text:
Talk:Criticism of Pope John Paul II

Untitled
I'm a little concerned that an article of this nature has no references. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Confused by the Abuse Scandals section
This section first mentions the criticism about PJPII, but then goes off on some tangents about (1) what was done in response (reforms), and (2) a mention of a church statement from 2008 on this topic. The man died in 2005, so how, in a section that is supposed to discuss the criticism of his activities are either of these items relevant? Since there is a cited article dedicated to the topic "Catholic sex abuse cases" I would suggest that the current section have all sentences following the first one removed since they aren't to the point. If additional information could be added to expand it that is on-topic (ie, criticism about his handling of catholic sex abuse, NOT his reactions, or church reforms, etc) that would result in a better article also.

Oh, and some cites would be nice! I'm not sure what counts as valid sources, but here is an article I found that might be relevant

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7086738.ece

70.179.23.9 (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticism from Conservatives
I expanded on the criticism John Paul faced from traditional Catholics to try to make the article a bit more rounded, to show that John Paul faced criticism not just from the left, but from some conservatives as well. I wanted to show to what lengths people went who felt John Paul wasn't conservative enough for their tastes. JesseG 23:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization
While for the most part, the material here seems POV balanced (at least in tone), and it jives with what my recollections of anecdotes in several biographies of JP2 which I have read, the material does smack of being cut and pasted by several editors independently. I would like to rewrite each section as if it was written by one author. I do not want to remove any content (but see below), but organize it as if it were not simply one contributer adding to the previous to "balance" the first's POV. (Not at all an insult to your good contributions JesseG, but rather an acknowledgement that it should not read as such).

Furthermore, I would like to remove unnecessary descriptions of the Church's positions (of course the Pope will stick to them; that should be assumed). I prefer the words "critics" and "detractors" to "opponents" and "enemies", on POV grounds. And while I do not know whether I will remove them yet, I do not think the actions of the various "Traditional Catholics" described herein in response to the criticisms of JP2 are necessary.

Baccyak4H 04:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV in "Criticism" article
This passage
 * John Paul was criticised for his support for the Opus Dei prelature, which some argue is essentially a cult operating within the Church. Others criticised the canonization of its founder, Josemaría Escrivá, claiming he was an admirer of Spanish dictator Francisco Franco.

has been removed by Pianoman123 with the note "NPOV". I acknowledge that the passage, and indeed nearly every passage in this article, are critical (to the subject, Pope John Paul II) and not balanced for POV with respect to him. However, this article purports to be just that - criticism - and so long as the content is clearly worded as being from critical POVs, and not presented as fact, I believe everything is acceptable. By the standards Pianoman123 appears to be using, this article could not even exist in WP. So the first question is, indeed could it??

I recently went through this article to remove what I saw as "rebuttals" to many points of criticism as I felt that was not the purpose. Perhaps there should be rebuttals, but I worry about the content sounding too pedantic. I invite discussion on this matter.

Baccyak4H 03:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I can understand the objections to the removal, but here are my contentions: I don't find it problematic that all the sections of this article are critical, in keeping with the title, but there need to be sources cited for the claims made, as some of them are quite weighty. Right now, they appear to be either original research or simply "common knowledge." Additionally, one way to balance things would be to find a source which offers an alternative point of view, for instance, on Pope John Paul II's support for Opus Dei.

The above comment pertaining to this is questionable:

"...However, this article purports to be just that - criticism - and so long as the content is clearly worded as being from critical POVs, and not presented as fact, I believe everything is acceptable." What's disputable here is that POVs are claimed to be acceptable, when in fact, they are not allowed in any uncited context. Additionally, the comment purports that it is adequate for something to be deliberately presented as fiction ("not presented as fact") so long as it is clear to the reader that it is fiction; however, this would constitute an injection of a non-neutral point of view.

You may be right, though, about the licitness of the article's presence in WP. Much of the content here is repeated elsewhere, in more substantial articles, and is better and more fairly represented there.

Pianoman123 07:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for replying and clarifying.

 * First, a big correction. "not presented as fact" is not synonymous with "presented as fiction."  "presented as someone's POV" is the intended equivalent in the context of this article designated at "criticism" of someone (so it could indeed turn out to be fact, or fiction, or some combination of both, yet not obviously discernable as such in general).

 * The idea of NPOV is that our edits reflect NPOV. But for this article (or subsection in main JP2, see other talk discussion), the material itself is intended to be a non-neutral ("criticism of JP2") summary.  Our statements have to reflect NPOV, with respect to the subject of the article.  But others' statements which are stated here are intended to be non-neutral.  It's OK to report others' POV in (part of) an article designed to do just that.

 * I completely agree that claims made here are not widely disputed (which ones are original research? Point this out and if we cannot verify that someone made them we can correctly delete).  As to finding a citation suggesting JP2's support of Opus Dei, while I think that wouldn't hurt, I am not sure it is necessary as this article purports to describe criticism of those who believed (rightly or wrongly) that he did support them.  In some sense, it doesn't matter that he did, but rather that some people thought he did and objected.  And then again, the Escrivá canonization (and published material relating to it) should be more than enough to support JP2's support.  Do we need to footnote further?

 * Baccyak4H 03:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the contention that an article can exist under the disclaimer of it's being a repository for non-neutral points of view: "the material itself is intended to be a non-neutral ("criticism of JP2") summary." Is someone actually willing to write at the top: "hearsay about John Paul II?" If not, then we should only include information which can be verified. Otherwise, the quality of the article will suffer, and it will violate Wikipedia standards by purposefully promoting non-neutrality on two levels. This is also against Wikipedia rules: "It's OK to report others' POV in (part of) an article designed to do just that." While it is okay to include multiple points of view in a comprehensive article, it is not okay to have an article in Wikipedia whose only purpose is to report POVs unless they're cited; it's simply a breach of the rules.

The chief danger is that most people, when they read an article, presume its content to be verified if its accuracy is not already disputed. You can see where this leads--false conclusions about Pope John Paul II and the Church.

Pianoman123 01:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for replying - appreciate your input.

 * The end of your first PP is essentially a vote for inclusion of this entire article back into the main JP2 article (to prevent the JP2 article from being "unbalanced"). That issue was raised below; you may wish to chime in there too.  The nature of the small segment you deleted is no different than the rest of this material as to whether it should be its own article or a subsection of the main, so there is no reason to exclude it for these reasons.

 * As for the chief danger, you are failing to make the distinction between the levels of discussion here regarding POVs. While above it may (or may not) be unacceptable to neutrally elucidate specific non-neutral POVs (in which the WP material itself does not imply support -- or opposition -- for those POVs discussed, so thus is itself neutral), the true chief danger is not a danger at all but rather supposedly one of the very purposes WP exists.  Try:

 * The chief danger nature of WP is that most people, when they read an this article, presume its content to be verified if its accuracy is not already disputed. You can see where this leads-- false nominally true conclusions that certain specific criticisms have been made of about Pope John Paul II and the Church.

