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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)
Final score for the 20th century:
Ordinary Poles, 2.
German intellectuals, 0.
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/pope_john_paul_ii/
I WAS CHANGING STUFF UNTILL YOU CAME AT THE SAME TIME...THANKS FOR WASTING MY FREAKING TIME BIG CHECKS! LOL
I wouldn't say that he eclipsed Pope John XXIII in charisma. How can you measure it? -- Error
Crowd reaction, media presence. JXXIII was largely seen in newsreal and wrotten about. People had a positive impression but it was from secondary sources. JPII is seen on TV and in far less formal settings than JXXIII and directly rather than indirectly. JXXIII was a popular old man, JPII as a media star, capable of attracting 100,000 to youth masses on his trips, crowds in excess of 1million to major Masses. JXXIII never set foot outside Italy, JPII has made 100 trips and had his Masses attended by over 20 million people. By any measurement and analysis, JPII far exceeds JXIII in the charisma stakes. Anyone who ever saw him work the crowd is left in no doubt as to his charisma, whereas JXIII had an affection but never drew such crowds or evoked such responses among those he met. FearÉIREANN 05:59, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I removed opening statement about having the best relations with the Jewish people. In writing NPOV history, we should try to avoid hyperbolic statements measuring "best" or "worst." How do we measure them? Is there a point system? 5 points for visiting a synagogue, 20 points for apologizing for the Crusades? What about John XXIII and Vatican II for longstanding effects? A congratulatory message by an organization that can hardly claim to speak for Jews around the world does not constitute historical proof. Danny 14:55, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
"His visit to the Synagogue of Rome was the first by a pope since the founding of the Catholic Church." Are you sure? At the beginning, Christianity was a Jewish sect and the first Pope, St John (Simon), was Jewish. It's quite probable that he preached the Gospel in synagogues, just as Jesus had done. So I would change the sentence above at least to: "His visit to the Synagogue of Rome was the first by a pope for a very long time." 130.79.154.82 12:57, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I highly doubt the usefulness of enumerating popes and giving this pope number #262. There are a lot of issues dealing with the numbering of popes, like: whom do you count? When do you start? What about the first few, and the really small amount of sources on them? What about John XXIII.? What about certain antipopes/popes? What about popes who became pope more than once? That's why I removed it. If there are good reasons for numbering popes, and if there is some, well, standard to do so, please explain and revert my change. -- denny vrandečić 13:38, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
According to the official Vatican web site, JPII is the 264th Bishop of Rome. As your questions, Denny, I think that they should be explored on the main Pope page.
Are the pictures of JPII really free of copyright? They come from an anti-JPII website http://www.truecatholic.org and I think that they might have collected some images from copyrighted sources and claimed them to be free of copyright. Maybe we could use the definitely GFDLed pictures from Commons instead? Ausir 09:35, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The old capitalisation row again (sigh). Would some people please cop on that the entire world does not use American english, with its preference for lower caps. In addition religious topics often use specific capitals for specific areas and topics (eg, the Roman Catholic eucharistic ceremony is called a Mass, not a mass.) And calling a pope Pope <name> is the standard way to refer to him. The Pope is not a "redundant" word in that context that can be axed but standard usage. In addition Pope is capitalised or lowercased in exactly the same way as other offices, ie, if the generic mention is being made or it is preceded by an indefinite article it is lowercased, if it is preceded by the definite article or a specific office is being referred to by name, it is uppercased.
It is exactly the same as the difference between talking about a president or even the US president on the one hand, and writing President of the United States on the other. Equally in this article, one can write about there being a supreme governor of the Church of England, but the Supreme Governor, as you are talking specifically about a title. (The same principle is in the sentence "the Church of England is the church of England", the former being the title, the latter the generic reference to a church, even if in that case it is preceded by a definite article.) A similar distinction exists between 'archbishop of Crakow' where the archbishopic is implied to get generic, and Archbishop of Crakow where, as in the case of 'President of the United States', 'Prime Minister of the United Kingdom', 'King of Spain', etc one is dealing with a specific title.
Sorry BTW in the delay between making the changes and explaining them here. I am at work and had to deal with a work related problem.
Re Ford's reference above: I'm afraid he is mis-understanding the rules. (I was one of the people who wrote those rules.) It is irrelevant whether or not one is likely to forget who someone is. If their title is clear, and is used in a certain way, then it is to be used. The suggestion that is hagiographic is patently absurd. It is standard english and no more hagiographic, much less POV, than writing President Bush or Queen Elizabeth. Or is it somehow POV to state that someone holds an office when the entire planet is agreed that he does? That has got to be one of the most bizzarre claims of POV I have ever heard on wikipedia!!! As to His Holiness, that too is not hagiographic. It is called a style. Holders of many public offices have them. The Roman Catholic pope is His Holiness, as is the Dalai Lama, most monarchs are styled His or Her Majesty, with Princes of the Blood (note the capitals, Ford. It is because that is a specific title not a generic reference) called His/Her Royal Highness, most presidents or governor-generals His/Her Excellency, etc etc etc. Wikipedia at my suggestion decided not to begin articles on office holders using styles (something many wikipedians wanted to do) but in many cases to explain what an office holder's style is in the text. It would help if people when editing text understood the contextual linguistic rules that apply in a specific case, in this case the holder of a post in a religion who is also a head of state and so subject to standard international diplomatic language FearÉIREANN 14:19, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
OK. Is this a joke??? The above is so nonsensical I burst out laughing. They suggestions are so off-the-wall I almost didn't bother replying. But for the record
Ultimately what your or my views are on styles is irrelevant. They exist. Saying that they exist, and that the holder of office 'x's style is 'y', is simply a factual statement of reality. Trying to pretend that they don't exist because you yourself don't like them is unambiguously POV. You are imposing your point of view on some aspect of the contents of an article and editing out a fact to suit your agenda. That clearly breaches the fundamental principles of NPOV. The only problem with this article is not stating the style, but starting the article with one. As was agreed on wikipedia previously, the style should be stated in the text. FearÉIREANN 15:40, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oh, for crying out loud, this is absurd. "His Holiness The Pope" is simply the style of the Pope, just as "His Excellency The Ambassador of X" is the style of Ambassadors. The capitals clearly mark them out as styles rather than value judgements, just as calling the British Prime Minister "The Right Honourable Tony Blair" is using his style whilst calling him "the right honourable Tony Blair" would be saying he is extremely honourable ("right" in this sense being an intensifier between "very" and "most", rather than an indication of correctness). As for ‘His Holiness’ is absolutely hagiographic. Only someone who believes that the pope is holy can use such a term., if that were true then Christians would have great trouble calling the Dalai Lama "His Holiness The Dalai Lama", when in fact they don't, because they recognise that it's simply his style. If I met an Ambassador, I'd address him as "Your Excellency", but it wouldn't mean that I thought he was particularly excellent, merely that I'm using his correct style. Anyway, this has been discussed ad nauseam before, and Wikipedia policy is to use titles and styles wherever appropriate, and that's that. [As an aside to Jtdirl, I'd prefer "Mr Bush" to "Bush" in our article on him, but the latter is at least preferable to "George", which mode of reference I've encountered in far too many articles.] Proteus (Talk) 11:59, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This argument is a hoot! Proteus and I are not saying styles are a good thing, nor are we saying they are a bad thing. We are just pointing out they exist. We did not decide that popes were called 'Holiness', monarchs 'majesty', presidents 'excellency', peers 'grace', ambassadors 'excellency', etc etc etc. We did not say that it was a good thing, or a bad thing, for to do that would be POV. All we did was say, as every academic worth their salt knows, is that these things exist. In contrast Ford, you have continually expressed your opinions as fact, your issues with the styles as definitive, and your prejudices as neutral. That, sir, is POV, Point of View. And encylopaedias don't go in for POV. We are supposed to be involved in NPOV. It is an NPOV fact that these styles exist and stating them is simply NPOV. Saying as a fact that they are right or wrong, offensive, provocative, etc etc is POV and has no place in wikipedia or any serious encyclopaedia. Now can we end this extremely silly discussion. FearÉIREANN 19:58, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have flicked through "The Mitrokhin Archive", and I think it would be super if there was a paragraph about John's 1979 visit to Poland; apparently it shook up the atheistic Soviet regime and helped galvanise what was to become the Solidarity movement, and is presumably one reason why people argue that his 1981 assassination attempt was a KGB action. Are there any Polish people here? How is John seen in Poland? Why is he called 'Pope John Paul', given that his name is Karol? - Ashley Pomeroy 18:53, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Pope's usually pick names of prior popes or saints to use as their professional handle. In fact in the Catholic faith all Catholics pick a saint or beautified person as a role model during the sacrement of confirmation, and often they will use this saint's name as a second middle name. -DJ 6:11 9 Jan 2005
After reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), and looking at several other articles, such as Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Albert II of Belgium, and Bhumibol Adulyadej (which begin Her/His Magesty); Rainier III of Monaco (which begins His Serene Highness); Rowan Williams (which begins The Most Reverend and Right Honourable); Joseph Anthony Ferrario (which begins Msgr.); Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson (which begin The Reverend); Elton John (which begins Sir); ect.; I have determined it is Wikipedia policy and standard practice for people with honorific styles to be refered to by their style at the begining of the article. As the Pope is commonly styled His Holiness in English due to the office he holds, it is appropiate for the article about the current pontiff to use the style, not merely mention it. If you disagree, I'd suggest you take it to the Manual of Style's talk page. Gentgeen 06:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally, I concede only some of your points, and I merely do not have the energy to go through all of this again, either my earlier arguments, or an edit war. You are flat-out wrong, though, that it is “appropriate” to use rather than merely mention the pope’s style. You cite a policy which on its face is not binding, and is evolving; and in any case, such a policy cannot be held to outweigh the policy of neutrality, which the use of styles blatantly violates. Just because other pages also violate the policy does not justify it. I do concede that other pages violate the policy, and that using styles is closer to standard practice than avoiding them. But that is in part because, for example, it is royalists who do most of the editing on royalty pages, and believers who take the strongest interest in pages about religious figures. I find it disturbing that dead popes, like dead kings, are treated much more like factual subjects (id est, dead popes who have not been beatified or canonized are given no style at all). To treat living figures with reverence is even worse than treating dead figures with reverence — it is a violation of the notion of equality and it has a much-greater potential for abuse. But that is a social argument. My primary point in the encyclopedia is that employing a style in earnest is not neutral. So you can take your pick: you can have the style and a neutrality dispute; or you can have neither.
It is also worth mentioning that if you are so attached to policies, the capitalization which I have tried to correct and you have just undone is an explicit violation of
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). My interlocutors above dismissed this, but their arguments were not remotely persuasive; and in any case, if you insist on following guidelines in one case you should be consistent. But, whatever; I am not going through this again. I will just tag the article, and that will be my contribution to public education in this instance.
—
Ford 10:19, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
And how anyone can fail to see the distinction between mentioning that the pope is styled “His Holiness” and actually calling him that is completely beyond me.
—
Ford 21:15, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
That's an excellent rant, but unfortunately you don't seem to have any argument other than "they're POV because I say they are". Proteus (Talk) 21:33, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Whereas you are the great font of objectivity, Proteus. Have you given up entirely on making arguments? You ignore my argument because you haven’t one of your own. You are getting your way, because I am exhausted. But for the record, calling the pope ‘His Holiness’ is biased because it takes sides in the dispute on whether he is or is not holy. I say he is just a regular person. You all say he is holy. There is no need for the encyclopedia to take a position one way or the other, but you all insist anyway. That is not neutral.
—
Ford 22:10, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
His Holiness seems very POV to me, especially given that other religious leaders are not stylized with such (well, at least one other one I have seen). That, and the minor issue that it is in direct violation of the naming conventions policy, which states explicitly:
Titanium Dragon 10:08, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I wish people would read the actual text of the NPOV message before removing it, or appending the NPOVNPOV tag, whose text does not accurately represent what is going on. I believe that the page is not neutral, but by adding the tag I am not stating that the page is not neutral. I am stating that the neutrality of the page is disputed. That is what the message literally says. Until the dispute is resolved, the statement remains accurate, and to remove or qualify the statement is a disservice to my repeated efforts to explain my reasoning or suggest a compromise, as well as to the fact that at least one other editor has recently agreed with me. Frankly, the addition of the NPOVNPOV tag makes the article look even more foolish. The authors of the template were writing in response to their perception of the tag’s implication, not its actual content.
So here are the two problems in this recent edit conflict, and both of them are simple failures of the distinctive faculty:
1. I am insisting that to call the pope ‘His Holiness’ is biased. Others are insisting that to state that the pope is called ‘His Holiness’ is factual. These are not in any way incompatible. They may both be true. In fact, I believe both statements to be true. Let me state this myself explicitly, for the record: The pope is called ‘His Holiness’ by many of his supporters. This is a fact. I would have no problem putting this statement in the article. My problem is with actually calling him by this title. There is a world of difference between the two.
2. Some believe that the article as it presently stands is neutral. Some believe that it is not. Those who believe that the article is neutral may disagree with my assertion that it is not; but they cannot disagree with the assertion that the neutrality is disputed, because the fact that we cannot agree on whether it is or is not neutral is the dispute.
I have pointed Jguk, who apparently disputes my right even to dispute this article’s neutrality, to the pages
Tenzin Gyatso,
Mahathir bin Mohamad, and
Muhammad, pages I have edited which use a simple compromise formula, in which the titles and honorifics are mentioned, without passing judgement on their appropriateness by actually applying them. This formula informs interested readers of a fact without subjecting them to a religious point of view. It is a great improvement in tonal quality. If, as the editors of this page insist, they are simply interested in stating facts and creating an informative article, there should be no reason not to embrace this compromise.
—
Ford 01:37, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
I don't think anyone disputes whether we should report common usage and practice. The question is whether we should apply honorific styles ("The Right Honorable", "His Grace", "Her Royal Majesty") when making the first mention of a person who carries (or has carried) a title. Should all the articles on cardinals have "His Eminence" added? Should all the current presidents of republics have "His Excellency"? Yes, let's report the usage but not follow it in this case. (In an opposite example, a dictionary defines swear words, but doesn't use them). Cheers,. - Willmcw 11:00, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Re styles. Wikipedia policy was straight forward:
1. Styles do not indicate a POV but are simply a statement of a traditional way by which the office holder is described. Mentioning that the pope and the dalai lama is styled 'Holiness' does not in any way involve accepting that they are. It merely involving pointing out that that is the traditional manner of address in dealing with them.
2. Articles were not supposed to include a description of their style when referring to them. Styles should simply be mentioned in the text. In the past styles were systematically removed. There were however a few individuals who regularly added in styles in the text of the articles. (One in particular drowned articles in 'His Majesty', 'His Royal Highness', 'His Imperial Majesty', the 'Right Honourable', etc etc and went ballistic when these were repeatedly removed.) These were constantly removed by those involved in the editing and organisation of articles dealing with royalty. Obviously the 'styles' brigade have come back and inserted them again. As many of the people who put all the work into creating a cohesive structure to what had been a mishmash of royal pages are not currently on here (some have left. Others are simply gone temporarily due to work commitments) the styles mess has obviously been slipped in again unnoticed. So the styles will obviously have to be removed again. Using them in the text of the article is unencyclopaedic and because their context and history isn't understood can end up, as here, being misunderstood as being POV. That is avoided when a style is simply defined once in the text. That is why indeed a specific entry was created explaining what a style is. FearÉIREANN 13:45, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I take a more straightforward approach. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - it should report was "is" rather than what editors think "should be". Where styles are used, they should be reported. Not endorsed. Not questioned. Just reported. For biography articles styles tend to reported along with the subject's full name. That is appropriate.
