Talk:Pope John Paul II/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Pope's views on Evolution and Natural Selection

I believe it would be appropriate for this biography to cite the Pope's statement on Evolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.13.36 (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I also think it deserves a mention. Being conscious of the overall length of this article, I've tried to keep it as short as possible:

First Draft:

Evolution

On 22 October 1996, in a speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences plenary session at the Vatican, Pope John Paul II declared the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin as factual, and wholly compatible with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.[1][2]

The pope said “If taken literally, the Biblical view of the beginning of life and Darwin's scientific view would seem irreconcilable. In Genesis, the creation of the world, and Adam, the first human, took six days. Evolution's process of genetic mutation and natural selection-the survival and proliferation of the fittest new species-has taken billions of years, according to scientists ...”[1]

Although accepting the theory of evolution, John Paul II made one major exception - the human soul. “If the human body has its origin in living material which pre-exists it, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God”[1]

I'll put this version onto main page for now - wording could probably be improved - so feel free to edit. Marek.69 talk 22:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I've added some more citations and a link to main article Pope John Paul II - Scientific theories and the interpretation of Genesis, which I originally moved over to Pope John Paul II - Social and political stances in order to shorten the article.

Peer Review

There already appears to be a Peer Review currently taking place on this article. Please see: Wikipedia:Peer review/Pope John Paul II/archive2 -- Marek.69 talk 00:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


Response to Comments from Peer Review

  • “In the Papacy part, there should be a chapter about his work during his reign - his travels, encyclicas, diplomacy, church policy... - now it looks from the titles of sub-chapters like he was elected, assassinated, ill and died.″

In response to comments in Peer Review, I have modified the layout, moving the 'Death and Funeral' section to the end of the article. Hopefully, it is in more of a logical order now.

I've already made many changes already from the many useful suggestions. I will continue to try and address the remaining issues. Marek.69 talk 03:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Questionable Material

Some of you which are more familiar with the subject may want to look at this edit --DFS454 (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This edit clearly is made by vandal. If it is from reliable source, where is the source? I will not revert nor restore this edit. I'll leave that to people who has more knowledge than me. That user (IP) is blocked now. w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Texe Marrs's website (the "media reference" the user was adding) is not a reliable or neutral source because Texe Marrs seems to be anti-catholic. Read the criticism section of his article.—Endothermic (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC) 02:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Wow, this has been here a while ... It's definitely false, if only because someone would have picked up on it and made a big fuss, especially given the recent misunderstood decisions of Pope Benedict XVI. Can-Dutch (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, it appears I was looking at a (very) old revision, for whatever reason, and that section has already been removed. Can-Dutch (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement regarding the infallibility of the papal encyclicals at the end of the "teachings" section deleetd since it is (a) inconsistent with the offical Catholic definition of infallibility (which has to be invoked "ex cathedra," a process that does not apply to encyclicals) and (b) is not supported by the reference cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.29.82.6 (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Question about relationship with the Jews

In the early life section it says : That month, Wojtyła personally aided a 14-year-old Jewish refugee girl named Edith Zierer[40] who had run away from a Nazi labour camp in Częstochowa.[40] After her collapse on a railway platform, Wojtyła personally carried her to a train and accompanied her safely to Kraków. Zierer credits Wojtyła for saving her life that day.[41][42][43] B'nai B'rith and other authorities have said that Karol helped protect many other Polish Jews from the Nazis.

Is he counted as Righteous Among The Nations?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Labodeng (talk • contribs) 17:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Verb tense

I was wondering if we could reach a consensus on verb usage in the lead paragraph. Of course, his past actions should be in the past (i.e. visited many countries), but praise/discussion/etc. is still ongoing. Perhaps that should be in the present tense? i.e.

"John Paul II is [was] widely acclaimed as one of the most influential leaders"

Can-Dutch (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sighs (c)

What the point of all links to copyright (©) every where it possible? The article is already too (!) long (loading ~ around several seconds) and need to avoid excessive decoratings like this. — Al3xil ✉ 18:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done I have de-linked all instances of © in the article, replacing with plain ©. Marek.69 talk 21:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Good job! Many thanks to you, Marek.69. — Al3xil ✉ 00:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Arrangement of the page

I expanded the article criticism of Pope John Paul II. This was already discussed in the talk page. Wojtyla is already dead, so it doesn't make sense to leave the criticism on the page now that he is no longer alive. Therefore, it becomes more historical than actual, and more political than religious. Also, there is a double standard being applied to John Paul II, in that recent pontiffs like Paul VI do not get criticized in the same way. ADM (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The part about Judaism certainly deserves to be there, but I saw there was already Pope John Paul II and Judaism, and so I considered that the sub-article has a default priority over the main entry. The same is probably true about the criticism part. There are related entries about Paul of Tarsus and Judaism and Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church in order to smoothen the reading of certain entries. I think it is really more a question of form than of substance, since none of the edits really changes the entire article, it just re-arranges it in a different way. ADM (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The reorganizations were plausible and in good faith. But as consensus does not exist for their action, per bold, revert, discuss let's reset and talk out how to do this best. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

For the full version of this discussion please see my talk page. Regards Marek.69 talk 14:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Delicate suggestion

Regarding this (profusely referenced) phrase in the lede:

"It is widely agreed that he was instrumental in ending communism in his native Poland and eventually all of Central Europe, Southern Europe and Eastern Europe[...]"

I would propose removing the "It is widely agreed that" from the beginning, for two reasons. First, it reads poorly, almost weaselly. Second, strict statements of opinion may be stated as fact if there is no significant disagreement (IIRC, I looked quickly at WP:NPOV but couldn't find the relevant guidance). That may be the case for the content here.

I acknowledge of course that this proposal is quite aggressive and NPOV is sacrosanct, but a distaste for such wordings in general makes me think it has some merit. Comments? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it. One thought, though, is the people who'll come and play with it without reading the discussion here. Can-Dutch (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

While some have criticised him [...] others have praised him

How banal, commonplace, inane, PC, trivial, uninteresting. JP2 was one of the great leaders of the 20th century, period. Who cares about what some hippies think of him. --Fertuno (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.61.226 (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
To see how the lead paragraph came to have this particular wording, see discussion, now archived. -- Marek.69 talk 17:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum. None of this actually relates to the article. Spartan S58 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC).

Using ascension-research.org as a source

The site claims to have no affiliations with any organization but is registered by Allen Buresz of Natural Health L.P. in Virginia. Checking the Virginia company records online, no such limited partnership has been registered as active. Consequently the registration is suspect with apparently false information. The site appears to be another rambling self-published and self-promotional site with no claim as to status or validity. It does not meet the guidance for wp:reliable sources and should not be used as a source, ever, by anyone.—Ash (talk) 08:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of an auxlilary article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Beatification_and_Canonisation_of_Pope_John_Paul_II

Read my post there, because I don't think anyone actually goes to that page. So I'm bringing it up here. Spartan S58 (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"Waving a soft hand on them" - what does that phrase mean?

Under "Criticism", the Pope is said to have been "waving a soft hand on" certain groups. This is simply not an English idiom, and has no acknowledged or understood meaning. Does it mean "not controlling them at all, and letting them do what they want"? "Controlling them, but very leniently"? "Waving them away as if to disagree with them, but not firmly"? These are three separate ideas, and the phrase could mean any of three. Does anyone know which of the three is meant, or is it something else? --NellieBly (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)..

Pope John Paul II Step Closer to Possible Beatification

This American site: [Fox] tells that John Paul II Step Closer to Possible Beatification.Agre22 (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)agre22

Tag and length

I removed the tag despite being >100kb, because the article is already a summary and has links to main articles for its sections. The actual article text is not even that extreme long but much stems from footnotes.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

the statements made in this section are provocative (catholic hierarchy apologizes for burning witches) but provides no sources/ citations.Peppermintschnapps (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop removing my changes !!!!!

it is sufficient to say JPII apologised to victims of inquisition & crusaders. KEEP IT NEUTRAL - LANGUAGE LIKE "SLAUGHTER OF MUSLIMS" IS NOT NEUTRAL SO CUT IT OUT YOU DRONE, WHO EVER YOU ARE... I HAVE ALREADY CHANGED THIS THREE TIMES, ONLY TO HAVE IT UNDONE.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.64.211 (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't type in capital - it give the impression of yelling. Calling people drone is not a good way to win friends and influence people. Save monkey love 4 me (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC) -Please stop talking like a communist robot programmed by the wikipedos, it doesn't make you sound smarter.

Notes

The quotation in the evolution section attributed to JPII and starting with the phrase "If taken literally..." is false. Check the citation link and try finding that quote there. The quote was actually from a Chicago Tribune reporter's article here: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-10-25/news/9610250130_1_humani-generis-evolution-theory and was in no way the words of JPII —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.23.71.42 (talk) 04:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b c "Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences October 22, 1996". © 1997-2009 Catholic Information Network (CIN). October 24 1997. Retrieved 15 February 2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |publisher= (help)
  2. ^ Linder, Doug (13 April 2004). "The Vatican's View of Evolution: The Story of Two Popes". © 2005-2009 University Missouri-Kansas City School of Law. Retrieved 15 February 2009. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

Greatness

"Scholars of Canon Law say that there is no official process for declaring a pope "Great"; the title simply establishes itself through popular and continued usage." That is true not only of the Papacy, but also of other offices of which some holders have been called "the Great," such as King of Macedon. (King Alexander III is Alexander the Great.) Czar John III is Ivan the Great. ("Ivan" is Russian for "John.") Both were called "the Great" as more or less a colloquialism. Could this general fact be mentioned in parentheses after where I just quoted? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have boldly added some delicate wording to this effect.
--Ninjasaves (talk.stalk) 04:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Intro

The other Papal bio articles use Pope & reigned (not Supreme Pontiff & served) in their intros. This article's intro shouldn't be different. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. This article was a Good Article which means it has been reviewed for differences like this. It is stable except for minor edits and updates to his profile.
  • REQUEST - Until other regular editors to this article weigh in and consensus is achieved, this should not be changed. --Morenooso (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
This edit summary Popes are monarchs reveals that the editor may have a bias that is non NPOV. While this article's intro may be long, as per MOS Bios the actual intro line does not contain that title. If the title had been included in the opening line, then as per MOS Bios, it should and would be removed. No consensus. --Morenooso (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I've no probs with letting others having a say. However, I'm disappointed in your descriptive of me as a PoV pusher. My bias is apparently being pushed by others at the articles Pope Benedict XVI, Pope John Paul I, Pope Paul VI, Pope Pius XII etc. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Using the terms Supreme Pontiff & served rather than Pope & reigned were a couple of changes we had to make when trying to achieve consensus for the lead paragraph last year. Morenooso is correct, it was minor differences like this which was leading to edit-warring and making the article unstable. Since we agreed to keep the current version the article has indeed been stable for 6-8 months. -- Marek.69 talk 01:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
If you are familiar with this article, under Pope_John_Paul_II#Election_to_the_Papacy, it reads: Like his immediate predecessor, Pope John Paul II dispensed with the traditional Papal coronation and instead received ecclesiastical investiture with the simplified Papal inauguration on 22 October 1978.
If you follow the wikiling to Papal coronation, it reads: Pope Paul VI, the last Pope to be crowned or use a Papal Tiara, abandoned the usage of the tiara in a ceremony at the end of the Second Vatican Council. . .
In essence, popes after Paul VI were not crowned using a tiara in an elaborate ceremony using only the ceremonies of the church. --Morenooso (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
That is so, but they're still monarchs (sovereigns). Anyways, I'm just seeking consistancy, I'd have no problems if Supreme Pontiff & served were put in the intro of all the other Pope articles (all 265). GoodDay (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Consistancy is not found in every article. Every single word or title does not appear uniformly or in the same place. If you want consistancy in those articles, you can edit them appropriately. --Morenooso (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Very well, were I see 'Pope' & 'reigned' (which are factual), I'll change them to 'Supreme Pontiff' & 'served'. I gotta tell ya though, served is a weak descriptive. GoodDay (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I've made the changes to Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I & Benedict XVI articles. If they all get reverted? you guys should take note of it. PS: Are yas gonna be changing the title of List of popes by length of reign, to List of supreme pontiffs by length of service? GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


Why doesn't Wikipedia just say he "was" pope and avoid the argument between "reigned" and "served?" I started to look at Wikipedia's long list of popes and got up to the 400's (there were zillions of them, they kept getting killed) and the verb consistently used is "was." "Reigned" is a loaded word and to apply it to an elected religious leader obviously demonstrates a bias against religion. Per Wikipedia, this is what he "reigned" over:

"Vatican City has a reasonably well developed transport network considering its size (consisting mostly of a plaza and walkways). As a country that is 1.05 kilometres (0.6 mi) long and 0.85 kilometres (0.5 mi) wide,[45] it has a small transportation system with no airports or highways."

Most people walk farther than that on their lunch hour.

This is who he "reigned" over:

"a population of just over 800.[5][13]"

"Unlike citizenship of other states, which is based either on jus sanguinis (birth from a citizen, even outside the state's territory) or on jus soli (birth within the territory of the state), citizenship of Vatican City is granted jus officii, namely on the grounds of appointment to work in a certain capacity in the service of the Holy See. It usually ceases upon cessation of the appointment. Citizenship is extended also to the spouse, parents and descendants of a citizen, provided they are living with the person who is a citizen.[41][42]" All of the above per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City.

So he "reigned" over some of the people he hired. Well, a lot of people may feel that way about their boss, but they, like the "citizens" of this supposed "monarchy" can just quit. That anyone would debate whether the use of "reigned" here demonstrates bias is kidding themselves. "Was" is accurate, neutral and has been used previously. 71.14.179.169 (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Iful (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that he spoke Esperanto in the source (15) used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.242.13.162 (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead section, names of the pope in different languages

John Paul's name in Latin, Italian and other official languages of the Holy See should be mentioned before the Polish name, both because they come before Polish alphabetically and because Polish is not a primary language of the Holy See. The fact that the former Pope was born in Poland is really less relevant in this regard because the Pope is an international figure. The official and main administrative languages of the Holy See are Latin, Italian, French, German, English, Portuguese and Spanish. Polish clerics working in Rome generally use German, Italian and French because Polish is not widely spoken outside Poland. Jeannedeba (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

=Polish clerics working in Rome generally use German, Italian and French because Polish is not widely spoken outside Poland. - just read what you have written. Polish clerics in Rome speak German, I bet they are very lucky in groceries, taxis, churches and anywhere else. I live in New York, should I speak Burmese ? Or maybe Italian ? Main point - Polish name should be first, or third after Latin and Italian. 32.167.246.104 (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"Please [sic], correct me." - what function is the [sic] template serving in the quote?

