Talk:Pope John Paul II/Archive 2

message: According to the content, "several Italian media agencies reported the Pope's death at 20:20 CEST (18:20 UTC)..."  This is located "under" April 2, 2005.  However, I am certain that this occurred on April 1, 2005, instead.  The media did not "claim that the pope died" right before his actual death.  Some other content in that same paragraph may also have occurred on April 1.  --Super-Magician 00:51, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
:I have just confirmed this, as well as some info in the previous paragraph(s), as you will see (in section 13.2, Death) by clicking the following link to one of my previous edits.
:Edit by Super-Magician, as of 20:25, 2 Apr 2005
:Can someone edit it for me?  I cannot at this time, once again due to constant editing by others.  --Super-Magician 00:58, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
:*Will do. (Now done.) —Brent Dax 01:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding section 1.6, Death

message: The official cause of death was released today by the Vatican.  Has this been incorporated into the article yet?  --Super-Magician 01:15, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
*Now it has. —Brent Dax 06:44, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Official cause of death

message: Apologies to my recent edit, it appears I accidentally copied some of the start of the article, weird, damage undone - Thirdvertigo
Could you please revert times to UTC. Thanks.
Due to the breaking news of the pope's death, this article is being edited more than five times a minute.  Although I understand everyone's rush to edit, should the article be protected, at least until the adrenaline has dropped?
Also, would someone please place the following message box at the top of the article?  I am having trouble adding it due to the multiple edits.'''
-Super-Magician 20:56, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
::Done, --SqueakBox 22:36, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
:Good idea. The only edit I would like to see restored is at the end of the death paragraph, about the time:
:On 2 April, 2005 in his private apartments, at 19:37 UTC (21:37 CET), the Pope died at the age of 84. Evertype 22:14, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
*Why not simply move the existing interwiki link to the Wikinews article, which has the news, to the top of the page if you want a prominent notice in a box at the top of the article? Uncle G 22:16, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
I would like to remove the word 'Hitler' from his title. It seems bizarre that edit protection prevents me from doing this but allowed some prankster to put the word there in the first place. Something is wrong with the edit protection, I think. user:DavidFarmbrough 2nd April 2005
*m:The Wrong Version has been protected yet again, has it? ☺ Uncle G 22:58, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. It is outr ability to react to current events that gives us an edge over other encyclopedias. This page was asked to be protected at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection with no consensus. This debate has been bypassed. Please release now, --SqueakBox 22:18, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
I hate to disagree, Squeakbox, and respect your logic, whatever it may be. But the mere fact that vandals are taking their time to disrespectfully make fun of someone who has meant so  much to a large part of the world, grants the page protection, at least until the vandals can be shooed away. "Antonio Vandal Scarecrow Martin" 16:02 PM (MST), Apr 2, 2005
And lots of others just want to put in good stuff. We do need admins to block any vandals, and people to revert, that is hoiw wikipedia should deal with any vandalism; there are admins who support my view, --SqueakBox 22:32, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
As I said, I respect your view. The only thing that messes this page are the mean spirited vandals. I was just hoping that evberyone could show respect to at least this man. Say, Saddam BHussein and Osama Bin Laden, both of whom I hate, die, I wpouldnt put anything disrespecftul on their biographies, out of respect to those that liked them. "Antonio Hendrix Martin"
Realistically an Encyclopedia is not a source of breaking news.  You use it for research.  As such it is best for us to wait a little bit so that everything can be handled in a professional mannor.  Lotu 02:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Protection

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)
replies: text: This seems like as good a place as any: I've been told that the Firstname Cardinal Lastname usage is no longer proper styling, though I can't source it just now. Anyone got the appropriate stylebook in which to double check?  --Baylink 20:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It most certainly is the most formal usage,it's just that newspaper stylesheets have gotten less formal over the years.Vatican press releases may use the Cardinal Firstname Lastname format,but official Latin documents are another matter.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 20:06, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Next Pope

message: > BREAKING NEWS The pope's condition has deteriorated and he has a high fever, Vatican officials confirm to CNN. Details soon. 
"This was a moment of joy and sadness for pilgrims in St. Peter' Square and for whole world." --I am removing this sentence for NPOV reasons.  Any objections? Coreyander 00:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: breaking news

