Talk:Vicarius Filii Dei/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Biblelight again...

Your edits seem to have the habit of being absolutely ridiculous. Firstly, you are not citing reliable third party sources. Second, you seem to add a huge amount of html coding that does nothing to the article every time. It is dead space and it is not needed or welcome. Third, you equate phrases like "dei filii vicari" and "vicarium esse Dei fili", to "vicarius filii dei" when they are NOT the same thing and do not even add up to the same 666. Fourth, you speak of the mention in the donation of constantine as if it were Catholic "gospel truth" when it is in fact a very well known forgery. Fifth, you edit out all opposing views, thus grossly violating npov. Remember npov policy - that we report what reliable sources say. Since the VAST majority of them say that this concept is bunk, then the VAST majority of the article should agree with that. It started out too POV in your preferred direction and you just make it worse. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not some forum for you to use as you will to expose conspiracies and secrets. Also - you are blatantly misrepresenting what is said in the Catholic encyclopedia and other sources, deleting large chunks of sourced material, and adding a lot of your own without providing citation for half of it. I could go on and on and on about your edits, but the point is there is NO way in hell that they can stand in their current condition. I will say again, as I have had to say repeatedly before - learn the rules of wikipedia and THEN and ONLY THEN should you start editing. This is getting silly and I guarantee that you're going to get blocked/banned if you continue in this manner.Farsight001 (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Protected - again

I've just protected this again. Dougweller (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion of division of article

Suggesting that we divide this entire article into two or three sections so that there is a clear distinction between various viewpoints

1. A Roman Catholic viewpoint describing that 'Vicarius Filii Dei' is not a title of the pope and that no tiara exists. With quotes from prominent Catholic people/articles.
2. A mixed viewpoint that 'Vicarius Filii Dei' is the title of a pope but that no tiara exists.
3. Another viewpoint describing those who claim such a tiara or crown exists.

Right now this article is basically a Catholic defense against accusations. There should be a defense in this article but all viewpoints should be heard. --Willfults (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That this article is basically a Catholic defense is actually in accord with NPOV policy. We report what the reputable sources say, and the reputable sources almost unanimously defend the Catholic position. If the reliable sources all said the earth was flat, we'd report that too (though not in this article obviously). In fact, we should be giving an accurately weighted representation of the sources, which really means that this article should technically be even MORE defense of the Catholic position than it already is.

In addition, I felt the need to revert your additions because I don't really see why Johannes Quasten should be given credence over the plethora of other scholars, nor what reason we have to believe that a personal letter like that is authentic. We also shouldn't be using what technically qualifies as a primary source either. In addition, biblelight.net is not an acceptable source here on wikipedia - especially considering the site creator's personal vendetta to make this very article in his own image. Which I've just noticed means the removal of some other references to that web page. I'll get to that later though. I've got a busy day and don't quite have the time to find other sources for the statements right now.Farsight001 (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the majority of people know this article is not in accordance with NPOV. Just because you believe the Catholic position is right does not mean that everything else must be censored. All I am asking is that the article get both sides of an argument. Right now you have about 12 to 13 sections that are Catholic arguments. All links to Bible light only point to scanned documents from the Catholic church. I didn't point to his site argument pages, yet you also give full credit to Pope Fiction which is basically the Catholic version of Bible light. I'm leaving Pope Fiction in this article because it explains the Catholic position. --Willfults (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW before you yank the Bible light references do note that I actually used some of these as a rebuttal defending the Catholic position. One is simply to an article from Our Sunday Visitor where the authors say that no such pope crown exists. Read the whole article if you want before you yank it. --Willfults (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Reverted, again. Is this nonsense, where religious fundamentalists try to highjack the page to push their widely ridiculed claims, still going on? FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

My references are not in regards to conspiracy theories. I'm not posting pictures of a supposed tiara from some site etc. You are simply removing rebuttals from any source that has to do with a Protestant or Adventist position. It's clear that you guys represent the Catholic church. I'm saying you are entitled to your opinion but simply leave the Adventist position alone.--Willfults (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

1. To suggest that I or anyone else represents the Catholic Church is preposterous and paranoid.

2. You using sockpuppets have been waging this campaign for years.

3. The Seventh day Adventist Church disowns your claims.

4. Your definition of NPOV is one where any old makey-up claim must be treated as valid even when no-one but a few fringe fanatics believe it and all the evidence contradicts it.

By your definition, if I believed Jesus Christ was a transvestite I would be entitled to edit an article on him to state that as a valid belief, even when no-one but a few fanatists believe it. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Willfults, that you find issue with the NPOV representation of this article. It's true that most people probably recognize that this article is not entirely NPOV, but it is not entirely NPOV in the OPPOSITE direction that you seem to want it. Technically, it should state the Catholic case even stronger than it does. I do believe the Catholic position is right. However, that is irrelevant here. Please understand that NPOV does NOT mean giving half of the article to the pro side and half to the con side. According to NPOV policy, the article is to weighted the same way the reliable sources are weighted. I explained this already. This means, since the reliable sources unequivocably decry this title as a concoction, the article does this as well. If you have a problem with this, then I suggest that you go contend NPOV policy and fight to have IT changed because as long as it stays the way it is, so will this article.

That some of the biblelight references are used in defense of the Church is actually irrelevant. biblelight.net is not a reliable source for either side of the issue, thus should not be used in defense of either side. Hopefully my willingness to remove links to that site made in defense of the Church will help show you that no one is trying to "censor" this article.