I fully agree that styles should be overdone: that would be inappropriate too. But the fact that someone has a style is interesting information, and it's easiest mentioned right at the beginning. This is the style that Wikipedia currently has and has adopted through common practice. Let's keep it that way. Kind regards, jguk 20:54, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ford asked in his most recent edit summery, Please explain on talk page what your exact problem with this is. He was refering to the opening paragraph, as I've quoted it below:
I have two problems with this paragraph, based on reading Wikipedia:Manual_of_style#Titles. First, when saying he is the Pope and the Bishop of Rome, we are specifically refering to offices and therefore they should be capatilized. From the above policy, The correct formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun. Hence: "Hirohito was Emperor of Japan". Similarly "Louis XVI was the French king" but "Louis XVI was King of France", King of France being a title in that context. Ford's version would be the same as George W. Bush is the current president of the United States, vs. the correct George W. Bush is the current President of the United States. The first line in this article should read ... the current Pope - the Bishop of Rome' ...; the later uses of pope in the paragraph should not be capatalized as we are refering to the group of people who have been pope, not the office, so those are fine. To keep using my analogy, if the GW Bush article said (and I don't know if it does), he is the second president of the United States to be the son of a former president, that would also be appropiate usage.
Secondly, the last sentence, about the "His Holiness" style, seems amaturish and tacked on. It accomplishes in 15 words what can be accomplished most simply with two words, by putting His Holiness before John Paul II in the first line. It also violates the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), which states,
If we're going to put His Holiness in its own sentence, why not the other titles and styles used for the Pope, such as Blessed Father, Holy Father, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Primate of Italy, Patriarch of the West, Supreme Pontiff, Pontifex Maximus, Vicar of Christ, Successor to the Prince of the Apostles, Servent of the Servents of God, ect. (just thinking off the top of my head, I probibly missed a few) Actually, now that I think about it, those should be in there somewhere, but probibly not in the first paragraph, as some of them are pretty obscure and not commonly used, but His Holiness and the Holy Father are used commonly, but the Holy Father is generally used as a replacement for his name, and His Holiness is used as an honorary style before his name.
Finally, I don't want to hear the strawman about what Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) states. The naming conventions are used to determine the title of the article, while the style guides are used to format the content of an article. As no one is suggesting that this article be moved to another location, especially not His Holiness Pope John Paul II, the naming conventions do not apply. Gentgeen 22:07, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I do not believe that Jguk is editing in good faith. In fact, I believe that Jguk is editing in very bad faith.
For now, Jguk wins. I am not enjoying myself at all, and am being shouted down by persons who are not interested in listening to reasoned arguments or reaching a decent compromise. Don’t bother to say that you are interested in listening or compromising; just do it, or spare me.
—
Ford 23:31, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
There seems to be confusion here. For the record, honorifics are used in articles. Styles are not. A style is a manner of address, a honorific is a form of title. They are different things. If John Paul held a knighthood or baronetcy then the article would properly begin Sir John Paul II . . .However His Holiness is a style and styles are not used to describe people in encyclopaedias, as they can be misinterpreted by those who do not understand them (or who come from cultures where they are not used and so not understood) are POV, even if in reality they arent. Standard encyclopaedic writing includes styles in the article by indicating what a person's style us. Similarly the article on Mary McAleese does not say Her Excellency Mary McAleese, the article on eighteenth century monarchs quote their styles, the article on Mary, Queen of Scots call her Her Grace, the article on George Bush say His Excellency George Bush, the article in clergymen start The Right Reverend. And articles on some bishops who are parliamentary peers do not start His Grace the Lord Bishop, the Very Reverend . . . . It is completely unworkable, unlike honorifics which are much more clearcut. Which is why honorifics are used, but styles are explained in text (some encyclopaedias don't include mention at all). FearÉIREANN 19:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
That page does not talk about styles but about honorifics. Please learn the difference. And honorifics are used in encyclopaedias. Styles aren't, as was agreed in debate here and has been policy until a small number of people began trying to change it unilaterally by misunderstanding the difference between honorifics and styles. FearÉIREANN 20:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It is quite simple. In "Reverend Smith", Reverend is a honorifics. It is a decorative word attached to a name which is widely used to define an office-holder or person with a specific position. In "The Right Reverend Dr Smith" , the Right Reverend is a style. A style is a formal method of address that is used in both the written and spoken word to indicate the respect with which an office holder is held. When I meet the President of Ireland I refer to her by either of her styles, "Excellency" or 'President' (the Irish equivalent of the US's 'Mr. President' or the rarely used but still valid "Your Excellency"). Similarly if I was to meet the pope I would call him "Your Holiness", or Queen Elizabeth "Your Majesty". A style is purely decorative, indicating the respect with which an office holder is held. An honorifics is something which, along with a person's name, is widely used, with the individual recognisable often through its inclusion. 'John Smith' may not be recognisable. 'Reverend John Smith' would be.
So honorifics are included as very often the person may not be recognisable without it. But styles are formal ritualised manners of address that are decorative and honorary but not necessary to recognise someone. They are also increasingly rarely used. Tony Blair, for example, is not always referred to in Number 10's press releases as the Rt Hon Tony Blair, whereas earlier prime ministers regularly used them. (Just as earlier prime ministers wore formal privy council uniforms which included swords, when attending privy council meetings. I don't think any prime minister since Harold Wilson has worn a privy council meetings. And the special privileges privy councillors were entitled to have in parliament (including right of preference in speaking) were all abolished around, I think, 1998 or 1999. Princes William and Harry have opted not to use their styles, while keeping their honorifics. Similarly the Earl and Countess of Wessex have opted not to use either the standard style or honorifics of their daughter, Louise.
Styles are also unworkable in practice in encyclopaedias because they can be misinterpreted by the vast majority of people who are unfamiliar with them and think you are saying someone is whatever their style is, not that you are using a form of address developed in mediaeval times and which is traditional, not subjective.
In addition many styles, particularly in republics repeat the name of the office and so would read absurdly. So if one writes His Holiness Pope John Paul II, in the interests of NPOV one should also use styles for republican office-holders (to choose to use the style of one set of office holders but not for another would be POV and so against the rules of wikipedia). So the article on Irish president Mary McAleese, if started with a style, would read President President Mary McAleese. George Bush would also read Mr President President Bush. Encyclopaedias, for reasons of style, convenience and also to avoid the impression that they are endorsing a style (particularly for popes or dalai lamas, where those opposed to them think you are commenting on how you regard popes or dalai lamas and not simply repeating an ancient linguistic formula). In addition, had Saddam Hussein not been overthrown, if one uses styles here he would have had to have been called, His Excellency, President Saddam Hussein. Some time ago a senior Irish catholic cleric in effect did a runner when accused of soliciting sex from seminarians. He is now in the US working for a New Age guru. Call him by his style after what he did (and he still is officially entitled to it) and Irish people here would go ballistic. Ditto if you called the exiled king of Greece Majesty. Do that and the two thirds of Greeks are republicans would go ballistic. Don't, and monarchists would point out that he never formally abdicated and so is entitled to his style (which technically is correct) and so would wage an edit war. And as Simeon II of Bulgaria never officially abdicated, he is still technically "His Majesty". But as his country's prime minister he is also "His Excellency". So the article could have to start "His Majesty, His Excellency . . . " And as former Irish prime minister John Bruton is now an ambassador his article should call him "His Excellency", the standard style for ambassadors. Knowing John, he would roar his head off at the thought of an encyclopadia calling him 'excellency'. And you'd have to call the Lord Mayor of Dublin the Rt. Hon because technically due to an oversight he is. The Irish Privy Council is gone since 1922 but it wasn't formally abolished. So the Lord Mayor is the only member of this non-existent organisation. Some lords major use it. Some go into a fury if you call them that. But in the interests of NPOV, either wikipedia calls everyone by their style, or no-one.
