Talk:Pope Paul VI/Archive 1

message: "A man of many virtues" is hardly NPOV.  -- Zoe
:It's as NPOV as describing the Grand Canyon as Magnificent. This NPOV business is getting on my wick just a bit. It's being used all over the place to stifle descriptive writing, and that's not the intention of it. Arcturus 18:25, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Many Virtues" NPOV? 

message: ===The photograph===
The picture of Paul VI meeting the Archbishop of Canterbury - surely that's Michael Ramsay in the picture and not his predecesor - isn't it? Arcturus 18:25, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right about your concerns, that's actually Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher, not Michael Ramsey. Fisher was no longer Archbishop of Canterbury when Paul VI became Pope. This image needs some corrections. -- Shauri 15:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: The account at this page is wrong. It was Pope John XXIII who first met the Archbishop of Canterbury after 400 years, who was at the time Geoffrey Fisher. Paul VI would later meet with Archbishop Arthur Ramsey, becoming the second Pope to meet with the Anglican Archbishop, not the first one. I'm editing that error now. -- Shauri 14:59, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul and the Archbishop of Canterbury 

message: The picture of Paul VI meeting the Archbishop of Canterbury - surely that's Michael Ramsay in the picture and not his predecesor - isn't it? Arcturus 18:25, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right about your concerns, that's actually Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher, not Michael Ramsey. Fisher was no longer Archbishop of Canterbury when Paul VI became Pope. This image needs some corrections. -- Shauri 15:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The photograph

message: This article says "Pope Paul became the first pope to meet an Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury", but the article on John XXIII says "He met the Most Rev. Geoffrey Francis Fisher, the Archbishop of Canterbury, for about an hour in the Vatican on December 2, 1960. It was the first time in 400 years, since the excommunication of Elizabeth I, that Canterbury had met with the Pope." So, which one's correct? -- Chowbok 01:09, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The account at this page is wrong. It was Pope John XXIII who first met the Archbishop of Canterbury after 400 years, who was at the time Geoffrey Fisher. Paul VI would later meet with Archbishop Arthur Ramsey, becoming the second Pope to meet with the Anglican Archbishop, not the first one. I'm editing that error now. -- Shauri 14:59, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Pope Paul became the first pope to meet an Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury"?

message: The first section above is a long debate from 2003.  It replicates arguments that have been held on Usenet hundreds of times.  I propose we delete it.  Objections?  Lawrence King 09:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion is, nevertheless, quite interesting and in-depth. People must have taken pains to compose all the arguments. It shouldn't be deleted just because it's 2 years old now.
When I wrote about this I didn't understand archiving.  It has now been archived, solving this problem.Lawrence King 03:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of first section? 

message: This guy worked together with the CIA when he was archbishop of Milan, according to a CIA agent:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/interviews/episode-3/wyatt5.html
INTERVIEW WITH MARK WYATT, 15/2/96 (CIA Agent in Italy)
MW: Yes, we did have liaison with the civic committees and we did support them. There are many examples actually of support to Catholic leaders that had problems and wanted help, particularly in the north of Italy, in the big industrial centres of Milan and Turin. And I must say that the men that I knew who were bishops or archbishops - it went to the top. The Archbishop of Milan I knew personally, and he needed something which was very important in the big election coming up, and when he later became the Pope. I mean, I don't think he ever talked about it. He's long gone now, but a most remarkable man. You know, the Church did not directly involve itself, but they realised that if they didn't win the critical elections, that they really wanted to contact the Americans for support, and they got it. Civic committees - yes, we helped.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.235.66.182 (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIA 

message: The article on Pope John XXIII states in regard to Pope Paul VI (Giovanni Montini):  "Though he was named to head one of the most ancient and prominent archdioceses in Italy, Pius had refused to elevate Montini to the rank of cardinal."
But the article on Pope Paul VI says of Pope Paul VI:  "To the surprise of many, Montini never received the red hat (as the appointment to the cardinalate is often called) before Pope Pius's death in 1958; what was not known was that at the Secret Consistory in 1952 Pope Pius revealed that Montini had declined the cardinalate."
I have no certainty which of these is correct, but presumably one OR the other is, and this should be made consistent by someone who does know.  [My money's on paragraph 2.]  BTW, these Pope articles are fascinating, have turned my into an instant Wiki fan.  Thank you all.
Best wishes to all in Wikiland,
Andy Hansen
:My guess is that this is a matter that historians disagree about.  But I can offer one slight piece of evidence.
:
:John Allen, a great reporter for the (otherwise lousy) National Catholic Reporter, recently wrote a great article on papal elections.  It includes the following bit:
:
::In the Novemdiales of 1958, for example, curial Cardinal Giuseppe Pizzardo went to visit the patriarch of Venice, Cardinal Angello Roncalli, on Oct. 17, to ascertain his position on one of the most highly charged issues of that conclave -- what the new pope would do about Archbishop Giovanni Battista Montini of Milan, who had been exiled from Pius XII's curia. Roncalli, never the naif some took him for, gave a reassuring response: "How could a man be secretary of state when he is not desired by the cardinals of the curia?" he said.  Roncalli went on to be elected pope, and honored his old friendship with Montini in another way, making Montini his first appointment as a cardinal.   -- From 
:
:This suggests that Allen believes your Paragraph 1 above.
:
:There is a huge biography of Paul VI by Peter Hebblethwaite that I would like to consult to resolve this issue and the Hamlet issue.  It was at our church library but I looked for it today and couldn't find it....
:
:Lawrence King 06:58, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disparity regarding Paul VI in articles on Paul VI and John XXIII 

