Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
20-08-05 User:AlfredG I just thought I'd change one element of the grammar since in English, one is not diagnosed 'with' an illness but rather 'as having' it.
I want to thank all the eager beavers for adding so many links exposing the depraved sick ***** who have written some great hateful things about one of the worlds greatest popes. I think it is needed to expose these whackos for what and who they are. These hateful people need to be exposed and the list of criticism links is a good start. Thanks again. Dwain 20:34, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Mmmm, yeah. What kind of demented person would entertain hatred for the late kindred Pope John Paul II(The Greatest)? I'm not a Catholic, but he's an example of a real life superhero. The medieval popes of the rennaisance period committed cruel atrocities during the inquisition era. You can also flash-back to the savagery exposited by the false crusaders of the 11th-13th century. You'll easily spot the difference between an infidel and a REAL christian. He is a hero and idol among the youth and the productive generation. A true paladin and crusader, an ideal representative of the faith. By all means, his canonization process should be carried out with utmost priority. Servant of God John Paul II - The Greatest, rest in peace. May Allah/God/Yahweh smile upon you always and may the fountains of heaven endow you with sanctuary and serenity... Sorry, got a little emotional. I'm glad I visited the Vatican five years ago and got to meet him at mass. Eric July 1, 2005 19:58 (UTC)
While the list of links critical of JP2 is an excellent addition, it seems to me a bit unbalanced to have no corresponding list of links to articles that praise him, rather than simply report on him. This article will be mildly biased until this situation is recitified. --Zantastik 04:52, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) P.S. We need to write about his works -- he was a scholar, and left a lot of work. Right now, we're just writing about stuff that's been in the news. It'd be good to have an article that thoroughly dealt with his writings, of which there many.
You know, I sorta think that a "criticisms" section is out of bounds. It seems to me that an encyclopedia should be a "just the facts" kind of place. Sure, it's a fact that there were criticisms. But, is that really what someone is looking for if they query Wikipedia on JPII. Not to say that we should only report rosy things about JPII, either, but it does seem like it's going too far in the other direction of POV. For me, I want to know what happened, who the guy was, in a nutshell. If I want to know more, I can pick up a book. Is it Wikipedia's goal to actually present every side of every story? I admit I'm new here so if it is then I'll pipe down. But, I just feel like people want to try and leaven the nice things being said about the man. I suppose if it's really salient, then, okay. But, the fact is, I think, that he seems to have done far more right than wrong. Or maybe I'm biased. :-) Gurp13 06:20, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It might be better to integrate the criticisms into the body of the article, but I think it will be many years before it will be possible to make a cool assessment of him. In the meantime, having a separate criticisms section is probably the best we can do.-gadfium 06:37, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The criticisms section is totally in-bounds, as frankly his faults should be pointed out and displayed. I wouldn't have a problem integrating it with the rest of the article, but it would be POV to remove them enitrely. The point is to have a neutral point of view on every topic, not to be biased or to try and exhibit some sort of preference for any viewpoint. Titanium Dragon 01:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Until someone takes the time to integrate this section into the main text it must be kept. The article is already pushing the limits of POV as it is, in places it is almost openly eulogistic (I have tried to remedy this where possible). If this section were to be removed the article's credibility would be severely damaged. Rje 15:18, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
I've read through the article and concluded that the necessary changes have been addressed; that was three months ago and since then there have been hundreds of edits that have given the chance to make the article much more NPOV, in particular, an actual criticism section now exists, the links are obsolete. Krupo 19:34, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
Took out 'In the year 2000, Pope John Paul II was named an "Honorary Harlem Globetrotter."' from the "Pope for youth" section. It's already under "Other" and I don't think it has much to do with his being the Pope for youth. --User:Jenmoa 8 July 2005 04:08 (UTC)
I think it is silly to argue that, because he met with them, he "supported" right-wing dictators. Didn't he also meet with Fidel Castro and Gorbatchov? LeoDV 16:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
So, that book the Pope is kissing... is it the Qur'an or not? android79 20:58, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
How about this as a compromise, at least until we get a definitive answer on this:
Or something to that effect? --User:Jenmoa 06:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
This is a picture of John Paul II kissing the Koran. It is not out of any sign of reverence or respect, the book was a gift and is kissing the book from tradition. -- --68.171.249.134 04:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Here is another source. I'm not going to re-append the information though, I'm still not convinced, as the dates and occassions are not stated. And I question the free-use and copyright conditions of the photograph as well. Could someone do some research and report back? For now, the picture and statement stay off the article, but I do support placing it back if the cited sources DO turn out to be true... Eiríkr Rauði 17:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Since Benedict XVI is considering declaring JPII a saint, and since he wrote a number of books, has there been any talk in high places of officially declaring him a doctor of the church? Michael Hardy 02:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
He cannont be declared a doctor of the church until after canonization. so no. Mac Domhnaill 05:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Dear User:Taw, Let us follow wikipedia conventions. I'm not endorsing them. Just following them. If you want them changed - and you could have a point - it would be better to discuss them first. Rightly or wrongly we say His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. Rightly or wrongly we say Servant of God of those considered for sainthood. For example, just look at other recent Popes. I'm reverting Taw's edit --ClemMcGann 14:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I see that someone else removed the "Servant of God" in the first sentence. So, as there are at least 4 people involved now, I'll reply to your and Jtdirl's claims here, instead of your and Jtdirl's talk pages.
