Talk:Romanus Pontifex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Romanus Pontifex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)