Wikipedia talk:The Pope is Catholic

message: Furthermore, i bet ya Manjurian people or some people from the Prefecture of Wu or some Aboriginals in Australia don't have the slightest clue who the pope is. Project2501a 22:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to add that (both parts), feel free to. The Pope is Catholic could also cover more esoteric knowledge, even though it was really intended to convey the message that some people don't know things most do. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 23:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point! There have been antipopes. There was Novatian who was excommunicated. And, the Pope has not always lived in Rome, Italy. Perhaps that should be brought into the article as a means of introducing a Neutral point of view. The essay seems to be lacking needed NPOV.  Ronbo76 02:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The pope has not been historically Catholic.

message: Here goes nothing. Improvements coming! Ronbo76 01:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another great essay - time to be [[WP:BOLD]] 

message: Now that wikilinks have been provided, how can this essay be improved? Be WP:BOLD!  Ronbo76 01:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No section outlining a contrary opinion that provides a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views.  Ronbo76 02:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The change introducing the words third world should have those words removed. That in other articles I watch is seen as condensing remark/term. Ronbo76 03:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Expansion of the Con section to show that The Pope is not always Catholic. Might even be Create a new section which is a better suggestion IMHO. Ronbo76 14:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  When referring to "the pope" in this essay, I wrote it in the context of the person who is also the Bishop of Rome; ergo, this pope I am referring to is always Catholic. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 20:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I can live with that. Ronbo76 20:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommendations for improving this essay 

message: Just curious, why is it in there? It has absolutely nothing to do with the essay. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 20:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in articles/essays/policy/etc provide a well-rounded counterpoint. The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. Read any article and you should read both the positive and negative; the pro and the con. Hope that helps. Ronbo76 20:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As far as I know, Neutral Point of View applied to the encyclopedia proper. And how is it possibly a counterpoint? It doesn't seem to be disputing the issue. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 21:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Naturally, any opposing view would want to go into an essay with the redirect WP:ANTIPOPE.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Con section 

message: I find as a UK centric editor, who speaks the international language of English, it is merely necessary when writing to keep in mind that an American might be reading. MickMacNee (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Forget World View

message: Only the Latin pope is Catholic. The Coptic Pope is Coptic, etc-- thus the need for Pope (disambiguation)#Religious offices.
:And a minority dispute even that: see Sedevacantism. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Only ''one'' pope is "Catholic"

message: This section of the essay ironically highlights another problem with Wikipedia:
*To use another popular example, Paris is in France.  Most people are familiar with the famous city.  But some people may have a poor background in geography.  A bare "Paris" is also ambiguous with the dozens of other places named Paris.  Maybe you meant Paris, Texas.  Context will usually make this clear, but it is better to be explicit and remove all doubt.  Simply writing "Paris, France" instead of just "Paris" can go a long way towards clearing up confusion.  This also provides an opportunity to build the web by linking "France", i.e., "Paris, France".
The problem is that the editors who wrote this section seem to think that Paris, Texas will do, whereas Paris, France is deemed necessary.  If we need to state France, then we absolutely, certainly need to state Paris, Texas, United States.  The US systemic bias in Wikipedia is massive - so many pages with US content stop at naming the state and don't bother with the country, assuming that the reader will naturally know that Utah or Colorado or Florida is in the United States.  Try this - hit 'random article' and see how many pages to do with non-US countries/people/events etc mention the country (my test gave 91%) and how many US-related pages mention the country (my test gave 26%).  See the problem?  Assuming 'The Pope is Catholic' has a massive problem when it comes to US-related content, and this hasn't even been addressed in this essay.
I have, unsurprisingly, edited the offending section in the essay to include United States. 86.134.26.104 (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *But we don't need to wikilink the United States. The vast majority of English speakers (and if you don't speak English, you aren't likely using this encyclopedia) know what the US is, even those who don't live in it. WP:OVERLINK tells us that if it is a commonly understood term, it shouldn't be linked. We link based on "most" people, not "well there could be one person..." Additionally, the guideline tells us that linking large geographic features doesn't help. Since we're linking specifically to the Paris in Texas, that article will explain that it's in the US. Following a link from here to a generic article on the US doesn't help understand anything. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

text: dont worry it added earth, the milky way and the universe (jk) Realfakebezalbob (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aaaaargh! 

message: Some people doubt the person being the effective head of Vatican City is Catholic, such as Sedevacantists, Sedeprivationists, Conclavists, or Independent Catholics. One pope has been condemned as heretics (Pope Honorius I), another as schismatic (Cadaver Synod), by the Catholic Church.
Pope Francis has been accused of heresy by some mainstream Catholics (including three hermits). Not sure if it is related, but some years later, Francis stated in a catechesis that "The Church is the community of saved sinners. This is a beautiful definition. No one can exclude themselves from the Church. We are all saved sinners."
So, yes, I feel a citation is needed when talking about the pope's faith. Veverve (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some doubt it