Talk:Pope: Difference between revisions
imported>Richard Jensen (all expert views can fit in this article) |
imported>Russell Potter (Great Schism) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
'''I further suggest''' that we isolate the varying view points and their perspectives into different articles. This one can be termed the Vatican's, then we can do others on historical works and clearly identify the authors. I have a well researched text called "The Bad Popes." They were pretty bad. I also have a sanctioned text called The Pope Encyclopaedia." Very little in the latter expressed in the former as you would guess. The point is that the title would clearly identify the bias and the sources of the article. And my experience is that virtually nothing can be said about the Bishop of Rome that is not biased.--[[User:Thomas Simmons|Thomas Simmons]] 00:35, 6 May 2007 (CDT) +17 hours | '''I further suggest''' that we isolate the varying view points and their perspectives into different articles. This one can be termed the Vatican's, then we can do others on historical works and clearly identify the authors. I have a well researched text called "The Bad Popes." They were pretty bad. I also have a sanctioned text called The Pope Encyclopaedia." Very little in the latter expressed in the former as you would guess. The point is that the title would clearly identify the bias and the sources of the article. And my experience is that virtually nothing can be said about the Bishop of Rome that is not biased.--[[User:Thomas Simmons|Thomas Simmons]] 00:35, 6 May 2007 (CDT) +17 hours | ||
::we don't need separate articles. The views we want to represent are those of the scholars. Unlike 1920 the scholars are not wildly divergent, I think. (Bakc in those days history was an apologetic tool.) [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 20:52, 8 May 2007 (CDT) | ::we don't need separate articles. The views we want to represent are those of the scholars. Unlike 1920 the scholars are not wildly divergent, I think. (Bakc in those days history was an apologetic tool.) [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 20:52, 8 May 2007 (CDT) | ||
== Great Schism == | |||
Some discussion here will be needed of the Great Schism -- despite the old Catholic notion of an unbroken line from the See of Peter, there is at least one (very interesting) speedbump along this road! [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 22:43, 8 May 2007 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 21:43, 8 May 2007
I suggest we change the name to Papacy, History the goal is to get the major keyword first. Richard Jensen 00:48, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
I further suggest that we isolate the varying view points and their perspectives into different articles. This one can be termed the Vatican's, then we can do others on historical works and clearly identify the authors. I have a well researched text called "The Bad Popes." They were pretty bad. I also have a sanctioned text called The Pope Encyclopaedia." Very little in the latter expressed in the former as you would guess. The point is that the title would clearly identify the bias and the sources of the article. And my experience is that virtually nothing can be said about the Bishop of Rome that is not biased.--Thomas Simmons 00:35, 6 May 2007 (CDT) +17 hours
- we don't need separate articles. The views we want to represent are those of the scholars. Unlike 1920 the scholars are not wildly divergent, I think. (Bakc in those days history was an apologetic tool.) Richard Jensen 20:52, 8 May 2007 (CDT)
Great Schism
Some discussion here will be needed of the Great Schism -- despite the old Catholic notion of an unbroken line from the See of Peter, there is at least one (very interesting) speedbump along this road! Russell Potter 22:43, 8 May 2007 (CDT)