Talk:Pope John Paul II/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Thoughts

20-08-05 User:AlfredG I just thought I'd change one element of the grammar since in English, one is not diagnosed 'with' an illness but rather 'as having' it.

Well, this isn't worth getting into a revert war, but in American English one is too "diagnosed with" a disease. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

So too in my native Canadian, I ain't no Anglophile but 'diagnosed with' don't make no sense, can't help how I grew up now. User:AlfredG

"Diagnosed as having" sounds needlessly complicated while at least (as has been said) "diagnosed with" makes perfect grammatical sense to my American English-biased ear. While it has been said this isn't worth getting into a revert war over, I would caution to not ignore consensus that does not agree with your opinions. If it is relevant, "diagnosed with" yields about 16,000,000 results on Google while "diagnosed as having yields about 927,000. Theshibboleth 05:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for a fine list of critics!

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) P.S. We need to write about his works -- he was a scholar, and left a lot of work. Right now, we're just writing about stuff that's been in the news. It'd be good to have an article that thoroughly dealt with his writings, of which there many.

You know, I sorta think that a "criticisms" section is out of bounds. It seems to me that an encyclopedia should be a "just the facts" kind of place. Sure, it's a fact that there were criticisms. But, is that really what someone is looking for if they query Wikipedia on JPII. Not to say that we should only report rosy things about JPII, either, but it does seem like it's going too far in the other direction of POV. For me, I want to know what happened, who the guy was, in a nutshell. If I want to know more, I can pick up a book. Is it Wikipedia's goal to actually present every side of every story? I admit I'm new here so if it is then I'll pipe down. But, I just feel like people want to try and leaven the nice things being said about the man. I suppose if it's really salient, then, okay. But, the fact is, I think, that he seems to have done far more right than wrong. Or maybe I'm biased.  :-) Gurp13 06:20, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It might be better to integrate the criticisms into the body of the article, but I think it will be many years before it will be possible to make a cool assessment of him. In the meantime, having a separate criticisms section is probably the best we can do.-gadfium 06:37, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The criticisms section is totally in-bounds, as frankly his faults should be pointed out and displayed. I wouldn't have a problem integrating it with the rest of the article, but it would be POV to remove them enitrely. The point is to have a neutral point of view on every topic, not to be biased or to try and exhibit some sort of preference for any viewpoint. Titanium Dragon 01:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Until someone takes the time to integrate this section into the main text it must be kept. The article is already pushing the limits of POV as it is, in places it is almost openly eulogistic (I have tried to remedy this where possible). If this section were to be removed the article's credibility would be severely damaged. Rje 15:18, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

---

I've read through the article and concluded that the necessary changes have been addressed; that was three months ago and since then there have been hundreds of edits that have given the chance to make the article much more NPOV, in particular, an actual criticism section now exists, the links are obsolete. Krupo 19:34, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Globetrotter

Took out 'In the year 2000, Pope John Paul II was named an "Honorary Harlem Globetrotter."' from the "Pope for youth" section. It's already under "Other" and I don't think it has much to do with his being the Pope for youth. --User:Jenmoa 8 July 2005 04:08 (UTC)

Support for dictators?

One charge sometimes leveled at John Paul II was that his opposition of Communism led him to supportanti-Marxist right-wing dictators. John Paul II occasionally met with dictators such as Augusto Pinochet of Chile. John Paul II invited Pinochet to restore democracy, but, critics claim, not in as firm terms as the ones he used against communist countries.

I think it is silly to argue that, because he met with them, he "supported" right-wing dictators. Didn't he also meet with Fidel Castro and Gorbatchov? LeoDV 16:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You are correct. The claim is ludicrously POV and agenda-laiden. For a start the statement that he "occasionally met with dictators such as Augusto Pinochet of Chile" is blatently mischevious and dishonest. Of course he met him. Love him or loathe him (and I am firmly in the loathe category) Pinochet was at that time the constitutional head of state of Chile. John Paul was the head of state of the Holy See on a visit to Chile. So he had to meet him. Heads of state cannot pay visits to a country and not meet the local head of state. Similarly he met the divorced Ronald Reagan, though he is opposed to divorce, the protestant Queen Elizabeth II though he was opposed to Protestantism, the Communist president of Poland though he was opposed to communism. And if Ireland had elected David Norris as president in 1997 or 2004, he would have to have met him even though David is gay and the Pope was anti-gay. Who he met as head of state is utterly irrelevant: it was part of his job description to meet them. It is like saying that everyone who edits a page on communism on Wikipedia is by a communist.

