Jump to content

Talk:Rome: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 66: Line 66:
== City divided by two countries (part 2) ==
== City divided by two countries (part 2) ==


[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rome/Archive_3#City_divided_by_two_countries This is a link to the previous talk section regarding this topic]. I would also like to add that consensus agrees that this article should mention Rome as a capital city of two countries. ([[User:N0n3up|N0n3up]] ([[User talk:N0n3up|talk]]) 04:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC))
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rome/Archive_3#City_divided_by_two_countries This is a link to the previous talk section regarding this topic]. I would also like to add that consensus agrees that this article should mention Rome as a capital city of two countries, especially the fact that throughout the article, the Vatican is mentioned as part of the city and its information included, as mentioning both the Italian and the Vatican aspects of the city. ([[User:N0n3up|N0n3up]] ([[User talk:N0n3up|talk]]) 04:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC))

Revision as of 04:59, 3 April 2019

Template:Vital article

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 27, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
Article Collaboration and Improvement DriveThis article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of May 7, 2006.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2018

Source number 108, with a link "the original (PDF)" linking to Gfkamerica.com should no longer be there. Gfkamerica.com has changed hands and is now owned by a spamming group. 83.58.171.78 (talk) 13:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rome became less stable as it grew. the gap between rich and poor widened. the empire was run by a series of warlords. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1524:BB8:E93F:88E3:7D95:8A0C (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello — Preceding unsigned comment added by TigerCCCPro (talkcontribs) 09:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted claim that the papacy existed in 1st Century AD, no reliable source for that

I deleted the historical error claiming that the papacy existed in 1st century AD. Those who believe the Roman Catholic Church and the pope are an infallible source of truth, may claim this error on that basis; but the rest of us will not accept the RCC itself as a reliable source on this. There are no reliable secondary sources for the claim of a papacy in 1st Century AD. To be reliable on such a claim, the secondary source would have to reference at least two near contemporary primary sources, but that is impossible. The New Testament, our most reliable source in this matter, has no reference whatsoever to any pope. Matthew 16 certainly refers to no pope or office of pope, whatever interpretation you make of the petros and petra in the passage, and of Peter's role in the Church. The passage makes good sense as Christ being the petra, not petros Peter. (Moreover, in Galatians 2 and Acts 15, Peter looks like no chief of the Church.) And even if petra did refer to Peter, there is no hint of an office of pope or a papacy or a succession of "peters" there. (PeacePeace (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]

City divided by two countries (part 2)

This is a link to the previous talk section regarding this topic. I would also like to add that consensus agrees that this article should mention Rome as a capital city of two countries, especially the fact that throughout the article, the Vatican is mentioned as part of the city and its information included, as mentioning both the Italian and the Vatican aspects of the city. (N0n3up (talk) 04:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]