Talk:Pope John Paul I conspiracy theories

message: Before we consider "conspiracy theories" - which is already POV - shouldn't there be an issue of "un/natural death"? Could he not have been murdered by one person acting alone? --Hugh7 (talk) 04:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What about 'Unexplained death of Pope John Paul I'? Valetude (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: "Conspiracy"?

message: I've moved the Neutrality tag from Pope John Paul I to here after discussion on the that talk page. The POV tag here seems closely linked with the  and  tags on this article. Please see the information on Talk:Pope John Paul I for more information and previous discussions about the neutrality (or lack there of) of this section. —mako (talk•contribs) 14:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Didn't the film Godfather III suggest that the death of this Pope was a conspiracy that involved Michael Corleone? I'd think it would be included in the Popular Culture section. 204.115.253.51 18:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is there now but as parts of the Rational and  Popular Culture sections. Surely this reference should only be in the Popular Culture section as the rationale influenced the film not the other way round?  I might merge the Rationale bit into Popular Culture.  Any objections?  Jubilee♫clipman 01:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Godfather III 

message: This article is not a biography and is not within the scope of the WikiProject Biography.  Removed WikiBio tag. C. Williams (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Biography 

message: There are also conspiracy theories out there that claim that Pope John Paul I was ready to tolerate homosexuality and abortion, and that this was one for the reasons for his alleged poisoning. I find this to be quite far-fetched, but if anyone else can find evidence that Archbishop Luciani tolerated those things, it would not be a bad thing to write them down.  ADM (talk) 04:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to understand Luciani's attitudes toward things like divorce, birth control, test tube babies and living together without being married, go here -- although this is an "OMG heresy" site.  Especially birth control. I think that he would have revoked Humanae Vitae if he had lived. He doesn't seem "liberal" to me, but rather had a very practical sense of what it means to be human. --Bluejay Young (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Views on homosexuality and abortion

message: I’ve moved the bit about  Godfather III to the Popular Culture section; it doesn’t really fit in the Rationale section, does it? Moonraker12 (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationale 

message: I'm removing the tags which said there weren't enough references and so forth, since there are plenty of references now. 
Gone. --Bluejay Young (talk) 05:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  tags removed 

message: Say, killing people. Therefore, I ammended the sentence that previously said it's "impossible" to be a Roman Catholic and a Freemason (hell, I know two Freemasons that were baptised and nobody bothered to excommunicate so far, thus being Roman Catholics).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.7.130.139 (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lots of things that are forbidden get done anyway. 

message: the author doesn't have a wiki page and the recipient of the VC linked to as the author died over 100 years before the event of pope john paul I's death.
can someone clean that up? 188.220.151.59 (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  the link for the author http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Mahoney is incorrect 

message: Many of these [conspiracy theories] concern the serious corruption in the Vatican Bank (Istituto per le Opere Religiose), possibly linked to Freemasonry, which is forbidden by church law. None of the claims have been substantiated.
:I cannot see why clarification is needed for this claim that appears in the lede. If you believe that one of these claims is supported by fact, it is better to debate this in the appropriate part of the main article. Valetude (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. There's no logic to a request for evidence that something is not supported. It is generally impossible to prove a negative, and the burden of proof lies with the claim that something is present, not with a claim that it is absent. Pinging , who added the request nine months ago. If no one objects in a reasonable period of time, I will remove the template. Sundayclose (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed? 

message: I saw that after John Paul I's beatification, which happened last month, a user changed without consensus the original grave's image with one which depicts the current grave which presents the Blessed status of JPI. However, since this article talks about the conspiracy theories around his death and doesn't cite in any moment the beatification, I consider that it would be more relevant for the article the original grave's image. 
I added that photograph to the article but, since I saw that I'm reverted for doesn't getting consensus about that, I thought it would be more appropiate explaining that here also.
Best regards and thanks.
83.61.243.178 (talk) 10:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous image of the grave is now a historical photo and depicts something that no longer exists as such. If you wish to make a case for this historical image, please explain why the currency of this article should stop before September 2022. There is no particular expiration date on conspiracy theories or publication of them. There is nothing to prevent mention of his beatification in this article. I prefer that we update the image to reflect the current reality of the site; if we do keep the historical image, then we must caption it as historical and note for the reader (even with a link) that the inscription has been updated as of his beatification. Elizium23 (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Elizium23's reasoning is the most appropiate for this case after reading it. I'm going to add again the post-beatification photograph and caption it properly. Thanks and best regards. 83.61.243.178 (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Here I added the current grave's image with a a caption which says "Grave of John Paul I in the Vatican Grottoes, with its plaque updated after his beatification on 4 September 2022". Can someone verify it is ok please? Thanks again and best regards. 83.61.243.178 (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of grave 

message: I also saw at the end of the article this notice in red: "Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or  templates on this page, but the references will not show without a  template or  template (see the help page)." Can anyone be able to fix this error? Thanks again.
83.61.243.178 (talk) 10:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference's format error