This is an archive of past discussions about Pope John Paul II. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
What in the world is wrong with you people? You think if you write a novel, it will convince someone of your view of the person. Good grief, this page is blasphemy and makes god want to cry that he created such idiots and fascists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.116.155.130 (talk) 05:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure Karol Wotyla would have approved of your inflammatory comments comparing people exercising their freedom of speech and their independent judgment to "fascists" when he lived through Nazi repression himself. I'm also sure that he would also appreciate the fact that you are claiming to be able read the mind of God and are able to determine that God hates His own creation. Finally, this article is meant to be for a secular encyclopedia. As such, its authors should strive for a neutral tone that examines both the opinions of his critics and his supporters. It is difficult to achieve, but if you want an evaluation of his life from a Catholic perspective, then you can read it at newadvent.org. Otherwise, please keep in mind what the mission of Wikipedia is and try to have an open mind. If you think there is too much of a bias against Pope John Paul II in this article, then please explain your point in a calm, reasonable argument. Thanks.--Scyldscefing (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Solar eclipse
Under " Other Facts" it states that at his death there was solar eclipse .This is wrong .Solar eclipse happen at April 8 2005 and not at April 2 2005 .Very easy to check that at Nasa web site . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.182.153 (talk) 04:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Assassination and Bulgarian connection
I added something to balance the claim on the Bulgarian assassination attempt and it has since been [1]. The reason given was "rm OR supported only by an internal link, not an external citation of a verifiable source".
I'm a bit confused as I cited a book by Herman and Chomsky which _is_ an external citation of a verifiable source. Granted I linked to the wikipedia entry for the book which is indeed an internal link but that seems superior to adding a bibliography-style citation, adding both seems redundant.
Perhaps all details of the allegations should be moved to the main assassination attempt page rather than trying to balance it in-place.
Citing an internal link makes it look like you're citing Wikipedia itself as a source, which is (in a nutshell) bad. Feel free to add back the material which I removed, but this time formally and directly cite your supporting materials (and make sure that your cites do indeed support your additions!) Groupthink (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Making this article semi-protected
I think this article really needs to be at least semi-protected because of frequent vandalism. Many other wikipedias have already locked it. --Visconsus (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Being as the process of canonization (as opposed to informal acclamation) is relatively new in the Catholic church, one would think that the degree of uncertainty is too small to seriously cloud the claim that JP2 has more canonizations than his predecessors combined. Can we at least have a source for this claim, as it is given far more prominence (1/6 of the lead!) than the (by far) mainstream view. Savidan02:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick adjustment
John Paul II, Karol Wojtyla, was technically the middle child, not the youngest of three. He had an older brother, but his younger sister died along with his mother, while his mother was giving birth to her. That's all... 1corwin (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
"Criticism section"
"Many gay-rights activists and others criticized him for maintaining the Church's unbroken opposition to homosexuality and same-sex marriage."
Do we really need such ridiculous, gay marriage apologetics on every single page to do with Catholicism? Its really boring and beyond the joke to include it here. So John Paul II did not try to change the long standing scripture of the Church to facilitate "gay marriage". This is not at all remarkable to anybody who has read scriputre or are at all familiar with Christian beliefs. In nearly 2000 years the Catholic Church has not advocated gay marriage and isn't likely to do so anytime soon. On every gay marriage activist related article should we have "____ was critised by many Catholic activists, as the scripture of the Catholic Church contradicts the idea of "homosexual marriage". This is a view also shared by most of the world's mainstream religions". - Yorkshirian (talk) 10:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Your petulant outburst is what is 'ridiculous'. As this pope was very active in campaigning against gay marriage it is only right that reactions to this stance are recorded here. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
263rd or 264th
In this document it states that JP2 was both the 263rd (at outset) then further down it states 264th. Could someone clarify. MQ (03/08/08) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.72.215 (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Kissing a Koran is not "islamophilia". Is kissing a spouse "spousiphilia"? or kissing a hand "handophilia"? Yes, he kissed a Koran. But he did a lot of things in his lifetime and we only have room for so much. Kissing a book is not exactly a notable part of his life. Farsight001 (talk) 04:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Second longest or third longest papacy?
The article states in the first paragraph that JP2's 27-yr reign was 2nd longest after Pius IX's 32-yr reign. A May 2008 article in Time magazine stated that his was the 3rd longest reign, but does not specify those that were longer. Can somebody give an authoritative answer?
