Talk:Pope John Paul II/Archive 6

Untitled
January 26, 2006 – October 20, 2007

Jan Tyranowski in English Wikipedia
In light of his crucial influence on John Paul II (see e.g. ), English Wikipedia needs an article about Jan Tyranowski. I humbly encourage anyone with the relevant language skills, which I lack, to translate the Polish article. L&#39;omo del batocio 15:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Family
Ok this might sound weird to alot of people but hes my great uncle so I have some facts on his family...(like cousins) He had a younger cousin whose name was Elizibith Smagacz who lived in Poland till coming over to the US in the early 1900's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.102.80 (talk) 05:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

older entries
Q: Did I hear right that there will be a Pope John Paul II animated series? I can't find anything on the web as there's too much flotsam. --Flea Circus Director 14:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for new Article: List of places named after JPII
The trivia section has a sampling of places (street, airports, railway stations, etc.) named after JPII. The list is neither representative nor exhaustive. Also it seems that just about every large, predominantly Catholic city has named something after him or erected a monument to JPII. To list everything that has been named after JPII and all monuments/statues is not really feasible or appropriate for the main article. I propose creating a "List of monuments to John Paul II" and then linking to that page. This will help to (1) retain the information and (2) make the article shorter. Any suggestion for or against? Cshobar 01:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea. LotR 17:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

St. Pio / Padre Pio
I see that the Padre Pio anecdote has been slipping in and out. Can we decide whether is stays or goes? Personally I believe that this belongs (if anywhere) in the Padre Pio article. It is a minor anecdote in JPII's life, but more important for Padre Pio. According to the Wegel biography of JPII, he attributed Dr. Połtawska's recovery to Padre Pio's intercession. (page 153) I would submit that this contributed to Padre Pio's canonization cause and thus belongs in that article. If anything must be mentioned at all in the article, perhaps just a note (one sentence) that JPII went to confession to Padre Pio in 1947 and met him during the Second Vatican Council is sufficient. Cshobar 01:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree! This is just an anecdote for JP2, and does not belong in an article about him. I removed it earlier, but it has returned. A single sentence is plenty! Mlouns 02:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am opposed to mentioning the Pio encounter at all, but in the spirit of consensus how about this in Biography-Church Career setion:
 * ... commonly known as the Angelicum, where he earned a licentiate and later a doctorate in sacred theology. It was during these studies that he had his first of two encounters with Padre Pio.
 * Cshobar 15:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable to me. As I mentioned in an edit summary, another option would to put it under "Trivia" (given that Padre Pio had garnered international fame). LotR 17:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Photograph
Why every pope have representative portrait except John Paul II, who has here biased photo? Change this, if you want call this site "good". There are many photos on official site of Vatican.
 * Care to explain what you mean by biased photo? The photo seems to change every few weeks or so, so I am not sure to which you are referring. Cshobar 07:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Photo has been changed on more representative as a portrait. John Paul the Great was a great man, the greatest in the XX century. Criticism is unnecessary; it's funny how small, not important people try to attack the greatest person, I won't disturb in doing this. Good luck, but I suggest you to do something useful instead writing nonsensial criticism (which has nothing to do with reality).
 * Can you, whoever you are (please sign your posts in the future,) please explain why your choice of portrait is more representative as a portrait? BTW, your POV is not really all that helpful in improving the article. (I don't necessarily disagree with you but the point is to produce the best and most balanced article possible. You comments don't help us in achieving that goal. Cshobar 07:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this photo should be removed. John XXIII, Pius XII etc. have photos where they posed. On site of The Holy See there are photos with John Paul II which are for sure more suitable here. What is OFFICIAL, representative photo? It's easy to find. For example: http://www.ruggedelegantliving.com/a/images/Pope.John.Paul.II.2005.jpg There are other better photos: http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/photo/funzioni_01/ppages/ppage34.html http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/photo/funzioni_01/ppages/ppage59.html http://www.kofc.org/cmf/images/news/Pope_1970s_Portrait.jpg http://www.catholic-heritage.net/papal_visit/images/pv-f1109.jpg
 * I agree with your first point. If the practical norm is to use 'posed' images for other pontiffs and the like, then we ought to do so here. But on the other hand, of the examples to which you provide links, only one is in fact 'posed' (although I believe the correct terminology here is portrait.) The other links you provide are very nice photos, but are all candid shots of JPII. Additionally, what is your definition of 'official?' Indeed the title of the section from the links to the L'Osservatore Romano photos is "More beautiful photographs of the Holy Father." You are selecting a few from many, none of which are claimed to be 'official' (and none of which are portraits.) Also three of the sites from which you provide links can in no way claim to be 'official' any more than Wikipedia itself could. It sounds like there is a consensus that many do not like the current photo (although the picture changes every few days, so who knows to which picture each of us is in fact referring.) Finding one that is more agreeable to all (most) is fine, but I think that that should be the criteria. Unless the pontifical yearbook or the Vatican site come out with an explicitly 'official' photo of JPII, there is no 'official' photo. Cshobar 15:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

John Paul II soon will be blessed, then probably saint, so the photo will be changed for sure in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.205.114.11 (talk)
 * I don't understand why the picture will need to be changed as JPII moves through the canonization process.Cshobar 01:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI have portraits (as someone called it posed photo) and Saint Pope has a bad quality "shot photo".


