Talk:Pope John Paul II/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Regarding section 1.6, Death

According to the content, "several Italian media agencies reported the Pope's death at 20:20 CEST (18:20 UTC)..." This is located "under" April 2, 2005. However, I am certain that this occurred on April 1, 2005, instead. The media did not "claim that the pope died" right before his actual death. Some other content in that same paragraph may also have occurred on April 1. --Super-Magician 00:51, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I have just confirmed this, as well as some info in the previous paragraph(s), as you will see (in section 13.2, Death) by clicking the following link to one of my previous edits.

Edit by Super-Magician, as of 20:25, 2 Apr 2005

Can someone edit it for me? I cannot at this time, once again due to constant editing by others. --Super-Magician 00:58, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Will do. (Now done.) —Brent Dax 01:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Official cause of death

The official cause of death was released today by the Vatican. Has this been incorporated into the article yet? --Super-Magician 01:15, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Now it has. —Brent Dax 06:44, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article Protection

Apologies to my recent edit, it appears I accidentally copied some of the start of the article, weird, damage undone - Thirdvertigo

Could you please revert times to UTC. Thanks.

Due to the breaking news of the pope's death, this article is being edited more than five times a minute. Although I understand everyone's rush to edit, should the article be protected, at least until the adrenaline has dropped?

Also, would someone please place the following message box at the top of the article? I am having trouble adding it due to the multiple edits.

-Super-Magician 20:56, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Done, --SqueakBox 22:36, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. The only edit I would like to see restored is at the end of the death paragraph, about the time:

On 2 April, 2005 in his private apartments, at 19:37 UTC (21:37 CET), the Pope died at the age of 84. Evertype 22:14, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

• Why not simply move the existing interwiki link to the Wikinews article, which has the news, to the top of the page if you want a prominent notice in a box at the top of the article? Uncle G 22:16, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

I would like to remove the word 'Hitler' from his title. It seems bizarre that edit protection prevents me from doing this but allowed some prankster to put the word there in the first place. Something is wrong with the edit protection, I think. user:DavidFarmbrough 2nd April 2005

• m:The Wrong Version has been protected yet again, has it? ☺ Uncle G 22:58, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. It is outr ability to react to current events that gives us an edge over other encyclopedias. This page was asked to be protected at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection with no consensus. This debate has been bypassed. Please release now, --SqueakBox 22:18, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

I hate to disagree, Squeakbox, and respect your logic, whatever it may be. But the mere fact that vandals are taking their time to disrespectfully make fun of someone who has meant so much to a large part of the world, grants the page protection, at least until the vandals can be shooed away. "Antonio Vandal Scarecrow Martin" 16:02 PM (MST), Apr 2, 2005

And lots of others just want to put in good stuff. We do need admins to block any vandals, and people to revert, that is hoiw wikipedia should deal with any vandalism; there are admins who support my view, --SqueakBox 22:32, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

As I said, I respect your view. The only thing that messes this page are the mean spirited vandals. I was just hoping that evberyone could show respect to at least this man. Say, Saddam BHussein and Osama Bin Laden, both of whom I hate, die, I wpouldnt put anything disrespecftul on their biographies, out of respect to those that liked them. "Antonio Hendrix Martin"

Realistically an Encyclopedia is not a source of breaking news. You use it for research. As such it is best for us to wait a little bit so that everything can be handled in a professional mannor. Lotu 02:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Past tense

Since he's officially dead ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4399715.stm ), would it be appropriate to start changing the tense of the article when mentioning him or his pontificate?

The Next Pope

I put in a couple more Cardinals who've been thought of as papaible. The list might be a little too European - because some think it won't be a European. My concern is that we don't do too much predicting of who will be the next Pope. Right now that is one huge question mark. We won't know until we see the white smoke coming out of the chimney. Time and time again the conclave has made surprising choices. Karol Wojtyla wasn't expected to become Pope by the outside world, in fact he was a compromise candidate after the two main Italian candidates caused the conclave to deadlock. And those Cardinals who get too confident, it is said "He who enters the conclave as pope, leaves it as a cardinal."
JesseG 23:53, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Someone has started an article on Papal Election of 2005 (decapitalise "Election" perhaps?) so I think it would be best to move speculation there, if we agree that the article should exist. Given that it's not an election in the usual political sense, with campaigning and various public controversies etc., I wonder how much material we can produce for such an article. Maybe it should just be a short section in the article on the next pope, like the '78 election is in this one. I have also put a "current or ongoing" template at the top (it was just in the health problems section), as much of the article is now out of date - the question of resignation etc is now moot. It looks like there will be further changes and rewording to do in a matter of hours. — Trilobite (Talk) 12:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This seems like as good a place as any: I've been told that the Firstname Cardinal Lastname usage is no longer proper styling, though I can't source it just now. Anyone got the appropriate stylebook in which to double check? --Baylink 20:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It most certainly is the most formal usage,it's just that newspaper stylesheets have gotten less formal over the years.Vatican press releases may use the Cardinal Firstname Lastname format,but official Latin documents are another matter.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 20:06, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

breaking news

> BREAKING NEWS The pope's condition has deteriorated and he has a high fever, Vatican officials confirm to CNN. Details soon.

"This was a moment of joy and sadness for pilgrims in St. Peter' Square and for whole world." --I am removing this sentence for NPOV reasons. Any objections? Coreyander 00:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Has he been given the Apostolic Pardon yet? (Alphaboi867 22:15, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC))

• Flat ECG (Exaton 18:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC))

BREAKING NEWS: Vatican- Pope in deteriorating condition!

Is the Pope Dead?

I heard a rumour on the street that we were in Interregnum. Someone else said that the rumor was false, that John Paul II was alive and still in the Papacy. As of yet, I haven't heard of any reports that fires are going in the Vatican. — Rickyrab | Talk 08:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• AFAIK He's still alive, but comatose. The Vatican doesn't burn anything to annouce the Popes death. They ring the Bell of San Marco and close the doors of St. Peter's Basillica. (Alphaboi867 08:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC))

• BBC News (I have it on the TV now) is saying he is not dead, but has been given the last rites. His heart is apparently failing although he is "conscious and lucid". So, not dead yet then. — Trilobite (Talk) 12:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do they still smash his skull with a silver hammer to make sure he is dead? Or is this protestant mythology? Adam 13:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wondered about this myself funnily enough, but according to the article on papal elections this has not been done in the 20th century. — Trilobite (Talk) 13:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, for those reading this, like me, that had no idea what you were talking about, "smash his skull" would seem to be an inaccurate portrayal. Papal election describes it as "...gently striking the Pope's head with a small silver hammer...". --timc | Talk 17:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They'll strike his forehead twice, if he does not respond, they will then notify the proper Vatican office that the Pontiff has indeed passed. --Txredcoat 18:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That ceremony was abolished long ago. But just watch as journalists who haven't done their homework will tell everyone about how the ceremony was done this time. It won't be. Nor was it done with John Paul I or Paul VI. I forget if it was done with John XXIII. The ceremony went years ago, along with most of the offices in the old Papal Household, the Papal Tiara, the portable throne. Even the Swiss Guards were very nearly abolished back around 1970. But Pope Paul was overruled on that one. FearÉIREANN 22:27, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

American Embassy in Poland just published http://poland.usembassy.gov/poland-pl/pope.html. I appologize for putting the information about pope's death. I though that the news by american embassy is plausible.Mdv137 17:57, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe BBC has a statement that says the pope has died (news update sourced from the Vatican) --IMpbt 19:59, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pope's family

Does anybody knows about the pope's family. I heard his mother died when he was 6 or something but what about his father and does he have any siblings. Can anybody add this info?

He has no close relatives, I belive I read on Wikinews. They should have the links. --The silentist 08:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He does, I heard in globo (a brazilian tv channel) sunday (the sunday before his death) that he has some relatives here, A aunt and I think a nephew too... --Henriquevicente 01:29, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)Henriquevicente

His mother died at an early age. His brother, a doctor, died when the Pope was in his late 20s or late teenage years due to a contracted plague. His dad, a man the pontiff looked up to and was sometimes seen kneeling by the bed of the young Karol praying for him, also died when he was around 21. When his mother died, the Pope is to have asked Mary to become his mother. This is why the Pope has such strong emotions for the Blessed Mother.

His mother died when He was 6, brother - when He was 13 or 14. (Kamil, Poland)

The Pope isn't dead yet Now he is

HABERMAS SEDE VACANTE — Rickyrab | Talk 20:29, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) Check reuters/BBC.

