Talk:Pope John XX

European Microstates: Vatican City Low‑importance

	Europe portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject European Microstates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of European Microstates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European MicrostatesWikipedia:WikiProject European MicrostatesTemplate:WikiProject European MicrostatesEuropean Microstates
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Vatican City portal This redirect is supported by WikiProject Vatican City (assessed as Mid-importance).

Christianity: Catholicism Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Catholic Church portal This redirect is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Mid-importance).

There is some evidence that a pope John Anglicus existed and reigned as pope between Leo IV (847 - 855, or 853) and Benedict III (855 - 858). Pope John the XX new about this and in honoring John Anglicus as a real elecated pope he renamed himself to John XXI because John Anglicus should be named John VIII. John Anglicus is a very controversial figure because she used also the name "Johanna von Ingelheim". It seems she came from the german city Ingelheim/Rhine River.It looks like she was the only female pope in the history of the holy church. If this pope ever existed she would have reigned in the years between 853 and 855. -- User:203.144.143.250

The myth of Pope Joan has rather thoroughly been debunked. -- Someone else 08:30, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Pope Johns v. Popes John

"...based on the confusion of having twenty Pope Johns before them." Should this not be Popes John? Sahasrahla 00:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...

For something relatively straightforward, could this be any more confusingly written? Maybe someone who knows what they're talking about could clean this up and make sense of this hash... 172.145.96.217 20:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article was a mess, because the confusion about numbering Popes John actually had nothing to do with including or excluding antipopes, but was due to an error in the textual transmission of the Liber Pontificalis, clarified by Louis Duchesne in the preface to his critical edition of the LP and explained at some more length by Reginal Poole in EHR 128 (1917), pp. 447s. I have now replaced the text of this article with a new text. Yet as I am no native speaker of English, somebody should probably brush this up. If you want to contact me, you can find me here. --84.60.220.80 23:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]