message: I heard a rumour on the street that we were in Interregnum. Someone else said that the rumor was false, that John Paul II was alive and still in the Papacy. As of yet, I haven't heard of any reports that fires are going in the Vatican.  — Rickyrab | Talk 08:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wondered about this myself funnily enough, but according to the article on papal elections this has not been done in the 20th century. — Trilobite (Talk) 13:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, for those reading this, like me, that had no idea what you were talking about, "smash his skull" would seem to be an inaccurate portrayal. Papal election describes it as "...gently striking the Pope's head with a small silver hammer...". --timc | Talk 17:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They'll strike his forehead twice, if he does not respond, they will then notify the proper Vatican office that the Pontiff has indeed passed. --Txredcoat 18:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That ceremony was abolished long ago. But just watch as journalists who haven't done their homework will tell everyone about how the ceremony was done this time. It won't be. Nor was it done with John Paul I or Paul VI. I forget if it was done with John XXIII. The ceremony went years ago, along with most of the offices in the old Papal Household, the Papal Tiara, the portable throne. Even the Swiss Guards were very nearly abolished back around 1970. But Pope Paul was overruled on that one. FearÉIREANN 22:27, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Is the Pope Dead?

message: It seems a bit premature to label the pope as dead. Perhaps we should wait until the official announcement from the Vatican? Motion to remove that statement from the main page.--Txredcoat 18:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Page 

message: To avoid frenetic editing of the encyclopedic page I suggest to separate all news, guesses about successors, etc.  into an article, kind of Events and news related to papacy or better and remove this silly "ongoing event" tag. Or better, make it into wikinews. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. And not original research. Please stop dancing over the  dead body. Mikkalai 19:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the Wikinews article upon which we are currently working before releasing upon the Pope's death. I invite anyone to help in its creation, but note that Wikinews requires sources for all facts presented in an article. Dan100 23:50, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
BTW, a couple more of reverts, and I insist on protecting the page at the version dated by March 31 (with a posible reference to "Papacy News" article) until the dust settles. Mikkalai 19:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree that as an encyclopedia and not a news wire we should wait for confirmation. It wouldn't matter if we are a day late with this - people come here for background not breaking news. However I think the current events tag exists for a reason: as we are an encyclopedia and not supposed to have everything up to the minute, at any time our articles on topics that are in the news and developing quickly may be out of date, or worded inappropriately. Having that notice lets people know that they should not expect Wikipedia to be fully up to date. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  IMO this is an insult to the common sense. By this logic, any article about a living person should bear this tag. (And after some thinking, about any industry, scientific research, etc.) This tag is specifically for articles about ongoing events, not about things or people. Mikkalai 19:27, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's for articles which contain references to things which may change over the course of hours or days. Clearly a person's death can happen at any time and the article would be out of date until someone updated it, but for articles being edited from minute to minute as this one is, in a climate of conflicting reports about what the situation is, it serves a useful purpose. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "edited from minute to minute" for current events heavily smacks of original research. That's what wikinews are for. Mikkalai 19:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and as I said, as an encyclopedia we can if we wish easily afford to sit around all week until we change the article to reflect lastest developemtns. But people do edit articles from minute to minute, and I often find articles on current events have a slightly odd tone, either because tense hasn't been changed (when the pope's death is confirmed someone will add this fact but it will be a bit longer before someone copyedits the whole article), or because people just tack developments onto the end. I agree that WikiNews is the place for minute to minute reporting, which is why we have a template to warn that we may be out of date. I don't think we are actually in disagreement over very much here. I think most of us agree that breaking news should be kept out of the article, particularly when his death isn't even confirmed yet and most news agencies appear to have backtracked. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:56, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Papacy News article 

message: In the midst of the death watch, I've been looking over the article.  In the discussion of his election, it says something along the lines of that following John Paul I's election "Wojtyla could have expected to participate in another papal election before reaching the maximum age of 80".  But wasn't this maximum age only instituted during the current reign?  That is to say, I had thought there was no maximum age for cardinals to vote as of 1978. john k 20:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election discussion 

message: I have looked everywhere on the net.  Every site says that the Pope speaks eight languages, but no one mentions which eight!  I have tried to access the official Vatican website, but it is pretty clogged due to recent news.  Can anyone find a source? - Scm83x 20:36, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Pope does indeed speak latin, as this is what traditional catholic services are conducted in.--Txredcoat 22:36, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which eight languages does the Pope speak (fluently)? 