I suspect they are allowing for St Peter's papacy being longer. There are no reliable dates for Peter so historians can't be certain it exceeded 32 years. However, since Peter was probably quite a young man when he became Pope its not improbable that his Papacy was longer than Pius IX's. JP2's papacy is thus the second-longest on record. Perhaps its worth clarifying this in the article? ANB (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
What constitutes valid criticism?
To echo Eleland's observation on the removal of another critical item, i wonder if perhaps conservative catholics are a little touchy about this page? The following was added by Groupthink on 23rd Sept this year, and has stood uncriticised until 71.215.243.13 decided to remove it without comment.
I reinstated it as being an unjustified, anonymous deletion, at which Anietor redeleted it, saying "Agree this should be removed. Speculative, never any evidence presented. Based on doctor's observations of JP on tv?!?"
Googling this event does return much pro Rome gainsaying, but I would hold that the criticism stands as just that - criticism.
Anietor then proceeded to delete the criticism on John Paul II's papacy spread of an unproven belief that condoms do not block the spread of HIV that has stood since it's referenced date in June 2005.
Some editors are intent on removing the following language:
Claims were made that John Paul II's papacy spread an unproven belief that condoms do not block the spread of HIV; critics have blamed this for contributing to AIDS epidemics in Africa and elsewhere in which millions have died.[2]
First they insisted it "lacked objectivism," which I preume was meant to refer to "objectivity". Then it was claimed that the cited article does not refer to the Pope specifically, but rather to the church generally. It contains the language "No one can compute how many people have died of Aids as a result of Wojtyla's power...But it is reasonable to suppose...deaths at his hand would match that of any self-respecting tyrant or dictator," which is an odd way to not refer to the Pope. Finally it has been branded as a mere "rumour" or "conspiracy theory" which is not "bona-fide" and "well-documented".
Google News archive lists 1,720 articles containing "John Paul," "condoms," and "AIDS". For example:
Top Catholics question condom ban: With pope's death, clergy speaking up in the International Herald Tribune on 16 April 2005: "Now that the iron rule of Pope John Paul II over the Catholic Church has ended, a number of high-ranking church officials are starting publicly to question the Vatican's longstanding prohibition on condoms, in the hopes that it can be modulated under a new papacy.The tears of grief and calls for sainthood for John Paul have left scant room for mention of his most controversial position: his absolute opposition to the use of condoms to prevent the transmission of HIV, a stance that doctors and health activists say has led to countless deaths and millions of AIDS orphans in Africa and Latin America."
Now, apologists may not like these criticisms, but they're well documented, bona fide, and highly significant. So stop canning them. <eleland/talkedits> 20:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I have rewrote and slightly expanded the section, using top-quality news sources (Washington Post, IHT, Deutsche Welle) rather than editorials. All of the language comes directly from the sources and discusses JP2 specifically rather than the Church position generally. <eleland/talkedits> 21:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Refering to JP as a "tyrant or dicator" is your idea of objective? That's too obvious to spend more time commenting on. And just because a google search of his name with condoms and AIDS results in multiple hits doesn't mean it's not a conspiracy theory. In fact, I just randomly typed in "John Paul" and "9/11" and got half a million hits. Draw your own conclusions...you get ridiculous hits for any random entries you put in Google. I think editors are correct to be skeptical of entries that include language such as "claims were made" and "critics have blamed". As has been pointed out by several editors, it is speculation, POV, OR...and you yourself admit that the article doesn't even refer to the pope specifically. There is obviously a whole lot of crossover between the RC Church and the Pope, but what you are trying to do is quite a bit of far-reaching OR, to say the least. --Anietor (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Did you read the sources I provided? You didn't apparently read my edits, where the words "tyrant" or "dictator" did not appear. JP2's stance on condoms was harshly criticized by AIDS groups. That's not some "speculation" or some isolated, cherry-picked criticism, but one of the most significant controversies of his papacy. If you're Catholic, and this offends you, I'm sorry. It stays in the article. <eleland/talkedits> 22:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Not sure why you think you get to decide what stays and what doesn't, Eleland. Your edits need to be modified. It's not a question of whether the subject is material..I agree with you it is. But your language is a bit POV and goes beyond a neutral explanation. So it doesn't stay in the article unless it is improved. --71.167.76.13 (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Referencing is an absolute defense against POV accusations. Otherwise, people could cry foul over labeling Stalin a "genocidal dictator" or Gacy a "sociopathic mass murderer". You're the one biased here, Anietor, and if you keep this up, you'll probably wind up being blocked for violating WP:3RR. Groupthink (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