Styles are completely unworkable. Do you call James VII of Scotland, aka James II of England, by his english style Majesty or Scottish style Grace. Or do you want to call him, His Grace His Majesty?? And the problems above are only the tip of the iceburg. There are thousands more problems. For example, imagine the edit wars that will result if you have to call the current president of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe His Excellency. Do you call anti-popes His Holiness? Do you use the Prince of Wales's scottish or english styles? Must every US congressman be an Honorable? What about every judge, worldwide? Is the main claimant to the French throne a Royal Highness? What about the second claimant, a spanish nobleman? Is the Napoleonic pretender an Imperial Highness? What style do you use for the O'Conor Don, the claimant to the Irish throne? Is Leka I, the claimant to the Albanian throne a majesty, a royal highness or what? And what of the late Emperor Bokassa, the flesh-eating emperor of the Central African emperor? Imagine calling that repulsive creature His Majesty. What styles do you use for Jacobite pretenders for the Scottish thrones? What point do English monarchs stop being Grace and become Majesty, as even historians can't agree? And what do you do about the Austrian archbishop who resigned amid allegations of sex abuse. He still was a senior cleric. Do you call him by his style? If you don't, that's expressing a POV, which is against wikipedia policy. If you do, you horrify many people and cause an edit war.
When the issue of styles was looked into, it was judged to be the ultimate nightmare from hell. If you use them, thousands of articles would need changing, with hundreds becoming controversial. That is why encyclopaedias avoid them like the plague. Specialised royal books can use them but it is simply too complex, to controversial and there are too many grey areas for them to be used in an encyclopaedia, much less an open edit one. FearÉIREANN 11:12, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Since many styles are used as honorifics and many honorifics used as styles, the distinction Irishman is trying to put forward just doesn't exist in real life. Wikipedia policy is clearly set out on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). This article, along with all other biographical articles, should adhere to it, jguk 11:37, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
So at last you admit that is a distinction. That's some slight progress. Just because some people who don't know the distinction mix them up does not mean that this encyclopaedia should show similar ignorance. This is an encyclopaedia and should follow encyclopaedic standards and the agreed standards on styles as laid out after two separate discussions. In fact the only people who have ever disagreed are the same people who have tried to add in styles and edit pages to follow their policies, not wikipedia's. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies page deals with honorifics. The discussion here is styles, something different. That was discussed and a position agreed on the naming conventions page. FearÉIREANN 12:02, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
jguk edited the Manual of Style page to agree with his PoV; he made an attempt to change it in order to be able to add "His Holiness" to the start of this article. His repeated addition of this style is in bad faith; it is fairly obvious that he would not want the antipopes to have "His Holiness" added to their names, despite the fact that, according to his own rules, they should. 129.59.26.23 22:23, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A list of over 100 foreign visits is overwhelming - I think it should be moved to a separate article and summarised here. Any thoughts as to title - List of pastoral visits of Pope John Paul II outside Italy is a bit verbose? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:13, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
PS - I also tablified the list of encyclicals - arguably they could be moved elsewhere too ( List of Encyclicals of Pope John Paul II?) - again, any thoughts? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:16, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't Pope John Paul II be named as the second longest-reigning pope? I know the media endlessly call him such, but the media also identified 2000 as the first year of the new millennium, and simply saying it's so can't change historical fact.
The Pope is defined as the successor of St Peter. It's a nonsense to call Peter the longest-reigning successor to himself.
The Pope has released a new book called 'Memoria e Identidad' wherein he has raised the most serious controversy concerning the failure of democracy when in 1933 , the German Parliament voted the Enabling Act and gave Adolf Hitler his dictatorial powers . John Paul II has further likened this democratic sanction of evil to that of legalised abortion and further equated the evil of the resulting Holocaust with what women do with their own bodies . Apart from being casuistic & extremely offensive to sufferers of that evil , this shows a worrying reluctance by papal authority to take recognisance of its own involvement with that self-same abandonment by Democracy of itself . The facts as related on the Pope Pius XII wiki page(the Concordat) should have caused a righteous concern inside the Vatican . This argument in this book whilst directed against the very concerning issue of abortion , will nevertheless serve the other virtuous purpose of again raising the involvement of the Vatican in incontrovertible conspiracy which of itself resulted in the greatest human destruction yet witnessed on this earth . The papacy should clean its own stables thoroughly or suffer a growing clamour for repentance for its own direct culpability in that subversion of democracy , and remove unto itself it's own part of that opprobrium which is thereby generalised upon the German people . The part the Vatican played effectively tipped the balance in this subversion and this is one of the greatest errors that the church could have committed and it's reluctance to face up to it reveals that it itself recognises this . The vatican was of course playing a long-game against the Soviet threat and whilst it could with John Paul II be said to have finally won , it's coldness at sacrificing the safety of the Jews in particular , but everyone in the end , reveals clearly the extreme calculation that the Lambs of Jesus take unto his cause . The Wiki itself shows that humanity desires openness and clarity and that churches all must come cleanly into a future light or perish as institutions . Flamekeeper 22:32, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Please someone open a talk page to make space because this is wrong in fact not POV . These are facts requiring admittance or contestation. It is untrue and diminuishes them to say these "criticisms" are well-known . 'They' are not criticisms of this Pope anyway and the timeline of papal intervention as known to the Simon Wiesenthal Foundation's Holocaust timeline has been extended on the Wikipedia by one year back to 1932 . Please help , not hinder , truth . This book is claiming a corruption of democracy CAUSED by the Vatican as the prime example of the fallibility of democracy . This is much worse than an attack on democracy in a book and should be discussed in full because it is a subject for worldwide interest. However no-one Jewish group or liberal-democratic group has cottoned on to this point and it appears the church evades in the past by conceding tid-bits about anti-semitism when they are not the prime problem . And you are inargueably in error about the Reichstag . Flamekeeper 13:14, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In February 2005, Reuters released excerpts from the pontiff's new book, his fifth, "Memory and Identity." In it, the Pope seems to compare abortion to the Holocaust, saying "There is still, however a legal extermination of human beings who have been conceived but not yet born. And this time we are talking about an extermination which has been allowed by nothing less than democratically elected parliaments where one normally hears appeals for the civil progress of society and all humanity." A leader of Germany's Central Council of Jews called the comparison unacceptable. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican's senior doctrinal official, dismissed the charges, saying the pope "was not trying to put the Holocaust and abortion on the same plane" but only warning that evil lurked everywhere, "even in liberal political systems."-- A. S. A. 04:39, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Our thoughts are with Pope John Paul II .
Flamekeeper 21:13, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Is it true that JPII has planned a trip to Istanbul later this year? It would be interesting, since it's dramatic historically: the center of Eastern Orthodoxy. I have the impression he'd rather die of exhaustion from travelling than retire. Michael Hardy 22:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I put in a couple more Cardinals who've been thought of as papaible. The list might be a little too European - because some think it won't be a European. My concern is that we don't do too much predicting of who will be the next Pope. Right now that is one huge question mark. We won't know until we see the white smoke coming out of the chimney. Time and time again the conclave has made surprising choices. Karol Wojtyla wasn't expected to become Pope by the outside world, in fact he was a compromise candidate after the two main Italian candidates caused the conclave to deadlock. And those Cardinals who get too confident, it is said "He who enters the conclave as pope, leaves it as a cardinal."