I can't figure out why there is a [sic] notice in the quote at section election to the Papacy. There doesn't seem to be any kind of error in the speech. The article text tells me he delivered the speech in a different language, so am I supposed to take from that that he made an error when he delivered it in the different language? It's confusing. --bodnotbod (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It's actually mostly a joke. He intentionally mis-spoke "correct" in Italian, for a humorous effect. I don't think the "sic" is appropriate, given the circumstances, but perhaps we should explain it somehow. I've seen it translated as "corrict" to try to carry to English the idea of intentional error. --Can-Dutch (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Polish popes

The above named category is currently being considered for speedy deletion because it is empty. The only article which I can think of which might be included in it is this one, and I am virtually certain that this article was, at some point, included in that category. Can anyone tell me why that category was removed? I myself dislike these particularly small categories, but think that the consensus is that they are acceptable, and that this category would be acceptable if this article were included in it. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

John, I can't point to a particular discussion nor remember where it was held, but I do remember this being discussed a couple of years ago (June 2009, John Carter Afd!  :) and I thought the consensus was to eliminate small categories for popes. Another one eliminated at the time was "Jewish Popes"!  :) (Peter). I think German and French popes (categories) survived. I was fairly new at the time, and annoyed!  :) I just noticed that Dutch popes and English popes survived! Why not Polish? Or Jewish for that matter? (I don't really care now, but there appears to be a need for a catchall category if they are eliminated. Student7 (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I remember, that when he visited Estonia, he made up his speech in Estonian by himself. He took special lessons in Estonian, before visiting this country. Unfortunately this reference is in Estonian. 78.28.98.237 (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page not moved. NW (Talk) 03:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


Pope John Paul II → Blessed John Paul II — The page should be renamed because Pope Benedict XVI beatified him so his name changes to Bl. Pope John Paul the public ceremony is May 1, 2011 but according to the catholic church he is given the title blessed immediately. I have to request the move here because it is move protected..--Etineskid (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of this pre-emptive title change rule before. But really that doesn't matter. Per naming conventions, we need to factor in the popularity of a name in the naming of an article. For example, technically it is called the "Federal Republic of Germany", but the article is named simply "Germany". Changing the article to Blessed would kind of hide, for lack of a better term, it from people.Farsight001 (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy) and the list of beatified popes here none of which include Blessed in the article title. Dpmuk (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. For someone like this with one clear, obvious, concise and natural name, we follow the name used regularly and consistently by reliable sources. If and when that changes, we can consider a move like this. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. He may very well be blessed, but so are many other people, and I don't think we call them "Blessed So-and-so" either. The naming conventions specifically state to avoid the use of honorifics unless absolutely necessary. JIP | Talk 20:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Titles and styles "Honorifics and other titles such as "King", "Queen", "Blessed", "Mother", "Father", "Doctor", "Mister", "Mrs" etc. are not generally used to begin the titles of biographical articles, unless they are used to form the unambiguous name by which the subject is clearly best known". This is not the case here. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per arguments above. Also, he is much better known and recognized as the Pope than as the Blessed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose We don't necessarily always use the latest official name/title for a person or company, we name the article according to WP:COMMONNAME, and I am pretty sure that he's known for being the pope not for being a saint. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose He was Pope John Paul II, he is not the second Blessed John Paul, unless you have some references to back that up. Does the title "Blessed" even take numerals? "Saint" does not. 65.93.13.210 (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose As even the Popes that are viewed as Saints (example:Pope Pius X), still go with Pope Name (#). GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy) & List of canonised popes#Blesseds JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose move even after official beatification. We do not normally allow honorifics, such as "venerable", "blessed" or even "saint" in article titles. However, it will be appropriate to change the title in the first line, when (if) the change happens. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, most sources use the name Pope John Paul II. If that ceases to be the case then this can be revisited. Jll (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy), Pope {papal name} {ordinal if more than one} → Pope John Paul II. James Michael 1 (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

He is still Venerable until he is officially beatified on May 1, 2011

He is not officially considered blessed until the official beatification ceremony on May 1. Even Rome Reports and other news agencies call him "future blessed" because he is not yet considered blessed until he is officially beatified. 112.210.144.165 (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree a Catholic Priest informed me he is Beatified. How do you know he is not Blessed, are you just taking information from these reports.Etineskid (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You also disagree with Vatican Radio which mentions "the upcoming beatification of Pope John Paul II scheduled for May 1st 2011."

Read the entire article here: http://www.radiovaticana.org/EN1/Articolo.asp?c=454138

Pretty sure that the folks at the Vatican's official radio station are a bit more "in the know" than this unnamed, uncited "Catholic Priest" you spoke with. Mtminchi08 (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

That's right. Even popes are "infallible" only in extremely rare cases. Mere priests are never infallible, they're human beings like the rest of us and sometimes say things that aren't exactly true. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Also per WP:RS "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources." We can't go by what someone tells us, it has to be published in a reliable source. Mtminchi08 (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the article on Beatification, you'll see that the title of "Blessed" is bestowed AFTER the person has been beatified. So we cannot call him Blessed John Paul II until he has been beatified on May 1. This article http://www.ewtn.com/JohnPaul2/cause/process.asp also agrees with the previous sentence. 112.210.241.195 (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Redirect Idea

I understand where you are coming from, but I think we should at least have a redirect from "Blessed John Paul II" and "Bl. John Paul II" to help some people find it. I know I can do this but I don't want to anger others. So if people could leave their thoughts I'll check back in a week and I'll do the redirects I was thinking of if there is a consensus of support. Make sure you give reasons why you support or oppose please. Thanks, Etineskid (talk) 03:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

There are no yea's or nay's so I will do the redirect.Etineskid (talk) 03:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

YouTube channel for Pope John Paul II

The Holy See has an official YouTube channel for the Beatification of Pope John Paul II. Should this be added to the External Links section? It can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/user/GiovanniPaoloII and a CNN story about the channel is here: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/15/vatican-announces-facebook-youtube-pages-for-john-paul-ii/?iref=allsearch

Mtminchi08 (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Languages

The third paragraph of the introduction says that he "spoke" thirteen languages. The source provided, however, says that "He was fluent in ten languages -- Polish, Latin, Italian, French, German, English, Spanish, Croatian, Portuguese, and Russian," and does not mention Esperanto, Ukrainian, or Ancient Greek at all. In addition, the only references I could find which connecting the Pope to Esperanto had him giving short, prepared speeches in the language. Although in a literal sense he did "speak" these languages, he was not conversational in them; they belong on a much longer list of languages he occasionally used to address a crowd. If I've missed something and he was fluent in other languages, those should be sourced. --Anschelsc (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree - But he as a Theologian did know Ancient Greek (Koine Greek). --Smart30 (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

From personal experience, from hearing televised speeches of him on several occasions, I would say he could 'speak' English but would never say he was fluent in it - his accent was so 'thick' that if the speeches had not been sub'd, I would not have known what he was saying. HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan
One can speak a language fluently (i.e., proper vocabulary, grammar, sentence structure, etc.) and have a thick accent. "Thick" is subjective; I personally never had any difficulty understanding him in English. He certainly had an accent, but he was fluent in English. Cresix (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Beatification

Please add extended info on the beatification ceremony not just to this page, but here: Beatification and canonisation of Pope John Paul II#Ceremony. Thanks! - Yk (talk | contrib) 16:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hold on for a few hours for the ceremony to actually occur; then I think you'll get your wish. Cresix (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually I was making a note to editors not to forget about that page. But thanks. Yk (talk | contrib) 17:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Please relink the "beatified" link on the third paragraph of the first part of the article to the article "Beatification and canonisation of Pope John Paul II". Thanks. Sam Sanchez (talk) 08:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


Please change the beginning paragraph to "Pope John Paul II [...] known as Blessed John Paul since his Beatification on May 1, 2011 [...] so as to conform with the style used on the page for Blessed John XXIII. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.189.124 (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Please update footnote no. 33 (retreived on 2011-01-14) with more recent references published during or after the beatification such as http://www.romereports.com/palio/John-Paul-II-is-officially-beatified-english-4027.html , http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13251415 , or http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/01/pope-john-paul-ii-declared-blessed-before-huge-crowds/. Thank you Wikigreg1978 (talk) 07:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Greg

If this is done, please use the BBC reference. I'd question the inclusion of the other two, under RS, no offense intended to the poster. If we have a solid source, blogs/etc should not be used. 204.65.34.246 (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Anonymous Poster with IP 204.65.34.246, thank you for your comment wherein in you agree with me to update the references to footnote no. 33 and you suggest that we use BBC as I have proposed. Please note that the two other links can also be used as objective references as they do not appear to be mere personal blogs considering that one reference is from the romereports.com and the other one is from cnn.com (i.e., the second one appears to have been posted by CNN editors although the hyperlink is "religion dot blogs" dot cnn dot com. Thank you. Wikigreg1978 (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC) Greg

The Planet Is Alive...Let it Live!

Where should I put this? In the Pop culture or bibliography sec?

"In 1984 Jazz singer Sarah Vaughan recorded an album of poetry written by John Paul II, translated from Polish by Gene Lees. The album was released as The Planet Is Alive...Let it Live!, and accompanied by a television special." Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Blessed

Shouldn't the word blessed be excluded from the lead per WP:HONORIFIC? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a guideline (not necessarily binding), and there is some flexibility. It states "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included". It has been customary to use "Saint", "Blessed", and "Venerable" on Wikipedia. Cresix (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I deleted blessed from the top image's heading, per WP:RECENTISM. See Pope John XXIII for further explanation. GoodDay (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be some back and forth on this issue. Is there consensus that the first word of the lede should not be "Blessed" ? JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Citations in lead

There is a crazy number of citations in the lead - up to six for each short statement! If the information in the lead is contained and sourced in the article itself, there is no reason to have any citations in the lead. In any event, no fact needs more than one citation except in the rare event that it is a complex statement where no one source contains all the information. Scolaire (talk) 12:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I will take silence for agreement. I am going to be bold and remove all the citations. If anybody feels that some or all of them ought to be added in the body of the article, they can all be found here. --Scolaire (talk) 07:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Error in the First Paragraph... I will Correct and Explain

One passage in the first paragraph states that John Paul II "reigned as Pope of the Catholic Church and Sovereign of The Holy See from 16 October 1978 until his death."

The Holy See, as the wikipedia article on it explains, is the episcopal jurisdiction of the Catholic Church in Rome. As such, it is not the same thing as "Vatican City", which is an independent state with the pope as its ruler.

It's academically sloppy and embarrassingly imprecise to call the pope "Sovereign of the Holy See." As pope, he is the bishop of the Holy See, and also the sovereign of Vatican City.

To conflate or confuse the Holy See with Vatican City is inaccurate, as is conflating the pope's role as bishop of Rome with his job as monarch/ruler of the smallest state in the world.

Clearly the sentence in the intro means to refer to Vatican City, not just because of the word "sovereign" which is not an ecclesiastical term, but more obviously because the link itself leads to the page on Vatican City, not the page on the Holy See.

Thus the words themselves should be changed to "Vatican City". I made this edit earlier this year, not anticipating that I would have to explain a distinction that wikipedia itself already overtly acknowledges.

65.24.115.90 (talk) 11:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: Also, I just noticed that the article on Pope Benedict XVI does indeed refer to him as "Sovereign of Vatican City State." So for consistency's sake as well, it made no sense to call John Paul II "Sovereign of the Holy See."

65.24.115.90 (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Places named after Pope John Paul II

Hello. Could someone write that there is Jono Pauliaus II aikštė (square) in Vilnius, in front of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Peter_and_St._Paul%27s_Church,_Vilnius after Pope's visit in Lithuania. Also, there is Jono Pauliaus II gimnazija (gymnasium) in western Vilnius (http://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilniaus_Jono_Pauliaus_II_gimnazija) and elementary school http://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilniaus_Jono_Pauliaus_II_pagrindin%C4%97_mokykla --86.100.205.18 (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I think the information you refer to would be best placed in the List of places named after Pope John Paul II article.
On Wikipedia we have a policy that anyone can edit. So please feel free to add this information yourself. :-)
A useful introduction to editing can be found on the Wikipedia:Anyone can edit article.
If you are unsure, or need any help with any aspect of Wikipedia, please contact me on my talk page
Marek.69 talk 22:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Some additional information about Karol Wojtyla

From Murder in the Vatican: The Revolutionary Life of John Paul and the CIA, Opus Dei and the 1978 Murders by Lucien Gregoire, Publisher AuthorHouse, 2008 ISBN 1434387232, 9781434387233, page 103, read about it here

Karol progressed from a laborer in a quarry to distribution supervisor of a chemical plant IG Farben had built adjacent to the Auschwitz concentration camp five miles from where he lived in Wadowice. The plant produced chemicals used to gas prisoners. In his job as distribution supervisor, Karol traveled to Treblinka and other camps. The movie The Man Who Would Be Pope starring John Voight correctly depicts Karol's role as supervisor of his chemical supply depot. A resistance leader solicits Karol to divert supplies to the resistance; Karol refuses.

Similar, from Truth Seeker: Do You Belong to the Bride Or the Whore? by X Asiah X Publisher AuthorHouse, 2009 ISBN 1438949278, 9781438949277 page 47 read more about it here

One of their icons, Karol Josef Woytyla who was known as Pope John Paul II, was involved in the extinction of the Jewish people during the Holocaust He sold cyanide and Zyklon B to Hitler, as during the time of the invasion of Poland. Pope John was a salesman for I.G.Farben Industrie AG Chemical Plant.

