This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, realise, defence, artefact), and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
There is a clear consensus against the inclusion of the assertion that John Paul caused up to 40 million starvation deaths. The consensus is that no non-fringe sources have been presented to support this assertion.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please remove this passage from the lede, because it is insufficiently sourced: Accordingly, his lifelong efforts to prevent contraceptive access and encourage excessive population growth are estimated to have caused 30-40 million deaths due to starvation in overpopulated, underfed regions of the world.2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 00:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
No - Its based on a fringe group that is strongly anti-catholic and anti-religious. The lead is supposed to summarize the text and these claims are not included in the text. Rjensen (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Keep - In some form in lede and amplify in sections of article that already refer to the issue. Remove "encourage excessive population growth" since he advocated rather the "rhythm method" of family planning, in spite of its unpopularity worldwide. Cardinal Wojtyła used contraception to rally Catholics in Poland against the Communist government and made defense of Humanae Vitae a mark of his papacy. Critique of the effects of this policy are abundant, as shown by the many references given here. Jzsj (talk) 07:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
No - this information is controversial and not adequately sourced for the lead. It could be placed in the body, but requires more sources to balance the information. JohnThorne (talk) 06:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
No – The sentence should be deleted on two grounds. Firstly, a claim of this gravity must be attributed to an adequate source. The cited source suggests this extraordinary claim comes from one person; this indicates the sentence is giving undue weight to the fringe views of one person. Secondly, even if the claim of 40 million deaths due to starvation were true, it is unencyclopedic to suggest these deaths should be attributed to one man, Pope John-Paul II. The Roman Catholic teaching on artificial contraception was firmly in place long before J-P II became Pope. Any serious analysis of large-scale loss of life, such as wars and disease epidemics, invariably acknowledges that there are many causes, and those causes are complex and sometimes inter-related. There is a child-like simplicity in any suggestion that large-scale loss of life is the fault of one person. If Wikipedia wants to link 40 million deaths to the Vatican’s position on artificial contraception over 50 years it should be in an appropriate article, but the article on J-P II is not the appropriate one. Dolphin(t) 13:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
No - The claim is doubtful by itself, the source is partisan and not that good, and even if it was true it wouldn't belong in the lede. Remove. Zarasophos (talk) 09:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
No - I agree-remove Eddy1 Stopspin (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Not in the lead, not with the current sourcing. It is plainly an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim and requires more than one WP:BIASED source. I recommend that anyone who wants to include it spend some time searching for additional or secondary sources to satisfy WP:DUE and consider re-wording it to include clear in-line attributions making clear where the accusation is coming from before trying again - and when they do, don't put it in the lead. I think it's possible that sufficient sources exist to mention it with more sedate wording and in-line citations in the 'Moral stances' section, where his views on contraception are mentioned (the section should perhaps be broken up or retitled.) But not in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Not in the lead - This may fit better in another section, such as in Criticism and controversy, but not in the lead per the suggestion of Aquillion. --- FULBERT (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
No. For all the reasons cited above. I especially agree with Aquillion that it does not belong in the lead. At best, it is a dubious utilitarian argument against the position of the Catholic church for nearly 2000 years that is simply being targeted by one author against John Paul II because of the widespread support for contraception in modern times. In that regard, a subsection of the article dealing with the ongoing contraception issue might cite this source, but it certainly, regarding JP II, it is not particular to or significant enough to be highlighted in the lead. - Saranoon (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
No WP:FRINGE, the source is highly biased is not mainstream. Until such claims are accepted by the mainstream they should not be placed in the leade espcialy in the factual manner of this edit.Zubin12 (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
No certainly not on this source - any "estimate" would have to come from a far more reliable source, qualified to make such an estimate. Who actually produced the "estimate"? Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Eddyl has edited this page in a very contentious, politically motivated, and salacious manner; biased on opinions and not substantiated fact. There is a completely different ‘truth’ from an opposite political view; which side could also publish biased opinions as ‘facts’. Wikipedia must strive to keep their pages fact only, not unprovable opinion such as Eddyl placed in this page. Wikipedia will die if it becomes politically left or right; the public will not lose trust in the site- and that would mean the demise of Wikipedia. Please remove Eddyl’s biased edits, flag him from future edits, and return to fact only page on John Paul II. Thank you. Stopspin (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the edit being discussed above is very much not good, but it seems to be the first one on this article. I'd agree if there are further edits of a similar nature, though. Zarasophos (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Article talk pages are for discussing the article, not editors, and WP:AGF applies. If you think an editor's conduct is a problem, you can go to WP:AE or WP:AN/I, but I doubt anything would be done here, since this seems like a straightforward content dispute. --Aquillion (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Attribution of block quoted words to Pope John Paul II (Relations with other denominations and religions: 10.8 Judaism)
It becomes clear as one reads this section that certain striking phrases and sentences are direct quotations from the Pope. In context, however, this is not clearly indicated. If other editors are agreeable, I would suggest that lead sentences be added to eliminate any uncertainty on this score.
As presently edited it remains unclear in the following example, whether the two quotations are something said by Rabbi Michael Melchior or by the Pope. The addition of a simple [lead phrase] clarifies this immediately:
- Begins -
Israeli cabinet minister Rabbi Michael Melchior, who hosted the pope's visit, said he was "very moved" by the pope's gesture. [Among the comments made by John Paul II on this occasion were:]
It was beyond history, beyond memory.
We are deeply saddened by the behaviour of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant.
- Ends -
There are a couple more instances of such ambiguity in this section.
Content added by 18.104.22.168(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log) has been removed from this article for copyright reasons. In spite of warning, the individual using this IP has persisted in copying content from copyrighted sources without compatible licensing to Wikipedia. Please do not restore any removed text without first ensuring that the text does not duplicate, closely paraphrase or plagiarize from a previously published source, whether the one cited or another (issues have been detected from other sources than those named). Based on the editing pattern of this person, we cannot make the assumption that the content is usable. You are welcome to use sourced facts that may have been removed to create new content in your own words or to incorporate brief quotations of copyrighted material in accordance with the non-free content policy and guideline. See Wikipedia:Copy-paste and Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/22.214.171.124. Thank you. --💵Money💵emoji💵💸 02:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)