Talk:Pope John Paul II/Archive 5

message: I want to thank all the eager beavers for adding so many links exposing the depraved sick ***** who have written some great hateful things about one of the worlds greatest popes. I think it is needed to expose these whackos for what and who they are. These hateful people need to be exposed and the list of criticism links is a good start. Thanks again. Dwain 20:34, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Mmmm, yeah. What kind of demented person would entertain hatred for the late kindred Pope John Paul II(The Greatest)? I'm not a Catholic, but he's an example of a real life superhero. The medieval popes of the rennaisance period committed cruel atrocities during the inquisition era. You can also flash-back to the savagery exposited by the false crusaders of the 11th-13th century. You'll easily spot the difference between an infidel and a REAL christian. He is a hero and idol among the youth and the productive generation. A true paladin and crusader, an ideal representative of the faith. By all means, his canonization process should be carried out with utmost priority.
Servant of God John Paul II - The Greatest, rest in peace. May Allah/God/Yahweh smile upon you always and may the fountains of heaven endow you with sanctuary and serenity... Sorry, got a little emotional. I'm glad I visited the Vatican five years ago and got to meet him at mass. Eric July 1, 2005 19:58 (UTC)
*I was very surprised to see that list there, it's extremely POV and in some cases (Sobaka) focusing on complete side issues. If someone wants to look up links on criticism of JP2, typing that into google should suffice. In fact, I'm removing that section, because of the aforementioned reasons, plus the fact that this does not appear to be Wiki-style. Look at George Bush, Mother Teresa, Saddam Hussein. None of that there, no sense for it to be here either. Krupo July 9, 2005 19:21 (UTC)
:More comments: I dug into the talk archive to discover why that section exists. Here's the list of arguments:
----
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:  Thanks for a fine list of critics! 

message: Since Benedict XVI is considering declaring JPII a saint, and since he wrote a number of books, has there been any talk in high places of officially declaring him a doctor of the church? Michael Hardy 02:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean official proposals; I just meant opinions among informed or highly placed people about what should eventually happen.  "Eventually" would mean after canonization, if he ever gets canonized. Michael Hardy 03:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Doctor"?

message: Dear User:Taw, Let us follow wikipedia conventions.  I'm not endorsing them.  Just following them.  If you want them changed - and you could have a point - it would be better to discuss them first.  Rightly or wrongly we say His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.  Rightly or wrongly we say Servant of God of those considered  for sainthood. For example, just look at other recent Popes.  I'm reverting Taw's edit --ClemMcGann 14:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let us follow wikipedia conventions.  I'm not endorsing them.  Just following them.  If you want them changed - and you could have a point - it would be better to discuss them first.  Rightly or wrongly we say His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.  Rightly or wrongly we say Servant of God of those considered  for sainthood. --ClemMcGann 14:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Clem is correct re styles and titles. I guess it is not an area you have written about here. If you had you would be aware that styles and titles are used at the start of articles on wikipedia and long have been. It is covered in detail in the MoS and the naming conventions. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Servant of God

message: 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) 23:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a separate article on His Holiness where the style is discussed. If you have more useful information to add to that arrticle, that would be great. Because we have a separate article for the details, the style should only be briefly mentioned in this article, jguk 06:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: As I posted on Pope Benedict XVI, Here's your reason: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_prefixes.  Also see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Style War proposed solution.  You can also see Use of courtesy titles and honorifics in professional writing for an incomplete list of how honorifics are handled in other organizations.  Now please stop adding it in (and changing the in-article comment noting the compromise).  Lastly, do we really need to add "the UN" to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not? --Quasipalm 13:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Styles infobox

