Talk:John XXIII

I wonder if Antipope John XXIII was really an antipope, and not the actual Pope; the problem was that he was one of the major participants in some schism or other. Nonetheless, a later pope took the same name in an attempt to settle the controversy. However, this can be seen as historical revisionism, and perhaps we ought to refer to the two as "the first Pope John XXIII" and "the second Pope John XXIII", or some other means. &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 18:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I do agree that its regrettable that a twentieth century name choice is determining the title of his article. He is the only western schism pope currently titled an "Antipope" on Wikipedia. The two Avignon popes are so named, and Cossa's predecessor was lucky enough to have no one choose his name, even though he enjoyed far less popular and state support than Cossa. However, I think "the first" and "the second" is a bad choice. Perhaps "Pope John XXIII (15th century)" and "Pope John XXIII (20th century)". If we really want to, we could leave the second one undisambiguated. Does it matter than sedevacantists would dispute the modern John XXIII's legitimacy?
 * That said, while I think that Cossa was more contemporareously regarded as a pope than many whose Wikipedia title currently shows no sign of dispute, I do not view the current naming as enitrely unacceptable. Savidan 19:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need a disambiguation page here? How many people who type in John XXIII are really looking for info on a 16th century anti-pope that no-one ever heard of? Rwflammang (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This needs to redirect to Pope John XXIII for the rationale stated by Rwflammang. A disambiguation for the antipope already exists at the top of the article. Dgf32 (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)