Jump to content

Talk:Pope John Paul II/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→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.)

heh

Final score for the 20th century:

Ordinary Poles, 2.

German intellectuals, 0.

http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/pope_john_paul_ii/

eclipsing John XXIII in charisma

I WAS CHANGING STUFF UNTILL YOU CAME AT THE SAME TIME...THANKS FOR WASTING MY FREAKING TIME BIG CHECKS! LOL

I wouldn't say that he eclipsed Pope John XXIII in charisma. How can you measure it? -- Error

Crowd reaction, media presence. JXXIII was largely seen in newsreal and wrotten about. People had a positive impression but it was from secondary sources. JPII is seen on TV and in far less formal settings than JXXIII and directly rather than indirectly. JXXIII was a popular old man, JPII as a media star, capable of attracting 100,000 to youth masses on his trips, crowds in excess of 1million to major Masses. JXXIII never set foot outside Italy, JPII has made 100 trips and had his Masses attended by over 20 million people. By any measurement and analysis, JPII far exceeds JXIII in the charisma stakes. Anyone who ever saw him work the crowd is left in no doubt as to his charisma, whereas JXIII had an affection but never drew such crowds or evoked such responses among those he met. FearÉIREANN 05:59, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

relations with the Jewish people

I removed opening statement about having the best relations with the Jewish people. In writing NPOV history, we should try to avoid hyperbolic statements measuring "best" or "worst." How do we measure them? Is there a point system? 5 points for visiting a synagogue, 20 points for apologizing for the Crusades? What about John XXIII and Vatican II for longstanding effects? A congratulatory message by an organization that can hardly claim to speak for Jews around the world does not constitute historical proof. Danny 14:55, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"His visit to the Synagogue of Rome was the first by a pope since the founding of the Catholic Church." Are you sure? At the beginning, Christianity was a Jewish sect and the first Pope, St John (Simon), was Jewish. It's quite probable that he preached the Gospel in synagogues, just as Jesus had done. So I would change the sentence above at least to: "His visit to the Synagogue of Rome was the first by a pope for a very long time." 130.79.154.82 12:57, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Number 262

I highly doubt the usefulness of enumerating popes and giving this pope number #262. There are a lot of issues dealing with the numbering of popes, like: whom do you count? When do you start? What about the first few, and the really small amount of sources on them? What about John XXIII.? What about certain antipopes/popes? What about popes who became pope more than once? That's why I removed it. If there are good reasons for numbering popes, and if there is some, well, standard to do so, please explain and revert my change. --denny vrandečić 13:38, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

According to the official Vatican web site, JPII is the 264th Bishop of Rome. As your questions, Denny, I think that they should be explored on the main Pope page.

Pictures

Are the pictures of JPII really free of copyright? They come from an anti-JPII website http://www.truecatholic.org and I think that they might have collected some images from copyrighted sources and claimed them to be free of copyright. Maybe we could use the definitely GFDLed pictures from Commons instead? Ausir 09:35, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Title conventions

  • Jtdirl called my edits “strange”, but they are in fact in keeping with Wikipedia convention on titles. In fact, the policy is quite clear, and was not being followed on this page. As for deleting the excess use of ‘Pope’ as the title for John Paul, are we likely to have forgotten that he is the pope? The perpetual use of the title is meant to be hagiographic, and that is not NPOV, so I have corrected it. I was pleased to see, at least, that Jtdirl agreed to leave out ‘His Holiness’, which is blatantly hagiographic and therefore could not stand in an encyclopedia article. — Ford 13:53, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

The old capitalisation row again (sigh). Would some people please cop on that the entire world does not use American english, with its preference for lower caps. In addition religious topics often use specific capitals for specific areas and topics (eg, the Roman Catholic eucharistic ceremony is called a Mass, not a mass.) And calling a pope Pope <name> is the standard way to refer to him. The Pope is not a "redundant" word in that context that can be axed but standard usage. In addition Pope is capitalised or lowercased in exactly the same way as other offices, ie, if the generic mention is being made or it is preceded by an indefinite article it is lowercased, if it is preceded by the definite article or a specific office is being referred to by name, it is uppercased.

It is exactly the same as the difference between talking about a president or even the US president on the one hand, and writing President of the United States on the other. Equally in this article, one can write about there being a supreme governor of the Church of England, but the Supreme Governor, as you are talking specifically about a title. (The same principle is in the sentence "the Church of England is the church of England", the former being the title, the latter the generic reference to a church, even if in that case it is preceded by a definite article.) A similar distinction exists between 'archbishop of Crakow' where the archbishopic is implied to get generic, and Archbishop of Crakow where, as in the case of 'President of the United States', 'Prime Minister of the United Kingdom', 'King of Spain', etc one is dealing with a specific title.

Sorry BTW in the delay between making the changes and explaining them here. I am at work and had to deal with a work related problem.

Re Ford's reference above: I'm afraid he is mis-understanding the rules. (I was one of the people who wrote those rules.) It is irrelevant whether or not one is likely to forget who someone is. If their title is clear, and is used in a certain way, then it is to be used. The suggestion that is hagiographic is patently absurd. It is standard english and no more hagiographic, much less POV, than writing President Bush or Queen Elizabeth. Or is it somehow POV to state that someone holds an office when the entire planet is agreed that he does? That has got to be one of the most bizzarre claims of POV I have ever heard on wikipedia!!! As to His Holiness, that too is not hagiographic. It is called a style. Holders of many public offices have them. The Roman Catholic pope is His Holiness, as is the Dalai Lama, most monarchs are styled His or Her Majesty, with Princes of the Blood (note the capitals, Ford. It is because that is a specific title not a generic reference) called His/Her Royal Highness, most presidents or governor-generals His/Her Excellency, etc etc etc. Wikipedia at my suggestion decided not to begin articles on office holders using styles (something many wikipedians wanted to do) but in many cases to explain what an office holder's style is in the text. It would help if people when editing text understood the contextual linguistic rules that apply in a specific case, in this case the holder of a post in a religion who is also a head of state and so subject to standard international diplomatic language FearÉIREANN 14:19, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • To begin with, ‘His Holiness’ is absolutely hagiographic. Only someone who believes that the pope is holy can use such a term. The encyclopedia can make no such judgement. That it is a “style” does not alter its content. The pope is no more holy, in the context of a neutral encyclopedia, than George Bush is excellent, or Elizabeth Windsor is majestic. Those styles, as you call them, were imposed by these officeholders and their supporters to emphasize and reinforce their supposed superiority over other individuals. Is that not obvious? Is it an accident that these titles all have transparent meanings in English, and that these meanings are all hierarchical? Would all of your compatriots consent to address the queen as ‘Your Majesty’, as if it were just some innocent quirk of language? I think not. And just because you helped write the policies does not mean that you understand them better as written than I do. Where is this distinction between definite and indefinite usage? I admit that the remainder of the policy article is inconsistent in its own usage, but when it describes the policy, it is clear: used as a title preceding the name, the word is capitalized, otherwise not. Note the example “Bush was president”. This statement does not mean that Bush happened to preside over something or other. It means that he was the president of the United States; and yet the policy explicitly states that it should not be capitalized. Just because capitalization is sometimes done as you would have it does not mean you have read the policy correctly. As for the perpetual use of the title, other individuals are not treated so. In the article on Bush, for instance, he is simply ‘Bush’ throughout, and not, repeatedly, ‘President Bush’. (Your capitalization policy is employed in this article; but not consistently.) I fail to see why John Paul is always to be ‘Pope John Paul’, unless it is to accord him reverence that is not given to other persons. It certainly is not needed for disambiguation within his own article. Therefore, it is hagiographic. — Ford 15:02, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

