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 17:32, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, for the Pascendi Dominici gregis letter, the first words of its Latin version are "Pascendi dominici gregis" i.e. "the lord" is written in lowercase, which would not be done in proper English. This is one of the things that leads me to believe that though the Vatican names the documents after their starts, they don't necessarily care that much about case so might be inconsistent. Theo wiki user (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Vatican City and WikiProject Religious texts have been notified of this discussion. Abesca (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support, for consistency with other articles for papal documents. I note that the cover of the published Italian translation uses a lowercase "h". Whether we should codify or modify this sentence-case convention is a separate discussion entirely. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 18:02, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The uppercase is probably a Latinism. Abesca (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
See la:Magnifica humanitas (Wikipedia in Latin). Abesca (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think the titling as present on the officially-published physical text you linked makes Magnifica humanitas a slam-dunk. Not sure how that can be argued against. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 20:48, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I moved the article to the current title in response to a request made by natemup at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, and my action was purely technical. Or in other words, I have no strong opinion and would by happy to reverse the move if that is the consensus. However I found the request to be reasonable, and located these sources from the Holy See in which both words are capitalized: [4], [5] (for the second of those, scroll down several paragraphs). American Catholic organizations are also capitalizing both words, as seen at: [6], [7]. Those are what I used when considering the move, but I do admit that they are all English sites that may have disregarded Latin capitalization rules. No dispute from me if that was the wrong way to go. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:21, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    [4], at very least, is presenting in Title Case for a headline and so that's not really something that can be gone off of. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 20:47, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my reason stated above. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 18:24, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's a proper name and so mainstream sources such as the BBC and New York Times routinely capitalize it. Writing the name of an encyclical in all lower case looks quite wrong and confusing when it's so clearly a specific thing. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:13, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    BBC and NYT are simply incorrect, and Wikipedia shouldn't repeat the incorrect capitalization. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 20:46, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:COMMONNAME is not based on some esoteric concept of correctness, Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's official name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of ––... That means we go by sources such as the BBC and NYT. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:15, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "Generally", not always. The official title of a document is the official title of a document. MOS:NONENGTITLE says of non-English works: retain the style of the original for modern works. The original is most reliably Magnifica humanitas given the cover of the official physical copy pictured here ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 21:49, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The cover of the document is quite stylised as a graphic. Note that the English language news report showing the picture uses title case in its text. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:11, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Wikipedia typically favors utilizing its capitalization conventions over those used in news media. Should we get indications that the Vatican and RSs all capitalize both words, then we can follow them. Until then, we should move the page. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The official Vatican page for the document capitalizes the title. (Not on the page, which is all caps, but in the meta description, like what shows up on Google or in the browser tab description) natemup (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the capitalization: https://www.vatican.va/latin/popes_latin/leo-xiv/latin_hf_leo-xiv.html That said, the Acta Apostolicae Sedis only goes up to 2025. kencf0618 (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Papal encyclicals are by convention always styled in sentence case. This is equivalent to asking whether the species should be capitalized when appearing after the Genus. ~2026-31534-57 (talk) 03:20, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support — this would be consistent with articles for the other papal encyclicals and respecting title case. M.O.X (talk) 04:35, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: For consistency with what seems to be the common trend across Wikipedia. However, I concur with natemup and Andrew🐉 that title case looks neater for English speakers, so I'm also OK with title case if the consensus is to to do that site-wide, but I'm not sure if the work would be worth it. Note that the Vatican can choose to do whatever they want and don't seem to care so deeply about the case - the official English text (which may differ slightly from the unreleased Latin version) has the title in uppercase as usual, but encyclicals in the references section, such as Pope Leo XIII's In Plurimis, are written in title case.
Theo wiki user (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The Vatican capitalizes the title for this document in the meta description on the official page. natemup (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: That the formal name in some circles does not follow title case, likely in order to preserve the sense of incipit naming, does not make it the most popularly used, or obvious, choice. In the Vatican's official English version [8], Pope Leo XIV references dozens of past encyclicals each with title case. Media also uses title case. Wiki articles for past encyclicals do not employ title case, but per WP:SSE this should not be treated as precedent. RabidTuberculosis (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• I lean oppose, but it's not a strong opinion either way. The Vatican has capitalized the phrase fully (see here), as have Catholic news outlets like the National Catholic Register, so it should be fine as currently stylized. Not an expert on this subject though Doctorstrange617 (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think, on balance, I oppose this. Titles of Latin works are usually rendered in sentence case (see De rerum natura), and Wikipedia's general practice is to follow the norms of the language in question when formatting non-English titles. However, another common principle -- perhaps even a more overarching one -- is to follow WP:RS, and we know full well that the Vatican has plenty of Latinists around who know that rule. Presumably, therefore, Leo would like Humanitas to be considered a proper noun in this context: in any case, if this is a conscious stylistic decision, we should mirror it (again, cf. eBay, bell hooks etc). UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:51, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -"Magnifica humanitas" is more recognizable by the audience who is familiar with this type of publication. It's natural and consistent with the previously set standard. ‎G. L. Talk 15:15, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Magnifica Humanitas is the encyclical that reflects on the concept of magnifica humanitas. English language conventions often prefer every non-preposition to be capitalized in a title of a discrete work. In Italian, capitalization like that is less automatic (months are not capitalized, days, nationalities, etc.) Even if it's Latin, I'd defer to the English language conventions+usage in prominent English language publications. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's not exactly a "prominent English language publication," though. It is published and well-known in English, but the same is true for every other language it is translated into, and its title reflects a particular convention for Vatican documents based on the Latin version. Tikwriter (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It should reflect Latin usage (per MOS:FOREIGNTITLE, and the fact that it isn't a separate title, but the opening words. What counts as a reliable source for this usage differs given the subject matter. The technology editors who may have written about this for mainstream newspapers aren't where I'd go in the first instance on this matter of style, though their coverage is quite relevant to its significance. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per MOS:FOREIGNTITLE. SomeRailfan (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per MOS:INCIPIT, though I'd reconsider if we see Humanitas capitalised in the Latin text when it's published (which, like Darth Stabro, I'd find surprising). —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 01:45, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This seems like a no-brainer. There are a number of different guidelines I could cite but I don't think I need to. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Support Although capitalising each word may sometimes be used in media or modern typography for aesthetic reasons, where this conflicts with established Latin usage, I would support adherence to traditional Latin conventions. Latin orthography itself does not encode capitalization rules; humanitas remains a common noun, and any capitalisation beyond sentence-initial position reflects editorial or typographical convention rather than linguistic necessity. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    From another perspective: When a Latin incipit is used in English text, it is typically retained in its original form rather than translated or converted into English. It can be understood as a quoted title that is directly carried into the English writing system as a single unit. Because it functions within English discourse, it may be subject to English orthographic conventions such as title case (e.g. Magnifica Humanitas), even though its origin remains Latin (we can't change this anyway). However, it is still not generally appropriate to extract and reuse it as a standalone “English form” in other texts as if it were a standardised English rendering. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 10:07, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral/Waiting: There are conflicting pieces of information within the Vatican, the Encyclical itself, and the outside world ingesting it.