I must recommend that you read through the policies again, or for the first time if you have not already done so. Wikipedia is trying to be an encyclopedia. No one gets to own an article, nor does anyone have to leave the Adventist position alone - especially if your citations are not in keeping with wiki policies. It is very common that an SDA (which I'm assuming you are), comes to this article and decides to insert a lot of information in an unencyclopedic manner, with unnacceptable sources, and often removing other sourced and long standing info. When they are reverted, they always cry foul and accuse us of censorship. Please do not let the same thing happen to you. We are not censoring anyone. We simply apply wiki policy, which in this case, kind of naturally works against you. If a Catholic came into this article and changed it to argue that the SDAs broke into Catholic facilities and inserted this title into Catholic documents in some silly SDA conspiracy, I would remove that as well.Farsight001 (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

1) No SDAs 'broke' into Catholic facilities. (not even biblelight claims that) They did enter them legally. 2) No SDAs inserted this title into Catholic documents - talk about conspiracy! :) 3) There is a large amount of Catholic documents that refer to 'Vicarius Filii Dei' as a title of the pope, but every time they are quoted here they get removed. Apparently Catholic documents are not acceptable sources by your definition? If I get them from another site besides biblelight would that be ok?

With all do respect I consider 'Pope Fiction' an unacceptable source because I don't think it is truthful, just like how you look at biblelight. But both should be represented because my opinion doesn't matter, just like yours. I see nothing wrong with linking to scanned Catholic documents, no matter what site they are on. If you think biblelight is not a good site, then maybe you should get something from wikipedia before you make yet another assumption that it is unacceptable and continually remove scanned documents. Every site has an agenda, biblelight, catholic.com etc. If you can get biblelight banned by a wikipedia authority then by all means I will never attempt to quote them.

The reliable sources do NOT unequivocably decry this title as a concoction. Some Catholics even agree with the title. Of course if I quote Catholic scholars or newspapers that also gets removed.

"We noted that contrary to SOME Catholic sources who deny the use of Vicarius Filii Dei as a papal title, we have found this title to have been used in official Catholic documents to support the ecclesiastical authority and temporal sovereignty of the pope. " ~ Samuele Bacchiocchi who actually studied at the Vatican.

In regards to un-encyclopedic material, if you look at sections 3.2 to 3.10 which are basically a Catholic defense, I see maybe 2 citations to outside sources, the rest is just someone's opinion. I generally only remove content that has no citations and that is personal opinion. If you are tired of me removing some information, cite the source. I understand you have strong feelings in regards to a certain position and that is fine. Can you imagine if the entire article was slated anti-Catholic and if you tried to add just one or two quotes in the Catholic section and you were constantly blocked? I'm not trying to be your enemy and I hope we can work in a loving (and fair) way to resolve this issue. I'll let your last undo go and we can work from there. --Willfults (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstood a lot of what I said. For one, I never claimed that SDA's broke into Catholic facilities. I merely used it as an example of something that would be ridiculously POV in the opposite direction that I would also remove. Your rush to jump on top of it as though it were an actual claim I was making indicates to me that you are letting yourself get too emotional about this. Please take a step back and look at this situation again.

That you or I do not consider a source acceptable because we don't think it's being honest is irrelevant. What matters is wiki policy. biblelight's page does not pass muster, while Pope Fiction does. This is partially because Patrick Madrid is an established and published author and publisher, and a recognized expert in his field with the education to back it up, whereas Michael Scheifler is, as far as anyone can tell, nothing more than the operator of several self-run websites. Even if we believed he actually knew what he was talking about, we couldn't use his stuff, while we can use Madrid's.

The problem with linking to scanned documents is not where they are linked from, but rather that they are primary sources, which in most cases (this being one of them) we cannot use. To include scanned documents in this context is a violation of wikipedia policies. Again, I will take the time to suggest you review these policies so that you will not bring up moot issues again in the future.

Samuele Bacchiocchi is an SDA. You do not have to be Catholic to study at the Vatican, and simply because he studied at the Vatican does not mean his statements qualify as an official declaration of the title as an official one of the pope. To quote a person and then to expound upon and explain the supposed meaning of what they said yourself (as opposed to letting sources explain it) is called original research, something else not allowed according to wiki policy. Again, your problem seems to ultimately be a problem with wiki policy, not with our application of said policy which necessitates removal of your additions. Edit in - let me also note that your quote of him can be found exactly one place on the web, and it is not attributed to him. Are you sure he said it? We would need a citation for it. Simply attributing it to him, even if he really said it, would not actually count.

It is true that those sections are poorly sourced. They were once better sourced and it seems some people have removed them, along with a few images, for reasons I don't know. When I have the time, I'll look through it and fix things. I know there's sources for pretty much all of it out there. Seen a lot of it even earlier today. So somewhere down the line, I will be fixing this. Just remember that this is such a low-importance article that it doesn't even have a quality rating. These articles will consistently be needing more sources. That this article generally reflects the POV of the reliable sources is actually unexpectedly good of an article of this importance.

Yes, I can imagine if the article was slanted anti-Catholic. The difference, however, between my hypothetical situation and your actual situation is that in my hypothetical, the article would be slanted against the POV of reliable sources, which completely justifies my attempt to change things, whereas in your actual situation, the article is already slanted for the POV of reliable sources and you are attempting to change it against them. So what you are trying to do is the opposite of what I'd be trying to do in that hypothetical situation. Now, if the reliable sources all reported that VFD IS a title of the pope and they all supported your perspective, I wouldn't like it much, but I'd let the article present that perspective. I'd love to see the article on the connection between abortion and breast cancer promote the connection wholeheartedly, but the reliable sources say there is no connection, and so I let it be. That is just the way it is around here.Farsight001 (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

My two edits

Firstly, I removed the citation for one thing because if you go to the page for the book it is full of personal attacks of those who disagree with the author. This is not the sign of professionalism we seek in a reliable reference, especially when we have neutrality standards.