How is referencing an absolute defense against POV? If you reference a POV blog, for instance, it very well may be a POV edit. Just because you cited something doesn't mean the entry in the article is not POV. What matters is what your source is, and whether the edit itself is neutral. Referencing is certainly required, but it's a separate issue from neutrality. The distinction between POV and reliable sources is important. I suggest you review WP:POV and WP:REF. And in this case, nobody is advocating removing any substantive material. Rather, the suggest is to replace vague and potentially POV terms such as "took a hard line position against" to the more accurate and neutral term "opposed." --Anietor (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite familiar with WP:POV and WP:REF, thank you. I didn't say "referencing is an absolute defense against POV". What I said was "referencing is an absolute defense against POV accusations", meaning that if text is backed up by verifiable, reliable references, you can't say that it advocates a biased viewpoint. And you have matters backwards: You're the one pushing a POV by advocating the removal of clear language consistent with the references sited and replacing it with vague text. Groupthink (talk) 06:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Due to edit-warring. Please, folks, discuss the matter here on the talk page before indulging in reversion to your own version. Anyone who wishes to make changes right now can use the {{editprotected}} template and a neutral admin can review the changes and change the article accordingly. But please, try to achieve consensus here. When you're done, just place a request on my talk page or WP:RPP and we can review the page protection and lift it if necessary - Alison❤00:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I have absolutely no interest in whatever version is protected here - it is arbitrary - and note that this revision does not absolve any editors from discussing the issues here and coming to agreement - Alison❤01:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for the protection. I was the editor that requested it, even though the protected version is not what I view as the best of the back-and-forths. But hopefully there will now be some reasoned discussions about it. --Anietor (talk) 04:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Death section
A crowd of over two million within Vatican City, over one billion Catholics world-wide, and many non-Catholics mourned John Paul II. The Poles were especially devastated by his death.
The over one billion Catholics statement isn't particularly useful in the paragraph and the rest of the paragraph should just be removed full stop.
That is to say that section that I've italicised should be changed to:
A crowd of over two million within Vatican City, over one billion Catholics world-wide mourned John Paul II.
or
A crowd of over two million present in Vatican City mourned the death of John Paul II.
I agree that the one billion figure is out of place. To be clear, is the two million figure referring to how many people were in Vatican City during the funeral, or is it a broader time period? That might be clarified as well. If it refers to the funeral, perhaps something further streamlined like
A crowd of over two million people was present in Vatican City for the funeral of John Paul II.
Done I picked the second-to-last one since we're not sure if it's referring to the funeral or after at this point. Wizardman04:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Crush at the Vatican
There is something seriously wrong with the figure of "over 2 million people present in Vatican City".
Vatican City covers an area of 0.44 square kilometers = 440,000 square meters, so if there were 2 million people in it, there would be 4.5 people per square meter. And this is supposing the Vatican was a clear space instead of being filled with various substantial buildings. The Corriere della Sera (8 April 2005) calculated 280,000, or perhaps 600,000 or up to a million counting the overflow in the streets beyond Saint Peter’s Square. (“Centinaia di migliaia di fedeli hanno affollato il sagrato: circa 280 mila, secondo le stime. Ma erano 600 mila, forse un milione secondo altre valutazioni, considerando anche la folla che strabordava ben oltre Piazza San Pietro e via della Conciliazione.”)Can we alter the entry accordingly? Campolongo (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
One of the references[3] to the numbers, from the 'BBC' website states:
“More than a quarter of a million watched the event from within the Vatican walls. A further 800,000 followed the funeral live on huge television screens across the capital, where 600 priests circled among the believers, distributing hosts. Some 30,000 young pilgrims took part from a vast reception centre set up on the outskirts of Rome. And yet, hours after the funeral had ended, many of the estimated four million pilgrims who had thronged the streets had already disappeared - whisked to stations in special buses.″
So as I understand it, the figures according to this source were 250,000 - 300,000 within the Vatican walls, approximately 4,000,000 total in the City of Rome. Marek.69 talk14:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Online beatifications?
He beatified 1,340 people (many online over the Internet, some listed here) ....
Is this actually the case? Is it vandalism? Source? Or is it trying to say that many details of these beatifications can be located on the internet? -- JackofOz (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Given that beatifications cannot occur over the Internet, I took this to mean that details can be found online. As this information is true for just about any fact, I don't think it's really necessary, so I rephrased the sentence to link to the WP list of beatifications. Can-Dutch (talk) 03:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I removed the Franco reference by St. Josemaría (and fixed the typo on his name) because of it's being unnecessary and doubtful until proven.