They will say this until they have semi-official confirmation. I have heard it reported that his ECG has flatlined. — Trilobite (Talk) 18:41, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I suggest remove the death note until the news is confirmed by major news agencies.--G.S.K.Lee 18:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree, CNN and others didn't yet officialy confirmed. It's also a matter of respect and being scientificly correct. - Lucas

And the Vatican just denied the claims that he's dead. --Kross 18:59, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

While I am not Catholic (I'm Protestant), I certainly hope and pray that nobody makes light of the Pope's illness for an April Fools joke. -- Jwinters | Talk 19:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"He was reported to have died around 20:20, April 1, 2005, but confirmation from the Holy See is still pending." ... Boys, you make wikipedia appear as a news flash... :-/ 213.54.66.238 19:21, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And an incorrect one too. Dan100 23:46, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Main Page

It seems a bit premature to label the pope as dead. Perhaps we should wait until the official announcement from the Vatican? Motion to remove that statement from the main page.--Txredcoat 18:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Well, it's locked now anyways, but the only thing we're missing is verification of the Italian reports. --Badlydrawnjeff 18:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can I remind people that Wikipedia is not a news service? There is no benefit in being ahead of the curve in reporting a death. DJ Clayworth 18:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Papacy News article

To avoid frenetic editing of the encyclopedic page I suggest to separate all news, guesses about successors, etc. into an article, kind of Events and news related to papacy or better and remove this silly "ongoing event" tag. Or better, make it into wikinews. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. And not original research. Please stop dancing over the dead body. Mikkalai 19:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) 19:04, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is the Wikinews article upon which we are currently working before releasing upon the Pope's death. I invite anyone to help in its creation, but note that Wikinews requires sources for all facts presented in an article. Dan100 23:50, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

BTW, a couple more of reverts, and I insist on protecting the page at the version dated by March 31 (with a posible reference to "Papacy News" article) until the dust settles. Mikkalai 19:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that as an encyclopedia and not a news wire we should wait for confirmation. It wouldn't matter if we are a day late with this - people come here for background not breaking news. However I think the current events tag exists for a reason: as we are an encyclopedia and not supposed to have everything up to the minute, at any time our articles on topics that are in the news and developing quickly may be out of date, or worded inappropriately. Having that notice lets people know that they should not expect Wikipedia to be fully up to date. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IMO this is an insult to the common sense. By this logic, any article about a living person should bear this tag. (And after some thinking, about any industry, scientific research, etc.) This tag is specifically for articles about ongoing events, not about things or people. Mikkalai 19:27, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's for articles which contain references to things which may change over the course of hours or days. Clearly a person's death can happen at any time and the article would be out of date until someone updated it, but for articles being edited from minute to minute as this one is, in a climate of conflicting reports about what the situation is, it serves a useful purpose. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"edited from minute to minute" for current events heavily smacks of original research. That's what wikinews are for. Mikkalai 19:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and as I said, as an encyclopedia we can if we wish easily afford to sit around all week until we change the article to reflect lastest developemtns. But people do edit articles from minute to minute, and I often find articles on current events have a slightly odd tone, either because tense hasn't been changed (when the pope's death is confirmed someone will add this fact but it will be a bit longer before someone copyedits the whole article), or because people just tack developments onto the end. I agree that WikiNews is the place for minute to minute reporting, which is why we have a template to warn that we may be out of date. I don't think we are actually in disagreement over very much here. I think most of us agree that breaking news should be kept out of the article, particularly when his death isn't even confirmed yet and most news agencies appear to have backtracked. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:56, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Election discussion

In the midst of the death watch, I've been looking over the article. In the discussion of his election, it says something along the lines of that following John Paul I's election "Wojtyla could have expected to participate in another papal election before reaching the maximum age of 80". But wasn't this maximum age only instituted during the current reign? That is to say, I had thought there was no maximum age for cardinals to vote as of 1978. john k 20:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Pope Paul VI instituted the age limit in 1974. (Alphaboi867 20:41, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC))

  Ah, so I was mistaken. Never mind, then. john k 21:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Which eight languages does the Pope speak (fluently)?

I have looked everywhere on the net. Every site says that the Pope speaks eight languages, but no one mentions which eight! I have tried to access the official Vatican website, but it is pretty clogged due to recent news. Can anyone find a source? - Scm83x 20:36, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This gives Polish, Russian, Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, German, and English. john k 21:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• He also apeaks Latin. (Alphaboi867 21:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC))

• Also, he speaks pretty-good Ukrainian. --Berkut 08:57, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Nobody does speak Latin ... --80.200.248.201 21:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Pope does indeed speak latin, as this is what traditional catholic services are conducted in.--Txredcoat 22:36, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Many classical scholars are fluent in Latin. Maybe some priests still are too, although most don't learn it anymore. The ability to conduct a Latin mass is not evidence of fluency in Latin. Adam 01:39, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

At one point early on, this article claims that the Pope learned to speak ELEVEN languages FLUENTLY in his youth. Come off it! This would be a pretty remarkable achievement even for a professional linguist who had spent several years in a number of foreign countries. PatGallacher 22:47, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

• Right, the number usually given is eight. We need more sources, but from a biography I saw posted in the church yesterday, he was indeed a very well-educated man. The extent of the pope's education and pre-pope career is not well documented on this article. An extremely long article in norwegian can be found on http://www.katolsk.no/utenriks/personer/wojtyla.htm, perhaps it is translated, but I couldn't find the original. Vintermann 07:29, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks all, I've edited the article to reflect the new data! - Scm83x 01:54, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) javascript:insertTags('','','Link title'); Internal link

• Dont forget Greek! -Pedro 22:04, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From what I know, the Pope had an extensive understanding of Ecclesiastical Latin. Also, did he not speak sixteen languages? Are you inquiring as to which languages he spoke fluently? If so, the title of this subsection should be amended, which I have done.

Why not work on Wikinews?

As Wikipedia is not the natural home for current events, can I invite editors to work on the Wikinews article that is being prepared? Dan100 23:38, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like to suggest reducing description of Pope's health problems and his death. Most of such description should have had been in Wikinews anyways. It is disheartening to see a large portion in this article dedicated to his dying. How do people want to remember him by: the way he dies, or his life's significant contributions to humanity? Liulk 00:48, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not carry outdated info. The fact that it can update so quickly is part of what makes wikipedia better than it's rivals, --SqueakBox 00:54, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I'm willing to wait for a few days to get a more complete picture. Writing style that adhere to the guideline on avoiding statements that will date quickly should satisfy your concern about being outdated. Furthermore, speed updating to on-going events can cause Wikipedia to become a secondary source, which is a violation to the policy on no original research. Liulk 01:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe we can be secondary sources because we have no access to primary sources. All we can base our updates on is secondary sources; eg I wrote about Brazil being sorry after hearing it myself from the BBC, who will have got the info from the primary source, the Brazilian Govt. I agree edits that will inevitably outdate should be re-edited. We must do the best we can to work within the wiki guidelines, as always. Certainly not all the info coming out today will outdate, and we must assume the good faith and intelligence of the editors. The reality is a huge amount of secondary source info is coming out about the Pope, the death and election procedure etc in the media, and this is an excellent time to add some of this info to the article while it is fresh. There is plenty out there for a good wikinews article too, --SqueakBox 01:43, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

I actually think this is showing Wikipedia's strength—articles can grow and shrink to contain as much information as people are interested in. Right now, people are very interested in the details of his death, so information about things like his last words is very appropriate; no doubt things will cool off in a week or two, and we can shrink the "Death" section accordingly, so that the version of the article people see in five years will be more in line with what they're interested in learning. —Brent Dax 05:05, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Clearly, at some point, people had much more information about his death, since it was bombarded to us on the newspaper, television, and all sorts of media. Transplanting such an overflow of information to wikipedia is so easy to perform that it can no doubt be a work of monkeys. But how do you exactly justify that people are more interested to learn about the death? Just because every media has a coverage? Please don't confuse this to what people are interested in. If you want to dance to the majority, make sure it's the majority you're dancing with, not just some loud airheads who claim they're the majority. Maybe you're one of those airheads, I don't know. I'm glad that wikipedians have calmed down to prove I'm right. --Liulk 15:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AP copy-vio

Someone had copied and pasted in an AP news story. I removed it. Dan100 00:19, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

He's not dead yet!

Someone edited that the pope died on April 2. He's not dead yet, so people, stop writing that!

• You're wrong, unfortunately. We might as well write that. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:44, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Actually he was right. When he wrote that, the Pope was not dead yet, or at least the annoucement hasn't been made. It is absolutely false and disrespectful to claim someone is dead unless confirmed. LG-犬夜叉 15:07, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Papal election, 2005

I've removed the links to this. See Talk:Papal election, 2005. We should not link to this—yet. Editing it already is one thing, but exposing our readers to it is in bad taste and not encyclopedic—we're not a news service, and should stick to verifiable information. JRM 01:55, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

Stance on Feeding Tubes

I'm surprised nobody added his announcement a year ago on feeding tubes: Pope declares feeding tubes a 'moral obligation'.

• John Paul II wasn't the first. I believe Pius XII made the distinction between basic care (such as food and drink) that can't be stopped, and extraordinary care, which may be.Vintermann 07:41, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I won't add any information myself as I am not an expert in these matters. However, the impact on Catholicism and the fact that he may need to use a feeding tube to sustain his life makes this a glaring omission.

God Bless the Pope

I wish to pay respect for humane efforts.

protection of broken version

Whoever protected the page protected a broken version which repeats about 8 sections of the article. Grrr... — Miguel 07:59, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. If they're going to protect an article from editing they can at least protect a coherent version. (Alphaboi867 08:10, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Seems PMA (a recently returned admin) protected the page by request of Adam Carr, who thinks it should be protected until the pope dies. I strongly disagree with this, but I'm not about to pitch a battle (although I will unprotect if enough people desire it). I've fixed the duplication, which should have been resolved before the page was protected. -- Hadal 08:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I suggested protection because the article is attracting crank edits, and will go on doing so until HH either dies or recovers. I have spent all afternoon reverting "the pope is dead" crank edits. The article is perfectly OK as it stands and it won't hurt to have it left alone for a while. Wikipedia is not a news service, and constant re-editing of articles which many people will be currently reading is bad for Wikipedia's reputation. I agree of course that the correct version should be saved. Adam 08:44, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While I can understand the rationale, I don't think it's a good enough reason to protect the article. Was the same pre-emptive protection imposed at Terri Schiavo? That article was also a vandal magnet, but leaving it protected until she passed away would have been un-wiki, just as I believe the protection of this article is. Consider that if this article was protected earlier (say, as soon as news of the pope's grave condition broke), you would not have been able to make your edit of 07:44 GMT (seven minutes prior to protection) or any other edits in the interim. This is a "current or ongoing event", so unless there's an organised campaign of vandalism or edit warring to consider, I don't believe the article should be protected. -- Hadal 08:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Remember that protection is not endorsement of the protected version. -Branddobbe 08:46, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Since the Pope has died, this argument is outdated anyway. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:59, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please see the note I added to the article on Mehmet Ali Agca mentioning the interview where Agca claimed he had Vatican accomplices in the assassination attempt. I think that should also be mentioned in the Pope's article. It's not breaking news but it's a recent development (March 31 2005) and is appropriate for mention as background. In fact it would be good if someone reads the interview carefully (I haven't) and adds more info from it as appropriate. 63.202.80.51 08:52, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I take the claim that it has suddenly come to light that the KGB were behind the attempt on his life with a good degree of caution. It's about 15 years since the classic "communist" regimes collapsed in eastern europe, why are revelations suddenly coming out now? Let's wait a few weeks for people to assess any alleged new evidence. PatGallacher 22:42, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

Yeah: Tom Clancy is not authoritative.  :-) --Baylink 21:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Teaching on his deathbed?

