Talk:Pope John Paul I/Archive 1

Archive 1

What was the reason(s) for his murder?

???

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 04:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

there is no 'murder' of John Paul I, he simply died of a heart attack.

--Carsjme (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality Questions

Although there is a place for the discussion of conspiracy theories regarding, first, the election; secondly, the "condescencion" during his reign, and; finally, the death of John Paul, these are presented here with an underlying assumption that each of these areas is necessarily suspect. The official story is not to be trusted. The bias is not flagrant, but it is creeping and pervasive, and may be difficult to remove without a substantial re-write that keeps the reality and the hypothesis in their proper balance. At a minimum, the following passages must be addressed:

1. "Vatican officials tactfully did not mention to him that his awkward flat-footed walk, which they felt was 'unregal' and ungainly, also embarrassed them." We need a cite for this factoid. "Unregal" is in quotation marks. To whom is the quotation attributable, and what is the source reporting it?

2. "Through his actions, John Paul emphasized the servant role of the pope that is expressed in the Latin phrase Servus Servorum Dei (The Servant of the Servants of God)." I happen to agree with this statement, but that is my opinion, as it was the opinion of the author of this statement. Opinions do not belong in encyclopedia entries.

3. There are various subjective assessments through the article: "He raised considerable worry within the Vatican"; "The visit of Jorge Rafael Videla ... caused considerable controversy"; "resulting in notable editing of his speeches"; "Luciani himself had severe doubts," etc. Conspiracy theories are often a question of degree, and to the extent that a specific degree is being asserted here, it would be better to state the objective facts and not assign a degree assessment. If the facts coalesce for a particular theory, those facts will speak for themselves.

4. The Vatican "lied about the time of death." Come, now. A little subtlety. Have we carried out a perjury investigation with sworn testimony and evidence that allows us to definitively discard accidental mistatement, ambiguity, misunderstanding, misreporting, a lesser shade of deception, etc.?

5. "Wild rumours spread." There are a few of them here!

6. "Another unsubstantiated rumour..." NONE of the various stories cited here is substantiated! Who is the "visiting prelate actually had died some days earlier"?

Carlos_X 20:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

After a quick browse of this article, I've noted there are POV insertions that are simply unencyclopedic. One glaring example is:

"John Paul, however, died without issuing any such reversal. His successor's continued support of Humanæ Vitæ [4] [5] has led some to suggest conspiracy theories that John Paul I was murdered over this teaching. [6]"

This paragraph does not belong in this article, and I strongly recommend that it be removed. That someone out there may dream up such fantasies does not justify it being included in an encyclopeia. First off, let us bear in mind that Humanæ Vitæ was not merely a whimsical innovation of Paul VI to be immediately "reversed" by his successor. It was a reaffirmation to the modern world of what the Catholic Church had always taught (and, in fact, all Christianity had taught until the 1930s). My point here is that it is unimaginable that JPI (assuming he was orthodox and sane) would have attempted to "reverse" such a long-standing moral doctrine (allegedly instituted by God himself), especially after it had just been authoritatively re-affirmed by his immediate predecessor! And the insinuation that he was murdered so that JPII could be installed to "support" Humanæ Vitæ is equally ludicrous. The papacy is not akin to the American presidency, where "policies" can be immediately overturned by new adminstrations (and even then, this is not often the case, and there is respect for precedent). LotR 17:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Name

More than 11,000 web sites report that this man's name was "Albino Luciano", and nearly 4000 report "Albino Luciani". If the latter were merely a simple-minded misspelling, I would not expect such a large proportion of the total number of sites to report that. And some of those look somewhat authoritative. Is this a case in which sometimes one spelling is right and sometimes the other? If so, could someone explain for the benefit of those of use who don't know Italian? Michael Hardy 20:25 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

As far as I know, his name unambiguously was Albino Luciani, never Luciano. I wouldn't pay too much heed to websites. I'm come across apparently authoritative sites that have monumental errors on a vast range of issues. And in my acade mic career I regularly came across some of the most authoritative sources standing categorically 'x' or 'y', even though from primary sources I know it is complete garbage. All I know is that in 1978 when he was elected, he was named as Albino Luciani. People in the Vatican called him Albino Luciani. The media named him 'Albino Luciani' at the time. He was nicknamed Papa Luciani. I have seen no evidence that all of that is wrong. As I have said, websites can contain amazing information, but also absolute and total b******t. Luciano seems like an easy mistake to make. All it takes is a couple of people in normally credible sites to mistype it or misremember it, for others to follow, and the mistake to snowball. At 11,000 it may be a massive snowball, still a snowball. After all, Luciano is (I suspect) a more common name than Luciani, so it isn't a dramatic mistake. JTD 23:36 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

Actually, if you do a Google search for "Albino Luciano" with the quotes (which will only return matches for the complete name, not just any page that has the word Albino and the word Luciano somewhere in it), then you only get 155 matches. "Albino Luciani", on the other hand, gets 2,610. I've changed the article to "Luciani". --Camembert

BTW, I knew "Luciano" was wrong without having to check Google, because The Fall did a song about him called "Hey Luciani". Never let it be said that I don't operate at the highest intellectual level ;-) --Camembert

The Vatican website spells his name "Luciani." Carlos_X 04:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_i/index.htm

I removed the following:

(there is a ritual to 'prove' the Pope is dead, utilzing wittnesses and a small silver hammer)

Though widely spoken of, this ritual, in which a senior cardinal tapped the pope on the head with a silver hammer and asked "art thou dead?" was abolished long ago. Though it is regularly referred to (and no doubt will be when John Paul II dies), it is in fact a modern myth. It no longer happens and has not occured for a long long time. FearÉIREANN 20:43 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Purely out of interest when was it abolished?

PMelvilleAustin 06:41 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I may be completely wrong but I think it may have been early to mid 20th century. I have a feeling I read somewhere that Pius XII dropped it, but it could have been a couple of popes earlier. But it certainly was gone by 1978 and I think by Vatican II. FearÉIREANN 10:51 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

As much as i know, it was Paul VI who dropped it, though some websites and sources claim that JPI was the first to drop the 'hammer' process. But I am completely sure that Bl. John Paul II definetely dropped the process. --Carsjme (talk) 07:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

---

"Strange" changes

To Jtdirl: What's the problem with the changes?

• The intrapage link to the footnote is useful. I merely forgot to use double [ ].
• As I asked yesterday, I didn't understand so many "he". You clarified and I have rephrased so that future readers don't get lost with the complex subsentences.

