Talk:Denunciation of Pope John Paul II by Ian Paisley

	Religion portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
	This redirect is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Bizarre stlye[edit]

The decision to put everything that Paisley says in capitals; the constant reference to the Pope as Wojtyła; the horribly informal style ("aka Pope John Paul II); the statement that Paisley continued to attack the Papacy before referring to something 25 years previous. It really is shocking. I've fixed some things but I've no time to check those references now so I'll add some sort of health warning.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 21:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poor editing by Lo2u[edit]

Please check references are really "dead" before deleting them.

Please give precise justifications for edits than vague statements such as "Truly the most atrociously written article I've ever read"

Thank you for changes which conform to Wikipedia Guidelines on naming Kuifjeenbobbie 15:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC) '[reply]

I was overly hostile, so I'm sorry - if I'd looked at the history and seen that this article was still a work in progress rather than a long forgotted stub, as I had assumed, I wouldn't have said that. I'd assumed I was attacking an article rather than a person and it was perhaps an exaggeration to call it "the most atrociously written" article I've read. I do stand by my assertion that it needed - and still needs - a lot of work. The freepres links weren't working at the time I checked them, so I removed the assertions supported by them - which were not vital to the substance of the article (another account of what IP might have said that couldn't really be mentioned without saying where it came from, and something about his decision to bring lots of posters that seemed rather anecdotal without a source). The links seem to work now though so perhaps that was a temporary glitch. Apart from that I really don't see anything wrong with what my editing. I removed "The Pope remained unruffled" because the word is difficult to define (probably describing his feelings as well as his reactions) and it's also not substantiated. I suggest "the Pope did not react" might be an easier fact to support.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 12:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

The (no doubt much revised) tone of the article seems OK to me. I suggest the notice on the article can be removed now, which I have done. Ben Finn 22:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date[edit]

Does anyone have the exact date of the incident to add to the article? Ben Finn 22:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know why[edit]

Hello. I want to know WHY he denounced the pope. To me this is an article about som activist against the pope, but no reason why. Religious? Political? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.157.249.34 (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]