The other thing I did was to add a notice that a section had no references, which it does not although it is required to have them. I am not even thinking about whether the statement is true just that there is no citation for the statement.--209.181.16.93 (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The citation you removed was not to a book. Please read more carefully. It was to a magazine article ABOUT the book. Either way, the book, I believe, would have been perfectly acceptable. Just removing it because you don't like it is not a valid reason.

As for the unreferenced section, I have no objection to adding the tag.Farsight001 (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with liking the book it has to do with personal attacks from the author as that is not something a reliable source does. wow forget what I said my brain is totaly in another world too many things going on im gonna fix the citation back to the original again cuz its this here:http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.2/mar_apr98_coverstory.html but the author does resort to personal attacks elsewhere still but yea... I am gonna wait till my brain works to go farther than just that ref tag haha

Original research

This article has issues with Wikipedia:Original research. Basically there are excessive explanations provided on some points, and either these should be referenced as "X argues ...", or they should be removed. No attempt should be made to come to any conclusion in the article, that is novel, or cannot be supported as already existing in the literature on the matter. As far as I can see, this may mean cutting back the material substantially in some places. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed nearly 20K of unsourced material. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Debate and Neutrality tags added back

It's obvious, as a passer-by, that this article is written with debate style instead of informative. There are several instances (of which I don't have the time to fix) where one idea is introduced, only to be rebutted by another.

It's also obvious that people maintaining this article have an agenda, and thus positioning the article to make the Adventist church look bad. I'm readding these tags until it can be agreed upon (by a neutral party) that this article satisfies the tag criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.185.80 (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not how tagging works. You need to, when you add a tag, provide a valid, clear, and concise reason why the tag is needed. Furthermore, I suggest you look around at other articles on wikipedia, because many of them follow the same format. I have seen articles in the style of a debate, and this is most certainly not it. Due to WP:NPOV policy, we must weight this article in accord with WP:RS reliable sources. Since most reliable sources refute the SDA position, then most of this article is, per policy, to be devoted to refuting the SDA position too. That's just how wikipedia works. The problem here, and I really don't want to sound rude or condescending, is your unfamiliarity with policy. If you brush up on it a bit, I think you'll figure out real quick why the tags don't belong.Farsight001 (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I just have a problem with the argumentative nature of the article and I don't believe it's professional and formal enough as an article on wikipedia, it's more like a grade-school paper. I have a problem with the equality of it and how it puts the Adventist church in a bad light. Specifically, instead of describing the "claims" and rational, it's displayed as "why this is untrue". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.185.80 (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This is kind of a "pet" page for you isn't it. Seems like you have a motive for keeping it unbalanced to your viewpoint. Especially after reviewing some of your discussions here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.185.80 (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You need to provide spicific problems that you have. Pick a sentence, explain what you think is wrong with it, and we'll go from there. General dislike of the article's attitude does not help. I explained to you months ago (look up a few discussions) exactly why the tone of the article is this way. It is in keeping with policies. If you have a problem with that, then complain on the policies page, not here. It is not a "pet" of mine and I am not keeping it unbalanced. Your edits made it unbalanced as far as policy is concerned. So try to assume good faith around here - that's also a policy.Farsight001 (talk) 04:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

After Charles Matthew's unsourced material edits, I no longer have a problem with the previously unbalanced nature of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.185.80 (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Intro Changed

I noticed that the intro contained some problems. Specifically, it explained that only the Roman counting method was used, however, this was not true (as explained better in the origins of controversy section). I found someone had already rewritten it a few changes earlier (and was unnecessarily undone). I also like the improvement because it showed St Peters connection with the church. So, I'm redoing this version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.128.82 (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Article Rewrite

The entire article is in need of rewrite based on the following:

1. The article opens with true statements about the forged letter, however the letter still has the title in question.

2. The title Vicarius Filii Dei is still in use on Vatican documents in both Latin[1][2] and English[1] translated.Amish 07:48 23, August 2010 (CST)

First off, no where in the donation is it ever called a title, so if you would please stop thinking of it as that, it would be helpful. The pope has many titles and they are all defined as such. "Vicarius filii dei" is not among them. At most it is a descriptor. Second, of course the donation of Constantine still has the words in it. Should we erase words from a historical document? That would be ridiculous. Third, I just did a find-all search for "vicarius filii dei" in all three of your links, and it is in none of those, so I don't know what made you think the words were there.Farsight001 (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yea it's there. The first five words at the Latin link. Perhapse look again. The links were obtained from the research of an Adventist ministry that's using it as evidence the pope's title equals 666. BTW, just this morning on HopeTV pastor Brian McMahon used the same Vicarius = 666 in his sermon on the mark of the beast. Showing it is still mainstream. I won't try and document that sermon. Vicarius Filii Dei is an official title of the pope's office, translated to English "Vicar of Christ", found at the English link: quote: "The Triregnum (the Papal Tiara formed by three crowns symbolizing the triple power of the Pope: father of kings, governor of the world and Vicar of Christ)". Amish 03:55 24, Aug 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amish 01 (talk • contribs)

I looked again just now. The words in the first link are "Dei Filii Vicarius", which has a whole nother meaning and translation because of the varied order. It is not the same as "Vicarius Filii Dei" and proper scholarship would dictate that we not use them interchangeable. In addition to all that, we actually can't say that the vatican still uses the title and send a link to the website. I know it sounds stupid. It does to me too. But we need an outside, reliable source to make the claim that the Vatican still uses the term to add it to the article. The difference is primary v. secondary sources. Wikipedia needs secondary, not primary sources in most cases(of which this is one). The phrase is also definitely not found in the other two links at all. The word "Vicarius" is actually completely and utterly absent from both of them, so we can't use those.