OK. Is this a joke??? The above is so nonsensical I burst out laughing. They suggestions are so off-the-wall I almost didn't bother replying. But for the record

  1. Styles are not imposed by the office holder. They are a product of history. They are standard usage worldwide. Calling the pope or the Dalai Lama 'Holiness' does not mean that you are accepting that they are holy. It means that you are simply using the standard style used for centuries to their office-holders. Calling the US Democratic Party by that name does not mean that you are accepting that it is a democratic party. It means you are simply using its name. Ditto with the Republican Party. Similarly calling a US House of Representative 'distinguished' doesn't mean you are actually saying they are, any more than calling a member of the Privy Council a 'right honourable' doesn't mean that they are either right or honourable. Terms like 'Distinguished Gentleman', 'Right Honourable', 'Holiness', 'Majesty', Highness', 'Excellency' etc are not value judgments. They are simply styles that have been used as words of address for centuries. The suggestion that only people who believe that the pope is holy can call him 'Holiness' is mind-bogglingly absurd. (One of the reasons styles are used is to dinstinguish between the office holder and the office, so that the failings of the current office holder don't prevent one from respecting the office. Personally I regard George Bush as an ignorant pillock. But I respect the US presidency. If and when I meet him (I met his precedessor a couple of times) I will have no problem, through the use of standard diplomatic protocols, in showing respect for his office however much I may dislike the man.)As to my compatriots,yes they do on the main. A small fanatical fringe (who had a habit of blowing up children and murdering pensioners until recently) don't. But they sure as hell would call the pope 'Your Holiness'. And regularly call the US ambassador 'Excellency', as is his style.
  2. The suggestion that calling the pope 'Pope John Paul' is in some way showing some bias towards him is laughable. In fact the article on Bush does not rewriting because the tone it uses does create a POV impression. It also uses tabloidised reference styles not encyclopaedic ones. Bush IMHO should not be described simply as 'Bush' but in the context of an encyclopaedia be referred to by full name (George W. Bush), by office title name, (President Bush) by using neutralising title 'Mr. Bush'. 'Bush' when used that way sounds judgmental and antagonistic and that by definition is POV.

Ultimately what your or my views are on styles is irrelevant. They exist. Saying that they exist, and that the holder of office 'x's style is 'y', is simply a factual statement of reality. Trying to pretend that they don't exist because you yourself don't like them is unambiguously POV. You are imposing your point of view on some aspect of the contents of an article and editing out a fact to suit your agenda. That clearly breaches the fundamental principles of NPOV. The only problem with this article is not stating the style, but starting the article with one. As was agreed on wikipedia previously, the style should be stated in the text. FearÉIREANN 15:40, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Heavens, Jtdirl, I do appreciate the great lengths to which you will go to insult me. You are slandering me with your own faults, though. Nonsensical? Honestly. Do you seriously claim that if I call the pope ‘His Holiness’, I am not making a judgement? That it has no meaning, and is just a silly convention? If so, why can we not simply drop it? It clearly does not add anything to clarity; in its absence, we still know which guy is being referenced. And you are not making your point. Associating the republican idea of equality with terrorism is an attack ad hominem, and does not prove anything. So all republicans are guilty of killing children with bombs? Sheer anti-republican propaganda. As for the imposition of titles, I am not saying that John Paul himself invented the style. But one of his predecessors, or that predecessor’s supporters (and enforcers) did invent the style, and insist on its usage. The powerful protect their status and their privilege. If, when you shake hands with Bill Clinton (my, I am so impressed), you choose to honor fawning diplomatic language, you are free to do so; but in doing so, you are gratifying the desire of the powerful to be treated as superior to others, and specifically as superior to you. As for things being laughable: since when is it judgemental and antagonistic to refer to a person simply by his name, or his last name? That is standard usage; even you employ it (see the above). I am not entirely certain where you get the idea that saying ‘Bush’ is deemed an insult. Even Bush’s most ardent supporters do that. As far as I know, the only persons who routinely use a title with a powerful figure are those who interact directly with the person and want something from the person: employees, obviously (wanting their jobs), reporters (wanting access), et cetera. If these titles were meaningless, why would the powerful insist upon them? And if you doubt that they are insisting, what do you suppose would have resulted if, on your momentous meeting with Clinton, you had simply said, as ordinary persons do with each other, “Good to meet you, Bill.”? I question your understanding even of Irish sentiment, though I am not Irish myself. Yes, Irish Catholics may call the pope ‘His Holiness’, but if ordinary citizens of the Republic of Ireland routinely call the queen ‘Her Majesty’, they are only doing it among themselves, because I have seen no such practice in an international context. And I suspect that they, too, would deeply resent your cheap association of their republican ideals with terrorism. For the record, I am not objecting to a factual presentation of what the pope may (by his supporters) be styled as, merely to its employment as though the encyclopedia itself is one of those supporters. Each of us has a point of view; you cannot convince me or any other reasonable person that yours is closer to neutral simply by repeating ‘POV’ loudly and often. You insist that it is disrespectful or even dishonest to refer to a person simply by his name; and you think that I am biased? — Ford 17:08, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud, this is absurd. "His Holiness The Pope" is simply the style of the Pope, just as "His Excellency The Ambassador of X" is the style of Ambassadors. The capitals clearly mark them out as styles rather than value judgements, just as calling the British Prime Minister "The Right Honourable Tony Blair" is using his style whilst calling him "the right honourable Tony Blair" would be saying he is extremely honourable ("right" in this sense being an intensifier between "very" and "most", rather than an indication of correctness). As for ‘His Holiness’ is absolutely hagiographic. Only someone who believes that the pope is holy can use such a term., if that were true then Christians would have great trouble calling the Dalai Lama "His Holiness The Dalai Lama", when in fact they don't, because they recognise that it's simply his style. If I met an Ambassador, I'd address him as "Your Excellency", but it wouldn't mean that I thought he was particularly excellent, merely that I'm using his correct style. Anyway, this has been discussed ad nauseam before, and Wikipedia policy is to use titles and styles wherever appropriate, and that's that. [As an aside to Jtdirl, I'd prefer "Mr Bush" to "Bush" in our article on him, but the latter is at least preferable to "George", which mode of reference I've encountered in far too many articles.] Proteus (Talk) 11:59, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • You have no grounds to dismiss me or my reasoning as absurd. You have a good point about Tenzin Gyatso, but you must admit that he is a special case. He is a rock star among religious figures, and his supporters include a number of celebrities; and the cause of Tibetan freedom is literally a cause célèbre. The reasons for some (note: some) non-Buddhists employing the term ‘Holiness’ with him are varied. Some do so thinking that veneration for the man supports the cause of Tibet. Some do so because they are fame-addled, and when a celebrity insists on veneration, they are not sensible enough to resist. (And when the local Buddhist monk calls the television station to politely explain that the dalai lama should be called ‘His Holiness’, the producers and anchors are the more easily won over because he and his supporters are celebrities.) Some simply view him as so unthreatening that his exotic religion does not trouble them; they may even view him as a Christian saint who had the misfortune to be born in a Buddhist culture. But it is not true that ordinary Christians in their ordinary lives employ the honorific; it simply is not done. I would put a counter-question to you: Do you really believe that any spiritual leader would be accorded the same veneration, should “style” so dictate? What about Mohammed Omar, Saparmurat Niyazov, or Jim Jones? You can be sure that, in those contexts, Christians would notice that the word ‘Holiness’ had meaning, and would refuse to apply it. In any case, by using such honorifics this encyclopedia is departing from scholarly standards. I cannot singlehandedly stop this embarrassment, but embarrassment it is nonetheless. Wikipedia appears less like a scholarly discussion of fact and more like celebrity-worshipping tabloid. — Ford 13:34, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

