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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
October 21, 2007 – November 21, 2008
What in the world is wrong with you people? You think if you write a novel, it will convince someone of your view of the person. Good grief, this page is blasphemy and makes god want to cry that he created such idiots and fascists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.116.155.130 ( talk) 05:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Under " Other Facts" it states that at his death there was solar eclipse .This is wrong .Solar eclipse happen at April 8 2005 and not at April 2 2005 .Very easy to check that at Nasa web site . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.182.153 ( talk) 04:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I added something to balance the claim on the Bulgarian assassination attempt and it has since been [1]. The reason given was "rm OR supported only by an internal link, not an external citation of a verifiable source".
I'm a bit confused as I cited a book by Herman and Chomsky which _is_ an external citation of a verifiable source. Granted I linked to the wikipedia entry for the book which is indeed an internal link but that seems superior to adding a bibliography-style citation, adding both seems redundant.
Perhaps all details of the allegations should be moved to the main assassination attempt page rather than trying to balance it in-place.
Fergal daly ( talk) 15:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this article really needs to be at least semi-protected because of frequent vandalism. Many other wikipedias have already locked it. -- Visconsus ( talk) 19:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
[1] Good read! It was removed by dirty vandal! —Preceding unsigned comment added by NewBlock ( talk • contribs) 22:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Being as the process of canonization (as opposed to informal acclamation) is relatively new in the Catholic church, one would think that the degree of uncertainty is too small to seriously cloud the claim that JP2 has more canonizations than his predecessors combined. Can we at least have a source for this claim, as it is given far more prominence (1/6 of the lead!) than the (by far) mainstream view. Savidan 02:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
John Paul II, Karol Wojtyla, was technically the middle child, not the youngest of three. He had an older brother, but his younger sister died along with his mother, while his mother was giving birth to her. That's all... 1corwin ( talk) 16:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
"Many gay-rights activists and others criticized him for maintaining the Church's unbroken opposition to homosexuality and same-sex marriage."
Do we really need such ridiculous, gay marriage apologetics on every single page to do with Catholicism? Its really boring and beyond the joke to include it here. So John Paul II did not try to change the long standing scripture of the Church to facilitate "gay marriage". This is not at all remarkable to anybody who has read scriputre or are at all familiar with Christian beliefs. In nearly 2000 years the Catholic Church has not advocated gay marriage and isn't likely to do so anytime soon. On every gay marriage activist related article should we have "____ was critised by many Catholic activists, as the scripture of the Catholic Church contradicts the idea of "homosexual marriage". This is a view also shared by most of the world's mainstream religions". - Yorkshirian ( talk) 10:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Your petulant outburst is what is 'ridiculous'. As this pope was very active in campaigning against gay marriage it is only right that reactions to this stance are recorded here. Vauxhall1964 ( talk) 19:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
In this document it states that JP2 was both the 263rd (at outset) then further down it states 264th. Could someone clarify. MQ (03/08/08) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.72.215 ( talk) 22:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Would advise protecting this page, being the subject of quite frequent vandalism. Nitin ( talk) 06:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
John Paul II has kissed the Quran at least on 2 occasions: first on May 14, 1999 and then in 2001. Does anyone has more evidence of his Islamophilia?-- 71.108.17.157 ( talk) 06:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The article states in the first paragraph that JP2's 27-yr reign was 2nd longest after Pius IX's 32-yr reign. A May 2008 article in Time magazine stated that his was the 3rd longest reign, but does not specify those that were longer. Can somebody give an authoritative answer?
Link to Time article (see 6th paragraph): http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1737323,00.html
Aftermath ( talk) 14:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I suspect they are allowing for St Peter's papacy being longer. There are no reliable dates for Peter so historians can't be certain it exceeded 32 years. However, since Peter was probably quite a young man when he became Pope its not improbable that his Papacy was longer than Pius IX's. JP2's papacy is thus the second-longest on record. Perhaps its worth clarifying this in the article? ANB ( talk) 00:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
To echo Eleland's observation on the removal of another critical item, i wonder if perhaps conservative catholics are a little touchy about this page? The following was added by Groupthink on 23rd Sept this year, and has stood uncriticised until 71.215.243.13 decided to remove it without comment.
In 2007, TIME magazine reported that the manner of John Paul II's death may have contravened his own position on using medical means to prolong life. [2] "Original Article: Was John Paul II Euthanized?"
I reinstated it as being an unjustified, anonymous deletion, at which Anietor redeleted it, saying "Agree this should be removed. Speculative, never any evidence presented. Based on doctor's observations of JP on tv?!?"
Googling this event does return much pro Rome gainsaying, but I would hold that the criticism stands as just that - criticism.