Either the person who wrote that sentence hasn't a clue how inter-state diplomatic relations are carried out, or they do but wrote the rubbish anyway just to be mischevious and push their agenda.

I have deleted that utterly irrelevant sentence. FearÉIREANNFile:Tricolour.gif\^(caint) 17:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the entire paragraph because it seemed POV and untrue to me. I've heard all kinds of criticism against JP2 but support for right-wing dictatorships is not one. LeoDV 17:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Photo caption

So, that book the Pope is kissing... is it the Qur'an or not? android79 20:58, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• This keeps getting reverted back and forth... which is it? android79 04:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

All I can say is that pattern on the cover looks like nothing on any Gospel book I've ever seen. Surely this is a press photo of some kind, so shouldn't there be a traceable source for it that can say definitively one way or the other? This is also the only place I've ever seen it asserted that this was a Gospel. What is the source relied on by the editor who placed the photo? It is contradicted universally, as far as I can tell.

Incidentally, the image page for this photo lacks any copyright information or statement of public domain. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if you'll consider this a valid enough source, but here's a site that states it is the Koran. [1] Thought it might be helpful.Stanselmdoc 13:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I've seen that site before, but I think one without an axe to grind might be more credible. Elsewhere on the site it has a picture of Paul VI wearing a reliquary of the 12 Apostles but captioned as the breastplate ("rationale") of the Jewish high priest, and condemns every single encounter of JPII with any world or religious leader it dislikes as though an meeting bestowed approval. I don't think we can rely on it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Here's another source (not tied to pic, however). Niteowlneils 15:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Forgot the link, I think. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

How about this as a compromise, at least until we get a definitive answer on this:

This picture is believed by many to show the late Pontiff kissing the Qu'ran. Others, however, maintain that it in fact shows John Paul reverencing a Book of the Gospels.

Or something to that effect? --User:Jenmoa 06:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

That would seem reasonable if the fact of the matter was in fact ambiguous. Have those who insist that's a Gospel book actually provided any citations to support their point of view? If not, I see no reason to compromise. All the evidence appears to be on one side. (It hardly seems worthwhile to mention any citations for the point of view that says it's a Qur'an. This Google search provides dozens.)

For the record, I personally don't care one way or the other. I have no axe to grind on this particular issue. I just think that a citation should be provided, especially since the record seems so one-sided here in the other direction. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

True. I'd have to say, it doesn't make sense that the Pope would just be reverencing the Book of Gospels while standing next to a Muslim leader. But maybe for the sake of not having it reverted and re-reverted we ought to change it unless the reverting dies down soon. =\ Meh. Thanks for the sources, though. :) --User:Jenmoa 07:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a picture of John Paul II kissing the Koran. It is not out of any sign of reverence or respect, the book was a gift and is kissing the book from tradition. -- --68.171.249.134 04:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. X) Got a source for it so we can link it? That'd be great. --User:Jenmoa 06:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC) hoo, boy, it's late....

It's cited here -- scroll down to "When the Pope Kissed the Koran" -- but that writer doesn't offer much in the way of explicit citation himself. Perhaps there's someone familiar with Arabic culture who can positively confirm the existence of this custom either way? TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Here is another source. I'm not going to re-append the information though, I'm still not convinced, as the dates and occassions are not stated. And I question the free-use and copyright conditions of the photograph as well. Could someone do some research and report back? For now, the picture and statement stay off the article, but I do support placing it back if the cited sources DO turn out to be true... Eiríkr Rauði 17:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Another source, seems reliable. Scroll down to read about the Qur'an factoid. I am convinced pretty much. Maybe we can add it now? Eiríkr Rauði 17:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

"Doctor"?

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)

He cannont be declared a doctor of the church until after canonization. so no. Mac Domhnaill 05:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

Servant of God

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)

I see that someone else removed the "Servant of God" in the first sentence. So, as there are at least 4 people involved now, I'll reply to your and Jtdirl's claims here, instead of your and Jtdirl's talk pages.