 * We have no obligation, in this article (or JP2 subsection) to vouch for the accuracy of the criticisms themselves. Indeed, a clear and credible refutation may be appropriate; I for one do not like the idea of "rebuttals" in an article (or subsection) like this, but only on style grounds; perhaps that should be done (or linked...).  But that is a different issue, we can discuss elsewhere.  The only standard for this article (or subsection) is that it is actually true that such criticisms were made.  I do agree that the material now does not cite instances of such criticisms and perhaps it should (and that will not be hard to do), but note your deleted material is no worse (or better) at attaining that standard, so its singular deletion makes no sense on these grounds either.

 * Recap: There is a difference between "truth of such and such criticisms" and "truth that such and such criticisms were made". A very important one.

 * And if I may, note that there are many expressions of opinions of this or that person(s) in WP. The risk that someone will read that such opinions exist, and thus decide they are true, is always present, but has almost never been an obstacle to the opinions' inclusion.  The onus is on us then to present the opinions without implicit support or opposition.  That is NPOV.

 * Again, what material do you think is original research? Only a couple of claims am I not familiar with (I didn't introduce any, only reorganized them), and I will give the benefit of the doubt, unless challenged.  So what are they?  Again, if they do not pan out, we can delete them.  And on a controversial topic such as this, we should.

 * I wish to point out that twice now you have rephrased my words in a way which was superficially subtle but fundamentally and perhaps crucially inaccurate ("not presented as fact" ==> "presented as fiction", and now "criticism ==> "hearsay"). I am assuming good faith, and want you to know how annoying that misrepresentation is, because rather than concentrate on the WP material, I have to rejoin wrongly split hairs.  So please read carefully hereupon, especially with respect to the two levels of POV.

 * Baccyak4H 04:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Oops. Sorry Pianoman123, just noticed you did chime in below about the organization of JP2 criticism.  My bad.  Baccyak4H 04:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Alas, I don't think this is worth pursuing much further. I think my assertions have been slightly oversimplified above, but I probably could have presented them better the first time. Here are some last thoughts from the WP page on neutrality:

A simple formulation

We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and opinions. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.

The most important step now is to work on this article's potential merger with the main JP II article.

Pianoman123 22:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Then transubstantiation must be removed from the sacraments article, unless you have a chemical test for the presence of divinity. The existence of an opinion is a fact, my friend. Thus, it is as perfectly acceptable to say, "Pope John Paul II was criticised for re-asserting the Church's commitment to priestly celibacy in the Latin Rite," as it is to say, "Many scholars in the West are of the opinion that JP II's support for the Solidarity movement in Poland, and its cognates in other countries, was a leading cause of the fall of the Soviety Union." hat would be unacceptable opnion is to say, "JP II was wrong to enfoce celibacy," or "JP II is a great guy for defeating Communism."HarvardOxon 22:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This is getting silly. I obviously agree that the existence of an opinion is a fact, and that it is acceptable to post opinions that have been stated by various people (how could I not?). What I'm contesting here is the spirit of the article: even if it's purpose is to criticize JP II, there should still be a logical structure to the article (statements, citations, conclusions, etc.). My other issue is that very litte in this article is cited. It's just plain bothersome, since some very serious claims are made. Wikipedia rules define a fact as "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." There are serious disputes about the topics in question here, so we should find some sources. Thanks for your consideration, Pianoman123 02:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

OK OK. I am sensing a consensus building that this "criticism" material should be returned to the main JP2 article and definitely cited better. While I am not saying that is the best solution (albeit I have no idea what best would be here), this sounds to me to be a very good solution. Note (as below) that I have made (for better or worse) similar edits in both the "fork" article and the main JP2 article, so they will read similarly in many places. This may make consolidation easier - I hope it does.

No hard feelings Pianoman. When I'm perfect, I'll hold you to that standard too ;). But I still really, really want you to share what you feel is (1) original research;  (2) opinions for which there is serious dispute about the fact that they are held (regardless whether the opinions are right, or wrong, or untestable, or...).  While I mentioned that there is little material here I am not aware of, there still is some.  But, of note, not opposition to JP2's support of Opus Dei, or to the Escrivá canonization, which you object to.

Anyway, I like this plan. Baccyak4H 04:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I can guess why you're pursuing this. You're probably wondering why I took issue with the Opus Dei section and not the others, since they're similar; I'll bet you're trying to discern a bias on my part in favor of Opus Dei or JP II. To be completely honest, my reaction to that section was a visceral one, mostly on account of the verbiage. What has bothered me all along is the word choice and phrasing:

"John Paul was criticised for his support for the Opus Dei prelature, which some argue is essentially a cult operating within the Church. Others criticised the canonization of its founder, Josemaría Escrivá."

This would be better:

"John Paul II was criticised for his approval of Opus Dei, a controversial personal prelature of the Catholic Church. Others criticised the canonization of its founder, Josemaría Escrivá."

This article is not about Opus Dei; it's about JP II. If someone wants a balanced description of what Opus Dei is, they can go to the Opus Dei WP page. But a one-phrase characterization simply doesn't do the issue justice, and seems to make a furtive argument against OD within the context of criticism of JP II. You've convinced me that we only need to mention one-sided criticism of JP II in this article (since that's the article's purpose), but I think that if another topic (Opus Dei) is described as part of the criticism, it should be presented objectively.

Pianoman123 21:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

 * To answer your speculation, yes and no. "...why I took issue...": yes; "...trying to discern a bias on my part...": no.  I only could not understand that specific omission, as the particular objections are more common knowledge than many others in the article.  That's all.  You could have picked about 3/4 of the other material and my reaction would have been the same.  Although maybe that is what you meant since that particular material is exactly what you did wish to omit...no matter, now I'm splitting hairs...sorry.

 * "John Paul II was criticised for his approval of Opus Dei, a controversial personal prelature of the Catholic Church. Others criticised the canonization of its founder, Josemaría Escrivá." ~Pianoman123

 * Actually, I think that is considerably better than either the original text (for your points exactly), or its complete omission. Some indication of the rationale for the criticism is warranted, but this indeed does refocus on criticism of John Paul II as opposed to what is really background info.

 * A small suggestion: "Others criticized..."  I would suggest that it be better to point out that most opposition to the Escrivá issue is probably because of the perceived criticism of OD and that he was its founder.  So perhaps make one sentence with the transition "...of the Catholic Church, and some criticized...".  Or better yet how about

 * "John Paul II was criticised for his approval of Opus Dei, a controversial personal prelature of the Catholic Church, and for the canonization of its founder, Josemaría Escrivá."

 * I read here a suggestion that the two oppositions are related and could be from the same people, yet clearly there is no imperative that they are all so. I would only object to any remote implication that the two sets of criticizers for (1)  support for OD;  (2) canonization of Escrivá; are indeed disjoint.