-- Error 03:35, 31 August 2003 (UTC)

Medical oddness

I've straightened out some "thrombus" vs "embolism" terminology, but there's still at least one problem: "rigor mortis had set in, requiring the breaking of some bones in the late pope's body (some claimed his knee, others his back) so that he could be put in a suitable position for a lying-in-state)". Now, I'm not sure exactly who made this claim (was it Cornwell? I don't have the book at hand to check) but if they said it this way they are just wrong. Rigor mortis is a muscular phenomenon (having nothing to do with the skeleton), and while I suppose it is possible that "some bones were broken in overvigorous attempts to reposition a body in the condition of rigor mortis" but it's not quite right to say that rigor mortis would require the breaking of bones. -- Someone else 03:45, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Cornwell's book mentions claims by those dealing with the body that the re-shaping of the body for its lying-in state required the use of force which caused the breaking of bones (some sources say the Pope's knee, others his back.) I am going by memory and may be completely wrong but I think rigor mortis wears off after a set period. The trouble is that they had to get the body prepared for the lying-in-state while it was still under the affects of rigor mortis, something that normally does not affect ordinary people, who don't have to be dressed in vestments and laid out for the President of Italy to inspect. (Apparently they had to rush the procedure when either President Sandro Pertini arrived early or they were late.) My suspicion is that the bone-breaking occured as they struggled to put John Paul in his vestments while the President waited outside. - FearÉIREANN 04:25, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yes, if they'd had the time to wait, all would have been well. Rather than looking up whether Cornwell used the word required or not, let's just rephrase to say that the presence of rigor mortis resulted in rough handling of the body resulting in the breaking of some bones. -- Someone else 04:47, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Re Error, I'm sorry but I could not make head or tail of what you did. You used a bizarre footnote command that does not exist in wik (or in any book ever published), added in strange names into sentences (Pope Paul VI. Where did he fit into a sentence that says JPI had a file in his hand from Cardinal Villot, it blew out of his hands and over the roof of Vatican?) and turned an entire paragraph around that simply said wild allegations were made into a wording that said the Vatican made the allegations. No they didn't! If they had the paragraph would said that the Vatican said . . . . They were made by numerous sources, which is why the paragraph talked about allegations being made without saying who made them.

I tried to make some sense of your changes, but they so completely changed the meeting of sentences, the contexts, indeed on occasion turned sentences around to say the exact opposite of what the original sentences said that after half an hour of trying I had to give up and simply revert. I simply cannot see what your problem was. The 'he's in the sentences were crystal clear; if a sentence takes about the Pope and Cardinal Villot, and then talks about he losing Villot's document, who else can it be but the pope? I have re-read and re-read and re-read the paragraphs and cannot see any problem. If a sentence starts off about the pope and is all about the pope, and uses 'he', it can only be about the pope. There is nobody else they could possibly be about. Please don't think I was disrepecting your edits by the revert. I spent over half an hour trying to make hear or tail of them but I simply could not. It was either revert or delete everything and start again.

PS: Hep's spelling changes were lost in the revert. I am now going to reinsert them through cut and paste. I have already reinserted Someone Else's edit. :-) FearÉIREANN 04:25, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I hope my last edit makes more sense. I didn't really understand the he's. So I have spelled it, in case more people get confused with long sentences.

Pope John Paul I#Sudden Death: The Rumours needs to be reformatted. As it is now, it seems written by committee, arguing with itsel. If the allegation-rebuttal structure is kept, it needs to be made more visible. I tried to do it.

-- Error 03:47, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Angelus of 27 August link

the link was dead. I didn't find another audio recording so I linked it to a page of the translated text.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Munkee (talk • contribs) 20:45, 14 March 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry the death conspiracy mumbo jumbo needs to go

or at least frame it in a way that doesn't state it as straight up fact and not the insinuation that it really is.

Actually, it would be a massive mistake to remove it. You and I may think the conspiracy theory (like most conspiracy theories) a heap of hogwash, but there are millions out there that have been hoodwinked by it. The only way to deal with that is to confront it upfront, by saying exactly what the rumours are, what they say happened, and what the evidence is. The worst way to deal with it is to do as you suggest, which is to remove it, or pussyfoot around it. Do that and you make the article seem like a whitwash, with people who believe in conspiracy theories seeing a conspiracy in your 'censorship' of the 'truth'. FearÉIREANN 19:23, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How did Litefantastic get away with removing whole paragraphs about the Yallop and Cornwell books on 20 Oct 2004? It seems to me that it is perfectly justifiable to mention/discuss major work on the different theories. To silence such mention is not NPOV (neutral point of view) but censorship. There doesn't seem to have been any discussion about this, which is interesting considering the time someone must have taken to write those paragraphs. --PeterR 16:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed that he made the ridiculous edit. It was absurd on just about every level.

• The Yallop claims, ridiculous as they are, have to be covered. Millions of people read his book and believed it. You simply cannot ignore the one story most identified with John Paul I by millions of people.
• Cornwell's book is far better sourced and far more credible. If you cover Yallop's claims, and if you have to unless you blatently censor a key part of the public story that surrounding his death, the belief that he was murdered you have to cover Cornwall's claims about what he discovered.
• The paragraphs as written are clinically NPOV and factual and don't use POV language. Because of that they warrant inclusion.

I have re-inserted the section. Wikipedia isn't about censorship, it is about proper, carefully worded, accurate NPOV. The section fits all of that. I've been off wikipedia for a while and didn't realise that Lifefantasic set himself up as a censor-general of the article. FearÉIREANN 22:13, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quote

I think the quote under "John Paul II on his predecessor" needs more info for context at least. Maurreen 00:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Quotation & italicisation

For some reason, every quotation in the article had been italicised. I've fixed this, removing either the italicisation or quotation where appropriate. Quotation marks should be used when directly quoting, even if the attribution for the quote has to be inferred rather than being stated directly—Mark Antony knew that his "friends, Romans [and] countrymen" would demand vengeance for Julius Caesar's death—or to indicate that this specific use of the word might carry a meaning slightly different from its dictionary defition—With "friends" like these, who needs enemies?; The Italians were worried they would "lose" the papal throne. Use italics when discussing the word itself—He preferred use to the more pretentious utilise. If we italicise a word inside quotation marks, it should be for the same reason we italicise it outside quotation marks; words should never be italicised just because they're inside quotes. Binabik80 16:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aha, I was to blame, sorry. Can you post this at the Manual of Style under the heading "italics". Thanks, happy wiki-ing. --Eleassar777 17:58, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What's up with the masturbation reference?

The article states "Another wildly spread rumor that was partially correct was that he had died from strangulation while masturbating with a belt fastened around his neck. While he frequently masturbated with a belt fastened around his neck this was not the cause of death." What proof is there of the second statement? That a rumor existed is believable, but the second sentence presents it as fact that the man did regularly masturbate with a belt around his neck. How does anyone know this? If there is a source for this seemingly ridiculous claim, someone please point it out.

OK. It appears that these sentences have since been removed. Bad April Fool's Day joke?

I removed the sentences, as they seemed ridiculous to me. The user that posted them, gave no reference yet. --Eleassar777 16:18, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV issue with "successor of Saint Peter"

24.85.108.6 added in the "262rd successor of Saint Peter" part of the summary box in this article. I direct those interested to the discussion over at Pope John Paul II#263rd_successor_of_Saint_Peter as this is an issue to me on that article as well, and I believe that is where most of the discussion will take place.

Note that as of this moment, this line is only present in the summary boxes for the two most recent Popes. It should be present in all or none, for consistency.

