Talk:Pope John Paul II

This is the current Collaboration Effort of the Catholicism WikiProject! Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia article on Catholicism.

Criticism section

Sorry am I just imagining things or has that been seriously eroded over the years? I know there's a separate article but surely a better summary that what's currently there is more appropriate? If that issue was the most important within the church then sure it should stay but in the big scheme of things birth control and the abuse scandal are much more significant criticisms of him with the latter's exclusion/removal I find truly astounding. Jurrut (talk) 14:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jurrut, it has been improved now. -- Marek.69 ^talk 01:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

edit request -- regards would-be assasin Krohn

I have found:

"accusing the visiting Spanish King Juan Carlos of murdering his older brother Alfonso in 1956"

I suggest it be changed to:

"accusing the visiting Spanish King Juan Carlos of murdering his (Juan Carlos') younger brother Alfonso in 1956"

The changes are:

Change "older" to "younger" (Wikipedia does have an article about Alfonso, brother of Juan Carlos).

Insert "(Juan Carlos')" to make it clearer who "his" refers to". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. I changed "his" to "Carlos's" in the style suggested by the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Elizium23 (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

But why do you say "Carlos'" instead of "Juan Carlos'"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I am following WP:SURNAME. Elizium23 (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

"Juan Carlos" (excluding the number "I") is what ended up being used for this man's regnal name, similar to Popes John Paul (I, II) and Austrian emperor Franz Josef, so I don't think "Carlos" would be considered a surname.

It also occurs to me that before we made these changes, it was saying that Juan Fernandez y Krohn was accusing Juan Carlos of killing his (Juan Carlos') OLDER brother so he (Juan Carlos) could be king. Could it be that Fernandez y Krohn did indeed mention OLDER brother (i.e. had information we proved to be wrong)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You are correct about Juan Carlos, and I have edited to reflect that. The article on Juan María Fernández y Krohn makes it clear that the person mentioned was Alfonso, Juan Carlos's younger brother, however, neither in that article nor this one could I find a reference to support the fact that he made accusations of murder. I could remove the statement altogether, but I have tagged it with {{citation needed}} in hopes that someone else can find a source. Elizium23 (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I have gone over to the "regnal name" entry on Wikipedia and created, in the talk page, a new section about 2-word regnal names. Besides the 4 people mentioned in the section you are reading, I have included Louis Philippe, French king. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Peer review

It would be good to get this article to featured status. For anyone who would like to help, there is a Peer review page here. -- Marek.69 ^talk 19:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Peer review

Pope John Paul II

Previous peer review

Previous peer review 1

Previous peer review 2

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it could be an FA. I am prepared to put in the work to achieve this, but any help would be most welcome :-) -- Marek.69 ^talk 02:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I now see that there are a few more issues with this article than I anticipated. User:History2007 raises some good points and I think that they are probably correct.The article does come across a bit soul-less, so fair comment. Looking at the references I would guess that there are probably quite a number which are not WP:RS. I am happy to go through them to check, but it might take a while.:) --Marek.69 ^talk 20:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod

• The overall tone may be critized as a bit too friendly, and "in universe". Lots of people said nice things about him, but what will be his lasting significance really?

• Well it is in British English, after all. We must cater for a wide readership. I'm not sure of his lasting significance(?)--Marek.69 ^talk 22:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Some of the references seem a bit dubious - it's a pity to start with "about.com"! There are an awful lot of piled up refs - 7 in one place. Is it possible to bundle these with your citation method? Why does it take 4 refs to say he was at Vatican II, but only 1 to say what he did there? One of the Stourton refs is malformed & stranded in the text.
• Several tags - citation & clarification needed.
• I'm not a great one for spotting inconsistency in refs, but I noticed some here - I'd drop the street addresses some publishers have but others don't in the bibliography.

• I've removed the postal addresses from the location= tag -- Marek.69 ^talk 00:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Should he be called "Karol" before the papacy?