 * I don't know what photo you're refering to, but frankly the photo that is up on the page right now is very appealing. He looks very good in that photograph, and I would hardly call it a "bad quality photo."  But if this is bothering you so much, then why don't YOU go ahead and update the photograph instead of just complaining about it?--Scyldscefing 17:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

LGBT Rights Opposition Category
This was added (by me) removed by another and then added by me again. Pope John Paul II was a vocal opponent of gay equality. To place him in this category is not to judge him for taking this position but merely notes that he fits into this category and this enables the category to be a useful resource.--Sjharte 20:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Have had to re-add the category again - this time im the face of a claim that it is not "relevant". JPII was an outspoken oponent of gay equality. Under his papacy this issue received much attention - to the background of increasing debate on this issue in both the religious and secular world. His noteable contributions to this debate are relevant to anyone following it and thus the category is relevant in an encyclopedia.--Sjharte 23:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

He wasn't opponent of gay equality. He had never has said that people should be against them. Don't say me that gay marriages and adoption are thier rights, because it's only your opinion, not fact.

Be careful with the LGBT rights opposition category. It should be included just as it should be for any article concerning the Catholic Church, but it does not deserve more than a mention in passing. The opposition of the Catholic Church to homosexuality/anal sex/gay marriage is nothing new, and it should be taken in the context of an article on a Catholic leader. You can't expect any Pope to all of a sudden do a 180-degree about face on a basic tenent of Catholicism that has been around for millenia.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.26.4 (talk • contribs) on 11 Feb 2006 at 23:08 (UTC).

Excuse me, but what "idiot" changed main photo? Official portrait was much better.

I note the personal opinion of the unsigned commentator. The reason for categories is to enable someone to do reasearch accross a subject area. Anyone looking at oponents of LGBT rights would not get the complete picture if they did not take into account the personal energy that Pope John Paul II put into attacking the rights of LGBT people. He did so for what he considered to be good reasons but the validity or othwersie of his reasons are not a factor in placing him personally in the category of LGBT rights opnonents.--Sjharte 13:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * (I assume you mean "whether [or not] to place him" otherwise your sentence suggests to me you think JPII should *not* be so placed). Beware of course that saying "attacking the rights of LGBT people" is POV. JPII refused to define people by the marks they bore (he claimed) because of the Fall. He would point out that we all bear the marks of the Fall one way or another. To conflate the right to protection from violence because one is homosexual - which JPII undoubtedly defended - with a right to commit what he consistently and in great detail taught were unnatural *acts* is POV. JPII for one would deny they were the same. I think 68.194.26.4's point is sound. It is silly to go to the bother of categorising a Pope as "anti LGBT". Shall we categorise those who defecate in the woods? Make sure to include bears. Any category that gets Jack Chick, JPII and Mahmoud al Zahar in the same place seems screwy to me. But this matters to a great deal to some wikipedians and it isn't worth the effort opposing them. Same deal with the weird attack on the honorific (diplomatic courtesy) "His Holiness". I wish 68.194.26.4 well but he or she is on a losing wicket. Stroika 14:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The category is not for "People who were nice to gay people" or "People who hate gay people". It's for people who oppose LGBT rights, which generally include things like marriage, adoption, etc., which John Paul II was clearly an opponent of. I'm not saying he was for burning gay people at the stake (nor is the category) but he certainly opposed gay rights. Nothing Stroika has said suggests that this is not the case. Now, as for relevance, I would say this category is more relevant for this Pope than other popes and I don't think we should go back and add it to every ancient pope. However, developments in the gay rights movement during John Paul II's pontificate made his stances on these issues newsworthy and thus there is a lot of literature on this question. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This category begs the question. What are LGBT rights?  What rights in particular?  Because this "opposer of LGBT rights" obviously did not oppose their right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.  So it is misleading to suggest he opposes their rights, unless there is phraseology to clarify.  This pope would never have agreed that these "rights" he opposed are even rights at all. - JustinW 21:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Pope JPII wasn't against LGBT rights. Are homosexual marriages their rights? No. It MAY be their extra-rights. Pope said that homosexualism isn't a sin, just "gay sex" and so on is. And he couldn't say anything else, because this is what teaching of Church says. Noone can criticize pope for it.

I think that this does bring up a big issue. What "rights" are we talking about here? If it just means gay marriage and adoption, then it should say anti-gay marriage. I don't know any other "rights" that gays don't have that straight people do except those that derive from marriage or a civil union, so I think the category should be changed to reflect this. - unsigned anon.
 * The rights being discussed are basic human rights: the right not to be discriminated against in employment, or in housing, for example. Such rights are secured by law, not by marriage. - Zotz 05:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting discussion. I don't think it is correct to say the CC is anit-gay. Morally opposed to gay sexual activity? certainly.  Opposed to "gay marriage?" certainly.  Opposed to fundamental human rights for gay people? no way. Opposed to civil union for gay people, no.  However, seeing this discussion, I am reminded how often the LGBT community is anti-Catholic so I put ACT-Up in the Anti-Catholic category for its desacration of the Eucharist.  This is more than fair.--Vaquero100 06:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I never heard of Pope John Paul II advocating discrimination against gays in employment or in housing. He was against gay marriage and adoption because it is a basic tenent of the catholic faith. I also agree with Vaquero that the homosexual community is rabidly anti-catholic, and would do anything to smear any Catholic official because the church will not recognize gay marriage. One example of this is the page on John Cardinal O'Connor, which has had a NPOV dispute war for the last several months because of someone's dislike for the Cardinal's stance on gay issues. - unsigned anonymous.
 * But you've heard of Cardinal O'Connor's political battle against laws in New York which would have guaranteed protection from discrimination against gays in employment or in housing, because you've edited that article. Unfortunately, your assertion that the church hasn't opposed equal protection under law for gay men and women is wrong. - Zotz 03:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The church opposes gay marriage, and asserts that homosexuality is a sin. You need to be more specific on how Pope John Paul II opposed other legal rights for gays. This is an article on this one specific Pope, and not the Catholic Church in general.