This argument is a hoot! Proteus and I are not saying styles are a good thing, nor are we saying they are a bad thing. We are just pointing out they exist. We did not decide that popes were called 'Holiness', monarchs 'majesty', presidents 'excellency', peers 'grace', ambassadors 'excellency', etc etc etc. We did not say that it was a good thing, or a bad thing, for to do that would be POV. All we did was say, as every academic worth their salt knows, is that these things exist. In contrast Ford, you have continually expressed your opinions as fact, your issues with the styles as definitive, and your prejudices as neutral. That, sir, is POV, Point of View. And encylopaedias don't go in for POV. We are supposed to be involved in NPOV. It is an NPOV fact that these styles exist and stating them is simply NPOV. Saying as a fact that they are right or wrong, offensive, provocative, etc etc is POV and has no place in wikipedia or any serious encyclopaedia. Now can we end this extremely silly discussion. FearÉIREANN 19:58, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Is that supposed to be an argument? If the discussion is silly, it is because you make it so. I never said these styles did not exist, merely that to employ them in earnest is an act of support for the claims that they make, and therefore not neutral. By all means state that they exist. Say that the pope is called ‘His Holiness’ by his supporters. (The general article on the office of pope does just that; I have no problem with it.) Just don’t write for the encyclopedia in the voice of one of his supporters. We are both tiring of this argument; we throw the same charge back and forth. I read what you are saying and cannot believe that you of all people are saying it, because it applies to you, not to me. But I am not trying to persuade you, because you are impervious to the arguments that I am making. I am trying to persuade those who are lurking. If they do not care, or if they bizarrely agree with you, so be it. The encyclopedia will be that much the worse.
    — Ford 00:21, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

Poland

I have flicked through "The Mitrokhin Archive", and I think it would be super if there was a paragraph about John's 1979 visit to Poland; apparently it shook up the atheistic Soviet regime and helped galvanise what was to become the Solidarity movement, and is presumably one reason why people argue that his 1981 assassination attempt was a KGB action. Are there any Polish people here? How is John seen in Poland? Why is he called 'Pope John Paul', given that his name is Karol? -Ashley Pomeroy 18:53, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pope's usually pick names of prior popes or saints to use as their professional handle. In fact in the Catholic faith all Catholics pick a saint or beautified person as a role model during the sacrement of confirmation, and often they will use this saint's name as a second middle name. -DJ 6:11 9 Jan 2005

Why I'm about to reinstate some of the anon's edits

After reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), and looking at several other articles, such as Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Albert II of Belgium, and Bhumibol Adulyadej (which begin Her/His Magesty); Rainier III of Monaco (which begins His Serene Highness); Rowan Williams (which begins The Most Reverend and Right Honourable); Joseph Anthony Ferrario (which begins Msgr.); Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson (which begin The Reverend); Elton John (which begins Sir); ect.; I have determined it is Wikipedia policy and standard practice for people with honorific styles to be refered to by their style at the begining of the article. As the Pope is commonly styled His Holiness in English due to the office he holds, it is appropiate for the article about the current pontiff to use the style, not merely mention it. If you disagree, I'd suggest you take it to the Manual of Style's talk page. Gentgeen 06:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality and papal holiness

Incidentally, I concede only some of your points, and I merely do not have the energy to go through all of this again, either my earlier arguments, or an edit war. You are flat-out wrong, though, that it is “appropriate” to use rather than merely mention the pope’s style. You cite a policy which on its face is not binding, and is evolving; and in any case, such a policy cannot be held to outweigh the policy of neutrality, which the use of styles blatantly violates. Just because other pages also violate the policy does not justify it. I do concede that other pages violate the policy, and that using styles is closer to standard practice than avoiding them. But that is in part because, for example, it is royalists who do most of the editing on royalty pages, and believers who take the strongest interest in pages about religious figures. I find it disturbing that dead popes, like dead kings, are treated much more like factual subjects (id est, dead popes who have not been beatified or canonized are given no style at all). To treat living figures with reverence is even worse than treating dead figures with reverence — it is a violation of the notion of equality and it has a much-greater potential for abuse. But that is a social argument. My primary point in the encyclopedia is that employing a style in earnest is not neutral. So you can take your pick: you can have the style and a neutrality dispute; or you can have neither.