message: Since Paul VI's holiness is under scrutiny for beatification, since his official title is thus "Servant of God," since that title is in official usage by the Church (as documented above by addresses of John Paul II; and documented elsewhere), since "Servant of God," like "Saint," "Blessed," and "Venerable" supercedes any other such lesser honorific, i.e. "His Holiness," etc., bestowed upon a living Pope and not in general use since his death (again, see documented addresses above), since it imparts relevant information, since he was a former leader of the Catholic Church and should thus be titled as such requires and deems official and proper, since there is Wikipedia precedent and gerneral conformity on the issue (see above): I propose that the title within this article be modified to the proper and official Church title of Paul VI, "The Servant of God Pope Paul VI."
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.77.46.30 (talk) 20:13, 13 July 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) 23:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Styles infobox 

message: I just substantially edited this section. It originally began "towering over his pontificate is his most controversial decision"  which is POV. (Erm, what about Paul VI on the liturgy, celibacy and so on?) What is undeniable is the enormous dissent to Humanae Vitae. I could not find a decent online source for the statistics. (I had rather high hopes for the National Catholic Reporter IIRC that paper together with the Tablet broke the story of the 'Majority Report'.) I suspect there has been no international study and one would have to combine studies from the US, the UK etc.
I can find no reference to the story of John Paul I's encounter with the United Nations and alleged disapproval of Humanae Vitae. I give notice that unless contrary reason appears I will delete the sentence altogether. Stroika 21:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nealry a month has gone by, time for the JP I reference to go. Stroika 14:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humanae Vitae 

message: Nothing controversial, it's just that the Edit Summary doesn't have enough space to explain what I did.
The following section, "Pilgrim Pope," contained a redundant paragraph repeating, almost word-for-word, the contents of this section. (It did have better links, though.) It also had the Paul-Ramsey meeting.
I combined the two Athenagoras paragraphs, and moved the Ramsey information to where it seems better located.
No big deal. B00P 20:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Athenagoras 

message: ::Many Religious Right Groups have dubbed Pope Paul VI one of twelve (12) Antichrists: among them are Nero, Domitian, Decius, Valerian Diocletian, Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Kurt Waldheim, Willy Brandt, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. The Twelfth, according to Theologins, will give Birth to End Times or Armageddon.
This seems out of place in the Footnotes section, and is uncited. I recommend removal. MKV 04:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks to me like vandalism that escaped notice. It should be deleted immediately. LotR 13:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. MKV 16:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Christ? 

message: I think tldm.org (article links to it with link text 'Claims that Pope Paul VI was 'replaced' by an imposter in 1972') is a satanic-twisted paranoia-inducing tabloid from the pit of hell that promotes both general fear and paranoia and bible-thumping judgemental religion (fundamental catholicism) both at the same time.  tldm.org has a 'directives from heaven' section that has many quotations from a false christ.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by GreatInca (talk • contribs) 22:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think tldm.org is satanic 

message: I changed the clause "Though modernist liberals viewed him as the person who would have succeeded Pope Pius, since Montini was not a member of the College of Cardinals" to "Although some viewed him as a person who might have succeeded Pope Pius, since Montini was not a member of the College of Cardinals" as this is very much POV language. (Ie, "modernist liberals" is fightin' words.) Jhobson1 15:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modernist liberals? 

message: I'm sure that some parts of this could stand improvement with regards to referencing. Nevertheless, it seems to me that this is one of the most thoroughly referenced articles I've run across. My compliments to all contributing editors who participated! Student7 (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Observation on article references 

message: Quotations in Wikipedia are denoted with double quotations marks ("), and are not italicised. See Wikipedia:MOS#Italics. Date linking is now discouraged -- see MOS:SYL. Also, there is no need to link plain English words or the same words repeatedly -- see WP:OVERLINK. Ground Zero | t 04:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I caught that change on Special:RecentChanges, and proceeded to change all dates to the day month year format. Please ping me on my talk page if the format change was unwanted. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 04:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: did the pope stop mass to hear someones confession?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.105.97 (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  pope paul vi 

message: It would be a good thing if a separate article existed with the title Pope Paul VI and the Vietnam War. It would fit in nicely with the :Category:Pope Paul VI. ADM (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds interesting - but is there enough material? Is it a notable enough issue to warrant its own article? I can't imagine it was a huge focus of his papacy. But interested to hear otherwise.Contaldo80 (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnam War 

message: Another interesting thing would be to create an article about Pope Paul VI and Judaism in order to desribe his relations with the Jews during and after the Second Vatican Council. There are already similar articles on Pope John XXIII and Judaism and Pope John Paul II and Judaism. ADM (talk) 12:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relations with Jews 

message: Ratlines_(history)#Vatican_involvement Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? Paradoctor (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratline involvement? 