 * Untrue. Church could assert IN THE PAST long time ago that homosexuality is a sin. John Paul II said that homosexuality IS NOT a sin, but sex of gays or lesbians is. He had NEVER opposed other legal rights for them. His opinion about homosexuals was "liberal" if we compare it to other popes.

Then the LGBT opposition category should be removed for Pope John Paul II.

"Every homosexual person should be respected and loved, homosexual acts are intrinsically sinful." It's shows that Pope John Paul II wasn't against homosexual people, he was teaching about respecting them (so we can call him the most liberal pope ever if we talk about homosexuality). He couldn't agree on their marriages or acts, because he can't agree with ANYTHING what's in Bibble. Remove it from criticism.

Done, removed.

John Paul II opposed rights for homosexuals because their behavior was immoral and perverted. That is a valid reason. That is not the same thing as opposing rights for blacks or other groups of people. FDR 17:00 July 4, 2006

Who said that marriages are rights of homosexuals? It's just a "bonus".

A position of "he wasn't anti-gay; he was just anti gay-sex" is as untenable as saying "he isn't anti-semitic; he just wants to make it illegal to go to synagogues". In any case, the matter can be easily settled by reverting to Sjharte's original premise: rather than saying JPII was an "opponent of gay rights", simply say he was an "opponent of gay equality". It eliminated the nitpicking over whether marriage is a right. It prevents people from somehow proposing that "thinking it's bad to murder gay people" is somehow equivalent to "supporting gay rights". It's a simple, factual statement. In the Church's ideal model, straight people can marry their partners and have fulfilling sex lives with them, while gay people must make do with "civil unions" (if they're lucky), and remain celibate. Whether or not you think this is a violation of anybody's rights, it is undeniably an inequality. Note that this also isn't a value judgment; most people would be opposed to "equality" for serial killers, too. It's clear that I think the Church's position on this matter is painfully backward and intolerant, but simply saying that it's "anti gay-equality" takes no position on whether gay people _should_ be treated equally. 216.52.69.217 14:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II was liberal in case of homosexual people. He couldn't do anything more, because pope HAS to follow the Holy Book which says that gay sex is a sin. He said that people should tolerate them. Saying that Church is backward and intolerant is unjustice and untrue. There won't be never agreement on homosexual marriages from Roman Catholic Church.

Why someone think that marriages are rights of gays? It's a sickness.


 * Please remember that this is a Talk Page about the Article, not a general purpose blog. In the context of the article, the issue is not whether the term "gay rights" is aptly named, or whether the concept it embodies is good or bad, or whether the Pope has any choice in the matter. In the context of the article, it is acknowledged by the very discussion above that the common meaning of "gay rights" is something that the subject of this article opposes, and that that is a notable fact. "Gay equality" is probably a good neutral term for something that all have acknowledged the feller opposed. rewinn 04:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sickness? Get off your high horse and educate yourself. For the love of God.


 * I think "gay rights" is almost universally viewed as gay adoption or marriage. If you say you support these supposed "gay rights," it IS implied.  Abortion isn't viewed as a "right" to a lot of people, yet it definitely falls under the category of reproductive rights.

Adamsmo 02:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC) \

However, Pope John Paul II really discriminated against trannsexuals by not allowing for them to serve in church positions along with the Vatican officials falsely claiming that trannsexualism dosen't exist.

How to get the dates of decrees etc.(Beatification)
Look up the relevant congregation (in this case |Causes of Saints) or other Curial body on the Vatican website. There is no need to cite bloggers (as this article does until I can nobble it) as authority for something as official as the waiver of the 5 year wait. The Vatican is good for anything about the Pope. Otherwise Zenit.org is an extremly reliable bulletin service for stuff to do with the Pope *and* for other religious events in Rome not involving him. It has an extensive archive. We can get dates right. Let's do so. Stroika 13:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Why Thatcher and Reagan?
...and along with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, he is often credited as one of the forces which brought about the fall of the Soviet Union.

There are two problems with this sentence:

1. It uses the passive voice to make an unsupported statement about Thatcher and Reagan. Who credits them? It doesn't say, but the author suggests that it is a basic assumption of history that John Paul II, Thatcher, and Reagan together brought about the end of the Cold War. It is not a basic assumption of history because many people are still debating the roles played by Thatcher and Reagan.

2. It mentions only the "fall of the Soviet Union." The the ideological battle was between the Pope and Communism, not just the Soviet Union.

I'm relatively new to Wiki - not sure what the protocol is for making changes. I changed it as follows: His early reign was marked by his opposition to Communism, and he is often credited as one of the forces which brought about its fall.

Robko626 16:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Update - It seems as if someone is determined to link Reagan with JPII.

"...Mikhail Gorbachev once said the collapse of the Iron Curtain would have been impossible without John Paul II.[7] This view is shared by those people who credited him, as well as Ronald Reagan, of the 1989 fall of Berlin Wall."

Isn't this entry about John Paul II? Or is it about a view of Mikhail Gorbchev that is shared by people who think Reagan was responsible for the fall of the Berlin Wall? Removing reference to Reagan, and the wall.