Next, "Vicar of Christ" is NOT a translation of "Vicarius Filii Dei". Vicarius Filii Dei translates exactly as "Vicar of the Son of God".

Third, Brian McMahon is not a reliable source of information on Wikipedia, and so, to be frank, we don't really care here what he has to say. Nothing he talks about can be included.

By the way - I must ask - what is the relevance even if the pope's title was Vicarius Filii Dei? Scripture says that the NAME, not title, of the beast will be 666. A title is really irrelevant to the scripture verse. What we should be looking for are NAMES that total 666 like Nero Caesar or Ellen Gould White.Farsight001 (talk) 05:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Christ is the son of God-the name is interchangable. The pope is announced all the time by his title "vicar of the son of God". I just heard it in a video earlier today.

Brian McMahon is an ordained pastor with more credibility than Desmond Ford used in the SDA eschatology page. What you say is a source and what is an actual sorce are two different things, Mr.dictator. For instance your claim a primary source link from the Vatican cannot be used when primary sourced links are all over Wikipedia including on the SDA eschatology page, linked directly to the GC for their position on a certain topic.

666 is the number of his name, you are right! "He" is the "little horn" of Daniel 7 which became a "beast" then found in Revelation 13. It is the office of the papacy not an individual pope.Amish09:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

“The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ, Himself, hidden under the veil of human flesh.” — Catholic National, July 1895.

“The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth.” — Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, “Cities Petrus Bertanous.”

“We hold upon this earth the place of God almighty.” — Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter, June 20, 1894. Amish09:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

First - no, the name is not interchangeable. "Vicarius Filii Dei" translates as "Vicar of the Son of God". But "Vicar of Christ" is translated from "Vicarius Christi". They are perhaps interchangeable in meaning, but to translate one as the other would be blatantly inaccurate and accuracy is especially important when dealing with supposed titles.

Second - no, he is not announced by his title "Vicar of the Son of God" all the time because it's not his title. Someone may describe him as such. But describing a person that way is not the same as giving them a title. My friends often call me "Dr. Phil" because I work in a hospital and they think I am very wise and give great advise. Yet no one could reasonably say that "Dr." is my title because I do not have a doctorate. Dr is a descriptor, not a title. If you really have heard the pope called EXACTLY "vicar of the son of God", which I very VERY highly doubt, then you have heard someone using a descriptor, not a title. There is a very clear and specific list of the pope's titles and "vicarius filii dei" is not and never has been among them.

Third, your quotes are fakes. The one said to be found in the Catholic National was supposedly said by pope Pius X, but unfortunately, he only became pope in 1903. On top of that, there is no such magazine or paper as the "Catholic National". No record of it exists in any historical documents. The closest thing to it is the National Catholic Register, but that began in 1927, decades after the phrase was supposedly published. The earliest actual mention of this quote on record is found in the PROTESTANT publication the "Church Review", which was based in England and the "quote" is found in the October 3rd, 1895 issue. It claims that the pope said those words at a discourse in Venice, but the transcript of that discourse includes no such quote. The closest thing to that quote, which is the actual statement, is "The Pope REPRESENTS Jesus Christ Himself, and therefore is a loving father. The life of the Pope is a holocaust of love for the human family. His word is love; love, his weapon; love, the answer he gives to all who hate him; love, his flag, that is, the Cross, which signed the greatest triumph on Earth and in Heaven."[emphasis mine]

The second quote is also fake. No one has ever been able to produce the book. There was a dominican in the 16th century named "Petrus Bertanus Fanensis", which the quote is likely related to. The problem, however, is that he died eight years BEFORE Pius V became pope, meaning that if he is who this is referring to, it is obviously fake. And if not, there is still no record that the document ever existed.

The third quote is actually real, but deceptively quoted. The full quote is this: "But since We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty, who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, and now that Our advanced age and the bitterness of anxious cares urge Us on towards the end common to every mortal, We feel drawn to follow the example of Our Redeemer and Master, Jesus Christ, who when about to return to Heaven, implored of God, His Father, in earnest prayer, that His disciples and followers should be of one mind and of one heart: "I pray...that they all may be one, as thou Father in Me, and I in Thee: that they also may be one in Us." When it says "we hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty", it is saying that they hold the position God GAVE to them, not that they are God.