    Yes, the image of the Italian cover has "Magnifica humanitas", and that would fit with tradition of using the incipit, the first few words, to categorize the Encyclical as it follows sentence casing. There are also rules in Wikipedia, mainly MOS:FOREIGNTITLE, that dictate the title to defer to the original for modern sources. Editors also have respected the tradition so others can easily find that page. This has existed up until the previous Pope's encyclicals, with the most recent in 2024 being Dilexit nos, titled for the incipit in Latin.

    However, as of May 30, 2026, the [Latin page for Pope Leo XIV] has not uploaded the Encyclical in Latin. Related to this issue, the Encyclical itself has conflicting incipit casings in different languages. In English, the incipit is just "Humanity"; in Italian, it's "La magnifica umanità"; in Portuguese, it's "A Magnífica Humanidade". Therefore, we cannot determine what the chosen incipit case is because there are no versions uploaded with the exact incipit of "Magnifica Humanitas/humanitas".

    For some contradictions, the Pope has also, within the English version of the Encyclical, capitalized the titles of other Encyclicals, like Laudato si', Fratelli tutti, and Rerum novarum in paragraph 28. On the website for [Leo XIV's Encyclicals], it is shown as "Magnifica Humanitas" in the title preview, whereas other Encyclicals follow the casing in their title preview, like [Francis' Encyclicals]. Additionally, media has been shown to use "Magnifica Humanitas" when referring to this encyclical, as evidenced by other editors on this talk page.