So my position is:
And:
And finally:
Taw 03:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh, the dispute is already done with. Well, so just ignore this. ;-) Taw 03:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
A discussion occurred at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Style War proposed solution about a solution to the ongoing style wars on Wikipedia. The consensus favoured replacing styles at the start of articles by an infobox on styles in the article itself. I have added in the relevant infobox to this article. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Because people do not necessarily know what a style box is, or what the curt info contained there is about, and because popes are referred to as "His Holiness" in informal and formal settings by Catholics and non-Catholics, including at the UN, including all documents issue by a pope, this ought to be explained in the text - and it will be. Putting this common usage to the side as if everyone understands it and it is not worthy of mention is simply POV to an extreme degree. I will be adding it back unless someone comes up with some exlanation as to why such important information must be sequestered to a sidebar. Referring to someone by such a lofty title is odd - it ought to be explained. 214.13.4.151 05:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
You have made up a new rule that is NOT part of the style manual link you point to regarding this controversy. The rule in effect starting August 2005 simply does not allow the article to begin with the honorific, and adds a style box. It does not demand that the article cannot discuss the nature of the honorific and when it is used in the main text. That is your preference, but not the wiki rule. I presume you did not intend to misread the rule - but you did misread it. I will be adding a brief comment to the article (a discussion of the honorific and when, why and how it is used). I know you may not like it, but the unique way a person is addressed every day of their lives, and a form of address that is so lofty, is certainly not something to ignore or cast aside in a style box. 214.13.4.151 14:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC) Here is an excerpt from the style section you pointed to:
I find it very unfair that Opus Dei is tackled in this article only in the criticism section. John Paul II established Opus Dei as a personal prelature in 1982, just four years after being elected Pope and he canonized St. Josemaria in 2002, three years before ending his Pontificate. All throughout his pontificate, he supported Opus Dei as a means of pushing the theology of the laity. I find that the article is biased against Opus Dei. It is not neutral. It gives undue weight to criticism: See Wikipedia:NPOV
The universal call to holiness, which St. Josemaria and other Catholics preached about, according to Pope Paul VI who concluded and finalized the documents of Vatican II is the "most characteristic element of the entire teaching of the Council". And John Paul II wanted to implement Vatican II through Novo Millennio Ineunte.