Now, do you have reliably sourced information to add to the article, or a good suggestion for article improvement? Because if you don't, then this discussion is pointless. Article talk pages are supposed to be for article improvement only.Farsight001 (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

More POV

I had to go in and do some clean up. Once again the Adventists invaded and inserted POV from very dubious sources. There is still some work to do to restore the article. Would Bible Light and his cohorts please refrain from using this article as an evangelistic tool.97.114.177.186 (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

To be blunt, your edits were no better. I hope that hearing it from me, whom you recognize as trying to keep the adventists from poving this article out the wazoo will help you understand that better. :) Farsight001 (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is atrocious. I was correct in nothing that OSV is a weekly publication and carries no doctrinal weight. I tried to be careful and just do some touch up until someone could do a whole rewrite. You are welcome to do the rewrite. Otherwise the Adventists have basically written the article and it is useless.97.114.177.186 (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Btw, I am a canon lawyer and the article is factually incorrect on various counts. This title has never been used by the Catholic Church for the Pope. The correct title is Vicar of Christ. So I do have some expertise to offer.97.114.177.186 (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Then help improve the article, but to do that, we need neutral speech and reputable sources. And believe me, if the Adventists had really highjacked this article, it would be a LOT worse. I've seen it when it was. This is nothing compared to that.Farsight001 (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I attempted to do that. For example OSV IS a weekly magazine. No one considers it equal to the Catechism, except for SDA's. To quote it twice as authoritative is ridiculous. The Donation is a forgery and does not carry weight dogmatically either. I am sure it has been worse, I believe you. Even the SDA church has repudiated this error. It is only the fringe that hold it. I will see what I can do to clean it up. Just be patient and don't delete changes immediately. I will be careful.97.114.177.186 (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Willfults, do not simply restore the POV. The article is sadly deficient. You are vandalizing it.97.114.177.186 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC).

For example "Adorandi Dei Filii Vicarius" is translated incorrectly with no reference. It does not say Vicar of the Son of God in Latin. Any first year Latinist can tell you that. It says "Honorable Vicar of God's Son and Caretaker". Don't they teach grammar anymore?97.114.177.186 (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No, he's not vandalizing. We just need proper sources. You are generally correct in what you are adding to the article, but you cannot add it without a WP:RSFarsight001 (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

What do I need to do differently then? His translation of the Latin I quoted above is unsourced. It comes from a website that is basically a blog. Why is it still in the article if it is not a proper source?97.114.177.186 (talk) 01:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Some tips (on making valid, permanent changes to articles). Be specific about the actual change you'd like to see made. Concentrate on the current version and how it can be improved. Propose a change here, and have it discussed. If consensus is in favour of the change, it will likely stick. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten. I had to get a new computer. The article is still very poor. For example my translation of the Latin is correct and the one in the article is incorrect and has no citation.97.114.177.186 (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit

Hi Farsight, don't mean to enter an edit war here over a 300 character change, but I'm a little confused. Generally self-published references from blogs do not count as WP:RS, and thus I am yanking the change. Your thoughts welcome. Willfults (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the edits. One was a quote from the same source used by others. The other was about the latin translation, which is unsourced. If you think that the information was incorrect say so and show it.97.112.218.67 (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

97.112.218.67, I'm wiping the whole reference to biblicalperspectives as it is a blog and not in accordance with WP:RS. Willfults (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright, but the Latin translation is incorrect and unsourced. You need to show where it come from and why it is superior to the one I proposed. Btw, it is NOT a title. It is a description. It is POV to portray it as something other then what it is. I will give you a few days to look it up.97.112.218.67 (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Original translation came from a website, but I don't think it necessary in the scope of this article. I took the liberty of removing it + Bacchiocchi's statements with something more official from a book. Willfults (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Seventh-day Adventist views

I am disappointed to see the coverage of Seventh-day Adventist views has been heavily doctored to misrepresent the church, undoing the work of myself and others. Today, Adventist theologians do not support the argument that Vicarius Filii Dei = 666 in Revelation 13. It is worth expressing that it remains common amongst the laity, although I know of no documentation for this. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 06:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The trouble with older versions of the article (you seem not to have edited it since early 2009, and mostly more than two years ago?) is the absence of specific referencing. Under the police Wikipedia:No original research, a great deal of material had to be removed to bring the coverage anywhere near what it should be. The older versions are accessible in the history (see for example [1]) and anything specific and properly referenced can be brought back into the article. But what you say is "worth expressing" cannot be in the article, under policy, unless the documentation is there and cited. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually the Seventh Day Adventist views were not doctored. They were presented in an incomplete way. Samuele Bacchiocchi is misrepresented. The quote added at the end is his own conclusions from the SAME site as the other quote. I took out the Latin translation since the one provided was a mistranslation and unsourced, it was apparently original research by someone who doesn't know Latin. Since you won't allow an accurate translation then none should be given. Likewise the quote is not giving a title, that is a misinterpretation of the Roman document. Basically the Adventists are slipping in their POV and trying to protect it.97.112.218.67 (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Btw, Colin I appreciate those in the SDA church who seek truth and common understanding. It is wonderful to see. Pax97.112.218.67 (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Origins and appearances

While reverting the change on Sept 5, Farsight001 hopefully just overlooked the new reference to 1580. I'm adding that back in since it helps the reader understand the time line.

In regards to the biblelight reference, I agree and I have changed that reference to the publication itself as a WP:RS reference even though they could technically fall under secondary sources. As for the reference to "many" I also agree and have removed that as well. I'm adding the references back to the article because I believe these 1915 and 1922 references are historically significant (older than 50 years) in the "origin and uses" section and should remain there because much internet debate and controversy is centered around them (I could list off the pages if necessary to support my claim that they are historically significant).

I think the new quotation formatting is easier to read, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's better than a simple indentation.

Something else to note, but not sure what to do with, the paragraph "The Catholic Encyclopedia states that "many of the recent critical students..." probably more belongs in the "Donation of Constantine" article since it's more centered around that than the phrase.

--Jwater7 (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Problems with the current version - seems to be "anti-Catholic"?