• I have changed to Wojtyla -- Marek.69 ^talk 03:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Wojtyla or Wojtyła? I'm happy to do "find and replace all" for you if you're in favor of the dark l :) Accedie^{talk to me} 04:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think to use Wojtyła would be correct, so I agree with search/replace. --Marek.69 ^talk 22:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Accedie. -- Marek.69 ^talk 18:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• "In 1970, according to a contemporary witness, Cardinal Wojtyła was against the distribution of a letter around Krakow, stating that the Polish Episcopate was preparing for the 50th anniversary of the Polish-Soviet War.[39]" Why? What's this about?

• I have no idea either, it appears to be sourced to a Polish newspaper (Roman Graczyk, Cena przetrwania? SB wobec Tygodnika Powszechnego, Warszawa 2011 p. 204 ISBN 978-83-7700-015-1) which I don't seem to be able to access, so I've removed it for now. If someone can explain then please feel free to re-add. -- Marek.69 ^talk 21:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• Roman Graczyk is referenced on the Polish Wikipedia here. -- Marek.69 ^talk 21:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Health - understates the weakness of his final years?
• rather too many short sections for my taste - Jubilee 2000 campaign is one line.

• I've moved the line to the 'Social and political stances' section which ties in with his campaign for debt forgiveness. -- Marek.69 ^talk 18:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• could do with a summing up with some extended quotes on his significance, analysis rather than tributes.

  The book I mention in my comments by John Cornwell offers some critical analysis of the Pope's significance. Development of the sections regarding his theological views and teachings would also stave off this criticism somewhat. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Beatification section may be a bit too long?
• Criticism section probably too short.

• I've expanded it, but still needs a lot of work. -- Marek.69 ^talk 02:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Rather too many external links
• There's nothing, or no section anyway, on his organizational impact on the church, which was surely considerable.
• Couldn't see his Polish camp followers mentioned - esp. Card. Paul Marcinkus (ok Lithuanian-American) head of the Vatican Bank during the Banco Ambrosiano scandal - not I think mentioned in the "criticism" article either, which it should be.

• I think there should be something about this in the main body of the article. Marek.69 ^talk 22:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• I've started a new section on this subject, however there may be a problem finding reliable sources if we wish to expand on this.

Does anyone have a book on the Banco Ambrosiano scandal? -- Marek.69 ^talk 08:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

More later Johnbod (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Marek.69 ^talk 23:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by WereSpielChequers

Comment I've done a run through and made a few tweaks, hope you like them, if not it's a wiki. I spotted a certain amount of overlinking and linking to generic words and events rather than specific articles - see constantinople. ϢereSpielChequers 10:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, WereSpielChequers. -- Marek.69 ^talk 21:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Tom Morris

• I haven't really participated in peer review or FAC, so forgive me if I stray from expectations on these things.
• I found the Teachings section rather underwhelming. It starts with the sentence, "As pope, one of John Paul II's most important roles was to teach Christianity." which is perhaps stating the obvious rather too much. It'd be like an article on Wayne Rooney containing a sentence of the sort "As a Manchester United striker, Rooney's most important role is to kick the football into the goal." Well, duh. The paragraph really needs a bit of rewrite.
• The teachings section needs to be longer: there are plenty of sources on the topic. The point about John Paul II, according to my rather shaky and layman's understanding, is that his theology combines classical Thomism with the insights of phenomenology. There is some discussion of this at Personalism#Roman Catholic personalism and some more details at the expanded article, Teachings of Pope John Paul II. This latter article, while not complete, does give enough of a flavour, but isn't adequately summarised in the main article.
• The subsection on Evolution is currently in the 'Social and political stances' section. Although obviously the Catholic Church's position (and change in position) on evolution has social and political effects, this probably ought to be in 'Teachings'.

• I've moved the 'Evolution' subsection to be a subsection of 'Teachings'. -- Marek.69 ^talk 18:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Have you considered making use of John Cornwell's excellent book The Pontiff in Winter—Triumph and Conflict in the Reign of John Paul II?