As a solution, I propose to put a sentence after paragraph on the Novo Millennio Ineunte (teachings) that shows that one of the ways he tried to implement his "program for all times" (whose single most important priority is sanctity) is the canonization of many saints and the support for the prelature of Opus Dei. Marax 09:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Hmn. Opus Dei: A camel can indeed pass through the eye of a needle if God in his omnipotence wills it. And those many mansions in God's house? Well, some are nicer than others and are reserved.... Whatever. I am more concerned with the characterization of Acting Person as a poor translation. That is not the considered view of quite a few good scholars, on both sides of the debate (Did the guy know what he was talking about?). And I really doubt Anna Theresa Tymenniecka (who was the series editor for the Analecta Husserliana at the time, and Polish) would have published a crummy translation.--djenner 01:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Even if his father's name was exactly the same as JPII's, that does not mean that he should necessarily be called "Karol Jozef Wojtyla Jr". This is not a "correct" English naming convention. It is an Americanism that has no formal status whatsoever. In any case, it only applies (if it applies at all) where the father was also a well-known person, and JP2's father was not. There are probably thousands of cases where a celebrity has the same name as his father, and they don't automatically get called "Junior". If JP2 was actually known as "Karol Jozef Wojtyla Jr" before his papacy, this might have some relevance. But he wasn't, so it doesn't. Let's have no more "Junior" rubbish, please. JackofOz 01:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Someone please fix the enormous white space at the start of the article (Wikipedia is drowning in boxes, imho). Adam 13:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I see someone has removed the image of the Pope with Pinochet. That was the correct decision. The photo was irrelevant. The pope as head of state when visiting a country had to meet that country's head of state, whomever they are. It is automatic and obligatory. It does not in any way amount to an endorsement, any more than George Bush meeting Queen Elizabeth means that George Bush is a monarchist, the Prince of Wales meeting Robert Mugabe at the pope's funeral meant that Charles is a marxist, or indeed that the pope meeting with President Clinton meant the pope was endorsing partial birth abortion. Removed from the context of standard diplomatic relations, the picture was being used to give a meaning that it did not contain, namely that the Pope was endorsing Pinochet. He was no more doing that than the President of Ireland was doing so when she met him during a state visit when he as a senator was a government guest at a state dinner. She was a longterm outspoken critic of Pinochet's, but on state visits she has to follow diplomatic rules and one is that one meets with heads of state and government, and members of parliament, no matter what your personal views are about them
Abusing articles but putting non-contextualised pictures is dishonest editorialising and POV. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
The term evolution has two meanings:
The question is which of these 2 ideas the Roman Catholic Church officially teaches.
Cardinal Schonborn says that "evolution proponents" have been trying to use "vague" papal statements as evidence that the RC church accepts unguided evolution. In a 2005 New York Times guest editorial, he clarifies this. (Whether his view is authoritative or not is an interesting related question.)
Is there any way to read the above-quoted papal statement, other than a clear (if wordy) declaration that the "evolution" of living beings is due to "a Mind which is its inventor, its creator"?
And can this "Mind" be other than that of God?
Note carefully that I do not assert that whatever the pope says is true, is therefore true. I do not assert that this encyclopedia should endorse the pope's view and condemn unguided evolution.
I am only saying that we should represent the Catholic teaching on "evolution" accurately. And that its teaching is at odds with Carl Sagan's definition (and the 39 Nobel prize winner's formulation) of evolution as an "unguided" process.
If we use the term "evolution" as a synonym for unguided evolution, then must not say that the RC church "accepts evolution". Uncle Ed 16:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
My understanding is that Schönborn has since backed down. At any rate, I think the problem comes with the idea of what "guided evolution" means. Does it mean intelligent design or something similar? Or does it just mean "evolution, as believed by scientists, except that we believe that God was guiding it in some undisclosed and unexplicable to science way." Other than Schönborn, who toyed with intelligent design, I think it's clear that the Church's current version of "guided evolution" means the second. Which is basically indistinguishable from unguided evolution, imo. Basically, as I understand it, the Church's position is that modern science does not conflict with church teachings. Thus, believing in evolution, as understood by modern science (that is to say, not intelligent design), is not against church teachings. As far as I understand it, the Church does not officially endorse evolution, because there is no reason that it ought to - is there church doctrine about, say, gravity? The whole god-guided/non-god-guided question in evolution is essentially irrelevant - it is just the difference between theism and atheism. If you believe in God, and believe in evolution, presumably you believe that God was involved in evolution in some way. But the religious beliefs have nothing to do with what you believe about evolution itself. I'm not sure this makes any sense, but I think we should be very careful not to accept Schönborn's statements (which try to elide the distinction between the pseudo-scientific theory of intelligent design and the much vaguer theological idea of God having some role in the evolution of life on earth) as representing in any form official church policies on evolution. john k 05:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