To summarize my comments over on the Pope John Paul II page, it is not NPOV to definitively identify them as "successors of Saint Peter," because there are many who do not accept them as legitimate successors. I invite discussion, compromise, and consensus. For the time being, I'm changing this to say, "263rd Pope."

Somebody should either remove the lines from these two boxes or add them in for the 262 predecessors. Jdavidb 21:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think this is frankly an absurd and ridiculous argument. There are hundreds of disputed religious offices. The normal encyclopaedic way to deal with this is to use the definition of those who believe in a particular lineage of an office. For example, their are two archbishops of Armagh, one Anglican, one Roman Catholic, that claim lineage from St. Patrick and believe that they not the other guy, are the real successor. If you stop it being said that JPI is not the 363rd successor of St Peter, are you going to stop Archbishop Robert Eames being described as the successor to St. Patrick, because Catholics don't believe that the Anglican Eames is not the real guy, but their man, Archbishop Sean Brady is. And vice-versa; are you going to stop Brady being called the successor of St. Patrick because protestant believe that Eames is? And what about the fact that some catholics don't believe that the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury is the successor of pre-reformation archbishops. Must we delete the claim to succession of Archbishop Rowan Williams? What about rival Catholic and Anglican claimants to thousands of bishoprics and archbishoprics worldwide?

The normal solution is in lists on the Anglican Archbishop of Armagh to list the pre-reformation archbishops followed by the post-reformation protestant Archbishops. And on lists about the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Armagh to list the pre-reformation archbishops followed by the post-reformation Catholic archbishops. Ditto with Bishops of Clogher, Archbishops of Canterbury, Archbishops of Paris and everywhere else. Calling the pope the successor of St Peter is not saying "we endorse that claim", anymore than listing Archbishop Robin Eames as a successor to St. Patrick is endorsing him over the claim of Archbishop Sean Brady. Either you remove every single claim from every single article about every single religious office at every single time there is a dispute for millennia, or you cop and simply state in an individual page 'this is what this lot claim' by putting the claim on whichever page; the Catholic claim of succession on pages about Catholic claimants, the Protestant claim of succession about Protestant claimants, the Eastern Orthodox claim of succession about Eastern Orthodox claimants, the Russian Orthodox claim about Russian Orthodox claimants, the various Jewish claims about different claimants within different strands of the Jewish faith, the Islamic claim of succession about various claimants from different brands of Islamic claimants, etc. Frankly I think the claim that stating a pope is the whatever number successor is POV is itself POV. We should simply be pluralist and say 'if this lot on this page believe they are the legitimate successors to 'x', fine. State it. It is either the same tolerance of claims for all, or denying everyone's claims everywhere in every article. And that is unworkable and ludicrous. FearÉIREANN 22:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vatican inconsistencies in Death section

The Vatican raised major issues over the handling of the events surrounding his death; it lied about who found the body (it claimed a papal secretary, in fact it was later revealed that he was found by a nun in the Papal Household who had come to bring him some coffee), lied about the time, that personal property of his (his glasses, his will, documents he was working on when he died) disappeared from his bedroom and was never found. (The latter was later shown to be untrue. His possessions are retained by his sister's family.)

I did a rewrite on the Death section for style, including a reworking of the sentences above. During this, I ended up removing the information in bold because I was unable to make sense of it. I've found three possible interpretations so far:

1. The Vatican did not lie when it said that nothing of his was missing, since nothing of his was missing; his sister's family had it. If this is what is meant, then it seems an odd inclusion on a list of suspicious Vatican actions surrounding the Pope's death.
2. The Vatican said that things were missing, but they weren't. This seems unlikely to me because, frankly, I find it rather un-Vaticanish to be revealing publicly that things had gone missing from the Pope's bedroom on the same night he died of--according to the Vatican--natural causes.
3. Things went missing but, regardless of what the Vatican said or did not say about it, later turned up in the possession of his sister's family. This is the interpretation I got by assuming that "The latter" referred to "was never found" rather than to the whole clause--i.e., by assuming that only that his personal property "was never found ... was later shown to be untrue." In this case the statement becomes rather silly; it would be better rephrased as "The Vatican claimed that none of his property had gone missing from his room, though it was [or, The Vatican failed to disclose that some of his property had gone missing from his room, which seems rather more Vaticanish to me but isn't what the statement actually says]. Subsequently, however, it turned up in the possession of his sister's family."

The original editor might also mean that, when the discrepancies surrounding the Vatican's account of John Paul's death first came out, his personal property going missing was listed amongst them, but it was later confirmed that this property was all accounted for. If this is the case, then it would be better stated as, "A rumour that his personal property, including ... had disappeared from his room on the night of his death also heightened suspicion regarding the cause of death. This rumour was subsequently shown to be false, however; the property was accounted for in the possession of his sister's family." In such a case, the Conspiracy Theory section might be a better place for this than the Death section, but I don't think it really matters. I do think, however, that saying the Vatican covered up that things went missing from his room on the night of his death as part of a list of everything suspicious it did during the incident, then turning round afterwards and saying, "Oh, but as far as that last one goes, not really", isn't the way to go about it. Binabik80 05:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, this section. I took a stab at it a while back [1] but my changes did not last. I interpret the part you bolded to mean "the Vatican said the stuff was gone, then later someone else said it was at his sister's house," which does sound like a conspiracy theory. FreplySpang (talk) 00:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that what happened was probably that somebody (say User A) was trying to say "the Vatican said that nothing was missing, but it was." Somebody else (User B), knowing that the stuff was actually at his sister's house, was trying to say that the claim was bullshit, but didn't do a very clear job of it. john k 02:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"officially" in Latin

I removed officially from the opening parenthetical phrase "(officially in Latin Ioannes Paulus PP.I)". I think the change is pretty straightforward (which is why I went ahead and did it), but I know the Latin name has been contentious recently & wanted to briefly discuss my reasons here.

Firstly, while I agree that there's benefit to including a Pope's name in Latin, the contention that this is somehow his "official" name is incorrect. When the Vatican or its representatives issue a statement, they use the Pope's name in the language that they are issuing the statement in. When the Pope issues messages (or authors books) in different languages, he even signs each of them in the language in which they are written. So clearly neither the Pope nor the Roman Catholic hierarchy consider the Latin to be anymore "official" than any other translation of the name. After all, the Spanish embassy in Washington would never issue a statement about "King John Charles", even though the statement is in English; neither would the British embassy in Madrid ever issue a statement about "Isabella II" or "Antonio Blair".