• Sounds good, do you still have it Tom? -- Marek.69 ^talk 06:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• The criticism section makes no mention of the child sex abuse scandals. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• It does now -- Marek.69 ^talk 03:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• I have expanded the section on the role of Wojtyla and the Polish delegation in the drafting of Gaudium et Spes. There's plenty more to write about on Wojtyla's role in Vatican II. There's extensive discussion of this in "Vatican II: Renewal Within Tradition" (Lamb and Levering ed.) ISBN 9780195332674. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you Tom -- Marek.69 ^talk 02:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by James F. (talk)

• It's quite long - 52 kB (8694 words) of "readable prose size", which feels like it could do with being tighter, with some of the text moved more into subsidiary articles. For example the "Pastoral trips" section does not need the list of all 104 of them, even if in a collapsible box. Similarly, the "Death and funeral" section is quite long for what it's saying (viz.: "He died. People came to his funeral."), probably because it's pretty much the only part of his life that happened post-Wikipedia, so it's current-events-style. James F. (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• The section "Life's work" feels oddly-named to me, though our normal alternative ("Career") also feels wrong. Sorry, not a very helpful comment. :-) James F. (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've removed the section title -- Marek.69 ^talk 03:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Prose style is rather, ahem, laudatory - the use of indented highlight-quotes to start sections, lines like "John Paul II had a special relationship with Catholic youth and is known by some as The Pope for Youth" (CN/SAYSWHO/OLEAGINOUS/etc.) or "He constantly attempted to find common ground, both doctrinal and dogmatic" (followed by only one example, and with no cites on the general claim - OR?)... James F. (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've removed both of these lines James -- Marek.69 ^talk 03:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• In general, it seems quite good though. Good luck! James F. (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you James -- Marek.69 ^talk 02:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Sp33dyphil

• "often playing football in goal" --> "often playing as goalkeeper in football"

• I think "often playing football as goalkeeper" -- Marek.69 ^talk 01:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Can the motto Totus tuus be translated to English?

• Totus Tuus means "totally yours". I have put this into infobox. -- Marek.69 ^talk 03:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Election to the Papacy" Why's the last word capitalised?

• I've changed to " Election to the papacy" -- Marek.69 ^talk 03:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• I think there are too many issues in this large article; I suggest starting the article afresh in your userpage, where you can copy and paste the best parts of this article and work on anything that needs to be improved, before asking for another PR.

• Thank you Sp33dyphil. I have pasted the whole article to User:Marek69/Pope John Paul II -- Marek.69 ^talk 03:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus

Comments by --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03

05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Lead should be expanded, at least doubled in size.

• Would you like to take this on Piotrus? You do have a lot of experience in this -- Marek.69 ^talk 01:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Too many quotes; in at least one place one quote follows another, breaking text flow.

• I've started reducing the number of quotes. Is it OK now, or shall I continue? -- Marek.69 ^talk 08:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Gay rights activists is a stubsection; please expand.

• I've started to expand it -- Marek.69 ^talk 06:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• See also should be incorporated into text.
• There are reference errors; somebody didn't do an error check after running some automated tool recently, most likely.

• The ref errors have been fixed by User:Rich Farmbrough. Thanks -- Marek.69 ^talk 03:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Prokonsul Piotrus -- Marek.69 ^talk 20:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Rich Farmbrough

Comments by Rich Farmbrough, 05:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC).

• No need for three coats of arms (Infobox, illus, styles).

• I have removed two. -- Marek.69 ^talk 03:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• The ref errors were surplus refs left by the trimming, I have fixed. Fixed

• Thank you -- Marek.69 ^talk 03:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• We avoid abbreviations such as TX, NY. Fixed

• Thank you -- Marek.69 ^talk 03:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• A better pic of the Dali Lama or none. This one has the reader searching for the pope in it.

• I've removed it -- Marek.69 ^talk 03:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Rich. -- Marek.69 ^talk 20:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Moonriddengirl

I'm afraid that I don't really have time to do an in-depth peer reviews at the moment. I'm trying to keep too much of a backlog from developing at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, and there are a couple of days worth of listing I'm already behind. I do notice one issue at a glance: the article uses {{cquote}}. This is not supported for the body of articles by the Manual of Style. It's too flashy. To quote from WP:MOSQUOTE:

Format a long quote (more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation, which Wikimedia's software will indent from both margins. Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the {{cquote}} template, which are reserved for pull quotes). Block quotations using a colored background are also discouraged. Block quotations can be enclosed between a pair of <blockquote>...</blockquote> HTML tags; or use {{quote}}.