It is also worth mentioning that if you are so attached to policies, the capitalization which I have tried to correct and you have just undone is an explicit violation of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). My interlocutors above dismissed this, but their arguments were not remotely persuasive; and in any case, if you insist on following guidelines in one case you should be consistent. But, whatever; I am not going through this again. I will just tag the article, and that will be my contribution to public education in this instance.
— Ford 10:19, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

How mentioning in an article on Pope John Paul II that he is styled "His Holiness" is POV is completely beyond me, jguk 19:11, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And how anyone can fail to see the distinction between mentioning that the pope is styled “His Holiness” and actually calling him that is completely beyond me.
— Ford 21:15, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

That's an excellent rant, but unfortunately you don't seem to have any argument other than "they're POV because I say they are". Proteus (Talk) 21:33, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Whereas you are the great font of objectivity, Proteus. Have you given up entirely on making arguments? You ignore my argument because you haven’t one of your own. You are getting your way, because I am exhausted. But for the record, calling the pope ‘His Holiness’ is biased because it takes sides in the dispute on whether he is or is not holy. I say he is just a regular person. You all say he is holy. There is no need for the encyclopedia to take a position one way or the other, but you all insist anyway. That is not neutral.
— Ford 22:10, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

But calling him "His Holiness The Pope" isn't saying he's holy, and you're the only person around who seems to think it is. Proteus (Talk) 23:03, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • As an outside observer of this argument I feel it necessary to make a point or two. First on the issue of referring to Pope John Paul II as His Holiness in an article, I think we need to look at two things, intent of the article, and intent of the phrase. Dealing with the latter first I think that most can agree that it, when capitalized, is a style. If this is the case than that means that though it in itself has an obtective in its use, it is also considered a standard term of aknowledgement that can be used while ignoring the objective. For example, if one where to call the Prophet Muhammad the Prophet Muhammad, we can argue that "Prophet" is used as a style not a title as Prophet is not a religious-political office such as the Pope's, a priest's, an imam's. a cleric's, or a rabbi's. Therefore if I call him "Prophet Muhammad" does that necessarily mean that I personally think he is a prophet. Well I'll tell ya I call him the Prophet Muhammad, and personally, I don't think he is a prophet at all, but I do so because it is the generally accepted title or style associated with a respected figure. Therefore to mention the Pope and reference him as His Holiness in my mind does not consitute a POV stance. And dealing with the intent of the article as a whole, is this not an encyclopedia, and is not the intent of encyclopedias to inform the reader of factual information, and since the fact is the Pope and infact all of the Patriarchs, and many religious leaders world wide are called His Holiness, would it not be important for this information to be in an encylcopedia. After all it says it in the World Almanac. And remember saying His Holiness doesn't mean your saying My Holiness, just as saying the Prophet Muhammad doesn't me that your saying My Prophet Muhammad, and saying Your Honor to the judge at your DUI hearing doesn't mean you think he's honorable, I mean he wear's a robe for a living. Furthermore it has been mentioned that one of the individuals doesn't want him referred to as His Holyness because it shows POV, because for example he thinks the Pope is a regualar person, and while I don't disagree with you on that fact necesarrily, what you are arguing here is something that can not be proven. You say you THINK he is a regular guy, but you can't actually prove it, where as I can prove that he is called His Holiness. In fact when it comes down to it, it seems that your argument is based in a mentality of denying fact so that you can prove a point born of your own POV. -DJ 6:31 9 Jan 2005

His Holiness seems very POV to me, especially given that other religious leaders are not stylized with such (well, at least one other one I have seen). That, and the minor issue that it is in direct violation of the naming conventions policy, which states explicitly:

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.

Titanium Dragon 10:08, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's the article naming policy. Proteus (Talk) 11:38, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wish people would read the actual text of the NPOV message before removing it, or appending the NPOVNPOV tag, whose text does not accurately represent what is going on. I believe that the page is not neutral, but by adding the tag I am not stating that the page is not neutral. I am stating that the neutrality of the page is disputed. That is what the message literally says. Until the dispute is resolved, the statement remains accurate, and to remove or qualify the statement is a disservice to my repeated efforts to explain my reasoning or suggest a compromise, as well as to the fact that at least one other editor has recently agreed with me. Frankly, the addition of the NPOVNPOV tag makes the article look even more foolish. The authors of the template were writing in response to their perception of the tag’s implication, not its actual content.

So here are the two problems in this recent edit conflict, and both of them are simple failures of the distinctive faculty:

1. I am insisting that to call the pope ‘His Holiness’ is biased. Others are insisting that to state that the pope is called ‘His Holiness’ is factual. These are not in any way incompatible. They may both be true. In fact, I believe both statements to be true. Let me state this myself explicitly, for the record: The pope is called ‘His Holiness’ by many of his supporters. This is a fact. I would have no problem putting this statement in the article. My problem is with actually calling him by this title. There is a world of difference between the two.

2. Some believe that the article as it presently stands is neutral. Some believe that it is not. Those who believe that the article is neutral may disagree with my assertion that it is not; but they cannot disagree with the assertion that the neutrality is disputed, because the fact that we cannot agree on whether it is or is not neutral is the dispute.