JesseG 23:53, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)
Final score for the 20th century:
Ordinary Poles, 2.
German intellectuals, 0.
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/pope_john_paul_ii/
I WAS CHANGING STUFF UNTILL YOU CAME AT THE SAME TIME...THANKS FOR WASTING MY FREAKING TIME BIG CHECKS! LOL
I wouldn't say that he eclipsed Pope John XXIII in charisma. How can you measure it? -- Error
Crowd reaction, media presence. JXXIII was largely seen in newsreal and wrotten about. People had a positive impression but it was from secondary sources. JPII is seen on TV and in far less formal settings than JXXIII and directly rather than indirectly. JXXIII was a popular old man, JPII as a media star, capable of attracting 100,000 to youth masses on his trips, crowds in excess of 1million to major Masses. JXXIII never set foot outside Italy, JPII has made 100 trips and had his Masses attended by over 20 million people. By any measurement and analysis, JPII far exceeds JXIII in the charisma stakes. Anyone who ever saw him work the crowd is left in no doubt as to his charisma, whereas JXIII had an affection but never drew such crowds or evoked such responses among those he met. FearÉIREANN 05:59, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I removed opening statement about having the best relations with the Jewish people. In writing NPOV history, we should try to avoid hyperbolic statements measuring "best" or "worst." How do we measure them? Is there a point system? 5 points for visiting a synagogue, 20 points for apologizing for the Crusades? What about John XXIII and Vatican II for longstanding effects? A congratulatory message by an organization that can hardly claim to speak for Jews around the world does not constitute historical proof. Danny 14:55, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
"His visit to the Synagogue of Rome was the first by a pope since the founding of the Catholic Church." Are you sure? At the beginning, Christianity was a Jewish sect and the first Pope, St John (Simon), was Jewish. It's quite probable that he preached the Gospel in synagogues, just as Jesus had done. So I would change the sentence above at least to: "His visit to the Synagogue of Rome was the first by a pope for a very long time." 130.79.154.82 12:57, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I highly doubt the usefulness of enumerating popes and giving this pope number #262. There are a lot of issues dealing with the numbering of popes, like: whom do you count? When do you start? What about the first few, and the really small amount of sources on them? What about John XXIII.? What about certain antipopes/popes? What about popes who became pope more than once? That's why I removed it. If there are good reasons for numbering popes, and if there is some, well, standard to do so, please explain and revert my change. -- denny vrandečić 13:38, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
According to the official Vatican web site, JPII is the 264th Bishop of Rome. As your questions, Denny, I think that they should be explored on the main Pope page.
Are the pictures of JPII really free of copyright? They come from an anti-JPII website http://www.truecatholic.org and I think that they might have collected some images from copyrighted sources and claimed them to be free of copyright. Maybe we could use the definitely GFDLed pictures from Commons instead? Ausir 09:35, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The old capitalisation row again (sigh). Would some people please cop on that the entire world does not use American english, with its preference for lower caps. In addition religious topics often use specific capitals for specific areas and topics (eg, the Roman Catholic eucharistic ceremony is called a Mass, not a mass.) And calling a pope Pope <name> is the standard way to refer to him. The Pope is not a "redundant" word in that context that can be axed but standard usage. In addition Pope is capitalised or lowercased in exactly the same way as other offices, ie, if the generic mention is being made or it is preceded by an indefinite article it is lowercased, if it is preceded by the definite article or a specific office is being referred to by name, it is uppercased.
It is exactly the same as the difference between talking about a president or even the US president on the one hand, and writing President of the United States on the other. Equally in this article, one can write about there being a supreme governor of the Church of England, but the Supreme Governor, as you are talking specifically about a title. (The same principle is in the sentence "the Church of England is the church of England", the former being the title, the latter the generic reference to a church, even if in that case it is preceded by a definite article.) A similar distinction exists between 'archbishop of Crakow' where the archbishopic is implied to get generic, and Archbishop of Crakow where, as in the case of 'President of the United States', 'Prime Minister of the United Kingdom', 'King of Spain', etc one is dealing with a specific title.
Sorry BTW in the delay between making the changes and explaining them here. I am at work and had to deal with a work related problem.
Re Ford's reference above: I'm afraid he is mis-understanding the rules. (I was one of the people who wrote those rules.) It is irrelevant whether or not one is likely to forget who someone is. If their title is clear, and is used in a certain way, then it is to be used. The suggestion that is hagiographic is patently absurd. It is standard english and no more hagiographic, much less POV, than writing President Bush or Queen Elizabeth. Or is it somehow POV to state that someone holds an office when the entire planet is agreed that he does? That has got to be one of the most bizzarre claims of POV I have ever heard on wikipedia!!! As to His Holiness, that too is not hagiographic. It is called a style. Holders of many public offices have them. The Roman Catholic pope is His Holiness, as is the Dalai Lama, most monarchs are styled His or Her Majesty, with Princes of the Blood (note the capitals, Ford. It is because that is a specific title not a generic reference) called His/Her Royal Highness, most presidents or governor-generals His/Her Excellency, etc etc etc. Wikipedia at my suggestion decided not to begin articles on office holders using styles (something many wikipedians wanted to do) but in many cases to explain what an office holder's style is in the text. It would help if people when editing text understood the contextual linguistic rules that apply in a specific case, in this case the holder of a post in a religion who is also a head of state and so subject to standard international diplomatic language FearÉIREANN 14:19, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
OK. Is this a joke??? The above is so nonsensical I burst out laughing. They suggestions are so off-the-wall I almost didn't bother replying. But for the record
Ultimately what your or my views are on styles is irrelevant. They exist. Saying that they exist, and that the holder of office 'x's style is 'y', is simply a factual statement of reality. Trying to pretend that they don't exist because you yourself don't like them is unambiguously POV. You are imposing your point of view on some aspect of the contents of an article and editing out a fact to suit your agenda. That clearly breaches the fundamental principles of NPOV. The only problem with this article is not stating the style, but starting the article with one. As was agreed on wikipedia previously, the style should be stated in the text. FearÉIREANN 15:40, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oh, for crying out loud, this is absurd. "His Holiness The Pope" is simply the style of the Pope, just as "His Excellency The Ambassador of X" is the style of Ambassadors. The capitals clearly mark them out as styles rather than value judgements, just as calling the British Prime Minister "The Right Honourable Tony Blair" is using his style whilst calling him "the right honourable Tony Blair" would be saying he is extremely honourable ("right" in this sense being an intensifier between "very" and "most", rather than an indication of correctness). As for ‘His Holiness’ is absolutely hagiographic. Only someone who believes that the pope is holy can use such a term., if that were true then Christians would have great trouble calling the Dalai Lama "His Holiness The Dalai Lama", when in fact they don't, because they recognise that it's simply his style. If I met an Ambassador, I'd address him as "Your Excellency", but it wouldn't mean that I thought he was particularly excellent, merely that I'm using his correct style. Anyway, this has been discussed ad nauseam before, and Wikipedia policy is to use titles and styles wherever appropriate, and that's that. [As an aside to Jtdirl, I'd prefer "Mr Bush" to "Bush" in our article on him, but the latter is at least preferable to "George", which mode of reference I've encountered in far too many articles.] Proteus (Talk) 11:59, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This argument is a hoot! Proteus and I are not saying styles are a good thing, nor are we saying they are a bad thing. We are just pointing out they exist. We did not decide that popes were called 'Holiness', monarchs 'majesty', presidents 'excellency', peers 'grace', ambassadors 'excellency', etc etc etc. We did not say that it was a good thing, or a bad thing, for to do that would be POV. All we did was say, as every academic worth their salt knows, is that these things exist. In contrast Ford, you have continually expressed your opinions as fact, your issues with the styles as definitive, and your prejudices as neutral. That, sir, is POV, Point of View. And encylopaedias don't go in for POV. We are supposed to be involved in NPOV. It is an NPOV fact that these styles exist and stating them is simply NPOV. Saying as a fact that they are right or wrong, offensive, provocative, etc etc is POV and has no place in wikipedia or any serious encyclopaedia. Now can we end this extremely silly discussion. FearÉIREANN 19:58, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have flicked through "The Mitrokhin Archive", and I think it would be super if there was a paragraph about John's 1979 visit to Poland; apparently it shook up the atheistic Soviet regime and helped galvanise what was to become the Solidarity movement, and is presumably one reason why people argue that his 1981 assassination attempt was a KGB action. Are there any Polish people here? How is John seen in Poland? Why is he called 'Pope John Paul', given that his name is Karol? - Ashley Pomeroy 18:53, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Pope's usually pick names of prior popes or saints to use as their professional handle. In fact in the Catholic faith all Catholics pick a saint or beautified person as a role model during the sacrement of confirmation, and often they will use this saint's name as a second middle name. -DJ 6:11 9 Jan 2005
After reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), and looking at several other articles, such as Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Albert II of Belgium, and Bhumibol Adulyadej (which begin Her/His Magesty); Rainier III of Monaco (which begins His Serene Highness); Rowan Williams (which begins The Most Reverend and Right Honourable); Joseph Anthony Ferrario (which begins Msgr.); Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson (which begin The Reverend); Elton John (which begins Sir); ect.; I have determined it is Wikipedia policy and standard practice for people with honorific styles to be refered to by their style at the begining of the article. As the Pope is commonly styled His Holiness in English due to the office he holds, it is appropiate for the article about the current pontiff to use the style, not merely mention it. If you disagree, I'd suggest you take it to the Manual of Style's talk page. Gentgeen 06:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally, I concede only some of your points, and I merely do not have the energy to go through all of this again, either my earlier arguments, or an edit war. You are flat-out wrong, though, that it is “appropriate” to use rather than merely mention the pope’s style. You cite a policy which on its face is not binding, and is evolving; and in any case, such a policy cannot be held to outweigh the policy of neutrality, which the use of styles blatantly violates. Just because other pages also violate the policy does not justify it. I do concede that other pages violate the policy, and that using styles is closer to standard practice than avoiding them. But that is in part because, for example, it is royalists who do most of the editing on royalty pages, and believers who take the strongest interest in pages about religious figures. I find it disturbing that dead popes, like dead kings, are treated much more like factual subjects (id est, dead popes who have not been beatified or canonized are given no style at all). To treat living figures with reverence is even worse than treating dead figures with reverence — it is a violation of the notion of equality and it has a much-greater potential for abuse. But that is a social argument. My primary point in the encyclopedia is that employing a style in earnest is not neutral. So you can take your pick: you can have the style and a neutrality dispute; or you can have neither.
It is also worth mentioning that if you are so attached to policies, the capitalization which I have tried to correct and you have just undone is an explicit violation of
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). My interlocutors above dismissed this, but their arguments were not remotely persuasive; and in any case, if you insist on following guidelines in one case you should be consistent. But, whatever; I am not going through this again. I will just tag the article, and that will be my contribution to public education in this instance.
—
Ford 10:19, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
And how anyone can fail to see the distinction between mentioning that the pope is styled “His Holiness” and actually calling him that is completely beyond me.
—
Ford 21:15, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
That's an excellent rant, but unfortunately you don't seem to have any argument other than "they're POV because I say they are". Proteus (Talk) 21:33, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Whereas you are the great font of objectivity, Proteus. Have you given up entirely on making arguments? You ignore my argument because you haven’t one of your own. You are getting your way, because I am exhausted. But for the record, calling the pope ‘His Holiness’ is biased because it takes sides in the dispute on whether he is or is not holy. I say he is just a regular person. You all say he is holy. There is no need for the encyclopedia to take a position one way or the other, but you all insist anyway. That is not neutral.
—
Ford 22:10, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
His Holiness seems very POV to me, especially given that other religious leaders are not stylized with such (well, at least one other one I have seen). That, and the minor issue that it is in direct violation of the naming conventions policy, which states explicitly:
Titanium Dragon 10:08, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I wish people would read the actual text of the NPOV message before removing it, or appending the NPOVNPOV tag, whose text does not accurately represent what is going on. I believe that the page is not neutral, but by adding the tag I am not stating that the page is not neutral. I am stating that the neutrality of the page is disputed. That is what the message literally says. Until the dispute is resolved, the statement remains accurate, and to remove or qualify the statement is a disservice to my repeated efforts to explain my reasoning or suggest a compromise, as well as to the fact that at least one other editor has recently agreed with me. Frankly, the addition of the NPOVNPOV tag makes the article look even more foolish. The authors of the template were writing in response to their perception of the tag’s implication, not its actual content.
So here are the two problems in this recent edit conflict, and both of them are simple failures of the distinctive faculty:
1. I am insisting that to call the pope ‘His Holiness’ is biased. Others are insisting that to state that the pope is called ‘His Holiness’ is factual. These are not in any way incompatible. They may both be true. In fact, I believe both statements to be true. Let me state this myself explicitly, for the record: The pope is called ‘His Holiness’ by many of his supporters. This is a fact. I would have no problem putting this statement in the article. My problem is with actually calling him by this title. There is a world of difference between the two.
2. Some believe that the article as it presently stands is neutral. Some believe that it is not. Those who believe that the article is neutral may disagree with my assertion that it is not; but they cannot disagree with the assertion that the neutrality is disputed, because the fact that we cannot agree on whether it is or is not neutral is the dispute.
I have pointed Jguk, who apparently disputes my right even to dispute this article’s neutrality, to the pages
Tenzin Gyatso,
Mahathir bin Mohamad, and
Muhammad, pages I have edited which use a simple compromise formula, in which the titles and honorifics are mentioned, without passing judgement on their appropriateness by actually applying them. This formula informs interested readers of a fact without subjecting them to a religious point of view. It is a great improvement in tonal quality. If, as the editors of this page insist, they are simply interested in stating facts and creating an informative article, there should be no reason not to embrace this compromise.
—
Ford 01:37, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
I don't think anyone disputes whether we should report common usage and practice. The question is whether we should apply honorific styles ("The Right Honorable", "His Grace", "Her Royal Majesty") when making the first mention of a person who carries (or has carried) a title. Should all the articles on cardinals have "His Eminence" added? Should all the current presidents of republics have "His Excellency"? Yes, let's report the usage but not follow it in this case. (In an opposite example, a dictionary defines swear words, but doesn't use them). Cheers,. - Willmcw 11:00, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Re styles. Wikipedia policy was straight forward:
1. Styles do not indicate a POV but are simply a statement of a traditional way by which the office holder is described. Mentioning that the pope and the dalai lama is styled 'Holiness' does not in any way involve accepting that they are. It merely involving pointing out that that is the traditional manner of address in dealing with them.
2. Articles were not supposed to include a description of their style when referring to them. Styles should simply be mentioned in the text. In the past styles were systematically removed. There were however a few individuals who regularly added in styles in the text of the articles. (One in particular drowned articles in 'His Majesty', 'His Royal Highness', 'His Imperial Majesty', the 'Right Honourable', etc etc and went ballistic when these were repeatedly removed.) These were constantly removed by those involved in the editing and organisation of articles dealing with royalty. Obviously the 'styles' brigade have come back and inserted them again. As many of the people who put all the work into creating a cohesive structure to what had been a mishmash of royal pages are not currently on here (some have left. Others are simply gone temporarily due to work commitments) the styles mess has obviously been slipped in again unnoticed. So the styles will obviously have to be removed again. Using them in the text of the article is unencyclopaedic and because their context and history isn't understood can end up, as here, being misunderstood as being POV. That is avoided when a style is simply defined once in the text. That is why indeed a specific entry was created explaining what a style is. FearÉIREANN 13:45, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I take a more straightforward approach. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - it should report was "is" rather than what editors think "should be". Where styles are used, they should be reported. Not endorsed. Not questioned. Just reported. For biography articles styles tend to reported along with the subject's full name. That is appropriate.
