This article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to multipleWikiProjects.

European Microstates:Vatican CityLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject European Microstates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofEuropean Microstates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.European MicrostatesWikipedia:WikiProject European MicrostatesTemplate:WikiProject European MicrostatesEuropean Microstates Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale. This article is supported byWikiProject Vatican City (assessed asMid-importance). Christianity:CatholicismLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofChristianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale. This article is supported byWikiProject Catholicism (assessed asLow-importance). Film:British /Christian /American This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you canjoin the discussion and see lists ofopen tasks andregional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to thedocumentation. To improve this article, please refer to theguidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by theBritish cinema task force. This article is supported by theChristian films task force. This article is supported by theAmerican cinema task force. Australia:CinemaLow‑importance The Shoes of the Fisherman (film) is within the scope ofWikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage ofAustralia andAustralia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit theproject page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale. This article is supported bythe Australian cinema task force (assessed asLow-importance). Need help improving this article?Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at theNational Library of Australia. TheWikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email tohelpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

The statement that this was one of President Nixon's favorite films and it's possible link to his China initiative is unsourced.T.E. Goodwin22:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed{{POV}} and replaced with{{fact}} next in the actual paragraph in question to help other editors locate the area to be improved. — MrDolomite • Talk18:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• According to[1],The Shoes of the Fisherman was the first movie Nixon saw after being inaugurated as president, but he doesn't seem to have viewed it again during his presidency. --Metropolitan90(talk)06:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two things:

1: There really needs to be separate articles for the novel and film.

2: The plot summery is a mess, wandering from topic to topic in no logical order and leaving many things out entirely. Furthermore, it is unclear in several places whether it is desribing the book or film.

67.142.130.3405:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC) (snowboardpunk - I can't log in from this computer)[reply]

As mentioned earlier on this talk page, this article should be split and has been tagged as such. — MrDolomite • Talk18:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The Shoes of the Fisherman (film)
• The Shoes of the Fisherman (novel)

How are you going to split them. There is little information about the book, except who the author is and its NYT ranking, and only stub info about the film. Two stubs are not better than one.MarnetteD |Talk17:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the film and book need to be split - they are two separate art-forms after all. I'll aim to work on a page for the book as soon as I can. It fits into the Australian literature project.Perry Middlemiss (talk)05:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article should first be expanded and then, when enough information is gathered, it should be split. But not before.Str1977^(talk)20:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One key qusetion regarding any split-- are there any significant differences between the novel and the film? Unless there are, it seems they could be handled as one entry.—Precedingunsigned comment added byRLM1961 (talk •contribs)20:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recently added in a claim that the book was published on the very day that John XXIII died. That was reverted because of a lack of citation (although not only for that reason, but that doesn't concern us here), and I couldn't find an online confirmation of it, so I was prepared to believe it was hyperbolic. I've now come across another such claim. I found it in my collection of old newspaper articles. It's called "Last Writes", by Tony Stephens, dated 3 June 2000, from the SMH (Spectrum, Features, p. 3s). I quote:

The Wests were in New York for the launch ofThe Shoes of the Fisherman, about the papacy, when John [XXIII] died in 1963. "With your luck, West," friend and fellow authorJon Cleary had said, "the Pope will die on publication day". He did. The Wests went off to church.

I can't see it online, or it may be available via the SMH archives. Any comments before I insert this information into the article, with the cite? --JackofOz (talk)23:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on the research JoO (and nice to talk to you again too:-)). I think that you should reenter it citing the article that you found. Not all citations have to be online verifiable and you have already done more legwork than most. Cheers.MarnetteD |Talk00:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would respectfully question three out of the five WikProjects that this article is said to be within the scope of.

• WikiProject European Microstates: this article is about a novel and film set in the Vatican and Rome - surely that doesn't count as "coverage of European Microstates"?
• WikiProject Christianity: although the novel and film are about a Pope, surely that doesn't count as "coverage of Christianity"?
• WikiProject Australia: the only relevance to Australia is that the novel was written by an Australian; I don't think Australia is even mentioned in the text, but if it is, it has no significance. The film was from Hollywood. Surely that there's no "coverage of Australia" in this article?

I suggest that someone with more administrator-fu than me might consider deleting those three boxes.—Precedingunsigned comment added byStanning (talk •contribs)17:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has been the suggestion above that these should be separated, which was then countered by the statement that more information needs to be added before splitting. I agree with both. Towards that end, I have tried to separate out the book and the film, to at least make them separate sections. --Bruce Hall (talk)02:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It doesn't make sense to have a section headed "1968 film," when the preceding section had already described the film, rather than the novel.PurpleChez (talk)23:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As it stood. the article was pretending to be about the book, with a request to write in Australian English, but was really about the film with the actor's names accompanying what someone thought was a book synopsis. Two stubs are better if the article is likely to degenerate further, and become a greater mess, so I have gone ahead with a split.Philip Cross (talk)13:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the references to Pius XIII, as in the film Gielgud's character is never referred to by name. The end credits list his character as simply "The Elder Pope."Jimpoz (talk)21:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"This revolutionary action brings the world a new chance at peace and Kiril's decision is internationally acclaimed."

I just watched the 2h42 min version and there is no international acclamation. There is a 2h44 version though that I can't access. Does anyone know if the international acclamation statement is correct? I suggest deleting the last half of this sentence.Antandbeeandkinddog (talk)15:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Start-Class European Microstates articles
• Low-importance European Microstates articles
• Start-Class Vatican City articles
• Mid-importance Vatican City articles
• Vatican City articles
• WikiProject European Microstates articles
• Start-Class Christianity articles
• Low-importance Christianity articles
• Start-Class Catholicism articles
• Low-importance Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• Start-Class film articles
• Start-Class British cinema articles
• British cinema task force articles
• Start-Class Christian films articles
• Christian films task force articles
• Start-Class American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• Start-Class Australia articles
• Low-importance Australia articles
• Start-Class Australian cinema articles
• Low-importance Australian cinema articles
• Australian cinema task force articles
• WikiProject Australia articles