message: I find it very unfair that Opus Dei is tackled in this article only in the criticism section. John Paul II established Opus Dei as a personal prelature in 1982, just four years after being elected Pope and he canonized St. Josemaria in 2002, three years before ending his Pontificate. All throughout his pontificate, he supported Opus Dei as a means of pushing the theology of the laity. I find that the article is biased against Opus Dei. It is not neutral. It gives undue weight to criticism: See Wikipedia:NPOV
The universal call to holiness, which St. Josemaria and other Catholics preached about, according to Pope Paul VI who concluded and finalized the documents of Vatican II is the "most characteristic element of the entire teaching of the Council". And  John Paul II wanted to implement Vatican II through Novo Millennio Ineunte. 
As a solution, I propose to put a sentence after paragraph on the Novo Millennio Ineunte (teachings) that shows that one of the ways he tried to implement his "program for all times" (whose single most important priority is sanctity) is the canonization of many saints and the support for the prelature of Opus Dei. Marax 09:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfair treatment of Opus Dei 

message: Hmn. Opus Dei: A camel can indeed pass through the eye of a needle if God in his omnipotence wills it.  And those many mansions in God's house?  Well, some are nicer than others and are reserved....  Whatever.  I am more concerned with the characterization of Acting Person as a poor translation.  That is not the considered view of quite a few good scholars, on both sides of the debate (Did the guy know what he was talking about?).  And I really doubt Anna Theresa Tymenniecka (who was the series editor for the Analecta Husserliana at the time, and Polish) would have published a crummy translation.--djenner 01:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor Translations? Oh really?  Naaaahhhhh. 

message: Even if his father's name was exactly the same as JPII's, that does not mean that he should necessarily be called "Karol Jozef Wojtyla Jr".  This is not a "correct" English naming convention.  It is an Americanism that has no formal status whatsoever.  In any case, it only applies (if it applies at all) where the father was also a well-known person, and JP2's father was not.  There are probably thousands of cases where a celebrity has the same name as his father, and they don't automatically get called "Junior".  If JP2 was actually known as "Karol Jozef Wojtyla Jr" before his papacy, this might have some relevance.  But he wasn't, so it doesn't.  Let's have no more "Junior" rubbish, please.  JackofOz 01:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I know of several people who were named after one of their parents, and who don't use the name "junior". Ann Heneghan (talk) 07:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Junior

message: Someone please fix the enormous white space at the start of the article (Wikipedia is drowning in boxes, imho). Adam 13:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Format

message: I see someone has removed the image of the Pope with Pinochet. That was the correct decision. The photo was irrelevant. The pope as head of state when visiting a country had to meet that country's head of state, whomever they are. It is automatic and obligatory. It does not in any way amount to an endorsement, any more than George Bush meeting Queen Elizabeth means that George Bush is a monarchist, the Prince of Wales meeting Robert Mugabe at the pope's funeral meant that Charles is a marxist, or indeed that the pope meeting with President Clinton meant the pope was endorsing partial birth abortion. Removed from the context of standard diplomatic relations, the  picture was being used to give a meaning that it did not contain, namely that the Pope was endorsing Pinochet. He was no more doing that than the President of Ireland was doing so when she met him during a state visit when he as a senator was a government guest at a state dinner. She was a longterm outspoken critic of Pinochet's, but on state visits she has to follow diplomatic rules and one is that one meets with heads of state and government, and members of parliament, no matter what your personal views are about them
Abusing articles but putting non-contextualised pictures is dishonest editorialising and POV. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pinochet image 