Secondly, as worded ("officially in Latin") it actually parses to mean that this is the official name in Latin; that is, that there are other, unofficial translations of the name "John Paul" in Latin, but that this is the only "official" one—so unless someone can demonstrate that JP1 was referred to by some sort of Latin translation of "Jack Paul", it looks rather silly. Binabik80 14:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Style - His Holiness

It is wikipedia policy to use styles on various articles to do with monarchs and title holders. One such office is the Roman Catholic pope. As a result all articles on popes begin or are meant to begin 'His Holiness'. Please do not unilaterally remove this. It simply means more work for wikipedia editors who will have to correct it back to follow the MoS and Naming Conventions agreed formats. Any removal of HH will automatically be reverted until such time as wikipedia decides to change its policy on styles. If you don't like using HH, raise it as a policy issue on the relevent pages. Don't unilaterally change it here. It will be changed back every time and may be treated as vandalism. FearÉIREANN 12:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Umm ... a review of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) and its talk page would rather seem to indicate that it's Wikipedia policy (and a policy that clearly doesn't have anything like a consensus behind it at the moment) to use honorifics for living people only, not for dead ones. The page itself doesn't explicitly state it, but the relevant clauses are in present tense ("If the person has any honorifics", italics my own), implying that it applies only to the living, and the examples listed for honorifics are all of living people (John Paul II is listed, but he has been on the list since before he died). Furthermore, the talk page does explicitly state several times that honorifics should be used only for the living, not the dead.

This makes a lot of sense to me. Starting—as you state above—"all articles on popes" with "His Holiness" would seem pretty silly to me, since I very much doubt we have any idea who the first pope was to use the style (and if we do know, then that would mean it must be late enough that a good chunk of popes didn't use it). Similarly with monarchs: "His Majesty Alfred the Great" just isn't right, especially considering that English monarchs didn't start using "His" or "Her Majesty" till the Renaissance.

In fact, if we're going to start throwing around accusations of vandalism, it would seem to me that the "vandals" are the ones who keep insisting on reinserting the honorific into the beginning of the article, in contravention of Wikipedia policy according to the pages you cite above, not the people who remove it again.

Please note that I say this as someone who strongly supports the use of honorifics for living people and the use of titles for all people where appropriate, and disagree with pretty much every aspect of User:Ford/proposals. Binabik80 15:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think we should be careful about our accusations of vandalism. To me, vandalism is bad-faith editing. Misguided good-faith editing is not vandalism. Just an idea to keep people's hackles down. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 15:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, and I apologise. A too-quick reaction to what I felt was a too-quick accusation. Binabik80 16:29, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Successor

Replaced "The Servant of God John Paul II" by "John Paul II"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.92.9.55 (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2005 (UTC)

The Legacy of Pope John Paul I

At the end of the penultimate section of the article, there is mention of the cause for beatification of John Paul I. The discussion is rather misleading in my opinion in the sense that according to the article it can be inferred that the Vatican has yet to accept or open the cause and that the cause is not active. This is in fact misleading. According to "The Smiling Pope," the definitive biography of John Paul I: "Bishop Vincenzo Savio of Belluno-Feltre announced that research to promote the Pope's beatification had begun on the local level [on 26 August 2002]," and that "the Vatican's Congregation for Sainthood Causes gave its consent to begin the canonical process on the holiness of the Servant of God, Pope John Paul I [on 10 June 2003]." So in fact the cause is indeed opened, approved by the Vatican, and well underway. And this brings me to a final point. I notice that at the bottom of the page there is a predecessor/successor bar with "Paul VI" before "Pope, 1978" and "The Servant of God John Paul II" after. The fact is that both Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II are all Servants of God as all three have causes for beatification open at present. Therefore they should be styled the same way, have it mentioned in the article (as it is mentioned at the beginning of the John Paul II article), have the "Servants of God" link at the bottom (which is present at the bottom of the John Paul II article), and in fact be listed as such on the "Servants of God" article.

One user keeps continually adding in that damned 'Servant of God' stuff. It does not belong there. The link is only to the name of the next or previous pope. Styles, titles, etc do not belong in any such box. Every time they are inserted they will be automatically and instantly removed. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 21:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the title "Servant of God" should probably not be in the predecessor/successor bar at the bottom of the pope's pages, but rather simply the name of the Pope in order to avoid confusion. But if someone keeps on insisting may I remind that someone that he should be uniform and list not just John Paul II as such but John Paul I and Paul VI as such too, since they are also Servants of God? Needless to say, it certainly should be mentioned in their article if they are Servants of God, as is mentioned in the John Paul II article but not mentioned in the Paul VI and the [misleading] John Paul I articles. Also, the link to the Servants of God article should be provided in the category box at the bottom of not just John Paul II article but the others, too (and needless to say the names should be listed in the Servants of God article itself). I love John Paul II, too, but I also like John Paul I and Paul VI. Seeing that this is an encyclopaedia and my personal likes are beside the point, as they should be, I think one cannot neglect a fact in one article and state it in another article just because one died "long ago" in 1978 and the other died recently in 2005. Lastly, I am no good at this editing stuff and would very much appreciate someone to take up this rather minor cause. Thanks.

I have made a minor update to the article at the end of the "Legacy of Pope John Paul I" section in order to clear up the previously misleading speculation on the current status of his beatification process. I hope this helps and that no one minds. I also added him to the Servants of God category.

I have added a Patriarch of Venice predecessor/successor box. It seemed missing and I think it enhances the article nicely, albeit, in a rather small way. That was my first template and it took me a while to figure out how to do it but I hope it looks nice. Any feedback is welcome. (June 21, 2005)

Beatification process

I have updated the information concerning the beatification process of John Paul I and it has already been reverted to its former misleading ways within hours. Here is what the reverter is claiming:

1. The beatification process for John Paul I has not "reached the Roman Curia," when indeed it has.

2. John Paul I is not a Servant of God, when indeed he is.

Here is what is actually correct:

1. On June 10, 2003 the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, a congregation of the Roman Curia at the Vatican, gave its approval to open the beatification process for John Paul I, with the diocesan process having subsequently began on November 23 of the same year.

2. Because his beatification process is open he is a Servant of God.

These facts are indisputable. Change them or make them unclear if one wants but that is only being dishonest. For reference, read "The Smiling Pope" or visit any number of websites. (June 17, 2005)

It seems to have reverted again back to my original revision. This is what it should generally read like:

"A number of campaigns have been started to canonize Pope John Paul I. Miracles have been attributed to him. On June 10, 2003 the Vatican's Congregation for the Causes of Saints gave its permission for the opening of the beatification process of Pope John Paul I, Servant of God. The "diocesan phase" of this process began in Belluno on November 23, 2003."

