Talk:Dum Diversas

Untitled

Can anyone find this document?

Here is a copy, reproduced in a collection of papal bulls and other church documents published in 1868. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 04:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Non Existent or Inccorect Bulls

Of the papal bulls listed, only one, Inter Cetera, relates to this topic. There is no Etsi Cuncti, but there is a Etsi Cunctas by Leo XIII about the Church in Ireland. There's no original source on Precelse denotionis, so until one is found its existence and content are suspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.43.63 (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but that is absurd. There is a reliable source that attests to its existence. The standard of Wikipedia is "verifiability" not "truth"; our job is not to go about sleuthing on our own, but to summarize the status of published knowledge. If you truly disagree so much with a published source, it's better for you to pursue the independent publication of your theories than to try to change things on Wikipedia. If the the encyclical has truly disappeared, that doesn't mean that it never existed, especially for a several hundred year old document. Much less just because there's no full text available on the internet. I consider your recent edits to hinge upon original research, and would ask you to limit your contributions to what can be sourced. In other words, if someone published something saying that a source might be apocryphal add that, but only that. Savidan 00:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If the source material references a document that does not exist, then the source material is false. If I find source material that says that Hitler was a practicing Jew, I am not going to post it on Wikipedia because we know that cannot be verify. This is especially important in matters relating to slavery, black history, and so forth. It is our job to verify the truth of the source material. I want to know one way or another if the documents exist. i do not want to be misled by incorrect information here on Wikipedia. I will do the sleuthing and if I find that the document does not exist, I will remove the reference. --71.238.121.147 (talk) 12:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand if the source material exists, I want it posted just like you posted the excerpt on the Dum Diversas. This issue about the Catholic church condoning slavery is important. --71.238.121.147 (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

There are two issues here: (1) your Hitler example is really off-the-wall; this article is something that jives with the context around it and is, well, believable. These sources are also higher in quality, etc.; (2) doing a google search for a document written several hundred years ago and not finding the full-text (in a language in which it was not written no less) is far, far short of "proof" of non-existence. In the case of something that has been written about in high quality sources, at least another source questioning its existence would be required to include that perspective in the article. In the case of Hitler for example, a higher quality source about his religion would be enough to reduce the view in question to a footnote in a daughter article or even to remove it entirely. Savidan 15:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

I have amended some inaccuracies in the article. The first sentence saying that Dum Diversas is "credited with ushering in the African Slave Trade" is citied only to a single personal opinion on a private POV website. As such, the statement is completely unwarranted in that form which suggests that that is a widespread if not majority opinion! I have amended it slightly, adding "by some", but really the reference supplied is not sufficient basis for the statement to be there at all. Also Inter caetera's connection with Dum diversas is not slavery at all, as originally implied, but the concept of national exclusive spheres of influence in newly discoverted lands. I too can find no reference to "Etsi Cuncti". it only seems to be mentioned in this article - which is very suspicious. Xandar 00:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Edits based on incorrect inferences

I made some edits based on an earlier author's inferrence that the servitude is personal slavery. Another editor here made similar changes about the African slave trade. The Dum Diversas (http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/02/dum-diversas-english-translation.html) is a letter granting personal authority to the King, not to individuals. It refers to reducing kingdoms, principalities and other organizations into perpetual servitude, not that individuals should be taken into slavery. This also comports with earlier Papal Bulls that Chattel Slavery could not be allowed in the European mainland.

Additional later section states: "he sanctioned slavery in Rome in 1545, the enslavement of Henry VIII in 1547 and the purchase of Muslim slaves in 1548." This indicates either that the author didnt' understand the source or that the source is not a reliable one. Henry VIII was never enslaved, he was excommunicated, which means he could be arrested at will, but not enslaved. It is a long jump between imprisonment and slavery. Likewise, the idea that Muslim slaves were authorizd in 1548 is simply incorrect. That the original author didn't note that this came from the council of Trent (https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent.html) , not the aforemention bull is indicative of a lack of knowledge or unreliability. The referenced dispensation was to purchase Muslim Slaves for conversion, not personal use.

File:Nicholas V Papa.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nicholas V Papa.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 23 March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Nicholas V Papa.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)