message: The map showing Paul VI's travels (File:Foreign trips of Paul VI.png) is modern, showing all the ex-Soviet, ex-Yugoslavia, post-communism countries... Paul VI lived before the fall of the Berlin Wall, when there was still USSR, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, East and West Germany... -- Optimus Prymesince 2007 13:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map anachronism 

message: Should the Anglican section be merged with the Protestant one? I know not all protestants are Anglican but surely all Anglicans are protestants. Plus it would be neater.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.1.136 (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I object. Not all Anglicans are Protestants.  Many Anglo-Catholics, in particular, are rather insistent that they are not. Tb (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglicanism 

message: This map has four errors which need to be corrected.
* The first two are rather confusing.  You may want to read the Wikipedia article on Bangladesh for further clarification.  In 1970, Pope Paul VI visited the city of Dacca, Pakistan.  However Dacca is now Dhaka and is the capital city of Bangladesh.  When the Pope visited Dacca, it was located in the part of Pakistan that was then known as East Pakistan. After the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971, East Pakistan broke away from Pakistan and became the seperate nation of Bangladesh.  Therefore, Pakistan should NOT be colored yellow on this map and Bangladesh SHOULD be colored yellow.
* Jordan was visited by Pope Paul VI in 1964.  It SHOULD be colored yellow.
* France was NOT visited by Pope Paul VI during his papacy.  It should NOT be colored yellow.
Mtminchi08 (talk) 03:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of Pope Paul VI's travels needs to be corrected 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 01:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: Both are used here. Which is correct? 68.146.52.234 (talk) 02:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "Blessed Pope" is correct. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Elizium23 (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pope Blessed or Blessed Pope? 

message: POV selection, should be removed. Xx234 (talk) 11:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  His pontificate happened during many significant world events 

message: This is a peculiar construct. I wonder if it is reflected in the offline source. An archbishop is only in charge of one diocese. An archdiocese does not "contain" the suffragan dioceses in the province. They are headed by other bishops. The authority of an archdiocesan bishop over suffragans is mostly ceremonial and very weak in reality. So I would not support the reversion of this passage back to the plural form of "departed for his dioceses", unless of course that is what is described in the source and the accompanying demographic information of 1000 churches, etc. Elizium23 (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dioceses plural 

message: Should his longtime boyfriend Paolo Carlini be mentioned, given that Peyrefitte in 1975 referred to him, and now since the death of both of them it is openly referenced. Engleham (talk) 03:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Papal Homosexuality 

message: Most of this article must have been produced by the Vatican. It's possibly the most one-sided biography I've read on Wikipedia. Even the tone makes you cringe. DeCausa (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a hagiography 

message: On this page it says Paul VI donated his papal tiara to an American Christian group, while on the page for Papal inauguration it says it was sold.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.8.91.38 (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sold or Donated Tiara? 

message: I thought this was here before. It should be added, because it's a fairly well-known conspiracy theory, and part of the cultural interpretations regarding him.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.74.25 (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should add Pope VI imposter theory, or link to article on it, if exists 

message: Shouldn't this sentence read "Future Popes ..." to avoid confusion? Or is there some kind of Catholic tradition that says once a pope, then they always were a pope, even into the past? Sort of how we refer to American presidents I assume.. -- œ™ 08:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: "Popes John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI were made cardinals during his papacy."

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pope Paul VI. 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/20041111093922/http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=38825 to http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=38825
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) 22:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pope Paul VI. 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/20150403101342/http://www.morcelliana.it/eng/MENU_NUOVO/OUR_HISTORY/67551.html to http://www.morcelliana.it/eng/MENU_NUOVO/OUR_HISTORY/67551.html
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) 22:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is there a reason that section 4.6.1 New diplomacy is a subsection of 4.6 Attempted assassination? Or was this an error in creation of the section? I could see making it a subsection if it was somehow a result of the assassination attempt, or was related to it, but there's no indication of this in the text.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:8480:3343:6597:920C:D42A:EA8C (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "New diplomacy" as subsection of "Attempted assassination"? 

message: This may be true, but it needs a source or reference here, in this article.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venerated in Palmarian Catholic Church 

message: should probably be 26 Sept 2014-2018, as the May 20 date became effective upon announcement in Feb.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  feast day 

message: *The introductory photo in our Pope Paul VI article did, at one time, show Pope Paul VI in a white robe, but the tint on this poor reproduction of an official picture gives the appearance of pink garments.  We have more accurate versions in our gallery of photographs of Paul the Sixth.  Mandsford 18:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Pink Pope