Talk:Pope John Paul II/Archive 1

message: I WAS CHANGING STUFF UNTILL YOU CAME AT THE SAME TIME...THANKS FOR WASTING MY FREAKING TIME BIG CHECKS! LOL
I wouldn't say that he eclipsed Pope John XXIII in charisma. How can you measure it? -- Error
Crowd reaction, media presence. JXXIII was largely seen in newsreal and wrotten about. People had a positive impression but it was from secondary sources. JPII is seen on TV and in far less formal settings than JXXIII and directly rather than indirectly. JXXIII was a popular old man, JPII as a media star, capable of attracting 100,000 to youth masses on his trips, crowds in excess of 1million to major Masses. JXXIII never set foot outside Italy, JPII has made 100 trips and had his Masses attended by over 20 million people. By any measurement and analysis, JPII far exceeds JXIII in the charisma stakes. Anyone who ever saw him work the crowd is left in no doubt as to his charisma, whereas JXIII had an affection but never drew such crowds or evoked such responses among those he met. FearÉIREANN 05:59, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: eclipsing John XXIII in charisma

message: I removed opening statement about having the best relations with the Jewish people. In writing NPOV history, we should try to avoid hyperbolic statements measuring "best" or "worst." How do we measure them? Is there a point system? 5 points for visiting a synagogue, 20 points for apologizing for the Crusades? What about John XXIII and Vatican II for longstanding effects? A congratulatory message by an organization that can hardly claim to speak for Jews around the world does not constitute historical proof. Danny 14:55, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: relations with the Jewish people

message: Are the pictures of JPII really free of copyright? They come from an anti-JPII website http://www.truecatholic.org and I think that they might have collected some images from copyrighted sources and claimed them to be free of copyright. Maybe we could use the definitely GFDLed pictures from Commons instead? Ausir 09:35, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: * Jtdirl called my edits “strange”, but they are in fact in keeping with Wikipedia convention on titles.  In fact, the policy is quite clear, and was not being followed on this page.  As for deleting the excess use of ‘Pope’ as the title for John Paul, are we likely to have forgotten that he is the pope?  The perpetual use of the title is meant to be hagiographic, and that is not NPOV, so I have corrected it.  I was pleased to see, at least, that Jtdirl agreed to leave out ‘His Holiness’, which is blatantly hagiographic and therefore could not stand in an encyclopedia article. — Ford 13:53, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)
The old capitalisation row again (sigh). Would some people please cop on that the entire world does not use American english, with its preference for lower caps. In addition religious topics often use specific capitals for specific areas and topics (eg, the Roman Catholic eucharistic ceremony is called a Mass, not a mass.) And calling a pope Pope <name> is the standard way to refer to him. The Pope is not a "redundant" word in that context that can be axed but standard usage. In addition Pope is capitalised or lowercased in exactly the same way as other offices, ie, if the generic mention is being made or it is preceded by an indefinite article it is lowercased, if it is preceded by the definite article or a specific office is being referred to by name, it is uppercased. 
It is exactly the same as the difference between talking about a president or even the US president on the one hand, and writing President of the United States on the other. Equally in this article, one can write about there being a supreme governor of the Church of England, but the Supreme Governor, as you are talking specifically about a title. (The same principle is in the sentence "the Church of England is the church of England", the former being the title, the latter the generic reference to a church, even if in that case it is preceded by a definite article.) A similar distinction exists between 'archbishop of Crakow' where the archbishopic is implied to get generic, and Archbishop of Crakow where, as in the case of 'President of the United States', 'Prime Minister of the United Kingdom', 'King of Spain', etc one is dealing with a specific title. 
Sorry BTW in the delay between making the changes and explaining them here. I am at work and had to deal with a work related problem. 
Re Ford's reference above: I'm afraid he is mis-understanding the rules. (I was one of the people who wrote those rules.) It is irrelevant whether or not one is likely to forget who someone is. If their title is clear, and is used in a certain way, then it is to be used. The suggestion that is hagiographic is patently absurd. It is standard english and no more hagiographic, much less POV, than writing President Bush or Queen Elizabeth. Or is it somehow POV to state that someone holds an office when the entire planet is agreed that he does? That has got to be one of the most bizzarre claims of POV I have ever heard on wikipedia!!! As to His Holiness, that too is not hagiographic. It is called a style. Holders of many public offices have them. The Roman Catholic pope is His Holiness, as is the Dalai Lama, most monarchs are styled His or Her Majesty, with Princes of the Blood (note the capitals, Ford. It is because that is a specific title not a generic reference) called His/Her Royal Highness, most presidents or governor-generals His/Her Excellency, etc etc etc. Wikipedia at my suggestion decided not to begin articles on office holders using styles (something many wikipedians wanted to do) but in many cases to explain what an office holder's style is in the text. It would help if people when editing text understood the contextual linguistic rules that apply in a specific case, in this case the holder of a post in a religion who is also a head of state and so subject to standard international diplomatic language FearÉIREANN 14:19, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Title conventions