The quotes shouldn't be formatted in italics, either, unless the originals were. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Italics. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Moonriddengirl. -- Marek.69 ^talk 20:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I have removed both the {{cquote}}s and the italicised quotes -- Marek.69 ^talk 01:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by History2007

First, my apologies for what there is to follow. But I do not like this article. Not at all.

Good News: This article does get the basic facts about his birth date, papacy period, etc. right.

Bad News: The article seems mostly unaware of what the man did, and what his goals were. That shortcoming is epitomized by the lack of any serious content in the teachings section. That section is specially uninformed. Again, my apologies for using the term uninformed, but there is no other term that would apply here. There is a link to his "Social and political stances" but that is not really the center of his teachings which can only be traced through the encyclical and apostolic exhortations he issued. As a clue, consider the fact that the word "encyclical" only appears once in the article, referring to Humanae Vitae which he did not issue himself. The only apostolic letter mentioned seems to be Ordinatio Sacerdotalis which is more political than theological. Items such as Ecclesia de Eucharistia, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia and Redemptoris Mater, etc. were key elements of his plan to "reposition the Catholic Church". That plan was in effect for over two decades and mostly succeeded. I could go on and on and on about what is missing... But I think it is clear that only a very small fraction of his teachings or goals or influences are mentioned anywhere. And sorry, I will not have time to work on that any time soon.

• I have started to address these issues. -- Marek.69 ^talk 12:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Image: The article does not mention his high level of popularity among masses around the world. He was far more popular than the previous popes, or the current pontif. In places such as Mexico he was deeply loved for declaring Juan Diego a saint. The same was true in the Philippines, etc.

Photographs: The selection of photographs is quite unusual and non-representative. For instance, there are 3 photographs in which our previous commander in chief appears. His attitude would have been better represented by this photograph. There are probably public domain versions of that, without the caption, if you want to find one and add it... would be fun to see the reactions.

Overall, a very long and almost unreadable article that gets the dates right, then gets lost in the political issues, relationship with the Eastern Orthodox, etc. and misses the key goal of his papacy which was to transform and reposition the Church. A goal that mostly succeeded. History2007 (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I have added a sentence to the lede on this subject. Do you think we need to go into more detail? -- Marek.69 ^talk 09:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

A whole sentence? I am sorry, but I think you know what I mean. I will also type more below. History2007 (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Marek.69 ^talk 18:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you History2007. -- Marek.69 ^talk 10:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Further comments (requested move?)

I am half joking, but after thinking about it a little more, based on John's comment above (what will be his lasting significance really?), I think a move request may be in order. I would suggest a move to "Prime Minister John Paul II" instead of "Pope John Paul II", for this article is written about a politician, not a pope. The first focus of a pope is "his flock" not relations with Islam, Eastern Orthodox etc. Look at how much space is given to those, vs how much space is given to his relationship with his own crowd and their "spiritual direction". This article seems to view him as "Prime Minister John Paul II of the Republic of Earth".

And again, the selection of images reflects that mindset. A photo with ex-KGB Mr Putin, and as I said 3 photos of Einstein give the wrong impression. The icing on the cake was that the photo of his beatification featured Benedict! I touched up the two photos to show that he was beatified on the very feast for which he worked very hard for from 1965 to 1978. And John, one of his lasting impacts is that said feast/devotion (which was previously banned) now has over 100 million followers. That is called impact. To that end, I also added an image of how the Mexicans donated the keys for his statue. Those items focus on a "pope", not on a prime minister. But the article seems to be mostly unaware of the papal side of his life and just a restatement of news reports.

I am sorry Marek, but I do not see how a band-aid or two could fix this article. The heart of it is based on a perception as a political figure - hence the move request suggestion. As I read the article I do not see an awareness of his role as a "spiritual leader", but I see a collage of newspaper clippings which mostly cover prime ministers and other dignitaries in three piece suits. He was not wearing a suit and a tie, in case that was not noticed. History2007 (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, History2007. I do take your comments on board. I agree that his primary role was Pope of the Catholic Church, but I also think he was more than that. Why was he so loved, especially so in his mother country? I would say primarily for his character and the way he interacted with common people. He also met with and was respected by a large number of political as well as church leaders, so much so that he had great political influence in his time. All these factors contribute to the man and the figure that he was. Marek.69 ^talk 17:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

