Wikipedia talk:The Pope is Catholic

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)

---

Bad captioning (from Pope Benedict XVI)	Good captioning (from Jürgen Habermas)
File:2004 katholische-akademie-habermas-ratzinger 1-799x533.jpg Ratzinger debates with German philosopher Jürgen Habermas at the Catholic Academy of Bavaria, Germany in 2004.	File:2004 katholische-akademie-habermas-ratzinger 1-799x533.jpg Jürgen Habermas (left) speaking with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, 2004.

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

Another great essay - time to be WP:BOLD

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

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)

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)

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

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)

Only one pope is "Catholic"

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)

Aaaaargh!

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)

• 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)

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

"Paris, France" sounds to me like what people from the USA say. "Paris" is not ambiguous, it means THE Paris. I think that is "commonly understood". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.158.134 (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

There's more than one Paris, but not (to my knowledge) more than one Texas that has a Paris. But if a man spends a night "in Paris", is he in France, is he in the southern USA, or is he banging Ms. Hilton? --Damian Yerrick (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

"This also provides an opportunity to build the web by linking 'France', i.e., 'Paris, France'." I believe the current consensus is to unlink the word "France" (except in a few articles like Paris), and probably unlink Paris too, according to WP:OVERLINK. Art LaPella (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Circular reasoning

This essay is silly and stupid. If you know what Catholicism is, you know that the Pope is Catholic; and if you know who the Pope is, you know enough about Catholicism to also know he's Catholic. Similarly, if you know what Paris is, you know it's in France; and it would be astonishingly difficult to learn what France is without also learning what Paris is.

I've actually come across this sort of illogic on Wikipedia before, people asking that sections from entire other articles linked only a click away instead be rehashed in an article, and that sentiment does not need a braindead essay up to reenforce it. 72.130.58.85 (talk) 10:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

(Wow, 2015 was 6 years ago.)

1) That’s not what circular reasoning is.

2) You know, if I ask 10 people what Catholicism is, chances are that at least one of them won’t speak of the Pope at all within the sentence or two they give me. So there’s a hole in your reasoning.

3) Not sure I understand the logic behind being disruptive in order to make people agree with you. Assuming that that is what this was, and not an anger-induced public rant about something that got on your nerves. Anyone like that who happens to see this: On the off-chance that you actually care, please stop. I know you have better things to do, and in all likelihood, you know that, too. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 08:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

LOL, I haven't checked here in years, amused to see this:

1) Yes it is

2) Red herring. Do you seriously imagine anyone volunteering a definition of Catholicism doesn't know what a Pope is, regardless of whether they mention it? No, of course you don't. The same is true of terse, well organized reference material.

3) I realize there are more important things in the universe than critiquing internal policy essays on a user-contributed intertubes encyclopedia, but responding frankly to a publicly posted document isn't "being disruptive". 2600:1700:DA90:2AB0:5CF2:72C6:C520:41AA (talk) 09:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Some doubt it

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)