Talk:Criticism of Pope John Paul II

message: I'm a little concerned that an article of this nature has no references. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: This section first mentions the criticism about PJPII, but then goes off on some tangents about (1) what was done in response (reforms), and (2) a mention of a church statement from 2008 on this topic.  The man died in 2005, so how, in a section that is supposed to discuss the criticism of his activities are either of these items relevant?  Since there is a cited article dedicated to the topic "Catholic sex abuse cases" I would suggest that the current section have all sentences following the first one removed since they aren't to the point.  If additional information could be added to expand it that is on-topic (ie, criticism about his handling of catholic sex abuse, NOT his reactions, or church reforms, etc) that would result in a better article also.
Oh, and some cites would be nice!  I'm not sure what counts as valid sources, but here is an article I found that might be relevant
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7086738.ece
70.179.23.9 (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused by the Abuse Scandals section  

message: I expanded on the criticism John Paul faced from traditional Catholics to try to make the article a bit more rounded, to show that John Paul faced criticism not just from the left, but from some conservatives as well.  I wanted to show to what lengths people went who felt John Paul wasn't conservative enough for their tastes.
JesseG 23:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism from Conservatives 

message: While for the most part, the material here seems POV balanced (at least in tone), and it jives with what my recollections of anecdotes in several biographies of JP2 which I have read, the material does smack of being cut and pasted by several editors independently.  I would like to rewrite each section as if it was written by one author.  I do not want to remove any content (but see below), but organize it as if it were not simply one contributer adding to the previous to "balance" the first's POV.  (Not at all an insult to your good contributions JesseG, but rather an acknowledgement that it should not read as such).  
Furthermore, I would like to remove unnecessary descriptions of the Church's positions (of course the Pope will stick to them; that should be assumed).  I prefer the words "critics" and "detractors" to "opponents" and "enemies", on POV grounds.  And while I do not know whether I will remove them yet, I do not think the actions of the various "Traditional Catholics" described herein in response to the criticisms of JP2 are necessary.  
Baccyak4H 04:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization 

message: Hey there folks!
So what's up with the relationship between the Pope and Latin American dictators like Pinochet? There's plenty of articles about it on the net, and pictures. I'm not a regular editor of Wikipedia but it'd be good if somebody who spent time in this article wrote something about it.
Cheers!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.20.44.191 (talk) 12:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Pope and Latin American dictatorships? 

message: Hi! I removed the section, and it was put back, so I thought I'd bring it here to explain why I'm concerned that it doesn't fit into the article. :) Currently it is relying on a single source, the Time magazine article. In effect, the article says that Dr. Lina Pavanelli had surmised that the Pope was euthanised based on her observations on TV, coverage in the press and a book. That makes me a tad nervous, as it feels like weak evidence to draw such a conclusion from. However, she then surmises that Pope John Paul II must have been complicit in this. So we have her guessing that passive euthanasia was employed, and then guessing that he would have known - the result is a really poor argument on which to draw anything. When you then note that the Vatican specifically denied the claims, stating that he was given a feeding tube, then we're giving a dedicated section to a guess on a guess that is denied by those actually involved. Going beyond that, there is the question of whether or not a delay in providing a feeding tube was euthanasia - which is highly doubtful. Overall, it isn't even clear if it is criticism of Pope John Paul II, even assuming that it did occur. It feels out of place with the other criticisms, which relate more directly to things he did (or did not) do. - Bilby (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I dug a bit further, and found that the Vatican clarified after the Time Magazine article was published that he had been given a feeding tube much sooner than was previously assumed. As a result, Pavanelli had to clarify that the problem was now that a different type of tube would have been better, , at which point this really feels like a useless argument - it now comes down to euthanasia by the incorrect choice of feeding tubes, and that's too weak to give any major weight to. On those grounds I've removed the text. - Bilby (talk) 01:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Euthanaisa and his own death section 

message: The opening line of the article reads: "Pope John Paul II was criticized, amongst other things,[1] for lack of any response ..."
* Current meaning - The way this is structured with the 'for' coming after 'amongst' it means "Pope John Paul II was criticized, amongst other things than being criticized, for lack of response..."
* Intended meaning - I'm not sure, but I think the intended meaning (based on the linked source) was "Pope John Paul II was criticized for, amongst other things than lack of response, for lack of response..."
The placement of the 'for' changes the meaning here between  'criticizing and things FOR lack of response'   vs   'criticizing FOR lack of response and things'
So I propose the following change:  
"Pope John Paul II was criticized for, amongst other things,[1] lack of any response ..."
-- 72.214.182.27 (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening sentence structure 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Criticism of Pope John Paul II. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20080225072042/http://www.vatican.va:80/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Criticism of Pope John Paul II. 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/20081227130309/https://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1986/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19861027_prayer-peace-assisi-final_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1986/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19861027_prayer-peace-assisi-final_en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090417143557/https://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1986/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19861027_san-rufino-assisi_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1986/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19861027_san-rufino-assisi_en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090515183234/https://www.vatican.va:80/news_services/liturgy/documents/ns_lit_doc_20020124_assisi-giornata_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/documents/ns_lit_doc_20020124_assisi-giornata_en.html
*Added  tag to http://www.catholicnews.com/data/abuse/abuse08.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316160509/http://www.zenit.org/article-9560?l=english to http://www.zenit.org/article-9560?l=english
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Criticism of Pope John Paul II. 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/20090116173841/http://www.americamagazine.org/content/articles/martin-opusdei.cfm to http://www.americamagazine.org/content/articles/martin-opusdei.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: ⁮⁮⁮⁮⁮  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.228.106 (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no proof that Pope John Paul II was not interested in pedophila or molesting children.