Talk:Pope John Paul II

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1: August 30, 2003 - April 1, 2005
• Archive 2: April 2 - 6, 2005
• Archive 3: April 7 - 12, 2005
• Archive 4: April 12 - June 19, 2005
• Archive 5: June 20, 2005 - January 25, 2006
• Archive 6: January 26, 2006 - October 20, 2007
• Archive 7: October 21, 2007 – November 21, 2008

Death section

A crowd of over two million within Vatican City, over one billion Catholics world-wide, and many non-Catholics mourned John Paul II. The Poles were especially devastated by his death.

The over one billion Catholics statement isn't particularly useful in the paragraph and the rest of the paragraph should just be removed full stop.

That is to say that section that I've italicised should be changed to:

A crowd of over two million within Vatican City, over one billion Catholics world-wide mourned John Paul II.

or

A crowd of over two million present in Vatican City mourned the death of John Paul II.

Personally I prefer the latter. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 03:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the one billion figure is out of place. To be clear, is the two million figure referring to how many people were in Vatican City during the funeral, or is it a broader time period? That might be clarified as well. If it refers to the funeral, perhaps something further streamlined like

A crowd of over two million people was present in Vatican City for the funeral of John Paul II.

Obviously that should be different if it's referring to that day, or the week preceding, etc. --Anietor (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done I picked the second-to-last one since we're not sure if it's referring to the funeral or after at this point. Wizardman 04:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Crush at the Vatican There is something seriously wrong with the figure of "over 2 million people present in Vatican City". Vatican City covers an area of 0.44 square kilometers = 440,000 square meters, so if there were 2 million people in it, there would be 4.5 people per square meter. And this is supposing the Vatican was a clear space instead of being filled with various substantial buildings. The Corriere della Sera (8 April 2005) calculated 280,000, or perhaps 600,000 or up to a million counting the overflow in the streets beyond Saint Peter’s Square. (“Centinaia di migliaia di fedeli hanno affollato il sagrato: circa 280 mila, secondo le stime. Ma erano 600 mila, forse un milione secondo altre valutazioni, considerando anche la folla che strabordava ben oltre Piazza San Pietro e via della Conciliazione.”)Can we alter the entry accordingly? Campolongo (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

One of the references to the numbers, from the 'BBC' website states:

“More than a quarter of a million watched the event from within the Vatican walls. A further 800,000 followed the funeral live on huge television screens across the capital, where 600 priests circled among the believers, distributing hosts. Some 30,000 young pilgrims took part from a vast reception centre set up on the outskirts of Rome. And yet, hours after the funeral had ended, many of the estimated four million pilgrims who had thronged the streets had already disappeared - whisked to stations in special buses.″

So as I understand it, the figures according to this source were 250,000 - 300,000 within the Vatican walls, approximately 4,000,000 total in the City of Rome. Marek.69 ^talk 14:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Online beatifications?

He beatified 1,340 people (many online over the Internet, some listed here) ....

Is this actually the case? Is it vandalism? Source? Or is it trying to say that many details of these beatifications can be located on the internet? -- JackofOz (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that beatifications cannot occur over the Internet, I took this to mean that details can be found online. As this information is true for just about any fact, I don't think it's really necessary, so I rephrased the sentence to link to the WP list of beatifications. Can-Dutch (talk) 03:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Pastoral Provision and Anglican Use.

I have included this important part of John Paul the Great's ecumenical efforts with Anglicanism. I hope it is found to be a good addition. -- Kevin Browning (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent Edits to "Criticism"

To explain a few changes;

• I removed the Franco reference by St. Josemaría (and fixed the typo on his name) because of it's being unnecessary and doubtful until proven.
• I moved the jimmyakin.org link to a ref, as external links in the middle of a paragraph clutter it, and I couldn't see any way to merge it into the text in a way that makes it seem natural and related.

