Talk:Prophecy of the Popes

Formal request as per Wikipedia's guidelines :
that the Revision as of 21:19, 5 August 2009 be implemented. - 100.14.81.196 (talk) 05:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This one? Erm, no.  Only one person on the planet would want that version restored, and he is indef blocked. So blocking this IP now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What's an "Erm" ? - 100.14.67.50 (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's an interjection expressing hesitation or disagreement. See wikt:erm. In the U.S., we usually spell it "um". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

"i.e. Rome"
Who has decided "They" know Biblical prophecy better than anyone else? Revelation never calls the 'City upon seven hills' Rome directly, it's a matter of interpretation. Many Protestants believe Rome is this "City," why offend Catholics and others who do not believe this? There are many cities upon "seven hills," why would God destroy the one housing His Church? It makes no sense. There is no reason to have "i.e. Rome" on the information section for Peter the Roman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C1:C001:39F0:F83A:9DEF:4706:45B1 (talk) 11:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a creative theory that a prophecy about Peter the Roman was referring to some other seven-hilled city, but the reliable sources interpret this as referring to Rome, and we are obliged to summarize what reliable sources say. (Most of the prominent reliable sources are by Catholic writers, btw.)--Trystan (talk) 12:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

John Paul I
This pope was born in the Province of Belluno, which ties in with the lunar reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:140F:7E07:1:1:3888:C2D1 (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Because that province is the one that gets a halfmoon every month? Because its mountains are closer to space? Semifamiliar name? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * (Pardon the commet necromancy), but Americans are terrible at linguistics) Belluno is not a lunar reference "The name of the city is derived from Celtic belo-dunum which means 'splendid hill.'" The Italian word for the planetoid that orbits Earth is Luna, not Luno. L'uno is also italian, but has nothing to do with the moon. Dominick (TALK) 16:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Chronology of History section
Thanks for your comment on my talk page; I am replying here. My concern with the edit is that it presents a timeline starting in the 12th century, rather than the late 16th century when the prophecies first appeared. It presents statements like "It was then stored in the Vatican archives and forgotten about until 1590 when it was rediscovered," as facts Wikipedia's voice, rather than as highly dubious claims made centuries later, as most sources do.

You expressed concerns with the History section lacking in sources, and have tagged the article as needing additional references. Both the section and the article seem to me to be quite densely cited. Are there statements in particular that you think would benefit from a citation?--Trystan (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * . I'm sorry what? Since when does a timeline start at later date and then include an earlier date in the timeline. You are saying the timeline should start in the 16th century and then go on to the 12th century? None of that makes sense. Other than that, yes, I get the issue you brought up: I stated it as facts. A good editor would have corrected the sentence by adding "allegedly" as in "It was then alledgedly stored in the Vatican archives and forgotten about until 1590 when it was rediscovered," or added in other comments at the end of the sentence like "but this has not been accepted as true".


 * And for the citations, no there is not enough. Also the list of all of the prophecies are sourced from the same book that was published in the late 1800s. Better references are needed.SneaselxLv94 (talk) 06:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added some subheadings and reconfigured the section to start with "Publication and content", which contains events and descriptions that are widely agreed upon in the sources. The section then moves on to "Origin theories". Mixing one particular origin theory in with the known facts, no matter how many "allegedlys" we add, is neither clear nor NPOV.
 * O'Brien's 1880 monograph is an excellent source, well-researched and clearly written. This isn't a topic where sources get outdated quickly. The prophecies in the list are also cited to Bander's 1969 book. Together, the two provide in-depth scholarly analysis, with different points of view, rising above a sea of low-quality sources on the topic. I do not agree that the article should be indefinitely tagged as requiring better sources when it is reflective of the best available sources on the topic. If you won't agree to remove the banner, I will ask for input from other editors.--Trystan (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Addition of original research in translation of 112
Regarding, I understand the temptation to attempt to fix a perceived error in the sources, but Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Arguing why you think multiple reliable sources spanning hundreds of years are all wrong isn't relevant, because our job as an encyclopedia is to simply report what the sources say. The article already mentions that alternative interpretations exist, citing Sieczkowski. Even that wording is fairly generous when considering WP:DUEWEIGHT, given that it is a reading very much in the small minority.

I'm not sure if it is helpful to address the substantive merits of the the OR, since even absolutely true OR doesn't belong on Wikipedia. But it may be useful to note that there is no reason to think that the reliable sources are flawed in their reading of the original text on this point (pun intended). In English, what we now call a period or full stop continued to act "as a type of comma until its standardization in the early 17th century." Perhaps Latin was different, and I'm not an expert on 16th century punctuation in either English or Latin, but that's just the point: expertise is required. We can't substitute our own research and conclusions - especially ones grounded in modern assumptions about punctuation and grammar - for the work of expert reliable sources. If they interpreted the mark as the equivalent of a comma, or disregarded it as a typo, that's what we must reflect as well.--Trystan (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)