message: As Wikipedia is not the natural home for current events, can I invite editors to work on the Wikinews article that is being prepared? Dan100 23:38, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
I'd also like to suggest reducing description of Pope's health problems and his death. Most of such description should have had been in Wikinews anyways. It is disheartening to see a large portion in this article dedicated to his dying. How do people want to remember him by: the way he dies, or his life's significant contributions to humanity? Liulk 00:48, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I'm willing to wait for a few days to get a more complete picture. Writing style that adhere to the guideline on avoiding statements that will date quickly should satisfy your concern about being outdated. Furthermore, speed updating to on-going events can cause Wikipedia to become a secondary source, which is a violation to the policy on no original research. Liulk 01:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Clearly, at some point, people had much more information about his death, since it was bombarded to us on the newspaper, television, and all sorts of media. Transplanting such an overflow of information to wikipedia is so easy to perform that it can no doubt be a work of monkeys. But how do you exactly justify that people are more interested to learn about the death? Just because every media has a coverage? Please don't confuse this to what people are interested in. If you want to dance to the majority, make sure it's the majority you're dancing with, not just some loud airheads who claim they're the majority. Maybe you're one of those airheads, I don't know. I'm glad that wikipedians have calmed down to prove I'm right. --Liulk 15:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not work on Wikinews? 

message: Someone edited that the pope died on April 2. He's not dead yet, so people, stop writing that!
*You're wrong, unfortunately. We might as well write that.  — Rickyrab | Talk 20:44, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  He's not dead yet! 

message: Whoever protected the page protected a broken version which repeats about 8 sections of the article. Grrr... — Miguel 07:59, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  If they're going to protect an article from editing they can at least protect a coherent version. (Alphaboi867 08:10, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems PMA (a recently returned admin) protected the page by request of Adam Carr, who thinks it should be protected until the pope dies. I strongly disagree with this, but I'm not about to pitch a battle (although I will unprotect if enough people desire it). I've fixed the duplication, which should have been resolved before the page was protected. -- Hadal 08:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: While I can understand the rationale, I don't think it's a good enough reason to protect the article. Was the same pre-emptive protection imposed at Terri Schiavo? That article was also a vandal magnet, but leaving it protected until she passed away would have been un-wiki, just as I believe the protection of this article is. Consider that if this article was protected earlier (say, as soon as news of the pope's grave condition broke), you would not have been able to make your edit of 07:44 GMT (seven minutes prior to protection) or any other edits in the interim. This is a "current or ongoing event", so unless there's an organised campaign of vandalism or edit warring to consider, I don't believe the article should be protected. -- Hadal 08:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah: Tom Clancy is not authoritative.  :-) --Baylink 21:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  protection of broken version 

message: Will the people who keep on adding a date of death to this article cease to do; not only is it in the height of bad taste to do so when someone is on what is probably their deathbed, it is also incorrect. (Notwithstanding the rumours that the Vatican intends to "manage" the time of occurence of the determination of the Pope's death) -- Karada 17:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to believe them when they're reporting something like this. violet/riga (t) 20:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's official. Not only have the news agencies and the vatican confirmed it, but the Cardinal Camerlengo has performed the ritual of confirming the death of the pope. April 2nd, 2005 is the correct date.--207.65.109.90 20:52, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The bells of the Vatican have rung. He's dead.  — Rickyrab | Talk 20:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not dead 

message: You will be missed, John Paul II. Godspeed and good luck, and we will one day see you again TomStar81 21:28, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Thoughts on the Popes Death

message: Does anyone know what the pope wears in private? Does he wear the robes all day long?
----
yup.FearÉIREANN 07:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Papal Wardrobe 

message: Quote: "It was not revealed who commissioned the murder attempt until late March 2005, when documents uncovered from the former Soviet states reveal that the KGB was responsible for setting up the attack."
Does anybody have any references to back this up? From what I can tell the subject of who or what was responsible or the pope's shooting is still extremely controversial. This needs to be substantiated or edited out. --Bk0 22:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Still controversial, but recently in the news.  - Nunh-huh 22:58, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged assassination sponsor 

message: The top section (above the Table of Contents) is six paragraphs, five of which are long.  At 1024x768 in an uncluttered browser window the TOC is way past the first screenful.  This really ought to be reduced. --Brent Dax 00:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved some stuff around.  How does it look now?  JYolkowski 15:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's much better now.  Thanks. —Brent Dax 04:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top section is huge 

message: Is the conclave to choose John Paul's replacement really relevant enough to this article to have a place in the top section?  There's already a separate article for it and a section listed in the TOC. —Brent Dax 12:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next conclave 

message: Vandels continue to deface the article. I vote that we put the article under protection until things calm down with the news. Damicatz 13:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock The Article? 