Edits in grammar and style are fine by me, but to revert this back to the "whether it reaches the Roman Curia is yet to be seen" nonsense is to be avoided at all costs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.77.46.246 (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2005 (UTC)

Patriarch of Venice

Yesterday I added a Patriarch of Venice predecessor/successor box and today it was reverted as "linkspam." My first question is why, then, have an Archbishop of Krakow predecessor/successor box for John Paul II; why, then, have curial predecessor/successor boxes for Benedict XVI? And so on and so forth? Why? Does the reverter think that the See of Venice is less important than the See of Krakow? Or that since he died "long ago" in 1978 he's somehow not important? If he does than I suggest he examines Church history, because indeed the Patriarchy of Venice has been the testing grounds for many Popes; three alone in the 20th century (with one Patriarch actually being sandwiched by two Popes). The See of Krakow has been the testing grounds for ONE Pope; the Great John Paul II, but nevertheless just one. Lastly, I want to add that in my opinion the John Paul I page is very much lagging behind when compared to the Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI pages. I believe my addition was a worthy enhancement and I will continue to contribute to this page and to others, not as a "spammer" (as I have never been one), but as a helper to all those in search of good information on the Popes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.77.44.82 (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2005 (UTC)

Succession box

Could whomever keeps inserting The Servant of God before John Paul II's name in the succession box please stop doing so. Those boxes are only there to link an office or title holder to their predecessor and successor. They are not intended to contain any titles, styles, or other terms that are not in themselves part of their name or regnal name. Servant of God should no more be in that box than should His Holiness, His Eminence, Venerable, Blessed or any other designation that is not part of the person's name or regnal name. Such designations belong in the text of the article where they can be explained and contextualised. Added in succession boxes where they cannot be explained or contextualised, they can be misread as indicating that Wikipedia is endorsing a POV. Benedict's predecessor was John Paul II and so that is all that should be in the box. Apart from anything else, he was not a Servant of God during his lifetime so should not be referred to as such when his regnal name is being used as a link. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 21:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Styles infobox

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) 23:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

CIA assassination plans

Are there any valid conspiracy theories involving CIA assassination of the pope, because he removed a pro-American minister, and tried to improve ties with Moscow?--PatCheng 23:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Emphasis

The "new pope new rules" and "legacy" sections seem to me to have a disproportional weight given to rumors that JPI might have reversed RCC position on contraception, rumors which seem speculative and unsubstantiated. On the other hand, the visions and goals he expressed in his actual speeches are barely mentioned. His first speech was an outline of what he wanted to do. In the article it says he enforced discipline but the next sentence says that "in discipline he was a reformist..." This is a strange juxtaposition. How about mentioning that one of his goals was to revise the codes of canon law for the Latin and eastern churches, something which happened under JPII? Gimmetrow 19:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Murder

We need information if he was really murdered, any idea, why is Vatican quiet about it, why not just dig him up and check chemical content?

He wasn't "really murdered." He simply died. It happens to the best of us, even popes. Let him rest in peace. LotR 13:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Some people said it was Roberto Calvi and Marcinkus who were responsible of his death.

-There really is no factual information, just speculation. According to one story, his room was cleaned up (by Cardinal Villot) behind closed doors. Later, the same cardinal had the body embalmed and ordered no blood tests. So, there really is nothing to test. Personally, after all I've read and viewed on this topic, from both believers and critics, I think he was murdered. Tho, I still agree with the message above, let him rest in peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valor423 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

removed unsourced information on death

The Vatican's handling of several events surrounding the death provoked further concern. It claimed a papal secretary discovered that the Pope had died, whereas in fact a nun who had come to bring him some coffee found him in the Papal Household. It claimed he had been reading Thomas à Kempis' Imitation of Christ, yet his copy of that book was still in Venice.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  It misreported the time of death, and conflicting stories were told as to his health.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  It was hinted that his ill health was due to heavy smoking;‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  in fact he never smoked. The impact of such misinformation was shown in a headline of the Irish Independent newspaper, "THIRTY-THREE BRAVE DAYS" conveying the image of a weak and ill man physically unable to withstand the pressures of the papacy, and who was in effect killed by it.

I've removed the text above. It has been unsourced for nearly half a year. Finding citations or references should be relatively easy I'd imagine. Please do this before adding it back. —mako (talk•contribs) 18:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Split Conspiracy Theories Section into New Article

I think it's ridiculous to have nearly half of the article on Pope John Paul I discuss conspiracy theories around his death which are not particularly widely believed (at least not by a large portion of people who read his page). We should move this section to a new page on that subject and include a short summary of the issues on this page. —mako (talk•contribs) 19:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to this page but, for what it's worth, I agree wholeheartedly. (Or rather, "Amen"?) KevinWho 04:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I too agree. Believe it or not it was worse than this at one point; I worked to tone down some of the more sensational conspiracy stuff sprinkled throughout the article. LotR 18:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree. The theories surrounding the pope and his death are just that, theories. Many believe them though and it would be presumptuous to dismiss their beliefs out of hand. Therefor I think they should be moved to a different article where the topic can be discussed more thoroughly. fritte 16:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to call this consensus and split it out into a different article. Thanks for the feedback everyone. —mako (talk•contribs) 15:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"May God forgive you for what you have done" quote

I found it twice in the article, in slightly different form. Using Ockham's razor, I removed the more ambitious version. That being said, I know nothing of the quote—someone who does ought to verify/edit and perhaps put up a citation. KevinWho 04:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed the unsourced quote to a quote that was cited in the local press at the time. --AlbinoLuciani (talk) 04:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Since changing the quote to reflect the source I had found, the quote has since been changed again and the citation I added left intact. Is this a better translation than the one I offered? Or do I change it back? --AlbinoLuciani (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It would help if you were more specific. What was the quote, where is it located, and how was it changed? LotR (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

neutrality and split article

I have split the conspiracy theories into a new article at Pope John Paul I conspiracy theories. I think the NPOV tag at the top of this article refers —primarily at that section. If folks agree, lets move the tag to the new article. —mako (talk•contribs) 15:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Been away from the computer, so was not able to respond until now. Anyhow, good work on splitting the conspiracy stuff into a new article -- the article is now much more NPOV, so I concur that the tag should be moved to the new page. LotR 15:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks LotR, I'll do that now. —mako (talk•contribs) 14:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Papabile?

I know that Luciani had not prepared his external appearance for election; but he dismissed his chances, so the received wisdom goes, even as his support was building up during the conclave; a mark of his native humility and modesty. It was well known before the conclave that powerful Italians, not least Giovanni Benelli, were advancing the Patriarch of Venice as a candidate. once Vaticanologists and the media got wind of this, Luciani became one of the laeding papabile. the present Pope is universally remarked as being an elected papabile, yet before the very few months up until the conclave, Ratzinger was widely regarded as unelectable. I think the election of JP1 is actually a resounding example of a front-runner emerging from conclave as Pontiff.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.163.57 (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

See also

What's the "Fish in the dark" meant to be? Tim (Xevious) 21:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Humanæ Vitæ

The two citations given that John Paul I supported Humanæ Vitæ both refer to John Paul II. Did the contributor confuse them? Jimpoz 06:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Medicine

I thought I remembered hearing that he forgot his medication when he came to Rome for the consistory. No big deal for a few days. He'd be back home soon. Then he was elected pope. Still could have sent for medication but of course he may have just inherited new doctors. They may have prescribed medication in a different dosage than what he was used to, leading to rumors of "accidental overdose" of blood pressure medication. Hard to put this all together in a "scholarly" fashion!  :) Student7 (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

My humble apologizes for two things, first I didn't paste the correct URL address into a reference and that was my fault I was trying to do things too quickly and wasn't paying attention, second I forgot to log in, I don't want the referenced link to look like a spammer so that's why I am letting you know. Rosie, Queen of Corona (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

21st century pope

I can sort of about understand why it might be useful to point out in the article that John Paul I was the first pope born in the 21st century. Such a description (often found) is intended to illustrate that he is the first of the line living in the "modern age" and so dealing with "modern issues" - eg the first president born after the second world war. There's little point in pointing out that Clement VII, for example, was the first pope born in the 16th century. However, I draw the line at saying he's the last pope to die in the 20th century. So what? What on earth does that tell us? I'm reluctant to clog up the article with pointless trivia. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"born in the 21st century". Presumably you meant 20th. :-) —WWoods (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It just seemed to me that, having pointed out the one, pointing out the other was interesting, as well - the only recent pope whose life was completely bounded by one century. You do make a good point about previous popes and presidents. I guess I tend to agree that both are trivia. No real biographical importance. But interesting nevertheless. Student7 (talk) 12:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Embalming Myth.

