Talk:Pope John Paul II/Archive 3

message: I removed the reference to reigning over the Catholic Church... John Paul The Great was elected as any other leader, A monarch may reign, his or her powers given through succesive family lines... but a Pope is not assumed in that manner - Thirdvertigo
Monarchs may be elected as well as inheriting throne. People always talk about papal reigns, just as the pope sits on the papal throne and until 1978 were crowns. Popes are always regarded as monarchs. FearÉIREANN 21:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He was an elective monarch - monarchs reign, and a pope does so in both a secular (temporal) and ecclesiastical sense. Further, he was hardly an elective leader in that it did not occur more than once and was rather a ballot of 100 votes by a group who believe themselves to being led by the holy spirit. The pope reigns, as he is an autocrat - this is not the opposite of being initially elected. Remember, Hitler was initially elected but was not elective - he was an autocrat who could be said to "reign". --Oldak Quill 17:40, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: In the so-called Holy Roman Empire, the emperor was elected by an electoral college with a hereditary membership; in fact, it is from the Holy Roman Empire that we get the term electoral college.  That doesn't stop anyone from using the word reign to refer to what the Holy Roman Emperor did.  In the pope's case, each pope actually chooses cardinals who will elect his successor, and can unilaterally change the rules (e.g., JPII decided no one over the age of 80 can vote, and a pope could easily decide that all bishops between the ages of 40 and 43 can vote, as well as deacons who have blue eyes), so we're talking about a much more "monarchical" than "republican" situation than what even the Holy Roman Empire had. Michael Hardy 02:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Reigned'' vs ''led'' 

message: Trilobite I notice your reversions.  Why do you do this?  This section was on the Pope's page before and was taken out.  I am unhappy with this consensus.  Who is voting for this?  Pop culture section is required for point of views other than mainstream media and church and governments.  Please keep the work saved.
Jean-Louis
:I have explained why I removed it on this very page, and I've also left messages on your talk page. I'm not going to revert you any more. Someone else can do it. You are being deliberately disruptive in my opinion. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pop Culture Section

message: Whoever has taken the charge of overseeing this article should review its content.
There is some incredibly vicious and/or sardonic language appearing in the article, such as "pagan pope" and "decomposing body."  I believe this language is inappropriate, in this context.  One does not convey a point to confer: all dead bodies decompose.
I recommend that this article be put NPVA or corrected.
Such high disrespect.  I would want to know what great moral and/or social achievements the authors of such texts, themselves, make to humanity.
What little respect I have for people who have more time to carve disrespectful diatribes about a significant leader into an international forum than to feed the poor or advocate positive change and constructive thought in their own immediate communities.
** Thanks to whomever changed it.  I knew that wouldn't last.  I have a habit of putting in 2 cents, however, and I had to say something.
***Next time you should just change it yourself, btw.  Tempshill 05:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I won't change it, but... 

message: Someone apparently edited the article as though John Paul II were still alive (i.e., in present tense. Thank you, 165.95.228.14)
:INCORRECT
:"He stands firmly against abortion and defends the Church's traditional approach to human sexuality."
:CORRECT
:"He stood firmly against abortion and defended the Church's traditional approach to human sexuality."
In addition, someone clearly needs to return to school and study proper English composition.
:INCORRECT
:"Pope John Paul II has beatified and canonized far more persons than any previous pope."
:CORRECT
:"Pope John Paul II beatified and canonized more persons than previous popes."
Notice that "has" is not required before "beatified".
The latest version of the article is actually quite horrible. The many editorial failures recently introduced must be corrected.
Adraeus 09:46, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hrm... Someone recently edited the article using awkward [[present tense]]

message: I've noticed vandals inserting random, inflammatory phrases, such as saying JPII's favorite quote was "Jesus is my homeboy" or that JPII was a dictator.  I was trying to correct those.  I believe BrendanConway also was correcting them.  Kudos.  I also want to apologize.  I deleted the reference to Wojtyla and a seminarian voluntering to chop up frozen excrement because I thought it was vandalism (due to the "excrement" term) but I see now that someone (BrendanConway?) changed it to indicate that this is from the official biography.  I didn't know and I'm sorry for deleting it. Gurp13 18:35, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.Reference: Witness to Hope by George Weigel, the popes official biography. Chapter 2 From the Underground page 75 in the paperback edition 2001 Harper Collins--File Éireann 19:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks to anyone who puts this page (and who knows, maybe the next big news story?) on their watchlist and works to revert obvious vandalism. It is possible to make a genuine mistake in doing this kind of work and the best thing to do in such a case is correct the error and apologise like this.  Kudos both. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: If anyone has time, it would be great to write something about pope and his relation to Catholic youth. --Eleassar777 22:47, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Pope of the Youth

message: While the list of links critical of JP2 is an excellent addition, it seems to me a bit unbalanced to have no corresponding list of links to articles that praise him, rather than simply report on him. This article will be mildly biased until this situation is recitified. --Zantastik 04:52, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticisms 

message: I agree to what was said above that it will be unbalanced not to mention here the praises that have been said about JPII. There should one section on that, or at least these praises should be integrated within the some of the sections. 
I also agree that there should be more space given to his writings, his intellectual contributions. That is what respectable encyclopedias contain. That is why when there are moves to trim this page, we have to try to keep the sections on his teachings, his social and political stance, his writings. Banazzraq
I agree too that there should be a Praises section if there's a Criticisms section. Otherwise, this is not a balanced page or encyclopedia.
Joo
:The article generally presents a very positive view of him, a bit too positive in certain cases (for instance, implying he had any real important role in the downfall of Communism). It doesn't require a "praises" section. I would have no problem integrating the criticisms into the rest of the article, but they definitely belong there. Titanium Dragon 01:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Praises

message: I was going to add:
:He has beatified or canonized hundreds of martyrs of the Spanish Civil War, Catholics executed by leftist militias during the Spanish Civil War.
but don't find a good place.
--Error 22:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Spanish Civil War

message: I removed a whole bunch of "opinion" articles. There are zillions of them. If they contain encyclopedic and important opinions by notable persons, then by definition they must be covred in the article. Otherwise people can google themselves. For the last reason they are also useless as references:  opinions described in the text must be properly attributed, not just "some say... others say...". See m:When should I link externally and Wikipedia:External links for more arguments. Mikkalai 18:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links pruning 

message: "This meeting was the last official public meeting that this Pope had had, and brought with it the making of world history." Though I appreciate the importance of the event, I think this is a silly sentence. Unless someone objects, it should be changed to "It was John Paul II's last official public meeting."
In general, this section can be pared heavily, with info moved to its own separate article.
-andersem
:I have made this change, and have also removed several other POV comments from this section. I do not have time right now to fully clean up this section and possibly split it from the article, so if anyone wants to do this it would be much appreciated. Rje 15:33, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
::I've been thinking of doing this for a while.  I'll take a crack at this.  JYolkowski 16:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, I've done that and created Relations between Catholicism and Judaism but an anon (I'm not going to speculate who) has put most of it back.  I might restore my version later but if anyone else wants to help trimming this section feel free because it's all in the above article.  JYolkowski 20:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  relations with the Jewish people 

message: Isn't the box thing at the top of the photo a bit much? We don't do it for other monarchs nor for other religious leaders. I notice we don't do it for every pope either, just far enough back to make the casual researcher think that it's a common style for all. And what's with the Latin? Was there any justification for any of this?Grace Note 00:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the use of Latin, see reversals war in the history of the article "Pope John Paul I" to get a clearer picture. This was a compromise. --Eleassar777 11:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture caption