I removed this:

Even while he lay on his deathbed, he is still teaching. It is said he is teaching all Christians how to die gracefully, when their time comes.

Because it sounds hagiographic and purely metaphorical, which is not very appropriate for an encyclopedia. If it has indeed "been said", I'd at least like a citation of who said it. If this is just a personal interpretation, it shouldn't be there. JRM 16:52, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

That is correct, according to MSNBC. I have been watching since yesterday morning. Draconiator 16:58, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, do you happen to know who said it on MSNBC? Was it an interviewee or an anchor? We could mention it as (for example):

John Doe/An MSNBC anchor/A spokesperson for X has stated that even while on his deathbed, he is still teaching: teaching all Christians how to die gracefully, when their time comes.

Something along those lines. My only concern is to make clear we're not giving a personal opinion. JRM 17:07, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

Both an anchor, and one of the guests, I think it was a cardinal or the guy that wrote His Holiness - Carl Bernstein. Draconiator

I've reinstated this statement crediting an anonymous MSNBC anchor as per above, since we're not really sure about the identity of the other person; if we get more accurate references, we can put those in. I've guessed the statement was made on April 1st, if not, correct it. Likewise, if it wasn't really a "news report" but an interview with someone, correct it. JRM 17:51, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

Not dead

Will the people who keep on adding a date of death to this article cease to do; not only is it in the height of bad taste to do so when someone is on what is probably their deathbed, it is also incorrect. (Notwithstanding the rumours that the Vatican intends to "manage" the time of occurence of the determination of the Pope's death) -- Karada 17:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, the April 2nd date is correct now; it's official, from the Vatican. :( --WikiFan04 Talk to me. 14:02, 2 Apr 2005 (CST)

Not yet. It's only come from the news agencies. PLEASE WAIT. 84.58.22.248 20:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I tend to believe them when they're reporting something like this. violet/riga (t) 20:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's official. Not only have the news agencies and the vatican confirmed it, but the Cardinal Camerlengo has performed the ritual of confirming the death of the pope. April 2nd, 2005 is the correct date.--207.65.109.90 20:52, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The bells of the Vatican have rung. He's dead. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Godspeed Holy Father!

His Holyness is now officially dead.

1., Let me mention something: according to rumors the young Wojtyla was engaded to a polish lady during WWII. She was killed in the Holocaust and then he decided to abandon worldly delights and finally turn to the church. Really sad story (if true).

2., According to BBC News the bulgarians offered to give secret service documents to the Vatican, so the proxied Akca-KGB link could now finally be investigated.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4399715.stm

Thoughts on the Popes Death

You will be missed, John Paul II. Godspeed and good luck, and we will one day see you again TomStar81 21:28, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dear John Paul II: I prayed so that God has accepted your soul in Heaven as a man of God you portrayed. As a protestant, I believe only those who accept God to their souls as savior shall go to Heaven, but you were a great man of God and I hope to see you in Heaven some day! Rest in Peace. "Antonio Sad Souil Martin"

He was a great man, may he rest in peace. Even we non-religious folks respect him. He did so much for peace and understanding between cultures. Alensha 14:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Papal Wardrobe

Does anyone know what the pope wears in private? Does he wear the robes all day long?

---

yup.FearÉIREANN 07:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

really? I mean, even when no ones around? Also, do you know what he wears under the robes? Can they wear pants, are the pants made by the church or could they be any pants? Same with his shoes, I saw them in pictures of the Pope lying in state, are those made by the church?

• There are other historical photographs of what he wears underneath. He wears the clerical day-to-day garments, the same as priests wear but white. It's basically a white dress shirt and white pants. There's a famous picture of Pope John Paul II wearing his white shirt and white pants on a hike at Castel Gandolfo. He has worn cheap, simple Italian made loafers. --Gerald Farinas 19:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reactions from the World

I would like to voice my opinion that if one is summarizing the reaction of Non-Catholics as 'expressing their condolences' then one must do similarly with World Leaders and Catholic leaders as well. Bo-Lingua

Why does it say His Holiness Hitler on the Page?

That was evidently vandalism. On the same note as above, is there a reason that we're posting world leaders but not religious leader's reactions?

Cause of Death

Please add something regarding the cause of death. I would do it myself, but the page is protected. I recommend "In his private apartments, at 21:37 Roman Time, the Pope died at the age of 84. While the precise cause of his death is unclear, it followed his going into [[septic shock]] while being treated for a [[urinary tract]] infection. He had recently suffered a series of maladies, as detailed in the section above regarding his health." If you choose to use this, you must add the following to References.

*[http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.cascade02apr02,1,2272197.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true Baltimore Sun Article Explaining Probable Medical Progression of Pope's Septic Shock]

*[http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200504/s1336994.htm Article from ABC News Australia that details progression of pope's illnesses]

Thank you. Superm401 22:55, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Alleged assassination sponsor

Quote: "It was not revealed who commissioned the murder attempt until late March 2005, when documents uncovered from the former Soviet states reveal that the KGB was responsible for setting up the attack."

Does anybody have any references to back this up? From what I can tell the subject of who or what was responsible or the pope's shooting is still extremely controversial. This needs to be substantiated or edited out. --Bk0 22:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Still controversial, but recently in the news. [1] - Nunh-huh 22:58, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The news item referred to here proves nothing of the sort! All this seems to indicate is that the Bulgarian secret service believed (rightly or wrongly) that the CIA was trying to smear them with involvement in the Pope's assassination, and asked the East Germans for help dealing with this. There are a whole series of question marks over the idea that the KGB was behind the attempt on the Pope's life, but one is that if they had decided to assassinate the Pope it would probably have involved a small team of experienced officers operating in conditions of great secrecy, they would not have delegate a lot of the practical work to their satellites. PatGallacher 23:24, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

Top section is huge

The top section (above the Table of Contents) is six paragraphs, five of which are long. At 1024x768 in an uncluttered browser window the TOC is way past the first screenful. This really ought to be reduced. --Brent Dax 00:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've moved some stuff around. How does it look now? JYolkowski 15:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's much better now. Thanks. —Brent Dax 04:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

His last words

"Last night, the Pope was heard to say several times 'I have looked for you. Now you have come to me. And I thank you.' The statement was an apparent reference to all the young people he met during his pontificate." I known a very known letter, at least in Brazil, at least, to young people by him, my english skills aren't enought to traduct it perfectly so I ask you for try to get an english version or if you known portuguese very well traduct it. I didn't found it in the Vatican's site and wasn't able to find it in an english version using google, so there is the portuguese version (that now I think is originally written by him, once he knowns portuguese and I didn't found it in google...) and below each phrase the traduction to english made by me.

Precisamos de Santos sem véu ou batina.

We need saints without veil or cassok.

Precisamos de Santos de calças jeans e tênis.

We need saints who wear jeans and tennis shoes.

Precisamos de Santos que vão ao cinema, ouvem música e passeiam com os amigos.

We need saints who go to the cinema, listen to music and hang out with friends.

Precisamos de Santos que coloquem Deus em primeiro lugar, mas que se "lascam" na faculdade.

We need saints who put God in first place, but who come off second best in the faculty.

Precisamos de Santos que tenham tempo todo dia para rezar e que saibam namorar na pureza e castidade, ou que consagrem sua castidade.

We need saints who have time everyday to pray and who known to date in the purity and chastity, or who consecrate whose chastity.

Precisamos de Santos modernos, Santos do século XXI com uma espiritualidade inserida em nosso tempo.

We need modern saints, Saints of the 21st century with a spirituality slotted in our time.

Precisamos de Santos comprometidos com os pobres e as necessárias mudanças socias.

We need saints engaged with the poor people and the social change needed.

Precisamos de Santos que vivam no mundo se santifiquem no mundo, que não tenham medo de viver no mundo.

We need the saints who live in the world and who get sanctified in the world, to fear not to live in the world.

Precisamos de Santos que bebam Coca-Cola e comam hot dog, que usem jeans, que sejam internautas, que escutem discman.

We need saints who drink Coke and eat hot dog, who use jeans, who are Internaut, who listen to music in a discman,

Precisamos de Santos que amem a Eucaristia e que não tenham vergonha de tomar um refri ou comer pizza no fim-de-semana com os amigos.

We need saints who love the Eucharist and who don't have fear to drink a soft drink or eat pizza in the weekend with the friends.

Precisamos de Santos que gostem de cinema, de teatro, de música, de dança, de esporte.

We need saints who like cinema, theater, music, dance, sports.

Precisamos de Santos sociáveis, abertos, normais, amigos, alegres, companheiros.

We need saints sociable, open, normal, friendly, funny and companion.

Precisamos de Santos que estejam no mundo; e saibam saborear as coisas puras e boas do mundo mas que não sejam mundanos.

We need saints who are in the world: and know how to taste the pure and nice things of the world but who aren't mundane.