 * Perhaps too some fleshing out of what you summarized as " "approvel" ". There was some material way back when I started cleaning up, something about JP2 stating how OD was part of what he called the "Universal call to Holiness" or something similar.  (I recall that attribution to him repeated in the news several times.)  Quoting "approval" can send the message that it was lip service at best; not approval.  But I agree that this is better fleshed out than the criticizers' particular objections to OD since this is a specific JP2 position which is criticized, while the objections to OD which inform JP2 criticizers are not those of JP2 or about him.

 * I am glad you pointed this out, as deep down I was still wary of the "Criticism is by definition not neutral" argument. I think your principled suggestion is a great improvement of that particular content, and alleviated a roadblock to better content.

 * Baccyak4H 03:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Great-- this sounds good to me. On the point about the support for OD and Escriva's canonization, I'm undecided. On the one hand, his connection with OD is obviously paramount. At the same time, one of the reasons some people criticized JP2 during the canonization was that it was expedited in a way to which they were not accustomed (this can be explained by a slight change in the Vatican policy on canonization, which caused some to see a connection between the policy tweak and Escriva). At the same time though, Escriva's process of canonization may have never received so much scrutiny were he not the founder of OD. So I'd say it's fair to make the edit you suggest above. Feel free to do so, of course. Best, Pianoman123 04:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I went ahead and made my edit. And you can disregard my concerns about quotes; I misinterpreted your material here as the quotes did not appear in the article.  I gather they was to show us here in Talk the differences rather than showing up verbatim in the article.  Yes, perhaps JP2's opinion (object of criticism) could be elaborated, but as it stands I think acceptable.  I do not myself wish to add the canonization policy tweak issue, but feel free (anyone) if you are so inclined.  Baccyak4H 03:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Another note-- since the article appears to be growing, I was just noticing that about 95% of the material in this article is uncited. Some of it is undisputed, so it's fine. But it would help with the credibility if those who recently added material would find a few sources. Thanks Pianoman123 08:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a POV fork and as such should be merged into Pope John Paul II
Can someone explain to me why this is not a POV fork? --Richard 03:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This, and the other articles on John Paul II were created because of space. Before the article was broken up like this, it ran at one stage to over 100K. That is more than 3 times the maximum recommended article size. It is nothing to do with forking. It is to do with bringing the main article to a satisfactory length. This is done in all big articles. It is standard. Your forking theory is irrelevant. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 04:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry to disagree but the "Criticisms" section in Pope John Paul II is at least as long as this article and this article is not long enough to make a significant dent in the length of the Pope John Paul II article. It looks like a POV fork to me and a useless one anyway since there is a substantial "Criticisms" section in the primary article.  In fact, I would argue that the "Criticisms" section in the primary article is superior to this article.  I would propose merging the content of this article back into the Pope John Paul II article.  I doubt the merge would increase the size of the Pope John Paul II article significantly.

 * Another viable alternative would be to expand this article significantly.

 * --Richard 08:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think we should merge this article with the Pope John Paul II article. Besides, if we were to expand this article, it would undoubtedly overlap with much of what's already in the Pope John Paul II article.

Pianoman123 16:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You all raise some good points. I have been cleaning up both now for a few days because they both read (past tense) like a cut/paste/append hangover. That may be why they lately have read somewhat similarly (as Pianoman123 points out). There was a link from the relevant section of the main JP2 page here, but then it was gone, and then it was back... I have no objection to where the material is, I'll go with everyone else's consensus as to where it should be. Baccyak4H 03:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Update. I am leaning towards returning the criticism to the main article as (1) it does not add relatively much length to the article; (2) it avoids the ambiguity of whether an article of "criticism" is by definition not NPOV (while I disagree that it is by definition not NPOV, I admit to the ambiguity). In the above section, there was more apparent support for rejoining, but I defer to those contributors to (further) speak their respective cases. Baccyak4H 04:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I'd strongly advise against putting it in the main article. The main article ebbs and flows in length. (It once was 100K. The maximum size is meant to be under 32K!) Even if now the two articles together are under 32K, what happens everytime is that the JPII article grows again, goes oversize, is broken up, someone says that x or y article is a fork, is remerged, grows over size, is broken up, etc etc. And in all the merging and demerging and remerging and redemerging and reremerging that goes on with big articles, chunks of text get mucked up or lost, edit wars break out over 'who took x out/put y in?' etc. It was decided to split chunks of it away and keep them away to give the main article enough space to grow without having to be chopped up again. If this one goes back, going on precedent, other users on other pages will demand the other articles be merged saying (why can criticism get into the main article but not x or y? That is POV-pushing). And we be back on the same old merging, demerging, remerging, redemerging, etc etc, coupled with edit wars, complaints over lost bits, complaints over footnote problems, writing styles, etc. (I've been through this on a couple of big articles. At the end those who wanted to remerge bits ended up cursing the idea, and reaching for the valium.) Remerging the article really is not worth the hassle. And even if it was done, remerging is usually followed by a regrowth in the main articles, and this article will end up reappearing back where it is now in a couple of weeks. (On one page, the merger was reversed 18 hours later!)  FearÉIREANN [[Image:Ireland-up.png|15px]]\(caint)  04:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"Traditional" / "Traditionalist"
People need to keep those two terms apart. "Traditional teachings" are the actual historical teachings of the church. For many of the teachings listed, it is questionable whether they actually are traditional and citations would be needed to establish that. "Traditionalists teachings" are merely the teachings of a particular ideological branch of the church; despite the name, they do not necessarily actually stand for tradition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcarnelian (talk • contribs) 18:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Agree with your first sentence, but it seems you then may have the distinction backwards. One of the main criticisms of John Paul is that he was not traditionalist enough.

 * Further I don't see any particular things is this section where his position is anything else than consistent with the traditional one; maybe I am missing something but if so could you be more explicit? The only thing I can think of is Theology of the Body which is not even mentioned.  That body of knowledge is certainly consistent with traditional teachings but also radically different in some of its novelties.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.230.57 (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The Pope and Latin American dictatorships?
Hey there folks!

So what's up with the relationship between the Pope and Latin American dictators like Pinochet? There's plenty of articles about it on the net, and pictures. I'm not a regular editor of Wikipedia but it'd be good if somebody who spent time in this article wrote something about it.

Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.20.44.191 (talk) 12:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Euthanaisa and his own death section
Hi! I removed the section, and it was put back, so I thought I'd bring it here to explain why I'm concerned that it doesn't fit into the article. :) Currently it is relying on a single source, the Time magazine article. In effect, the article says that Dr. Lina Pavanelli had surmised that the Pope was euthanised based on her observations on TV, coverage in the press and a book. That makes me a tad nervous, as it feels like weak evidence to draw such a conclusion from. However, she then surmises that Pope John Paul II must have been complicit in this. So we have her guessing that passive euthanasia was employed, and then guessing that he would have known - the result is a really poor argument on which to draw anything. When you then note that the Vatican specifically denied the claims, stating that he was given a feeding tube, then we're giving a dedicated section to a guess on a guess that is denied by those actually involved. Going beyond that, there is the question of whether or not a delay in providing a feeding tube was euthanasia - which is highly doubtful. Overall, it isn't even clear if it is criticism of Pope John Paul II, even assuming that it did occur. It feels out of place with the other criticisms, which relate more directly to things he did (or did not) do. - Bilby (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I dug a bit further, and found that the Vatican clarified after the Time Magazine article was published that he had been given a feeding tube much sooner than was previously assumed. As a result, Pavanelli had to clarify that the problem was now that a different type of tube would have been better,, at which point this really feels like a useless argument - it now comes down to euthanasia by the incorrect choice of feeding tubes, and that's too weak to give any major weight to. On those grounds I've removed the text. - Bilby (talk) 01:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Opening sentence structure
The opening line of the article reads: "Pope John Paul II was criticized, amongst other things,[1] for lack of any response ..." The placement of the 'for' changes the meaning here between 'criticizing and things FOR lack of response'   vs   'criticizing FOR lack of response and things'
 * Current meaning - The way this is structured with the 'for' coming after 'amongst' it means "Pope John Paul II was criticized, amongst other things than being criticized, for lack of response..."
 * Intended meaning - I'm not sure, but I think the intended meaning (based on the linked source) was "Pope John Paul II was criticized for, amongst other things than lack of response, for lack of response..."

So I propose the following change: "Pope John Paul II was criticized for, amongst other things,[1] lack of any response ..."

-- 72.214.182.27 (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Criticism of Pope John Paul II. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20080225072042/http://www.vatican.va:80/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Criticism of Pope John Paul II. 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/20081227130309/https://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1986/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19861027_prayer-peace-assisi-final_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1986/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19861027_prayer-peace-assisi-final_en.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090417143557/https://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1986/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19861027_san-rufino-assisi_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1986/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19861027_san-rufino-assisi_en.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090515183234/https://www.vatican.va:80/news_services/liturgy/documents/ns_lit_doc_20020124_assisi-giornata_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/documents/ns_lit_doc_20020124_assisi-giornata_en.html
 * Added tag to http://www.catholicnews.com/data/abuse/abuse08.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316160509/http://www.zenit.org/article-9560?l=english to http://www.zenit.org/article-9560?l=english

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Criticism of Pope John Paul II. 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/20090116173841/http://www.americamagazine.org/content/articles/martin-opusdei.cfm to http://www.americamagazine.org/content/articles/martin-opusdei.cfm

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) 14:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no proof that Pope John Paul II was not interested in pedophila or molesting children.
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.228.106 (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Criticism of Pope John Paul II


text:
Demophilus

Demophilus (Δημόφιλος) may refer to:

 * Demophilus of Thespiae led a contingent of about 700 Thespians at the Battle of Thermopylae (480 BC), and was killed there
 * Demophilus, an ancient Greek artist from Sicily
 * Demophilus (historian) edited the first universal history which was written by his father Ephorus
 * Demophilus of Constantinople, bishop of Constantinople from 370 until expelled in 380

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Demophilus


text:
Talk:Wild ginger

Proposed rename
I'm going to rename this article Asarum, in keeping with standard Wiki policy of avoiding common names, unless anyone can produce a good reason not to. The name wild ginger refers to a lot of different plants worldwide, and is most correctly applied to the numerous species of Zingiber.Ethel Aardvark (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Untitled comment
I've often seen a plant which strongly resembles wild ginger, but the leaves are longer and more pointed, grows profusely but not as closely as wild ginger, and--until this spring--I could not find the basal flowers. This spring I found one plant with three maroon capsules at it's base. Looking around, I could find no others with this. In the past, I thought this was just a look-alike, but now wondering if there is a related species or variety with this growth habit. I grow the canadense version in my garden, so can compare. Any thoughts?
 * I have a similar plant ID question. Small maroon basal flowers, but a very round kidney-shaped leaf with a smooth edge (no scalloping, or angular teeth as with coltsfoot) and no heart-shaped point. Also, the leaves are hearty in texture, a bit thick and leathery. I suspect that this, and your similar heart-shaped leaf plant, are closely related. --Karinpower (talk) 05:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

 * User:209.98.145.91 and Karinpower: Asarum/Hexastylis fit those descriptions, which are not actually members of the true ginger family, Zingiberaceae. Apparently the leaves can vary significantly in form though, so I don't know how useful those are in identifying the plants. Noting your geographic location may help narrow down the possibilities. There are pictures of several species of Asarum here and here.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  04:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding and providing those excellent photos. I did quite a bit more reading after posting that comment and am fairly certain that I have Asarum canadese. Here in the Pacific NW it's apparently indigenous so it's so surprise, and both leaf shape/texture (not shiny like Asarum europaeum) and small maroon jug-shaped flower are consistent. Regarding the other poster's plant, it seems that the various forms of Asarum have a lot of different lengths of heart shape, and the flower sounds like Asarum to me. Cheers and happy plant explorations!--Karinpower (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Cheers. :) -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  08:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Wild ginger


text:
Tiriyó people

The Tiriyó (also known as Trio) are an Amerindian ethnic group native to parts of northern Brazil, Suriname, and Guyana. In 2014, there were approximately 3,640 Tiriyó in the three countries. They live in several major villages and a number of minor villages in the border zone between Brazil and Suriname. They speak the Tiriyó language, a member of the Cariban language family and refer to themselves as tarëno, etymologically 'people from here' or 'local people'.

About 30% are Christians, while 70% follow indigenous religions.

History
The modern Tiriyó are formed from various different indigenous communities; some of these, such as the Aramixó, are mentioned in European writings as early as 1609–1610. Many of the now-Tiriyó groups lived between Brazil and French Guiana until they were driven out by the Oyampi, a Tupi-Guaranian group allied with the Portuguese. Together, the Portuguese and Oyampi drove these groups westward, and they mingled with the groups that were in the area to form the modern Tiriyó group.

As such, the Tiriyó established contact relatively early with runaway slave groups that settled in the area around the end of the 18th century. They maintained regular commercial relations with one group, the Ndyuka, and for many years they were the only contact the Tiriyó had with foreign populations. The first recorded contact between the Tiriyó and a European took place in 1843 between a ‘Drio’ village and Robert Schomburgk; this and the meeting between French explorer Jules Crevaux and a few ‘Trio’ were the only two points of contact between Tiriyó and Europeans in the 19th century. The expeditions in the interior of Suriname in the early 20th century did observe Tiriyós, however they tended to flee when approached, and no useful information could be gathered. In 1907, De Goeje managed to make contact in the Tumuk Humak expedition resulting in the first dictionary of the Tiriyó language.

