Talk:David Bawden

message: H.H. Pope Michael was ordained and consecrated by a bishop with valid orders from the Duarte Costa lineage, and so the quote attributed by "John L. Allen Jr." is fatheaded and nonsensical, besides being incompetent as Allen is no authority at all....  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.249.115.244 (talk) 08:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would be great if you could give His apostolic lineage, or a link, and the date of His consecration.  Perhaps Mr Allen wrote before H.H. was ordained.  The Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church does not recognize most ordinations of the Duarte Costa lineage.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardson mcphillips (talk • contribs) 21:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The information was provided on the page before it was butchered into its present caricature first by a miscreant than by Wikipedians who have locked this page. H.H. Pope Michael was ordained and consecrated by Robert Biarnessen who was consecrated by John Parnell. Whether the "Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church" recognizes or not the ordinations and consecrations of the Duarte Costa lineage is not relevant. 115.249.115.244 (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: First, you are replying to a 10 year old comment. Second, the article states, in its current form, "...he had been ordained a priest and then consecrated a bishop on December 11, 2011, by an Independent Catholic episcopus vagans, Bishop Robert Biarnesen of the Duarte-Costa and Old Catholic episcopal lineages." It appears what you want is a dissertation on the actual claim to papacy, like you did in [This edit ] 10 years ago. Your addition to that edit regarding ordination, "He was ordained December 9th, 2011, and consecrated the following day by Bishop Robert Biarnesen, a bishop in the lineage of the Brazilian Duarte Costa" is in the current article, with citations. P37307 (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I feel silly now. I got this edit notification for a photograph request and missed that all together and plowed through to reply to a 10-year-old reply myself. P37307 (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: the article states that Mr Bawden is considered an antipope, but the definition of antipope at the (Wikipedia) link provided denies it: "An antipope ... is a person who makes a widely accepted claim to be the lawful pope, in opposition to the pope recognized by the Roman Catholic Church. In the past antipopes were typically those supported by a fairly significant faction of cardinals .... Persons who claim to be the pope but have few followers, such as the modern sedevacantist antipopes, are not generally counted as antipopes, and therefore are ignored for regnal numbering."  I presume Mr Bawden does not consider himself to be an antipope. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: H.H. Pope Michael I is not an antipope anymore than Innocent II was one. 115.249.115.244 (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  In view of this, should David Bawden be listed as a 'modern sedevacantist antipope'? (ArnoldTrotter (talk) 07:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  'antipope'? 

message: Would like to update page as David Bawdens website now claims that he has been ordained and consecrated
Rkretowi (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.   Mdann52 (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 15 June 2012 

message: In light of Wiki policy that has appeared around Caitlyn Jenner, which seems to be that he has the right to be called Caitlyn Jenner in Wiki simply because he is alive and he chooses to be called that, what reason would we have to call David Bawden anything other than what he chooses to be called? I hope there is a good reason, because I disagree with the Wiki policy with regards to Bruce Jenner, but there it is. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You already know the answer but for other people reading this, the answer is in WP:MOS:IDENTITY: In this case we "should use the term that is most commonly used by reliable sources". -- haminoon (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

text: Do you use he/his for everyone? -- haminoon (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  a) I appreciate the fact that you commented here instead of deleting my post.  b) Thanks, I see that the MOS states what you quote, and then provides an exception for language regarding gender identity. I had not read that far in the MOS when I posted. c) Now that the talk page on Caitlyn Jenner clearly places the talk page under the rules of the MOS, I would of course respect those rules if I were to post there again, regardless of what I think of those rules. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

text: That interview is pretty obviously a parody or hoax, as "Hennessy" sounds nothing like Bawden in voice or manner.  --Finngall talk 00:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  the name he uses 

message: In what conceivable way is this guy notable? There’d be dozens, hundreds or thousands of people who firmly believe that they’re Albert Einstein, the Queen of England, the reincarnation of Napoleon, or whatever. Some of those people would undoubtedly have dozens, hundreds or thousands of followers. Should all those people get a page as well? TC 14:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: We make no judgement on the validity of his claim to the papacy.  He is notable (in Wikipedia's sense of the term) because multiple independent reliable sources have written about him and that claim.  Obviously, far fewer than the other guy in Rome, but enough to meet the standards here.  --Finngall talk 16:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability zero 

message: The honorifics, papal name & the papal reign, should all be deleted from the infobox per WP:DUE & WP:WEIGHT. Come on, he's got only a tiny handful of followers. This isn't anything close to the Avignon & Pisan anti-popes of the Western Schism 1378 to 1417. PS - I can promise you, an RM to have his article renamed Pope Michael or Anti-pope Michael, would never pass. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: @Genericusername57: you recently added a reference to a book on papal conclaves by John L. Allen, Jr. and you specified pp. 1-3. I could not verify that Allen's book supports any statement in the article, because pp. 1-3 do not mention him. I am unable to access the full text for free; can you supply quotes, please? The statements regard Bawden's birth and the validity or liceity of Bawden's holy orders. Elizium23 (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I was unable to find a non-self-published source on Bawden's canonical status or validity of his ordination, I've written that into the article. The fact that I have found no sources is unsourced... but that's the point; if anyone finds a source from a Catholic canonist who weighs in, then you're welcome to update that statement and the others related to it. Elizium23 (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Dcheney: is this in your orbit at all? I mean, it'd be nice if the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas put out an advisory or decree at some point? Elizium23 (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure that he claimed he found someone to "consecrate" him many years after his "election". I'm not aware of it being recognized by anybody. I'll keep an eye out in the local Catholic paper to see if there is any mention of his death. Dcheney (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

text: The Allen book covers Bawden in the preface. The information regarding holy orders is on page 3: . The 2005 Brisendine source cited in the article states:   Please note that both sources predate Bawden's 2011 claims. (It occurs to me now that "never" is misleading; I meant "not at any time before claiming the papacy".)Allen does not mention the date or location of Bawden's birth. I previously cited Allen for the names of Bawden's parents, but removed the reference when I noticed that Allen had erroneously spelled "Kennett" as "Kenneth". Several other sources confirm the proper spelling. Cheers, gnu57 01:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book reference by Allen 

message: Is there going to be another conclave? 82.36.70.45 (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: A conclave was held on July 29, 2023 and Rogelio Del Rosario Martinez (Michael II) was elected as his successor. Skyline2023 (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anything on a possible succession?