His own country was a given issue, maybe national pride. But the rest of the world was a bigger test. History2007 (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I do not know if the article uses this or not, but it gives a glimpse. He put in "a lot of work" to reach out to specific groups, including obscure groups of seminarians, orders with a small number of nuns, etc. as well as well known cases such as his rapid move on Mother Teresa. An item that does not even appear on the page now. A large number of other elements that shed light on the issues that shaped his life also need inclusion, e.g. that he was trained by Lagrange, etc., etc. History2007 (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The article does reference vatican.va. I will try to look a few of these up. Thank you. -- Marek.69 ^talk 22:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, fine. I suggested that link because the trips/visits/addresses were a key element of his strategy, and reason for popularity. Compared to other popes, he was much more "in touch" and reached out. That point needs to be made in the article somehow. It reminds me of what Gerstner said when he first got to IBM: "A desk is a dangerous place to observe the world from", then went on the road for ever, talked to the company and turned it around. What John Paul II realized was that "the window in St Peter's Square is a dangerous place to see the world from" and unlike others, went out to the masses and turned the Church around. History2007 (talk) 05:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

In view of the comment below, let me say a little more on the "Teaching secion", and then move on. The Teaching section has 35 lines on the Eastern Orthodox trips, his visit to Athens etc. Is that a teaching? Most of that section is a list of trips. Those are not teachings. Most of that section is about photo-ops which any pope has to take part in. I guess that is a Cosmo interpretation of teaching in some sense - photo-ops. But I will pass on further discussion on that.

Yet in that context let just ask ourselves exactly what power did he wield anywhere? Was he going to send the Swiss guard to invade Denmark and claim it as new Papal Territory? No, his only power was mobilizing the billion followers he had and claim them as new territory. There is no mention of that and no section in this article called "impact on his Church". Is there? Not that I can see. Should there be there? Should does not apply here, it depends on who will be editing the article. And that may change somewhat at random. But I think the article would do well to mention his focus on "spiritual values". That was a key element of the character of the man.

Anyway, that is why I do not edit these types of articles. I just commented here because there was a request for comment. I will not be looking at this page again, or looking at that article for a while. I will look at the article maybe in 3-4 months and perhaps comment again, but who knows.

In any case, I think you know what I see as the material that is needed for the article to look more "informed". Cheers. History2007 (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you History2007. -- Marek.69 ^talk 14:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Accedie

Marek, I think you've done a commendable job of tackling a huge, meaty article with all kinds of competing agendas and turning it into something coherent and readable. I have just a few minor questions/suggestions:

• What is the miracle for which he was beatified? There's mention of a little boy suffering from kidney cancer, but there's also a reference to "the miracle involving Sister Marie Simon-Pierre"... (with no wikilink) -- seems notable enough to warrant a redlink at the very least. That was the one thing not clear to me.

• Sorry, my fault, I cut too much out, but I have put these paragraphs back in. Marek.69 ^talk 17:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• I did a good bit of copyediting and found myself removing some POVish phraseology from a few sections. I think I got all the glaring examples, but it wouldn't hurt to take a second pass and make sure to tone down anything excessively adulatory or biased. JP II may be a saint, but this is still an encyclopedia :)

• I'm still looking :-) -- Marek.69 ^talk 21:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I also have to say that I strongly disagree with the above critique of the article's nature and scope. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of Catholicism, so I wouldn't expect to find detailed exploration of his teachings and other doctrinal nuance here – though I would expect good references to set me off in that direction of research if I so desired, of course :) Wikipedia is also meant to serve a global audience of readers, and I think the most cosmopolitan interpretation of the life of John Paul II is the one found here: a man who was at the forefront of many important political events, who put himself in the global spotlight by both his faith and his actions, and whose legacy far exceeds ecclesiastical bounds.