Subsequent contact between Europeans and Tiriyó in the first half of the twentieth century produced ethnographic and linguistic studies of the region and Tiriyó subgroups in particular. After the ‘exploratory phase’ of contact came the ‘missionary phase,’ wherein newly built airstrips facilitated contact between missionaries and the Tiriyó. These missions tried to concentrate the Tiriyó population in larger villages to more easily convert them to Christianity, and over time, other Indigenous groups such as the Akuriyó joined them here. Until 1957, a village could accommodate up to 50 people. The average life span of a village used to be three to six years, and the death of a captain or chief was often a reason for abandonment as well. The newly acquired agricultural techniques allowed for a bigger population. In 1967, the village of Alalapadu passed the 500 mark, and the soils surrounding the village started to become depleted. The town was abandoned, but not completely as some Tiriyó settled in the vicinity of the old village. The same thing happened with Kwamalasamutu, and in 1997 granman Asongo decided, that part of the population should spread out, also as a defence against encroachment by gold miners and tourist lodges.

Government
The Tiriyó have a high degree of independence, because their settlements are difficult to access. However, they are interested in reinforcing relationships with the foreign world. Traditionally there was no clear hierarchy or a granman (paramount chief).

In 1997, Asongo Alalaparu was appointed granman by the Surinamese President, and captains were appointed to manage the village. In 2011, a District Commissioner had been appointed to represent the central government in the Coeroeni resort. As of 2019, the District Commission is Trees Cirino.

The village of Kasuela is located in the disputed Tigri Area which is claimed by both Guyana and Suriname. The village is headed by Captain Kenke Jaimo who is recognized by both governments.

The Tiriyó in Brazil live in the Tumucumaque Indigenous Park which has been recognized since 1997. In 2004, Apitikatxi, the association of Tiriyó, Kaxuyana and Txikuyana indigenous peoples was founded to improve rights of indigenous peoples. The organisation is headed by Demetrio Amisipa Tiriyó.

A problem which remains is that there are two systems: a traditional tribal government and a national government which are often not compatible. The Tiriyó in the larger villages are influenced by schooling, modern day facilities, and telecommunications. The traditional culture is disappearing and young people are beginning to move to the city.

Indigenous rights
A concern is the fundamental rights, because the Tiriyó are spread over three countries, and unlike the Maroons, there are no significant treaties. Mining concessions are often made with the Government without consultation of the native population. Even though the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights ruled in 2007 that all indigenous and tribal peoples have the right to manage, distribute, and effectively control their territory, Article 41 of the Constitution of Suriname states: "Natural resources and resources are the property of the nation and should be mobilized for economic, social and cultural development. The nation has the inalienable right to take full ownership of its natural resources in order to apply them for the economic, social and cultural development of Suriname." Also in Brazil, indigenous peoples are often viewed as opponents to economic growth and barriers to development.

title: Tiriyó people


text:
Talk:Seaplane

Helicopters can land without fuel too...
Quote from "Seaplane uses and operation": "Seaplanes are much more fuel efficient than helicopters and, unlike helicopters, can land when they run out of fuel, weather permitting." Helicopters can land quite fine without fuel too, see the Autorotation article. I guess you meant "land in the sea", if so, that should be clarified. I didn't correct it since I'm a n00b, I can do it if you don't mind. --GunnsteinLye 22:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree. The whole paragraph is pretty unclear. I may take a shot at revising this if no one else steps up in the next week or two (and I don't forget).--chris.lawson 01:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

 * And helo's come with fixed and inflatable floats, so could well be considered seaplanes, too! Akradecki 20:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Alight vs Land
The FAA and AOPA may not call it alighting, but the CAA most certainly do. Think about it: how can it be landing if the stuff underneath's not land? I have, however, implemented a compromise that I think most people will accept. -Scott Wilson 22:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Hrm, I don't much care either way, but I prefer landing just because its commonly used and descriptive of the action. Also, planes "land" on aircraft carriers, which aren't really land either. I guess what it comes down to is I believe a word can outgrow its origins. I think a note on the differences is definitely appropriate in the article, and I think that its ok as it stands now. -Lommer | talk 23:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm pretty much OK with it now, although I think the wording itself is a little awkward. I might remember to get back to this and see if I can work out something a little more fluid (ha ha) sometime in the next couple of days. —chris.lawson (talk) 04:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Done. If anyone has issues with the re-wording, let me know and I'll try something else.—chris.lawson (talk) 04:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Alight is a brightism. The compromise is fine, but calling it more correct when it is not more correct outside the authority of your local CAA (UK, Aus, NZ, whatev.) rankles a bit.  You might want to NPOV that sentence a tad.  OTOH, technical (or quasi-legal) terms that confuse should be avoided in a general-audience publication.  Remember the "near-miss" controversy?

 * No. "Alight" is standard American.  See Websters.  Paul Beardsell 14:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I believe what was meant is that "alight", as applied to aircraft, is a Britishism. I've never once read or heard anyone in the US refer to a water landing as anything but a "landing".--chris.lawson 14:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

 * And I haven't heard anyone in the UK say "alight" either in relation to flying. That doesn't make me think the term is an Americanism.  Why would anyone think it is a Britishism?  Paul Beardsell 16:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Because of the first comment in this section, which states that the UK CAA refers to it as such? :) --chris.lawson 16:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

 * As for landing, we both agree: It means stopping flying in a (probably) intentional (sometimes semi-)controlled fashion!  Snow, ice, water, land, swamp, aircraft carrier.  Paul Beardsell 16:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

 * And of course you can land on water! Paul Beardsell 14:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Alighting is the original correct aeronautical term for 'landing' on land OR water. Sparrows alight on chimney pots, and seagulls alight on the water. That's where the original aviation term comes from. If you've never heard of the word get a decent English dictionary.

 * Incidently, if you read early (c 1900-1910) aviation-related publications you'll often find references to alighting gear as opposed to 'landing gear'. Language-used changes over time and 'alighting gear' was supplanted by 'undercarriage' (UK) and 'landing gear' (US) ,although some British aviation companies were still referring to the undercarriage as the chassis as late as WWII.

 * I suspect that the CAA still uses the term 'alight' because in UK English that is a more exact technical term which covers both 'landing' on water as well as on land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.75.106 (talk) 12:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

A parent article for floatplane and flying boat
I thought it was fairly well understood that floatplanes and flying boats are quite different types of aircraft. To design, build, maintain and fly. That they are both seaplanes is also indisputable! And the rules and regs support my view: Go look. A seaplane is _any_ aircraft which can land(sic) on water. There should be three articles. Seaplanes should mention there are two main categories and link to them and not say much more. And the other two articles should remain separate. Floatplane should not #redirect here. Paul Beardsell 14:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

 * The "rules and regs", as you say, don't differentiate between them in the US (I don't know JAA regs at all), but I agree that the two types are really their own distinct topics. Unfortunately, I don't think there's enough material for separate articles; what should probably be done instead is to rearrange this article somewhat to reflect the logical division of seaplanes into flying boats and floatplanes.--chris.lawson 14:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