Vocabulary (Someone please organize this in wiktionary if it isn't already and if it's anything not very used):

"cassok" is the priest garb

"come off second best" is the opposite of succeed

--Henriquevicente 01:20, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)Henriquevicente

Visit to Egypt

the visit to Egypt for the millenium mass is not mentioned at all in the article, it was among his important visits and is a part of the effort to bridge the gap between the catholic church and the eastern orthodox church.

the impact on the Egyptian christian community was quite profound

On Article Pictures

I have been proposing the use of the first picture as a much more recent, crisp, and visually stunning portrayal of the pope. It has been reverted, with claims that no one else wants it. I would like to determine if that is true. I believe it is much better than the second, which is much older, and has not the crisp colors and resolution of the first (in my opinion). Does consensus really favor the latter? Thanks. --AladdinSE 04:14, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Well, do we want to show him in his prime or as people last saw him? There are several other places that picture could be put—most notably, there's a grainy black-and-white picture in "The Pope's health" that this could replace. —Brent Dax 05:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the grainy black and white photo is quite bad, but I am not putting forward this image as the lead because I want to show him ill, only that it is recent, crisp, and a better quality resolution. He looks quite decent in it, actually. He is not grimacing or looking overcome with illness. Anyway, thanks for your input. --AladdinSE 06:30, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I vote for the older picture. Partially, this is from personal preference, but it also looks rather more "official" than the newer one. Well, that's my two cents. --User:Jenmoa 06:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As long as we're talking pictures, the bottom areas of the article could use one. I didn't search for very long, but I wasn't able to find an unencumbered picture of the crowds outside the Vatican today—anybody know where to find one? —Brent Dax 07:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article is now about a deceased pope. We normally use an official 'when first elected' image at the start of articles about dead heads of state. So IMHO we should use the one on the right above. The other one could be used later on to show him later on, but it most definitely should not be used at the start. That would be contrary to the normal 'main picture' type used in articles on dead office holders here and elsewhere. FearÉIREANN 07:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds reasonable. --AladdinSE 07:55, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

IMO the best solution is to use both pictures, each in an appropriate place (the older one at the beginning and the more recent one further in the article). This would give an idea how he changed over the years, too. Ijon Tichy 11:29, 3 Apr 2005 (CET)

His holiness

Isn't calling John Paul II "his holiness" somewhat POV? Only Catholics, and people wanting to be deferent to Catholic beliefs, call the Pope "his holiness". It's not that I'm hostile to Catholicism or to the late John Paul II — but we must allow for the fact that different people have different criteria for what or whom is "holy", and the majority of the world may well consider that the Pope does not merit the title. I note that, for instance, Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama does not carry any special style. David.Monniaux 22:20, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I daresay "Ocean of Wisdom" is fairly deferential and honorific. People really need to get over this nonsense: calling someone His Holiness, or Reverend, or Her Majesty, when that is their normal style or title, has nothing to do with "Points of View": It doesn't mean you think the person is particularly holy, reverent, or majestic. (Though of course it can be overdone....) - Nunh-huh 22:27, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then we'd also have to erase His or Her Royal Highness, etc to the hundreds of pages about Kings, Queens, Princesses, Princes....we'd have to erase the phrase world champion to the pages on hundreds of former world champion boxers, as they are still reffered to as world champion by boxing fans ourt of respect...."Antonio The Girls' Favorite John Martin"

"His Holiness", "Her Royal Highness", etc., are just titles and nothing more. "Holy" is also defined as "belonging to or derived from or associated with a divine power". There's no more criteria than that. Adraeus 00:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is very disturbing that people would state the Pope's official title is POV. There are hundreds of articles that use term like "Right Honorable" or "His Majesty", as well as every other article on the Popes containing terms like Holiness, Blessed, etc. Its not POV, its the title of the office holder. Let's leave it alone unless we're preapred to change every other article that incorporates a title -Husnock 04:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, it is a style, not a title. Rainier III's title is "Prince of Monaco", but his style is "Serene Highness". David.Monniaux 07:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have been wondering about the POV-ness of the title as well. I haven't made up my mind, but I lean towards confining it to a sentence describing his official title, where all his prefixes and titles (pope, bishop of Rome, patriarch etc) are spelled out. --AladdinSE 04:58, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

This is in no way POV. To even suggest this is very sad. It is a title that should be used out of respect for the man and out of respect for the over 1 billion Catholics that look up to this person with awe and boundless respect. I am not a subject of Monaco but I still give respect to the royalty there by saying "His/Her Majesty." The secular movement can be a scary thing.--207.65.109.90 05:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Monaco's a principality. It's His/Her Serene Highness. (Alphaboi867 05:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC))

It works both way. "Out of respect for the over 1 billion Catholics". There are something like 6 billion people on the globe, thus Catholics comprise only a small minority. Among the 5 billion other people, many, perhaps most, do not consider the Pope or the Roman Catholic Church to be particularly "holy", and many would probably find the suggestion that they are insulting to their religion.

This is not about "the secular movement". It is, as others have pointed out, about whether the use of laudative styles in Wikipedia article is an endorsement of their semantic content — whether or not this content is religious or not. We call Tony Blair "right honourable" — but many people do not consider him particularly honourable, even dishonourable. So I'm wondering about the appropriate policy. David.Monniaux 07:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Interesting how you consider 1 billion people to be a minority. -___-
• However I must point out something: almost every news broadcast from every channel refer to him as 'his holiness pope John Paul II' .. I do not believe every news station is run by catholics.
• The use of honorifics should be legitmate on the respective page of the person, especially someone of his stature. LG-犬夜叉 15:15, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

One billion people out of six billion people IS a minority.

As for "of his stature", what if we gave the antipopes all the honorific "His Holiness"? Is it not PoV to deny them it while giving it to Pope John Paul II? Titanium Dragon 10:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how this is POV. To give the pope his style of "his holiness" does not suggest that he is holy. Just because someone bears the style of "royal highness" does not mean that they have a highness which may be characterized as royal. Nor does calling the Prince of Monaco "his serene highness" imply that he is either very serene or very high. Styles are just that, styles, ways that people are addressed. They should be on the page because people refer to the pope as "his holiness," not because he is holy. john k 07:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I personally believe that all styles should be removed from the start of articles. That was wikipedia policy until a small number of people unilaterally changed it. I agree totally with John that these things should not be seen as pov. I have no problem personally using them when talking to officeholders. But in many parts of the world they simply aren't understood and are perceived as POV. I would much rather go back to the previous method of not using styles but explaining styles, ie not starting each article with the style but saying in the text "x is styled His Holiness/Serene Highness/Royal Highness etc. That is far more neutral and far less likely to cause offence. If you are unhappy with the current manner styles are used on wikipedia (or rather the way a couple of people have decided wikipedia should use styles by unilaterally changing articles to include styles at the start, visit [2] (Manual of Style page) and change this policy. It is only since the start of this year that articles have been doctored to fill them up with HHs, HRHs, HMs, HEs, etc. At this stage some of the articles are so choked with styles they make me cringe (and as I have said, I personally have no problem with styles per se, but the way they are used on wikipedia (or have begun to be used on wikipedia) is ridiculous. They make wikipedia look like the in-house publication of Debretts rather than an objective encyclopaedia. So if you want to revert to the previous policy of not starting articles with "His Holiness", "Her Majesty", "His Royal Highness", "Her Serene Highness", "His Grace", "the Right Honourable" etc but simply explaining the relevant style in the text, make it clear your unhappiness on the Manual of style page linked above. The more people complain, the greater the change this nutty new policy can be reverted and the previous sensible one brought back. FearÉIREANN 07:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Totally agree with Jtdirl. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Laudative_styles. One thing is that the use of styles for officeholders depends on the culture, and thus the reactions to them varies between taking them at face value to being indifferent. David.Monniaux 08:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I too agree with Jtrdirl. I do not regard the pope as 'his holyness', on the contrary cf his views on personal freedom (abortion and homosexuality). 213.236.117.2 07:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For God's sake, there must be many articles on wikipedia.org about Popes -- cannot you just go look at the others, and imitate them? I don't know if they use "His Holiness" or not, actually, but shouldn't this one just be consistent with whatever the others do? Dishalein 07:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Thanks to everyone for your work on JP II - i'm getting tired of some people on other sites throwing George Weigel's nonsense about popes being the servants of church doctrine not the masters - popes can _define_ church doctrine but as Weigel is a conservative Pell-ite i shouldn't be surprised at the fabrication. PMA 06:17, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

I trust you all have heard the "George Ringo" joke? — JIP | Talk 06:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Next conclave

Is the conclave to choose John Paul's replacement really relevant enough to this article to have a place in the top section? There's already a separate article for it and a section listed in the TOC. —Brent Dax 12:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lock The Article?

Vandels continue to deface the article. I vote that we put the article under protection until things calm down with the news. Damicatz 13:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I would rather see the people who are defacing the article be blocked Xxpor 14:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely not. There are many legitimate users, and it needs to be kept unlocked to allow changes to take place. Someone tried locking yesterday and it ws unlocked very quickly, which I am sure is what would happen if someone tried locking it again. The vandals must be reverted and blocked, --SqueakBox 14:32, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

• I understand the point Xxpor and SqueakBox make, but I side with Damicatz on this issue: The page should be locked until we as humans put some time between the death of the Pope and the inaguaration of his succsessor. Blocking users only prevents them from editing under a certin user name or as an anon. Failing a vote to lock the page we must ask that those with means pay extremely close attention to the article for the next several days to catch vandalism. TomStar81 00:23, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Several users have stepped up to the task of monitoring this article closely. Vandalism is being reverted quickly enough that I don't think it's worth worrying about. (Edit: It's also worth noting that this article has improved immensely because of all the attention it has received in the last couple days. We might as well harness this opportunity while people are paying attention to it.) —Brent Dax 00:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Totally agrees the last Brentdax sentiments about harnessing this fantastic interest in the site. This locking logic could be applied to any similar event. Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is the place to have a debate on the locking of this page, but you will find you encounter strong opposition. I think the sheer number of edits is fantastic, --SqueakBox 00:42, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

John Paul the Great

Most people and priests name the Pope "the Great" and I think, that this is good idea to put this to wikipedia.--217.96.155.16 15:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please source your claim, --SqueakBox 15:40, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm am a practicing Catholic, and I have not ever heard a priest, bishop, nun, or lay Catholic refer to him as "John Paul II the Great". Kenj0418 15:58, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Just today discussing this with some friends at church, I heard that someone (was unable to get a verification) in the media or higher up in the Catholic church had proposed that John Paul II be officially retitled as John Paul the Great. No source, just saying that there's at least a few people who have heard this. I imagine if it's true there'll be some kind of official announcement. --Mr Bound 16:39, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Which would be the time to put in such a title. We are here to reflect reality not create it, --SqueakBox 16:43, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Never heard any such thing. David.Monniaux 18:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church leaders are already debating whether John Paul II should not be named John Paul the Great. If the Vatican goes ahead, he will be only the third man in the Papacy’s 2,000-year history to have received this title, after Leo the Great and Gregory the Great, both over 1,400 years ago. -Stefan Wagsty. ft.com [3].