message: I have flicked through "The Mitrokhin Archive", and I think it would be super if there was a paragraph about John's 1979 visit to Poland; apparently it shook up the atheistic Soviet regime and helped galvanise what was to become the Solidarity movement, and is presumably one reason why people argue that his 1981 assassination attempt was a KGB action. Are there any Polish people here? How is John seen in Poland? Why is he called 'Pope John Paul', given that his name is Karol? -Ashley Pomeroy 18:53, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Poland

message: After reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), and looking at several other articles, such as Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Albert II of Belgium, and Bhumibol Adulyadej (which begin Her/His Magesty); Rainier III of Monaco (which begins His Serene Highness);  Rowan Williams (which begins The Most Reverend and Right Honourable); Joseph Anthony Ferrario (which begins Msgr.); Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson (which begin The Reverend); Elton John (which begins Sir); ect.; I have determined it is Wikipedia policy and standard practice for people with honorific styles to be refered to by their style at the begining of the article.  As the Pope is commonly styled His Holiness in English due to the office he holds, it is appropiate for the article about the current pontiff to use the style, not merely mention it. If you disagree, I'd suggest you take it to the Manual of Style's talk page. Gentgeen 06:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How mentioning in an article on Pope John Paul II that he is styled "His Holiness" is POV is completely beyond me, jguk 19:11, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: But calling him "His Holiness The Pope" isn't saying he's holy, and you're the only person around who seems to think it is. Proteus (Talk) 23:03, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: For popes, whether Roman Catholic, Coptic, or otherwise, use the format "Pope {papal name} {ordinal if more than one} of {episcopal see}". Popes of Rome should not be linked with their episcopal sees; Rome is understood. Also, do not use a pope's personal name. For example, use Pope John Paul I, not Albino Luciani or Pope John Paul I of Rome.
Titanium Dragon 10:08, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the article naming policy. Proteus (Talk) 11:38, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm just passing through and adding a comment. I noticed that the use of Her Majesty is very controversial on the Queen Elizabeth II talk page. This also came up in another context, where the Foreign Minister of a small nation was first mentioned as The Honorable. I pointed out that virtually all senior officials (including judges in the U.S.) are properly addressed with that style, making it irrelevant. My opinion is that styles do not belong in articles on the people themselves. They should be included in articles on the title or office, in this case Papacy. -Willmcw 01:31, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Articles should report usage and practice. Whether some Wikipedians would like to change usage and practice or don't adhere to common usage and practice is irrelevant. We report, we do not seek to change. The Pope is commonly styled "His Holiness". Ergo, that is what we report. jguk 10:33, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: The easiest and quickest way to report the usage is to refer to it right at the beginning of the article, where we show a person's full name and formal style. That's what this article does. That is what Wikipedia style is. THe article mentions the style at the beginning when the full name is given. (cf Tony Blair, John Major, HM The Queen, Patriarch Theodoros II of Alexandria, Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria, etc.) jguk 12:16, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So are you suggesting we should add "His Holiness" before all of the Antipopes' names as well? Because I've found webpages referring to them as such, and their followers do call them that. Titanium Dragon 07:07, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmm, I'm confused. Did anyone ever see jguk mentioning antipopes? How's that for putting words in one's mouth? Anyway, styles are almost always used when the person is still alive and/or the style is almost universally accepted. Now these are some POV conventions, I agree, but all "conventions" are POV (serial comma). Until we have a set rule (and by set rule, I mean "all articles on Roman Catholic popes will use "His Holiness," for example), we just have to go along with it. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with using "His Holiness" for all Roman Catholic Popes. Now, for the antipopes, whom Titanium Dragon brought up - the word "anti-pope" signifies that the person is not considered a "true pope" (lots of POV here) by modern historians. If Antipope Honorius II is ever declared a true pope by the modern Roman Catholic Church, then we can call him "His Holiness Honorius II." You don't have to think Tony Blair is right and honourable, or that Michael Ancram is honourable, or that the Duke of Wellingtons are noble - they're just styles. ugen64 03:01, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Is this "policy" you keep referring to actually written down anywhere for people to read? Proteus (Talk) 18:55, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia practice is that a subject's full name and style are used at the start of a biographical article. This is sensible - and ensures neutrality throughout Wikipedia: it means we do not take a view on which form of any particular individual's name should be used - we use the formal one. For everyone. Whether we like them or approve of the form or not. The recent attempt to force practice to change is misguided - and seems driven by an extreme point of view that any form of someone's name that suggests everyone should always be addressed as plain Mr, Mrs or Miss - well, that's not real life - get used to it! Honorifics are customary throughout the Commonwealh realms, and in many other realms throughout the world. The fact they are not used in places such as the United States and the Republic of Ireland does not mean we should not use them - Wikipedia is an international venture and should reflect international practice! jguk 21:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I'm about to reinstate some of the anon's edits 