Looks like the article ([2]) ended up being slanted to the anti-Catholic side... The problems with the article (some are not that strongly related to neutrality, but still):

1. The article ends with the claim "Various official documents from the Vatican do contain wording such as "Adorandi Dei Filii Vicarius, et Procurator quibus numen aeternum summam Ecclesiae sanctae dedit"", but it doesn't say how it is relevant to the case. The wording is obviously different. Perhaps someone claims it is "close enough", but then we need a citation of that.
2. The article consists of four main sections: "Origins and uses of the phrase", "Protestant view", "Catholic view" and "Seventh-day Adventist views". That looks strange - after all, Seventh-day Adventists are Protestants. It should probably become a subsection of "Protestant view"
3. The section "Catholic view" has little to do with the Catholic view itself. Much of it is about a sentence in one newspaper, which could be seen as contrary to the Catholic view...
4. It is also written "The title "Vicarius Filii Dei" later became a topic of controversy" - is there any reason to think that it did?
5. It is written "The Roman Catholic Church has since consistently denied the existence of such a title Vicarius Filii Dei for Popes and has labeled it an "anti-Catholic myth".". That doesn't seem to be the case. The theories relating to "Vicarius Filii Dei" seem to be rather fringe, and in most cases (not just in theology, but also in science in general) fringe theories are ignored and not argued against. Thus we should probably write "Catholic apologists argue that [...]".
6. Formatting of quotes seems to be inconsistent.

Thus the section "Catholic view" should probably be rewritten and the section "Seventh-day Adventist views" made a subsection of "Protestant view". Until then, I am going to mark this article with "POV" tag. Also, I have already marked the sentence "Various official documents from the Vatican do contain wording such as "Adorandi Dei Filii Vicarius, et Procurator quibus numen aeternum summam Ecclesiae sanctae dedit"" with tag "or" ([3]). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Several days passed without objection, so I am going to start by making the section "Seventh-day Adventist views" a subsection of "Protestant view". --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Since no one objected, I made a couple of further changes ([4], [5]). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

2. I object to this, as a Seventh-day Adventist, we are not Protestants, we are Adventists. Born in the USA; further Adventists are Mormons (uncertain), Church of God, Jehovah's Witnesses. To make such a claim you might as well say that Protestants are Orthodox, or Arian. Protestants were created by European Princes in the 16th century, Adventists were created out of bible study in America in the 19th century, there is no basis for equivalence. (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Catholic view

Firstly, the Donation of Constantine is the acceptance of an official title, namely as Sovereign of the Papal States. Second, while people acknowledge the Donatio as a forgery, they still acknowledge the authority of the pope (which is unfounded and illegitimate), which is claimed to be the mark of the beast. Thirdly, please demonstrate that Ellen Gould White, or anyone else whose name equals 666 ruled the world for 1260 years, you really have nothing and are grasping at straws. --Nibblet (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This is WP:NOTAFORUM. Please post only suggestions (specific suggestions) for improvement of the article. Keep in mind that proposed changes will need proper citation.Farsight001 (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Origins and uses of the phrase

My mistake on the "minor" edit. I forgot to uncheck it. The Catholic Encyclopedia apparently is a perfectly valid source, except when I cite it. Why is the quote I provided unacceptable? It is a Catholic authority acknowledging that Leo IX cited the Donation in an official document. And why am I prohibited from referencing Leo's letter on a library site, when there are several similar footnotes linking to documents online? The revert by Farsight001 is apparently not justified, in fact, I believe it is clearly biased vandalism. Perhaps he would like to explain? Biblelight (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean forgot to uncheck it? Its automatically unchecked. You have to go out of your way to check it in the first place?

Also, as I already painstakingly tried to explain to you multiple years ago (and the policies have not changed since then), you are citing it misleadingly. Your use of primary sources is not allowed, and sources in foreign languages are discouraged. I also pointed most of that out in the edit summary, so how you cannot know the reason is beyond me.

Vandalism has a specific meaning on wikipedia. My revert of your edit doesn't even come anywhere close to applying. In contrast, accusing someone of vandalism who did not do so, is considered a personal attack around here.

And btw, following me around on the web for years, waiting for me to misspeak at a completely different forum is pushing the boundaries of legality. I let slip when you tried to post private information about me on your website years ago, even though I was personally harassed by fans of yours because of it. This is getting ridiculous and pushing the limits of stalking, especially with the veiled threats http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFarsight001&action=historysubmit&diff=466171470&oldid=461877855 suggesting that you might do something if I don't agree to your proposition. And why in the world would I privately correspond by e-mail, giving away even MORE private information, with someone who's been following me?Farsight001 (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Biblelight, I also attempted to revert your edit for the same reasons as Farsight001, but Farsight001 beat me to it. Stalking and hounding Farsight001 is unacceptable, and his actions were not vandalism but the removal of out-of-context undue weight meant to give an biased impression. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I will explain. I originally was going to make a minor edit just to see how long it would take for Farsight001 to revert. But then I thought, why not put a rather big bit of bait out for him, and I was rather pleased to see him strike so quickly.

I am not "stalking" anyone. I happened to do a search in Google today for vicarius filii dei, http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&q=vicarius+filii+dei&safe=active&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&scoring=d and up popped a current discussion with Farsight001 participating, and making a patently false statement. It has been years since I have even thought about our previous encounter here, because frankly, as I said then, Farsight001's gatekeeper role on Wikipedia on this topic is completely futile. The truth is readily available on the internet.