--71.178.110.141 (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

AuthorHouse is a self-publishing operation. If you want to make such extraordinary claims, then you'll need to cite real reliable secondary sources. Elizium23 (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
If you are not happy with those, there is another one: The Power and the Glory: Inside the Dark Heart of Pope John Paul II's Vatican by David Yallop, Basic Books, 2009, pages 7 and 8. The Google Scholar returned two other references (in Dutch and Italian respectively) supporting the same:
IG Farben, de ex-werkgever van paus Johannes Paulus II, die als Karol Wojtyla voor dit bedrijf Zyklon B, cyanidegas en malahtion verkocht voor gebruik in het concentratiekamp Auschwitz
Nei primi anni Quaranta, l’azienda assunse un chimico polacco per vendere acido cianidrico, acido prussico e malatione ai nazisti, che lo usavano con il nome di Zyklon B per sterminare le persone rinchiuse ad Auschwitz. Alla fine della guerra, il venditore entrò in seminario e fu ordinato sacerdote della Chiesa cattolica. Nel 1958, egli divenne il più giovane vescovo di Polonia; nell’ottobre 1978, dopo la misteriosa morte di Giovanni Paolo I, l’ex venditore di acido cianidrico, Karol Wojtyla, fu eletto al soglio papale con il nome di Giovanni Paolo II.--71.178.110.141 (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
That book is complete and utter bullshit, as is the information you are promoting here. wikipedia prefers facts. Now if you have nothing to add to help actually improve the article instead of to bring down it's quality, please stop posting. This is getting ridiculous.
Note to others - this IP has, over the last few months, posted from various IP's a list like this under the guise of article improvement only to not respond it substantial ways to objections, often removing the posts of those who disagree. Any attempt to remove it for being irrelevant or not intended for article improvement is met with fury and reporting of the removing user(as he has done to me twice already). The IP is, IMO, excruciating obviously just trying to spam negative and derogatory links regarding the Catholic Church in various articles, to, in effect, "expose the truth" about the Catholic Church (which is, ironically, typically far from actual facts) to those who read the talk pages. I highly suggest ignoring him and hatting this after a couple days. WP:DNFTT. Farsight001 (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Jubilaeum-2000 Pope-JP-II.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Jubilaeum-2000 Pope-JP-II.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section

Sorry am I just imagining things or has that been seriously eroded over the years? I know there's a separate article but surely a better summary that what's currently there is more appropriate? If that issue was the most important within the church then sure it should stay but in the big scheme of things birth control and the abuse scandal are much more significant criticisms of him with the latter's exclusion/removal I find truly astounding. Jurrut (talk) 14:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jurrut, it has been improved now. -- Marek.69 talk 01:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

edit request -- regards would-be assasin Krohn

I have found:

"accusing the visiting Spanish King Juan Carlos of murdering his older brother Alfonso in 1956"

I suggest it be changed to:

"accusing the visiting Spanish King Juan Carlos of murdering his (Juan Carlos') younger brother Alfonso in 1956"

The changes are:

Change "older" to "younger" (Wikipedia does have an article about Alfonso, brother of Juan Carlos).

Insert "(Juan Carlos')" to make it clearer who "his" refers to". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. I changed "his" to "Carlos's" in the style suggested by the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Elizium23 (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
But why do you say "Carlos'" instead of "Juan Carlos'"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I am following WP:SURNAME. Elizium23 (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
"Juan Carlos" (excluding the number "I") is what ended up being used for this man's regnal name, similar to Popes John Paul (I, II) and Austrian emperor Franz Josef, so I don't think "Carlos" would be considered a surname.
It also occurs to me that before we made these changes, it was saying that Juan Fernandez y Krohn was accusing Juan Carlos of killing his (Juan Carlos') OLDER brother so he (Juan Carlos) could be king. Could it be that Fernandez y Krohn did indeed mention OLDER brother (i.e. had information we proved to be wrong)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
You are correct about Juan Carlos, and I have edited to reflect that. The article on Juan María Fernández y Krohn makes it clear that the person mentioned was Alfonso, Juan Carlos's younger brother, however, neither in that article nor this one could I find a reference to support the fact that he made accusations of murder. I could remove the statement altogether, but I have tagged it with {{citation needed}} in hopes that someone else can find a source. Elizium23 (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I have gone over to the "regnal name" entry on Wikipedia and created, in the talk page, a new section about 2-word regnal names. Besides the 4 people mentioned in the section you are reading, I have included Louis Philippe, French king. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Peer review

It would be good to get this article to featured status. For anyone who would like to help, there is a Peer review page here. -- Marek.69 talk 19:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Peer review

Pope John Paul II

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review
Previous peer review 1
Previous peer review 2

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it could be an FA. I am prepared to put in the work to achieve this, but any help would be most welcome :-) -- Marek.69 talk 02:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I now see that there are a few more issues with this article than I anticipated. User:History2007 raises some good points and I think that they are probably correct.The article does come across a bit soul-less, so fair comment. Looking at the references I would guess that there are probably quite a number which are not WP:RS. I am happy to go through them to check, but it might take a while.:) --Marek.69 talk 20:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod

  • The overall tone may be criticized as a bit too friendly, and "in universe". Lots of people said nice things about him, but what will be his lasting significance really?
  • Well it is in British English, after all. We must cater for a wide readership. I'm not sure of his lasting significance(?)--Marek.69 talk 22:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Some of the references seem a bit dubious - it's a pity to start with "about.com"! There are an awful lot of piled up refs - 7 in one place. Is it possible to bundle these with your citation method? Why does it take 4 refs to say he was at Vatican II, but only 1 to say what he did there? One of the Stourton refs is malformed & stranded in the text.
  • Several tags - citation & clarification needed.
  • I'm not a great one for spotting inconsistency in refs, but I noticed some here - I'd drop the street addresses some publishers have but others don't in the bibliography.
  • I've removed the postal addresses from the location= tag -- Marek.69 talk 00:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Should he be called "Karol" before the papacy?
  • I have changed to Wojtyla -- Marek.69 talk 03:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Wojtyla or Wojtyła? I'm happy to do "find and replace all" for you if you're in favor of the dark l :) Accedietalk to me 04:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I think to use Wojtyła would be correct, so I agree with search/replace. --Marek.69 talk 22:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Accedie. -- Marek.69 talk 18:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "In 1970, according to a contemporary witness, Cardinal Wojtyła was against the distribution of a letter around Krakow, stating that the Polish Episcopate was preparing for the 50th anniversary of the Polish-Soviet War.[39]" Why? What's this about?
  • I have no idea either, it appears to be sourced to a Polish newspaper (Roman Graczyk, Cena przetrwania? SB wobec Tygodnika Powszechnego, Warszawa 2011 p. 204 ISBN 978-83-7700-015-1) which I don't seem to be able to access, so I've removed it for now. If someone can explain then please feel free to re-add. -- Marek.69 talk 21:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Roman Graczyk is referenced on the Polish Wikipedia here. -- Marek.69 talk 21:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Health - understates the weakness of his final years?
  • rather too many short sections for my taste - Jubilee 2000 campaign is one line.
  • I've moved the line to the 'Social and political stances' section which ties in with his campaign for debt forgiveness. -- Marek.69 talk 18:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • could do with a summing up with some extended quotes on his significance, analysis rather than tributes.
    The book I mention in my comments by John Cornwell offers some critical analysis of the Pope's significance. Development of the sections regarding his theological views and teachings would also stave off this criticism somewhat. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Beatification section may be a bit too long?
  • Criticism section probably too short.
  • I've expanded it, but still needs a lot of work. -- Marek.69 talk 02:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Rather too many external links
  • There's nothing, or no section anyway, on his organizational impact on the church, which was surely considerable.
  • Couldn't see his Polish camp followers mentioned - esp. Card. Paul Marcinkus (ok Lithuanian-American) head of the Vatican Bank during the Banco Ambrosiano scandal - not I think mentioned in the "criticism" article either, which it should be.
  • I think there should be something about this in the main body of the article. Marek.69 talk 22:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I've started a new section on this subject, however there may be a problem finding reliable sources if we wish to expand on this.
Does anyone have a book on the Banco Ambrosiano scandal? -- Marek.69 talk 08:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

More later Johnbod (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Marek.69 talk 23:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by WereSpielChequers

Comment I've done a run through and made a few tweaks, hope you like them, if not it's a wiki. I spotted a certain amount of overlinking and linking to generic words and events rather than specific articles - see constantinople. ϢereSpielChequers 10:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, WereSpielChequers. -- Marek.69 talk 21:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Tom Morris

  • I haven't really participated in peer review or FAC, so forgive me if I stray from expectations on these things.
  • I found the Teachings section rather underwhelming. It starts with the sentence, "As pope, one of John Paul II's most important roles was to teach Christianity." which is perhaps stating the obvious rather too much. It'd be like an article on Wayne Rooney containing a sentence of the sort "As a Manchester United striker, Rooney's most important role is to kick the football into the goal." Well, duh. The paragraph really needs a bit of rewrite.
  • The teachings section needs to be longer: there are plenty of sources on the topic. The point about John Paul II, according to my rather shaky and layman's understanding, is that his theology combines classical Thomism with the insights of phenomenology. There is some discussion of this at Personalism#Roman Catholic personalism and some more details at the expanded article, Teachings of Pope John Paul II. This latter article, while not complete, does give enough of a flavour, but isn't adequately summarised in the main article.
  • The subsection on Evolution is currently in the 'Social and political stances' section. Although obviously the Catholic Church's position (and change in position) on evolution has social and political effects, this probably ought to be in 'Teachings'.
  • I've moved the 'Evolution' subsection to be a subsection of 'Teachings'. -- Marek.69 talk 18:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Have you considered making use of John Cornwell's excellent book The Pontiff in Winter—Triumph and Conflict in the Reign of John Paul II?
  • Sounds good, do you still have it Tom? -- Marek.69 talk 06:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The criticism section makes no mention of the child sex abuse scandals. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I have expanded the section on the role of Wojtyla and the Polish delegation in the drafting of Gaudium et Spes. There's plenty more to write about on Wojtyla's role in Vatican II. There's extensive discussion of this in "Vatican II: Renewal Within Tradition" (Lamb and Levering ed.) ISBN 9780195332674. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by James F. (talk)

  • It's quite long - 52 kB (8694 words) of "readable prose size", which feels like it could do with being tighter, with some of the text moved more into subsidiary articles. For example the "Pastoral trips" section does not need the list of all 104 of them, even if in a collapsible box. Similarly, the "Death and funeral" section is quite long for what it's saying (viz.: "He died. People came to his funeral."), probably because it's pretty much the only part of his life that happened post-Wikipedia, so it's current-events-style. James F. (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The section "Life's work" feels oddly-named to me, though our normal alternative ("Career") also feels wrong. Sorry, not a very helpful comment. :-) James F. (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I've removed the section title -- Marek.69 talk 03:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Prose style is rather, ahem, laudatory - the use of indented highlight-quotes to start sections, lines like "John Paul II had a special relationship with Catholic youth and is known by some as The Pope for Youth" (CN/SAYSWHO/OLEAGINOUS/etc.) or "He constantly attempted to find common ground, both doctrinal and dogmatic" (followed by only one example, and with no cites on the general claim - OR?)... James F. (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I've removed both of these lines James -- Marek.69 talk 03:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • In general, it seems quite good though. Good luck! James F. (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you James -- Marek.69 talk 02:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Sp33dyphil

  • "often playing football in goal" --> "often playing as goalkeeper in football"
  • I think "often playing football as goalkeeper" -- Marek.69 talk 01:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Can the motto Totus tuus be translated to English?
  • [Totus Tuus] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) means "totally yours". I have put this into infobox. -- Marek.69 talk 03:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Election to the Papacy" Why's the last word capitalised?
  • I've changed to " Election to the papacy" -- Marek.69 talk 03:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I think there are too many issues in this large article; I suggest starting the article afresh in your userpage, where you can copy and paste the best parts of this article and work on anything that needs to be improved, before asking for another PR.

Comments by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus

Comments by --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 03
05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Lead should be expanded, at least doubled in size.
  • Would you like to take this on Piotrus? You do have a lot of experience in this -- Marek.69 talk 01:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Too many quotes; in at least one place one quote follows another, breaking text flow.
  • I've started reducing the number of quotes. Is it OK now, or shall I continue? -- Marek.69 talk 08:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Gay rights activists is a stubsection; please expand.
  • I've started to expand it -- Marek.69 talk 06:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • See also should be incorporated into text.
  • There are reference errors; somebody didn't do an error check after running some automated tool recently, most likely.
Thank you Prokonsul Piotrus -- Marek.69 talk 20:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Rich Farmbrough

Comments by Rich Farmbrough, 05:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC).
  • No need for three coats of arms (Infobox, illus, styles).
  • I have removed two. -- Marek.69 talk 03:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The ref errors were surplus refs left by the trimming, I have fixed. Fixed
  • We avoid abbreviations such as TX, NY.  Fixed
  • A better pic of the Dali Lama or none. This one has the reader searching for the pope in it.
  • I've removed it -- Marek.69 talk 03:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Rich. -- Marek.69 talk 20:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Moonriddengirl

I'm afraid that I don't really have time to do an in-depth peer reviews at the moment. I'm trying to keep too much of a backlog from developing at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, and there are a couple of days worth of listing I'm already behind. I do notice one issue at a glance: the article uses {{cquote}}. This is not supported for the body of articles by the Manual of Style. It's too flashy. To quote from WP:MOSQUOTE:

Format a long quote (more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation, which Wikimedia's software will indent from both margins. Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the {{cquote}} template, which are reserved for pull quotes). Block quotations using a colored background are also discouraged. Block quotations can be enclosed between a pair of <blockquote>...</blockquote> HTML tags; or use {{quote}}.

The quotes shouldn't be formatted in italics, either, unless the originals were. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Italics. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Moonriddengirl. -- Marek.69 talk 20:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I have removed both the {{cquote}}s and the italicised quotes -- Marek.69 talk 01:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by History2007

First, my apologies for what there is to follow. But I do not like this article. Not at all.

Good News: This article does get the basic facts about his birth date, papacy period, etc. right.

Bad News: The article seems mostly unaware of what the man did, and what his goals were. That shortcoming is epitomized by the lack of any serious content in the teachings section. That section is specially uninformed. Again, my apologies for using the term uninformed, but there is no other term that would apply here. There is a link to his "Social and political stances" but that is not really the center of his teachings which can only be traced through the encyclical and apostolic exhortations he issued. As a clue, consider the fact that the word "encyclical" only appears once in the article, referring to Humanae Vitae which he did not issue himself. The only apostolic letter mentioned seems to be Ordinatio Sacerdotalis which is more political than theological. Items such as Ecclesia de Eucharistia, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia and Redemptoris Mater, etc. were key elements of his plan to "reposition the Catholic Church". That plan was in effect for over two decades and mostly succeeded. I could go on and on and on about what is missing... But I think it is clear that only a very small fraction of his teachings or goals or influences are mentioned anywhere. And sorry, I will not have time to work on that any time soon.