message: I wonder if this is POV neutral for a muslim
"His Holiness" is a title. It's not considered POV. The Dali Lama is also often referred to as "His Holines"
*Is it POV neutral for an American if the article for Queen Elizabeth II starts "Her Majesty"?  Both are styles attributed to that particular position of power.  —Brent Dax 00:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "His Holiness?" 

message: I see a section on relations between the Pope and Jews and a section on the Pope and Eastern Orthodox Christians but nothing on relations between the Pope and Islam or the Pope and the Southern Baptists. Need help! --Powergrid 01:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pope and Islam 

message: I don't know what the protocol for the Wikinews links is—should the now-outdated "Pope in medical crisis" link be removed?  (It happens to mis-render in my browser at my resolution, but that's likely specific to my machine...) —Brent Dax 05:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated Wikinews link 

message: I'm not sure if you're paying attention to the Talk page, 203.35, but if you are, thanks for sourcing the "Health" section so thoroughly. You rock. —Brent Dax 06:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Love for 203.35.154.254 

message: The following IP vandalised this page with racist content:
211.30.107.248 History (evidence)
:::Doesn't even spell Arabic correctly in transliteration. Evertype 21:28, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
I have restored the page from the most recent complete page from the history.
- Peter McGinley, 8:42 4th April 2005 (UTC)
*If only he were the first.  As discussed above, though, this article has improved immensely in the last couple of days despite the vandals; it seems to be worth the occasional 'rv' summary.  I also told 210.54 how to revert; hopefully he'll get the message. —Brent Dax 09:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, it's been getting vandalized several times an hour most hours since it hit the Main Page. Niteowlneils 22:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: The following were removed from the Criticisms section:
* The pope endorsed Chilean dictator Augustus Pinochet even though it was known that he systematically oppressed political opposition.	 
* He made Escavaria a saint, Escavaria was a fascist and friend of Franco. Protected and endorsed other Spanish Priests who stood by Francisco Francos falangist-fascist troops.
Clearly these are NPOV, but is there any truth to them at all?  If so, they should be rewritten and reintegrated, not deleted.  —Brent Dax 19:51, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pinochet is certainly a truth—he was widely criticised for appearing on the balcony with him. I would guess that Escavaria is also a truth but we need to source both. --Oldak Quill 21:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: I wonder why the adjective "unrestricted" is used before "capitalism". In his public speeches, John Paul II criticized capitalism (no qualifiers) quite harshly, and in rather old-fashioned language ("imperalistic capitalism"). Hasdrubal 21:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unrestricted capitalism 