Can-Dutch (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Spellings

As this article appears to be written predominantly with British english spellings, I propose to convert any remaining other spellings, (as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style) to preserve consistancy within the article. Marek.69 ^talk 07:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of red link to Love and Responsibility

Please stop delinking this. Red links are useful in that they show what subjects need articles created for them. This book is undoubtably notable so should stay as a red link. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Phil, I didn't realise. I will leave this link as it is. By the way, I didn't revert your edit, or rather didn't mean to revert. I think we were both editing the same section of the article at the same time (your edit 20:01, my edits 20:02, 20:03) Sorry for any confusion. Marek.69 ^talk 23:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Having a look...

Hi, I was having a look to give this a bit of a copyedit for flow, and I was going to place some notes here:

His mother died on 13 April 1929, when he was just eight years old. The young Karol was in school when it happened, and his father, Karol Wojtyła senior, came to give him the sad news.[5] Karol's elder sister died in infancy, so he never knew her.

are the bits I have bolded really necessary? They don't really add much for me. I wouldn't worry normally but it is a pretty long article (and I presume they are in daughter article). I'd reword to something like:

His mother died on 13 April 1929, when Karol was just eight years old, and his elder sister died in infancy

I will add more. Please revert any copyediting I do which accidentally changes the meaning. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• ..then thriving Jewish community... - 'thriving' sounds no quite right, I'd say maybe 'vibrant' or...not sure...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess my game plan would be to make sure you had everything you wanted in or out first, then begin copyediting. I did a bit but it is generally not a good idea to get too carried away with copyediting before the content is more or less settled. I know little about wht should be in or not so I will come back later. Good luck. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree, I've made the relevant changes. I think it reads better now. Marek.69 ^talk 13:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Some comments

• This sentence "John Paul II was pope during a period in which the Catholic Church's influence declined in developed countries, but expanded in the Third World." is incorrect I think and needs a reference if it is to stay. I did the Catholic Institutions section on Roman Catholic Church page and the Catholic presence has increased in developed countries as well as third world countries outpacing population growth 139% to 117%. The reference I used is the same one used by all major newspapers when reporting on church statistics. The source says that the church presence increased even in developed countries but not as much as in third world countries. See "Froehle, Bryan; Mary Gautier (2003). Global Catholicism, Portrait of a World Church. Orbis books; Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, Georgetown University. ISBN 157075375x."
• The lead does not adequately summarize the article and identify why he was an important pope. He had an impact on the world at large in many ways, one of them was the downfall of communism [1] and improved relations with Jews and Protestants.
• The last paragraph in the lead goes into too much detail on his cannonizations which could just be a sentence. The lead needs to be expanded to fully summarize the article, see WP:Lead for guidelines.
• The article does not adequately address the importance of his efforts to reconcile the Church with various communities like the Jews for instance. This is one of his greatest legacies.
• I think it would be an improvement to address how American nuns came together and fought against him because of his decision against women's ordination. The feminists painted him as archaic and sexist but that is not how most Catholics saw him - to them he was a prayerful man who came to this decision after prayerfully considering the matter and determined that the Church follow the example of Jesus who chose only men for priests and taught that the women had different duties that were not considered to be less important.

I am available to provide refs for this article if you need them. I can also help with structure and prose if you want my help. I am currently entertaining out of town guests and will be a bit scarce on Wikipedia for a little while. I will come see the page over time and offer suggestions if I can think of anything else. Have fun! NancyHeise ^talk 21:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Wording for lead

I suggest use the following wording (or a version of it) for the second paragraph of the lead:

“John Paul II was one of the great leaders of the twentieth century, who played a pivotal role on the stage of world politics. He has been credited with being instrumental in bringing down communism in Eastern Europe, as well as significantly improving the Roman Catholic Church's relations with Judaism, the Eastern Orthodox Church, as well as the Protestant and Anglican Churches.”