    Because there is no settled agreement on the title, whatever title is most frequently used should be preferred, and only time will be able to tell what that is. Gett (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tikwriter (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as per nomination and consistency with other encyclicals. BasicWriting (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support in line with site-wide consistency Gamerwierdo100 (talk) 00:27, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Neutral - well I mean many wikipedia pages have the second word lowercased and the Vatican News article linked here: https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2026-05/pope-leo-xiv-encyclical-magnifica-humanitas-ai.html has it lowercased as well, but the other known Vatican news reporter EWTN (based in the US) has the second word capitalized. The USCCB is doing both, so it's just a debatable topic. Ryanaviator (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
here's what i mean about the USCCB's thing: the youtube video linked in the USCCB's Magnifica humanitas page has it lowercased on humanitas while the website itself https://www.usccb.org/magnifica-humanitas has both capitalized Ryanaviator (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gett Numbers Portuguese language has less rigid rules about casing [9] than eg Spanish. Abesca (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support as WP:CONSISTENT with apparently every other encyclical we have here (see Category:Encyclicals of Pope Francis. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The broader point is that the incipit doesn't exist in any version and the incipits that do are inconsistent because of their own language rules. The Pope can choose whatever he wants for the incipit, see Francis' choice of Italian for Laudato si', but the incipit does not exist in any version currently uploaded. Gett (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The proposed title does not match the title from the original source, the Vatican. While it was previously the convention to name the encyclical after the first few words, hence the older convention, this one has broken with that convention by not being published in Latin; however, it is still using Latin in its title. This is a clear, and deliberate, break from the previous tradition on publication and naming of encyclicals. As such, I think that the conventioned followed by the source (which has also been widely used in reporting) should be used here.— λ (talk | contribs) 22:29, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    All the Latin titles are Title Case on their individual pages but those are not the formal or correct titles, which come from the incipits, and have the sentence case capitalization in all other contexts. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 02:39, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as all encyclicals follow the same format. Lf8u2 (talk) 01:24, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

[edit]