Accedie, maybe we should add this last line into the lead. -- Marek.69 ^talk 03:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks for all your hard work, Marek, and good luck with the rest of the peer review process! Accedie^{talk to me} 05:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

There you go. History2007 (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! Added that in to the article. Accedie^{talk to me} 05:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Accedie :-) -- Marek.69 ^talk 16:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Casliber

Sorry, I got completely distracted reading list of popes...I'll come up with something soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Minor formatting - make sure all references conform - titles in Title Case or sentence case (I generally find former easier and I think most of yours are former already) Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Casliber, I think I have tackled most of the Title Case titles in the References-Notes section. (There maybe a couple I missed.) I think there may still be some issues in the References with mixed styles. -- Marek.69 ^talk 21:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Casliber. -- Marek.69 ^talk 02:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by HJ

I'm only going to comment on the references for now, because I think that's the most immediate issue. From a cursory look through the references, I found over thirty "sources" that I wouldn't let anywhere near an article I was planning to take to FAC.

• Catholicplanet.com
• About.com
• Ewtn.com
• Klee.us
• Popejohnpaul.com
• Dialog.org
• Docstoc.com
• Catholicity.com
• Giga Catholic Information
• Wikipedia
• Writespirit.net
• Catholicireand.net
• Popejohnpaulii.org
• The Christian Coptic Orthodox Church Of Egypt
• The Catholic Community Forum and Liturgical Publications of St. Louis, Inc.
• Scribd.com
• Blogspot
• Contactmusic.com

Is Contactmusic.com not WP:RS? -- Marek.69 ^talk 16:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• 123muslim.com
• Coldlakeislamicsociety.ca
• Blessinexhibit.org
• Adl.org
• Polisculture-nyc.org
• Lutheranworld.org
• Religion-cults.com
• Helpfellowship.org
• Reformation.org
• Blogspot again
• Redicecreations.com
• Metrowestdailynews.com
• Javno.com
• Huliq.com
• Vlex.co.uk
• Gcatholic.com
• Rense.com
• About.com again

Thank you, Harry, for taking the time to go through the references and flagging these up. I think I've removed them all now.

-- Marek.69 ^talk 15:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Add to that the article cites a great many sources that were written by the subject himself or by the Vatican, that many more references are lacking basic bibliographic information, and that others still are not of the quality I would expect for what's cited to them. This article has got a long way to go before it's even worth putting significant effort into the body. Sorry. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, HJ Mitchell. -- Marek.69 ^talk 14:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Harry, are quotations of what the Pope said, which are referenced from his own books, and events in the Pope's life, which are referenced from The Vatican website OK? -- Marek.69 ^talk 22:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Quotes from his books & speeches certainly, & simple events also; anything approaching commentary should be clearly labelled as from the Vatican, or sourced elsewhere. My take. Johnbod (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by John of Reading

"Baziak died in June 1962 and on 16 July he was selected..." - presumably this means that Wojtyła was selected. The two sources given at the end of this sentence do not seem to mention it. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does refer to Wojtyła. I have changed it to say that. I will check the references to make sure this is clear. -- Marek.69 ^talk 15:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"Today, for the first time in history, a Bishop of Rome sets foot on English soil" - this paragraph looks out of place. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you John for your comments, and for your copy-edits :-)

This is a quotation from Pope John Paul II from the time of his visit to the UK in 1982, which is briefly mentioned (one line) in the Pastoral trips section above. It is significant because it was the first time a Pope had ever [officially] visited the UK. Unfortunately it does not stand out as a quotation as we are now using the <blockquote>...</blockquote> format. Maybe it should be within quotation marks? The section previously looked like this, before the recent changes of style. -- Marek.69 ^talk 15:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That may have been me; {{cquote}} is for pull quotes, which that (and a few others) are not. The doc for the templates says so right up front, in red. Maybe you want {{quotation}}? Alarbus (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Citation style

I see User:Alarbus has been changing the citation style to the dreaded sfn system, presumably without discussion. This is contrary to WP:CITE and should be nipped in the bud. Johnbod (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we are only using sfn for backlinking to the sources and bibliography subsections; the rest are all cite news, cite web, etc. format. I don't think that there is any intention to expand this to the notes section -- Marek.69 ^talk 18:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok if everyone's happy. Johnbod (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Johnbod, out of interest, why did you describe sfn as 'dreaded'?

It looks quite neat and precise to me, and the article did use a form of shortened footnote notation, {{harvnb}} I think, at one point. :-) -- Marek.69 ^talk 15:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)