This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

It says that! Pope Pius was "one of few popes in recent history to exercise his papal infallibility". But the dogma of papal infallibility was only defined at the First Vatican Council of 1870, so isn't "recent history" redundant? Eixo 10:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The declaration says the popes were and are and will be always infallible on ceremonically declared matters of faith and morals, starting with Peter the fisherman. Therefore, popes must be careful not to dig themselves into too big a hole, so they avoid invoking magisterium power on priestly celibate, for example, because sooner or later catholic priests must be allowed to marry or there won't be any priests in 40 or 50 years.

That's not why priestly celibacy has not been declared ex cathedra (infallibly). It's because celibacy is only a discipline, not a dogma. It is practiced in the latin rite but not in the eastern one. It would not be sinful or impossible for priests to be allowed to marry at some time in the future if the church declared it, which is why it has not been declared infallibly to be true. Polyhymnia

Shouldn't the summary on Main Page first introduce his actual name before using it? — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this confused me as well. Isopropyl 12:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Growing up Irish Catholic and trained by the Jesuit priests, it was such a simple concept. The pope decision on things was considered infallible so people wouldn't endless argue stupid things forever and the Church could remain unified. It is not unlike the umpire at a major league sport, who is right, even if super slow motion from nine angles shows him wrong. Without the umpire being infallible, sports couldn't go on. The pope was used as a sort of umpire in many non-religious conflicts just for this reason. This has gone on far longer than the 1870's. In the United States, the Supreme Court is considered more or less infallible, as the decisions are followed, even to the contested appointing of a presidential winner, because without such, there would be no unified nation. There is no reason to believe any pope could make a decision that could not be changed by a later pope. The pope's decision being infallible is also not related to the belief that a crooked pope will still have to answer to God. And with this, I'll return the discussion to the never ending trivia maniacs who will continue to argue, most of whom probably aren't even religious. Bptdude 07:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"However, the Dutch colony of New Netherland was seized by the British in 1664." - It was not seized by the British as the "British" did not exist until the formation of the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707. Also British there links to United Kingdom, which did not exist until 1801. It should read "However, the Dutch colony of New Netherland was seized by the English in 1664." which it was. an Siarach

Speedy response to the above, cheers! An Siarach

Reading the article, though, it was less of a seize than a take-over. Bazza 09:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, the majority of American history books might have to correct the term "British". Before 1707, it was England and the original name for the 13 American colonies was the "English" colonies. The Northern half of them are called "New England" and the regional name survives to this day. The Dutch were not the only ones in colonial efforts in the new world, the Swedes had a brief period of rule in New Sweden of present-day Delaware, U.S. from 1579 to 1626, when the Dutch took over New Sweden and in turn, went to the English in 1664. I believe the boundaries of French Canada (New France) extended abit more southward to present-day Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire, all U.S. states. However, the unofficial boundaries of both English and French colonies in the 17th and 18th centuries are disputed, which in turn brought on the French and Indian War of 1756 to 1763, and the British (well after 1707) defeated France to obtain their colonies. --Mike D 26 07:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This is funny. The Britains were an ancient Celtic people living on islands. The Romans didn't create the name, but took it from the people who lived there. The Roman geographer Ptolemy called the larger island Megale Brettania (Great Britain). The name of the Roman province became Britannia. Spelling can vary, if you want to get overly picky. That's a Celtic pun, by the way. Living with the Brit's, were the Picts and the Scots. The American colonists certainly used the term British, so changing American history books idea had to have come from a "Brit". *smiles* Bptdude 07:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

www.google.com/search?q=july+4th Google July 4 and see WP's position! --hydnjo talk 21:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Google seems to have more personalized results these days, first result is not Wikipedia for me, but I suspect you must click a lot of WP links from Google. Ziggur 21:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, no, but what's a lot. Cleared my cache again and searched July 4. Google came back with www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=July+4&btnG=Google+Search this assortment. --hydnjo talk 22:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

July 4 and July 4th are two different phrases. --Nelson Ricardo 00:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

July 4th is used as the fourth day. July 4 is just used in any other form. Dure 03:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is the result of the Italy Germany game on the front page of wikipedia? I was looking something up for work, and had this game ruined for me. Please take any results down from the main page, as had been the policy previously... I will not be able to use wikipedia for the next week if it keeps results up like this. This is a terrible oversite. RyanEberhart 22:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Try not to go to any of the other million or so webpages with news content; they all have the score also. --Descendall 23:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't go to any other news site. I thought wikipedia would be alright since previously they just had a message about "2006 world cup continues in germany". I don't see anything wrong with that, or perhaps having the headline something like "germany/italy match decides first contender for the champion". RyanEberhart 23:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

C'mon Ryan. Do you really believe our In The News facility should not carry the news? Moriori 23:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It's like saying we should just say "something has happened in Asia" as a teaser for television news. Silliness! Karlusss 23:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you just set your watchlist as your homepage? It's a very simple solution. --Madchester 00:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

A better idea would be not using Wikipedia to promote soccer, but I guess we already threw that principle out the window, didin't we? MrVoluntarist 00:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, at work we aren't supposed to change our homepage from the company's intranet page. I guess I can just go to http://en.wikipedia.org/random_article. And I never said not to carry the news, as indicated by my suggestion of giving the article a title that didn't give away the ending. There are plenty of people who work when these games are going on, I don't think it's that difficult to not give away the ending whenever people want to look up some information. Sure, I know now that I could have just gone to something other than the main page, but I don't really bother to think of that when I'm looking something up, as I'm sure is true for many others. RyanEberhart 00:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty hard to avoid the result of such an important match; you could just hear it in your way back home. The inclution of this score in the news section is a hot topic; but we should refrain of comparing the football world cup with other sport competitions.Cloviz 00:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support – Let's put a big spoiler warning on the ITN section. I wanted to see the results of the North Korean missiles at home but now Wikipedia has spoiled it for me. Piet 14:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that even the third place match result be displayed, but the semi-final? No. --Howard the Duck 15:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Third match place is a joke, nobody cares. Semi-final is way more important. Piet 13:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Somebody does care. Theoretically, the third place match should be the second-most important match, behind the final. But that's another story. --Howard the Duck 12:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The result of the third-place match should be there. Please revert the edit to display it. 200.121.41.208 23:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

King of Hearts removed this entry (with the edit summary "Wikipedia is not a scoreboard"). I considered reverting (because the determination of the final-round teams seems rather significant), but then I noticed that the 2006 FIFA World Cup article has not been updated beyond the standings tables (and contains absolutely no prose pertaining to the match in question.) Meanwhile, Italy national football team and Germany national football team each contain two-sentence updates. Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Talk:Main_Page/Archive_74
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.