I moved the jimmyakin.org link to a ref, as external links in the middle of a paragraph clutter it, and I couldn't see any way to merge it into the text in a way that makes it seem natural and related.
Sorry Phil, I didn't realise. I will leave this link as it is. By the way, I didn't revert your edit, or rather didn't mean to revert. I think we were both editing the same section of the article at the same time (your edit 20:01, my edits 20:02, 20:03) Sorry for any confusion. Marek.69 talk23:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Having a look...
Hi, I was having a look to give this a bit of a copyedit for flow, and I was going to place some notes here:
His mother died on 13 April 1929, when he was just eight years old. The young Karol was in school when it happened, and his father, Karol Wojtyła senior, came to give him the sad news.[5] Karol's elder sister died in infancy, so he never knew her.
are the bits I have bolded really necessary? They don't really add much for me. I wouldn't worry normally but it is a pretty long article (and I presume they are in daughter article). I'd reword to something like:
His mother died on 13 April 1929, when Karol was just eight years old, and his elder sister died in infancy
I guess my game plan would be to make sure you had everything you wanted in or out first, then begin copyediting. I did a bit but it is generally not a good idea to get too carried away with copyediting before the content is more or less settled. I know little about wht should be in or not so I will come back later. Good luck. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
This sentence "John Paul II was pope during a period in which the Catholic Church's influence declined in developed countries, but expanded in the Third World." is incorrect I think and needs a reference if it is to stay. I did the Catholic Institutions section on Roman Catholic Church page and the Catholic presence has increased in developed countries as well as third world countries outpacing population growth 139% to 117%. The reference I used is the same one used by all major newspapers when reporting on church statistics. The source says that the church presence increased even in developed countries but not as much as in third world countries. See "Froehle, Bryan; Mary Gautier (2003). Global Catholicism, Portrait of a World Church. Orbis books; Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, Georgetown University. ISBN157075375x Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: invalid character."
The lead does not adequately summarize the article and identify why he was an important pope. He had an impact on the world at large in many ways, one of them was the downfall of communism [3] and improved relations with Jews and Protestants.
The last paragraph in the lead goes into too much detail on his cannonizations which could just be a sentence. The lead needs to be expanded to fully summarize the article, see WP:Lead for guidelines.
The article does not adequately address the importance of his efforts to reconcile the Church with various communities like the Jews for instance. This is one of his greatest legacies.
I think it would be an improvement to address how American nuns came together and fought against him because of his decision against women's ordination. The feminists painted him as archaic and sexist but that is not how most Catholics saw him - to them he was a prayerful man who came to this decision after prayerfully considering the matter and determined that the Church follow the example of Jesus who chose only men for priests and taught that the women had different duties that were not considered to be less important.
I am available to provide refs for this article if you need them. I can also help with structure and prose if you want my help. I am currently entertaining out of town guests and will be a bit scarce on Wikipedia for a little while. I will come see the page over time and offer suggestions if I can think of anything else. Have fun! NancyHeisetalk21:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Wording for lead
I suggest use the following wording (or a version of it) for the second paragraph of the lead:
It is POV. We don't see people are "great leaders" - no doubt some people think he was terrible. "stage of world politics" is a cliché. credited need "by whom" and why should we put in the plaudits and praise and not some criticism too.--Scott Mac (Doc)21:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The article is bland without either the praise or criticism and it should include both. The lead needs to tell Reader why he was praised and by whom as well as why he was criticized and by whom. Praises include:
defeating communism
envigorating the Church
reconciliation with Jews and protestants
numerous apologies for past wrongs commited by Christians and even the Church
fighting the immorality of the sexual revolution by his teachings of the theology of the body and on women mulierus dignitatum
fighting against (and winning) liberal Church theologians
Criticisms include the same things he is praised for, for instance, feminists and liberals within and without the Church criticized his stand on women priests. All of this could be summarized with maybe a couple of sentences in the lead and are easy to reference. NancyHeisetalk00:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
What if we throw in something about criticism, to try to limit POV objections:
“John Paul II is widely acclaimed as one of the great leaders of the twentieth century, who played a pivotal role on the stage of world politics.[4] He has been credited with being instrumental in bringing down communism in Eastern Europe,[5][6][4][7] as well as significantly improving the Roman Catholic Church's relations with Judaism, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and Anglican Churches.[9]” As with any notable figure, criticisms have been made against John Paul II's views in many areas, including ordination of women and his stance on the sanctity of marriage.