  • I have started to address these issues. -- Marek.69 talk 12:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Image: The article does not mention his high level of popularity among masses around the world. He was far more popular than the previous popes, or the current pontif. In places such as Mexico he was deeply loved for declaring Juan Diego a saint. The same was true in the Philippines, etc.

Photographs: The selection of photographs is quite unusual and non-representative. For instance, there are 3 photographs in which our previous commander in chief appears. His attitude would have been better represented by this photograph. There are probably public domain versions of that, without the caption, if you want to find one and add it... would be fun to see the reactions.

Overall, a very long and almost unreadable article that gets the dates right, then gets lost in the political issues, relationship with the Eastern Orthodox, etc. and misses the key goal of his papacy which was to transform and reposition the Church. A goal that mostly succeeded. History2007 (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I have added a sentence to the lede on this subject. Do you think we need to go into more detail? -- Marek.69 talk 09:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
A whole sentence? I am sorry, but I think you know what I mean. I will also type more below. History2007 (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Marek.69 talk 18:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you History2007. -- Marek.69 talk 10:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Further comments (requested move?)

I am half joking, but after thinking about it a little more, based on John's comment above (what will be his lasting significance really?), I think a move request may be in order. I would suggest a move to "Prime Minister John Paul II" instead of "Pope John Paul II", for this article is written about a politician, not a pope. The first focus of a pope is "his flock" not relations with Islam, Eastern Orthodox etc. Look at how much space is given to those, vs how much space is given to his relationship with his own crowd and their "spiritual direction". This article seems to view him as "Prime Minister John Paul II of the Republic of Earth".

And again, the selection of images reflects that mindset. A photo with ex-KGB Mr Putin, and as I said 3 photos of Einstein give the wrong impression. The icing on the cake was that the photo of his beatification featured Benedict! I touched up the two photos to show that he was beatified on the very feast for which he worked very hard for from 1965 to 1978. And John, one of his lasting impacts is that said feast/devotion (which was previously banned) now has over 100 million followers. That is called impact. To that end, I also added an image of how the Mexicans donated the keys for his statue. Those items focus on a "pope", not on a prime minister. But the article seems to be mostly unaware of the papal side of his life and just a restatement of news reports.

I am sorry Marek, but I do not see how a band-aid or two could fix this article. The heart of it is based on a perception as a political figure - hence the move request suggestion. As I read the article I do not see an awareness of his role as a "spiritual leader", but I see a collage of newspaper clippings which mostly cover prime ministers and other dignitaries in three piece suits. He was not wearing a suit and a tie, in case that was not noticed. History2007 (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, History2007. I do take your comments on board. I agree that his primary role was Pope of the Catholic Church, but I also think he was more than that. Why was he so loved, especially so in his mother country? I would say primarily for his character and the way he interacted with common people. He also met with and was respected by a large number of political as well as church leaders, so much so that he had great political influence in his time. All these factors contribute to the man and the figure that he was. Marek.69 talk 17:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
His own country was a given issue, maybe national pride. But the rest of the world was a bigger test. History2007 (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I do not know if the article uses this or not, but it gives a glimpse. He put in "a lot of work" to reach out to specific groups, including obscure groups of seminarians, orders with a small number of nuns, etc. as well as well known cases such as his rapid move on Mother Teresa. An item that does not even appear on the page now. A large number of other elements that shed light on the issues that shaped his life also need inclusion, e.g. that he was trained by Lagrange, etc., etc. History2007 (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The article does reference vatican.va. I will try to look a few of these up. Thank you. -- Marek.69 talk 22:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, fine. I suggested that link because the trips/visits/addresses were a key element of his strategy, and reason for popularity. Compared to other popes, he was much more "in touch" and reached out. That point needs to be made in the article somehow. It reminds me of what Gerstner said when he first got to IBM: "A desk is a dangerous place to observe the world from", then went on the road for ever, talked to the company and turned it around. What John Paul II realized was that "the window in St Peter's Square is a dangerous place to see the world from" and unlike others, went out to the masses and turned the Church around. History2007 (talk) 05:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
In view of the comment below, let me say a little more on the "Teaching secion", and then move on. The Teaching section has 35 lines on the Eastern Orthodox trips, his visit to Athens etc. Is that a teaching? Most of that section is a list of trips. Those are not teachings. Most of that section is about photo-ops which any pope has to take part in. I guess that is a Cosmo interpretation of teaching in some sense - photo-ops. But I will pass on further discussion on that.
Yet in that context let just ask ourselves exactly what power did he wield anywhere? Was he going to send the Swiss guard to invade Denmark and claim it as new Papal Territory? No, his only power was mobilizing the billion followers he had and claim them as new territory. There is no mention of that and no section in this article called "impact on his Church". Is there? Not that I can see. Should there be there? Should does not apply here, it depends on who will be editing the article. And that may change somewhat at random. But I think the article would do well to mention his focus on "spiritual values". That was a key element of the character of the man.
Anyway, that is why I do not edit these types of articles. I just commented here because there was a request for comment. I will not be looking at this page again, or looking at that article for a while. I will look at the article maybe in 3-4 months and perhaps comment again, but who knows.
In any case, I think you know what I see as the material that is needed for the article to look more "informed". Cheers. History2007 (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


Thank you History2007. -- Marek.69 talk 14:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Accedie

Marek, I think you've done a commendable job of tackling a huge, meaty article with all kinds of competing agendas and turning it into something coherent and readable. I have just a few minor questions/suggestions:

  • What is the miracle for which he was beatified? There's mention of a little boy suffering from kidney cancer, but there's also a reference to "the miracle involving Sister Marie Simon-Pierre"... (with no wikilink) -- seems notable enough to warrant a redlink at the very least. That was the one thing not clear to me.
  • I did a good bit of copyediting and found myself removing some POVish phraseology from a few sections. I think I got all the glaring examples, but it wouldn't hurt to take a second pass and make sure to tone down anything excessively adulatory or biased. JP II may be a saint, but this is still an encyclopedia :)
  • I'm still looking :-) -- Marek.69 talk 21:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I also have to say that I strongly disagree with the above critique of the article's nature and scope. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of Catholicism, so I wouldn't expect to find detailed exploration of his teachings and other doctrinal nuance here – though I would expect good references to set me off in that direction of research if I so desired, of course :) Wikipedia is also meant to serve a global audience of readers, and I think the most cosmopolitan interpretation of the life of John Paul II is the one found here: a man who was at the forefront of many important political events, who put himself in the global spotlight by both his faith and his actions, and whose legacy far exceeds ecclesiastical bounds.

Accedie, maybe we should add this last line into the lead. -- Marek.69 talk 03:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks for all your hard work, Marek, and good luck with the rest of the peer review process! Accedietalk to me 05:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

There you go. History2007 (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, thank you! Added that in to the article. Accedietalk to me 05:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Accedie :-) -- Marek.69 talk 16:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Casliber

Sorry, I got completely distracted reading list of popes...I'll come up with something soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Minor formatting - make sure all references conform - titles in Title Case or sentence case (I generally find former easier and I think most of yours are former already) Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Casliber, I think I have tackled most of the Title Case titles in the References-Notes section. (There maybe a couple I missed.) I think there may still be some issues in the References with mixed styles. -- Marek.69 talk 21:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Casliber. -- Marek.69 talk 02:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by HJ

I'm only going to comment on the references for now, because I think that's the most immediate issue. From a cursory look through the references, I found over thirty "sources" that I wouldn't let anywhere near an article I was planning to take to FAC.

  • Catholicplanet.com
  • About.com
  • Ewtn.com
  • Klee.us
  • Popejohnpaul.com
  • Dialog.org
  • Docstoc.com
  • Catholicity.com
  • Giga Catholic Information
  • Wikipedia
  • Writespirit.net
  • Catholicireand.net
  • Popejohnpaulii.org
  • The Christian Coptic Orthodox Church Of Egypt
  • The Catholic Community Forum and Liturgical Publications of St. Louis, Inc.
  • Scribd.com
  • Blogspot
  • Contactmusic.com
Is Contactmusic.com not WP:RS? -- Marek.69 talk 16:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

  • 123muslim.com
  • Coldlakeislamicsociety.ca
  • Blessinexhibit.org
  • Adl.org
  • Polisculture-nyc.org
  • Lutheranworld.org
  • Religion-cults.com
  • Helpfellowship.org
  • Reformation.org
  • Blogspot again
  • Redicecreations.com
  • Metrowestdailynews.com
  • Javno.com
  • Huliq.com
  • Vlex.co.uk
  • Gcatholic.com
  • Rense.com
  • About.com again

Thank you, Harry, for taking the time to go through the references and flagging these up. I think I've removed them all now.
-- Marek.69 talk 15:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


Add to that the article cites a great many sources that were written by the subject himself or by the Vatican, that many more references are lacking basic bibliographic information, and that others still are not of the quality I would expect for what's cited to them. This article has got a long way to go before it's even worth putting significant effort into the body. Sorry. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, HJ Mitchell. -- Marek.69 talk 14:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


Harry, are quotations of what the Pope said, which are referenced from his own books, and events in the Pope's life, which are referenced from The Vatican website OK? -- Marek.69 talk 22:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Quotes from his books & speeches certainly, & simple events also; anything approaching commentary should be clearly labelled as from the Vatican, or sourced elsewhere. My take. Johnbod (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by John of Reading

"Baziak died in June 1962 and on 16 July he was selected..." - presumably this means that Wojtyła was selected. The two sources given at the end of this sentence do not seem to mention it. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does refer to Wojtyła. I have changed it to say that. I will check the references to make sure this is clear. -- Marek.69 talk 15:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"Today, for the first time in history, a Bishop of Rome sets foot on English soil" - this paragraph looks out of place. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you John for your comments, and for your copy-edits :-)
This is a quotation from Pope John Paul II from the time of his visit to the UK in 1982, which is briefly mentioned (one line) in the Pastoral trips section above. It is significant because it was the first time a Pope had ever [officially] visited the UK. Unfortunately it does not stand out as a quotation as we are now using the <blockquote>...</blockquote> format. Maybe it should be within quotation marks? The section previously looked like this, before the recent changes of style. -- Marek.69 talk 15:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
That may have been me; {{cquote}} is for pull quotes, which that (and a few others) are not. The doc for the templates says so right up front, in red. Maybe you want {{quotation}}? Alarbus (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Citation style

I see User:Alarbus has been changing the citation style to the dreaded sfn system, presumably without discussion. This is contrary to WP:CITE and should be nipped in the bud. Johnbod (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we are only using sfn for backlinking to the sources and bibliography subsections; the rest are all cite news, cite web, etc. format. I don't think that there is any intention to expand this to the notes section -- Marek.69 talk 18:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok if everyone's happy. Johnbod (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Johnbod, out of interest, why did you describe sfn as 'dreaded'?
It looks quite neat and precise to me, and the article did use a form of shortened footnote notation, {{harvnb}} I think, at one point. :-) -- Marek.69 talk 15:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Medjugorje

The quotes attributed to the Pope are from a self-published website, but, these quotes are circulated among the followers of Medjugorje, which is why I referenced the website.

Medjugorje is becoming a big issue in the Catholic Church, so I thought Medjugorje should be included in the article.

Oct13 (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Merger with Biography of Pope John Paul II

The Biography of Pope John Paul II article is the only article on Wikipedia that specifies in its title that it is a biography. The reason that there are no others is that articles that are named after people are themselves biographies. The "Biography" section title in the Pope John Paul II article is therefore redundant; the entire article is a biography. The Biography of Pope John Paul II article should be merged here and the subsections of the "Biography" section should be upgraded to first-level sections. Neelix (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Merge Duplicate article, a split is not warranted. Brandmeistertalk 01:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Justice without forgiveness Utopia

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: "Justice without forgiveness utopia," said the Holy Father Pope John Paul II. after the terrorist attacks of Al` Qaeda 11th September 2011. year. So simple and so universal. Words to resolve world conflicts, and especially for their prevention.93.137.33.90 (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

POV language in new text

New text added today contains some highly charged language: "indifferentism to false cults" - the use of "false cults" in the quote may be acceptable, but using such a phrase in Wikipedia's voice is prohibited. Let's find a more neutral way to phrase this assertion. Elizium23 (talk) 09:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

"Blessed" in infobox field "name"

I am curious about the use of the {{Infobox saint}} field "name". The documentation says simply, The name under which the saint is venerated or best known. This should usually be the same as the article name. However, the vast majority of articles that I surveyed under WP:SAINTS use the honorific "Saint" in front of the name - which seems clear enough, as the name under which they are venerated includes the title. So I ask why we do not list his name as "Blessed John Paul II", and if there is any, er, excuse for divergence from consensus in this article, and also the other articles I came across where it is not observed, namely Pope John XXIII and Joan of Arc. Elizium23 (talk) 09:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Echoing Elizium's point regarding the inconsistency regarding "Blessed" being included for John XXIII but not for JPII. Please correct this. 69.133.14.159 (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy Savile scandal and JPII

Here let us discuss how John Paul the Great relates to the Jimmy Savile papal knighthood and sexual abuse scandal. First, I reworded a sentence which clearly violated WP:NPOV and WP:V as the cited source did not support the assertion. Then I removed the entire addition, because none of the sources mentioned John Paul the Great by name. However, since this is a Papal Honour accorded by the Holy See, it is possible that John Paul the Great had a personal involvement with conferring it. If so, please produce a reliable secondary source that links JP the Great and Savile, and you are welcome to add the information to the article, as long as it adheres to policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Thank you! Elizium23 (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Appointment of Cardinal Law to Saint Mary Major.

Upon becoming a cardinal, Bernard Law was made titular pastor of the parish of St. Mary Major. All cardinals must be priests of Rome, but in modern times, they are typically archbishops; so they are given Roman parishes to be priests of, and return to their archdiocese. Meanwhile a vicar carries on the administration of the Roman parish. When Law resigned from archbishop in fine health and well short of retirement age, he assumed the role normally designated to a vicar. This was widely reported as him being "promoted" to a high-ranking job in Rome, while the reality he assumed work normally done by low-ranking underlings because he no longer had a more pressing duty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.200.159 (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes that is true, but neither side is taken in this article. If reliable secondary sources report it as a promotion then we would have to include that point of view. If other sources report it as you say, then we would include both views and document the controversy as it exists. WP:V says, Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.[1] When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view. Elizium23 (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

"Pressured" an Archbishop to Resign?