Personally I don't think he was much of a Pope, but evidently many churchmen and statesmen think otherwise. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:27, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Beeb is reporting similar debate, having various talking heads comment on the proposition, etc. I think it's legitimate to add it in those terms. Alai 18:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor has suggested that the pope shall be known this way several times today in the UK media.

Since Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, I don't think this something we should include until it has been made official. Kenj0418 22:37, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to start such a custom, but only to report it if it's there. Michael Hardy 21:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The linked AP story states that the Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican's No. 2 Official named John Paul "the Great" in the written and official copy of his Sunday (4 Apr 2005) homily. AP story This opinion piece claims that this officially confers the title "The Great" upon John Paul II. --Scerruti 01:01, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Padre Pio prediction

I removed this:

"The assumption of the papacy by John Paul II was correctly predicted decades earlier by Padre Pio. The same monk also predicted that Wojtyła's reign would be brief and end bloodily, a prophecy that the latter's shooting almost vindicated. The assassination attempt was also predicted in the third secret of the Three Secrets of Fatima, according to the Vatican's analysis[3] (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html)."

I don't think this mysticism, stated so weirdly matter-of-fact, has any place in an otherwise straightforward discussion of the assassination attempts. I don't think it should be in here at all, but if it is, it should be in a separate section, worded NPOV. -- Chowbok 20:29, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Pope himself claimed that the 3rd prediction of Fatima was talking about his assassination. The Pope himself said that Padre Pio predicted that he would be Pontiff. Motion to re-include the deleted text.

Heh. Well, no disrespect to the recently departed and all, but just because the Pope said something doesn't necessarily make it true. More importantly, the Pope doesn't determine what gets included in Wikipedia as fact. It's one thing to say "The Pope has said that Padre Pio predicted..." or "many Catholics believe that Fatima predicted..." and another thing to just say "Padre Pio correctly predicted..." as if it's a simple, undisputed fact like his age or something. --Chowbok 01:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But there is no reason why this should be removed from an article detailing the late John Paul II. If the Pope himself said this, then it should be noted in an article concerning the late Pontiff.

If you feel strongly about it, put it back in, only please note the distinction I made above. I won't object to a "Catholics believe" or a "The Pope said" statement, but a straight "Pio the psychic padre predicted Pope's pontificate, period" is inappropriate. --Chowbok 03:01, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is all too clear. Thanks for bringing the subject up!

It is also probably worth noting that he did not decide that the third prophesy of Fatima referred to him until after the assassination attempt; if you do not predict something before it happens, that should be noted as well. Titanium Dragon 09:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"His Holiness?"

I wonder if this is POV neutral for a muslim

"His Holiness" is a title. It's not considered POV. The Dali Lama is also often referred to as "His Holines"

• Is it POV neutral for an American if the article for Queen Elizabeth II starts "Her Majesty"? Both are styles attributed to that particular position of power. —Brent Dax 00:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The answer is "it probably is not right, but there are too many Catholics to remove it." His Holiness is entirely different from "Her Majesty", and I've my doubts about whether any such things should be applied at all to the articles of individuals (after all, many religious leaders can be referred to as His Holiness, even ones loathed by many). However, it should be removed now anyway, as he is dead and we do not honor dead figures with such honorifics (generally). Dead popes and royalty do not have their titles. Of course, we may as well wait until the next Pope is given the hat before we remove it.
• Titanium Dragon 09:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Motion to add the title "the Great" to his name

Adding "the Great" to a Pope's name is a move done by the people; no special Vatican ceremony appoints this style to a pontiff. His Eminence Cardinal Egan of New York has already referred to the Pope as "the Great." I move that the Pope's name be amended to include this.

When did he call the late JPII that? Gentgeen 00:54, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Today during his homily. Fox News is showing the clip where he calls him this.

[Just adding that...]"the Great" is usually added onto someone's name if he is worthy of becoming a saint. --Super-Magician 01:16, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Request to change the title of this article and all article pertaining to "Pope John Paull II" to "Pope John Paul the Great."

to Super-Magician, no, there have only been 2 "the Great" popes, (Leo the Great and Gregory the Great), while there are lots of popes who are saints. Our un-named anon must be refering to Cardinal Egan, as O'Connor's been dead since 2000. Well one archbishop does not establish common usage. Roger Cardinal Mahony did not call John Paul "the Great" during his homily, and as the Archdiocese of Los Angeles is larger than the Archdiocese of New York, I'd say calling JPII "the Great" isn't yet in common usage. Gentgeen 01:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I never suggested that the opinion of one cardinal be considered enough to establish common usage. It was simply a fact that I heard on the television and on the Internet. But, I guess you may be right: it may be tooe arly to change the pope's name to this in this article. However, keep this in the back of your minds. There will be no official remark from the Vatican to call Pope John Paul II "the Great." It is for this reason that I brought forth this request.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If this becomes common usage, we can consider adopting it, but it's not within our mission to try to create (or anticipate) such a situation. —Brent Dax 01:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think "John Paul II the Great" really isn't enough. I think the title of this entry should be Pope John Paul II the Absolutely Fabulous. --Wetman 01:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do note that our articles on Leo and Gregory the Great are at Pope Leo I and Pope Gregory I, respectivly. Gentgeen 02:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm this is a strange quandary of epistemology here... could we as "the people" (Wikipedia is the epitome of common knowledge; as in knowledge by the people) insert this name before all the old dog academic elite’s do it in their so-called proper manner? Wouldn't that just piss them off or what? Also if anyone was ever worthy of the name "The Great" it was this man. Wraybm1

In a word, no, --SqueakBox 17:12, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

No what? Why, in this age where the people hold the knowledge... must we still resort to old intellectual snot nosed regulations? You people shouldn't be allowed to use wikipedia... this is the poeple's knowledge site! We don't have to wait for some word for word copy edit out of an encyclopedia... If something like the Pope's title (which I've heard several more times since my lest post) doesn't represent new knowledge from the people then what does? --Wraybm1

To the article title? Never! To the intro text of the article? Only once it's become common usage. Niteowlneils 17:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, this is absurd and Wraybm1 is unbalanced. john k 17:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh! I get it! You guys are the very "Old Dog" academics, which I was talking about! hahah way to go. And I, of course, am "Unbalanced" ...this whole conversation is so utterly predictable. --Wraybm1

• • It has been a standard that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and it is not going to change just because you don't like it. Average Earthman 19:04, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • While Wikipedia is not a soapbox (a thing that you logical positivists love to declare from the top of your own pedastool) Wikipedia article discussions must allow for subjective argument. Or else everyone would already know what this "truth" thing is. Also if you'll note, under that article Wikipedia is not a soapbox it says nothing about the transition of news to history. Which of course is the heart of this argument. Should this piece of current news be written into our article? It has nothing to do with how you felt about the pope. Both sides of the argument have drug that in here. --Wraybm1 19:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I really hope this false adulation and mourning of the late Pope dies down soon. I cannot understand why this man should be referred to as the great? Although since his death he has been over credited with single handedly bringing down the Soviet Union and Communism and being the greatest person ever, the late Pope had many faults and weaknesses. His relentless persecuation of gay men and women was a disgrace; his hardline stance against contraception has led to unsustainable population growth in Africa, and has condemened millions to the ravages of HIV. I cannot be upset about the death of an old frail man, who would have died long ago if it were not for the wealth of the Catholic Church providing hospital and personal care. Astrotrain 18:28, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Oh boy! "Since his death he has been over credited with single handedly bringing down the Soviet Union and Communism " <-- The pope has been accepted as a monumetal player in the downfall of the Soviet Socialism. It hasn't been entirly since his death that people have credited him with that. There are entire books about it from at least ten years ago. But! this section of this page is not meant to discuss whether or not he is worthy of the title (though all contributors --myself included-- are guilty of inserting our opinions... facts don't present themselves without opinions) This discussion is more about whether or not the newly given moniker "John Paul The Great" should be added to the article. And I feel that we have reached at least moderatly fair compromise (as determined by the many edits) by inserting the moniker later in the article as something that vatican officials are currently calling him. Wraybm1

• Whether the title of 'the Great' is added or not is not dependent on strong personal views for or against, it is purely a matter of whether he is generally referred to by that title. The occasional award of the title by individuals shortly after death does not mean it will stick, the same was applied to King Henry VIII of England after his death by some, and nobody calls him Henry the Great now. Average Earthman 19:04, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • You make a very good point (about Henry "the great" VIII) But these are two different times. Wikipedia did not exist in Henry's time so we will never know the epistemic dynamic of his short lived moniker. I am willing to leave it in the body of the text until it is "commonly" accepted... whatever that means. I am sorry... I thought this was a "Common" place... I guess I was wrong. --Wraybm1 19:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • • I wasn't suggesting he not be referred to as "The Great" if that is what the Catholic Church decide to call him. I was just pointing out that he doesn't deserve such a title (in my own opinion).

Our opinions don't matter. That would simply be POV. What matters is whether he comes to be known as John Paul the Great. My hunch is that he will. He has already been called that by

• Cardinal Egan
• the Vatican in a homily by the ex-Secretary of State
• Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor of Westminster
• Cardinal O'Brien of Edinburgh
• Archbishop Martin of Dublin
• many news organisations, including two broadsheets in London, 2 in Dublin, a couple in France and apparently papers in Belgium and Italy.