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)

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)

So my position is:

• As it's uncommon to refer to JP2 with title "Servant of God", it should not start the article. (I think that's the most important point) (=strong against)
• Titles like "Servant of God" are strongly biased. (=strong against)
• Therefore, considering only this specific article and not any policies and traditions, the first sentence should not start with "Servant of God".

And:

• Naming conventions refers only to names of the articles, not to their openings, but it clearly says that such titles should not be used. (=weak against)
• Manual of style is only a guideline, not a policy, therefore we don't need to follow it if there are some important reasons not to (and there are)
• The section of WP:MoS you're referring to is marked as disputed. Therefore it doesn't even count as a guideline. (=weak for)
• The dispute over the MoS guideline is exactly about the same thing as this disagreement.
• There is no wiki tradition of starting articles with such honorifics, unless it's common to refer to the person with them (unless it's a very recent tradition, I've been here from the first year, and we definitely did not do so then) (=weak against)
• Therefore starting article from "Servant of God" has little or no support in policies, guidelines and traditions, and the decision should be based on specifics of the particular case

And finally:

• In this case, the balance is against the SoG
• There's nothing wrong with writing about it somewhere in the first paragraph. In fact, it'd be very relevant to do so.

Taw 03:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, the dispute is already done with. Well, so just ignore this. ;-) Taw 03:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Styles infobox

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)

Because people do not necessarily know what a style box is, or what the curt info contained there is about, and because popes are referred to as "His Holiness" in informal and formal settings by Catholics and non-Catholics, including at the UN, including all documents issue by a pope, this ought to be explained in the text - and it will be. Putting this common usage to the side as if everyone understands it and it is not worthy of mention is simply POV to an extreme degree. I will be adding it back unless someone comes up with some exlanation as to why such important information must be sequestered to a sidebar. Referring to someone by such a lofty title is odd - it ought to be explained. 214.13.4.151 05:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

You have made up a new rule that is NOT part of the style manual link you point to regarding this controversy. The rule in effect starting August 2005 simply does not allow the article to begin with the honorific, and adds a style box. It does not demand that the article cannot discuss the nature of the honorific and when it is used in the main text. That is your preference, but not the wiki rule. I presume you did not intend to misread the rule - but you did misread it. I will be adding a brief comment to the article (a discussion of the honorific and when, why and how it is used). I know you may not like it, but the unique way a person is addressed every day of their lives, and a form of address that is so lofty, is certainly not something to ignore or cast aside in a style box. 214.13.4.151 14:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC) Here is an excerpt from the style section you pointed to:

• Because of major controversies over their usage in pages on royalty and popes, as of August 2005 a new policy was agreed following a discussion.
  • Styles would not be used to open articles on royalty and popes. So the article on Pope Benedict XVI would no longer begin "His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI . . . " nor the article on Queen Victoria begin "Her Majesty Queen Victoria . . ."
  • Instead a special graphic known as an infobox, giving the official, spoken and alternative versions of a style for a member of a royal family or pope, would be included in the article.

Unfair treatment of Opus Dei

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)

Poor Translations? Oh really? Naaaahhhhh.

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)

Junior

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)

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)

Format

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)

Pinochet image

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)

Position on evolution

The term evolution has two meanings:

1. gradual appearance of forms of life over millions of years without divine intervention, i.e., unguided evolution
2. 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." [2]

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)

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)