The article indicates that Pope John Paul II "pressured" Juliusz Paetz, the Catholic Archbishop of Poznań, to resign. This requires explanation. Under canon law, the Pope possesses supreme and absolute authority over the church, which he may exercise freely and at any time. Why would he have to resort to "pressure" to fire an Archbishop?John Paul Parks (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

This assertion is not supported by any source that I can find, particularly the one in Polish included there, nor anything in the Polish Wikipedia biography of this archbishop. Unless someone else can find a source then I think it is best to remove it entirely. Elizium23 (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
In fact, the English article on Paetz is woefully incomplete and poorly machine translated. From what I can glean from the Polish sources, Paetz tendered his resignation and thereafter was placed under restrictions by which he could not exercise his episcopal ministry by ordaining priests, confirming the faithful, consecrating altars, etc. Elizium23 (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Aloysius Stepinac

On the right of chapter "Criticism and controversy" there is photo of Aloysius Stepinac. To my opinion one sentence is controversal: "Critics say that Stepinac was pro-Ustaše, tolerating the mass killings of Orthodox Serbs in Jasenovac and their forced conversion to Catholicism." Critics say that but Aloysius Stepinac didn't do that. He helped Ortodox Serbs during war and he gave many speech against Ustaše regime. He didn't forced anybody to convert to Catholicism. He was one of the most moral persons of his time not only in Yougoslavia and he truly deserved beatification. Decision of Pope John Paul II to confirm his beatification was good decision and controversy is only in minds of some people who are unhappy with that because of they have different political and cultural background.--Fraxinus Croat (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Mind or soul?

"...In accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man" (Emphasis added).

Let me start by saying that not all philosophers consider "mind" and "soul" to be the same thing. Descartes did, but his ideas can't be reconciled with neuroscience. They just can't.

Anyway, unlike the Church's doctrine of the soul, the mind is unambiguously shown by neuroscience to be derived from the brain. There is now an entire subfield of cognitive neuroscience, the study of literally how we think and not merely sensation and response. Therefore, the only way to reconcile Catholic theology with neuroscience is to say that soul and mind are most emphatically not the same thing, despite popular assumption. (One can argue, for instance, that soul is identity rather than mind, and that it is only by act of God due to Omnibenevolence that identity can be re-manifested, essentially copied, to some other non-physical medium at physical death.) I will not go into too much more detail, so as not to run afoul of WP:Not a forum.

All that being explained, "soul" is probably a more accurate translation from the original Latin of this Papal statement than "mind." (Both are "Animis" in Latin.) To substitute "mind" in that translated sentence rather than "soul" is to suggest that Blessed John Paul II was essentially banning Catholics from an entire field of science, which is not generally the MO of Popes and the Church. Indeed, from broader context, I find it clear that he was actually talking about the soul rather than the cognitive mind. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Update: The translation of the same paragraph over at Catholic Church and evolution uses the word "spirit," which, from all I explained above, would be more akin to "soul" than to "mind." So, this actually puts this article more in line with that article as well, again translating the very same originally Latin paragraph. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Move Request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II → John Paul II – New naming convention for Popes agreed upon by consensus at WP:Naming conventions (clergy)#Popes. Primary article should be John Paul II with a redirect from from Pope John Paul II to John Paul II ReformedArsenal (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Consensus on this talk page is that we do not move the article anywhere. There is no new naming convention either, there is no consensus on that page and your unilateral change has been reverted to the stable version. Mocctur (talk) 05:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I can see no benefit in renaming/moving this article to John Paul II. I think the current system of naming works just fine as it is, especially for newcomers to Wikipedia. -- Marek.69 talk 06:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is no reason to change the style of naming. The Pope X style is used widely in current medias, in historybook and in common days conversations. Nothing good will come out of changing it to X (pope), except utter confusion. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Matches current guideline at Naming conventions (clergy)#Popes, where the proposed change (on talk) is sinking like a stone. Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Let's leave the 266 articles-in-question, the way they are -consistent-. GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Move to close The pope naming issue has been taken up at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy)#Article Move due to updated convention. While it looks unlikely to succeed, if it does, it should apply to all popes where there are no disambiguation problems. There's no point in changing this article alone, so I call for a close. --BDD (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, the discussion should be Centralized there.--64.229.164.74 (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, but agree that centralized discussion is the way to go. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per GoodDay's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Proceedural close - ongoing discussion elsewhere, this move request is premature. Personally I'd also oppose for many of the same reasons expressed by editors here and at the RfC. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 08:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose No reason to move without the "Pope" title before the regnal name. ApprenticeFan work 10:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

English variant

The article uses an editnotice and a template on the talk page that all establish British English usage. I see no words in the original revision which could be taken to be either American or another variant. Initial discussion on English variant is in April 2005 at Talk:Pope John Paul II/Archive 3#Americanised Spelling... Of Sorts. Another post was made in 2009 at Talk:Pope John Paul II/Archive 7#Spellings. I have seen no compelling case to switch away from British English. Elizium23 (talk) 04:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Sacred Music

It would be interesting to write a section about JPII's though and magisterium about the liturgy, and about Sacred Music. I found this article: http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/how-john-paul-ii-restored-liturgical-sanity --78.12.43.58 (talk) 11:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Please consider a change in the subject "Pastoral trips", where it is said that the Pope was afraid of flying

Dear Sir/Madam

Please consider a change in the text of the subject "Pastoral trips".

In the beginning of the text, where it is said that the Pope was afraid of flying and that when he arrived a country he used to kiss the ground, state that this action was for Pastoral purposes (as was done by Saint Jean-Baptiste-Marie Vianney). I know that this info is already in a section above (when describing his arrival at is first Parish), but I think that it would be important to refer it again here, as the sentence as it is may suggest to some that he kissed the ground as a way to express the relief of landing.


The source of this is of course the section of the article above. And I think the Holy Father talks about this in is book Memory and Identity.

Thank you

Yours faithfully


95.95.104.166 (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It is at minimum WP:SYNTH to imply that relief was his motive for kissing the ground, and since this statement was entirely unsourced, I have simply removed it entirely. Thank you for bringing it up. Elizium23 (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Silly "Edit Notice" (and tag) should be removed.

It looks like someone decided that this article must be and must remain in pure "British" English.

Is there some kind new approved Wikipedia policy seeking to eliminate unholy mixing of these two races? If not, this silly edit notice should be removed. The subject is not intrinsically related to Britain. There is no other compelling reason to go one way or the other in this article other than "someone nudged it that way once in a way that happened to stick". That is a general reason to stick an article in one form or another, but it's not a reason to try to enforce so strongly. Such strong enforcement is highly unusual for Wikipedia, especially without strong reasons. I suggest that enforcement via this tag and especially by that "nazi-like" edit notice, is actually against Wikipedia policy regarding forms of English.

One of the problems here (among many) is that someone must decide, or have decided, which dialect any particular article should be stamped with. Who is or would be authorized to do that, eh? Honestly, this (the tag and edit notice) looks much more like some kind of British "push back" against Americanificization of English. Look to the true motive of the edit notice. If there really is some new approved policy then it might be okay, but if it's just some British-o-phile administrator with a stick up his backside, or some other kind of rouge effort, then it should be removed.

The tag at the top of the talk page says it shouldn't be removed "without broad consensus", yet such "broad consensus" to place it to begin with is not evident. If it exists, the crazy-short MiszaBot 30-day sweep has hidden it away much less accessibly in an archive. If there really was some "broad consensus" along these lines some time ago, then it should remain visible. Extraordinary tags require extraordinary evidence. Without that evidence, summary removal of the talk-page tag is justified, as is the summary removal of that edit notice by an administrator.

108.7.6.66 (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

There's a general guide, which has existed since more time than "some kind new approved", titled WP:ENGVAR. Generally, if the subject is not from an Anglo country, it is used the dialect the main author uses, or the dialect that has been used since the beginning. Also per WP:RETAIN: "In general, disputes over which English variety to use in an article are strongly discouraged." If you want to change BrE to AmE, you have to seek for WP:CONSENSUS to do so, explaining why it should be changed. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeking to change the dialect of the article, just the tags. It's the implied/attempted enforcement which is problematic here. WP has a policy for determining which of the various forms of English is preferred for an article. But, to attempt to enforce it like this is "highly unusual", and it's not well justified for this particular subject. I would remove the tag myself, but I've been around here long enough to know better for that kind of tag. I would remove the edit notice too (as excessive enforcement), but an admin is needed for that. 108.7.6.66 (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It can't be removed because it can only be edited by some users. Although it is an "enforcement", it was created, I guess, because some time in the past (2011 according to its history), some user(s) began to change the BrE to AmE, despite the fact he was European and American English is not used there. Now, you can request its community deletion through WP:TFD. For this, you have to read and follow TFD instructions, and ask an admin or with an edit request to add the TFD template nomination, and explain why it should be deleted under our rules or guidelines. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Almost all articles which are written in non-US English are perpetually beset by well-meaning editors who come to "correct" "spelling errors". I edit a lot of Harry Potter related articles, and we frequently get people who attempt to correct words such as "instalment", "artefact", and "criticised". Interested editors have long taken elaborate counter-measures to stave off such unconstructive changes. Sometimes we even break up a word by putting a hidden HTML comment right in the middle of it to explain that the British spelling is correct in this article, and I even saw that changed recently. The point is that we are doing all we can to contribute to the stability and integrity of these articles. If a prominent editnotice stops 2 editors per month from making unwanted changes, then it is worthwhile. I think that some people do take notice, and others are going to make their change no matter what roadblocks we choose to throw out there. I don't understand the eagerness to tear down those roadblocks when it will only lead to destabilisation of the article text and a waste of time for those of us who have it watchlisted when we could be doing constructive work somewhere else on the project. Elizium23 (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

All reasonable arguments. Except, they're "un-wikipedish". All Wikipedia articles are subject to destabilisation. It's something that must be lived with. That's how they improve and that's how parts get worse at the same time. It's tough I know for those personally invested to deal with it. A quality equilibrium evolves with a constantly churning low level of crappiness. Trying to stabilise and zero out all crappiness is a futile mission. It's simply impossible unless the article is totally locked down to a few of "the watchers" (by approved and unapproved means), but then the particular kind of crappiness the watchers can't see never gets addressed (too-close bias).

I think you guys can learn to live with the work of having to smooth out two crappy-increasing edits a month. Every other article does it without oppressive messages. It's just not that hard. It's also just not really that awful to have to deal with and accept a little bit of "offensive" spelling.

One of the problems with the edit note is that it has no expiration date, not even a very long one. Leaving off an end date essentially leads to a restriction being ensconced permanently where all efforts to reason otherwise become impossible. Restrictions without end dates become powerful tools in the hands of watcher-owner culture. Putting an expiration date on that edit note would go a long way toward decreasing the oppressive feel associated with the tag and note.

108.7.6.66 (talk) 02:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Priority misalignment?

I just noticed the revert citing WP:RETAIN. Don't worry, I'll re-do it with your preferred spelling. Keep in mind that I (and all other non-native British spellers) can only spell your way in as much as I know how to spell your way. I know some of the differences, but not all. If you make the habit of reverting all edits unless the contributor can conform fully to this standard, you lose the the opportunity for important improvements.

By elevating a relatively less important quality factor to the status such as you have, and in the extreme way that you have, you have reverted presumed-improvements related to POV because you were overly concerned about something much less important (unintentional side effects on spelling). I put this forward as a perfect example as to why you "watchers" need to ease off in your zeal for this UK-spelling enforcement regime you've got going here.

108.7.6.66 (talk) 03:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


I found a cool converter here: http://www.us2uk.eu . I had reviewed my edit "by hand" for accidental non-UK spellings, but I didn't know if I got them all. So I searched for and found this converter. (My by-hand conversions were confirmed) 108.7.6.66 (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on content and not the contributors. The other editors here are not the problem. Elizium23 (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. It should be very clear to anyone that I've talked about the tag, and the edit note, and their "chilling effects" on the quality of the article. I've also made ordinary coordination on edits to the article. While making those ordinary coordinations and discussions of policy, I've addressed parties in a way that is both civil and suitably specific or broad. These are all normal and specifically permitted uses of the talk page. I've been sincere in my commentary and coordination and I've complied with alacrity. Please don't try to divert the potential for constructive progress here by mischaracterising. 108.7.6.66 (talk) 07:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Emilia Kaczorowska

"Emilia Kaczorowska (1884–1929), whose mother's maiden surname was Scholz, suggesting partial German ancestry"

Is there any proof of Emilia Kaczorowska's "partial German ancestry"? A lot of Poles have German last names.

Why is a rumor and an opinion given such a prominent place in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.50.15.4 (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

AfD of interest

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karol Wojtyła (senior). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed sentence taken unchanged from source

A student working on this article pointed out that this sentence: "While taking a traditional position on sexuality, defending the Church's moral opposition to marriage for same-sex couples, Pope John Paul II asserted that people with homosexual inclinations possess the same inherent dignity and rights as everybody else"; this is taken word for word from the source, "William Frank Smith (November 2010). Catholic Church Milestones: People and Events That Shaped the Institutional Church. Dog Ear Publishing. p. 86. ISBN 978-1-60844-821-0. Retrieved 25 January 2012." I've removed it; it can be replaced once the information is rephrased to avoid duplicating the original. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Infobox image

I'm just putting this forth for any discussion but wouldn't it be wise to perhaps use another image of John Paul II for the infobox, specifically one of him when he was a bit older? The one I think could be used is the image of him in 2004 (the presidential medal image). Yes, or no? 115.64.163.13 (talk) 08:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The one that is there now is good enough - but if it were to be changed then the 2004 one would be a good idea. Lord Sidious 82 (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I don't see any reason to change the image--there is no need to go to an older one. The current photograph is roughly from the middle of his papacy, and it's a real good shot. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Patronage

of Youth 2000.--2001:A60:15FD:5C01:8CD:416:F56C:587B (talk) 09:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Image

Hi

I just would like to propose a better, more iconic image.

Thanks

  • Wikipedia's image use policies have to apply however. Is this image cleared for use here? 68.146.70.124 (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Why would we use a painting when multiple photographs are available? Huon (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Article name

What is the status of this article's name now that he's now St. John Paul II? Should it be moved to that name? 68.146.70.124 (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No, see MOS:SAINTS: Articles on popes who are also saints are titled according to the guidance in Popes above, with any necessary redirects from the forms with "Saint". For example, Pope Pius X, with redirects from Pope Saint Pius X and other forms... Also: Saints go by their most common English name, minus the word "Saint"... The article name does not need to be changed. Huon (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistent intros among popes who are also saints

If you look at the results of the following search:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Pope+Saint+&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=Search

you will see that some begin with "Pope Saint Name Number" and others begin with "Pope Name Number". In all cases I checked, "Pope Saint Name Number" is used at the top of the infobox.