I realise I'm probably not the most un-biased writer, so this undoubtably needs rephrasing.
In reference to this same idea of criticism, the other route to take would be to be positive in the lead, and leave criticisms for later, although I admit that may not be the most impartial option.
Can-Dutch (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
(quick edit of line about ecumenism for clarity .. the parallel structure was broken/awkward) Can-Dutch (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, those criticisms are not very widespread. At least the women's ordination one isn't outside a minority of ex-nuns and former female gym teachers. The biggest criticisms of JP2 have been:
Stance on marriage/birth control
Mishandling of the sex abuse scandal
Watering down of the US Liturgy/Spirit of Vatican 2 BS
John Paul II is widely acclaimed as one of the great leaders of the twentieth century, who played a pivotal role on the stage of world politics.[4] He has been credited with being instrumental in bringing down communism in Eastern Europe,[5][6][4][7][8] as well as significantly improving the Roman Catholic Church's relations with Judaism,[10] the Eastern Orthodox Church, and Anglican Churches.[9] As with any notable figure, criticisms have been made against John Paul II's views in many areas, including ordination of women, a perceived "watering-down" of the Liturgy in the United States, and his stance on the sanctity of marriage.
I didn't include the abuse scandals, as I think most people are already aware of that anyway, and something as highly controversial as that should perhaps be left out of the lead, and given to space where there's more room for details and fair phrasing.
Can-Dutch (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I like "dilution", or maybe "weakening", "diminishing of the quality of" or "softening" ... something along those lines? Can-Dutch (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Another thought ... turn the "watering-down" bit into "...women, support for Vatican II and its effect on the Liturgy in the United States..."; or maybe that without "its effect on the Liturgy..." Can-Dutch (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, how's this for the last line?
As with any notable figure, criticisms have been made against John Paul II's views in many areas, including ordination of women, a perceived ‘dilution’ of the Liturgy in the United States, his stance on the sanctity of marriage, together with the fact that he would not compromise his ‘hard-line’ stance on certain issues, such as contraception.[11]
I'm probably just being picky, but "dilution" just doesn't sound right, somehow. What if we go around the wording thus:
As with any notable figure, criticisms have been made against John Paul II's views in many areas, including ordination of women, his support for Vatican II and its effect on the Liturgy in the United States, his stance on the sanctity of marriage, and his uncompromising position on issues such as contraception.[11][12]
Yes, I think that reads a lot better than the last version.
Regards the line 'and its effect on the Liturgy in the United States' - I think there needs to be something here to clarify specifically what he was being criticised for, otherwise it may come across as they (the critics) were against all aspects of Vatican II. Maybe, just shorten it to 'and its effect on the Liturgy' - or is that too vague? Marek.69 talk02:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's better. Here's the latest:
John Paul II is widely acclaimed as one of the great leaders of the twentieth century, who played a pivotal role on the stage of world politics.[4] He has been credited with being instrumental in bringing down communism in Eastern Europe,[4][5][6][7][8] as well as significantly improving the Roman Catholic Church's relations with Judaism,[10] the Eastern Orthodox Church, and Anglican Churches.[9] As with any notable figure, criticisms have been made against John Paul II's views in many areas, including ordination of women, his support for Vatican II and its effect on the Liturgy, his stance on the sanctity of marriage, and his uncompromising position on issues such as contraception.[11][12]
Any last suggestions...?
The text sounds good now. It includes both praise and criticism for balance.
I'll just add a couple of points: I've changed the format of some of the citations, so the ones in the article are most up-to-date.
The other thing is in the text in the article, the phrase ‘He has been credited’ has a {{who}} template added after it, with a edit summary of ‘need to name someone here’ by User:Scott MacDonald.
The persons who have credited him with the fall of communism are named in the citations; Mikhail Gorbachev, Timothy Garton Ash, (an Oxford University historian), Henry Kissinger, Margaret Thatcher. Do we have list them in the lead, or is it sufficient to have them in the citations? Marek.69 talk12:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed with "influential". Consider using "contentious" to describe the activies which drew criticism, rather than the "criticisms have been made" statement which sounds unideal (to say nothing of passive voice). Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
What about this, then, to incorporate these last two suggestions?