 * You may not be aware that there is a separate flying boat article. Paul Beardsell 16:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Early use of seaplanes
I'm not an aviation historian, but I'm pretty sure that seaplanes were popular in the early days because of the absence of landing fields (airports). If that is the case, it ought to be in the article. Lou Sander 22:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Floatplanes vs. Flying boats
I believe the diferrences should be said more than the definition difference, such as what does that change in them, you know? As a complete noob to seaplanes, I know no sh*t about it, but it LOOKS like flying boats can go thru more wild waters, such as a stronger river or maybe even some calm beaches? Is this true? or both floatplanes and flying boats should only be used in rivers/lakes? Are there no major differences besides those? Could any crazy dude remove the lower fuselage of an floatplane (and pontoons and stufff) and convert it into a flying boat with little problems? Or reverse, add an aerodynamic lower fuselage to the flying boat and add pontoons without major worries (such as severe instabilty and the like)? 189.5.143.217 16:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Aborted move to "Water Aircraft"
A user moved this article to the title "Water Aircraft" without discussion, and it has been moved back by a subsequent editor. As a note about this was placed on the Project talk page, I came along and cleaned up the places where the word "seaplane" had been changed, as well as some other cleanups.

To the person who moved it: Please do not do this without a thorough discussion and consensus first. Thanks. Akradecki 03:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary Russian Seaplanes
There are some pretty impressive ones. I've seen 'em in pictures, but I don't know anything more about it. Seems like somebody knowledgeable should add them to this article. Lou Sander 22:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

See some pretty cool photos of these Russian giants HERE. Lou Sander 22:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Beriev A-40 is our article on one of them.  has a great crazy giant seaplane at the top.  Tempshill (talk) 04:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Seaplanes/floatplanes/pontoons
I've tried to clarify the difference in British and US usage of "seaplanes". It's definitions, fairly trivial really but needs spelling out so readers know to look out for regional linguistic differences. I worry more about the floats = pontoons equation; pontoons to me and to the link are flotation devices used statically, whereas floats here have to be used dynamically to allow an aircraft to leave the water. This took a while to find out, and many early float/seaplanes and indeed flying boats refused to unstick until hydrodynamic features like steps were built in. From memory, Fabre was one of the first to realise this and freely shared his insights (must check on the Curtis connection).TSRL (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

 * You have sources for the "US" definition, but not for the "British" usage. I assume these are coming? Also, from the use by Canadian writers on WP, "floatplane" seems to be standard Canadian usage also. I'm also going to ask for broader input at WT:AIR, as we have a number of British and Canadian contributors there. - BillCJ (talk) 01:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Bill, I think the Oxford English Dictionary will do: "Seaplane: An aeroplane designed to be able to operate from water; spec. one with floats, in contrast to a flying boat." That was the definition I had in mind and I'll add the reference. It sounds as if we may need to say North American rather than US, but let's leave that until you have consulted.TSRL (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

 * The correct UK usage for the type is either 'seaplane' or 'floatplane' - the correct UK term for what the Americans refer-to as 'pontoons' on a waterborne aircraft is 'float' (hence 'floatplane') - these differ from 'proper' pontoons in that they have a shaped-hull to allow the least drag while travelling through the water on take-off. A pontoon is not really designed for movement, it's more for use as a moored means of support - hence the term Pontoon bridge. That's why helicopter's can have either floats OR pontoons - the pontoon-equipped helicopter is not really intended to be able to travel on the water surface, merely alight on it, thus the pontoons tend to be simple cylinders blunt or rounded at the ends, rather than proper boat-shaped with planing V-hull. Floats almost always have a 'step' (the 'notch' at the bottom around halfway back) and the float bottoms are shaped the same as the hull on a flying boat. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.75.106 (talk)

 * Probably the simplest distinction between the two is that an aircraft 'float' is designed to be able to plane through the water at high speed, whilst a 'pontoon' is merely required to sit in it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.75.106 (talk) 11:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

 * If you read the float article you linked to, you'll notice they're also called "pontoons". This again seems to be a British/US-Canadian distinction. Neither is more correct than the other, or less correct. - BilCat (talk) 12:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

 * That's your opinion. I was merely pointing out that the word 'Float' and 'Pontoon' have different meanings in the UK, and that whilst it may be OK in the US to call a seaplane's flotation devices 'pontoons' the word 'pontoon' actually has a more precise meaning in UK English and the UK aviation world. The term 'Float' arose because the type of flotation device fitted to aircraft that required high speeds for take-off was different to that supplied by the pontoon, which is only required to be able to support something. That's why in the UK a seaplane's flotation devices are called 'floats' and not pontoons. It's not for any reason of differences in trans-Atlantic fashion, but because it's a more technically accurate and precise term. This is also why in the UK a Flying boat would never be referred-to as a 'seaplane', except by the someone unfamiliar with the aviation world. As for these people, they're free to call them what they like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.75.106 (talk) 12:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

 * No, it's not merely my opinion. The UK usage may be more precise in the UK, but it's not more correct than US/Canadian usage on Wikipedia. Anyway I've added "float" to the definition of floatplane along with "pontoon", for clarity, and linked to the more appropriate article. For Wikipeida's policy onb handling differnet variants of English, see WP:ENGVAR. - BilCat (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

 * OK - that's fine by me. I was just trying to point out that due to regional variations in English the different words may have slightly differing meanings in other countries. The UK English terms are different because the words 'float' and 'pontoon' have slightly different 'precise' definitions in the UK, at least in the aviation world. See the discussion on 'landing/alighting' above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.75.103 (talk) 12:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The above implies that Canadian usage follows the US, i.e. 'seaplane' includes flying boats. That simply is not so in my experience. As a Canadian septuagenarian I have never heard a flying boat referred to as a seaplane. Here on Canada's west coast seaplanes (but not flying boats) are almost as common as fishing boats-- hardly a niche market BTW. I learned the distinction from my father, who was a senior RCAF officer & former bush pilot. There may be regional variations, but I believe my 'black swan' refutes the implication that Canadians always follow the US usage on this. I'm not about to mess with the main article, which otherwise excellent, given its US POV, esp. since I don't have a battery of cites lined up, but I found the lead quite jarring & confusing, as the British / Canadian / Commonwealth (?) definition is not clarified until the body. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 11:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Differences in landing them
I came to the article to look up what are the largest differences in performing takeoffs and landings in a seaplane as compared to a conventional GA aircraft that lands, you know, on a runway. Could a knowledgeable person provide a summary? Tempshill (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I'm not an expert, but I believe that seaplanes (flying boats in particular) need a longer take off run in order to get "on the plane" and then break free from the forces trying to hold it in the water (even with the step to "break up" the flow). But, as long as you choose a big enough piece of water, it's not a problem. I've read about how Catalinas and Sunderlands in WWII would basically ignore the weight limits on their planes, and just accept that it would take a bit longer to get airborne when over weight. I believe "if it floats, it'll fly" was the rule of thumb. But the hydrodynamic forces holding it down are the biggest difference; Sunderlands on flat water would need a launch to cross their path to break the water up enough for them to overcome the suction and take off. That and I believe there is something different you have to do with the elevators during take off...either you have to hold up elevator, or down elevator...I don't recall. Once you reach a good speed and are "on the plane" (planing on the water), you gently "rotate" (timing with a wave when possible....the suction is the big enemy) and hopefully break out of the water and you are flying. I believe landings tend to be shorter. From what I've read, it's taxiing and docking are the parts that a normal pilot would have the most trouble with. Handling a large plane like the Sunderland on the water, taxiing it to the appropriate place was not easy. It was like steering a large boat, only harder. You had to be a pilot and a seaman! Even with the smaller planes, there are no brakes, you can't steer unless you are moving through the water (depending on how good your water rudders are). You have to time your throttle cut so you coast gently to the dock or beach and don't "crunch", and you have to account for wind and currents pushing you around. .45Colt 02:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt (talk • contribs)