Any thoughts from anyone to improve this wording? Marek.69 ^talk 20:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It is POV. We don't see people are "great leaders" - no doubt some people think he was terrible. "stage of world politics" is a cliché. credited need "by whom" and why should we put in the plaudits and praise and not some criticism too.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is bland without either the praise or criticism and it should include both. The lead needs to tell Reader why he was praised and by whom as well as why he was criticized and by whom. Praises include:

• defeating communism
• envigorating the Church
• reconciliation with Jews and protestants
• numerous apologies for past wrongs commited by Christians and even the Church
• fighting the immorality of the sexual revolution by his teachings of the theology of the body and on women mulierus dignitatum
• fighting against (and winning) liberal Church theologians
• fighting against Liberation Theology

Criticisms include the same things he is praised for, for instance, feminists and liberals within and without the Church criticized his stand on women priests. All of this could be summarized with maybe a couple of sentences in the lead and are easy to reference. NancyHeise ^talk 00:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What if we throw in something about criticism, to try to limit POV objections:

“John Paul II is widely acclaimed as one of the great leaders of the twentieth century, who played a pivotal role on the stage of world politics. He has been credited with being instrumental in bringing down communism in Eastern Europe, as well as significantly improving the Roman Catholic Church's relations with Judaism, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and Anglican Churches.” As with any notable figure, criticisms have been made against John Paul II's views in many areas, including ordination of women and his stance on the sanctity of marriage.

I realise I'm probably not the most un-biased writer, so this undoubtably needs rephrasing. In reference to this same idea of criticism, the other route to take would be to be positive in the lead, and leave criticisms for later, although I admit that may not be the most impartial option. Can-Dutch (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC) (quick edit of line about ecumenism for clarity .. the parallel structure was broken/awkward) Can-Dutch (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Marek.69 ^talk 16:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, those criticisms are not very widespread. At least the women's ordination one isn't outside a minority of ex-nuns and former female gym teachers. The biggest criticisms of JP2 have been:

1. Stance on marriage/birth control
2. Mishandling of the sex abuse scandal
3. Watering down of the US Liturgy/Spirit of Vatican 2 BS

His most ardent admirers have even criticized him on this.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, how about this?

John Paul II is widely acclaimed as one of the great leaders of the twentieth century, who played a pivotal role on the stage of world politics. He has been credited with being instrumental in bringing down communism in Eastern Europe, as well as significantly improving the Roman Catholic Church's relations with Judaism, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and Anglican Churches. As with any notable figure, criticisms have been made against John Paul II's views in many areas, including ordination of women, a perceived "watering-down" of the Liturgy in the United States, and his stance on the sanctity of marriage.

I didn't include the abuse scandals, as I think most people are already aware of that anyway, and something as highly controversial as that should perhaps be left out of the lead, and given to space where there's more room for details and fair phrasing. Can-Dutch (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't think I'd put "watering-down" in the lead...I'll think of a way to reword it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

‘dilution’ maybe? Marek.69 ^talk 23:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I like "dilution", or maybe "weakening", "diminishing of the quality of" or "softening" ... something along those lines? Can-Dutch (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Another thought ... turn the "watering-down" bit into "...women, support for Vatican II and its effect on the Liturgy in the United States..."; or maybe that without "its effect on the Liturgy..." Can-Dutch (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, how's this for the last line?

As with any notable figure, criticisms have been made against John Paul II's views in many areas, including ordination of women, a perceived ‘dilution’ of the Liturgy in the United States, his stance on the sanctity of marriage, together with the fact that he would not compromise his ‘hard-line’ stance on certain issues, such as contraception.

-- Marek.69 ^talk 20:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm probably just being picky, but "dilution" just doesn't sound right, somehow. What if we go around the wording thus:

As with any notable figure, criticisms have been made against John Paul II's views in many areas, including ordination of women, his support for Vatican II and its effect on the Liturgy in the United States, his stance on the sanctity of marriage, and his uncompromising position on issues such as contraception.