message: Hi.  This piece of information would probably be suited for a more specific article, but since John Paul II was at the head of the Church for more than a quarter of a century, these issues have become a part of his biography, since his position on the issues were heavily criticized.  Since I've seen a "red flag go up" here on the talk page, I've decided to address this here, so that maybe something can be added to his biography later.</br>The issue at hand is the Pope's unwillingness to endorse condoms and other contraceptive methods.  The problem is that the general view of this is largely based on half-truths.  One must first understand the Church's position about sex.  What is true?  The Catholic Church condemns any method designed to prevent pregnancy.  That derives from the fact that the Catholic doctrine describes sex as a means of procriation, not pleasure.  What is wrong?  The common assertion that this position favors the spread of teenage/unwanted pregnancy and STDs, especially Aids.  The problem is that people are taking this teaching out of context.  The Chuch does not say "when having sex, don't use a condom" or "don't take the pill".  Again, we must return to the Catholic view on sex:  Sex is to be had only in marriage, between exclusive partners, who have, by then, verified that they are both free from desease (ideally), and want to have children.  In that context, the Church says "no condoms, no pill", which is merely a question of consistency (since you're supposed to have sex only if you are married and want to have children, how can you use contraceptive methods?).  Other than that, the Church advocates abstinence, the only 100% effective method to prevent pregnancy and STDs.  Premarital or adulterous sex are forbidden by the Catholic Church.</br>What the general public seems to believe is that, a teenager/young person who is having sex outside of wedlock, thus in violation of the Church's teaching, will suddenly not use a condom because that is against their faith, because of what the Church (and the Pope) says.  To make an ugly analogy, that would be like believing that a murderer, faced with three potential victims, kills the first two, but spares the third for the sole reason that it is against the law to kill.  If you are a 16 year-old having sex with your 15 year-old girlfriend, completely ignoring the Church's teachings, it is ludicrous to assume that this couple will not use a condom soly because the Church is against it.  You see, in reality, for this teenage couple, the Church is not against them using a condom, the Church is against them having sex in the first place.  If people are misinformed to the point of believing that it is all right to have premarital/adulterous sex (or even marital sex not intended for procriation ends) and the "sin" lies only in using condoms or taking the pill, that's a problem of lack of information/knowledge, which the Pope always fought.  He made it his mission to go to the ends of the Earth if needed to spread the (complete) message of the Catholic Church.</br>John Paul II defended this canon throughout his papacy, because he believed that the Church's commitment is first and formost with the truth, not social trends.  The Church cannot endorse condoms and pills because it does not admit premarital/adulterous sex, or even marital sex that is not aimed at procriation.  The Pope always understood that people will have sex nonetheless, but he also knew that one of the main purposes of religion is to shape human behavior, not adapt to it.  Of course people will continue to have sex, and sadly some will still face untimely pregnancies, as well as STDs.  But it is a falacy to place any of the blame for that on the Church's teachings (and John Paul II's position), for if the Church was actually heard, STDs would vanish from the Earth and no one would get pregnant if they didn't want to.  Regards, Redux 22:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That criticism existed, we must report.  It is also our duty, however, to provide the evidence that the critism was built on a falacy, and therefore is unworthy of serious consideration.  After all, how much prestige can we bestow on a theory that is constructed on a misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of the very object it means to criticize? Regards, Redux 03:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Pope and Catholic doctrine 

message: Does anybody have something to say about the Pope's (or his Church's) role during the Rwandan genocide?--Error 01:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rwanda

message: 1) What is the NPOV dispute about?
2) Can we lay off the editing for a few days?  We're gonna kill the system. --Kitch 01:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected, and why the NPOV? (4-5-05 UTC) 

message: "According to a New York Post article of February 19, 2002, John Paul II personally performed three exorcisms during his tenure as pope."--We're using the New York Post as a primary source?!? Niteowlneils 17:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Exorcisms?

message: I think this sentence at the top is grossly misleading, as many believe he turned his back on Vatican II; his conservative approach ignored many directives from the council. When and why was this sentence introduced?
His personal mission as Pope, the chief leader and teacher of Catholics worldwide, was to implement the lessons of the Second Vatican Council, emphasizing the universal call to holiness and the Church's role in a modern world.
*I'm not really sure why it was added; it snuck in a couple days ago.  It seems like an empty statement, even if it's true, so I wouldn't mind seeing it removed. —Brent Dax 23:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implementing Vatican II? 

message: The Associated Press is reporting that the Pope was unable to speak at all during his death.  (This is according the the Pope's doctor).
John Paul's personal physician told La Repubblica newspaper that the Polish-born pope "passed away slowly, with pain and suffering which he endured with great human dignity."
"The Holy Father could not utter a single word before passing away," said Dr. Renato Buzzonetti. "Just as happened in the last days he could not speak, he was forced to silence."
Later that day, Vatican sources announced that John Paul II had been given the Anointing of the Sick (formerly known as Last Rites) of the Roman Catholic Church, the first time that the pontiff had received the sacrament since the 1981 assassination attempt on his life. ---> I believe he also had this blessing when he had surgeries during the early 1990s. -- (anonymous) 01:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Death-Factual Accuracy

message: I propose that we follow the example set by editors of Rainier III article which re-organizes the text in a manner befitting an encyclopedia. For example, something like so:
:John Paul II, 264th Pope of the Roman Catholic Church (Karol Józef Wojtyła) (18 May 1920 – 2 April 2005) styled His Holiness the Bishop of Rome, ruled the Vatican and the Church for nearly 26 years.
Adraeus 07:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restatement of introduction 