Anietor then proceeded to delete the criticism on John Paul II's papacy spread of an unproven belief that condoms do not block the spread of HIV that has stood since it's referenced date in June 2005.
Please discuss this kind of redaction here before shooting from the hip. - Nigosh ( talk) 20:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Some editors are intent on removing the following language:
Claims were made that John Paul II's papacy spread an unproven belief that condoms do not block the spread of HIV; critics have blamed this for contributing to AIDS epidemics in Africa and elsewhere in which millions have died. [2]
First they insisted it "lacked objectivism," which I preume was meant to refer to "objectivity". Then it was claimed that the cited article does not refer to the Pope specifically, but rather to the church generally. It contains the language "No one can compute how many people have died of Aids as a result of Wojtyla's power...But it is reasonable to suppose...deaths at his hand would match that of any self-respecting tyrant or dictator," which is an odd way to not refer to the Pope. Finally it has been branded as a mere "rumour" or "conspiracy theory" which is not "bona-fide" and "well-documented".
Google News archive lists 1,720 articles containing "John Paul," "condoms," and "AIDS". For example:
Top Catholics question condom ban: With pope's death, clergy speaking up in the International Herald Tribune on 16 April 2005: "Now that the iron rule of Pope John Paul II over the Catholic Church has ended, a number of high-ranking church officials are starting publicly to question the Vatican's longstanding prohibition on condoms, in the hopes that it can be modulated under a new papacy.The tears of grief and calls for sainthood for John Paul have left scant room for mention of his most controversial position: his absolute opposition to the use of condoms to prevent the transmission of HIV, a stance that doctors and health activists say has led to countless deaths and millions of AIDS orphans in Africa and Latin America."
Now, apologists may not like these criticisms, but they're well documented, bona fide, and highly significant. So stop canning them. < eleland/ talk edits> 20:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Due to edit-warring. Please, folks, discuss the matter here on the talk page before indulging in reversion to your own version. Anyone who wishes to make changes right now can use the {{ editprotected}} template and a neutral admin can review the changes and change the article accordingly. But please, try to achieve consensus here. When you're done, just place a request on my talk page or WP:RPP and we can review the page protection and lift it if necessary - Alison ❤ 00:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for the protection. I was the editor that requested it, even though the protected version is not what I view as the best of the back-and-forths. But hopefully there will now be some reasoned discussions about it. -- Anietor ( talk) 04:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
A crowd of over two million within Vatican City, over one billion Catholics world-wide, and many non-Catholics mourned John Paul II. The Poles were especially devastated by his death.
The over one billion Catholics statement isn't particularly useful in the paragraph and the rest of the paragraph should just be removed full stop.
That is to say that section that I've italicised should be changed to:
A crowd of over two million within Vatican City, over one billion Catholics world-wide mourned John Paul II.
or
A crowd of over two million present in Vatican City mourned the death of John Paul II.
Personally I prefer the latter. -- TheSeer ( Talkˑ Contribs) 03:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
A crowd of over two million people was present in Vatican City for the funeral of John Paul II.
Obviously that should be different if it's referring to that day, or the week preceding, etc. -- Anietor ( talk) 04:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Done I picked the second-to-last one since we're not sure if it's referring to the funeral or after at this point. Wizardman 04:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Crush at the Vatican There is something seriously wrong with the figure of "over 2 million people present in Vatican City". Vatican City covers an area of 0.44 square kilometers = 440,000 square meters, so if there were 2 million people in it, there would be 4.5 people per square meter. And this is supposing the Vatican was a clear space instead of being filled with various substantial buildings. The Corriere della Sera (8 April 2005) calculated 280,000, or perhaps 600,000 or up to a million counting the overflow in the streets beyond Saint Peter’s Square. (“Centinaia di migliaia di fedeli hanno affollato il sagrato: circa 280 mila, secondo le stime. Ma erano 600 mila, forse un milione secondo altre valutazioni, considerando anche la folla che strabordava ben oltre Piazza San Pietro e via della Conciliazione.”)Can we alter the entry accordingly? Campolongo ( talk) 11:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
So as I understand it, the figures according to this source were 250,000 - 300,000 within the Vatican walls, approximately 4,000,000 total in the City of Rome. Marek.69 talk 14:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
He beatified 1,340 people (many online over the Internet, some listed here) ....