And I'm not sure that we need 'and its effect on the Liturgy in the United States', as it makes that phrase pretty long. Can-Dutch (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that reads a lot better than the last version.

Regards the line 'and its effect on the Liturgy in the United States' - I think there needs to be something here to clarify specifically what he was being criticised for, otherwise it may come across as they (the critics) were against all aspects of Vatican II. Maybe, just shorten it to 'and its effect on the Liturgy' - or is that too vague? Marek.69 ^talk 02:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's better. Here's the latest:

John Paul II is widely acclaimed as one of the great leaders of the twentieth century, who played a pivotal role on the stage of world politics. He has been credited with being instrumental in bringing down communism in Eastern Europe, as well as significantly improving the Roman Catholic Church's relations with Judaism, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and Anglican Churches. As with any notable figure, criticisms have been made against John Paul II's views in many areas, including ordination of women, his support for Vatican II and its effect on the Liturgy, his stance on the sanctity of marriage, and his uncompromising position on issues such as contraception.

Any last suggestions...?

The text sounds good now. It includes both praise and criticism for balance.

I'll just add a couple of points: I've changed the format of some of the citations, so the ones in the article are most up-to-date.

The other thing is in the text in the article, the phrase ‘He has been credited’ has a {{who}} template added after it, with a edit summary of ‘need to name someone here’ by User:Scott MacDonald.

The persons who have credited him with the fall of communism are named in the citations; Mikhail Gorbachev, Timothy Garton Ash, (an Oxford University historian), Henry Kissinger, Margaret Thatcher. Do we have list them in the lead, or is it sufficient to have them in the citations? Marek.69 ^talk 12:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, "influential" is a neutral substitute for "great" that can slot in nicely. Detractors would agree on this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with "influential". Consider using "contentious" to describe the activies which drew criticism, rather than the "criticisms have been made" statement which sounds unideal (to say nothing of passive voice). Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What about this, then, to incorporate these last two suggestions?

John Paul II is widely acclaimed as one of the most influential leaders of the twentieth century, who played a pivotal role on the stage of world politics. He has been credited with being instrumental in bringing down communism in Eastern Europe, as well as significantly improving the Roman Catholic Church's relations with Judaism, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and Anglican Churches. As with any notable figure, John Paul II held contentious views in many areas, including ordination of women, his support for Vatican II and its effect on the Liturgy, his stance on the sanctity of marriage, and his uncompromising position on issues such as contraception.

I added "most" before "influential" as it sounded like it needed another word in there to flow correctly. Also, I'm not sure I like the way the "contentious" part reads as is; we could either live with passive voice or it needs a rephrasing. Can-Dutch (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I am also not sure about the way the "contentious" part reads. I think the wording was easier to understand (for the average reader + me) using simpler language like critics and criticism. Marek.69 ^talk 17:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Advice on article length...

I know it is tempting to make an article a magnum opus but be very careful. I have not learnt my lesson on three occasions, taking a mega-article to FAC (lion, vampire, and major depressive disorder), and it is very difficult, often there is a call the article is too long, and one can get very unhappy with rapid reduction techniques. This article is blessed with some daughter articles, so make sure they are utilised. The more that there is to read, the more reviewers can find wrong. Anyway, you may want to make the article a bit shorter than it is now and have more in subarticles would be my advice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Opinion

This is a very good article. The length is needed to cover adequately the life of our Pope. He was Pope for 27 years - please compare this to most world leaders. My opinion is that the authors have made a good job of keeping it short and at the same time covering important issues. You could add more about his first trip home to Poland as Pope and the feeling of the people, and of the effect on Poland. The parts on his effect on communism are understated. This section needs to be expanded with more quotation from world leaders, past and present, and put into a more prominent position. This will be his most memorable accomplishment for the world. Why is this not a Good Article?? MaciejKudra (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC) Please compare to other languages where it is a featured article MaciejKudra (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree ... I was thinking about putting it up for review as a "good" article as soon as we're done reworking the lead. Can-Dutch (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)