I've noted pilots rock the floatplanes pitch until the plane "jumps" up. Shjacks45 (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

First flight over the south Atlantic
The first flight over the south Atlantic was made by Portuguese naval pilots Gago Coutinho and Sacadura Cabral in 1922, from Lisbon (Portugal) to Rio de Janeiro (Brazil)!! I've corrected the information on the article, but if there's anything wrong with it, please let me know in here. Thank You.

 * It would help if you could provide a reference or citation to add to the entry. And as this related to the history of seaplanes it would help if we knew what type of aircraft was used. MilborneOne (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the advice, will do that as soon as possible! Cheers ;D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.109.223 (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Done! Hope you like it. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.57.154 (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Seaplane. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.glennhcurtiss.com/id49.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate article?
This is almost word for word the same as the Flying boat article. Would it not be best to merge them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.232.37 (talk) 06:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Probably not as they are not the same thing, a flying boat is just one type of seaplane. MilborneOne (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Seaplane. 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/20131203193848/http://fox2magazine.blog.com/2009/10/12/%CE%B9%CF%83%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%81%CE%B9%CE%BA%CF%8C-%CE%B1%CF%86%CE%B9%CE%AD%CF%81%CF%89%CE%BC%CE%B1/ to http://fox2magazine.blog.com/2009/10/12/%CE%B9%CF%83%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%81%CE%B9%CE%BA%CF%8C-%CE%B1%CF%86%CE%B9%CE%AD%CF%81%CF%89%CE%BC%CE%B1/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901071922/http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/felixstowe.htm to http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/felixstowe.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120720024433/http://iwn.iwai.ie/v29i1/ to http://www.iwn.iwai.ie/v29i1/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090501041959/http://www.ni-environment.gov.uk/archdale.shtml to http://www.ni-environment.gov.uk/archdale.shtml

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) 04:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Boat-plane hybrid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYZgUZgS24o -Inowen (nlfte) 22:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a ground-effect vehicle, also known as an ekranoplan. Interesting to be sure, but not a new concept. Sario528 (talk) 12:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

"Step", please note
Step is mentioned in article Planing, its the "bump" near the back of the body/float(s) that allows separation on seaplane from water surface by greatly lowering drag on the water. Unfortunately the "step" causes excess drag at speed. The Sanders-Roe fighter seaplane and some others had a retractable step to reduce drag. Shjacks45 (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

This seems mistaken, at least
"Throughout 1910 and 1911, American pioneering aviator Glenn Curtiss developed his floatplane into the successful Curtiss Model D land-plane, which used a larger central float and sponsons. " What? If the Model D is a land plane (and it is), why did it "use a larger...float and sponsons"? The Curtis Model D has no floats. Perhaps it was developed from an earlier floatplane (seems dubious since it dates from 1910), but the Model D itself was not a floatplane, and it doesn't say anything about it being developed from a floatplane in that article. What I'm guessing this is supposed to mean is that the Model D land plane (which may or may not have been developed from a floatplane) was developed into the first amphibian, with floats and wheels. The volume taken up by the wheels would have necessitated larger floats to develop the same buoyancy. Or the Model D was developed both into a floatplane and the first amphibian. As far as I know the D was designed as a landplane, and I am pretty sure Curtiss did develop the first amphibian. He certainly didn't "develop his floatplane into the Model D land plane, which used a lager central float". That simply makes no sense.

70.16.214.90 (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Seaplane


text:
File:Tom Strong 11 SMASH.jpg

Splash Page from Tom Strong #12, created by Alan Moore and Chris Sprouse, published by America's Best Comics, June 2001.

This image is the splash page of an individual issue of a comic book. I believe that comic splash pages may be exhibited on Wikipedia under the fair use provision of United States copyright law.

title: File:Tom Strong 11 SMASH.jpg


text:
Naoko Iijima

Naoko Iijima (飯島直子) is a Japanese television and film actress and a former gravure idol who was born on February 29, 1968, in Kōhoku-ku, a ward of the city of Yokohama in Kanagawa Prefecture, Japan.

Early career - Zero Woman
Iijima began her entertainment career in 1988 on the late night Japanese TV show 11 PM, followed by a number of appearances in commercials and as a Race Queen. An early cinema role was the December 1990 straight-to-video V-cinema drama Strawberry Times 4: Kisaragi San Shimai no Gyakushū (ストロベリータイムス４　如月三姉妹の逆襲) which also starred Risa Tachibana and Mari Ayukawa. The next year, she was featured in the comedy Funky Monkey Teacher (ファンキー・モンキー・ティーチャー) which was released to theaters by the Toei Company in December 1991. Over the next four years, Iijima starred in more than a dozen V-cinema productions as well as posing for gravure (non-nude) photobooks and performing in gravure videos.

In January 1995, Iijima was cast as the lead in the action feature film Zero Woman: Final Mission (Zero WOMAN　警視庁０課の女), a revival of the Zero Woman character from Miki Sugimoto's 1974 film. Despite the title of this film, the Zero Woman franchise continued with a number of sequels. The film was released in an English-language version on VHS and DVD in May 2002 as Zero Woman: Final Mission.

Early TV work
After Zero Woman, Iijima worked largely in the domain of Japanese TV dramas (J-dorama) including the Fuji Television suspense drama Taeko Sashow's Last Case (沙粧妙子　最後の事件) starring Atsuko Asano which aired from July to September 1995 and the 1998 comedy also on Fuji TV, Sometime Somewhere (今夜、宇宙の片隅で), co-starring Masahiko Nishimura, which had a setting in New York City. In August 1999, Iijima starred in the Fuji TV produced theatrical film Messengers (メッセンジャー). In this romantic comedy, Iijima's character, Naomi Shimizu, is a spoiled rich girl in a dream job who is brought down by circumstances to being a bicycle delivery messenger. Various complications ensue including a romance with her new boss played by Tsuyoshi Kusanagi.