message: The term evolution has two meanings:
#gradual appearance of forms of life over millions of years without divine intervention, i.e., unguided evolution
#same as above, but withdivine intervention
The question is which of these 2 ideas the Roman Catholic Church officially teaches.
Cardinal Schonborn says that "evolution proponents" have been trying to use "vague" papal statements as evidence that the RC church accepts unguided evolution. In a 2005 New York Times guest editorial, he clarifies this. (Whether his view is authoritative or not is an interesting related question.)
:Consider the real teaching of our beloved John Paul. While his rather vague and unimportant 1996 letter about evolution is always and everywhere cited, we see no one discussing these comments from a 1985 general audience that represents his robust teaching on nature:
:"All the observations concerning the development of life lead to a similar conclusion. The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator." 
Is there any way to read the above-quoted papal statement, other than a clear (if wordy) declaration that the "evolution" of living beings is due to "a Mind which is its inventor, its creator"?
And can this "Mind" be other than that of God?
Note carefully that I do not assert that whatever the pope says is true, is therefore true. I do not assert that this encyclopedia should endorse the pope's view and condemn unguided evolution. 
I am only saying that we should represent the Catholic teaching on "evolution" accurately. And that its teaching is at odds with Carl Sagan's definition (and the 39 Nobel prize winner's formulation) of evolution as an "unguided" process.
If we use the term "evolution" as a synonym for unguided evolution, then must not say that the RC church "accepts evolution". Uncle Ed 16:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy to have that bit removed from the article. It's not essential, and as you point out, it could be misleading. Ann Heneghan (talk) 00:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return. Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. [Aujourdhui, près dun demi-siècle après la parution de l'encyclique, de nouvelles connaissances conduisent à reconnaitre dans la théorie de l'évolution plus qu'une hypothèse.] It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.
Anyway, I think something about evolution should be in the article, and we shouldn't pretend that the Pope (or the Church) was endorsing some kind of intelligent design business - it seems clear that, if anything, JPII was rejecting such ideas, saying "truth cannot contradict truth" - that is, the theory of evolution cannot contradict the revelation of God as presented through the Bible and the Christian faith - both are true, and neither threatens the other.  This in contrast to intelligent design, which feels that, if true, evolutionary theory would prove the non-existence of God (at least, this is essentially their position, as far as I can tell). I will admite that this is not stated straight out, but it is the very clear implication of the piece.  john k 06:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Position on evolution

message: This has gotten ridiculous! Could we please come to some consensus as to which image to use in the infobox? The two contenders appear to be :Image:Pjp2c.jpg and :Image:John paul ii.jpg. I should note that neither one is definitively tagged in such a way that we actually know it to be usable here, although they're probably press photos that have been released for general use.  It would be nice if someone could find out for sure.
Absent that consideration: Either are acceptable I think, but I prefer Pjp2c.jpg. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Image 

message: An editor asked why there was no picture in the infobox. The answer is because the image that had been there was removed very recently as a probable copyvio.  The current image is completely untagged and might also be deleted at any time. If it was ultimately retrieved from some agency of the Vatican, then it's almost certainly a copyvio. It might be Fair Use, but the image description doesn't even say that. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's OK. The one that was there immediately prior was an out-and-out copyvio. (IOW, the issue wasn't they type of image used so much as having one there at all.) We'll see if this one survives. In this case, the fact that it's a low-res scan is plainly evident by the quality of the text at the bottom, and it's gotten to the point where it's pretty clear we almost can't have a picture of the man at all without using copyrighted material.  That sound bad, but really what it means is that it's somewhat easier to justify fair use. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox picture 

message: At a meeting I attended, a local Catholic priest argued that JP had not just said that Jews should be treated with respect and friendship - he argued that JP taught that Catholics and RCs were the same and that Jewish rites were valid acts of worship. An argument was that God had chosen the Jews and that God makes no mistakes and does not revoke his decisions. There are references to JP referring to Jews as "my older brothers". JP's action in inserting a written prayer into the "Wailing Wall" in Jerusalem, a very Jewish action, is seen as radical. He also argued strongly in favour improved relations and recognition of other faiths.
On the other hand, there are few references to Cardinal Wojtila (please excuse any miss-spelling) protesting against anti-semitic actions in post-war Poland, although I understand he did visit Krakow synagogue.
I don't wish to start an argument here on church v synagogue, it just seems to me that, if the above is factual, then the the article underplays the changes that JP advocated. But I don't wish to just insert this without consensus. Folks at 137 16:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Relations with Judaism