Talk:Pope John Paul I

Unclear sentence
I really don't understand what this means: "... John Paul I quickly made several decisions that would "humanise" the office of pope, admitting publicly he had turned scarlet when Paul VI placed his stole on Luciani's shoulders while the pontiff visited Venice on 16 September 1972." What's the significance of the placement of the stole? Why is it relevant to humanizing the papacy? What does it mean that "he turned scarlet"? I've seen that mean both anger and embarrassment. Which was it? And did he literally say he turned scarlet, or is that a paraphrase? If he actually said it, it should be in quotes, and if it's a paraphrase, it should be reworded, as that's too much of a rhetorical flourish for encyclopedic style.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  00:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree it's unclear, and I have removed the statement about the stole. Most of that section is unsourced. Sundayclose (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Paus Johannes Paulus I (kop), Bestanddeelnr 929-9074 (cropped).jpg

Does this article inaccurately say he was the last Italian born pope?
John Paul I stated as most recent Italian born pope in a line of succession that predates him. But when you look at the articles about his 2 successors, it says they were both born in Italy… either the sentence is written incorrectly or maybe just not a true fact? I’m confused by it lol RAjiDavis (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Those two articles say no such thing: the two were born in Poland and Germany respectively. Possibly the two were momentarily vandalised? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.221.194.253 (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

US vs. Commonwealth spelling
The section heading on canonization (I'm American) reads:

Canonization process

The first full sentence in the section reads:

The process for the canonisation for John Paul I formally began in 1990 with the petition by 226 Brazilian bishops, including four cardinals.

(Emphasis added in both cases.)

I don't care which variety we use, but I do want us to be consistent within an article. --Tkynerd (talk) 10:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Opus Dei
The Opus Dei section, as it currently reads, is multiply problematic. It's taken from an opinion piece about Opus Dei, not a work about JPI and his life. The section tells us little about JPI, serving instead to educate the reader on Escriva. It currently reads as UNDUE weight -- Luciani published many articles in his lifetime, why do we single out this one quote? In total, it reads as promotional hagiography of a random third party. I removed it., but it was restored. Feoffer (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I was confused about your edit summary when you removed the section. Having read your comment, I agree and will revert my edit. I wouldn't be opposed to putting JPI's view on Opus Dei in the article (but not a separate section). But I Googled it and found very little. Sundayclose (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Main image


Until last Sunday, the image that appears at the beginning of this section (see top right) was used as the infobox. This photograph, housed in the Dutch National Archives, is licensed under CC0, which makes it valid for use in the infobox (as was the case until last Sunday), because, as indicated in the comment placed just after the image (which is only visible when a modification is made), it is not recommended to use the images of John Paul I licensed with Public Domain claim in Italy, due to their copyright in the US have been restored by the URAA.

However, instead of this notice, between 14 and 15 August, the user Ozone742 changed this image with two photographs with the same feathures of those which the infobox' notice recommended not to use, see here and here.

After those editions were reverted, another user removed the Dutch National Archives' photograph with the reason: "This has been discussed previously. An image WHEN HE WAS POPE is preferred, even if the quality is not as good as pre-pope pics. And this pic is freely available. Stop changing it. It is also the consensus per WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Get a consensus to change it."

I'm not sure that, if the photograph description in the Dutch National Archives, gives 19 September 1978 as date, the image could depict Albino Luciani before his election as Pope. However, I think that a consensus could be the appropriate method to decide if this photograph could be kept in the infobox as it was until 14 August.

From my opinion, I believe that the Nationalarchief's image, used until last Sunday, could be kept in the infobox because it is freely available (CC0 license) and depicts John Paul I during his short pontificate (taken on 19 September 1978, nine days before his death).

Pinging as the user who removed the Dutch National Archives' image and  as the top 10 users (registered) who edit this article to treat to get consensus about the image. 95.127.24.160 (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * My apologies. The image that I removed is described as "taken on 19 September 1978", which is after he became pope. I misread. I make no comments about any other dispute discussed here. Sundayclose (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * sometimes we can make mistakes and we don't realize it at the time. I also have nothing to object to the 19 September 1978's file, I simply suggested the opinion of other users to reach a consensus, believing that it could be useful. However, if someone has something to contribute, they can do it anyway. 95.127.24.160 (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)