message: Incidentally, I concede only some of your points, and I merely do not have the energy to go through all of this again, either my earlier arguments, or an edit war.  You are flat-out wrong, though, that it is “appropriate” to use rather than merely mention the pope’s style.  You cite a policy which on its face is not binding, and is evolving; and in any case, such a policy cannot be held to outweigh the policy of neutrality, which the use of styles blatantly violates.  Just because other pages also violate the policy does not justify it.  I do concede that other pages violate the policy, and that using styles is closer to standard practice than avoiding them.  But that is in part because, for example, it is royalists who do most of the editing on royalty pages, and believers who take the strongest interest in pages about religious figures.  I find it disturbing that dead popes, like dead kings, are treated much more like factual subjects (id est, dead popes who have not been beatified or canonized are given no style at all).  To treat living figures with reverence is even worse than treating dead figures with reverence — it is a violation of the notion of equality and it has a much-greater potential for abuse.  But that is a social argument.  My primary point in the encyclopedia is that employing a style in earnest is not neutral.  So you can take your pick:  you can have the style and a neutrality dispute; or you can have neither.
It is also worth mentioning that if you are so attached to policies, the capitalization which I have tried to correct and you have just undone is an explicit violation of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles).  My interlocutors above dismissed this, but their arguments were not remotely persuasive; and in any case, if you insist on following guidelines in one case you should be consistent.  But, whatever; I am not going through this again.  I will just tag the article, and that will be my contribution to public education in this instance. <BR>— Ford 10:19, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
:How mentioning in an article on Pope John Paul II that he is styled "His Holiness" is POV is completely beyond me, jguk 19:11, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But calling him "His Holiness The Pope" isn't saying he's holy, and you're the only person around who seems to think it is. Proteus (Talk) 23:03, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: For popes, whether Roman Catholic, Coptic, or otherwise, use the format "Pope {papal name} {ordinal if more than one} of {episcopal see}". Popes of Rome should not be linked with their episcopal sees; Rome is understood. Also, do not use a pope's personal name. For example, use Pope John Paul I, not Albino Luciani or Pope John Paul I of Rome.
Titanium Dragon 10:08, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the article naming policy. Proteus (Talk) 11:38, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm just passing through and adding a comment. I noticed that the use of Her Majesty is very controversial on the Queen Elizabeth II talk page. This also came up in another context, where the Foreign Minister of a small nation was first mentioned as The Honorable. I pointed out that virtually all senior officials (including judges in the U.S.) are properly addressed with that style, making it irrelevant. My opinion is that styles do not belong in articles on the people themselves. They should be included in articles on the title or office, in this case Papacy. -Willmcw 01:31, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Articles should report usage and practice. Whether some Wikipedians would like to change usage and practice or don't adhere to common usage and practice is irrelevant. We report, we do not seek to change. The Pope is commonly styled "His Holiness". Ergo, that is what we report. jguk 10:33, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: The easiest and quickest way to report the usage is to refer to it right at the beginning of the article, where we show a person's full name and formal style. That's what this article does. That is what Wikipedia style is. THe article mentions the style at the beginning when the full name is given. (cf Tony Blair, John Major, HM The Queen, Patriarch Theodoros II of Alexandria, Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria, etc.) jguk 12:16, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So are you suggesting we should add "His Holiness" before all of the Antipopes' names as well? Because I've found webpages referring to them as such, and their followers do call them that. Titanium Dragon 07:07, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmm, I'm confused. Did anyone ever see jguk mentioning antipopes? How's that for putting words in one's mouth? Anyway, styles are almost always used when the person is still alive and/or the style is almost universally accepted. Now these are some POV conventions, I agree, but all "conventions" are POV (serial comma). Until we have a set rule (and by set rule, I mean "all articles on Roman Catholic popes will use "His Holiness," for example), we just have to go along with it. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with using "His Holiness" for all Roman Catholic Popes. Now, for the antipopes, whom Titanium Dragon brought up - the word "anti-pope" signifies that the person is not considered a "true pope" (lots of POV here) by modern historians. If Antipope Honorius II is ever declared a true pope by the modern Roman Catholic Church, then we can call him "His Holiness Honorius II." You don't have to think Tony Blair is right and honourable, or that Michael Ancram is honourable, or that the Duke of Wellingtons are noble - they're just styles. ugen64 03:01, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Is this "policy" you keep referring to actually written down anywhere for people to read? Proteus (Talk) 18:55, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia practice is that a subject's full name and style are used at the start of a biographical article. This is sensible - and ensures neutrality throughout Wikipedia: it means we do not take a view on which form of any particular individual's name should be used - we use the formal one. For everyone. Whether we like them or approve of the form or not. The recent attempt to force practice to change is misguided - and seems driven by an extreme point of view that any form of someone's name that suggests everyone should always be addressed as plain Mr, Mrs or Miss - well, that's not real life - get used to it! Honorifics are customary throughout the Commonwealh realms, and in many other realms throughout the world. The fact they are not used in places such as the United States and the Republic of Ireland does not mean we should not use them - Wikipedia is an international venture and should reflect international practice! jguk 21:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality and papal holiness