My understanding is that Schönborn has since backed down. At any rate, I think the problem comes with the idea of what "guided evolution" means. Does it mean intelligent design or something similar? Or does it just mean "evolution, as believed by scientists, except that we believe that God was guiding it in some undisclosed and unexplicable to science way." Other than Schönborn, who toyed with intelligent design, I think it's clear that the Church's current version of "guided evolution" means the second. Which is basically indistinguishable from unguided evolution, imo. Basically, as I understand it, the Church's position is that modern science does not conflict with church teachings. Thus, believing in evolution, as understood by modern science (that is to say, not intelligent design), is not against church teachings. As far as I understand it, the Church does not officially endorse evolution, because there is no reason that it ought to - is there church doctrine about, say, gravity? The whole god-guided/non-god-guided question in evolution is essentially irrelevant - it is just the difference between theism and atheism. If you believe in God, and believe in evolution, presumably you believe that God was involved in evolution in some way. But the religious beliefs have nothing to do with what you believe about evolution itself. I'm not sure this makes any sense, but I think we should be very careful not to accept Schönborn's statements (which try to elide the distinction between the pseudo-scientific theory of intelligent design and the much vaguer theological idea of God having some role in the evolution of life on earth) as representing in any form official church policies on evolution. john k 05:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW, here's an interesting blog post on Francisco de Ayala, a Dominican priest and biology professor at UC-Irvine, and his views about evolution and the church. The blog writer summarizes Ayala's point about current church teachings as follows "The current official Catholic teaching, as enunciated by John Paul II, is that Darwin's theory is one of the supreme accomplishments of the human mind and in no way contrary to Scripture. The Austrian Cardinal who tried to challenge that view just took it back, apparently having been slapped down by Pope Benedict." And here's a link to a Scientific American blog post which quotes an AP article about comments from the Vatican in favor of scientific reason and evolution; here's the full AP article; and here's Schönborn himself backing away from his statement. john k 05:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Given the lengthy citations, I think it would behoove Ed to respond if he still thinks that the mention of support for evolution should not be in the article. BTW, here are JP II's comments on evolution, from 1996. It seems pretty clear that a) evolution is established science; and b) that evolution does not contradict the idea that humans are specially chosen by God, because scientific inquiry cannot provide information about spiritual subjects. This seems to me to be a fairly clear embrace of evolution. Note, specifically:

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)

Infobox Image

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)

Both, from the look, seem to be part of an official portrait series released by the Vatican. They do that with all popes. So they would qualify 100% as fairuse. The Pjp2c image is of better quality so should be used. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Jan_Pawel_II.jpg

This image is a re-upload of Image:Papa Giovanni Paulo II.jpg which is currently tagged with {{imagevio}}. I feel, in any event, that a formal portrait should be used for the infobox and more candid images such as this one should go elsewhere in the article, assuming they're otherwise available. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree 100%. AnnH ^(talk) 00:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not a re-upload of Image:Papa Giovanni Paolo II.jpg It was found at www.fuocovivo.org and I changed the contrast and cropped it a bit. I am trying to find a place to put it in the article, but am not good at it. Instead I am butchering it constantly, but I am trying. Please help me find a way to put this picture in. Thanks

Look, it's clearly the same image whether you found it somewhere else or not. Just because someone else is using it doesn't mean we can. Either they have permission (where we do not) or they're doing so illegally (which is no excuse for us.) Actually, my guess is that they're using it illegally. They seem to have made free with at least one other image from the Vatican website.

This could have been avoided you know. I posted on your talk page about this almost a week ago, and never got a response. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry friend, but I just learned how to use the edit page for discussion today. I do not know how to properly do this. If there is some way of doing it correctly, please explain it to me and I will make the necessary changes. My goal is to help create a profile that truly honors the Holy Pontiff. Please, let's stop the bickering, and work together to create an even better page. Thank you again.

In that case, please accept my apologies for coming on too strongly. I try not to "bite the newbies" as they say, but considering the age of some of the comments on your talk page it didn't occur to me that you were one of them.

A certain amoung of circumspection is called for. Although I'm not Catholic, I personally have no problem rendering honor where honor is due. However, this encyclopedia strives to maintain a neutral tone (see WP:NPOV) and therefore some of the more fervent expressions that come naturally to those who honor John Paul's memory will be considered in appropriate here. This is true not only for him, but even of canonized saints no matter how widely venerated. It may take a little getting used to. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

New humanism

For some reason, he was placed in this category. However, nothing in the relevant article on New_Humanism_(Humanist_Movement) suggests that he qualifies or even that his beliefs were compatible. In fact, that article mentions that the movement had conflicts with the RCC, which pretty much rules him out. In any case, he's considering a humanitarian by many, but that's not the same thing as being a humanist.

Infobox picture

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)

• I added a new pic, similar to the one that was previously deleted. This new image is udner fair use. I understand that some people might try to remove it, but keep in mind that most of the articles of the popes have pictures in the infobox of the pontiff wearing choir dress, in other words, wearing the red mozzetta and the papal stole. If someone wants to change it, keep that in mind.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 05:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

Relations with Judaism

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)