171.72.5.225 16:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If anyone of you had actually read some books outside of just reading stuff on the internet you would be aware of the above facts! Dwain 02:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Japanese
I reverted a claim that JPII was fluent in Japanese. According to he had to have remarks in that language prepared for him by an aide. He may have been able to pronounce it creditably, but that's a long way from fluent. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Additional Criticism
I added some additional criticism that I feel may help people properly put John Paul II's work for the Concilary Church in the context of the Roman Catholic Church. Feel free to comment here but do respect that it is well documented and should not be brushed aside based on personal feelings.

"Homosexuality" v "homosexual Activity"
The document "LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS" (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html) issued under his papacy (and authored by his successor, cardinal Ratzinger) noted, in respect of homosexual orientation, that the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder" going further than had ever been said before.  Prior to the this the line was always that it was only the "activity" that was wrong


 * Is calling homosexuality (homosexual inclinations) "disordered" the same thing as calling them "immoral" (as attributed to him on the main page)? - Justin Walters 23:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * the Ratzinger document mentioned above talks about moral disorder. Therefore it would be correct to say that the vatican position is that homosexualiuty is immoral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjharte (talk • contribs)


 * From the letter: "Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder."  There is a strong distinction between the disordered inclination, and the immorality (sin) of the resulting actions of people who give in to it intentionally and knowingly. - Justin Walters 17:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * PS- let's also not forget the discussion these talk pages already had about this. Homosexual activity is the culprit here.

NOTE:
BENEDICT DID NOT SUCCEED JOHN PAUL. EVERY POPE IS A DIRECT SUCCESSOR OF PETER HIMSELF!!!!!!!
 * okay, buddy. Joeyramoney 22:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Intro too long
Contains a lot of information which could be said about any pope. Current structure is an attempt to flesh out the debate over whether he was liberal or conservative, which should be done in the body, if at all. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Mistake
Benedict XVI isn't succesor of John Paul II, he is succesor of St Peter (like every Pope).


 * Your 1st assertion is incorrect. The common meaning of successor is the person who occupies the office afterwards. The line does not go directly from Peter to Benedict; if it did, why would Benedict have the XVI? rewinn 04:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
as you can probably guess, someone vandalised the crap out of this section. That person is a real idiot. Pope John Paul the 2nd is not in hell. He was a good dude and hes resting in peace.

I agree, he was fantastic.

Cleanup of tags
Reading this article, I noticed some tags which were showing in the text. Also, seemed like a number of references were not actually pointing at anything. I am new to editing, but think this article could probabaly use a cleanup of citations and references. It has a hodgepodge of citation links and reference links with no consistency. TBadger 14:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Great and/or Saint?
I heard that they are considering to put him in the Great list and make him a saint (he has a lot of acclomplishments). Is this true? that would make him Saint John Paul the Great, right?Dogmanice 02:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no "Great list", and "they" do not decide it. Historical figures (not just Popes) are called that based on customary or popular usage, not some official decree. He is being "fast-tracked" to veneration as a saint, though, at least in part due to popular demand. How he is to be known officially as a saint would be announced at the time of canonization. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The article notes that since his death a bunch of people have been calling him "John Paul the Great" -- however, I know of at least two instances of his being called "John Paul the Great" before his death.

One was in an editorial or essay in about 2002 or 2003, I'm not sure by whom or where, but I think it was by Rod Dreher: something like "my grandchildren will probably know him as 'John Paul the Great'."

The other was in a science fiction story by Orson Scott Card, "The Polish Boy", a prequel to Ender's Game. The protagonist, Ender Wiggin's father, is noted as being named for John Paul the Great. I don't have a copy of the story to quote from, but I heard Card read from it at WorldCon in September 2002.


 * I was in Poland when they celebrated the 25th anniversary of his becoming Pope. There were huge celebrations in the streets of Warsaw, and the crowds were already chanting "Wielki," (Great).140.147.160.78 18:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Are either of these relevant enought to mention in the article, do you think (assuming we can find the text to quote from)? --Jim Henry 12:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, he should get canonized. He was a good pope.


 * I agree with the above sentiment but it's probably not worth putting into the article until there is notable action on the matter. rewinn 03:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I heard he was beautified. Should that be put in the article? &#39;&#39;&#91;&#91;User:Kitia&#124;Kitia]] 23:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's "beatified". And not without a source, no. You heard wrong, methinks. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A process that might lead to his beatification is under way, but he's not there yet. JackofOz 13:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This "the great" business is very anecdotal and, while discussion of it belongs here, it doesn't belong in the first sentence of the article.

criticism
I removed the statement "Few now dispute the wisdom of his statements" (or something to that effect) because that is completely POV and incorrect. "Few" is not defined and "wisdom" is subjective.

I'm Catholic and Pope John Paul II is not a saint. This article says he is.

Servant of God
I removed the words "Servant of God," at the very beginning of the article that were added to his name in bold print.Gerard von Hebel 22:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction?
In the "Critism" section, it says that JPII never called the [Iraq] war unjust. However, in the "Iraq war" section above, it says, ''John Paul II said that... a unilateral aggression is... a violation of international law.''