Is this actually the case? Is it vandalism? Source? Or is it trying to say that many details of these beatifications can be located on the internet? -- JackofOz ( talk) 02:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I have included this important part of John Paul the Great's ecumenical efforts with Anglicanism. I hope it is found to be a good addition. -- Kevin Browning ( talk) 00:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
To explain a few changes;
Can-Dutch ( talk) 04:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
As this article appears to be written predominantly with British english spellings, I propose to convert any remaining other spellings, (as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style) to preserve consistancy within the article. Marek.69 talk 07:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Please stop delinking this. Red links are useful in that they show what subjects need articles created for them. This book is undoubtably notable so should stay as a red link. Phil Bridger ( talk) 20:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I was having a look to give this a bit of a copyedit for flow, and I was going to place some notes here:
are the bits I have bolded really necessary? They don't really add much for me. I wouldn't worry normally but it is a pretty long article (and I presume they are in daughter article). I'd reword to something like:
I will add more. Please revert any copyediting I do which accidentally changes the meaning. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I guess my game plan would be to make sure you had everything you wanted in or out first, then begin copyediting. I did a bit but it is generally not a good idea to get too carried away with copyediting before the content is more or less settled. I know little about wht should be in or not so I will come back later. Good luck. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I am available to provide refs for this article if you need them. I can also help with structure and prose if you want my help. I am currently entertaining out of town guests and will be a bit scarce on Wikipedia for a little while. I will come see the page over time and offer suggestions if I can think of anything else. Have fun! NancyHeise talk 21:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I suggest use the following wording (or a version of it) for the second paragraph of the lead:
Any thoughts from anyone to improve this wording? Marek.69 talk 20:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Criticisms include the same things he is praised for, for instance, feminists and liberals within and without the Church criticized his stand on women priests. All of this could be summarized with maybe a couple of sentences in the lead and are easy to reference. NancyHeise talk 00:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
What if we throw in something about criticism, to try to limit POV objections:
I realise I'm probably not the most un-biased writer, so this undoubtably needs rephrasing. In reference to this same idea of criticism, the other route to take would be to be positive in the lead, and leave criticisms for later, although I admit that may not be the most impartial option. Can-Dutch ( talk) 05:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC) (quick edit of line about ecumenism for clarity .. the parallel structure was broken/awkward) Can-Dutch ( talk) 05:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
His most ardent admirers have even criticized him on this.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, how about this?
I didn't include the abuse scandals, as I think most people are already aware of that anyway, and something as highly controversial as that should perhaps be left out of the lead, and given to space where there's more room for details and fair phrasing. Can-Dutch ( talk) 22:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
John Paul II is widely acclaimed as one of the great leaders of the twentieth century, who played a pivotal role on the stage of world politics. [4] He has been credited with being instrumental in bringing down communism in Eastern Europe, [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] as well as significantly improving the Roman Catholic Church's relations with Judaism, [10] the Eastern Orthodox Church, and Anglican Churches. [9] As with any notable figure, criticisms have been made against John Paul II's views in many areas, including ordination of women, his support for Vatican II and its effect on the Liturgy, his stance on the sanctity of marriage, and his uncompromising position on issues such as contraception. [11] [12]
Just a note, "influential" is a neutral substitute for "great" that can slot in nicely. Detractors would agree on this one. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 19:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
What about this, then, to incorporate these last two suggestions?
John Paul II is widely acclaimed as one of the most influential leaders of the twentieth century, who played a pivotal role on the stage of world politics. [4] He has been credited with being instrumental in bringing down communism in Eastern Europe, [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] as well as significantly improving the Roman Catholic Church's relations with Judaism, [10] the Eastern Orthodox Church, and Anglican Churches. [9] As with any notable figure, John Paul II held contentious views in many areas, including ordination of women, his support for Vatican II and its effect on the Liturgy, his stance on the sanctity of marriage, and his uncompromising position on issues such as contraception. [11] [12]
John Paul II is widely acclaimed as one of the most influential leaders of the twentieth century, who played a pivotal role on the stage of world politics. [4] He has been credited with being instrumental in bringing down communism in Eastern Europe, [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] as well as significantly improving the Roman Catholic Church's relations with Judaism, [10] the Eastern Orthodox Church, and Anglican Churches. [9] As with any notable figure, various critics have found fault with John Paul II for his views in many areas, including ordination of women, his support for Vatican II and its effect on the Liturgy, his stance on the sanctity of marriage, and his uncompromising position on issues such as contraception. [11] [12]