message: Ford asked in his most recent edit summery, Please explain on talk page what your exact problem with this is. He was refering to the opening paragraph, as I've quoted it below:
:John Paul II, born Karol Józef Wojtyła (born May 18, 1920 in Wadowice, Poland), is the current pope — the bishop of Rome and head of the Roman Catholic Church. He was elected in 1978, becoming the first non-Italian pope in 455 years and the first pope ever of Slavic origin. As the pope, he is formally styled His Holiness by supporters and in diplomatic situations.
I have two problems with this paragraph, based on reading Wikipedia:Manual_of_style#Titles.  First, when saying he is the Pope and the Bishop of Rome, we are specifically refering to offices and therefore they should be capatilized.  From the above policy, The correct formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun. Hence: "Hirohito was Emperor of Japan". Similarly "Louis XVI was the French king" but "Louis XVI was King of France", King of France being a title in that context. Ford's version would be the same as George W. Bush is the current president of the United States, vs. the correct George W. Bush is the current President of the United States. The first line in this article should read ... the current Pope - the Bishop of Rome' ...; the later uses of pope in the paragraph should not be capatalized as we are refering to the group of people who have been pope, not the office, so those are fine.  To keep using my analogy, if the GW Bush article said (and I don't know if it does), he is the second president of the United States to be the son of a former president, that would also be appropiate usage.
Secondly, the last sentence, about the "His Holiness" style, seems amaturish and tacked on.  It accomplishes in 15 words what can be accomplished most simply with two words, by putting His Holiness before John Paul II in the first line.  It also violates the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), which states, 
:Honorific prefixes should be used in the article text where appropriate, but not included in the entry title. For example:
:# Sir Elton John
:# Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu; Sri Ramakrishna Paramhansa
:# St John the Apostle; St Francis of Assisi; St Stephen
:# Reverend Al Sharpton
:# Dato' Seri Mahathir bin Mohamad
If we're going to put His Holiness in its own sentence, why not the other titles and styles used for the Pope, such as Blessed Father, Holy Father, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Primate of Italy, Patriarch of the West, Supreme Pontiff, Pontifex Maximus, Vicar of Christ, Successor to the Prince of the Apostles, Servent of the Servents of God, ect. (just thinking off the top of my head, I probibly missed a few)  Actually, now that I think about it, those should be in there somewhere, but probibly not in the first paragraph, as some of them are pretty obscure and not commonly used, but His Holiness and the Holy Father are used commonly, but the Holy Father is generally used as a replacement for his name, and His Holiness is used as an honorary style before his name.
Finally, I don't want to hear the strawman about what Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) states.  The naming conventions are used to determine the title of the article, while the style guides are used to format the content of an article.  As no one is suggesting that this article be moved to another location, especially not His Holiness Pope John Paul II, the naming conventions do not apply.
Gentgeen 22:07, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So, do you think we should preface Lucian Pulvermacher's article with "his holiness"? Titanium Dragon 05:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What's wrong with Ford's verstion

