Wikipedia talk:The Pope is Catholic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] The pope has not been historically Catholic.

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)

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)

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)

You see, Habermas is that guy on the left. GregorB 20:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another great essay - time to be WP:BOLD

Here goes nothing. Improvements coming! Ronbo76 01:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recommendations for improving this essay

Now that wikilinks have been provided, how can this essay be improved? Be WP:BOLD! Ronbo76 01:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I can live with that. Ronbo76 20:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Con section

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Forget World View

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)