Talk:Visits by Pope John Paul II to Nicaragua

POV check

I nominated the article for POV check because I feel that it may be biased. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in Nicaraguan politics can check it. Przepla 17:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I specifically find fault with the following five statements. They are all contained in the second half of the entry. I find the first part of the piece to be objective enough, but then it sort of goes off the deep end.

1. "Rather than helping to alleviate the hierarchy-state tensions, the Pope’s visit exacerbated them even further."

This is a conclusion that is not judgment-neutral at all, and seems better left to a sociology text than an encyclopedia.

See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars

2. "The Pope’s visit convinced the vast majority of Nicaraguan people that the Vatican was not in tune with their problem."

This needs a citation, to say the least! (read: there probably isn't one, and the assertion is likely wishful thinking to lend a partisan assist.)

3. "[T]he day before the Pope’s visit to Managua a funeral service was held to commemorate the lives of seventeen Sandinista supporters who were killed by the contras in the same plaza where the Pope’s mass took place. The Pope completely ignored the incident and did not offer any words of condolence for the mothers of the fallen men."

This needs a citation and its persuasive or argumentative tone is inappropriate for an encyclopedia, as it violates the neutral point of view rule (see Five Pillars, above).

4. "The Pope’s visit was a significant event in the revolutionary struggle of the Nicaraguan nation."

The phrase "revolutionary struggle of the Nicaraguan nation" violates the neutral point of view rule because it implies that the FSLN (Sandinista) government was the legitimate embodiment of the aspirations of the Nicaraguan people, a disputed point, and in light of the fact that the Sandinistas find themselves currently out of office after an electoral process, certainly subject to debate. See neutral point of view rule, above.

5. "The controversial visit was also used by the contras as a form of propaganda to give their organization moral legitimacy."

It's probably fair to say that the pontiff's visit was "controversial." It is also fair to say that the contras used propaganda. However, stated alone, especially at the end of an article that refers to "the revolutionary struggle of the Nicaraguan nation," it is terribly one-sided. The Sandinistas used propaganda, too, you know. In fact, the article itself earlier made the point that "the Sandinistas made a tremendous effort to encourage Nicaraguans to attend the two papal masses that were held in Leon and Managua," in the hopes that the Pope would voice "his opposition toward American aid to the contras." (I.e., give *their* organization moral legitimacy.) The article needs to be reworked and re-cast in a more judgment neutral tone.

168.98.32.22 01:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

A rational correction of the bias mentioned can be found in Malachi Martin's book The Jesuits. --Stijn Calle (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this article has grave POV issues, and needs revision urgently - it looks like it was written by a Sandinista apologist. There is no effort at balance, and bald conclusory statements are made with no citation. We're not looking for a John Paul II apologetic, but a balanced and well sourced encyclopedia article on this event. It's been in this form for nine years; it is well past time to get it fixed. Alexander1926 (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)