John Paul II is widely acclaimed as one of the most influential leaders of the twentieth century, who played a pivotal role on the stage of world politics. [4] He has been credited with being instrumental in bringing down communism in Eastern Europe, [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] as well as significantly improving the Roman Catholic Church's relations with Judaism, [10] the Eastern Orthodox Church, and Anglican Churches. [9] While many have criticised, many have supported his views in areas crucial for Catholicism, such as ordination of women, his support for Vatican II and its effect on the Liturgy, his stance on the sanctity of marriage, and his uncompromising position on issues such as contraception. [11] [12]
I know it is tempting to make an article a magnum opus but be very careful. I have not learnt my lesson on three occasions, taking a mega-article to FAC ( lion, vampire, and major depressive disorder), and it is very difficult, often there is a call the article is too long, and one can get very unhappy with rapid reduction techniques. This article is blessed with some daughter articles, so make sure they are utilised. The more that there is to read, the more reviewers can find wrong. Anyway, you may want to make the article a bit shorter than it is now and have more in subarticles would be my advice. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 19:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
This is a very good article. The length is needed to cover adequately the life of our Pope. He was Pope for 27 years - please compare this to most world leaders. My opinion is that the authors have made a good job of keeping it short and at the same time covering important issues. You could add more about his first trip home to Poland as Pope and the feeling of the people, and of the effect on Poland. The parts on his effect on communism are understated. This section needs to be expanded with more quotation from world leaders, past and present, and put into a more prominent position. This will be his most memorable accomplishment for the world. Why is this not a Good Article?? MaciejKudra ( talk) 20:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC) Please compare to other languages where it is a featured article MaciejKudra ( talk) 21:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I have put the article into the collaboration queue on WikiProject Catholicism, to get some ‘fresh eyes’ on it before we nominate it for GA. Please vote for it here -- Marek.69 talk 05:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I sound a bit negative, but I don't think the article is quite ready for nomination just yet. I'm still checking the facts against the citations and references. Time has been scarce recently. Some of the text needs a bit of 'tweaking' so that it reads better. Certain parts could do with your ‘magic touch', Can-Dutch, as you appear to be very good at prose and getting the wording just right. The references section is also a bit untidy - I've started on this and I will format the rest as soon as I have a bit of time. I do not think we should hurry into nominating just yet, when there is still a bit of tidying up to do. Marek.69 talk 02:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
As the article is still considered to be a bit too long, I was thinking of shortening the ‘Criticism’ section, transferring text to a new daughter article: Criticisms of Pope John Paul II, as we have done to many of the other sections. Does anybody else have any thoughts on this? -- Marek.69 talk 18:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
As most of these allegations are very strong without references, I would propose that this part of the "Criticism" section be removed until (if?) there are references:
John Paul II has also scandalized many faithful Catholics with the following, though not extensive, list of actions:
Invited pagans to worship demons on sacred church ground (Assisi meetings) citation needed, called for St. John the Baptist to protect Islam citation needed, kissed the Qur’an which the Franciscan proto-martyrs refused to kiss, had scantly clad women appear before him in performance (circus performers) citation needed, kissed the ring of pro-abortionist “bishop” (Anglican bishop) Rowan Williams, stated that schismatics can become martyrs (a stark contrast with traditional Catholic teaching stating that a martyr must witness to the Catholic faith), etc. citation needed These scandalous activities have had no apologies attached to them which further intensifies their disgracefulness against the Catholic faith and morals. citation needed They are also largely ignored among Catholics in favour of the cult of personality that surrounds John Paul II. citation needed
I think that, especially because this is a section noting criticisms of a prominent world leader, references should be very necessary before information is included, to prevent misleading those who might read it and not understand the citation needed template as detailing information that may or may not be true. Can-Dutch ( talk) 22:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I have trimmed section Pastoral trips -- Marek.69 talk 01:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I saw several edits and reverts regarding this. While I do not have any intention of participating in this matter, I think it is best if it is settled in discussion before editing the article. What I know is that the page linked to the word "third longest" contradict with the linked article. As far as I understand, St. Peter is not included in the list at all, and from what I read somewhere, he is excluded from the list of "longest reign" by the Roman Catholic Church per the linked article. I don't have any idea if this if official from the Roman Catholic Church themselves. Please correct me if I am wrong/misunderstood. w.tanoto-soegiri ( talk) 23:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, is it really necessary to mention in the article that she had died four days after her birth? I think this could be shortened to say that she had died before Karol Wojtyła was born, or perhaps that she died shortly after birth. I just think that the current text is somewhat distracting. Loves Macs (talk) 03:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I've been looking, but I can't find a source for the use of "the Great" in then-Cardinal Ratzinger's homily at the funeral Mass. I found the official Vatican page, but searches on the pages with text from the homily don't show his use of the phrase. Unfortunately, the section as a whole is rather under-referenced. I realise that the title is in general usage, but I think some actual quotes from B16 or other sources would improve this section quite a bit.