It is too early to call him 'the Great' here but the tide seems to be going heavily in that direction. It is worth mentioning in the article, but I'd give it at least a month to see if a consensus develops before changing the name. FearÉIREANN 21:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We should never change the article title. Despite the fact that they have been known as "the Great" for centuries, neither Gregory the Great nor Leo the Great is under that title. john k 21:44, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Acutally, john, Gregory the Great is under that article title. Astrotrain states, "His relentless persecuation of gay men and women was a disgrace; his hardline stance against contraception has led to unsustainable population growth in Africa, and has condemened millions to the ravages of HIV. " That was not his "persecuation". It is the position of the Church and the Bible that John Paul the Great was following. The Church has delcared him to be John Paul the Great, the first step to sainthood, and that is what the article should be.

Gregory the Great is a redirect to Pope Gregory I. I agree that we should never change the title of the main article on Pope John Paul II, but if the title John Paul the Great become a common usage, of course we should have a redirect from it. Hypothetically, if the title John Paul the Cruel become common, we should have a redirect from that too.-gadfium 02:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Let me add, though, that something that various people are saying immediately after someone's death is not something that is particularly likely to mean anything about how someone will be remembered in history. As far as I can recall, the last monarch to go down in history as "the Great" was Catherine, who died more than two hundred years ago. I really feel that a few years are needed before we can really say that this is a proper usage. john k 03:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Well, from my memory, the last monarch to be awarded the epithet 'the Great' was Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand, in 1987. And he's still alive. But the Thais are rather more ready to hand out this epithet than the Vatican. Average Earthman 10:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • • Whatever official epithet he may bear, he is not known as "Bhumibol Adulyadej the Great" in English. john k 15:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Vatican website does not refer to John Paul II as "The Great". To append this title in the article now (rather than simply note that it is being contemplated) would be premature. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A shameless plug--see 'Great' title for John Paul? on WikiNews...actually, this discussion has provided some information. Thanks! 70.57.137.163 09:44, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pope and Islam

I see a section on relations between the Pope and Jews and a section on the Pope and Eastern Orthodox Christians but nothing on relations between the Pope and Islam or the Pope and the Southern Baptists. Need help! --Powergrid 01:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]

Outdated Wikinews link

I don't know what the protocol for the Wikinews links is—should the now-outdated "Pope in medical crisis" link be removed? (It happens to mis-render in my browser at my resolution, but that's likely specific to my machine...) —Brent Dax 05:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Love for 203.35.154.254

I'm not sure if you're paying attention to the Talk page, 203.35, but if you are, thanks for sourcing the "Health" section so thoroughly. You rock. —Brent Dax 06:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

The following IP vandalised this page with racist content:

211.30.107.248 History (evidence)

Doesn't even spell Arabic correctly in transliteration. Evertype 21:28, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

I have restored the page from the most recent complete page from the history. - Peter McGinley, 8:42 4th April 2005 (UTC)

• If only he were the first. As discussed above, though, this article has improved immensely in the last couple of days despite the vandals; it seems to be worth the occasional 'rv' summary. I also told 210.54 how to revert; hopefully he'll get the message. —Brent Dax 09:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another vadalism has recently emerged... Check this line: His personal mission as hooker, the chief leader and slayer of dicks worldwide, was to implement the lessons of the blah, emphasizing the universal call to holiness and the Church's role in a modern world.

Eh, it's been getting vandalized several times an hour most hours since it hit the Main Page. Niteowlneils 22:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms

The following were removed from the Criticisms section:

• The pope endorsed Chilean dictator Augustus Pinochet even though it was known that he systematically oppressed political opposition.

• He made Escavaria a saint, Escavaria was a fascist and friend of Franco. Protected and endorsed other Spanish Priests who stood by Francisco Francos falangist-fascist troops.

Clearly these are NPOV, but is there any truth to them at all? If so, they should be rewritten and reintegrated, not deleted. —Brent Dax 19:51, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pinochet is certainly a truth—he was widely criticised for appearing on the balcony with him. I would guess that Escavaria is also a truth but we need to source both. --Oldak Quill 21:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It should be easy to find sources for the latter - in fact, John Paul II canonized a remarkable number of individuals who fought on the fascist side. He also favoured the Opus Dei, which was a part of the fascist government. (The individual named above was the founder of the Opus Dei.) Hasdrubal 21:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's a history of the JP-II Vatican's favorable diplomatic relationship with Pinochet's Chile in this article in The Tablet. The canonized founder of Opus Dei was Msgr. Escriva de Balaguer, who like most Spanish churchmen in Spain in the thirties supported Franco. However it should be born in mind that the Spanish Republicans were fiercely anticlerical and Balaguer probably had little choice. At least Franco would not have shot him on sight. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

At the same time, the Opus Dei was a key player in the Franco government after the war, holding several ministries. The fact that, during the war, some anarchists liked to hurl monks around does not mean that the Opus Dei had little choice after the war but to become a centre of power in the fascist regime. Hasdrubal 02:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regarding a source for the statement "He made Escavaria a saint", it can be found here: Vatican's Chronology of the Cause for Canonization for Josemaria Escriva. As far as the political aspects, I've got nothin'. Kenj0418 04:10, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Unrestricted capitalism

I wonder why the adjective "unrestricted" is used before "capitalism". In his public speeches, John Paul II criticized capitalism (no qualifiers) quite harshly, and in rather old-fashioned language ("imperalistic capitalism"). Hasdrubal 21:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Pope and Catholic doctrine

Hi. This piece of information would probably be suited for a more specific article, but since John Paul II was at the head of the Church for more than a quarter of a century, these issues have become a part of his biography, since his position on the issues were heavily criticized. Since I've seen a "red flag go up" here on the talk page, I've decided to address this here, so that maybe something can be added to his biography later.
The issue at hand is the Pope's unwillingness to endorse condoms and other contraceptive methods. The problem is that the general view of this is largely based on half-truths. One must first understand the Church's position about sex. What is true? The Catholic Church condemns any method designed to prevent pregnancy. That derives from the fact that the Catholic doctrine describes sex as a means of procriation, not pleasure. What is wrong? The common assertion that this position favors the spread of teenage/unwanted pregnancy and STDs, especially Aids. The problem is that people are taking this teaching out of context. The Chuch does not say "when having sex, don't use a condom" or "don't take the pill". Again, we must return to the Catholic view on sex: Sex is to be had only in marriage, between exclusive partners, who have, by then, verified that they are both free from desease (ideally), and want to have children. In that context, the Church says "no condoms, no pill", which is merely a question of consistency (since you're supposed to have sex only if you are married and want to have children, how can you use contraceptive methods?). Other than that, the Church advocates abstinence, the only 100% effective method to prevent pregnancy and STDs. Premarital or adulterous sex are forbidden by the Catholic Church.
What the general public seems to believe is that, a teenager/young person who is having sex outside of wedlock, thus in violation of the Church's teaching, will suddenly not use a condom because that is against their faith, because of what the Church (and the Pope) says. To make an ugly analogy, that would be like believing that a murderer, faced with three potential victims, kills the first two, but spares the third for the sole reason that it is against the law to kill. If you are a 16 year-old having sex with your 15 year-old girlfriend, completely ignoring the Church's teachings, it is ludicrous to assume that this couple will not use a condom soly because the Church is against it. You see, in reality, for this teenage couple, the Church is not against them using a condom, the Church is against them having sex in the first place. If people are misinformed to the point of believing that it is all right to have premarital/adulterous sex (or even marital sex not intended for procriation ends) and the "sin" lies only in using condoms or taking the pill, that's a problem of lack of information/knowledge, which the Pope always fought. He made it his mission to go to the ends of the Earth if needed to spread the (complete) message of the Catholic Church.
John Paul II defended this canon throughout his papacy, because he believed that the Church's commitment is first and formost with the truth, not social trends. The Church cannot endorse condoms and pills because it does not admit premarital/adulterous sex, or even marital sex that is not aimed at procriation. The Pope always understood that people will have sex nonetheless, but he also knew that one of the main purposes of religion is to shape human behavior, not adapt to it. Of course people will continue to have sex, and sadly some will still face untimely pregnancies, as well as STDs. But it is a falacy to place any of the blame for that on the Church's teachings (and John Paul II's position), for if the Church was actually heard, STDs would vanish from the Earth and no one would get pregnant if they didn't want to. Regards, Redux 22:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but the sexual doctrine is one of the most criticised points of John Paul II and this criticism is worth mentioning. Of course, one could add the theological explanation of this doctrine, but maybe in a dedicated article.

That criticism existed, we must report. It is also our duty, however, to provide the evidence that the critism was built on a falacy, and therefore is unworthy of serious consideration. After all, how much prestige can we bestow on a theory that is constructed on a misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of the very object it means to criticize? Regards, Redux 03:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"The Great"?

Is there a source for the last two sentences in this excerpt?

In the days following his death senior clergy at the Vatican have been referring to the late pontiff as John Paul the Great. It is unclear at this point whether the posthumous title will become official. If so the name "John Paul" can never be used by any future pontiff. Whether this is church law or simply tradition is uncertain.

I ask because the only two previous "Great" popes were Pope Gregory I and Pope Nicholas I, both of whom were the first but not the last of their respective names! RussBlau 22:16, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

According to The Popes - Twenty Centuries of History, published by Libreria Editrice Vaticana, the only two popes to be previously known as "the Great" were Leo I (reigned 440-61) and Gregory I (reigned 590-604). Please tell me where you heard about Pope Nicholas I having been given this title.--File Éireann 22:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"The written text of Cardinal Angelo Sodano's homily Sunday during mass on the steps of St. Peter's Basilica called the late pope John Paul the Great." [8]

Don't forget Leo I.