@Darth Stabro: the translation is from Latin, there isn't any different version which is "official". Ignoring though this irrelevant factor I indicated of the problem: where is your source which indicates such a translation? I provided The Pillar as a source in the summary Cattenion (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The official title of the encyclical in English is a direct translation from the Latin. This can be seen on the Vatican English translation of the encyclical. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 23:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Cf. [10]. Unofficial rough translations should not be used. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 23:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide the source? I previously searched for "Vatican English translation" (or some variation of those words) and didn't find any source. Cattenion (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Could you indicate exactly where? - I could look through but it would reduce time for you to show. I'll continue to look while waiting Cattenion (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have now scan read (which is searching for the words Magnifica Humanitas & Humanity in Its Grandeur which is a technique based on perception, such that, the input of the textual data while in a focus/concentrated and undistracted attention would reveal any place where those words exist - without needing to actually proceed in sequence through the words from the 1st word) all and the only parts I found were "CONCLUSION 230 Mary praises in her Magnificat 233 the grandeur of humanity The song of hope: the Magnificat 243-5 "- there isn't anything in the text I found which confirms your suggestion. I made the error of thinking activating EN would reveal as you state but found infact only "it is the English translation which I am now looking at" Cattenion (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In the original change of translation, I provided 2 other indications of proof which were the traductors. These are known to be sometimes inaccurate but on both inputs the output was the same as the 3 sources I input into the article. With regardsto "official" obviously there are (as much as I know) other types of Latin - Ecclesiastical Latin, but the 3 sources are church affiliated sources 2 of which are official publications America (magazine) "the Jesuits of the United States" (which I'm presuming indicates a type of official) CAFOD "is the official aid agency of the Catholic Church in England and Wales". "The Pillar publishes news, analyses, and interviews on Catholic news topics in the United States and worldwide" is it's sole function (as much as I could determine from the article). Cattenion (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Kencf0618: could you provide an opinion on this problem? Cattenion (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I only note that this encyclical is not listed: https://www.vatican.va/latin/popes_latin/leo-xiv/latin_hf_leo-xiv.html kencf0618 (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks for your existing and existence in response - I just deleted the current provided translation Cattenion (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried looking at the very first words of the very first sentence of the introduction? That is the source of every title of every papal encyclical. ~2026-31534-57 (talk) 03:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! I think I got confused and misread your concern. ~2026-31534-57 (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
True! I didn't see that; "Humanity, created by God in all its grandeur". Though the words are different to the version of Darth Stabro + what of the fact all the sources I found indicating a certain translation? Cattenion (talk) 09:17, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This AI search does partially confirm you and Darth Stabro: "incipit"; though I think this reveals a flaw in the AI return - "takes its name from its opening words, which translate to "magnificent humanity." - those words aren't the first words. Cattenion (talk) 09:26, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The AI source "Why is it called Magnifica Humanitas?" doesn't confirm the incipit version. Cattenion (talk) 09:33, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"AI source" is not a phrase we generally want to see here. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 10:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The AI source is "ascension" (via the link) not "AI is/as the source" Cattenion (talk) 10:03, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ascension Press is a publisher that has existed since 1998. It does not use AI, as far as I know, unless something has changed very recently. I'm unclear on why you think it's AI? Tikwriter (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
p 466 James McConkey Robinson "quasi-title" - is the problem explicit. Cattenion (talk) 09:35, 27 May 2026 (UTC) I provide this source access version as the previous didn't load when I reviewed Cattenion (talk) 09:45, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A Google traduction of "grandeur": "magnificentia" noun​ magnificence is similar but not the same: "Humanities magnificence" is Magnificentia humanitatis - the difference is in the direction of inquiry - so I'm not satisfied that the incipit is exactly the title as Robinson indicates: wikt:quasi: "almost as if; like" Cattenion (talk) 10:01, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The incipit as Latin: Humanitas, a Deo in omni sua magnitudine creata Cattenion (talk) 10:20, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This source: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Cattenion (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just blanked the "translation" because there's way too much OR going on here for two words with no context. Let's wait for now, ok? SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"the official Latin translation" exists currently. Cattenion (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The only way the describe the problem - that I could think of - is as I just showed before you reverted. Cattenion (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The formal translation is Magnificant Humanity. The incipit (as English); which is indicated at the link List of papal bulls#Twenty-first century (etc) is provided in a dynamically translated way in Magnifica Humanitas. Cattenion (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
the official Latin text of the whole document is often the last version made. But the title is usually the first text given. Give it time. ~2026-31253-16 (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please see The first encyclical without a Latin version reveals a profound transformation in the Vatican which explains that this encyclical is a radical break with tradition in not providing an official text in Latin at the outset. It explains that the Vatican regulations now authorise the drafting of such official documents in other languages and so Latin has lost its special status.
It's not clear which other language was the primary one in this case but sources suggest that there were several authors such as the Pope and his Cardinals who used English and Italian as the primary working languages for their sections. We should try to clarify and explain this aspect in our article and I have made a start.
Andrew🐉(talk) 07:01, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, with respect to the renaming discussion, the article you linked capitalizes the 'H' in Magnifica Humanitas, but not the 'n' in Dilexit nos. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 03:49, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AI-generated text in the encyclical

[edit]

The latest version of this issue which was just reverted from the article was:

Analysis by AI-detection tools such as Pangram reported that some paragraphs might have been written by an LLM. Clues included frequent use of the word "genuinely" which is a characteristic of Claude.[1]

The issue doesn't seem to have reached mainstream media yet but there's a reasonable level of buzz about it on sites which cover AI. Ground News has a summary based on 18 news sources.

I reckon we ought to say something about this as it's nicely self-referential and helps shed some light on how the encyclical was composed by multiple authors and its literary style. But the findings seem fairly limited and tentative and so should be presented accordingly.

Andrew🐉(talk) 11:20, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided this amended text into the section on the public reaction, rather than the production itself:

Internet commentary has also focused on a tentative analysis by the AI-detection tool Pangram, allegedly showcasing partial LLM authorship in several paragraphs.[2][3][4]