This article on the papal title has always been splendid example of why Wikipedia is a laughing stock, and Farsight001 gets the major credit for it. Wise up Wikipedia, and prevent this type of overt biased censorship, or continue to have your well deserved reputation. Biblelight (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Inserting your bias does not deal with bias on this site. Sticking to summarizing reliable sources (without taking them out of context) is how bias is dealt with. The complaints I've seen about religion articles on Wikipedia are directed at individuals like you who wish to use the encyclopedia to push their own POVs and attack other worldviews instead of simply describing beliefs. Your attempt at baiting (which is still dishonest) would only be worthwhile if you had put in a good edit. As I have already said, I was going to revert your edit too, and Martin Luther was more of a Catholic than I am. If you really think that your edit would be accepted by other editors, you can check with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, but I can tell you right now that others will see you as a POV pusher. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

So you admit to intentionally trying to bait and harrass another user? And you expect us to accept you as credible and willing to honestly contribute? Such an idea is laughable.

And you also expect anyone to believe that you just happened to come across my post, all the way on page 12 of the search results just days after I post it? And if my "gatekeeper role" is futile, why do you try so hard to bait me and trick me, instead of honestly abiding by policy?

Like I said years ago, if you don't like what I'm doing, then your problem is with wikipedia's policies, not with my actions. I am merely following and enforcing the rules which you push and/or break with literally every post. Take your issue to the policy board, start an RFC or an ANI. Trying to glean more private information from me by baiting me into giving out my e-mail address is just not going to work.

Now if you don't have a genuine desire to improve the article (abiding by policies in the process), you should not be posting here. The talk page is for discussing article improvement only.Farsight001 (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Everything I contributed to this article today is strictly factual, and verifiable, and would improve the integrity of the article immensely. Having dealt with this before, I know that is not a priority at Wikipedia. Yes, I knew Farsight001 would revert my contribution, valid though it is. I wanted him to know his erroneous and indefensible remarks on the Catholic Answers Forum are on the public record. You are not getting away with that kind of blatant misrepresentation of the facts. Biblelight (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not the fact that you have added strictly factual and verifiable information. It is the fact that you have added it to the neglect of other pertinent information, giving a false impression. It is the fact that you have used unacceptable sources. It is the fact that you have used foreign language sources. It is the fact that you misrepresent the sources you do use. It is the fact that you think my words on an internet forum should have some bearing on the content of this article. Nothing have have done has any grounding in the policies and rules of wikipedia. That is the ultimate problem. And as I said last time, until you are willing to abide by the rules, which I know, is harder than throwing temper tantrums, you will get nowhere here. No one is going to listen to you. No one is going to trust you. You want to make progress, you follow the rules. End of story. You have a choice - play by the rules, discuss the issue before editing, come to a consensus, and make progress, or take the easy way out and go back to your blog and wine about me again to the 5 fans you have and the 60000 Catholics who read it for a good laugh. You've go no one to blame but yourself for your own actions.Farsight001 (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Biblelight, everything you've contributed this year was WP:UNDUE weight which used modern sources out-of-context as well as outdated sectarian works, all meant to push an anti-Catholic agenda that doesn't belong here.Ian.thomson (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Farsight001, I did not threaten you at all. My "proposition" for you was to be this: As with Catholic Apologist Patrick Madrid, I was going to suggest a discussion of this topic with you on my web site, so that all your objections could be available to readers of my site. But then, you could not control the discussion like you do on Wikipedia, could you? I would have no need to censor you, as your arguments would be easily dispensed with, I am quite confident. You see, the truth can stand in the light, and does not hide in the darkness of censorship. So, for now, I will leave you and Ian to your gatekeeping and censorship of this article. Biblelight (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, why would I give a known internet stalker my e-mail address, which he can then make very public and use to find even more private information about me, especially after being harassed by his fans since the last time he tried it? And why would I agree to a debate on YOUR website, were you can control the parameters, rules, audience, and what you allow others to see? Strangely enough, I have no control over the discussion on wikipedia. I have no more rights or abilities than you do, and the only thing I've ever done to you that you don't like is apply the rules, which I have to follow too. On your website, there is no such guarantee of equality and frankly, after the harassment I received, I don't trust you one tiny bit. I'm not a fan of the idea of finding some angry SDA on my doorstep with a shotgun some day.

Plus I am a busy person, with a job and full time school to attend, and am very active in my community and faith. I, unlike you, don't make a job of apologetics (though when all you do is assault other faiths, one cannot accurately call it apologetics in the first place), so I simply don't have the time to make a commitment to such a thing.

You want the truth standing in the light? Here it is - we butted heads a while back, with you literally complaining that I was preventing you from saying what you wanted by enforcing the rules (rules which I follow myself), dug up as much private information about me as you could, stuck it on your website where your fans took it and harassed me with it, and no you're asking for more private information and a discussion confined completely to parameters you personally control, and I'm not going to do it because I don't really trust my personal safety, or that of my family, to you or your fans after the last time. What you should be doing is thanking me for not calling the police, because as my lawyer friends tell me, your offense merits jail time. (and no, I'm not threatening legal action)

Now if you have no suggestions for article improvement, cease posting here and leave the genuine contributors who actually want to abide by the rules put in place by those in positions of authority, as Christ commanded us to, in peace. To put it rather bluntly, behave or go away. Those are your two choices.Farsight001 (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I say again, I am not "stalking" you and never have. I don't know that anyone has, and I did not, and have never requested, any personal information from you. Any "harassment" you have received was not from me, or encouraged by me, I don't know anything about it, and condemn it outright. [[User:http://biblelight.net/satan.htmBiblelightBiblelight|Biblelight]] (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Look, maybe you are telling the truth about your actions and maybe it was just a fluke, but judging by your past attitude and behavior towards me, your propensity towards assuming the worst about me for no visible reason, and your posting about me on your website, I just can trust you. I gave someone another chance once before. They took the opportunity to go after (physically), my friends and family. I'm not taking that chance again(even if not from you, from an unstable fan of yours). So please, return to the purpose of the talk page. If you have no suggestions, there is no reason to post here again.Farsight001 (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll add that the edit in question ([6]) was also wrong because it says "The Catholic Encyclopedia also states: 'The first pope who used it [...]'." without explaining what that "it" was.