I have pointed Jguk, who apparently disputes my right even to dispute this article’s neutrality, to the pages Tenzin Gyatso, Mahathir bin Mohamad, and Muhammad, pages I have edited which use a simple compromise formula, in which the titles and honorifics are mentioned, without passing judgement on their appropriateness by actually applying them. This formula informs interested readers of a fact without subjecting them to a religious point of view. It is a great improvement in tonal quality. If, as the editors of this page insist, they are simply interested in stating facts and creating an informative article, there should be no reason not to embrace this compromise.
— Ford 01:37, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

I'm just passing through and adding a comment. I noticed that the use of Her Majesty is very controversial on the Queen Elizabeth II talk page. This also came up in another context, where the Foreign Minister of a small nation was first mentioned as The Honorable. I pointed out that virtually all senior officials (including judges in the U.S.) are properly addressed with that style, making it irrelevant. My opinion is that styles do not belong in articles on the people themselves. They should be included in articles on the title or office, in this case Papacy. -Willmcw 01:31, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Articles should report usage and practice. Whether some Wikipedians would like to change usage and practice or don't adhere to common usage and practice is irrelevant. We report, we do not seek to change. The Pope is commonly styled "His Holiness". Ergo, that is what we report. jguk 10:33, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disputes whether we should report common usage and practice. The question is whether we should apply honorific styles ("The Right Honorable", "His Grace", "Her Royal Majesty") when making the first mention of a person who carries (or has carried) a title. Should all the articles on cardinals have "His Eminence" added? Should all the current presidents of republics have "His Excellency"? Yes, let's report the usage but not follow it in this case. (In an opposite example, a dictionary defines swear words, but doesn't use them). Cheers,. -Willmcw 11:00, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The easiest and quickest way to report the usage is to refer to it right at the beginning of the article, where we show a person's full name and formal style. That's what this article does. That is what Wikipedia style is. THe article mentions the style at the beginning when the full name is given. (cf Tony Blair, John Major, HM The Queen, Patriarch Theodoros II of Alexandria, Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria, etc.) jguk 12:16, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
So are you suggesting we should add "His Holiness" before all of the Antipopes' names as well? Because I've found webpages referring to them as such, and their followers do call them that. Titanium Dragon 07:07, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm confused. Did anyone ever see jguk mentioning antipopes? How's that for putting words in one's mouth? Anyway, styles are almost always used when the person is still alive and/or the style is almost universally accepted. Now these are some POV conventions, I agree, but all "conventions" are POV (serial comma). Until we have a set rule (and by set rule, I mean "all articles on Roman Catholic popes will use "His Holiness," for example), we just have to go along with it. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with using "His Holiness" for all Roman Catholic Popes. Now, for the antipopes, whom Titanium Dragon brought up - the word "anti-pope" signifies that the person is not considered a "true pope" (lots of POV here) by modern historians. If Antipope Honorius II is ever declared a true pope by the modern Roman Catholic Church, then we can call him "His Holiness Honorius II." You don't have to think Tony Blair is right and honourable, or that Michael Ancram is honourable, or that the Duke of Wellingtons are noble - they're just styles. ugen64 03:01, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re styles. Wikipedia policy was straight forward:

1. Styles do not indicate a POV but are simply a statement of a traditional way by which the office holder is described. Mentioning that the pope and the dalai lama is styled 'Holiness' does not in any way involve accepting that they are. It merely involving pointing out that that is the traditional manner of address in dealing with them.

2. Articles were not supposed to include a description of their style when referring to them. Styles should simply be mentioned in the text. In the past styles were systematically removed. There were however a few individuals who regularly added in styles in the text of the articles. (One in particular drowned articles in 'His Majesty', 'His Royal Highness', 'His Imperial Majesty', the 'Right Honourable', etc etc and went ballistic when these were repeatedly removed.) These were constantly removed by those involved in the editing and organisation of articles dealing with royalty. Obviously the 'styles' brigade have come back and inserted them again. As many of the people who put all the work into creating a cohesive structure to what had been a mishmash of royal pages are not currently on here (some have left. Others are simply gone temporarily due to work commitments) the styles mess has obviously been slipped in again unnoticed. So the styles will obviously have to be removed again. Using them in the text of the article is unencyclopaedic and because their context and history isn't understood can end up, as here, being misunderstood as being POV. That is avoided when a style is simply defined once in the text. That is why indeed a specific entry was created explaining what a style is. FearÉIREANN 13:45, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is this "policy" you keep referring to actually written down anywhere for people to read? Proteus (Talk) 18:55, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I take a more straightforward approach. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - it should report was "is" rather than what editors think "should be". Where styles are used, they should be reported. Not endorsed. Not questioned. Just reported. For biography articles styles tend to reported along with the subject's full name. That is appropriate.

I fully agree that styles should be overdone: that would be inappropriate too. But the fact that someone has a style is interesting information, and it's easiest mentioned right at the beginning. This is the style that Wikipedia currently has and has adopted through common practice. Let's keep it that way. Kind regards, jguk 20:54, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia practice is that a subject's full name and style are used at the start of a biographical article. This is sensible - and ensures neutrality throughout Wikipedia: it means we do not take a view on which form of any particular individual's name should be used - we use the formal one. For everyone. Whether we like them or approve of the form or not. The recent attempt to force practice to change is misguided - and seems driven by an extreme point of view that any form of someone's name that suggests everyone should always be addressed as plain Mr, Mrs or Miss - well, that's not real life - get used to it! Honorifics are customary throughout the Commonwealh realms, and in many other realms throughout the world. The fact they are not used in places such as the United States and the Republic of Ireland does not mean we should not use them - Wikipedia is an international venture and should reflect international practice! jguk 21:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with Ford's verstion

Ford asked in his most recent edit summery, Please explain on talk page what your exact problem with this is. He was refering to the opening paragraph, as I've quoted it below:

John Paul II, born Karol Józef Wojtyła (born May 18, 1920 in Wadowice, Poland), is the current pope — the bishop of Rome and head of the Roman Catholic Church. He was elected in 1978, becoming the first non-Italian pope in 455 years and the first pope ever of Slavic origin. As the pope, he is formally styled His Holiness by supporters and in diplomatic situations.

I have two problems with this paragraph, based on reading Wikipedia:Manual_of_style#Titles. First, when saying he is the Pope and the Bishop of Rome, we are specifically refering to offices and therefore they should be capatilized. From the above policy, The correct formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun. Hence: "Hirohito was Emperor of Japan". Similarly "Louis XVI was the French king" but "Louis XVI was King of France", King of France being a title in that context. Ford's version would be the same as George W. Bush is the current president of the United States, vs. the correct George W. Bush is the current President of the United States. The first line in this article should read ... the current Pope - the Bishop of Rome' ...; the later uses of pope in the paragraph should not be capatalized as we are refering to the group of people who have been pope, not the office, so those are fine. To keep using my analogy, if the GW Bush article said (and I don't know if it does), he is the second president of the United States to be the son of a former president, that would also be appropiate usage.