I fully agree that styles should be overdone: that would be inappropriate too. But the fact that someone has a style is interesting information, and it's easiest mentioned right at the beginning. This is the style that Wikipedia currently has and has adopted through common practice. Let's keep it that way. Kind regards, jguk 20:54, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ford asked in his most recent edit summery, Please explain on talk page what your exact problem with this is. He was refering to the opening paragraph, as I've quoted it below:
I have two problems with this paragraph, based on reading Wikipedia:Manual_of_style#Titles. First, when saying he is the Pope and the Bishop of Rome, we are specifically refering to offices and therefore they should be capatilized. From the above policy, The correct formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun. Hence: "Hirohito was Emperor of Japan". Similarly "Louis XVI was the French king" but "Louis XVI was King of France", King of France being a title in that context. Ford's version would be the same as George W. Bush is the current president of the United States, vs. the correct George W. Bush is the current President of the United States. The first line in this article should read ... the current Pope - the Bishop of Rome' ...; the later uses of pope in the paragraph should not be capatalized as we are refering to the group of people who have been pope, not the office, so those are fine. To keep using my analogy, if the GW Bush article said (and I don't know if it does), he is the second president of the United States to be the son of a former president, that would also be appropiate usage.
Secondly, the last sentence, about the "His Holiness" style, seems amaturish and tacked on. It accomplishes in 15 words what can be accomplished most simply with two words, by putting His Holiness before John Paul II in the first line. It also violates the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), which states,
If we're going to put His Holiness in its own sentence, why not the other titles and styles used for the Pope, such as Blessed Father, Holy Father, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Primate of Italy, Patriarch of the West, Supreme Pontiff, Pontifex Maximus, Vicar of Christ, Successor to the Prince of the Apostles, Servent of the Servents of God, ect. (just thinking off the top of my head, I probibly missed a few) Actually, now that I think about it, those should be in there somewhere, but probibly not in the first paragraph, as some of them are pretty obscure and not commonly used, but His Holiness and the Holy Father are used commonly, but the Holy Father is generally used as a replacement for his name, and His Holiness is used as an honorary style before his name.
Finally, I don't want to hear the strawman about what Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) states. The naming conventions are used to determine the title of the article, while the style guides are used to format the content of an article. As no one is suggesting that this article be moved to another location, especially not His Holiness Pope John Paul II, the naming conventions do not apply. Gentgeen 22:07, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I do not believe that Jguk is editing in good faith. In fact, I believe that Jguk is editing in very bad faith.
For now, Jguk wins. I am not enjoying myself at all, and am being shouted down by persons who are not interested in listening to reasoned arguments or reaching a decent compromise. Don’t bother to say that you are interested in listening or compromising; just do it, or spare me.
—
Ford 23:31, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
There seems to be confusion here. For the record, honorifics are used in articles. Styles are not. A style is a manner of address, a honorific is a form of title. They are different things. If John Paul held a knighthood or baronetcy then the article would properly begin Sir John Paul II . . .However His Holiness is a style and styles are not used to describe people in encyclopaedias, as they can be misinterpreted by those who do not understand them (or who come from cultures where they are not used and so not understood) are POV, even if in reality they arent. Standard encyclopaedic writing includes styles in the article by indicating what a person's style us. Similarly the article on Mary McAleese does not say Her Excellency Mary McAleese, the article on eighteenth century monarchs quote their styles, the article on Mary, Queen of Scots call her Her Grace, the article on George Bush say His Excellency George Bush, the article in clergymen start The Right Reverend. And articles on some bishops who are parliamentary peers do not start His Grace the Lord Bishop, the Very Reverend . . . . It is completely unworkable, unlike honorifics which are much more clearcut. Which is why honorifics are used, but styles are explained in text (some encyclopaedias don't include mention at all). FearÉIREANN 19:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
That page does not talk about styles but about honorifics. Please learn the difference. And honorifics are used in encyclopaedias. Styles aren't, as was agreed in debate here and has been policy until a small number of people began trying to change it unilaterally by misunderstanding the difference between honorifics and styles. FearÉIREANN 20:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It is quite simple. In "Reverend Smith", Reverend is a honorifics. It is a decorative word attached to a name which is widely used to define an office-holder or person with a specific position. In "The Right Reverend Dr Smith" , the Right Reverend is a style. A style is a formal method of address that is used in both the written and spoken word to indicate the respect with which an office holder is held. When I meet the President of Ireland I refer to her by either of her styles, "Excellency" or 'President' (the Irish equivalent of the US's 'Mr. President' or the rarely used but still valid "Your Excellency"). Similarly if I was to meet the pope I would call him "Your Holiness", or Queen Elizabeth "Your Majesty". A style is purely decorative, indicating the respect with which an office holder is held. An honorifics is something which, along with a person's name, is widely used, with the individual recognisable often through its inclusion. 'John Smith' may not be recognisable. 'Reverend John Smith' would be.
So honorifics are included as very often the person may not be recognisable without it. But styles are formal ritualised manners of address that are decorative and honorary but not necessary to recognise someone. They are also increasingly rarely used. Tony Blair, for example, is not always referred to in Number 10's press releases as the Rt Hon Tony Blair, whereas earlier prime ministers regularly used them. (Just as earlier prime ministers wore formal privy council uniforms which included swords, when attending privy council meetings. I don't think any prime minister since Harold Wilson has worn a privy council meetings. And the special privileges privy councillors were entitled to have in parliament (including right of preference in speaking) were all abolished around, I think, 1998 or 1999. Princes William and Harry have opted not to use their styles, while keeping their honorifics. Similarly the Earl and Countess of Wessex have opted not to use either the standard style or honorifics of their daughter, Louise.
Styles are also unworkable in practice in encyclopaedias because they can be misinterpreted by the vast majority of people who are unfamiliar with them and think you are saying someone is whatever their style is, not that you are using a form of address developed in mediaeval times and which is traditional, not subjective.
In addition many styles, particularly in republics repeat the name of the office and so would read absurdly. So if one writes His Holiness Pope John Paul II, in the interests of NPOV one should also use styles for republican office-holders (to choose to use the style of one set of office holders but not for another would be POV and so against the rules of wikipedia). So the article on Irish president Mary McAleese, if started with a style, would read President President Mary McAleese. George Bush would also read Mr President President Bush. Encyclopaedias, for reasons of style, convenience and also to avoid the impression that they are endorsing a style (particularly for popes or dalai lamas, where those opposed to them think you are commenting on how you regard popes or dalai lamas and not simply repeating an ancient linguistic formula). In addition, had Saddam Hussein not been overthrown, if one uses styles here he would have had to have been called, His Excellency, President Saddam Hussein. Some time ago a senior Irish catholic cleric in effect did a runner when accused of soliciting sex from seminarians. He is now in the US working for a New Age guru. Call him by his style after what he did (and he still is officially entitled to it) and Irish people here would go ballistic. Ditto if you called the exiled king of Greece Majesty. Do that and the two thirds of Greeks are republicans would go ballistic. Don't, and monarchists would point out that he never formally abdicated and so is entitled to his style (which technically is correct) and so would wage an edit war. And as Simeon II of Bulgaria never officially abdicated, he is still technically "His Majesty". But as his country's prime minister he is also "His Excellency". So the article could have to start "His Majesty, His Excellency . . . " And as former Irish prime minister John Bruton is now an ambassador his article should call him "His Excellency", the standard style for ambassadors. Knowing John, he would roar his head off at the thought of an encyclopadia calling him 'excellency'. And you'd have to call the Lord Mayor of Dublin the Rt. Hon because technically due to an oversight he is. The Irish Privy Council is gone since 1922 but it wasn't formally abolished. So the Lord Mayor is the only member of this non-existent organisation. Some lords major use it. Some go into a fury if you call them that. But in the interests of NPOV, either wikipedia calls everyone by their style, or no-one.