message: I do not believe that Jguk is editing in good faith.  In fact, I believe that Jguk is editing in very bad faith.
*There is an ongoing neutrality dispute on this page.  Where is the tag?  The message of that tag does not say:  “This article is not neutral.”.  It says:  “The neutrality of this article is disputed.”.  Those two statements have very different meaning, and the double dispute that Jguk added was meant to obscure that difference.
*There is a difference between using a style and mentioning it.  I have proposed, and in the absence of comment introduced, a compromise that is fully informative on the style of the pope, without using it.  Jguk and others insist that using a style, applying it to the pope’s name at the beginning of an article, is merely describing a fact.
*Jguk has accused me of deleting information.  I removed the style from the first line and added an explanation of the style, including the same two words and the same link to Jguk’s substub.  Information was added, not deleted.  If someone wanted to know what the pope was styled, it was right there.  
*Jguk has accused me of disingenuity myself, because Jguk did not get a specific invitation to my user page to leave a comment on a proposal of mine.  It is my user page, not a Wikipedia policy page, and Jguk’s position is already perfectly clear.  I do not need to know that Jguk does not agree.  I need to know if anyone does agree.
*As can be seen from these edits, Jguk does not just support using an honorific once in a person’s article for the purpose of informing the public what a person’s style is.  Jguk believes in using honorifics every time a person is mentioned in any article.  This is not being simply informative — otherwise, a reader who wanted to know what a subject’s style was could be left to follow the link to the appropriate article.
*I am no more guilty of trying to force change than Jguk is of trying to suppress change by force.  If Jguk wants things to stay exactly as they are, then it only remains to revert every change to every article from now on, for eternity.  But Jguk is actually concerned with having things Jguk’s way.  That is the real principle.
For now, Jguk wins.  I am not enjoying myself at all, and am being shouted down by persons who are not interested in listening to reasoned arguments or reaching a decent compromise.  Don’t bother to say that you are interested in listening or compromising; just do it, or spare me.<BR>— Ford 23:31, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
:I have always been acting in good faith. I request you withdraw your allegation to the contrary. You are also misrepresenting my views - which are clearly stated above. However, I do acknowledge I should not have implied you were disingenuous - I was reacting in kind as you should not have called me disingenuous - two wrongs do not make a right, and I apologise for that. Kind regards, jguk 23:53, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad faith