Secondly, the last sentence, about the "His Holiness" style, seems amaturish and tacked on. It accomplishes in 15 words what can be accomplished most simply with two words, by putting His Holiness before John Paul II in the first line. It also violates the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), which states,

Honorific prefixes should be used in the article text where appropriate, but not included in the entry title. For example:
  1. Sir Elton John
  2. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu; Sri Ramakrishna Paramhansa
  3. St John the Apostle; St Francis of Assisi; St Stephen
  4. Reverend Al Sharpton
  5. Dato' Seri Mahathir bin Mohamad

If we're going to put His Holiness in its own sentence, why not the other titles and styles used for the Pope, such as Blessed Father, Holy Father, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Primate of Italy, Patriarch of the West, Supreme Pontiff, Pontifex Maximus, Vicar of Christ, Successor to the Prince of the Apostles, Servent of the Servents of God, ect. (just thinking off the top of my head, I probibly missed a few) Actually, now that I think about it, those should be in there somewhere, but probibly not in the first paragraph, as some of them are pretty obscure and not commonly used, but His Holiness and the Holy Father are used commonly, but the Holy Father is generally used as a replacement for his name, and His Holiness is used as an honorary style before his name.

Finally, I don't want to hear the strawman about what Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) states. The naming conventions are used to determine the title of the article, while the style guides are used to format the content of an article. As no one is suggesting that this article be moved to another location, especially not His Holiness Pope John Paul II, the naming conventions do not apply. Gentgeen 22:07, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So, do you think we should preface Lucian Pulvermacher's article with "his holiness"? Titanium Dragon 05:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bad faith

I do not believe that Jguk is editing in good faith. In fact, I believe that Jguk is editing in very bad faith.

  • There is an ongoing neutrality dispute on this page. Where is the tag? The message of that tag does not say: “This article is not neutral.”. It says: “The neutrality of this article is disputed.”. Those two statements have very different meaning, and the double dispute that Jguk added was meant to obscure that difference.
  • There is a difference between using a style and mentioning it. I have proposed, and in the absence of comment introduced, a compromise that is fully informative on the style of the pope, without using it. Jguk and others insist that using a style, applying it to the pope’s name at the beginning of an article, is merely describing a fact.
  • Jguk has accused me of deleting information. I removed the style from the first line and added an explanation of the style, including the same two words and the same link to Jguk’s substub. Information was added, not deleted. If someone wanted to know what the pope was styled, it was right there.
  • Jguk has accused me of disingenuity myself, because Jguk did not get a specific invitation to my user page to leave a comment on a proposal of mine. It is my user page, not a Wikipedia policy page, and Jguk’s position is already perfectly clear. I do not need to know that Jguk does not agree. I need to know if anyone does agree.
  • As can be seen from these edits, Jguk does not just support using an honorific once in a person’s article for the purpose of informing the public what a person’s style is. Jguk believes in using honorifics every time a person is mentioned in any article. This is not being simply informative — otherwise, a reader who wanted to know what a subject’s style was could be left to follow the link to the appropriate article.
  • I am no more guilty of trying to force change than Jguk is of trying to suppress change by force. If Jguk wants things to stay exactly as they are, then it only remains to revert every change to every article from now on, for eternity. But Jguk is actually concerned with having things Jguk’s way. That is the real principle.

For now, Jguk wins. I am not enjoying myself at all, and am being shouted down by persons who are not interested in listening to reasoned arguments or reaching a decent compromise. Don’t bother to say that you are interested in listening or compromising; just do it, or spare me.
— Ford 23:31, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

I have always been acting in good faith. I request you withdraw your allegation to the contrary. You are also misrepresenting my views - which are clearly stated above. However, I do acknowledge I should not have implied you were disingenuous - I was reacting in kind as you should not have called me disingenuous - two wrongs do not make a right, and I apologise for that. Kind regards, jguk 23:53, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

styles and honorifics

There seems to be confusion here. For the record, honorifics are used in articles. Styles are not. A style is a manner of address, a honorific is a form of title. They are different things. If John Paul held a knighthood or baronetcy then the article would properly begin Sir John Paul II . . .However His Holiness is a style and styles are not used to describe people in encyclopaedias, as they can be misinterpreted by those who do not understand them (or who come from cultures where they are not used and so not understood) are POV, even if in reality they arent. Standard encyclopaedic writing includes styles in the article by indicating what a person's style us. Similarly the article on Mary McAleese does not say Her Excellency Mary McAleese, the article on eighteenth century monarchs quote their styles, the article on Mary, Queen of Scots call her Her Grace, the article on George Bush say His Excellency George Bush, the article in clergymen start The Right Reverend. And articles on some bishops who are parliamentary peers do not start His Grace the Lord Bishop, the Very Reverend . . . . It is completely unworkable, unlike honorifics which are much more clearcut. Which is why honorifics are used, but styles are explained in text (some encyclopaedias don't include mention at all). FearÉIREANN 19:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is inconsistent with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). Also it is much much shorter just to refer to the Pope as "His Holiness" once, at the very start of the article, wen we give his formal name, rather than draw undue attention to the style later on (as per your proposed wording). Kind regards, jguk 19:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That page does not talk about styles but about honorifics. Please learn the difference. And honorifics are used in encyclopaedias. Styles aren't, as was agreed in debate here and has been policy until a small number of people began trying to change it unilaterally by misunderstanding the difference between honorifics and styles. FearÉIREANN 20:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How on Earth did you come up with that distinction? It's certainly one I've never seem before. I can imagine that some people could see a difference between "honorific styles" and "honorific titles", but a distinction between "honorifics" and "styles" is just silly. Proteus (Talk) 00:26, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is quite simple. In "Reverend Smith", Reverend is a honorifics. It is a decorative word attached to a name which is widely used to define an office-holder or person with a specific position. In "The Right Reverend Dr Smith" , the Right Reverend is a style. A style is a formal method of address that is used in both the written and spoken word to indicate the respect with which an office holder is held. When I meet the President of Ireland I refer to her by either of her styles, "Excellency" or 'President' (the Irish equivalent of the US's 'Mr. President' or the rarely used but still valid "Your Excellency"). Similarly if I was to meet the pope I would call him "Your Holiness", or Queen Elizabeth "Your Majesty". A style is purely decorative, indicating the respect with which an office holder is held. An honorifics is something which, along with a person's name, is widely used, with the individual recognisable often through its inclusion. 'John Smith' may not be recognisable. 'Reverend John Smith' would be.