The section on his death needs some serious work. The Vatican doesn't "outlaw" embalming. In fact most have been embalmed. The Viscera is stored at the Church of SS Vincenzo e Anastasio. Thereare plaques there in latin that tell you which popes Viscera is stored within. There are also many accounts of papal embalming in reliable sources as well. One of the most recent examples is the "embalming" that Puis XII underwent. It was a dismal failure. My point is that if we state something is agains Canon law, let's make sure we're accurate. BTW the last pope to have been embalmed before Puis was Leo XIII.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Dubious

I removed this statement from the section on his death
"...that a woman, Sister Vincenza was in his rooms early in the morning."
despite the three sources. Two of them (1 & 3) turn out to be novels, while the other (2) says nothing of the kind. Moonraker12 (talk) 12:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources

I find it ridiculous that no one reads the motherfucking sources. Open your eyes. The "novels" are books on the conspiracy theorires. The sources clearly connect Sister Vincenza and thew discovery of the popes death. Like it or not the Vatican lied about his death and findings to avoid unseemliness.

• [[2]] Evidence of Foul Play in Popes Death.
• BISHOP TELLS STORY OF POPE JOHN PAUL I'S DEATH

HE DEBUNKS CONSPIRACY THEORY, BUTS SAYS VATICAN ALTERED SOME DETAILS [[3]]

• Ex-Vatican aide gives version of John Paul I's death [[4]]

If you don't like the first sources try these. They are from thre ST Louis Dispatch, San Antonio Express and the LA times I think. MAyber ten or twenty more to pass you meter for dubious? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Please! Be WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.

Not too sure what the big deal is here. I read a long time ago that some nun brought his breakfast (as usual BTW) and found him dead. Perhaps they amended the story later because it sounded funny. But this sort of thing is (or was) not unusual. I suppose people are suggesting "funny" stuff between him and the nun, right? I don't think so. Just like a maid pushing a cart into a hotel room nowdays. About as much funny stuff as that. Student7 (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did the motherfucking sources” ,as you quaintly put it; did you?

Your Gorner ref is a review of the book “The Death of a Pope” by British author Piers Paul Reid. Here’s the blurb, and another review, which calls it “a new novel” that “intertwines fact with fiction”

And “The Last Pope” review says up front it is “a fast paced thriller”

The Baltimore paper says he was “discovered dead in his bed by a nun, Sr Vicenza - who was bringing his morning coffee” ; which is a long way from saying “he had a woman in his room”.

Your new sources are the only same ones from the article, (which are still there) and say he “died the previous night of a heart attack” and that the Vatican “altered some of the details of the discovery of the death to avoid possible unseemliness” (which is also still there).

But if you are wanting to introduce a sneer like “he had a woman in his room” you’ll need to do better. Moonraker12 (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

PS I’ve added a piece, based on what the source actually says, as a compromise. Moonraker12 (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess I should read the motherfucking source more carefully.....Damn you and good logic. ok so check out Sister Vincenza actually the best source is [[5]] The death of the Popes by Reardon is a non-fiction book. I guess I mixed these two books up with David Yallop conspiracy theory. There are at least two ocnfirmed sources that denote Sister Vicenza being left out for "propriety" The deaths of the popes and Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

image in need of more details

A statute of John Paul I.

A statute of John Paul I.

I removed the following image from the article. Because the only thing we know about it from the uploader is that it was created by a non-notable artist Riccardo Cenedese. Without further information about when it was created and where it is located, etc. it does not add anything to the article which already has numerous images. If anyone can supply further details to make an informative caption, please feel free to return it to the article. Active Banana (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

External links

Youtube is almost NEVER an appropriate external link. Most clips are copyright material posted by someone other than the copyright holder WP:ELNEVER or are homemade content made by non-experts WP:SELF.

Currently in the linkfarm of external links, there is one link to a documentary film that does appear to meet the criteria as "professionally examined" content presented by the copyright holder. Active Banana (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Taking your point on youtube, I thought we were supposed to link to things we referenced. I didn't realize that linking to reference material was equivalent to a link farm. If it is, I will cease and desist. --Bluejay Young (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The way most pages including this one, are set up, if a website is cited as a source within the article, then it should not (unless it is the official website of the topic of the article) be re-listed as an External Link. (The other style of sourcing articles has a "Sources" section which lists the full biblographic content of each source once and a "Footnotes" section for footnotes which merely contains the author name and page. While that style more closely imitates the look of traditional footnotes in academic papers, in my opinion, it does not utilize the capabilities of electronic footnoting - and in collaborative editing environment without close oversight such as Wikipedia, can easily lead to loss of citing and sourcing information.) Active Banana (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Zenit

Someone has flagged Zenit as an unreliable source. Zenit is a news agency -- kind of the Tass, UPI or Associated Press of Catholic news. Its website is zenit.org. I'm not sure whether news agencies are supposed to be reliable sources or not -- I thought they were, but who knows, things change here all the time -- so will just leave it at this point. If it is not appropriate of course go ahead and delete it. --Bluejay Young (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

From their website]: "We aim to view the modern world through the messages of the Pope and the Holy See;".

I interpret that phrase as openly declaring that they are not attempting to be neutral in their presentation of information, and so much caution should be applied when determining whether to use them as a source.

If however, they have a reputation for accuracy, fact checking and not pushing a particular adjenda; and the above statement merely identifies which subject matter they look at, I will remove my objection. Active Banana (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I figure it's like the Christian Science Monitor. --18:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Atheist Brother

I remember seeing on the news that one of his brothers had emigrated to Australia and was an atheist. Bostoner (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The papal Angelus

The Angelus ought to be always in italics. But I am not going through this whole article and doing that. I hope that failing to cite the Angelus correctly is noted by some helpful editor. Djathinkimacowboy 07:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

John Cornwall

Why is Yallop cited extensively but John Cornwall's biography and journalistic investigation book, which is a comprehensive rebuttal of Yallop, not cited? Djathinkimacowboy 16:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Cornwel was commisioned to reboute Yallop. But he did not do it. He gave more evidence in favor of Luciani's murder than denial of it.--71.178.106.120 (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

No. I've read Cornwall's book and his conclusions are much better researched and presented than Yallop's. Cornwall does not believe Luciani was murdered but rather died of natural causes - but outlines incompetence and downright corruption across layers of the Catholic Church. I agree we should use more Cornwall in the article. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I feel the comment that the article is not neutral is somewhat unfair the the Pope. The tone is admiring, but it seems to me this pope appears to be quite a lovely person on his record. It is not neutral to be neutral about someone who is actually quite good. I think the tone is appropriate unless there is data to the contrary. Basically the article if factual, it is just that the facts about this guy seem to be positive.