Can-Dutch ( talk) 00:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |work=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Check |isbn=
value: checksum (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); External link in |work=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |work=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)
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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
October 21, 2007 – November 21, 2008
What in the world is wrong with you people? You think if you write a novel, it will convince someone of your view of the person. Good grief, this page is blasphemy and makes god want to cry that he created such idiots and fascists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.116.155.130 ( talk) 05:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Under " Other Facts" it states that at his death there was solar eclipse .This is wrong .Solar eclipse happen at April 8 2005 and not at April 2 2005 .Very easy to check that at Nasa web site . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.182.153 ( talk) 04:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I added something to balance the claim on the Bulgarian assassination attempt and it has since been [1]. The reason given was "rm OR supported only by an internal link, not an external citation of a verifiable source".
I'm a bit confused as I cited a book by Herman and Chomsky which _is_ an external citation of a verifiable source. Granted I linked to the wikipedia entry for the book which is indeed an internal link but that seems superior to adding a bibliography-style citation, adding both seems redundant.
Perhaps all details of the allegations should be moved to the main assassination attempt page rather than trying to balance it in-place.
Fergal daly ( talk) 15:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this article really needs to be at least semi-protected because of frequent vandalism. Many other wikipedias have already locked it. -- Visconsus ( talk) 19:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
[1] Good read! It was removed by dirty vandal! —Preceding unsigned comment added by NewBlock ( talk • contribs) 22:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Being as the process of canonization (as opposed to informal acclamation) is relatively new in the Catholic church, one would think that the degree of uncertainty is too small to seriously cloud the claim that JP2 has more canonizations than his predecessors combined. Can we at least have a source for this claim, as it is given far more prominence (1/6 of the lead!) than the (by far) mainstream view. Savidan 02:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
John Paul II, Karol Wojtyla, was technically the middle child, not the youngest of three. He had an older brother, but his younger sister died along with his mother, while his mother was giving birth to her. That's all... 1corwin ( talk) 16:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
"Many gay-rights activists and others criticized him for maintaining the Church's unbroken opposition to homosexuality and same-sex marriage."
Do we really need such ridiculous, gay marriage apologetics on every single page to do with Catholicism? Its really boring and beyond the joke to include it here. So John Paul II did not try to change the long standing scripture of the Church to facilitate "gay marriage". This is not at all remarkable to anybody who has read scriputre or are at all familiar with Christian beliefs. In nearly 2000 years the Catholic Church has not advocated gay marriage and isn't likely to do so anytime soon. On every gay marriage activist related article should we have "____ was critised by many Catholic activists, as the scripture of the Catholic Church contradicts the idea of "homosexual marriage". This is a view also shared by most of the world's mainstream religions". - Yorkshirian ( talk) 10:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Your petulant outburst is what is 'ridiculous'. As this pope was very active in campaigning against gay marriage it is only right that reactions to this stance are recorded here. Vauxhall1964 ( talk) 19:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
In this document it states that JP2 was both the 263rd (at outset) then further down it states 264th. Could someone clarify. MQ (03/08/08) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.72.215 ( talk) 22:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Would advise protecting this page, being the subject of quite frequent vandalism. Nitin ( talk) 06:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
John Paul II has kissed the Quran at least on 2 occasions: first on May 14, 1999 and then in 2001. Does anyone has more evidence of his Islamophilia?-- 71.108.17.157 ( talk) 06:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The article states in the first paragraph that JP2's 27-yr reign was 2nd longest after Pius IX's 32-yr reign. A May 2008 article in Time magazine stated that his was the 3rd longest reign, but does not specify those that were longer. Can somebody give an authoritative answer?
Link to Time article (see 6th paragraph): http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1737323,00.html
Aftermath ( talk) 14:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I suspect they are allowing for St Peter's papacy being longer. There are no reliable dates for Peter so historians can't be certain it exceeded 32 years. However, since Peter was probably quite a young man when he became Pope its not improbable that his Papacy was longer than Pius IX's. JP2's papacy is thus the second-longest on record. Perhaps its worth clarifying this in the article? ANB ( talk) 00:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
To echo Eleland's observation on the removal of another critical item, i wonder if perhaps conservative catholics are a little touchy about this page? The following was added by Groupthink on 23rd Sept this year, and has stood uncriticised until 71.215.243.13 decided to remove it without comment.
In 2007, TIME magazine reported that the manner of John Paul II's death may have contravened his own position on using medical means to prolong life. [2] "Original Article: Was John Paul II Euthanized?"
I reinstated it as being an unjustified, anonymous deletion, at which Anietor redeleted it, saying "Agree this should be removed. Speculative, never any evidence presented. Based on doctor's observations of JP on tv?!?"
Googling this event does return much pro Rome gainsaying, but I would hold that the criticism stands as just that - criticism.