So honorifics are included as very often the person may not be recognisable without it. But styles are formal ritualised manners of address that are decorative and honorary but not necessary to recognise someone. They are also increasingly rarely used. Tony Blair, for example, is not always referred to in Number 10's press releases as the Rt Hon Tony Blair, whereas earlier prime ministers regularly used them. (Just as earlier prime ministers wore formal privy council uniforms which included swords, when attending privy council meetings. I don't think any prime minister since Harold Wilson has worn a privy council meetings. And the special privileges privy councillors were entitled to have in parliament (including right of preference in speaking) were all abolished around, I think, 1998 or 1999. Princes William and Harry have opted not to use their styles, while keeping their honorifics. Similarly the Earl and Countess of Wessex have opted not to use either the standard style or honorifics of their daughter, Louise.

Styles are also unworkable in practice in encyclopaedias because they can be misinterpreted by the vast majority of people who are unfamiliar with them and think you are saying someone is whatever their style is, not that you are using a form of address developed in mediaeval times and which is traditional, not subjective.

In addition many styles, particularly in republics repeat the name of the office and so would read absurdly. So if one writes His Holiness Pope John Paul II, in the interests of NPOV one should also use styles for republican office-holders (to choose to use the style of one set of office holders but not for another would be POV and so against the rules of wikipedia). So the article on Irish president Mary McAleese, if started with a style, would read President President Mary McAleese. George Bush would also read Mr President President Bush. Encyclopaedias, for reasons of style, convenience and also to avoid the impression that they are endorsing a style (particularly for popes or dalai lamas, where those opposed to them think you are commenting on how you regard popes or dalai lamas and not simply repeating an ancient linguistic formula). In addition, had Saddam Hussein not been overthrown, if one uses styles here he would have had to have been called, His Excellency, President Saddam Hussein. Some time ago a senior Irish catholic cleric in effect did a runner when accused of soliciting sex from seminarians. He is now in the US working for a New Age guru. Call him by his style after what he did (and he still is officially entitled to it) and Irish people here would go ballistic. Ditto if you called the exiled king of Greece Majesty. Do that and the two thirds of Greeks are republicans would go ballistic. Don't, and monarchists would point out that he never formally abdicated and so is entitled to his style (which technically is correct) and so would wage an edit war. And as Simeon II of Bulgaria never officially abdicated, he is still technically "His Majesty". But as his country's prime minister he is also "His Excellency". So the article could have to start "His Majesty, His Excellency . . . " And as former Irish prime minister John Bruton is now an ambassador his article should call him "His Excellency", the standard style for ambassadors. Knowing John, he would roar his head off at the thought of an encyclopadia calling him 'excellency'. And you'd have to call the Lord Mayor of Dublin the Rt. Hon because technically due to an oversight he is. The Irish Privy Council is gone since 1922 but it wasn't formally abolished. So the Lord Mayor is the only member of this non-existent organisation. Some lords major use it. Some go into a fury if you call them that. But in the interests of NPOV, either wikipedia calls everyone by their style, or no-one.

Styles are completely unworkable. Do you call James VII of Scotland, aka James II of England, by his english style Majesty or Scottish style Grace. Or do you want to call him, His Grace His Majesty?? And the problems above are only the tip of the iceburg. There are thousands more problems. For example, imagine the edit wars that will result if you have to call the current president of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe His Excellency. Do you call anti-popes His Holiness? Do you use the Prince of Wales's scottish or english styles? Must every US congressman be an Honorable? What about every judge, worldwide? Is the main claimant to the French throne a Royal Highness? What about the second claimant, a spanish nobleman? Is the Napoleonic pretender an Imperial Highness? What style do you use for the O'Conor Don, the claimant to the Irish throne? Is Leka I, the claimant to the Albanian throne a majesty, a royal highness or what? And what of the late Emperor Bokassa, the flesh-eating emperor of the Central African emperor? Imagine calling that repulsive creature His Majesty. What styles do you use for Jacobite pretenders for the Scottish thrones? What point do English monarchs stop being Grace and become Majesty, as even historians can't agree? And what do you do about the Austrian archbishop who resigned amid allegations of sex abuse. He still was a senior cleric. Do you call him by his style? If you don't, that's expressing a POV, which is against wikipedia policy. If you do, you horrify many people and cause an edit war.

When the issue of styles was looked into, it was judged to be the ultimate nightmare from hell. If you use them, thousands of articles would need changing, with hundreds becoming controversial. That is why encyclopaedias avoid them like the plague. Specialised royal books can use them but it is simply too complex, to controversial and there are too many grey areas for them to be used in an encyclopaedia, much less an open edit one. FearÉIREANN 11:12, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Has anyone read English honorifics? Based on that article (which is not a policy, just what our encyclopedia has to say about this topic), Her Magesty, His Highness, etc. are honorifics in the English language. By extension, the His XXX in front of a reigning monarch's name (such as the Soverign of the Vatican City) is an honorific. Looking around at our articles on reigning monarchs, I find that most of them use the honorific right in front of the current holder's name. This is in keeping with the MoS on biographies, which states, Honorific prefixes should be used in the article text where appropriate, but not included in the entry title. (extra emphasis added by me) Again, no one wants to move this article to His Holiness John Paul II, Soverign of the Vatican City or any other article title including the honorific/style, but the honorific/style should be included at the very begining of the article. It is supported by policy, as well as common usage. Gentgeen 10:30, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The article is mixing up honorifics and styles. Wikipedia policy on style is clearly laid out. The fact that one or two people have been doctoring articles to add in styles where they are not meant to have been used does not change wikipedia policy. FearÉIREANN 11:24, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Since many styles are used as honorifics and many honorifics used as styles, the distinction Irishman is trying to put forward just doesn't exist in real life. Wikipedia policy is clearly set out on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). This article, along with all other biographical articles, should adhere to it, jguk 11:37, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So at last you admit that is a distinction. That's some slight progress. Just because some people who don't know the distinction mix them up does not mean that this encyclopaedia should show similar ignorance. This is an encyclopaedia and should follow encyclopaedic standards and the agreed standards on styles as laid out after two separate discussions. In fact the only people who have ever disagreed are the same people who have tried to add in styles and edit pages to follow their policies, not wikipedia's. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies page deals with honorifics. The discussion here is styles, something different. That was discussed and a position agreed on the naming conventions page. FearÉIREANN 12:02, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

jguk edited the Manual of Style page to agree with his PoV; he made an attempt to change it in order to be able to add "His Holiness" to the start of this article. His repeated addition of this style is in bad faith; it is fairly obvious that he would not want the antipopes to have "His Holiness" added to their names, despite the fact that, according to his own rules, they should. 129.59.26.23 22:23, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pastoral visits outside Italy

A list of over 100 foreign visits is overwhelming - I think it should be moved to a separate article and summarised here. Any thoughts as to title - List of pastoral visits of Pope John Paul II outside Italy is a bit verbose? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:13, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PS - I also tablified the list of encyclicals - arguably they could be moved elsewhere too (List of Encyclicals of Pope John Paul II?) - again, any thoughts? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:16, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've done it. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Third" longest reigning pope?