message: There seems to be confusion here. For the record, honorifics are used in articles. Styles are not. A style is a manner of address, a honorific is a form of title. They are different things. If John Paul held a knighthood or baronetcy then the article would properly begin Sir John Paul II . . .However His Holiness is a style and styles are not used to describe people in encyclopaedias, as they can be misinterpreted by those who do not understand them (or who come from cultures where they are not used and so not understood) are POV, even if in reality they arent. Standard encyclopaedic writing includes styles in the article by indicating what a person's style us. Similarly the article on Mary McAleese does not say Her Excellency Mary McAleese, the article on eighteenth century monarchs quote their styles, the article on Mary, Queen of Scots call her Her Grace, the article on George Bush say His Excellency George Bush, the article in clergymen start The Right Reverend. And articles on some bishops who are parliamentary peers do not start His Grace the Lord Bishop, the Very Reverend . . . . It is completely unworkable, unlike honorifics which are much more clearcut. Which is why honorifics are used, but styles are explained in text (some encyclopaedias don't include mention at all).  FearÉIREANN 19:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is inconsistent with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). Also it is much much shorter just to refer to the Pope as "His Holiness" once, at the very start of the article, wen we give his formal name, rather than draw undue attention to the style later on (as per your proposed wording). Kind regards, jguk 19:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: How on Earth did you come up with that distinction? It's certainly one I've never seem before. I can imagine that some people could see a difference between "honorific styles" and "honorific titles", but a distinction between "honorifics" and "styles" is just silly. Proteus (Talk) 00:26, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anyone read English honorifics?  Based on that article (which is not a policy, just what our encyclopedia has to say about this topic), Her Magesty, His Highness, etc. are honorifics in the English language.  By extension, the His XXX in front of a reigning monarch's name (such as the Soverign of the Vatican City) is an honorific.  Looking around at our articles on reigning monarchs, I find that most of them use the honorific right in front of the current holder's name.  This is in keeping with the MoS on biographies, which states, Honorific prefixes should be used in the article text where appropriate, but not included in the entry title.  (extra emphasis added by me) Again, no one wants to move this article to His Holiness John Paul II, Soverign of the Vatican City or any other article title including the honorific/style, but the honorific/style should be included at the very begining of the article.  It is supported by policy, as well as common usage. Gentgeen 10:30, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is mixing up honorifics and styles. Wikipedia policy on style is clearly laid out. The fact that one or two people have been doctoring articles to add in styles where they are not meant to have been used does not change wikipedia policy. FearÉIREANN 11:24, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: styles and honorifics

message: A list of over 100 foreign visits is overwhelming - I think it should be moved to a separate article and summarised here.  Any thoughts as to title - List of pastoral visits of Pope John Paul II outside Italy is a bit verbose? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:13, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done it. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pastoral visits outside Italy

message: Is it true that JPII has planned a trip to Istanbul later this year?  It would be interesting, since it's dramatic historically: the center of Eastern Orthodoxy.  I have the impression he'd rather die of exhaustion from travelling than retire. Michael Hardy 22:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Planned trip to Istanbul?

message: I put in a couple more Cardinals who've been thought of as papaible.  The list might be a little too European - because some think it won't be a European.  My concern is that we don't do too much predicting of who will be the next Pope.  Right now that is one huge question mark.  We won't know until we see the white smoke coming out of the chimney.  Time and time again the conclave has made surprising choices.  Karol Wojtyla wasn't expected to become Pope by the outside world, in fact he was a compromise candidate after the two main Italian candidates caused the conclave to deadlock.  And those Cardinals who get too confident, it is said "He who enters the conclave as pope, leaves it as a cardinal." 
JesseG 23:53, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
:Someone has started an article on Papal Election of 2005 (decapitalise "Election" perhaps?) so I think it would be best to move speculation there, if we agree that the article should exist. Given that it's not an election in the usual political sense, with campaigning and various public controversies etc., I wonder how much material we can produce for such an article. Maybe it should just be a short section in the article on the next pope, like the '78 election is in this one. I have also put a "current or ongoing" template at the top (it was just in the health problems section), as much of the article is now out of date - the question of resignation etc is now moot. It looks like there will be further changes and rewording to do in a matter of hours. — Trilobite (Talk) 12:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Next Pope