Anietor then proceeded to delete the criticism on John Paul II's papacy spread of an unproven belief that condoms do not block the spread of HIV that has stood since it's referenced date in June 2005.
Please discuss this kind of redaction here before shooting from the hip. - Nigosh ( talk) 20:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Some editors are intent on removing the following language:
Claims were made that John Paul II's papacy spread an unproven belief that condoms do not block the spread of HIV; critics have blamed this for contributing to AIDS epidemics in Africa and elsewhere in which millions have died. [2]
First they insisted it "lacked objectivism," which I preume was meant to refer to "objectivity". Then it was claimed that the cited article does not refer to the Pope specifically, but rather to the church generally. It contains the language "No one can compute how many people have died of Aids as a result of Wojtyla's power...But it is reasonable to suppose...deaths at his hand would match that of any self-respecting tyrant or dictator," which is an odd way to not refer to the Pope. Finally it has been branded as a mere "rumour" or "conspiracy theory" which is not "bona-fide" and "well-documented".
Google News archive lists 1,720 articles containing "John Paul," "condoms," and "AIDS". For example:
Top Catholics question condom ban: With pope's death, clergy speaking up in the International Herald Tribune on 16 April 2005: "Now that the iron rule of Pope John Paul II over the Catholic Church has ended, a number of high-ranking church officials are starting publicly to question the Vatican's longstanding prohibition on condoms, in the hopes that it can be modulated under a new papacy.The tears of grief and calls for sainthood for John Paul have left scant room for mention of his most controversial position: his absolute opposition to the use of condoms to prevent the transmission of HIV, a stance that doctors and health activists say has led to countless deaths and millions of AIDS orphans in Africa and Latin America."
Now, apologists may not like these criticisms, but they're well documented, bona fide, and highly significant. So stop canning them. < eleland/ talk edits> 20:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Due to edit-warring. Please, folks, discuss the matter here on the talk page before indulging in reversion to your own version. Anyone who wishes to make changes right now can use the {{ editprotected}} template and a neutral admin can review the changes and change the article accordingly. But please, try to achieve consensus here. When you're done, just place a request on my talk page or WP:RPP and we can review the page protection and lift it if necessary - Alison ❤ 00:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for the protection. I was the editor that requested it, even though the protected version is not what I view as the best of the back-and-forths. But hopefully there will now be some reasoned discussions about it. -- Anietor ( talk) 04:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
A crowd of over two million within Vatican City, over one billion Catholics world-wide, and many non-Catholics mourned John Paul II. The Poles were especially devastated by his death.
The over one billion Catholics statement isn't particularly useful in the paragraph and the rest of the paragraph should just be removed full stop.
That is to say that section that I've italicised should be changed to:
A crowd of over two million within Vatican City, over one billion Catholics world-wide mourned John Paul II.
or
A crowd of over two million present in Vatican City mourned the death of John Paul II.
Personally I prefer the latter. -- TheSeer ( Talkˑ Contribs) 03:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
A crowd of over two million people was present in Vatican City for the funeral of John Paul II.
Obviously that should be different if it's referring to that day, or the week preceding, etc. -- Anietor ( talk) 04:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Done I picked the second-to-last one since we're not sure if it's referring to the funeral or after at this point. Wizardman 04:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Crush at the Vatican There is something seriously wrong with the figure of "over 2 million people present in Vatican City". Vatican City covers an area of 0.44 square kilometers = 440,000 square meters, so if there were 2 million people in it, there would be 4.5 people per square meter. And this is supposing the Vatican was a clear space instead of being filled with various substantial buildings. The Corriere della Sera (8 April 2005) calculated 280,000, or perhaps 600,000 or up to a million counting the overflow in the streets beyond Saint Peter’s Square. (“Centinaia di migliaia di fedeli hanno affollato il sagrato: circa 280 mila, secondo le stime. Ma erano 600 mila, forse un milione secondo altre valutazioni, considerando anche la folla che strabordava ben oltre Piazza San Pietro e via della Conciliazione.”)Can we alter the entry accordingly? Campolongo ( talk) 11:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
So as I understand it, the figures according to this source were 250,000 - 300,000 within the Vatican walls, approximately 4,000,000 total in the City of Rome. Marek.69 talk 14:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
He beatified 1,340 people (many online over the Internet, some listed here) ....