message: The current introduction is written as:
::John Paul II, 264th Pope of the Roman Catholic Church (Karol Józef Wojtyła (18 May 1920 – 2 April 2005) styled His Holiness the Bishop of Rome, ruled the Vatican for nearly 27 years, from 16 October 1978, until his death.
::He was widely recognized as a religious leader and a world leader. His personal mission as Pope, the chief leader and teacher of Catholics worldwide, was to emphasize the universal call to holiness and the Church's role in a modern world. He spoke out against communism, materialism, imperialism, unrestrained capitalism and oppression, and firmly opposed abortion, capital punishment, homosexuality, and contraception.
I'm not so sure "ruled the Vatican" is quite the correct terminology to describe his authority.  He was more than that.  And he did not oppose "homosexuality" per se.  Rather, he opposed the act of homosexual sex.  He was instrumental in the crafting the USCCB's "Always Our Children" statement that pressured parents of homosexuals to accept their children and not abandon them over the issue of homosexuality.  He maintained that homosexuals were children of God, too, and were not to be "hated" or "abused."  Pope John Paul II advocated that homosexuals maintain loving friendships without sex and plead that homosexuals were loved by God and called to celibacy.
I might not agree with his stances on homosexuality, but he did not "firmly oppose" it. That's too strong of a term to use to describe how he truly felt about the issue. --Gerald Farinas 18:38, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The view that sincere belief that homosexual acts ought never to be engaged in by anyone is intrinsically an expression of hatred toward those who want to engage in such acts is frankly ridiculous to me.Are laws against stealing institutionalized bigotry against kleptomaniacs?The issue here is one of to what extent people are entitled to gratify their desires,and the answer is not limitless license.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 20:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is not what Louis Epstein thinks...that's well-known from his anti-gay screeds on USENET. The issue is what was JP2's stance, and that of the Church under him. I think "opposing homosexuality" is a fair and actually quite mild description of that stance. - Outerlimits 20:29, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Homosexuality and the intro paragraph

message: The comment 263rd successor of Saint Peter in the box on the right-hand side is problematic (minor) for two reasons:
* I checked the two previous popes, and it isn't in their box.  Seems like these should be consistent.
* "Successor of Saint Peter" is POV.  The majority of Protestants do not accept that he was the bona-fide successor of St. Peter.  Many would dispute whether St. Peter had any successors at all.  I believe the Eastern Orthodox would disagree, as well.  For that matter, identifying him as the 263rd could be POV even among Catholics: there were anti-popes in the past, and someone might quarrel with the declarations as to which line was the "official" line of successors, and there are sedevacantists today who believe he is not a valid successor.
I cannot see how this comment can ever possibly be NPOV.  I'm going to change it to "263rd Pope."  Someone wanting consistency should probably either eliminate it or add corresponding comments to the box for the other Popes. Jdavidb 19:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The (N)th Pope is considered (N-1)th successor of St. Peter as Bishop of Rome.Whether being Bishop of Rome qualifies a man to appoint/approve all other Bishops is the substance of the Protestants' argument,unless you are saying that the historicity of the recorded line of bishops is doubtful?--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 20:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: My point is that it is glaringly obvious that Saint Peter has been succeeded as Bishop of Rome,the Protestants' argument rests on what powers rest in the office in which these men have succeeded Peter.I believe Cantus was picking on my edit,not yours...he thinks it's "vandalism" to give the Pope's full style rather than the extremely misleading abbreviation "His Holiness the Bishop of Rome",which I've never seen anywhere.--Louis E./12.144.5.2 20:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: The Catholic Encylopedia differs from what the Vatican officially reports.  Pope Stephen II died three days after being elected and isn't counted by the Vatican.  I've put 264 back.  JYolkowski 21:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pope assume office on acceptance of election and being a bishop. Hence the reason it's in our own List of Popes & in Catholic Encylopedia. If we're going to decide otherwise about counting him, then we're going need to change all articles we have about Popes, papal election, & list of Popes etc. Listing him in List of Popes and not then counting him in this article is just plain inconsistence. -- KTC 21:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We should go with the offical count though.  I'll update List of popes as well.  JYolkowski 21:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Oops, forgot to edit that one. -- KTC 21:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Either way,remember that a "Pope" number must always be one more than the same person's "successor to Saint Peter" number.--L.E./12.144.5.2 21:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  263rd successor of Saint Peter