Styles are completely unworkable. Do you call James VII of Scotland, aka James II of England, by his english style Majesty or Scottish style Grace. Or do you want to call him, His Grace His Majesty?? And the problems above are only the tip of the iceburg. There are thousands more problems. For example, imagine the edit wars that will result if you have to call the current president of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe His Excellency. Do you call anti-popes His Holiness? Do you use the Prince of Wales's scottish or english styles? Must every US congressman be an Honorable? What about every judge, worldwide? Is the main claimant to the French throne a Royal Highness? What about the second claimant, a spanish nobleman? Is the Napoleonic pretender an Imperial Highness? What style do you use for the O'Conor Don, the claimant to the Irish throne? Is Leka I, the claimant to the Albanian throne a majesty, a royal highness or what? And what of the late Emperor Bokassa, the flesh-eating emperor of the Central African emperor? Imagine calling that repulsive creature His Majesty. What styles do you use for Jacobite pretenders for the Scottish thrones? What point do English monarchs stop being Grace and become Majesty, as even historians can't agree? And what do you do about the Austrian archbishop who resigned amid allegations of sex abuse. He still was a senior cleric. Do you call him by his style? If you don't, that's expressing a POV, which is against wikipedia policy. If you do, you horrify many people and cause an edit war.
When the issue of styles was looked into, it was judged to be the ultimate nightmare from hell. If you use them, thousands of articles would need changing, with hundreds becoming controversial. That is why encyclopaedias avoid them like the plague. Specialised royal books can use them but it is simply too complex, to controversial and there are too many grey areas for them to be used in an encyclopaedia, much less an open edit one. FearÉIREANN 11:12, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Since many styles are used as honorifics and many honorifics used as styles, the distinction Irishman is trying to put forward just doesn't exist in real life. Wikipedia policy is clearly set out on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). This article, along with all other biographical articles, should adhere to it, jguk 11:37, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
So at last you admit that is a distinction. That's some slight progress. Just because some people who don't know the distinction mix them up does not mean that this encyclopaedia should show similar ignorance. This is an encyclopaedia and should follow encyclopaedic standards and the agreed standards on styles as laid out after two separate discussions. In fact the only people who have ever disagreed are the same people who have tried to add in styles and edit pages to follow their policies, not wikipedia's. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies page deals with honorifics. The discussion here is styles, something different. That was discussed and a position agreed on the naming conventions page. FearÉIREANN 12:02, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
jguk edited the Manual of Style page to agree with his PoV; he made an attempt to change it in order to be able to add "His Holiness" to the start of this article. His repeated addition of this style is in bad faith; it is fairly obvious that he would not want the antipopes to have "His Holiness" added to their names, despite the fact that, according to his own rules, they should. 129.59.26.23 22:23, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A list of over 100 foreign visits is overwhelming - I think it should be moved to a separate article and summarised here. Any thoughts as to title - List of pastoral visits of Pope John Paul II outside Italy is a bit verbose? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:13, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
PS - I also tablified the list of encyclicals - arguably they could be moved elsewhere too ( List of Encyclicals of Pope John Paul II?) - again, any thoughts? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:16, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't Pope John Paul II be named as the second longest-reigning pope? I know the media endlessly call him such, but the media also identified 2000 as the first year of the new millennium, and simply saying it's so can't change historical fact.
The Pope is defined as the successor of St Peter. It's a nonsense to call Peter the longest-reigning successor to himself.
The Pope has released a new book called 'Memoria e Identidad' wherein he has raised the most serious controversy concerning the failure of democracy when in 1933 , the German Parliament voted the Enabling Act and gave Adolf Hitler his dictatorial powers . John Paul II has further likened this democratic sanction of evil to that of legalised abortion and further equated the evil of the resulting Holocaust with what women do with their own bodies . Apart from being casuistic & extremely offensive to sufferers of that evil , this shows a worrying reluctance by papal authority to take recognisance of its own involvement with that self-same abandonment by Democracy of itself . The facts as related on the Pope Pius XII wiki page(the Concordat) should have caused a righteous concern inside the Vatican . This argument in this book whilst directed against the very concerning issue of abortion , will nevertheless serve the other virtuous purpose of again raising the involvement of the Vatican in incontrovertible conspiracy which of itself resulted in the greatest human destruction yet witnessed on this earth . The papacy should clean its own stables thoroughly or suffer a growing clamour for repentance for its own direct culpability in that subversion of democracy , and remove unto itself it's own part of that opprobrium which is thereby generalised upon the German people . The part the Vatican played effectively tipped the balance in this subversion and this is one of the greatest errors that the church could have committed and it's reluctance to face up to it reveals that it itself recognises this . The vatican was of course playing a long-game against the Soviet threat and whilst it could with John Paul II be said to have finally won , it's coldness at sacrificing the safety of the Jews in particular , but everyone in the end , reveals clearly the extreme calculation that the Lambs of Jesus take unto his cause . The Wiki itself shows that humanity desires openness and clarity and that churches all must come cleanly into a future light or perish as institutions . Flamekeeper 22:32, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Please someone open a talk page to make space because this is wrong in fact not POV . These are facts requiring admittance or contestation. It is untrue and diminuishes them to say these "criticisms" are well-known . 'They' are not criticisms of this Pope anyway and the timeline of papal intervention as known to the Simon Wiesenthal Foundation's Holocaust timeline has been extended on the Wikipedia by one year back to 1932 . Please help , not hinder , truth . This book is claiming a corruption of democracy CAUSED by the Vatican as the prime example of the fallibility of democracy . This is much worse than an attack on democracy in a book and should be discussed in full because it is a subject for worldwide interest. However no-one Jewish group or liberal-democratic group has cottoned on to this point and it appears the church evades in the past by conceding tid-bits about anti-semitism when they are not the prime problem . And you are inargueably in error about the Reichstag . Flamekeeper 13:14, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In February 2005, Reuters released excerpts from the pontiff's new book, his fifth, "Memory and Identity." In it, the Pope seems to compare abortion to the Holocaust, saying "There is still, however a legal extermination of human beings who have been conceived but not yet born. And this time we are talking about an extermination which has been allowed by nothing less than democratically elected parliaments where one normally hears appeals for the civil progress of society and all humanity." A leader of Germany's Central Council of Jews called the comparison unacceptable. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican's senior doctrinal official, dismissed the charges, saying the pope "was not trying to put the Holocaust and abortion on the same plane" but only warning that evil lurked everywhere, "even in liberal political systems."-- A. S. A. 04:39, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Our thoughts are with Pope John Paul II .
Flamekeeper 21:13, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Is it true that JPII has planned a trip to Istanbul later this year? It would be interesting, since it's dramatic historically: the center of Eastern Orthodoxy. I have the impression he'd rather die of exhaustion from travelling than retire. Michael Hardy 22:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I put in a couple more Cardinals who've been thought of as papaible. The list might be a little too European - because some think it won't be a European. My concern is that we don't do too much predicting of who will be the next Pope. Right now that is one huge question mark. We won't know until we see the white smoke coming out of the chimney. Time and time again the conclave has made surprising choices. Karol Wojtyla wasn't expected to become Pope by the outside world, in fact he was a compromise candidate after the two main Italian candidates caused the conclave to deadlock. And those Cardinals who get too confident, it is said "He who enters the conclave as pope, leaves it as a cardinal."
JesseG 23:53, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)