Iijima returned to television in 2000 with the Fuji TV series Bus Stop (バスストップ) which ran in twelve episode from July to September 2000. Her role was once again the poor little rich girl (as in the film Messengers) but this time she has to resurrect a fading bus company in Tokyo with Teruyoshi Uchimura as the love interest. In the 2001 Tokyo Broadcasting System (TBS) drama Dreams of Romance (恋を何年休んでますか), Iijima is cast against type as a breadwinner housewife with a sullen stay-at-home husband. For her 2002 TV series Wedding Planner (ウエディングプランナー), Iijima returned to Fuji TV and the romantic comedy genre as the vice president of a company in the bridal industry. In late 2002 she appeared as the oldest of four daughters of a widowed father (played by Masakazu Tamura) in the TBS domestic drama Life With Dad (おとうさん).

Iijima wed musician Nobuteru Maeda in September 1997 but their marriage ended in divorce in March 2001.

Later TV work
Iijima continued acting in Japanese TV serials including the 2003 Fuji TV romance Innocence in Bloom (ハコイリムスメ！) and the 2005 TBS romantic drama Filthy Tongue (汚れた舌). but she also starred in a serious drama about World War II. In the October 2005 TV movie Visas for 6,000 Lives (六千人の命のビザ) Iijima played Yukiko Sugihara, who helped her husband, Japanese Consul Chiune Sugihara, write visas which saved the lives of six thousand Lithuanian Jews in 1940. For the 2008 TV series Hitomi (瞳), broadcast March to September 2008, Iijima, no longer the ingenue, plays the mother of the twenty-year-old heroine Hitomi (Nana Eikura). The romantic comedy How to Marry a 40-Year-Old Woman in 90 Days (４０女と９０日間で結婚する方法) has a 23-year-old "salaryman" (Hayato Ichihara) falling in love with Iijima's character, an "around 40 year old" beautician. The series was originally aired on the mobile phone channel BeeTV but its popularity led Fuji TV to combine the episodes into a TV movie broadcast in December 2009.

Iijima took on her first stage role in May 2010 with the play Nancy (ナンシー), playing a receptionist at a bank where a hostage crisis occurs. Also in the "suspenseful comedy" was actor Masahiko Nishimura who had previously worked with Iijima in the 1998 TV series Sometime Somewhere. In early 2013, Iijima shared top billing with Aya Ueto in the NHK ten part television series Someday at a Place in the Sun (いつか陽のあたる場所で) about two women who meet in prison, one (Ueto) who committed a crime for her lover while the other (Iijima) killed her abusive husband. The series, based on the books by Asa Nonami, follows the lives of the two women after their release from prison.

In January 2013, Iijima announced that she had married a company CEO one year older than her on December 25, 2012, and that a wedding ceremony was planned for early 2013. They divorced on October 27, 2021.

Television

 * Taeko Sashow's Last Case (沙粧妙子　最後の事件) (1995)
 * Sometime Somewhere (今夜、宇宙の片隅で) (1998)
 * Out (~妻たちの犯罪~) (1999) as Noriko
 * Bus Stop (バスストップ) (2000) as Natsuo
 * Hero (2001)
 * Dreams of Romance (恋を何年休んでますか) (2001)
 * Wedding Planner (ウエディングプランナー) (2002)
 * Life With Dad (おとうさん) (2002) as Masuda Yu
 * Innocence in Bloom (ハコイリムスメ！) (2003)
 * Filthy Tongue (汚れた舌) (2005)
 * Visas for 6,000 Lives (六千人の命のビザ) (2005)
 * You Gotta Be Kidding Me! (冗談じゃない！) (2007) as Nonomura Saeko
 * How to Marry a 40-Year-Old Woman in 90 Days (４０女と９０日間で結婚する方法) (2009)
 * Nasake no Onna (ナサケの女) (2010)
 * Someday at a Place in the Sun (いつか陽のあたる場所で) (2013)
 * Last Cinderella (ラスト♡シンデレラ) (2013) as Shima Hasegawa

Films

 * Funky Monkey Teacher (ファンキー・モンキー・ティーチャー) (1991)
 * Funky Monkey Teacher 2 (ファンキー・モンキー・ティーチャー２) (1992)
 * Zero Woman: Keishichō 0-ka no onna (1995 aka Zero Woman: Final Mission) as Rei
 * Messengers (1999) as Naomi Shimizu
 * Bubble Fiction: Boom or Bust, (2007) as herself
 * Kurosagi (2008)
 * High&Low The Red Rain (2016)
 * Family Bond (2020) as Misaki Kawasaki
 * Shinji Muroi: Not Defeated (2024)
 * Shinji Muroi: Stay Alive (2024)

Dubbing

 * Runaway Bride, Maggie Carpenter (Julia Roberts)

title: Naoko Iijima


text: User talk:24.73.87.14

title: User talk:24.73.87.14


text:
Tancarville Bridge

The Tancarville Bridge (Pont de Tancarville in French) is a suspension bridge that crosses the Seine River and connects Tancarville (Seine-Maritime) and Marais-Vernier (Eure), near Le Havre.

The bridge was completed in 1959 at a cost of 9 billion francs. In the 1990s it was realized that the cables had corroded and the shoulders were crumbling. Between 1996 and 1999, both the cables and shoulders were replaced.

A brand of clothes horse introduced in 1960 was named Tancarville for its resemblance to the new bridge; in France, especially the northwest, the name has become a genericised trademark for "clothes horse".

title: Tancarville Bridge


text:
Talk:Hitler's Pope

Eugene Fisher
There is a reference to Eugene Fisher on the page, I am almost certain that the wrong Eugene Fisher was selected https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugen_Fischer as there is nothing there about him knowing Hebrew and he certain does not look to being a source for such a claim

I think it would be probably be http://www.jcrelations.net/Fisher__Eugene_J.2433.0.html?page=2

so I took it out. Can some who has access to the original reference please check it and verify this point. BernardZ (talk)

Israel Zolli
Zolli's book is listed, but not quoted.Xx236 (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is often done. The book might interest readers, even if it is not quoted in the WP article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.136.138 (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Hitler's Pope. 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/20131016021235/http://spectator.org/archives/2006/08/18/hitlers-pope to http://spectator.org/archives/2006/08/18/hitlers-pope
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140113200648/http://www.stjohns.edu/academics/undergraduate/liberalarts/success/faculty/frank_coppa_phd.stj to http://www.stjohns.edu/academics/undergraduate/liberalarts/success/faculty/frank_coppa_phd.stj
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120404022320/http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.949/article_detail.asp to http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.949/article_detail.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051013060320/http://www.catholic.com/library/HOW_Pius_XII_PROTECTED_JEWS.asp to http://www.catholic.com/library/HOW_Pius_XII_PROTECTED_JEWS.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927220401/http://www.catholicleague.org/research/60minutes.htm to http://www.catholicleague.org/research/60minutes.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612143715/http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2142 to http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2142

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) 03:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hitler's Pope


text:
User:Tamias

Cognitive neuroscience researcher. Homepage:

title: User:Tamias