John Paul II is widely acclaimed as one of the most influential leaders of the twentieth century, who played a pivotal role on the stage of world politics.[4] He has been credited with being instrumental in bringing down communism in Eastern Europe,[4][5][6][7][8] as well as significantly improving the Roman Catholic Church's relations with Judaism,[10] the Eastern Orthodox Church, and Anglican Churches.[9] As with any notable figure, John Paul II held contentious views in many areas, including ordination of women, his support for Vatican II and its effect on the Liturgy, his stance on the sanctity of marriage, and his uncompromising position on issues such as contraception.[11][12]
I added "most" before "influential" as it sounded like it needed another word in there to flow correctly. Also, I'm not sure I like the way the "contentious" part reads as is; we could either live with passive voice or it needs a rephrasing. Can-Dutch (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I am also not sure about the way the "contentious" part reads. I think the wording was easier to understand (for the average reader + me) using simpler language like critics and criticism. Marek.69 talk17:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
John Paul II is widely acclaimed as one of the most influential leaders of the twentieth century, who played a pivotal role on the stage of world politics.[4] He has been credited with being instrumental in bringing down communism in Eastern Europe,[4][5][6][7][8] as well as significantly improving the Roman Catholic Church's relations with Judaism,[10] the Eastern Orthodox Church, and Anglican Churches.[9] As with any notable figure, various critics have found fault with John Paul II for his views in many areas, including ordination of women, his support for Vatican II and its effect on the Liturgy, his stance on the sanctity of marriage, and his uncompromising position on issues such as contraception.[11][12]
I tried to reword the criticism sentence, as it was rather convoluted. Also, it seemed to state that he supported items such as the ordination of women; hopefully I cleared that up. Can-Dutch (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I know it is tempting to make an article a magnum opus but be very careful. I have not learnt my lesson on three occasions, taking a mega-article to FAC (lion, vampire, and major depressive disorder), and it is very difficult, often there is a call the article is too long, and one can get very unhappy with rapid reduction techniques. This article is blessed with some daughter articles, so make sure they are utilised. The more that there is to read, the more reviewers can find wrong. Anyway, you may want to make the article a bit shorter than it is now and have more in subarticles would be my advice. Casliber (talk·contribs) 19:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I haven't really really added that much text in the last week or so. I've been working on the citations in order to have them in a standard format. I suppose that that adds Kb to the article as well. I accept your point on the length - I'll give it some thought on how to rework it, with maybe the fine details going into the daughter articles as you suggest. (Are there any guidelines about length somewhere?) Any suggestions on how to achieve this goal would be appreciated. Marek.69 talk02:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Opinion
This is a very good article. The length is needed to cover adequately the life of our Pope. He was Pope for 27 years - please compare this to most world leaders. My opinion is that the authors have made a good job of keeping it short and at the same time covering important issues. You could add more about his first trip home to Poland as Pope and the feeling of the people, and of the effect on Poland. The parts on his effect on communism are understated. This section needs to be expanded with more quotation from world leaders, past and present, and put into a more prominent position. This will be his most memorable accomplishment for the world.
Why is this not a Good Article?? MaciejKudra (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Please compare to other languages where it is a featured article MaciejKudra (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree ... I was thinking about putting it up for review as a "good" article as soon as we're done reworking the lead. Can-Dutch (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you nominated and then un-nominated the article (although the link still exists at WP:GAN); where can I find the comments on the review? Or, what caused you to withdraw the nomination? I haven't done a Good Article nomination before, and am a bit lost. Thanks! Can-Dutch (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear Friends, I thought I had done good edits and I tried to help but unfortunatly I have recieved unpleasant messages. This is why I withdraw this with my name on it. I will try to help you Can-Dutch with wording and information from my books, but maybe I take some time first to think. MaciejKudra (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
On a similar note, do you think we should put the article up for Peer review, before we nominate for GA, and if so, when? -- Marek.69 talk02:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd say wait until after all of our "tidying up", as you so nicely phrased it, is done. Also, if the Catholicism Collaboration turns out to be useful, then maybe we won't need a general Peer Review until we go for featured. Can-Dutch (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I sound a bit negative, but I don't think the article is quite ready for nomination just yet. I'm still checking the facts against the citations and references. Time has been scarce recently. Some of the text needs a bit of 'tweaking' so that it reads better. Certain parts could do with your ‘magic touch', Can-Dutch, as you appear to be very good at prose and getting the wording just right. The references section is also a bit untidy - I've started on this and I will