Shouldn't Pope John Paul II be named as the second longest-reigning pope? I know the media endlessly call him such, but the media also identified 2000 as the first year of the new millennium, and simply saying it's so can't change historical fact.

The Pope is defined as the successor of St Peter. It's a nonsense to call Peter the longest-reigning successor to himself.

My understanding is that St Peter is considered to be the first Pope. Other Popes are considered to be his successor. Besides, we report - we do not decide. As Pope John Paul II is generally considered to be the third longest-reigning pope, that is what we report, jguk 09:46, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
St. Peter is considered the first Bishop of the See of Rome.--A. S. A. 00:55, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
"The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, 'is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.'" -- Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 882.
Any numbering should be done according to claimants of the title "Bishop of Rome", not of the title "pope". The title "pope" is not an official one - the official title is "Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Patriarch of the West, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God". The word "pope" is derived from either the Greek word "pappas", or the latin word "papa", both meaning father - and was first used to refer to any priest, in exactly the same way as the word "Father" can be used to refer to modern priests in English. It was first used as a specific title by the Patriarchs of Alexandria (both the Orthodox and Coptic Patriarches of Alexandria still claim the title today) - and it was from here that the Bishop of Rome originally "borrowed" it. It only became synonymous in the West with the Bishop of Rome from the 6th or 7th centry.

Memoria e Identida , the Holocaust and democracy

The Pope has released a new book called 'Memoria e Identidad' wherein he has raised the most serious controversy concerning the failure of democracy when in 1933 , the German Parliament voted the Enabling Act and gave Adolf Hitler his dictatorial powers . John Paul II has further likened this democratic sanction of evil to that of legalised abortion and further equated the evil of the resulting Holocaust with what women do with their own bodies . Apart from being casuistic & extremely offensive to sufferers of that evil , this shows a worrying reluctance by papal authority to take recognisance of its own involvement with that self-same abandonment by Democracy of itself . The facts as related on the Pope Pius XII wiki page(the Concordat) should have caused a righteous concern inside the Vatican . This argument in this book whilst directed against the very concerning issue of abortion , will nevertheless serve the other virtuous purpose of again raising the involvement of the Vatican in incontrovertible conspiracy which of itself resulted in the greatest human destruction yet witnessed on this earth . The papacy should clean its own stables thoroughly or suffer a growing clamour for repentance for its own direct culpability in that subversion of democracy , and remove unto itself it's own part of that opprobrium which is thereby generalised upon the German people . The part the Vatican played effectively tipped the balance in this subversion and this is one of the greatest errors that the church could have committed and it's reluctance to face up to it reveals that it itself recognises this . The vatican was of course playing a long-game against the Soviet threat and whilst it could with John Paul II be said to have finally won , it's coldness at sacrificing the safety of the Jews in particular , but everyone in the end , reveals clearly the extreme calculation that the Lambs of Jesus take unto his cause . The Wiki itself shows that humanity desires openness and clarity and that churches all must come cleanly into a future light or perish as institutions .Flamekeeper 22:32, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

These are all known criticisms of the Pope and the Papacy in general. If you can include them in an NPOV manner, there would be no objection. You can say that the Pope has criticized what democratic movements have done/are doing, but I don't think you can just have a blanket statement that "in his book the Pope attacked democracy." That is misleading. The German Parliament in 1933 was arguably fully co-opted and overawed by Hitler's belligerency and his armed followers, and votes and procedures of the period cannot be declared free from duress. Therefore, it may be argued, that is was not a real democracy, and by extension, that it was that flawed set up and not the ideal of democracy in general that the Pope was attacking. Just include all points of view. Also, please add new sections to the bottom of the Talk page, not the top. --A. S. A. 05:50, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Please someone open a talk page to make space because this is wrong in fact not POV . These are facts requiring admittance or contestation. It is untrue and diminuishes them to say these "criticisms" are well-known . 'They' are not criticisms of this Pope anyway and the timeline of papal intervention as known to the Simon Wiesenthal Foundation's Holocaust timeline has been extended on the Wikipedia by one year back to 1932 . Please help , not hinder , truth . This book is claiming a corruption of democracy CAUSED by the Vatican as the prime example of the fallibility of democracy . This is much worse than an attack on democracy in a book and should be discussed in full because it is a subject for worldwide interest. However no-one Jewish group or liberal-democratic group has cottoned on to this point and it appears the church evades in the past by conceding tid-bits about anti-semitism when they are not the prime problem . And you are inargueably in error about the Reichstag .Flamekeeper 13:14, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regrettably, I have not the pleasure of understanding your last post. Your points seem harried and incoherent, and were lost on me. Ergo, I am unable to respond.--A. S. A. 01:19, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)


Not a breath of criticism is permitted in the article itself. Many readers, seeing the tone of this Talk page discourse, do their editing elsewhere. --Wetman 06:03, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I beg to differ. I myself was the first to introduce mention of the new book "Memory and Identity" and the associated critisism it drew. The followng addition was mine:

In February 2005, Reuters released excerpts from the pontiff's new book, his fifth, "Memory and Identity." In it, the Pope seems to compare abortion to the Holocaust, saying "There is still, however a legal extermination of human beings who have been conceived but not yet born. And this time we are talking about an extermination which has been allowed by nothing less than democratically elected parliaments where one normally hears appeals for the civil progress of society and all humanity." A leader of Germany's Central Council of Jews called the comparison unacceptable. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican's senior doctrinal official, dismissed the charges, saying the pope "was not trying to put the Holocaust and abortion on the same plane" but only warning that evil lurked everywhere, "even in liberal political systems."--A. S. A. 04:39, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)


Our thoughts are with Pope John Paul II .Flamekeeper 21:13, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Planned trip to Istanbul?

Is it true that JPII has planned a trip to Istanbul later this year? It would be interesting, since it's dramatic historically: the center of Eastern Orthodoxy. I have the impression he'd rather die of exhaustion from travelling than retire. Michael Hardy 22:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope_John_Paul_II/Archive_1&oldid=1040401524"