Small difference, but perhaps this should be changed? --Torres12 00:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

criticism
I'm not a Wikipedia veteran, but the opening statement to this section - "Pope John Paul II was almost universally respected, but was not without criticism." - appears to be both a) weasel words (what is "almost universal", what does "not without" mean) and b) POV. My proposed edit disappeared, but I believe this article needs more balance - and this is a good place to start. 139.163.138.14 02:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As a stand-alone statement it would be unacceptably weasel-worded, true. But in context -- following descriptions of a number of his achievements that earned him world-wide respect, and as an introduction to a section where some of the criticisms are discussed in detail -- it appears suitable to me. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

At the bottom of the criticism section there is: Because of the many criticisms he received during this lifetime, including many assassination attempts... Were there many assassination attempts? I thought there was only one. Apepper 08:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There was only one that got close, when he was shot and wounded by a psychopath, but there was a suicide bomb attempt planned for his visit to the Philippines and supported by Al Queda, a 20 landmines placed under a bridge as a bomb on his route in Bosnia, and one knife attack that was caught by his guards in Rome. --70.15.4.226 (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Rank of reign length
I think the place to hash this out is in List of 10 longest-reigning popes, and this article ought to reflect what it says there. On that page it says, "The Roman Catholic Church recognizes St. Peter as the first Pope, however, the Roman Catholic listings of longest reigning popes exclude him." If this is true -- of which I can't be sure because there's no citation -- then we have no call here to say otherwise, or even to imply otherwise as the current version does.

The problem with considering St. Peter the longest-reigning pope is twofold: The controversy over whether he was ever Pope at all, and if so how long was his reign. Even granting the former, the latter cannot be determined with any certainty. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A couple edits went back and forth between "second longest" and "third longest". Something like "second longest since 1500" seems to me indisputable, and a way to avoid this problem. Gimmetrow 19:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Indisputable, but it also makes it sound as if we can definitely say there was a longer-reigning Pope before 1500, which we cannot do. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I must say, I didn't get this implication (or I wouldn't have written it), but I did see "second longest ever" as sounding rather definite in the negative. So, what else can be tried? Better would be to say "second longest according to XYZ list" with an appropriate source. Gimmetrow 23:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If the Vatican indeed does not list St. Peter as the longest-reigning Pope, then I see no obstacle to being definite about it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there a reference for it? I have been unable to find it. Wiki itself is not a reference for Wiki. I would rather avoid a cludgy phrase like the one at the end of Pope Leo XIII. Would "longest reign since Piux IX" work? Gimmetrow 02:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I can determine from the lengthy discussion of this subject at Talk:List of 10 longest-reigning popes, the source is the current Annuario Pontificio, which is a print publication. User:Sumergocognito says he copied the relevant page, but we unfortunately don't have a scan. It looks as if we'll have to darken the door of a library to answer the question -- or just take the results of that discussion at face value, at least for the time being. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure what to get from that discussion. I personally think the lead-ins should avoid controversial phrasing on minor points, and put that in the body if it's important. I would go with "longest reign since Pius IX", but whatever you want. Gimmetrow 05:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Meh. If there's some doubt as to what the source says, I have no problem with leaving it until a clear cite can be added. (If it indeed reflects the Vatican list, it can hardly be controversial IMO.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Surely Saint peter cannot be included as the longest reigning pope because he is a saint thus lives forever, also in the cathlic faith every pope comes directly after saint peter but technically he was not alive at that time meaning that he could not be included


 * Incorrect. You can't become a saint until after you are dead; the afterlife is indeed eternal (in Catholic teaching) but not life as we know it, Jim. rewinn 04:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Beginning of gay parnter rights in european countries
In the last 10 years of the Pope John Paul II began the victory of gay parnter rights in some european countries (for example Netherlands, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden. Still under the Pope John Paul II there were always no help for gay couples in their fight for partner rights. That should be written in a little part of the text over the Pope John Paul II.--GLGerman 00:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)GLGerman

External link proposal
I would like to propose the following for inclusion among the external links. Please help! See User_talk:Brusselsshrek for further explanation.

John Paul II links in chainki.org.

Brusselsshrek 23:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to propose removing the following links:
 * Ascension of John Paul the Great. Serapis Bey announced on May 1, 2005: "John Paul II has entered into the Oneness of the Eternal Life with his own God Presence." (I don't really see what this has to do with JPII or the article.)
 * Vatican: the Holy See (There is also a link to the Holy See's JPII page. That seems sufficient to me.)
 * John Paul II's funeral April 8, 2005, Litany of Saints mp3 files (The file has been removed from the server.)
 * Global Catholic Statistics: 1905 and Today by Albert J. Fritsch, SJ, PhD (The paper has nothing to do with JPII.)
 * John Paul II Respectful Tribute (The server is often not responsive and this is one of countless tributes on the web.)

Any comments for or against? Cshobar 03:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Women as theological figures
Can someone put details of JP II's comments on women priests and related matters on the above page please (and any other relevant information) - make a separate Catholic section etc. Jackiespeel 23:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