format the rest as soon as I have a bit of time. I do not think we should hurry into nominating just yet, when there is still a bit of tidying up to do. Marek.69 talk02:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. I was hoping to find time this weekend to look at some of the smaller details. I was mainly wondering if there were some specific details that stopped the nomination, so I could spend some time on them. I do agree, though, that we should spend some more time toying with it before nominating. In terms of specifics, I'd rather spend time with grammar and such (on a side note, have we agreed on the British variants?) than with references, although I could look for a couple on sections that appear to be in need. In terms of a "standard" format for refs, I could help if you describe it, or if you have something in mind, I'd be inclined to let you run with it. Thanks for the compliment, by the way :) Can-Dutch (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The ‘standard’ formatting of references I was referring to was to use the {{cite book}} and {{cite web}} templates. I have finished doing the ‘notes’ section (checking each external link, adding extra info and using the appropriate template). I takes up a lot of time though. I've only just started on the 'references' section, but will continue on with it. When I first started on the article, it was a mixture of American English, British English and unknown English spellings, mainly British spelling, so I decided to convert the remaining to British. I agree with the other user comments that some sections need additional information added. There are some sections I would like to expand, but bearing in mind Casliber's comments on article length, I am giving that one some more thought as to how to proceed. For the moment I will continue checking the facts against the citations & references. Marek.69 talk13:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Do you think that all the info in the Further reading section, i.e Meditations and philosophy, Plays by John Paul II, Poetry by John Paul II, Albums by John Paul II, Biographies of Pope John Paul II, Literature about his thought are all necessary to have here? They're basically just lists of books. Maybe create a new daughter article(s) from these? (Leaving only the books were citing from, copied into 'References')
I'm going through the Biography sections now, trying to move the small details into the daughter articles.
Is the story about Zierer necessary in the main article? I'd suggest leaving the line about how he helped Jews escape from the Nazis, but having the specific anecdote in the "Early Life" article. Can-Dutch (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of further reading sections myself. If he wrote alot, place them in a list on another page. Agree about keeping the above anecdote. I just woke up. Not sure how much time I have free but I will drop some notes later. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, do you agree about keeping it in the main article or the daughter? Also, I'm working through the bishop section, but it was pretty convoluted, so I may have accidentally deleted something important. Can-Dutch (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I've done quite a bit of pruning: Transferred all of the info in the Further reading section to new daughter article: Pope John Paul II - Further Reading (I've had a proposal to merge this with existing article Cultural references to Pope John Paul II, which I think is logical, so will do that next). I've cut some unnecessary text and a couple of photos which weren't really adding much to the article. I've taken out the last paragraph of Honours and namesakes and integrated into Cultural references to Pope John Paul II. I've also copied over most of the remaining text from this section, so just need to trim down the remaining text now. Also done some layout work to make it fit together better. I think article is more of a manageable size now. -- Marek.69 talk03:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
My only concern would be that that would create a fairly large article, but the idea makes sense and I would say go with it, as it joins most of the "extra" information into one place. Also, when I get time, I'll keep going through the various Bio sections. Also, is it just me, or does the organisation under "Bishop and Cardinal" seem "off"? That is, I think maybe his Papacy should get its own major heading, and include health, death, etc. under that, and make Bishop and Cardinal a subheading under "Biography":
You're absolutely right. I've added the extra section title 'Papacy' - (I was changing the photos and graphics layout around there, anyway) Marek.69 talk00:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Can-Dutch, I reinserted the quote at the end of 'A Pope from Poland' - It helps to break up the section from 'Assassination attempts' and I think adds a little personal info. Marek.69 talk00:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, I was wondering about those, and I did like the personal touch. It just seemed a bit out of place in terms of content. If I come across another one, I'll post it here. Can-Dutch (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't personally have any problems with the idea, but some may object to moving the negative details out. It would be fair, though, given that it's what's been done to the other sections. Can-Dutch (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
It's a hard one. I can see where you are coming from. I can see cases for both leaving and shortening and making a daughter article. I am happy to go with consensus on this one. Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
It would certainly help reduce the length of article, the Criticism section is one one the longest sections on the page. -- Marek.69 talk04:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
As most of these allegations are very strong without references, I would propose that this part of the "Criticism" section be removed until (if?) there are references:
