Talk:Pope John Paul II dies

Just a personal thought
I actually find editing this somewhat distasteful - he's not dead yet, and I'm not comfortable with highlighting what a dying man went through - but I guess it's no different to what a thousand news providers are doing around the world... :/ Dan100 (Talk) 23:13, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a regular thing in journalism. Some news organizations even keep databases of obituaries of famous people, and regularly update them, ready to roll in the events of their deaths.  There's been at least one incident, as I recall, of a news organization accidentally publishing such an obituary.  The only difference is that, being a free news service, what we do is transparent. Uncle G 23:39, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Latest news

 * The Vatican press office is now closed until 07:00 UTC. It is unlikely that there will be news before then. Uncle G 04:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is a regular practice and yes some media outlets have made mistakes - Snopes on CNN's "Not Dead Yet" blunder
 * The Vatican is expected to make an announcement at 09:30 UTC. Uncle G 08:29, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The Pope is still alive. There has been a "compromise in the state of his consciousness", but he is not in a coma. Uncle G 09:38, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The Vatican is expected to make an announcement at 15:30 16:00 UTC. Uncle G 15:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No announcement yet. Uncle G 16:31, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Written statement to be released at 5pm UTC. Press conference cancelled. Dan100 (Talk) 16:44, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Written statement released. The Pope's condition is still very grave, but he is still responding when addressed by aides.  Camillo Cardinal Ruini is currently celebrating mass. Uncle G 17:26, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Uncorroborated reports that the Pope has died being bandied about. I'm on top of it. Uncle G 19:59, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Salt water whirls in my eyes
it is really ood; I'm an evangelical atheist, yet for some strange reason, the death of the pope has touched me. ~The bellman | Smile 14:09, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * He hasn't died yet! Dan100 (Talk) 16:42, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * has now :P ~The bellman | Smile  03:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Hehe,that's true... - Richardson...that's me.Let's talk. 8:50, 27 Apr 2007 (UTC)

Media attention
Alot of people would echo Dan's view that it is somewhat immoral to write about the Pope's death before it occurs and indeed many are disgusted at the way his death is being treated, the media attention and lack of privacy he has received in his last few moments (theres an idea for a story if any one wants it Catholics disgusted at media fanfare surrounding Popes death). However unfortuantly this is the way news media works. How do think the BBC and Reuters are so quick with indept stories after events? As soon as the Pope dies they will have a detailed story up and ready recounting his lifes work. → CGorman (Talk)  14:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Two things:
 * The media attention is with the collusion of The Vatican. The Vatican can be secretive, and has been secretive in the past.  It has chosen not to be.  And no-one is intruding.  (No news outlet is publishing telephoto lens photographs through the Pope's bedroom window, to pick an example out of thin air.)  Several commentators have put the coverage down to the wishes of the Pope himself.  He was, after all, a very media-friendly Pope.  I'd like to see evidence that Catholics are disgusted at the media fanfare.  Most appear to think that the coverage is appropriate for a person, who is, after all, a singular figure on the world stage.  Heads of state get, and warrant, this level of attention.
 * I'm not sure why you're talking in the future tense about detailed retrospectives on the Pope's life. Several of the news services, including CNN, were running such retrospectives at 01:00 UTC on Saturday 2, April.  In other words, the detailed retrospectives have been running for about 15 hours now.
 * Direct anyone who enquires about the process to the encyclopaedia, where they can read about it at obituary. Uncle G 15:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * evidence that Catholics are disgusted at the media fanfare. I can't point to any such online resource detailing this at present - but I assure you that here in Ireland many Catholics are unhappy with the large amount of media coverage; many in particular are citing Sky News as being completely over the top with its endlessly amount of so called breaking news about the Popes condition. I personal argree with you that the Vatican has been very closed in the past towards the media and this Pope certainly was a very media friendly Pontiff. → CGorman (Talk)  18:09, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, Sky News is a rolling 24-hour television news channel. If those people didn't want to watch an endless repetition of "No further word on the Pope's health, latest information released by the Vatican press office X hours ago was Y.", then they shouldn't have tuned in to a rolling 24-hour television news channel.  What would those people have had a rolling 24-hour television news channel do?  Make up stories just to fill in the air time, when one sixth of the population of the planet had pretty much paused from whatever else they had been doing?  Treat the (impending) death of the Pope as less important an event that it actually was?  It's not as though there wasn't a demand by Catholics to be kept updated with the very latest information, and so to provide exactly the sort of coverage that you are claiming was complained about by Catholics.  The BBC reporters in Krakow and elsewhere reported that throughout the day Catholics going to and from church had been approaching them asking whether there had been further news.  I've seen no statements from the "many Catholics" in Ireland.  On the basis of actually reported evidence, given by journalists on-air, I'd say that Catholics were happy with the coverage. Uncle G 13:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You seem to be taking this the wrong way - I personally had no problem with the coverage. Im meerly telling you that many people I know in my town (in Ireland) where not happy with the media attention. Older Catholics where happy because they are more traditional but many of the younger Catholics (30-40yrs) were not happy; they felt he should be allowed to die in a less public manor and that somehow his dignity was damaged by constant reports of his inability to move, the feeding tube etc. Like I said I had no problem with the media coverage - im just informing you that many younger Catholics did. → CGorman (Talk)  14:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could be a while yet
I'm no expert (I share the same religous views as The Bellman), but I understand that Catholics believe in 'preserving life at all cost'. The Pope himself decreed some two years ago that feeding should not be withdrawn from patients in PVS. While I don't think the Pope is going to enter a state of PVS, he may well enter a coma and life support equipment could well keep his body alive for a long time. If I'm proved wrong so be it, but we shouldn't be suprised if the Vatican doesn't announce his death for some time. Dan100 (Talk) 19:26, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * We should all hardly be ignorant in the wake of the tragic Terri Schiavo's death, but it is Catholic teaching not to require "extraordinary" or "artificial" means of life support. Dpr 20:14, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yuk. Hat tastes bad. Dan100 (Talk) 20:25, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RSS feed
Not sure what is wrong with this, but Technorati does not accept the (ping) click.

Reactions
I haven't been able to find out what reactions there were to the news in the Philippines and in Brazil, which would balance the article a bit. Uncle G 00:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Correction
editprotected

Correction: The article identifies the sacrament: "The Anointing of the Sick" and "The Last Rites" as the same thing. This is a common mistake/misunderstanding probably due to the fact that they are often administered together for the dying. They are in fact separate. "The anointing of the Sick" is one of the seven sacraments Catholics and Orthodox believe Jesus instituted. It does not require that a person be dying to receive it. Any serious illness, operation etc that brings increased risk of death is sufficient to request this. I have requested it even for non life threatening illnesses and received it. "The Last Rites" just as it sounds is a "rite" in the Church. Rite in this sense refers to a formally approved prayer or series of prayers for a specific purpose which stands on Scripture or takes inspiration from Scripture. It is not a sacrament. In this case it is for the rite of passage into the next life. (John Corrigan M.Phil. professor of Philosophy and Theology at Immaculata University, Malvern, Pa.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.155.157.34 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 13 June 2014‎
 * &mdash; You are incorrect, sorta. "The Anointing of the Sick" is one of three activities that are collectively referred to as "The Last Rights". So while the terms aren't identical, they are certainly closely related. A similar example would be this: all toads are frogs, but not all frogs are toads (toads are a subcategory of frog). Similarly, Anointing the sick is a last right, but it isn't the whole of the Last Rites. The article could be worded more precisely (it would have been if I'd written or reviewed it), but I don't think it is so wrong as to need a correction. &mdash; Gopher65talk 00:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)