More Saints Claim Needs Source
In multiple places, this article references a claim that he may have created more saints than all previous Popes combined, but there is no sourcing. This claim should be removed until it has a source ... not necessarily a count of saints, but a link to someone making that claim (...which is not really a very notable claim. His enthusiasm for creating saints is already amply discussed with other, sourced facts). rewinn 16:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a point on language: canonization does not create a saint, rather it acknowledges the sainthood of someone formally.  Baccyak4H 01:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, that is the official doctrine. I have replaced the unsourced "more than all others combined" claim in the introduction with the shorter and supportable claim of "a great many"; the body of the article has a similar claim with a source, but only with respect to the most recent 5 centuries. The relevant point is that there were a lot of canonizations; and one suspects one does not want to bother with figuring out how to tally the actions of the Avignon Popes anyway. rewinn 03:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Nomination for Wikipedia's featured article
Due to the tremendous amount of information on Pope John Paul II, I recommend that he be nominated for Wikipedia's featured article. Anybody disagree? --Canadia 02:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree and although no one has said anything, I suspect many others disagree as well. It doesn't matter how much info there is on PJP II or how much info we have on him (although if there is a lot of important info we don't have then clearly we don't have a good article). What matters is we have an article meeting certaing criteria. Try reading What is a featured article? and check out the todo list at the top. Nil Einne 09:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II vs. John Paul II
Why is this article titled Pope John Paul II instead of John Paul II? I thought honorifics didn't belong in article titles. Thus, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom rather than Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Or does this convention not apply for religious titles? Patiwat 09:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The naming conventions for popes is located at Naming conventions (Western clergy). Gentgeen 05:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This naming convention should be changed. Even in the Polish wikipedia the name of this article is John Paul II (Jan Paweł II), and the article just calls him a former pope (among other catholic titles) and a current Servant of God (Sługa Boży). Mieciu K 13:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Naming conventions (link above) states:
 * For popes, whether Roman Catholic, Coptic, or otherwise, use the format "Pope {papal name} {ordinal if more than one} of {episcopal see}". Popes of Rome should not be linked with their episcopal sees; Rome is understood. Also, do not use a pope's personal name. For example, use Pope John Paul I, not Albino Luciani or Pope John Paul I of Rome.
 * It seems implied by use of an older Pope that this means ex-Popes too. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 16:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * JPII is not an ex-pope. That would be the case if he had abdicated, but he never did that.  --  JackofOz 04:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations
Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b. Members of the WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 22:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Mother?
There is some speculation that Pope John Paul's mother was ethnically (but not religiously) Jewish, thus technically making John Paul II a Jew. Has anyone else heard or read about this? --64.12.116.10 05:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Some user also insisted she had Lithuanian roots... There's article in Polish Wikipedia about her and nationality issue was never raised there, see: pl:Emilia Wojtyła. A.J. 11:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Please add oc:Joan Pau II
Thank you. oc:user:Joao Xavier200.161.186.9 23:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia: The Movie -- Karol: A Man who would Be Pope
I just finished watching the movie and its definitely not a documentary. Sorry if the title is incorrectly translated. I have the German Version -- Karol: Ein Mann, der Papst wurde. Its a minute detail but wrong just the same. thanks.

Postage stamp caption needs to be cleaned up
Can someone please translate the "illegal postage stamp" caption into English? I can't make hide nor hair of it. 23skidoo 22:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism
Slight edit, took out the "in spite of several accusations of" impropriety. Accusations =! guilt, so the clause doesn't make sense, or is misleading, under the notion where there's smoke there's fire. The Jackal God 19:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Role in the fall of Communism
I have just added a new section on John Paul II's role in the fall of Communism. I realized afterward that there is mention of this topic in the "Relationship with dictatorships" section. However, I think that the topic deserves more than a few sentences tucked away in a section with an unremarkable title such as "Relationship with dictatorships".

--Richard 20:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Be careful not to violate NPOV. JP2 did not signle-handedly bring down communism. :-) Phrases like this: "John Paul II's 1979 trip was the fulcrum of revolution which led to the collapse of Communism." are clearly biased POV. However, it is absolutely true that he "has been _credited_ with helping to bring down communism in eastern Europe". And it is correct to cite people like Lech Walesa and mark their citations as their POV. But we should not take his supporter's POV into the neutral encyclopedia text. For example Revolutions_of_1989 shows a much more neutral POV. The polish catholic church is mentionned as supporting Solidarity (along with the CIA), but it does not mention JP2 at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.243.55.122 (talk • contribs)


 * So help me fix it. Feel free to change the text to be more NPOV.  --Richard 04:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

what caters to one's personal preferences does not determine neutrality. that the leader of solidarity references JPII and that book does not, if anything, clearly demonstrates that book is a much less neutral POV. The Jackal God 23:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

EDITING
I just want to say how annoying it is when someone edits the page and messes around with it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.52.221.45 (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Fluent in Korean?
Was he really fluent in Korean, as the article says? Or was his Korean ability like how a previous commenter described his Japanese: he knew a few phrases and could pronounce them well, but he was far from truly fluent? Bcody80 09:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've found no evidence he was fluent in Korean so I got rid of it. Bcody80 03:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Roman should be removed
It is incorrect to say that John Paul was the pope of the entire Catholic Church, and not just the particular Roman Church. This same note can be applied to most articles dealing with the Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church is just one (large) rite of the Catholic Church. John Paul II was the Pope of all the Eastern rite Catholic Churches.
 * This is entirely correct. I see that 'Roman' has been reinserted (3/14/2007.) It should be removed. Cshobar 01:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

He was not the pope of the Orthodox communion, nor of the Anglican Communion, which is part of The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. (That is what my baptismal certificate says) Bill Tegner 08:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church, which is comprised of the Roman and Eastern Catholic Churches. This is what Catholics, Roman and Eastern, call the entirety of our Church, the Catholic Church. Albeit there are two meanings of "Catholic Church," one that refers to what you postulated, the other to what i just said. You can ask for clarification, but our usage is not incorrect.