Proposed Criticism section

Here's my draft of the "Criticism" section. It's my first time writing a large section about anything controversial, so I could use some help with it.

===Criticisms===

Despite his popularity, John Paul II had many critics.

One charge sometimes leveled at the Pope was that his opposition of communism led him to support right-wing dictators. John Paul occasionally met with—and, some say, supported—dictators such as Augusto Pinochet of Chile. He allegedly endorsed Pio Cardinal Laghi, whom critics charge supported the "Dirty War" in Argentina.

John Paul II was also criticized for his support of the Opus Dei prelature and canonization of its founder, Josemaría Escrivá. Some argued that Opus Dei is essentially a cult operating within the Church; John Paul saw it as part of a larger return to the Church's founding principles.

(Added 04:09, 5 Apr) Besides Escrivá, several of his other canonizations and beatifications have come under fire because the people in question allegedly supported fascist political parties. The Pope's supporters respond that political realities forced the priests to do so; often, they say, the opposition party was violently anti-religious.

Other criticism centered on his beliefs. In particular, John Paul II's beliefs about gender and sexuality came under attack. Some feminists criticized his positions on the role of women, and gay-rights activists disagreed with his stances on homosexuality and in particular gay marriage.

His beliefs about contraception were particularly controversial. John Paul II believed that the only moral purpose of sex is procreation, so using contraceptives—impeding procreation—was an immoral act in his view. Many people disagreed with this belief, but even some who agreed suggested that it was impractical to condemn use of condoms when AIDS is spreading. (Added 04:09, 5 Apr) A separate but related claim is that John Paul's administration spread an unproven belief that condoms don't block the spread of HIV; between these two claims, a few critics have blamed him for AIDS epidemics in Africa.

On a less philosophical level, John Paul II sometimes came under fire for the way he administered the Church; in particular, critics charged that he failed to quickly respond to the Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal.

Help would be much appreciated, espeically where I haven't presented rebuttals to claims, but even suggestions on word choice and grammar would be helpful. (Please don't edit it directly—just explain what you think should be changed in a reply.) —Brent Dax 00:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a separate criticism that he claimed that condoms failed to prevent the transmission of HIV, to his opposition to contraception. The latter is a moral stance which I may not agree with but was his opinion, but the former is a verifiable fact where his statements go against all evidence. The current coverage of this in the criticisms section of the article seems adequate to me.-gadfium 01:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I've added a mention of this, along with a claim made elsewhere that some of his saints were fascists. —Brent Dax 04:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks.-gadfium 04:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since the paragraph has now been deleted from the criticisms section, I'm including it here. I didn't write this paragraph.-gadfium 01:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• His intractable stance on condoms, which has abetted the spread of AIDS in developing countries in which the Catholic Church has a strong presence, for example the Philippines, Nicaragua and Kenya. In 2003, the BBC's Panorama investigations found that in all three continents, Catholic-dominated communities adhered the Vatican position that condoms have holes in them which let the Aids virus through. The president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, explained that the Vatican's scientific committee had proved this - but despite promises, never produced the committee's evidence. The WHO has repeatedly voiced its objection to the proliferation of this scientific untruth. [9]

• "A separate but related claim is that John Paul's administration spread an unproven belief that condoms don't block the spread of HIV..." - This is not a "claim" - it is a plain fact, and one of the high-profile individuals who said this is named in the above paragraph.

• "a few critics have blamed him for AIDS epidemics in Africa" - Glancing through the obituaries and editorials of several different UK broadsheet newspapers yesterday, every single one in some way or another made this allegation. You may agree with it or disagree with it, but it is patent nonsense to assign this view to only "a few critics". If anyone doubts this, I can easily produce a score of news sources from accross the media spectrum, all of which have at some time or another claimed this.

• The above paragraph, which was based on a reputable news source, was clear and specific, and I do not think it merited deletion. The paragraph which replaced it was generalising and vague. In my view, people should never replace the specific with the general in an encyclpedia without a very good reason. No such reasons were put forward let alone discussed, so I'm putting the paragraph back in the article. This area needs more detail and more sources, not less.

Here is the paragraph I replaced:

His beliefs about contraception were particularly controversial to many people. John Paul followed traditional Catholic teaching and believed that the essential purpose of sex for a potentially fertile couple is procreation. Accordingly, he argued that using a contraceptive was an immoral act. Many people disagreed with this belief, but even some who agreed suggested that it was impractical to condemn use of condoms when sexually transmitted AIDS is spreading. A separate but related claim is that John Paul's administration spread an unproven belief that condoms do not block the spread of HIV; between these two claims, a few critics have blamed him for AIDS epidemics in Africa.

Palefire 21:35, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'm reverting this for now; detailed or not, it's POV. "Scientific untruth" (whether you believe it is or not—I personally think the Church is wrong) is not NPOV. There is no mention of the Pope's moral position, beyond a vague mention of "traditional Catholic teaching". "Intractible" is inflammitory, and in general the tone of the paragraph is POV.

I'm putting the old version back for now, but changing the last sentence: "many critics have blamed him for AIDS epidemics in Africa and elsewhere." If you think this statement isn't strong enough, please propose an alternate wording that still preserves a Neutral point of view. Either way, I'd love to see a link to an article alledging this added; I'll leave it to you to choose one that makes a strong case. —Brent Dax 22:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I very much agree that Palefire's version is too POV, and places too much of the onus of the church's position on PJ II--it's not like Popes before him were for birth control. This whole section was the bullet list version when I went to sleep last nite--your new prose version was a very pleasant surprise when I checked the article when I woke up. Nice work. Niteowlneils 22:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can see why you find it POV, and many of the points in the former bullet list may also have been POV, but your response to that should surely be to replace emotive words with more neutral ones while retaining the bulk of the information.

On the subject of links - in addition to the one already provided, here are some examples:

[10], [11] (BBC), [12] (article entitled "The Pope Spreads Aids" on monbiot.com), [13] (Bloomberg), [14] (Guardian article entitled "The Pope has blood on his hands")

Palefire 02:58, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

---

I've integrated a slightly edited version of this; please make further improvements to the main article. The previous bullet list is preserved in its entirety below this message. Thanks for your comments, everyone. —Brent Dax 06:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• He was head of the church during the Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal and was slow to take any action.
• Helped stop education on condom usage throughout Africa, which some claim had a negative effect on the AIDS pandemic in the region.
• Endorsed the Croatian forces in the breakup of Yugoslavia, and several priests and bishops under his responsibility blessed weapons.
• Protected and endorsed Pio Cardinal Laghi in Argentina during the military dictatorship, Laghi blessed and protected torturers and murderers.
• His view on women and their subjugation to men.
• His maintenance of the official position that homosexual desires are "objectively disordered" made him a focal point for those demanding that this position be abandoned.
• He maintained cordial relations with Chilean dictator Augustus Pinochet, despite widespread knowledge that he systematically oppressed political opposition. On 6 April 1987 the two appeared together on the balcony of the Moneda presidential palace, which the general had bombed when he seized power from Marxist president Salvador Allende in a bloody 1973 coup.
• He canonised Josemaria Escriva, the Spanish founder of the influential and secretive Opus Dei movement, accepting the validity of a miracle alledgedly performed in Escriva's name. Critics also point to a presumable Fascist link saying that he was a supporter of Spanish dictator Francisco Franco.
• His canonisation of the 16th century Mexican Aztec known as Juan Diego, who some declare might never have existed.
• His beatification in 1998 of Cardinal Alojsije Stepinac (beatification being one step away from sainthood). In World War II, Stepinac was a member of the Ustashi Parliament, which ordered the extermination of Jews, Gypsies, and communists. Stepinac wrote in the Croatian Sentinel on 1st January, 1942: "Hitler is an envoy of God." At Stepinac's trial for war crimes in the autumn of 1946, the evidence of his not only having consented to but also having "organised" Ustashi units and "crusaders" for the purpose of forcing Serbs to convert to Rome was deemed overwhelming.

Rwanda

Does anybody have something to say about the Pope's (or his Church's) role during the Rwandan genocide?--Error 01:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Protected, and why the NPOV? (4-5-05 UTC)

1) What is the NPOV dispute about?

2) Can we lay off the editing for a few days? We're gonna kill the system. --Kitch 01:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• No. most of the edits are useful. Kingturtle 02:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what the NPOV was for; I've seen discussion here, and work on a Criticism section, but no allegations of serious NPOV problems. Evidently the NPOV notice has been removed. —Brent Dax 04:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Exorcisms?

"According to a New York Post article of February 19, 2002, John Paul II personally performed three exorcisms during his tenure as pope."--We're using the New York Post as a primary source?!? Niteowlneils 17:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Implementing Vatican II?

I think this sentence at the top is grossly misleading, as many believe he turned his back on Vatican II; his conservative approach ignored many directives from the council. When and why was this sentence introduced? His personal mission as Pope, the chief leader and teacher of Catholics worldwide, was to implement the lessons of the Second Vatican Council, emphasizing the universal call to holiness and the Church's role in a modern world.

• I'm not really sure why it was added; it snuck in a couple days ago. It seems like an empty statement, even if it's true, so I wouldn't mind seeing it removed. —Brent Dax 23:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That sentence is based on the actual statements of the John Paul II in his encyclicals and throughout his pontificate. If we want to be scholarly in this work, Wikipedia has to be based on research (as the Wiki rules state). I object to its removal plus the removal of the the section on his Teachings (or we can call it his Writings). To remove this is to disorient the readers on what his life's work is really about and his impact on history.

• Teachings was removed during this revision [15], apparently by accident. Reverted that section. —Brent Dax 08:13, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Death-Factual Accuracy

The Associated Press is reporting that the Pope was unable to speak at all during his death. (This is according the the Pope's doctor). [16]

John Paul's personal physician told La Repubblica newspaper that the Polish-born pope "passed away slowly, with pain and suffering which he endured with great human dignity." "The Holy Father could not utter a single word before passing away," said Dr. Renato Buzzonetti. "Just as happened in the last days he could not speak, he was forced to silence."