I do think, especially in light of recent revelations of corruption and lawbreaking in the covering up of pedophilia, not once but in many places and over long periods of time, that this article might expand on the circumstantial evidence that makes some suspect this pope was murdered. It is correct, is it not, that corruption was discovered in the Vatican bank and this pope might have meant to clean it up. Moreover, as a liberal in a church infested with dogmatic conservatives, and in the Cold War context where millions were killed for ideas, I think there should be some suspicion. I used to dismiss conspiracy theories, but as information has come out about Cold War crimes, I've gotten more interested in looking at what might have happened. I'd like to see more investigation and open mindedness. There seems to be a good deal of evil in the world and even in the Catholic Church. The man was, I believe, only 56 years old. Did he have a history or family history of heart disease or stroke? I hope someone will dig a little deeper on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkummerow (talk • contribs) 23:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Papal image

Concerning the top image. It's best to use a papal photo, hmm? GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Picture missing

The photo for this pope is missing, with a broken image link. I don't know where or if or even how to find the right picture, if it exists somewhere on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.230.80 (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Myth of embalming

This is actually a myth. The result from the death of Pius X. If you research the Church of SS. Vincenzo e Anastasio holds the remains of several papal embalming, several popes through history had their internal organs stored there including a piece of intestine when John Paull II assassination tip. My source for this is the book "The Death of the Popes; by Wendy Reardon. Appendix 6 which provides the names of pope oprgans therein contained. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

"Catholics" v "Roman Catholics"

(Sort of a newbie here, but with four years in seminary in my history I feel humbly able to comment.)

This is always going to be a contentious issue. The Catholic Church as led by the Bishop of Rome, refers to itself as either The Church or The Catholic Church. Other protestant Churches who have retained a sense of Catholic liturgy or rites refer to it as The Roman Catholic Church.

I'm unsure which is appropriate here, but I was surprised with the '[who?]' edit in the Early Years section: "Catholics were struck by his humility..." Especially so, when Wikipedia has a whole section based on the "Catholic Church".

Comments, criticisms welcome.

Dec

sexiboi (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The intent of the "who?" is almost certainly to ask which Catholics were struck by his humility etc. It's a response to attributing a reaction to a massive set of people. It's extremely unlikely that the answer is that all Catholics were struck in that way. 87.254.72.244 (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Picture of John Paul I with Karol Cardinal Wojtyła - incorrect date

The date of the picture has been stated as 4 October 1978, but Pope John Paul I had died 6 days prior to this date. Is the correct date of this photo available? Bjbeamish (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

but he actually was killed by the mafia

Could someone please delete this statement "but he actually was killed by the mafia"? Gromobir (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Top Image

Folks, can we please stop having images added of this article's subject as a cardinal? We need an image of him as pope. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is it better to have no photo than one of him as cardinal? The article encompasses his whole life, not just those few weeks he was pope. Just curious. Paxsimius (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as my recent image was deleted hastily (in fact, minutes after I put it on; I realize it was not a head-shot but it was the best image of him as Pontiff), I highly suggest an image of John Paul I--as Pope--be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.38.194 (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. To have an image of the person is better than no image. Considering he was Pontiff for less than a month, image selection (that is not copyrighted) will be limited. Additionally, the image on the List of popes article reflects the image of Albino Cardinal Luciani, and that image would be fitting for this article as well. Precedent is with Pietro Badoglio (as General, not Prime Minister), George Marshall (as General of the Army, not State Secretary), Audie Murphy (as Lieutenant, not Captain or Major), George Patton (as LTG, not GEN), Robert Bacon (as US Army officer, not State Secretary). Bullmoosebell (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The top image would be appropiate only if John Paul I was never Pope. Why are you all so determined to push a Cardinal image? GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

No one is "determined to push a Cardinal image" just as we're sure you're not anti-image in the article. If there's an adequate image of the man as Pope, then we'd be all for it. However, re-read the details above; article is of the life of man (depicted in image) as a whole, limited images as Pontiff, Cardinal image is used on other like-articles, not uncommon practice for biographical articles. Bottom line: find non-copyrighted image (or get permission to use copyrighted image) and it can be used. Short of that, an image of the man prior to Papacy will suffice. Bullmoosebell (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Look, Pope John Paul I was officially installed as a pope (http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bluciani.html), so why not put a picture of him as pope? Just because he was pope for only 33 days doesn't mean he shouldn't count as a pope. That's absurd. Also, there are tons and tons of pictures of john paul i as pope. There's bound to be one that's non-copyrighted.

I added a caption with date, which should help some users recognize that we realize it's not a picture of him as Pope. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Picture

I would like to suggest putting the other picture of him as pope back up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsepe (talk • contribs) 21:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

first to be daunted

The article currently says:

John Paul was the first pope to admit that the prospect of the papacy had daunted him to the point that other cardinals had to encourage him to accept it.

What precisely does this mean? Would it not also apply to, at least, Celestine V, who according to Petrarch attempted to flee upon being pronounced Pope, until a delegation of cardinals convinced him to accept? --Delirium (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely it would. I sincerely doubt he was the first to admit to being intimidated or fearful at the prospect of that much responsibility and I am taking that out. A simple "he admitted" is fine. --Bluejay Young (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The First

How does "He was also the first pope to designate himself explicitly as 'the first' with the name." stand in relation to Pope Adeodatus I? The debate was hot and heavy on Pope Francis/Pope Francis I.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there a record of Adeodatus saying he wanted "the first" in his name? Luciani specified "John Paul the First", obviously anticipating that popes in the future would want to take that name, as indeed they did. Francis has said he does not want a "the first" on his name. --Bluejay Young (talk) 13:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

What happened to the picture of him as pope? Was it copyrighted?

Quite recently, and for a brief time, the top image was of John Paul I as pope (rather than as a cardinal), which I found more appropriate considering that this is what this man is most famous for being (i.e. a pope). Was it copyrighted? If not, then why was it replaced? In the Italian version of his biography, there are many photos of him, including this-- (File:Giovanni-Paolo-I°-5.jpg), which appears to be a fine photo of him; it is similar to the one used for him that has since been replaced. It appears to be in the public domain. I know this all seems to be quite trivial, but as I stated before, John Paul I is most famous for being pope (if even for only a month or so), and thus I feel it correct and proper to have a good image of him as pontiff. Lordmarmont (talk) 07:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the one that was deleted is the picture on his prayer card. As far as I know prayer cards use public domain images, but maybe someone wanted to be on the safe side. I agree that a picture of him as Pope should be used. --Bluejay Young (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Link for a picture

The link below has a black and white picture of Luciani as the pope. If that doesn't work, simply type Pope Albino Luciani on Bing Images and scroll down for it. http://archives.catholic.org.hk/The%20Popes/264-John%20Paul%20I.htm 115.64.163.13 (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest. We are unable to accept copyrighted images on Wikipedia. Please find an image with Creative Commons CC-BY-SA licensing and we can use that. Elizium23 (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The new image I have inserted (from Wikimedia Commons, Category:Ioannes Paulus I) does not appear to be a copyrighted image. I was one of the ones who originally suggested that his picture ought to be one of him as pope, as that is what he is historically famous for. Lordmarmont (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

How can only part of his book "be available"?