For Catholics, this delves into the realm of Vatican II and I am not up on the latest ecumenical technicalities. To repeat, Roman Catholics call themselves Catholics. Eastern Catholics call themselves Catholic. Anglican Catholics call themselves Anglicans. Orthodox refers to themselves as Orthodox. Roman and Eastern Catholics are part of one Church, that they refer to as the Catholic Church. If you'd prefer this stated some other way, plz help find a solution and don't just knock it. The Jackal God 19:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I'm not quite sure of what you mean by "don't just knock it". There are in fact some Anglicans who specifically call themselves "Catholic", but to most of us, we're just a reformed church which is part of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. That's why Anglicans refer to the Roman Catholic Church. I can't speak for other Protestants. I know that some, but not all (Roman) Catholics dislike this, and certainly I'm not recommending posting the word Roman in front of the word Catholic in the article. It would achieve nothing and might cause offense. I mean it's not an Anglican article is it? Let me give a parallel: like you, I'm not up on the latest ecumenical technicalities, but there are some within Opus Dei for example who deny that we are a church at all. For an Anglican to force the word Roman into this article would be the equivalent of Opus Dei going through the article on Anglicanism and removing the word church!Bill Tegner 22:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * so there are some Anglicans who would get offended. My heart goes out for them. But this is a matter of "Catholic Church" having two different meanings, two distinct manners of usage. Why not add clarification to resolve this apparent inaccurracy. The Jackal God 23:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by, "there are some Anglicans who would be offended". I was talking about some (Roman) Catholics not liking the word "Roman" and that putting it in would cause unnecessary offense. But yes, ALL Anglicans would be, indeed are offended if it is said that we are not a Church. Can you blame us? As for "my heart goes out for them", are you speaking as a sincere Christian or merely being sarcastic (or even offensive)? Finally, I'm equally unsure what you mean by adding "clarification to this apparent inaccuracy". Oh dear, we're not doing very well, are we? Bill Tegner 08:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * well you said there were some Anglicans that refer to themselves as Catholics (as opposed to most who use the conventional term "Anglican"). My comment was light sarcasm that the technical term might offend them - because this is a term used by Roman and Eastern Catholics to refer to themselves. How can someone from another Church pretend to interfere in what they call themselves and say they can't? Are you worried an Anglican or a Methodist will come across this and suddenly think, "Oh wow, he was our pope."?
 * My suggestion: leave it without Roman and put an asterisk with the footnote: Catholic Church referring to the unity of the Roman and Eastern Catholic Churches; and not in the sense of the entire Christian Church. The Jackal God 13:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree Bill Tegner 16:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_catholicism#Terminology has already covered this. maybe just use this link.The Jackal God 17:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Relations with Other Churches
There's a significant omission here: the Anglican church. This was described as "Our Beloved Sister Church" by Pope Paul VI, and to the best of my knowledge, John Paul II never revoked that statement. No mention either of the Lutheran or other Protestant churches.Bill Tegner 08:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Under the section “Apologies”, to his credit, I read a year ago that Pope John Paul II apologized to the Jews for the Roman Catholic Church’s history of blaming the Jews for the death of Christ. This came about as the result of a nun (Name?) doing a PhD thesis on the subject. The thesis was made into a movie (Name?), which was nominated for an academy award a few years ago (Year?). Against some opposition, Pope John Paul II eventually reversed this long held position blaming the Jews for Christ’s death. I will try to find sources. Others may have better memory?

So sad he died, what a great man

Miracles
I see from the Roman Catholic publication "The Curate's Diary" that Pope John Paul II is now thought to have performed twelve miracles a week. Millbanks 11:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem
Something is wrong with the format of the page

Pope John Paul II is a great pope and a good Christian
I think Pope John Paul II is one of the greatest popes I've ever known of and he certainly is a good Christian, trying to live peacefully with other religious communities and showing his sense of forgiveness by praying. He reminds me of the Christian King of Abyssinia who accepted the Muslims' refuge from the pagan Arabs during Muhammad's lifetime.

Please do not use talk pages for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Cjrs 79 21:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