Also, that looks like a lot of text to say that a phrase that is in a text ("Donation of Constantine") will also be in any other text that quotes the first one in entirety, or the "right" parts of it... Maybe we should just plainly say so in the article? The part starting with "The phrase later appeared in the Corpus Iuris Canonici" could then be made into an example. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Since no one objected, I made some changes ([7]). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC

Since we lost a lot of historical information from this edit, I'm reverting it back for now. It's important to note the date and sanctioning of the phrase (in the Corpus luris Canonici) to get an idea how long the forgery was believed to be authentic. As the section notes, we are trying to display historically significant uses of the phrase, even though similar, there are small differences and I believe people reading this article are interested in seeing this. Just to address the comment above, I agree that if the text that quotes the first entirely then we should just say so, however, if they are paraphrased (as in the case for Corpus Iuris Canonici) or otherwise manipulated I believe it warrants a quote. --Jwater7 (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's see.

"It's important to note the date and sanctioning of the phrase (in the Corpus luris Canonici) to get an idea how long the forgery was believed to be authentic." - shouldn't it be at the article about the Donation of Constantine itself?

"As the section notes, we are trying to display historically significant uses of the phrase, even though similar, there are small differences and I believe people reading this article are interested in seeing this." - still, repeating the text that is essentially the same doesn't look like a good idea. Maybe we should just write "The phrase later appeared in different collections and texts citing or paraphrasing the Donation of Constantine, for example, the Corpus Iuris Canonici." (addition in italic font)? Also, I am not sure about "trying to display historically significant uses of the phrase" - if we did that, we would certainly drop the part about an old American newspaper. It obviously has little to none historical significance - it's just that everything else that the Seventh Day Adventists have found is even less substantial...

"Just to address the comment above, I agree that if the text that quotes the first entirely then we should just say so, however, if they are paraphrased (as in the case for Corpus Iuris Canonici) or otherwise manipulated I believe it warrants a quote." - well, actually, it doesn't help much, since we provide no English translation in either case... Thus the differences are rather hard to see... Still, addition of "or paraphrased" should help us to avoid listing almost the same text several times.

So, would the modified edit be acceptable? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand how you could move the date and authenticity time range to the Donation of Constantine article if it's shown by Corpus luris Cononici and it's only in regards to the phrase. Seems the best place is still here.

The general problem with this article is that it's a breeding ground for debate. The only thing interesting about this phrase is that Adventists (and others) think it's an official title and Catholics think it never was. As far as I'm concerned, the only thing people really need to know from this page is where it came from and who has used it in the past. Other than that, this whole page is written in debate form.

I like to view changes to an article as if I were reading it for the first time. People interested in this phrase come to Wikipedia for a couple reasons. First, they want to find unbiased information about the phrase, and second they wan to get the historical facts. If I had my way, I would create an index/list of noteworthy times it was used up to around 50 years ago (generally deemed historically significant). However, this would not happen because people protect this page and the list could be skewed to imply a bias.

In regards to the Sunday Visitor quote, I agree, however, that is the reason it is significant. Because Adventists have used it so much (and where a lot of internet debate encircles this) is why it's significance has increased so much. So, for me, I would not change it. I don't think it adds value to remove these things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwater7 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

"I'm not sure I understand how you could move the date and authenticity time range to the Donation of Constantine article if it's shown by Corpus luris Cononici and it's only in regards to the phrase." - in such case I probably misunderstood what you meant. When you said "It's important to note the date and sanctioning of the phrase (in the Corpus luris Canonici) to get an idea how long the forgery was believed to be authentic.", was "forgery" in question the Donation of Constantine or something else? If it's Donation of Constantine (as I thought), then the best way to learn about specific history of it is obviously the article about it. And here we would only note that it was thought to be authentic "until the mid 15th century" (as that article says), maybe adding that for some time not everyone was persuaded.

"As far as I'm concerned, the only thing people really need to know from this page is where it came from and who has used it in the past." - well, I am not sure I can agree... As Wikipedia:Neutral point of view ([8]) puts it, "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them.". That is, we should describe the common arguments and counterarguments from one and another side.

In other words, the plan of the article might be somewhat similar to this one:

1. Donation of Constantine
2. Early Protestant writers
3. Seventh Day Adventists
4. Common arguments concerning the importance of the phrase (that is, "does it matter if it is a title?")
5. Common arguments concerning the status of the phrase (that is, "is it a title?")

Then most of the other mentions (with exception of Donation of Constantine, which might get a separate section) would be listed with arguments that a mention of the phrase there is a sign that it's a papal title - with common response (why Catholic apologists aren't persuaded). Wouldn't that be better? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I second that Martynas, please format it as such, claim, counter-claim, and so on. Thus the neutral point of view is maintained by presenting both sides. However the issue here is one of censorship where sources are deleted, deleting sources should be unacceptable otherwise you might as well put the word dispute in the title. So first section "Origin and use of the phrase" should be retained and carefully protected, and sources should be presented and debated on the talk page before editing.

Nibblet (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)