Is this actually the case? Is it vandalism? Source? Or is it trying to say that many details of these beatifications can be located on the internet? -- JackofOz ( talk) 02:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I have included this important part of John Paul the Great's ecumenical efforts with Anglicanism. I hope it is found to be a good addition. -- Kevin Browning ( talk) 00:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
To explain a few changes;
Can-Dutch ( talk) 04:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
As this article appears to be written predominantly with British english spellings, I propose to convert any remaining other spellings, (as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style) to preserve consistancy within the article. Marek.69 talk 07:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Please stop delinking this. Red links are useful in that they show what subjects need articles created for them. This book is undoubtably notable so should stay as a red link. Phil Bridger ( talk) 20:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I was having a look to give this a bit of a copyedit for flow, and I was going to place some notes here:
are the bits I have bolded really necessary? They don't really add much for me. I wouldn't worry normally but it is a pretty long article (and I presume they are in daughter article). I'd reword to something like:
I will add more. Please revert any copyediting I do which accidentally changes the meaning. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I guess my game plan would be to make sure you had everything you wanted in or out first, then begin copyediting. I did a bit but it is generally not a good idea to get too carried away with copyediting before the content is more or less settled. I know little about wht should be in or not so I will come back later. Good luck. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I am available to provide refs for this article if you need them. I can also help with structure and prose if you want my help. I am currently entertaining out of town guests and will be a bit scarce on Wikipedia for a little while. I will come see the page over time and offer suggestions if I can think of anything else. Have fun! NancyHeise talk 21:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I suggest use the following wording (or a version of it) for the second paragraph of the lead:
Any thoughts from anyone to improve this wording? Marek.69 talk 20:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Criticisms include the same things he is praised for, for instance, feminists and liberals within and without the Church criticized his stand on women priests. All of this could be summarized with maybe a couple of sentences in the lead and are easy to reference. NancyHeise talk 00:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
What if we throw in something about criticism, to try to limit POV objections:
I realise I'm probably not the most un-biased writer, so this undoubtably needs rephrasing. In reference to this same idea of criticism, the other route to take would be to be positive in the lead, and leave criticisms for later, although I admit that may not be the most impartial option. Can-Dutch ( talk) 05:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC) (quick edit of line about ecumenism for clarity .. the parallel structure was broken/awkward) Can-Dutch ( talk) 05:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
His most ardent admirers have even criticized him on this.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, how about this?
I didn't include the abuse scandals, as I think most people are already aware of that anyway, and something as highly controversial as that should perhaps be left out of the lead, and given to space where there's more room for details and fair phrasing. Can-Dutch ( talk) 22:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
John Paul II is widely acclaimed as one of the great leaders of the twentieth century, who played a pivotal role on the stage of world politics. [4] He has been credited with being instrumental in bringing down communism in Eastern Europe, [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] as well as significantly improving the Roman Catholic Church's relations with Judaism, [10] the Eastern Orthodox Church, and Anglican Churches. [9] As with any notable figure, criticisms have been made against John Paul II's views in many areas, including ordination of women, his support for Vatican II and its effect on the Liturgy, his stance on the sanctity of marriage, and his uncompromising position on issues such as contraception. [11] [12]
Just a note, "influential" is a neutral substitute for "great" that can slot in nicely. Detractors would agree on this one. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 19:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
What about this, then, to incorporate these last two suggestions?
John Paul II is widely acclaimed as one of the most influential leaders of the twentieth century, who played a pivotal role on the stage of world politics. [4] He has been credited with being instrumental in bringing down communism in Eastern Europe, [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] as well as significantly improving the Roman Catholic Church's relations with Judaism, [10] the Eastern Orthodox Church, and Anglican Churches. [9] As with any notable figure, John Paul II held contentious views in many areas, including ordination of women, his support for Vatican II and its effect on the Liturgy, his stance on the sanctity of marriage, and his uncompromising position on issues such as contraception. [11] [12]
John Paul II is widely acclaimed as one of the most influential leaders of the twentieth century, who played a pivotal role on the stage of world politics. [4] He has been credited with being instrumental in bringing down communism in Eastern Europe, [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] as well as significantly improving the Roman Catholic Church's relations with Judaism, [10] the Eastern Orthodox Church, and Anglican Churches. [9] As with any notable figure, various critics have found fault with John Paul II for his views in many areas, including ordination of women, his support for Vatican II and its effect on the Liturgy, his stance on the sanctity of marriage, and his uncompromising position on issues such as contraception. [11] [12]