John Paul II has also scandalized many faithful Catholics with the following, though not extensive, list of actions:
Invited pagans to worship demons on sacred church ground (Assisi meetings)[citation needed], called for St. John the Baptist to protect Islam[citation needed], kissed the Qur’an which the Franciscan proto-martyrs refused to kiss, had scantly clad women appear before him in performance (circus performers)[citation needed], kissed the ring of pro-abortionist “bishop” (Anglican bishop) Rowan Williams, stated that schismatics can become martyrs (a stark contrast with traditional Catholic teaching stating that a martyr must witness to the Catholic faith), etc.[citation needed] These scandalous activities have had no apologies attached to them which further intensifies their disgracefulness against the Catholic faith and morals.[citation needed] They are also largely ignored among Catholics in favour of the cult of personality that surrounds John Paul II.[citation needed]
I think that, especially because this is a section noting criticisms of a prominent world leader, references should be very necessary before information is included, to prevent misleading those who might read it and not understand the [citation needed] template as detailing information that may or may not be true. Can-Dutch (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I've put this on your own talk page as I didn't see there was a section for it on this page, but I'll repeat myself so everyone else can see - reckon mentioning his being first pope to visit Mexico is as worthy of inclusion as first pope to visit UK. I'll make the change and you can always revert. Hadrian89 (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments Hadrian, I do see your point. Maybe I over-trimmed this section. I've put some text back and re-worded to include Mexico, Poland and Ireland as his first ‘first-trips’ as well as UK. The paragraph now reads:
‘While some of his trips (such as to the United States and the Holy Land) were to places previously visited by Pope Paul VI, many others were to places that no pope had ever visited before, including Mexico in January 1979, before going to Poland for the first time as Pope, as well as Ireland later that year. He was the first reigning pope to travel to the United Kingdom, in 1982,[13] where he met Queen Elizabeth II’
I saw several edits and reverts regarding this. While I do not have any intention of participating in this matter, I think it is best if it is settled in discussion before editing the article. What I know is that the page linked to the word "third longest" contradict with the linked article. As far as I understand, St. Peter is not included in the list at all, and from what I read somewhere, he is excluded from the list of "longest reign" by the Roman Catholic Church per the linked article. I don't have any idea if this if official from the Roman Catholic Church themselves. Please correct me if I am wrong/misunderstood. w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The linked Wikipedia page is totally uncited at this moment in time, so cannot be used as a reliable source of reference. St Peter was the longest reigning pope according to Roman Catholic tradition, although there are no agreed dates for his reign. Since we cannot provide exact dates to prove this, I suppose we have to leave him out and say that John Paul II was the second longest.
We could add an explanation of this, but I think it could make this line a bit ‘long-winded’
I've done a quick search for references to this fact, here a a few: (trying to exclude Wikipedia articles, mirror sites and copies)
I'm not sure if we should change any of the wording, in view of the above information, to clarify why it is stated as second and not third -- Any thoughts on this?
I think explanations should be added to the linked page (List of popes by length of reign), not in here. I am sure people will be tempted to click the link (well, at least I did). Now, the question is whether Roman Catholic Church officially includes St. Peter in the list of longest reigning popes. If it is, then we should modify John Paul II to third longest. As a Roman Catholic myself, I was taught years ago that St. Peter is the longest reigning pope in Catechism, but that can be classified as Original Research. I've tried vatican website, but there is no sort of list of the longest reigning pope.
I saw a plaque in Westminster Cathedral (Roman Catholic Cathedral), London, with the names of the popes and the year of their reign, matched with the names of Archbishop of Westminster (looks like something like this, but with the start of pontificate date stated [4]). I cannot recall about St. Peter's pontificate year on that plaque, but I am sure it can be used as a source (correct me if I am wrong). w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Olga Wojtyła
Hello, is it really necessary to mention in the article that she had died four days after her birth? I think this could be shortened to say that she had died before Karol Wojtyła was born, or perhaps that she died shortly after birth. I just think that the current text is somewhat distracting. LovesMacs (talk)03:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I've been looking, but I can't find a source for the use of "the Great" in then-Cardinal Ratzinger's homily at the funeral Mass. I found the official Vatican page, but searches on the pages with text from the homily don't show his use of the phrase.
Unfortunately, the section as a whole is rather under-referenced. I realise that the title is in general usage, but I think some actual quotes from B16 or other sources would improve this section quite a bit.
Hi Can-Dutch, you're right, the reference is a little indirect: the wording is "Dear brothers and sisters, after the great Pope, John Paul II, the cardinals have elected me, a simple and humble worker in the Lord's vineyard."
Done I picked the second-to-last one since we're not sure if it's referring to the funeral or after at this point. Wizardman 04:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tafel_paepste.jpg){kind=link}