BTW, here's an interesting blog post on Francisco de Ayala, a Dominican priest and biology professor at UC-Irvine, and his views about evolution and the church. The blog writer summarizes Ayala's point about current church teachings as follows "The current official Catholic teaching, as enunciated by John Paul II, is that Darwin's theory is one of the supreme accomplishments of the human mind and in no way contrary to Scripture. The Austrian Cardinal who tried to challenge that view just took it back, apparently having been slapped down by Pope Benedict." And here's a link to a Scientific American blog post which quotes an AP article about comments from the Vatican in favor of scientific reason and evolution; here's the full AP article; and here's Schönborn himself backing away from his statement. john k 05:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Given the lengthy citations, I think it would behoove Ed to respond if he still thinks that the mention of support for evolution should not be in the article. BTW, here are JP II's comments on evolution, from 1996. It seems pretty clear that a) evolution is established science; and b) that evolution does not contradict the idea that humans are specially chosen by God, because scientific inquiry cannot provide information about spiritual subjects. This seems to me to be a fairly clear embrace of evolution. Note, specifically:
Anyway, I think something about evolution should be in the article, and we shouldn't pretend that the Pope (or the Church) was endorsing some kind of intelligent design business - it seems clear that, if anything, JPII was rejecting such ideas, saying "truth cannot contradict truth" - that is, the theory of evolution cannot contradict the revelation of God as presented through the Bible and the Christian faith - both are true, and neither threatens the other. This in contrast to intelligent design, which feels that, if true, evolutionary theory would prove the non-existence of God (at least, this is essentially their position, as far as I can tell). I will admite that this is not stated straight out, but it is the very clear implication of the piece. john k 06:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
This has gotten ridiculous! Could we please come to some consensus as to which image to use in the infobox? The two contenders appear to be Image:Pjp2c.jpg and Image:John paul ii.jpg. I should note that neither one is definitively tagged in such a way that we actually know it to be usable here, although they're probably press photos that have been released for general use. It would be nice if someone could find out for sure.
Absent that consideration: Either are acceptable I think, but I prefer Pjp2c.jpg. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Both, from the look, seem to be part of an official portrait series released by the Vatican. They do that with all popes. So they would qualify 100% as fairuse. The Pjp2c image is of better quality so should be used. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
This image is a re-upload of Image:Papa Giovanni Paulo II.jpg which is currently tagged with {{imagevio}}. I feel, in any event, that a formal portrait should be used for the infobox and more candid images such as this one should go elsewhere in the article, assuming they're otherwise available. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
This is not a re-upload of Image:Papa Giovanni Paolo II.jpg It was found at www.fuocovivo.org and I changed the contrast and cropped it a bit. I am trying to find a place to put it in the article, but am not good at it. Instead I am butchering it constantly, but I am trying. Please help me find a way to put this picture in. Thanks
For some reason, he was placed in this category. However, nothing in the relevant article on New_Humanism_(Humanist_Movement) suggests that he qualifies or even that his beliefs were compatible. In fact, that article mentions that the movement had conflicts with the RCC, which pretty much rules him out. In any case, he's considering a humanitarian by many, but that's not the same thing as being a humanist.
An editor asked why there was no picture in the infobox. The answer is because the image that had been there was removed very recently as a probable copyvio. The current image is completely untagged and might also be deleted at any time. If it was ultimately retrieved from some agency of the Vatican, then it's almost certainly a copyvio. It might be Fair Use, but the image description doesn't even say that. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
At a meeting I attended, a local Catholic priest argued that JP had not just said that Jews should be treated with respect and friendship - he argued that JP taught that Catholics and RCs were the same and that Jewish rites were valid acts of worship. An argument was that God had chosen the Jews and that God makes no mistakes and does not revoke his decisions. There are references to JP referring to Jews as "my older brothers". JP's action in inserting a written prayer into the "Wailing Wall" in Jerusalem, a very Jewish action, is seen as radical. He also argued strongly in favour improved relations and recognition of other faiths.
On the other hand, there are few references to Cardinal Wojtila (please excuse any miss-spelling) protesting against anti-semitic actions in post-war Poland, although I understand he did visit Krakow synagogue.
I don't wish to start an argument here on church v synagogue, it just seems to me that, if the above is factual, then the the article underplays the changes that JP advocated. But I don't wish to just insert this without consensus. Folks at 137 16:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.