Later that day, Vatican sources announced that John Paul II had been given the Anointing of the Sick (formerly known as Last Rites) of the Roman Catholic Church, the first time that the pontiff had received the sacrament since the 1981 assassination attempt on his life. ---> I believe he also had this blessing when he had surgeries during the early 1990s. -- (anonymous) 01:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• At this point, it may make sense to simply reduce the level of detail in this section. It could be massively edited down without removing anything important—the blow-by-blow of media reactions, for example, isn't really necessary. —Brent Dax 07:52, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• So you would rather have facutal inaccuracies in an article because you don't want to reduce the level of detail? If the detail is inaccurate, it should be in the article.
  • No, I'm saying "let's edit this down to something of reasonable length and see if we end up even caring if he could speak at the end." —Brent Dax 18:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Restatement of introduction

I propose that we follow the example set by editors of Rainier III article which re-organizes the text in a manner befitting an encyclopedia. For example, something like so:

John Paul II, 264th Pope of the Roman Catholic Church (Karol Józef Wojtyła) (18 May 1920 – 2 April 2005) styled His Holiness the Bishop of Rome, ruled the Vatican and the Church for nearly 26 years.

Adraeus 07:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Popular Culture?

Someone seems nto to want it, but I think it is informative to show how the Pope was viewed by television series and other pop culture. Shazza 19:27, 6 Apr 2005 (AEST)

Is it worth a whole chapter here? In my opinion, one-two sentences, or a link to other article about pop culture would be sufficient. Ghalas 10:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where can these two sentences be put? Shazza 22:49, 6 Apr 2005 (AEST)

The Pope and Pop Culture? Hmmm. Pope on a Rope. Bottle Popener. Candy Popercorn. Floral Popepouri.  :)

Seriously, the long pontificate and the Pope's enduring popularity across generations, especially by youth, made the Pope a pop icon. He was reverently portrayed and sometimes humorously mocked across the media. I think it deserves mention. --Gerald Farinas 18:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Homosexuality and the intro paragraph

The current introduction is written as:

John Paul II, 264th Pope of the Roman Catholic Church (Karol Józef Wojtyła (18 May 1920 – 2 April 2005) styled His Holiness the Bishop of Rome, ruled the Vatican for nearly 27 years, from 16 October 1978, until his death.

He was widely recognized as a religious leader and a world leader. His personal mission as Pope, the chief leader and teacher of Catholics worldwide, was to emphasize the universal call to holiness and the Church's role in a modern world. He spoke out against communism, materialism, imperialism, unrestrained capitalism and oppression, and firmly opposed abortion, capital punishment, homosexuality, and contraception.

I'm not so sure "ruled the Vatican" is quite the correct terminology to describe his authority. He was more than that. And he did not oppose "homosexuality" per se. Rather, he opposed the act of homosexual sex. He was instrumental in the crafting the USCCB's "Always Our Children" statement that pressured parents of homosexuals to accept their children and not abandon them over the issue of homosexuality. He maintained that homosexuals were children of God, too, and were not to be "hated" or "abused." Pope John Paul II advocated that homosexuals maintain loving friendships without sex and plead that homosexuals were loved by God and called to celibacy.

I might not agree with his stances on homosexuality, but he did not "firmly oppose" it. That's too strong of a term to use to describe how he truly felt about the issue. --Gerald Farinas 18:38, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's probably too mild, not too harsh. Under his tutelage, the Church declared that not only were homosexual acts "intrinsically disordered", but that those who have "this inclination" are "objectively disordered" because of their "tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil". Calling someone disordered, and inclined to evil, may be, as JP2 would have contended, a sign of one's "love" for them as children of God, but it doesn't feel that way to the person being so labeled, and they might be excused for believing that this is the kind of mercy they could well do without, and that such comments might well be expected to lead to hatred or abuse. - Outerlimits 20:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The view that sincere belief that homosexual acts ought never to be engaged in by anyone is intrinsically an expression of hatred toward those who want to engage in such acts is frankly ridiculous to me.Are laws against stealing institutionalized bigotry against kleptomaniacs?The issue here is one of to what extent people are entitled to gratify their desires,and the answer is not limitless license.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 20:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The issue is not what Louis Epstein thinks...that's well-known from his anti-gay screeds on USENET. The issue is what was JP2's stance, and that of the Church under him. I think "opposing homosexuality" is a fair and actually quite mild description of that stance. - Outerlimits 20:29, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

263rd successor of Saint Peter

The comment 263rd successor of Saint Peter in the box on the right-hand side is problematic (minor) for two reasons:

• I checked the two previous popes, and it isn't in their box. Seems like these should be consistent.
• "Successor of Saint Peter" is POV. The majority of Protestants do not accept that he was the bona-fide successor of St. Peter. Many would dispute whether St. Peter had any successors at all. I believe the Eastern Orthodox would disagree, as well. For that matter, identifying him as the 263rd could be POV even among Catholics: there were anti-popes in the past, and someone might quarrel with the declarations as to which line was the "official" line of successors, and there are sedevacantists today who believe he is not a valid successor.

I cannot see how this comment can ever possibly be NPOV. I'm going to change it to "263rd Pope." Someone wanting consistency should probably either eliminate it or add corresponding comments to the box for the other Popes. Jdavidb 19:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, weird. I see that someone is quarrelling over the number. (Vandalism?) I suggest the proper course of action is to take it out. Meanwhile, I'm changing the wording. Jdavidb 19:49, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The (N)th Pope is considered (N-1)th successor of St. Peter as Bishop of Rome.Whether being Bishop of Rome qualifies a man to appoint/approve all other Bishops is the substance of the Protestants' argument,unless you are saying that the historicity of the recorded line of bishops is doubtful?--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 20:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am saying some or all Protestants question whether there was ever any successor of St. Peter at all.

I note that somebody reverted my change without discussing on the talk page. Bad form. Jdavidb 20:08, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My point is that it is glaringly obvious that Saint Peter has been succeeded as Bishop of Rome,the Protestants' argument rests on what powers rest in the office in which these men have succeeded Peter.I believe Cantus was picking on my edit,not yours...he thinks it's "vandalism" to give the Pope's full style rather than the extremely misleading abbreviation "His Holiness the Bishop of Rome",which I've never seen anywhere.--Louis E./12.144.5.2 20:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you've allowed a subset of Protestantism to speak for the whole. The doctrine of apostolic succession is not accepted by all Protestants. There is more in dispute than just the powers of the office; of course, the exact amount of what is disputed varies from Protestant church to Protestant church (and, in fact, from Protestant church member to Protestant church member), ranging from, "Well he's the successor of St. Peter, but he is only over Rome" to the pejorative "He's the Beast of Revelation!" Wikipedia can't conclude whether something is "glaringly obvious" or not. It can only report the various points of view, properly contextualized.

Rather than simply leaving out the appelation "successor of Saint Peter," it would be okay to say something like, "263rd (or whatever the number is) successor of Saint Peter, to Roman Catholics."

But again let me point out that no other Pope has this in the box on his article. I think we should take it out entirely, or add it in and standardize it. Jdavidb 20:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just to point out before this discussion carry on, our own List of Popes & Catholic Encyclopedia list 265 Popes !! -- KTC 20:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Catholic Encylopedia differs from what the Vatican officially reports. Pope Stephen II died three days after being elected and isn't counted by the Vatican. I've put 264 back. JYolkowski 21:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pope assume office on acceptance of election and being a bishop. Hence the reason it's in our own List of Popes & in Catholic Encylopedia. If we're going to decide otherwise about counting him, then we're going need to change all articles we have about Popes, papal election, & list of Popes etc. Listing him in List of Popes and not then counting him in this article is just plain inconsistence. -- KTC 21:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We should go with the offical count though. I'll update List of popes as well. JYolkowski 21:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You may wish to notice that there are two mentions of the number in question: one in the caption box beneath his picture and the other immediately following his name at the inception of the article. However it is decided, the number should be consistently displayed. --Magda 20:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to edit that one. -- KTC 21:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Either way,remember that a "Pope" number must always be one more than the same person's "successor to Saint Peter" number.--L.E./12.144.5.2 21:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The box again says, "successor of St. Peter," yet consensus has not been reached here. The persons putting in this wording have not even discussed it. Inappropriate. This change was made by 24.85.108.6 (in an uncommented edit), who also added the change to Pope John Paul I, which is good for consistency, but still not NPOV.

When a change has been disputed on the talk page, someone needs to actually respond on the talk page so we can reach consensus, rather than just reverting. Reverts especially do not need to be made without commenting in the edit summary. The purpose of the edit summary is so we can identify when an edit happened. If and when we come to a consensus that your edit is the way it should be, we still want to know when it happened.

I am unpersuaded that it is NPOV to use the phrase "successor of Saint Peter," and so far nobody who has reverted my change has bothered to discuss it with me or to even be bold enough to describe their revert in the edit summary. My thanks to those of you who have been gracious enough to discuss here.

As for the numbering of the Pope, I'm unqualified to say other than that Wikipedia should be consistent. :) I'll respect the consensus that Nth Pope is N-1th successor of St. Peter. :) If and when a consensus emerges here as to what number he was, I will respect and assist in enforcing it.

Finally I'd like to go off topic and express my condolences to all Catholics reading this upon the death of your beloved Pope. He was a good man, and I know he meant a lot to you. Jdavidb 21:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wow; Bratsche has already fixed this. :) Although I think he was reverting based on the value of N and doesn't necessarily imply agreement with my opinion about the NPOV issue. Thanks, anyway! I know we'll come to consensus on this at some point. Suggested compromises welcome.

I am going to go look at the articles for the preceeding Popes, as I noticed that 24.85.108.6 was moving on to them. Not sure if he just did Pope John Paul I or moved on. They should match, whatever we decide. Jdavidb 21:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)