Perhaps there should be some consistency? 68.165.77.30 (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree this issue merits a wider discussion, but that discussion should be held at WikiProject Catholicism, not this talk page. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2014

Please change the "Saint Pope" John Paul II to Saint John Paul II. The title Saint Pope is incorrect and not used for other Saints who have been popes. I am a Catholic and Knight of Columbus. I know. LavsNB (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I am a Catholic as well; that doesn't make me any more or less of an authority on the subject than you. "I know it to be true" is textbook original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia policies, particularly the Manual of Style as well as any consensus on relevant WikiProjects such as WikiProject Catholicism, govern this matter, and a fellow editor above has indicated that the issue you identify is inconsistently applied across articles on canonized popes. "Pope Saint" appears to be the consensus across the majority of articles I looked at, and it appears that since you made your request "Saint Pope" no longer appears on this article, so I am closing this request as Already done. —KuyaBriBriTalk 23:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Gay rights activists

I don't normally like getting into edit wars, but there is a persistent attempt being made to change this to "homosexual activists". I think the former term would now be accepted by most people as the more normal term these days. PatGallacher (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

"Gay rights" needs to be, at the absolute very least, in quotation marks, and "homosexual activists" should be maintained in the paragraph. Matthewrobertolson (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The Church would never use the phrase "gay rights". Since this is a Catholic article, that fact should be respected. Ideally, "gay rights" would be removed entirely. Matthewrobertolson (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

We follow what reliable third-party sources say, not what the Church says. This holds for all articles, "Catholic" or not. Since the activists in question campaign for gay rights, not for homosexuality per se, "gay rights activists" seems the more appropriate term. See for example ABC, which explicitly calls John Paul II's critics "gay rights activists". Huon (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with Huon. Not only is the attempt to remove "gay rights" smack of POV pushing, but it is simply the better term in decribing the activists. Calling them homosexual activists either implies 1) that they're homosexual (many gay rights advocates are not), or 2, that they're activists for homosexuality in general. Gay rights is more defined description of the activists' goals, eliminates the confusion over whether homosexual is referring to the activists themseleves or their goals, and most importantly, is the better term as reflected in RS.12.11.127.253 (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Pope John Paul II himself was a gay rights activist. He sheltered many priest-pedophiles and homosexuals from persecution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.204.58 (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

And, why should we respect the wishes of Catholics?! They certainly didn't respect the wishes of all those murdered during the Dirty War in South America or the Troubles in Northern Ireland. I thought this was supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a propaganda wank site for the US Government and its puppet states/religions. You might as well change the domain name to en.wikipedia.gov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.250.153 (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Since there are no specific examples of criticisms of John Paul's stance on Gay Rights in the article and the rest of the section repeats his positions stated earlier in the article, I propose removing this section from the article. If someone can dig up specific, notable criticisms, they should be added in order to make this paragraph relevant to the section. Wkharrisjr (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support removal. There is no useful information here to be kept. Elizium23 (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support removal. Ample time has been given for a reliable source to be provided. Since we still don't have a source, the section should be removed. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, I've removed it.01:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

"Attributes" in infobox

Crozier, Zucchetto, Ring of the Fisherman, Papal shoes and Mitre are attributes of ALL popes, or popes in general. Do we plan to include this item in the infoboxes of all 260-odd articles on popes? If not, why only this particular pope? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 11:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The "attributes" field is intended to explain how saints are portrayed in art, that is, saint symbolism. Now, Saint Peter and Augustine of Hippo have certain pontificalia listed as attributes, but I would not say that all these items should be included for this saint, only the ones that figure significantly in hagiographical representations. It is hard to tell exactly which attributes these are currently, because so many images of John Paul are photographs and portraits from during his lifetime. I would say that his papal ferula figures prominently - I don't know if we should call it that, or the more general crosier. As for the others, generalize them as "papal vestments" and be done. Elizium23 (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Further explanation of edit

Only six countries border South Africa, or if one uses a stretch of the imagination, seven. This passage needs to refer to some source, otherwise, one cannot see exactly which countries he visited. Without that knowledge, my edit would not be sufficient. This needs further attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsnow75 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The Great? Again?

The fact that ONE obscure school in Virginia names itself after John Paul "the Great", this does not mean that the attribute is so common to be cited in the first paragraph of the article. The link itself shows a number of schools without the attribute and again just one with it. Please change! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.10.193.47 (talk) 11:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not "obscure" if it is notable by Wikipedia standards. But thanks. I found two more notable schools named "John Paul the Great" and added them as references. I started a list of such notable institutions under the proper section. Is there anything else I can do to help you? Elizium23 (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, please. Can you help me to eliminate a localism? It looks like that he is called that way just in the US. And the name is far from being commonly accepted (one school or ten does not make a great difference). And I would also like to point out that "XY the great" is very different from "The great XY". Thanks, Fabio 79.10.193.47 (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2015

To add in the section on Medugorje for a more accurate picture of his view on the phenomenon. This quote is from an impeccable and easily verifiable source While not taking an official position on Medjugoje, in private he did not hide his own belief. Among other things he said to the archbishop of Florianopolis in Brazil, "Medjugorje is the spiritual centre of the world."[1] 86.136.246.150 (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Slawomir Oder, 'Why He is a Saint: The Life and Faith of Pope John Paul II and the Case for Canonization', Rizzoli Publications 2010, p.168
Not done for now: Closing this request due to lack of communication in responding to a question asked over a week ago. Apparently there is no consensus to make the change as it stands or the request wasn't clear enough either in what needed to be replaced, what the replacement text should be, or why it is beneficial to the encyclopedia to make the change as requested. Feel free to reopen this request when all of the criteria have been met. Thank you, — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2015

Please change the title Pope John Paul II to Saint John Paul II with a redirect for the current title. Please also change Saint Pope John Paul II to Saint John Paul II because it is redundant to have two titles. Thank you. http://www.usccb.org/about/divine-worship/liturgical-calendar/saint-john-paul-ii.cfm 71.74.232.181 (talk) 10:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: This article is consistent with other articles in the List of canonised popes. There would need to be a consensus to change the title throughout all such articles first. If you think such a change is warranted, bringing it up at WT:CATHOLIC might be a good starting point. Thanks, --ElHef (Meep?) 13:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Formatting

In the 4th paragraph of the introduction, the text "and thus to prepare the world for His final coming." is italicized for no apparent reason. This might be accidental, or as an expression of religious sentiment by some previous contributor, wishing to emphasize a central tenet of Roman Catholicism. However, it is superfluous here, as Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a tract. 98.248.125.108 (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2015

In the "Bishop and Cardinal" section, I find

"then-Auxiliary Bishop Boleslaw Kominek (Titular Bishop of Sophene and Vaga; of the Catholic Archdiocese of Wrocław and future Cardinal Archbishop of Wrocław)"

Try changing to "Bishop Boleslaw Kominek (Titular Bishop of Sophene and Vaga, auxiliary of the Catholic Archdiocese of Wrocław, and future Cardinal and Archbishop of Wrocław)"

I think it's a slightly-better way of indicating his then status as an auxiliary bishop. Also, I inserted "and" due to "Cardinal" and "Archbishop of Wroclaw" being two separate appointments. A few cardinals get the notation of "cardinal bishop" or "cardinal patriarch", but the bishop of a diocese elsewhere is, when elevated to Cardinal, placed in the order of cardinal priests.

128.63.16.20 (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 11:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Done I thought this was a perfectly reasonable change so I've done it. Revert me if there's a problem. Elizium23 (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Citation for second miracle. May 20, 2015

Never mind. I see that the citations are complete later in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N. Bolkonsky (talk • contribs) 03:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is a citation for the second miracle mentioned in paragraph five:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/10783125/The-miracle-that-earned-John-Paul-II-his-sainthood.html

N. Bolkonsky (talk) 03:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

See also section, Portal updates

Greetings, Today, I removed the portals for Pope and Catholicism because these are already included in the article's Navbox templates (in the below = parameter). This is per MOS/Layout, See_also_section which states that As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes.. In addition, I added portals Biography, Christianity, and History since these relate to the article being a Bio. and of a historical figure important to Christianity. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The link you cited refers to the See Also section in a manner that most clearly excludes portal templates. If you read Template:Portal, you will find that the portal is placed in the See Also section but is not considered equally as substance contained within the section, namely internal links. Moreover, excluding the Catholicism portal from the portal template is simply erroneous, as it is arguably the most salient to the subject of the article. Additionally, the History portal is simply tangential and ought not preclude the inclusion of those portals that are far more relevant. Ergo Sum (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Pope John Paul II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 19 external links on Pope John Paul II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Pope John Paul II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

"Ian Paisley" subsection under "Criticism and controversy"

I don't know what this subsection is doing there to be quite honest. Calling him "the Antichrist" is not cricism insomuch that it is lunacy. Also, no controversy seems to have been sparked by it (obviously), making it invalid as "controversy". Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2016

Agata Stachowiak (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC) If you find this article (link below) apoppriate, please add it. Thank you. Agata Stachowiak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agata Stachowiak (talk • contribs) 12:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Countdown to freedom: John Paul II’s place in history - [1], Litero.eu
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Medugorje apparitions

"In 1998, when a certain German gathered various statements ..." - what kind of reference is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.82.64.222 (talk) 10:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Publications in philosophy

I am wondering why this article contains no information about numerous and ample important publications by Karol Wojtyła (and later as John Paul II) in philosophy? Mamy of them translated from Polish into English. noychoH (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Ginka Beer

His relationship with her doesn't seem to have been as a boyfriend, but it was important and should be mentioned. I do not understand why the Vatican website isn't a reliable source, although it didn't completely back the text and we don't need to use it. Doug Weller talk 08:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I have heard he was gay, or inclined to be so. Girlfriend's possible but not very likely in that case. Wythy (talk) 08:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change

> he described the 12 years of the Nazi régime as "bestiality"

to

> he described the 12 years of the Nazi régime as "inhuman"

and remove the link to Bestiality (redirecting to Zoophilia)

The polish word "bestialstwo" used in the cited reference is a false friend and has no sexual connotation of the english "bestiality". If you look up the translations they will all come up with "inhumane", "very cruel" etc. I don't have the original text, but I believe that in original source the word "bestialstwo" is referring to a concept in Nicomachean Ethics, which it's page cites as "Being beast-like, or brutish (thêoriotês), the opposite of something more than human, something heroic or god-like ". Anyway - nothing connected to sex with animals that current english version implies.

Partly done: It's not a false friend, really. The English word "bestiality" has definitions other than the one you're noting,[2][3]. I've changed the link to the Wiktionary entry, which may help prevent confusion. (The adjectival form bestial doesn't seem to carry sexual connotations, and it would work in this context, but I'm not sure it would be acceptable to make that change.) RivertorchFIREWATER 14:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Pope John Paul II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2017

John Paul II praises animism, drawing parallels with Christianity. He says:

… it would be helpful to recall … the animist religions which stress ancestor worship. It seems that those who practice them are particularly close to Christianity, and among them, the Church's missionaries also find it easier to speak a common language. Is there, perhaps, in this veneration of ancestors a kind of preparation for the Christian faith in the Communion of Saints, in which all believers—whether living or dead—form a single community, a single body? […] There is nothing strange, then, that the African and Asian animists would become believers in Christ more easily than followers of the great religions of the Far East.[1]

In 1985, the pope visited the African country of Togo, where 60 per cent of the population espouses animist beliefs. To honour the pope, animist religious leaders met him at a Catholic Marian shrine in the forest, much to the pontiff's delight. John Paul II proceeded to call for the need for religious tolerance, praised animism, and emphasised common elements between animism and Christianity, saying:

Nature, exuberant and splendid in this area of forests and lakes, impregnates spirits and hearts with its mystery and orients them spontaneously toward the mystery of He who is the author of life. It is this religious sentiment that animates you and one can say that animates all of your compatriots.[2]

to

John Paul II draws parrallels between animism and Christianity. He says:

… it would be helpful to recall … the animist religions which stress ancestor worship. It seems that those who practice them are particularly close to Christianity, and among them, the Church's missionaries also find it easier to speak a common language. Is there, perhaps, in this veneration of ancestors a kind of preparation for the Christian faith in the Communion of Saints, in which all believers—whether living or dead—form a single community, a single body? […] There is nothing strange, then, that the African and Asian animists would become believers in Christ more easily than followers of the great religions of the Far East.[3]

In 1985, the pope visited the African country of Togo, where 60 per cent of the population espouses animist beliefs. To honour the pope, animist religious leaders met him at a Catholic Marian shrine in the forest, much to the pontiff's delight. John Paul II proceeded to call for the need for religious tolerance, praised nature, and emphasised common elements between animism and Christianity, saying:

Nature, exuberant and splendid in this area of forests and lakes, impregnates spirits and hearts with its mystery and orients them spontaneously toward the mystery of He who is the author of life. It is this religious sentiment that animates you and one can say that animates all of your compatriots.[4]

This makes more sense and will help to avoid confusion that he endorsed a non Catholic Religion Ilikerabbits! (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ John Paul II. Crossing the Threshold of Hope, p. 82, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1994 ISBN 978-0-307-76457-7
  2. ^ Pope Visits Palace in Togo, Then a Woman's Mud Hut The New York Times, 10 August 1985
  3. ^ John Paul II. Crossing the Threshold of Hope, p. 82, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1994 ISBN 978-0-307-76457-7
  4. ^ Pope Visits Palace in Togo, Then a Woman's Mud Hut The New York Times, 10 August 1985
I agree with this request. Done. Thank you for helping to improve this article. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

disclose.tv

@Pol098: In this revision of the article, it appears that you replaced one of the links to MSNBC with a link to a fringe-theory website called disclose.tv. This link now appears to be broken. Is it still possible to link to the original article from MSNBC? Jarble (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jarble: Original MSNBC link was dead, which must be why I replaced it (I don't remember - 2014). Fixed with another site, not MSNBC, best I can do. Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 10:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Pope John Paul II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

"Communist attempt to humiliate John Paul II"

I'm not terribly pleased with how this entire section is phrased.

It sounds very philoamerican/anticommunist, decidedly not NPOV.

For starters, I'd rephrase the section title as "Polish attempt to humiliate John Paul II" (I don't think Fidel Castro, Deng Xiaoping or the Italian Communist Party had anything to do with this).