"His book Illustrissimi, written while he was a cardinal, is a series of letters to a wide collection of historical and fictional persons. Among those still available are his letters to Jesus..." (etc) Is part of the book lost? Which would be strange, since it was re-issued in 2001... -- megA (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The Death of John Paul I "Enough evidence for any law-respecting state"

Enough evidence for any law-respecting state Fr. Saez notes in his book that the amount of evidence is such that "no judge on earth could disregard it." He also notes that:

"the data and the evidence that we already possess would justify a serious judicial inquiry in any law-respecting state. Now, not only does the Vatican refuse to conduct such an inquiry, but it does exactly the opposite: it thwarts and suppresses any research that tries to get to the bottom of this enigma surrounding John Paul I's death. This state of affairs is manifest in the Vatican's refusal to carry out an autopsy (if in fact one was not carried out) or in the clandestine nature of this operation (if it did actually take place). It also reveals itself in the obscurity surrounding the embalming, in the way that information regarding the circumstances of the death and the discovery of the body was manipulated, in the silence imposed on Sister Vicenza, in the pressure brought to bear on individuals and institutions, and in the widespread fear of speaking about this whole affair. This fear, whether conscious or not, runs particularly deep in ecclesiastical circles."

Prior to Pope John Paul I's murder, Our Lady's message of September 13, 1978 warned that there was a "foul plot" against the Holy Father, and that the world would "soon understand" what She meant. According to Fr. Saez, a recent poll reports that 30% of Italians are convinced that John Paul I was assassinated (about 15 million people). CowboyErik (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC) CowboyErik December 6, 2014

</gallery>

Questionable moderation

Once again, Wikipedia encourages misinformation, discourages addition of interesting facts, and punishes failure to provide references that are unnecessary, as when they would accompany otherwise routine knowledge.

John Paul I was NOT the first to "add a regnal number." I am most deeply impressed that the contributor of this "fact" counts the word "regnal" among his vocabulary. However, this is (a) untrue; (b) not attested to anywhere; and (c) moreover, inane. NO POPE EVEN USES regnal numbers in formal writings. Even Benedict XVI (for example) signed all official documents (encyclicals, letters, etc.) as "Benedictus PP" (the 'PP' stands for 'pontifex'). Regnal numbers are for the benefit of the ignorant. Certainly, no pope would add "the First" to his name, as it would constitute the height of arrogance, for one thing: "I'm so special that, no doubt, others will use my name, so I'd better add a 'the First' to it here and now." Many, many names of great popes—the lion's share of them, saints (why doesn't someone would-be brilliant grammarian complain that "the comma before saints is misplaced")—were never reused. Ever heard of Soter II, Zachary II? How about poor Formosus, the victim of the Cadaver Synod (admittedly, it seems rather arrogant to name oneself "Beautiful")? Has there ever been a Formosus II?

I'd love to see evidence that a CONSISTENT policy is enforced with respect to "disruptive" editing and, a fortiori, edits "not supported by citations." There must be a happy medium for citations, lest the text consist largely of footnotes, and attaching one to every fact that John Q. Public doesn't know offhand would not appear to be that medium. 73.49.1.133 (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Beyond your presumptions that you know what popes would and would not do ("no pope would add 'the First' to his name"), do you have a reliable source that contradicts the source already cited in the article that states JPI did add "the First" to his regnal name? And in your response, please leave out your aspersions toward other editors; just provide the source. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit war

I have been told I am involved in an edit war. Of course, the moderator who told me that chose to revoke my write permission to his talk page. It's nice to be enabled fully to defend oneself. No, that wasn't cowardly of Mr. Sundaycloset or whomever he is (not an aspersion: I criticized the action, not the person).

A "war" is a strange thing to call it. One side (i.e., yours truly) is correct; the other side is blatantly incorrect and displays almost remarkable ignorance. Popes do not choose regnal numbers. Regnal numbers are attached in retrospect by history. Their tombstones and medallions bear them; hagiographies bear them. No pope calls himself Joe the Sixteenth or signs anything in any manner other than "Joe" (albeit, in Latin).

I have been asked whether I have source that contradicts the source supposedly cited that "justifies" the claim of attachment of regnal number. Well, first, there is no source indicated and, second, one does not find negative assertions of ridiculous things. If someone adds "2 + 3 = 7" to an article and I delete it, shall I be asked to proffer a reference that reads—in black and white—"two plus three is not seven," pray tell? Let us use our God-given brains, ladies and gentlemen.

Edit war, eh? What about the misinformed character who keeps adding back the erroneous material? Is he not in a war? One determines, once and for all, that endeavoring to address Wikipedia's quality issues is a lost cause. This is particularly true in the sciences and mathematics, where most "contributors" are clearly more interested in blowing their own horns, since the added "explanations" are heavy on symbolic notation but range from light, through paltry, to non-existent in useful didactic content.

73.49.1.133 (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Image

@Sundayclose: I recently inserted File:Albino Luciani, 1969 (3).jpg, which shows John Paul I as cardinal however gives good facial detail, and it was reverted in favor of File:Pope John Paul I from window (cropped).jpg, which shows him as pope but is of terrible quality. Even though we do try to have images of the pope during their papacy, I think we should keep the cardinal headshot instead due to its good quality until a replacement can be found. MB298 (talk) 01:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@MB298: I would agree that the headshot is better quality, but the one of him as pope is not "terrible quality", and it's the only one of him as pope that Wikipedia is free to use. In the edit history of the article a previous image of him as cardinal (File:Albino Luciani, 1969 (3).jpg) was used, but was replaced by the one of him as pope for the reasons I have stated (better to have pope image in infobox than cardinal image). We have a difference of opinion; I prefer to keep the article consistent with other pope articles. Sundayclose (talk) 01:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Why do we allow Presidents and heads of state to have an official portrait on their Wikipedia page, but for the Popes, we just choose any picture we like? Why don't we use an official papal portrait instead of this ridiculous photograph? 12.29.17.253 (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Because of copyright laws. Read WP:COPYRIGHT. Sundayclose (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pope John Paul I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090601121637/http://www.stanleyhero.com/history/History-of-the-Popes/History-of-the-Popes_9.php to http://www.stanleyhero.com/history/History-of-the-Popes/History-of-the-Popes_9.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060526213002/http://dynamic.rte.ie/av/2036899.smil to http://dynamic.rte.ie/av/2036899.smil
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070522232010/http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0408/news1pm.html to http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0408/news1pm.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)