I do believe the text now provides sufficient tentativeness in its secondary claim, as the primary claim is the internet buzz itself, and that buzz is something that ought to be included in our article, together with other media commentary and reactions, without making any direct claims as to the production itself, as had been done previously. BasicWriting (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think that despite the sensational coverage, this simply is undue weight on what boils down to a LessWrong user thinking Pope Leo uses the word "genuinely" too much when compared to earlier encyclicals (which, of course, were not written by either AI or Pope Leo). This entire issue, in my view, is an ouroboros of eating your own dog food. An AI-based AI detection tool claims a text is written by AI, and an AI-generated summary of sensationalist articles and Substack blogs regurgitates it. wound theology◈ 13:40, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is not our job to ascertain the veracity of the claim, rather, to report that the claim exists and is the subject of several articles.
In Your edit summary, You wrote "Disagree." Do You disagree that the internet is debating whether the encyclical is partially AI-written? Or that the analysis is only tentative? Or that it constitutes a part of the public reaction, comparable to the other narratives? BasicWriting (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant that I disagree that it now belongs in the article. My argument here is that we are giving undue weight to speculation, not that it isn't true. wound theology◈ 13:53, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You, I understand what You mean. However, in my view, people do indeed come to Wikipedia for answers, and if a speculation arises, Wikipedia oughtn't stay silent on the issue. Ideally, we ought to also provide a counterargument, but I have not managed to find sources other than the LessWrong article by Linchuan Zhang itself, as it does actually include a nuanced discussion, which may serve to further elucidate the various perspectives, as parts of the community disapprove of its findings. Moreover, it being a primary source to the whole debate and not merely a secondary one serves as further reason for its inclusion, in my perspective. BasicWriting (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support short entry To be clear, I support the inclusion of a short entry such as the examples above. I reckon it likely that, if the article has nothing at all, then it's sufficiently quirky that people will keep trying to add it. It therefore seems better to have something visible that can be watched and which will satisfy demand. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:18, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this garners further in-depth coverage in reliable sources or the Vatican states that AI was used in development, I wouldn't be opposed to a single-sentence mention. But I don't think the currently available sourcing is adequate. "AI detection" tools like Pangram have not been consistently shown to be reliable despite the claims of their developers. I also think the argument above about potential "reader demand" isn't very relevant - no need to judge based on a hypothetical. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found some fresh discussion of the issue in The Atlantic. I usually consider this magazine to be a respectable source and so have tried this out in the Reception section as

    Internet commentary has discussed a tentative analysis by the AI-detection tool Pangram, reporting alleged LLM authorship in several paragraphs.[5][6][7] Matteo Wong, writing in The Atlantic, was sceptical about the reliability of Pangram and pointed to another report which said that the Pope had written the encyclical using pen and paper.[8]

    Andrew🐉(talk) 18:07, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I support this suggestion, as it engages with the debate and introduces the reader to other sources, all of which are moreover relevant for the subject matter of the encyclical, that is, how humans relate towards artificial intelligence. Articles ought to always provide further context, not to simply withhold it. Otherwise, no single fragment of reception could ever be reported on, as, in isolation, each singular one is on its own "undue". BasicWriting (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any mention, unless a source other than an AI-detector, such as reporting on the production/publication process, gives support or evidence that AI was used. As it's stands, it's a sensational and scandalous suggestion (given the subject matter of the encyclical), and AI detectors are known to be unreliable.Tikwriter (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I kind of changed my mind, left the paragraph there, but changed the phrasing given the unreliability of AI detectors as a source. Tikwriter (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ Peters, Jay (2026-05-27). "Did the Pope use AI to write about the dangers of AI?". The Verge. Retrieved 2026-05-30.
  2. ^ "Claude, Author of the Humanitas — LessWrong". 26 May 2026. Retrieved 30 May 2026.
  3. ^ Peters, Jay (2026-05-27). "Did the Pope use AI to write about the dangers of AI?". The Verge. Retrieved 2026-05-30.
  4. ^ "Did Pope use AI to write his anti-AI encyclical? The internet is debating". Firstpost. Retrieved 30 May 2026.
  5. ^ "Claude, Author of the Humanitas — LessWrong". 26 May 2026. Retrieved 30 May 2026.
  6. ^ Peters, Jay (2026-05-27). "Did the Pope use AI to write about the dangers of AI?". The Verge. Retrieved 2026-05-30.
  7. ^ "Did Pope use AI to write his anti-AI encyclical? The internet is debating". Firstpost. Retrieved 30 May 2026.
  8. ^ Matteo Wong (30 May 2026), "America Has a Pangram Problem", The Atlantic

Vatican.Va Feeding Gemini

[edit]

Vatican.Va has ‘’’6’’’ trackers, some of which are feeding Gemini.

Twillisjr (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what that means exactly so please explain. What a search did show is that the Vatican has been actively using AI tools for purposes such as live translation. See Vatican introduces AI translations at St. Peter’s for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:31, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A computer user can find this information in Apple Safari’s Privacy Report. Twillisjr (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Twillisjr seems to be talking about features of the Vatican's website. When I tried this on my iPhone, it reported 6 trackers but they mostly seemed to be unsurprising Google tools like analytics and I saw no mention of Gemini. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:53, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
See: Proprietary software Twillisjr (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Magnifica_Humanitas&oldid=1356995565"