I'm also displeased with the wording of "John Paul II has been credited with being instrumental in bringing down Communism in Central and Eastern Europe", which seems to endorse the outcome.

Similarly, the "Role in the collapse of dictatorships" section seems to conflate "communism" and "dictatorship".

MrFlowerpot (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pope John Paul II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pope John Paul II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pope John Paul II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2018

change "Catholic Church" to "Roman Catholic Church" Researchatbriancraigmcdaniel (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC) Had intended to change "Catholic Church" to "Roman Catholic Church" to be more precise and for continuity with articles on earlier Roman Catholic Popes (their are other Popes in the Christian world)

Not done: The reviewer would like to request that the editor discuss the proposal with other editors engaged in the subject-area first. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 12:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Confusing sentence needs improving

In section Pope John Paul II#Election the insertion of the Billy Graham coincidence breaks the natural flow of this sentence:

Wojtyła won on the eighth ballot on the third day 16 October, coincidentally the day that evangelical preacher Billy Graham had just concluded a 10-day pilgrimage to Poland, with, according to the Italian press, 99 votes from the 111 participating electors.

I have no suggestions on how to fix this, and I'm also unsure whether it's even relevant. --84user (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request, 28 June 2018

Greetings! With this edit, a new issue was wedged next to two others, and John Paul was described as "conservative" vis-a-vis the Second Vatican Council. These are very problematic propositions. Firstly, the source is not very reliable regarding the Catholic Church. So it is unsurprising that they have not bothered to make a distinction between discipline and doctrine. It is unhelpful to include a mention of priestly celibacy in a sentence that appears outwardly to be about "upholding" (as it was formerly described) Church doctrine. Secondly, regarding the assertion that John Paul was "conservative in his interpretation" of Vatican II and its reforms. That is not in the source - at all. The source describes John Paul as personally conservative, and might be usable under WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, but the assertion in the diff must be thrown out altogether.

 Done but I would recommend that you use the {{edit semi-protected}} because it adds the page to a category that is monitored by several users, which will get you a faster response. L293D (☎ • ✎) 11:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Ah! Thank you kindly. I was very fatigued last night, and I would not have even noticed if you had not pointed it out. Normally I remember to place the template. Thanks again. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

JP2 as an internet culture hero

Pope John Paul II a.k.a. "The Yellow Face" (pl. Żółta Morda) is a cult and classic Polish hero of countless series of satirical pictures with white subtitles on them a.k.a. memes. He is portrayed as a notorious child molester, enthusiast of traditional "kremówka" cakes, main executioner of Polish officers in Katyń and a skilled dancer. Kremówczak (talk) 09:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2018

Could Category:Christian philosophers and Category:Roman Catholic writers be removed as they are parent categories of Category:Roman Catholic philosophers? Thanks, 142.160.89.97 (talk) 07:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Hhkohh (talk) 13:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Inaccurate translation of the habilitation thesis title in the "Presbyterate" section

Currently the Presbyterate section states the title as: '"Reevaluation of the possibility of founding a Catholic ethic on the ethical system of Max Scheler"[60] (Ocena możliwości zbudowania etyki chrześcijańskiej przy założeniach systemu Maksa Schelera).[61]', but [61] provides its translation as "On the possibility of constructing a Christian ethics on the basis of the system of Max Scheler", which is more accurate except the first 2 words of the original title. However, the lead of Max Scheler provides a better translation as "An Evaluation of the Possibility of Constructing a Christian Ethics on the Basis of the System of Max Scheler". The key difference lies in using the words "evaluation" and "constructing" instead of "reevaluation" and "founding". Though, the phrase "on the Basis" (meaning "on the whole") translates the original in general not terribly, the actual words literally translated are "under the Assumptions" (not the whole Scheler's system is considered, but only its assumptions and thus not conclusions), there is no reason why the actual words could not be used, since they fit properly in English as well. Thus, the accurate translation of the tile should be "An Evaluation of the Possibility of Constructing a Christian Ethics under the Assumptions of the System of Max Scheler", which sounds correct in English and well reflects the original, actual meaning. So, why to distort it?!--67.87.187.95 (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2018

In the section on institutions named after Pope John Paul II, please add:

"Pope John Paul II High School in Olympia, WA"

source: http://www.popejp2hs.org/ Aecooper1 (talk) 12:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect date and location for "Kissing the Qur'an"?

In the "Problems with Traditionalists" section, is written, "Likewise criticised was his kissing[339] of the Qur'an in Damascus, Syria, on one of his travels on 6 May 2001." where citation [339] itself is dated 14 May 1999, and references "John Paul II kisses the Koran (Qu'ran) at the Vatican." Assuming the cited source is correct, the sentence should be rewritten

"Likewise criticised was his kissing[339] of the Qur'an at the Vatican on 14 May 1999."

Alternatively, if there are multiple instances, the citation itself should be changed appropriately. Kelseymh (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

asking for a couple of clarifications

The statement (1) about the Pope asking that his sacred garments not be removed during his operation after the first assassination attempt is no doubt referenced, but it reads as if the doctors perhaps complied - leaving such a garment on in a sterile environment would have been unthinkable in any non-warfront operation. Additionally, the (2) statement about the Portuguese assassin being treated for mental illness then expelled to Belgium technically seems to suggest that Portugal had the power to make him a Belgian barrister. Please tighten the prose. 50.111.19.178 (talk) 10:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for a new infobox image

File:Ioannes Paulus II, in Austria, 1988.jpg
Pope John Paul II

In my opinion the infobox picture should be changed by this new one (see at the right side) because this one have highest resolution and well represents the Pope's figure and attitude. I let here my suggestion. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced category

 Done Izno (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Eddyl

Eddyl has edited this page in a very contentious, politically motivated, and salacious manner; biased on opinions and not substantiated fact. There is a completely different ‘truth’ from an opposite political view; which side could also publish biased opinions as ‘facts’. Wikipedia must strive to keep their pages fact only, not unprovable opinion such as Eddyl placed in this page. Wikipedia will die if it becomes politically left or right; the public will not lose trust in the site- and that would mean the demise of Wikipedia. Please remove Eddyl’s biased edits, flag him from future edits, and return to fact only page on John Paul II. Thank you. Stopspin (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the edit being discussed above is very much not good, but it seems to be the first one on this article. I'd agree if there are further edits of a similar nature, though. Zarasophos (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Article talk pages are for discussing the article, not editors, and WP:AGF applies. If you think an editor's conduct is a problem, you can go to WP:AE or WP:AN/I, but I doubt anything would be done here, since this seems like a straightforward content dispute. --Aquillion (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Extraordinary assertion added to lede

There is a clear consensus against the inclusion of the assertion that John Paul caused up to 40 million starvation deaths. The consensus is that no non-fringe sources have been presented to support this assertion.

Cunard (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In this edit, an extraordinary claim was added to the lede, based on a single citation. I have not been able to evaluate the reliability of this source, but it seems that we need to follow WP:EXTRAORDINARY here by all means. Your input is welcome here! 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Please remove this passage from the lede, because it is insufficiently sourced: Accordingly, his lifelong efforts to prevent contraceptive access and encourage excessive population growth are estimated to have caused 30-40 million deaths due to starvation in overpopulated, underfed regions of the world. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 00:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

RFC

  • Is this assertion that John Paul caused up to 40 million starvation deaths adequately sourced: yes or no? 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No - Its based on a fringe group that is strongly anti-catholic and anti-religious. The lead is supposed to summarize the text and these claims are not included in the text. Rjensen (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - In some form in lede and amplify in sections of article that already refer to the issue. Remove "encourage excessive population growth" since he advocated rather the "rhythm method" of family planning, in spite of its unpopularity worldwide. Cardinal Wojtyła used contraception to rally Catholics in Poland against the Communist government and made defense of Humanae Vitae a mark of his papacy. Critique of the effects of this policy are abundant, as shown by the many references given here. Jzsj (talk) 07:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No - this information is controversial and not adequately sourced for the lead. It could be placed in the body, but requires more sources to balance the information. JohnThorne (talk) 06:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No – The sentence should be deleted on two grounds. Firstly, a claim of this gravity must be attributed to an adequate source. The cited source suggests this extraordinary claim comes from one person; this indicates the sentence is giving undue weight to the fringe views of one person. Secondly, even if the claim of 40 million deaths due to starvation were true, it is unencyclopedic to suggest these deaths should be attributed to one man, Pope John-Paul II. The Roman Catholic teaching on artificial contraception was firmly in place long before J-P II became Pope. Any serious analysis of large-scale loss of life, such as wars and disease epidemics, invariably acknowledges that there are many causes, and those causes are complex and sometimes inter-related. There is a child-like simplicity in any suggestion that large-scale loss of life is the fault of one person. If Wikipedia wants to link 40 million deaths to the Vatican’s position on artificial contraception over 50 years it should be in an appropriate article, but the article on J-P II is not the appropriate one. Dolphin (t) 13:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No - The claim is doubtful by itself, the source is partisan and not that good, and even if it was true it wouldn't belong in the lede. Remove. Zarasophos (talk) 09:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No - I agree-remove Eddy1 Stopspin (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Not in the lead, not with the current sourcing. It is plainly an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim and requires more than one WP:BIASED source. I recommend that anyone who wants to include it spend some time searching for additional or secondary sources to satisfy WP:DUE and consider re-wording it to include clear in-line attributions making clear where the accusation is coming from before trying again - and when they do, don't put it in the lead. I think it's possible that sufficient sources exist to mention it with more sedate wording and in-line citations in the 'Moral stances' section, where his views on contraception are mentioned (the section should perhaps be broken up or retitled.) But not in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Not in the lead - This may fit better in another section, such as in Criticism and controversy, but not in the lead per the suggestion of Aquillion. --- FULBERT (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No. For all the reasons cited above. I especially agree with Aquillion that it does not belong in the lead. At best, it is a dubious utilitarian argument against the position of the Catholic church for nearly 2000 years that is simply being targeted by one author against John Paul II because of the widespread support for contraception in modern times. In that regard, a subsection of the article dealing with the ongoing contraception issue might cite this source, but it certainly, regarding JP II, it is not particular to or significant enough to be highlighted in the lead. - Saranoon (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No WP:FRINGE, the source is highly biased is not mainstream. Until such claims are accepted by the mainstream they should not be placed in the leade espcialy in the factual manner of this edit.Zubin12 (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No certainly not on this source - any "estimate" would have to come from a far more reliable source, qualified to make such an estimate. Who actually produced the "estimate"? Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Attribution of block quoted words to Pope John Paul II (Relations with other denominations and religions: 10.8 Judaism)

It becomes clear as one reads this section that certain striking phrases and sentences are direct quotations from the Pope. In context, however, this is not clearly indicated. If other editors are agreeable, I would suggest that lead sentences be added to eliminate any uncertainty on this score.

As presently edited it remains unclear in the following example, whether the two quotations are something said by Rabbi Michael Melchior or by the Pope. The addition of a simple [lead phrase] clarifies this immediately:

- Begins -

Israeli cabinet minister Rabbi Michael Melchior, who hosted the pope's visit, said he was "very moved" by the pope's gesture.[103][104] [Among the comments made by John Paul II on this occasion were:][1][2]

It was beyond history, beyond memory.

We are deeply saddened by the behaviour of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant.

- Ends -

There are a couple more instances of such ambiguity in this section.

John Crowfoot (talk) 08:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Copyright cleanup

Content added by 67.184.212.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been removed from this article for copyright reasons. In spite of warning, the individual using this IP has persisted in copying content from copyrighted sources without compatible licensing to Wikipedia. Please do not restore any removed text without first ensuring that the text does not duplicate, closely paraphrase or plagiarize from a previously published source, whether the one cited or another (issues have been detected from other sources than those named). Based on the editing pattern of this person, we cannot make the assumption that the content is usable. You are welcome to use sourced facts that may have been removed to create new content in your own words or to incorporate brief quotations of copyrighted material in accordance with the non-free content policy and guideline. See Wikipedia:Copy-paste and Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/67.184.212.160. Thank you. --💵Money💵emoji💵💸 02:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Reference

About the reference Lee, Martin A. (14 May 2001). "The 1981 Assassination Attempt of Pope John Paul II, The Grey Wolves, and Turkish & U.S. Government Intelligence Agencies". San Francisco Bay Guardian. pp. 23, 25., I did some research and I'm not sure if Martin A Lee wrote The 1981 Assassination Attempt of Pope John Paul II, The Gray Wolves, and Turkish & U.S. Government Intelligence Agencies. Ishiai (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

signature in info box

I've removed the signature in the info box as I could find no reliable source for it. I did find that it is often used on prayer cards sold on eBay and appears to have been done by one of those auto signature machines. I've noticed signatures before on other clergy articles. It's always the case that they match items for sale on eBay but no reliable sources can be found. Bodding (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

It is based on a signature from a plaque in a cathedral: File:Signiature_of_Pope_John_Paul_II.JPG which seems to be enough evidence to authenticate it. Whether or not it is made with a machine, it is John Paul's authorized signature. As for eBay, wouldn't they commonly take the image in Commons to apply to items? It is, after all, marked Public Domain. Elizium23 (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Medjugorje comments

@Red Rose 13: persistantly includes Sister Emanuel Maillard's quotes attributed to Pope John Paul II, even though Cardinal Ratzinger refuted these claims as "mere fabrications" (frei erfunden). Since these claims are denied by Cardinal Ratzinger, there's no need to include them in the article. What's the point of mentioning them if at the end, we'll conclude that the Pope never said these things. It's like writing on the page about Holocaust that some pseudo-historians think that 6 million Jews haven't been killed, and then conclude that this claim is false. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Governor Sheng: We are trying to discuss the quote from Maillards on the Medujogorje talk page and 3 times I have asked him to be specific by copying and pasting the words that bother him and/or provide a link. And he still hasn't. I have now added another reference that backs up the quotes. Ratziner has not refuted the claims that I posted. They were said to the confidantes in private by the Pope himself and documented. Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:JP2 (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2021

I need to edit for a essay that i need to do pls HIM Anderson (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2021

Pope John Paul II’s name should appear “Saint Pope John Paul II” or at least begin with the abbreviation for saint (St.). Wikipedia does this for the other saints and John Paul II earned the same respect. He was responsible for the fall of communism and was seen in person by more people than any human in history. He forgave the man who shot him. He lived an exemplary life. You can’t use the argument that Saint isn’t part of his name because Pope isn’t either and his real name is Karol Wojtyla. I’m not trying to come across rude or argumentative, just making the case for one of my heroes to be called the title he earned. Going by the precedents already set by Wikipedia I am correct. 50.238.140.74 (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: per MOS:HON we won't be doing this. Elizium23 (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2021

In the early life or personal life section, please add that Pope John Paul II was a FC Barcelona fan. 76.103.46.252 (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Elizium23 (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Infobox image

I'm just putting this forth for any discussion but wouldn't it be wise to perhaps use another image of John Paul II for the infobox, specifically one of him when he was a bit older? The one I think could be used is the image of him in 2004 (the presidential medal image). Yes, or no? 115.64.163.13 (talk) 08:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The one that is there now is good enough - but if it were to be changed then the 2004 one would be a good idea. Lord Sidious 82 (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I don't see any reason to change the image--there is no need to go to an older one. The current photograph is roughly from the middle of his papacy, and it's a real good shot. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Patronage

of Youth 2000.--2001:A60:15FD:5C01:8CD:416:F56C:587B (talk) 09:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Image

Hi

I just would like to propose a better, more iconic image.

