Talk:Romanus Pontifex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Portugal (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject South America (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Christianity / Texts / Catholicism (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Religious texts (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (marked as Mid-importance).
 

Yuioplkjhga (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)—** It should be noted that there does not exist any Papal Bull Dum Diversas, nor is there a Papal Bull Romanus Pontifex written by Pope Nicholas V. The authors who wrote these books claiming such Bulls and supposedly quoting from them, cannot provide proof of any valid source to indicate the actual existence any of these alleged Bulls. Catholic sources validate the non-existence, and would be interested to see any such Bulls should they exist. The only reference to "Romanus Pontifex" is from The Bull “"Romanus Pontifex" of 25 April, 1506, approved by Julius II regarding the Shroud of Turin. Another mention is the Constitution "Romanus Pontifex" of 23 August, 1873. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itai (talkcontribs)


Untitled[edit]

This argumentation is not convincing. The existing of the bull Romanus Pontifex of 1455 is denied. As a proof is a link added, which mentions the bull Romanus Pontifex of 1506 [1]. If there is a second bull with the same name, then you are free to publish another article and add a page for disambiguation. I am in doubt about your source. I found no other information about such a bull in 1506. But there are many sources, which report about the bull Romanus Pontifex of 1455, e.g.
Please verify your arguments. Either provide other sources or remove your links to www.newadvent.org and the neutrality tag in the article.
Tomatom (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
There are no other sources with the doubtful arguments of www.newadvent.org. So I remove the links and the neutrality tag. --Tomatom (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Web page you quote "Popes for Slavery" is not a reliable source, being a polemical website. www.newadvent.org on the other hand is a reliable site which carries official documents and the Catholic encyclopedia, and should not be removed. There seems to be evidence that the Bull exists, however the presentation of its content has been poorly balanced. Xandar 02:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Impact[edit]

Under heading Impact and subtitle America

The information concerning the Johnson ruling by the US Supreme Court was not correct; the ruling removed particularly the right of occupancy; it was only with the consent of the Europeans and the Americans later on. Of course, it said they couldn't have title either. I have added sources to this part of the text.

The other information the Cherokee Nation v. Georgia and Worcester v. Georgia is not entirely correct; perhaps someone can do that adjustment. The court actually reversed part of its ruling, saying that "Indian" nations were sovereign. There are also no references, and links to other Wpedia articles cannot serve in place of citations.Ebanony (talk) 05:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)