main assassination article
I moved a lot of text from the Mehmet Ali Ağca article into the 1981 Pope John Paul II assassination attempt article. The summary here about the assassination seems reasonable, but the main assassination article probably needs a lot more work! Intangible2.0 21:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Official title of John Paul II
It's necessary to add the full and official tittle of Pope, which is: Our Most Holy Lord, Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of Saint Peter, Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the City State of the Vatican, Servant of the Servants of God Pope John Paul II.
 * I disagree; it is not necessary. Are we going to add this official title to all of the articles on individual popes? That doesn't make sense. These titles are not representative of JPII himself but the office. This information would be better placed in the Pope article (and indeed it is already in that article.) Unless there is a compelling reason otherwise I will remove the titles. Cshobar 19:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think he was also "Patriarch of the West", a title dropped (to the annoyance of the Orthodox) by Benedict XVI. Incidentally, is the Pope really called "Our Most Holy Lord"? I thought that was God. Bill Tegner 13:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur that it is not only unnecessary but also rather pointless to list the entire title. There's literally no reason to list the official title as it stays relatively the same with every single pope.  Listing it here would require us to list it on every single pople page changing only "John Paul II" to whatever name has or was chosen.  The much more intelligent and practical, would be to ensure that the listing on the page for the office of the pope is up to date with the official title. Batman2005 03:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that there is "literally no reason" to list his titles. It is quite relevant and necessary. To begin with, the title is NOT the same as every other pope. The titles have changed over time, so it is not accurate to say it's enough to list the title in the article on the office of the pope. In fact, Pope Benedict XVI modified the title just last year. How else would someone researching John Paul II know what his title was? He would have to go to the JPII article, then the pope article, then calculate the dates of the changes in the titles and where JPII fit in the changing of the titles... I think that's a little silly. Also, drawing a distinction between JPII the man and his office is rather unrealistic. The article is obviously going to cover material about the person and the pope. I'd say MOST of the article is about his office and his official acts, not some secular biography. But I think the most compelling argument among many is that John Paul II's title was not the papal title that exists now, it is not the same as every pope who has reigned, so it should be in the article.--Anietor 03:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Then on the Pope page it should clearly indicate when each portion of the title was tossed out and which pope did it. If the current pope throws one out, then list it on that page.  The creating of a separate page such as "Papal Titles" would also be a better option.  Then each title could be broken down into why it is used and which pope throughout history brought it into use or ceased using it.  Listing it here, especially in the introduction to the article, is not necessary.Batman2005 04:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Additionally, Anietor, you should stop edit warring until a consensus is reached. WP:BRD clearly shows that an editor should be bold and insert something, if it's reverted (as I did) it should stay reverted until a discussion and consensus is held. Batman2005 04:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's an article on Pope John Paul II. His official title is important. It is necessary in the article because the papal title has changed. Why would we want to make it so hard for someone to obtain his title? Making people jump through hoops, go to multiple articles and calculate dates of changes and matching them up with JPII is ludicrous. Why would you want to make it so hard? And do we really need another article on Papal titles? Then what...subsections listing the titles over time and which pope used which title? I guess we can do that, but it doesn't really seem necessary. And even if it is created, the title of JPII should still be in the article of JPII. If it's the placement in the introduction you find so objectionable, move it to another section below. --Anietor 04:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I moved it since you're wholly unwilling to view anothers position objectively and consider its merits. Further discussio with you on this would probably have just driven me insane Batman2005 04:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Another, probably acceptable, compromise would be to move the title from it's current location and to put it somewhere in the "Papacy" section of the article (as is done on the page of the current pope). I also still think a page on "Papal Titles" would be an interesting one, in which the titles are broken down into paragraphs about what each one means and why it came into usage. Batman2005 04:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the list is superfluous. It represents the office, not the holder. each Pope gets that extra big brass nameplate, not JUST this pope. As such, there's plenty of reason for hte titles and history thereof to be on the Pope page, and not here. ThuranX 05:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with the compromise move made by Batman2005 from the intro to a separate section. As for the comment from ThuranX, you seem to miss the point...it's a DIFFERENT nameplate. In fact, it has already been amended by Benedict XVI. That's why it is relevant to have JPII's title in his article. It's a different title than exists today for the office he held. In any event, the move to a new section is fine with me, and hopefully for the other editors that disagreed with the deletion. As for the "Papal Titles" page, I agree that it might be interesting. --Anietor 05:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Anietor; good compromise. Majoreditor 17:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Why misspelled Polish names?
Why is Ali Ağca spelled correctly with a diacritic over the g, but Polish names mentioned in the article don't have diacritics in most cases, e.g. Wyszyński is misspelled as Wyszynski and Wałęsa is misspelled as Walesa. Does the author think that Polish is inferior to Turkish?


 * Why so quick to imply bigotry or malice? Benign ignorance is far more likely. Whoever wrote the Polish names (almost certainly someone other than the writer of Turkish names) almost certainly is unaware of the intricacies of Polish orthography. Even better, if you have a correction, feel free to put it in -- this is wikipedia, and you can edit the article as much as everyone else. Mlouns 16:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Or just as likely, whoever wrote those names might not know HOW to get the proper characters in there. It is common practice to loose those special characters when writing in English!Balloonman 23:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Another point to remember is that, depending on your browser, etc., foreign language characters may not display at all. For example, someone just changed "Karol Jozef Wojtyla" to "Karol Józef Wojtyła" (with the accent over the "o" in Jozef and the slash through the "l" in Wojtyla): while this is correct for the Polish language, unfortunately these letters are not in the English alphabet and hence may not display correctly, especially on older browsers which render unknown characters as empty boxes.  JGHowes talk  -  00:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review
This article is now at Good Article Review for possible delisting of its Good Article status. Concerns are listed at the good article review page. Please remember to assume good faith and improve the article to meet the Good Article criteria. -Malkinann 10:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The article has been delisted from WP:GA. The discussion, now in archive, can be seen from the link listed in article history at the top of this page. Once the article has been brought up to standards, it may be renominated at WP:GAC. Regards, Lara  ♥Love  18:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion: now linked directly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted copy vio
I deleted the Role in Communism section as it was a copy vio... added with this edit.Balloonman 21:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Original source copy vio starts about half way down.Balloonman 21:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This section contained valuable and relevant information. Instead of deleting it, is there any way to re-edit it (and reference it appropriately) so it does not violate copyright? Surely, the bare information is fair usage. MishaPan 22:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does contain useful information... but a) it was a copy vio, thus had to be deleted, b) the page that it was copied from is not a reliable source, thus it had to be deleted. Feel free to recreate it using verifiable and reliable sources, then it'll be good to keep.  But it is clear from the sudden addition, that this was copied from another (unreliable) page.Balloonman 23:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC) NOTE: The page the copy vio came from should NOT be used as a source, if you want to use it as a lead to finding valid sources, you can, but it was not a reliable secondary source.Balloonman 14:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: There was some question as to whether or not Wikipedia copied the text or if the text was copied from Wikipedia.  So we asked the person to comment at the GAR.  The person who added the section did confirm at the GAR that he added the section and that it was a copy vio... he had intended to use it as the base for his own writing and never got around to it.Balloonman 14:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Delighted
I would just like to say I was very pleased upon visiting both this and Benedict XVI's article, I think most of it it's very well elaborated and educative, so my congrats to those who have helped improve it. I noticed it is a former GA, so I would like someone to tell me what does it require to return to such state other than the adequate citations and the removal of the trivia. I would also like someone to explain to me the Wiki policies about criticism sections, if it is not too much trouble. Thank you very much and keep the good work!Vicius 03:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know why he did not want priests in public office?
Thanks. 68.44.175.59 00:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)