Thanks

  • Wikipedia's image use policies have to apply however. Is this image cleared for use here? 68.146.70.124 (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Why would we use a painting when multiple photographs are available? Huon (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Infobox image

I'm just putting this forth for any discussion but wouldn't it be wise to perhaps use another image of John Paul II for the infobox, specifically one of him when he was a bit older? The one I think could be used is the image of him in 2004 (the presidential medal image). Yes, or no? 115.64.163.13 (talk) 08:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The one that is there now is good enough - but if it were to be changed then the 2004 one would be a good idea. Lord Sidious 82 (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I don't see any reason to change the image--there is no need to go to an older one. The current photograph is roughly from the middle of his papacy, and it's a real good shot. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Patronage

of Youth 2000.--2001:A60:15FD:5C01:8CD:416:F56C:587B (talk) 09:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Image

Hi

I just would like to propose a better, more iconic image.

Thanks

  • Wikipedia's image use policies have to apply however. Is this image cleared for use here? 68.146.70.124 (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Why would we use a painting when multiple photographs are available? Huon (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Article name

What is the status of this article's name now that he's now St. John Paul II? Should it be moved to that name? 68.146.70.124 (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No, see MOS:SAINTS: Articles on popes who are also saints are titled according to the guidance in Popes above, with any necessary redirects from the forms with "Saint". For example, Pope Pius X, with redirects from Pope Saint Pius X and other forms... Also: Saints go by their most common English name, minus the word "Saint"... The article name does not need to be changed. Huon (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistent intros among popes who are also saints

If you look at the results of the following search:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Pope+Saint+&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=Search

you will see that some begin with "Pope Saint Name Number" and others begin with "Pope Name Number". In all cases I checked, "Pope Saint Name Number" is used at the top of the infobox.

Perhaps there should be some consistency? 68.165.77.30 (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree this issue merits a wider discussion, but that discussion should be held at WikiProject Catholicism, not this talk page. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2014

Please change the "Saint Pope" John Paul II to Saint John Paul II. The title Saint Pope is incorrect and not used for other Saints who have been popes. I am a Catholic and Knight of Columbus. I know. LavsNB (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I am a Catholic as well; that doesn't make me any more or less of an authority on the subject than you. "I know it to be true" is textbook original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia policies, particularly the Manual of Style as well as any consensus on relevant WikiProjects such as WikiProject Catholicism, govern this matter, and a fellow editor above has indicated that the issue you identify is inconsistently applied across articles on canonized popes. "Pope Saint" appears to be the consensus across the majority of articles I looked at, and it appears that since you made your request "Saint Pope" no longer appears on this article, so I am closing this request as Already done. —KuyaBriBriTalk 23:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Gay rights activists

I don't normally like getting into edit wars, but there is a persistent attempt being made to change this to "homosexual activists". I think the former term would now be accepted by most people as the more normal term these days. PatGallacher (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

"Gay rights" needs to be, at the absolute very least, in quotation marks, and "homosexual activists" should be maintained in the paragraph. Matthewrobertolson (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The Church would never use the phrase "gay rights". Since this is a Catholic article, that fact should be respected. Ideally, "gay rights" would be removed entirely. Matthewrobertolson (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

We follow what reliable third-party sources say, not what the Church says. This holds for all articles, "Catholic" or not. Since the activists in question campaign for gay rights, not for homosexuality per se, "gay rights activists" seems the more appropriate term. See for example ABC, which explicitly calls John Paul II's critics "gay rights activists". Huon (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with Huon. Not only is the attempt to remove "gay rights" smack of POV pushing, but it is simply the better term in decribing the activists. Calling them homosexual activists either implies 1) that they're homosexual (many gay rights advocates are not), or 2, that they're activists for homosexuality in general. Gay rights is more defined description of the activists' goals, eliminates the confusion over whether homosexual is referring to the activists themseleves or their goals, and most importantly, is the better term as reflected in RS.12.11.127.253 (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Pope John Paul II himself was a gay rights activist. He sheltered many priest-pedophiles and homosexuals from persecution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.204.58 (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

And, why should we respect the wishes of Catholics?! They certainly didn't respect the wishes of all those murdered during the Dirty War in South America or the Troubles in Northern Ireland. I thought this was supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a propaganda wank site for the US Government and its puppet states/religions. You might as well change the domain name to en.wikipedia.gov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.250.153 (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Since there are no specific examples of criticisms of John Paul's stance on Gay Rights in the article and the rest of the section repeats his positions stated earlier in the article, I propose removing this section from the article. If someone can dig up specific, notable criticisms, they should be added in order to make this paragraph relevant to the section. Wkharrisjr (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support removal. There is no useful information here to be kept. Elizium23 (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support removal. Ample time has been given for a reliable source to be provided. Since we still don't have a source, the section should be removed. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, I've removed it.01:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

"Attributes" in infobox

Crozier, Zucchetto, Ring of the Fisherman, Papal shoes and Mitre are attributes of ALL popes, or popes in general. Do we plan to include this item in the infoboxes of all 260-odd articles on popes? If not, why only this particular pope? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 11:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

No, these do not belong there. The "attributes" field is intended to explain how saints are portrayed in art, that is, saint symbolism. Now, Saint Peter and Augustine of Hippo have certain pontificalia listed as attributes, but I would not say that all these items should be included for this saint, only the ones that figure significantly in hagiographical representations. It is hard to tell exactly which attributes these are currently, because so many images of John Paul are photographs and portraits from during his lifetime. I would say that his papal ferula figures prominently - I don't know if we should call it that, or the more general crosier. As for the others, generalize them as "papal vestments" and be done. Elizium23 (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2022

As of 2014 Pope John Paul II has been declared a saint after it was found that he committed two miracles posthumously.

[3] Tinamaria17 (talk) 10:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The sainthood is covered extensively. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ 103
  2. ^ 213
  3. ^ https://www.usccb.org/offices/general-secretariat/canonization-pope-john-xxiii-and-pope-john-paul-ii

“Posthumous recognition” info box painting attribution

The painting in the “Posthumous recognition” section info box is currently incorrectly attributed to “Zbigniewa Kotyłły”. The painter’s name is actually Zbigniew Kotyłło, and the mistake here presumably resulted from someone copying the genitive form of the name from some Polish source and pasting it directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:285:8700:919A:1E9:5DF3:539A:D624 (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

ethnic polish?? so why his family name in Lithuanian means Pagan Priest Vaidila?

he just was polonized Lithuanian from his father's line 86.38.75.174 (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

According to our articles, his name means "free man" "joyous warrior". What are you talking about? Elizium23 (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2023

Please add 'John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin' to the list of institutions named after John Paul II. RomanEmpire28 (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@RomanEmpire28,  Done Silikonz💬 23:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Infobox picture

John Paul II

Stv26, please consider that the infobox picture should be a better quality image in terms how it presents its subject matter, ideally a proper staged portrait is preferred (for example like in these articles: James Baker, Barack Obama or Pope Paul VI), not an awkward cropped picture with someone in a middle a sentence and with the microphone being at center stage obstructing part of the picture. As you can see other Wikipeida articles on persons do generally follow this approach of using proper staged portrait. --E-960 (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

A nomination for change the picture or propose another one should be better instead of imposing your personal preferences. There are no free equivalent portrait pictures of JPII at the moment, so this of 1991 has good photographic quality and acceptable resolution, but if consensus decides change it I won't have any opposition. Stv26 (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Stv26, ok, so what was wrong with this image (see thumb to the right). It's better than the picture of a microphone with JPII standing behind it - not sure what's the main subject matter of the current image, the microphone or the pope (the article is about JPII, not about the microphones — [4] or [5]). --E-960 (talk) 07:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Nothing wrong but it's better make a consensus for change the picture. Stv26 (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
And the only reason because it has a microphone couldn't be the beggining for change pictures. Pope John Paul I also has got a picture with a microphone ([6]) and it doesn't matter, and has got good quality. Stv26 (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Stv26, and the image of John Paul I is also bad, it obstructs part of his face, in the infobox a portrait is optimal if one is not available, then a picture that does not have a prop obstructing the person should be used. --E-960 (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I'd just done a restoration from this picture Ritratto di papa Giovanni Paolo II (1984 – edited).jpg to give an appearence like an official portrait. Moreover I don't going to add it unless comunity decides use it in consensus. Stv26 (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Stv26 , I would support the image you propose, it is better choice for the infobox than the current one. --E-960 (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment because honestly I was working to modify it for 3 hours. But it would be better keep the current one and give other users the opportunity to comment it also and get consensus. Stv26 (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
And also in the current picture the microphone doesn't obstruct JPII's face. Rather, it appears as a complement that does not detract from the image, it is the same as if we placed the portrait in which he appears with his inseparable ferula in 1988 File:Ioannnes Paulus II, in Austria, 1988 (protected by copyright in the US and therefore not valid for the box). Also if your future comments are only for me I prefer to talk in private in my talk page because this is the one for community's discussions. Stv26 (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
@E-960, I'd made a restoration of this picture of the Library of Congress with appearence of a picture instead of a painting texture; I found a more powerful editor with which I restored the textures and removed an obsolete microphone exhibited before the throne; what do you think about? I added in the box for see it but also a link of the picture is here (Bernard Gotfryd – Pope John Paul II (1983).jpg) Stv26 (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
@E-960 please remember to see my comment. I think it'll be some important for this consensus. Thanks and best regards. Stv26 (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Stv26, the original image proposed and agreed on is optimal, this new picture has a strange overhead angle, which makes it less ideal for the more traditional images used in article infoboxes. --E-960 (talk) 07:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I support the image change. The previous image with the microphone wasn’t a great infobox image. Orson12345 (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Revisiting this, I think the info box picture needs to be changed again. The photo looks bad Gregcar1954 (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Info Box Photo (again)

I think the info box should be an official portrait, not a picture that makes him look like a celebrity Gregcar1954 (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm on the same page, it's not a very good photo Marcelus (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2023

Needs a new picture 2601:407:4100:74D0:F57F:54BA:DA8A:CF60 (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. If you have one in mind that follows WP:Image Use Policy guidelines, feel free to link to it here and reopen the request then. Cannolis (talk) 04:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Tone of Article (NPOV)

Unfortunately, this article reads more like hagiography than biography. 2600:1700:32A0:C640:4152:C02B:8BF9:9C6F (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

No surprise there, he WAS a saint... ;-) Autokefal Dialytiker (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Indeed: "the Catholic John F. Kennedy" and "Similar to Ronald Reagan, later one of good friends of his, he had experience with acting." Over-the-top hagiography.A.T.S. in Texas (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of his defence of pedophiles (or any criticism, really) in the lede of the article?

The whole thing reads like a whitewash by patriotic polish catholics. The guy had been defending pedos since the early 1970-s ffs! https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/03/07/church-sex-abuse-john-paul-poland/464bed56-bcd8-11ed-9350-7c5fccd598ad_story.html https://www.euronews.com/2023/03/07/pope-john-paul-ii-covered-up-paedophilia-polish-tv-investigation-alleges Daikido (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I added it back in. @Daikido:. KlayCax (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't, and there's plenty of information regarding claims made about JPII. Keep in mind, that there's no evidence of JPII actually covering up sex abuse. Wikipedia isn't news media. 68.232.120.241 (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

John Paul II's time of death 9:37 is incorrect! Correct time is 9:15!

After his heart stopped, machines monitored his heart for rhythm for over 20 minutes. He lived exactly 31000 days, served as pope 9666 days; 31 backwards is 13, number of mother of god, pope's second mother! 109.121.204.67 (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Source? Zpicey (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Infobox is unacceptably long

This is the most egregiously long infobox I've ever seen. There's no reason for the "ordination history" section to be there. And why should an infobox list EVERY SINGLE bishop ever ordained by him? The point of an infobox is to provide an easy way for a casual reader to find important information, and some of the bishops listed aren't even notable enough to have their own articles, so it's clearly not that important to list ALL of them. Also, infoboxes are not meant to contain information that's not also in the article, and I don't see his ordination history in the actual article. This could be fixed by just removing the whole chunk from the infobox and making it into a section with a table. Do you have any idea how long it takes to scroll down to the actual article on mobile? Zpicey (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Support. Admittedly I am relatively new to Wikipedia and its workings, but this (the bishop consecration list particularly) seems like a violation of WP:CANYOUREADTHIS, especially for mobile users. I get that not everyone uses mobile, but Wikipedia should be easily readable for everyone without trying to exclude users of different platforms. Unless the mobile web version allows a collapsible box, this should be moved to a separate section rather than part of the main infobox. I will remove the bishop consecration list, which will most likely be reverted, but this needs more attention (Bold, revert, discuss). Dantus21 (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2023

Found a piece of literature written by him not discussed in Wikipedia. It is called “crossing the threshold of hope” Kebui (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Citation 55 is very weak

Citation 55 related to Edith Zierer is excessively weak. Does not mention him or the assistance she received at all, unless there's something I was unable to find. This is not to discredit the incident, just that there should be a higher standard of citation. Was taken in 1945 when she had no idea who he was going to be or his significance.

Here's a much better one. I will allow someone else to change it so I am not involved in an edit war with someone who has override powers and an agenda. Those sort of things tend to happen when you delve into the religious sphere. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/06/world/worldspecial2/the-polish-seminary-student-and-the-jewish-girl-he.html Ba18070 (talk) 11:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope_John_Paul_II/Archive_8&oldid=1221509034"