John Paul II is widely acclaimed as one of the most influential leaders of the twentieth century, who played a pivotal role on the stage of world politics. [4] He has been credited with being instrumental in bringing down communism in Eastern Europe, [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] as well as significantly improving the Roman Catholic Church's relations with Judaism, [10] the Eastern Orthodox Church, and Anglican Churches. [9] While many have criticised, many have supported his views in areas crucial for Catholicism, such as ordination of women, his support for Vatican II and its effect on the Liturgy, his stance on the sanctity of marriage, and his uncompromising position on issues such as contraception. [11] [12]
I know it is tempting to make an article a magnum opus but be very careful. I have not learnt my lesson on three occasions, taking a mega-article to FAC ( lion, vampire, and major depressive disorder), and it is very difficult, often there is a call the article is too long, and one can get very unhappy with rapid reduction techniques. This article is blessed with some daughter articles, so make sure they are utilised. The more that there is to read, the more reviewers can find wrong. Anyway, you may want to make the article a bit shorter than it is now and have more in subarticles would be my advice. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 19:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
This is a very good article. The length is needed to cover adequately the life of our Pope. He was Pope for 27 years - please compare this to most world leaders. My opinion is that the authors have made a good job of keeping it short and at the same time covering important issues. You could add more about his first trip home to Poland as Pope and the feeling of the people, and of the effect on Poland. The parts on his effect on communism are understated. This section needs to be expanded with more quotation from world leaders, past and present, and put into a more prominent position. This will be his most memorable accomplishment for the world. Why is this not a Good Article?? MaciejKudra ( talk) 20:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC) Please compare to other languages where it is a featured article MaciejKudra ( talk) 21:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I have put the article into the collaboration queue on WikiProject Catholicism, to get some ‘fresh eyes’ on it before we nominate it for GA. Please vote for it here -- Marek.69 talk 05:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I sound a bit negative, but I don't think the article is quite ready for nomination just yet. I'm still checking the facts against the citations and references. Time has been scarce recently. Some of the text needs a bit of 'tweaking' so that it reads better. Certain parts could do with your ‘magic touch', Can-Dutch, as you appear to be very good at prose and getting the wording just right. The references section is also a bit untidy - I've started on this and I will format the rest as soon as I have a bit of time. I do not think we should hurry into nominating just yet, when there is still a bit of tidying up to do. Marek.69 talk 02:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
As the article is still considered to be a bit too long, I was thinking of shortening the ‘Criticism’ section, transferring text to a new daughter article: Criticisms of Pope John Paul II, as we have done to many of the other sections. Does anybody else have any thoughts on this? -- Marek.69 talk 18:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
As most of these allegations are very strong without references, I would propose that this part of the "Criticism" section be removed until (if?) there are references:
John Paul II has also scandalized many faithful Catholics with the following, though not extensive, list of actions:
Invited pagans to worship demons on sacred church ground (Assisi meetings) citation needed, called for St. John the Baptist to protect Islam citation needed, kissed the Qur’an which the Franciscan proto-martyrs refused to kiss, had scantly clad women appear before him in performance (circus performers) citation needed, kissed the ring of pro-abortionist “bishop” (Anglican bishop) Rowan Williams, stated that schismatics can become martyrs (a stark contrast with traditional Catholic teaching stating that a martyr must witness to the Catholic faith), etc. citation needed These scandalous activities have had no apologies attached to them which further intensifies their disgracefulness against the Catholic faith and morals. citation needed They are also largely ignored among Catholics in favour of the cult of personality that surrounds John Paul II. citation needed
I think that, especially because this is a section noting criticisms of a prominent world leader, references should be very necessary before information is included, to prevent misleading those who might read it and not understand the citation needed template as detailing information that may or may not be true. Can-Dutch ( talk) 22:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I have trimmed section Pastoral trips -- Marek.69 talk 01:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I saw several edits and reverts regarding this. While I do not have any intention of participating in this matter, I think it is best if it is settled in discussion before editing the article. What I know is that the page linked to the word "third longest" contradict with the linked article. As far as I understand, St. Peter is not included in the list at all, and from what I read somewhere, he is excluded from the list of "longest reign" by the Roman Catholic Church per the linked article. I don't have any idea if this if official from the Roman Catholic Church themselves. Please correct me if I am wrong/misunderstood. w.tanoto-soegiri ( talk) 23:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, is it really necessary to mention in the article that she had died four days after her birth? I think this could be shortened to say that she had died before Karol Wojtyła was born, or perhaps that she died shortly after birth. I just think that the current text is somewhat distracting. Loves Macs (talk) 03:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I've been looking, but I can't find a source for the use of "the Great" in then-Cardinal Ratzinger's homily at the funeral Mass. I found the official Vatican page, but searches on the pages with text from the homily don't show his use of the phrase. Unfortunately, the section as a whole is rather under-referenced. I realise that the title is in general usage, but I think some actual quotes from B16 or other sources would improve this section quite a bit.
Can-Dutch ( talk) 00:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |work=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Check |isbn=
value: checksum (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); External link in |work=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |work=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)