Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

This archive covers some of April 20, 2005.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive08. Thank you. Bratsche^{talk random} 23:20, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

WORKS SECTION HAS TO GO!

Ok, can we talk about removing the Works section? 1) 80% of it is not in English 2) it's a direct copy of the de version

If someone actually wants to translate it, that'd be fine too. But the page is already getting too big, and that list is huge already -- and completely worthless to non-German speakers. --Quasipalm 21:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Page lock

Please don't lock this page. See archived discussion and Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Benedict_XVI --SqueakBox 17:05, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Ten Languages?

Since only five languages are presently listed, can this claim be corroborated or is it spurious? Whig 15:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He started his career as a university professor at the age of 30/31 and since every german priest has to learn old greek and hebrew I'm sure he has good reading abilities in these two ancient languages (Latin however is spoken fluently by him, quite singular even among the cardinals). As a rumour I can add that he speaks spanish and polish and perhaps portugese? That was said in TV, but I can't remember exaclty... Soky 16:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All I can say for listening an audio archive on radio today, is that he is fluent in French . 68.165.99.171 17:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Looking around, the only firm number I've seen for languages he's fluent in is four; those are probably German, Italian, French, and English; he certainly knows a great deal of Latin and has some sort of reading knowledge of Ancient Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic; he probably also knows Spanish. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he knows another language or even a few more, making it very likely he knows ten languages. For the time being, though, we might as well just hedge our bets and avoid a specific number.Kevin M Marshall 20:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First German Pope since 1523 controversy: proposed rewording

This has created a fantastic debate about whether Pope Adrian VI can be considered the last German pope before Benedict XVI, or if it was Victor II from the 11th century as many news sources are claiming. Since it has to do with whether Adrian VI was Dutch or German (or both), I'd love to see anyone interested in the debate continue it on the Pope Adrian VI talk page, since it will get lost in the archives here. -Eisnel 03:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who knows how long an individual will live, but, the average age of death for a pope in the last 250-years (17 previous popes since 1750) is 78 years, 123 days. Benedict XVI is 78 years, 3 days old on April 19, 2005. Reubenbarton 08:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We shouldn't use the word "German" for anything dating from before 1871, as it can be quite controversial. The word "German" had a broader meaning before 1871, but since 1871 it really refers only to the modern German state. In Germany, people who call "Deutsch" the Austrians, Swiss, or, for that matter, the Dutch people, are connoted as being in favor of a "Großdeutschland". The idea of a Großdeutschland was definetly discarded with the creation of a small German Reich by Bismarck in 1871 (small because not including Austria or the German-speaking part of Switzerland), and it was only the Nazi who briefly revived the idea of a Großdeutschland. So let's not use the word German unduly. On the other hand, we could use the word "Germanic", which is perfectly neutral, and applies totally to the Netherlands. Be also aware that if you say that Benedict XVI is the eight German pope, that means you count Stephen X (1057-1058) as German. Stephen X was the son of Gozelon (aka Gothelo), of the House of Ardennes, who ruled the county of Verdun, as well as other nearby areas, essentially Romance speaking areas. So calling Stephen X German is perhaps even more controversial than saying Adrian VI was German. Saying Stephen X had Germanic heritage, on the other hand, is ok, as he was desceding from Frankish/Germanic ancestors, like most of the dukes and counts of France, and was blood related to both the Capetian Kings of France and the Ottonian Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire.

That's why I propose the following wording: "Benedict XVI is the first pope born within the current borders of Germany since Victor II (1055-1057), and the first pope with Germanic heritage since Adrian VI (1522-1523), who was born in what is now the Netherlands. Pope Benedict XVI is the eigth pope with Germanic heritage." I think this sounds as neutral as we can do. Please let me know what you think. Hardouin 12:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is silly - while I agree that use of "German" can be awkward for earlier time periods, your suggestion would mean that we can't call, say, Goethe, a German. A rule which produces absurd results is clearly not a good rule. As to "Germanic heritage," that's also deeply problematic - many of the French and Italian popes will have had Frankish, Norman, or Lombard blood. john k 13:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Goethe was born and lived within the current borders of Germany. That's quite different from Adrian VI and Stephen X. Besides, I am not proposing a "rule" as you call it, I am proposing a rewording of the article, so please comment the rewording I proposed. Hardouin 14:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Goethe was born and lived within the current borders of Germany. That's quite different from Adrian VI and Stephen X - well, what about Kant? ;-) a German philosopher, but born and lived in Königsberg, now in Russia, not within the current borders of Germany. Anyway, I think that your proposed rewording is good and clear and everyone should be able to live with it :-). Gestumblindi (currently not at my own PC and not logged in)

Other opinions on the rewording? Hardouin 17:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quit silliness, Hardouin!

Good discussion boards

Maybe someone can provide links to good discussion boards where opinion about the pontificate is welcome?

Try here? You could start something, I think. --SqueakBox 17:55, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I recommend this site [1] Rangeley 21:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Restoring the Hitler Youth content =

Someone keeps changing this language. Saying he "had to join" is inaccurate. The previous language was good. Can this be reverted?

Whig, please explain why you think it is inaccurate; please give references. DJ Clayworth 18:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't intend to say that "Benedict XVI was a Nazi" and I think that could not be said without strong supporting evidence that I don't possess or claim to know of. In other words, Benedict XVI may very well have felt compelled by his circumstances and the existence of laws purporting to require his actions. Still, they were his actions, and his actions should not be stated as compulsions, but as choices made under very difficult circumstances. The fact that we all have done things we may have felt obliged to do while feeling opposed, does not change the fact that we did them and we acknowledge this. So state the facts, and the circumstances, but it is inappropriate POV for the Wikipedia project to offer apologetics, only provide the information without unattributed commentary. Whig 19:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So you intend to include data on the fact that the man uses the rest-room occasionally? Perhaps the relevance of the inclusion you are intent on making is at issue. plain_regular_ham 19:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You equate joining the Hitler Youth with using the rest room? In that case, the whole mention of him having joined should be dropped altogether. As in, "At 9pm last night, he had to use the facilities" would be irrelevant data. But, he joined the Hitler Youth, this is undisputed fact, and if it is relevant at all, which many people think is, then it should be presented neutrally. This is an encyclopedia not an apologetic. Whig 19:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is indeed an encyclopedia. Not a platform to discredit people without good reason. I'll stand by for your fair and reasonable inclusions of relevant information. plain_regular_ham 19:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have posted my proposed change to neutral POV without otherwise adding or removing statements of fact currently posted. Whig 19:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ratzinger was never a Nazi. He was in the Hitler Youth, yes, back when membership was compulsory, but he was never a member of the Nazi party; his family opposed Adolf Hitler's regime. This has been mentioned in a recent Yahoo! News article [2]. Dr Archeville 20:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Membership in the Hitler Youth wasn't compulsory, but was needed to get a grant for studies. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 20:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

According to the Hitler Youth article, membership was indeed compulsory after 1938. I have restored this information, as it's a little misleading to just say 'he joined the Hitler Youth'. NPOV sometimes means you have to include things. --Spudtater 21:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

His Holiness

I re-added the style His Holiness (see article), which is used for current (as opposed to non-current) popes. This is analogous to using "His/Her Royal Highness", "Sir", "Duke", "President", etc.

This is poor style for an encyclopedia. We do not say Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth -- we give the title of her office as Queen without honorifics. By the same token, the title of Benedict's office should be given without the honorific His Holiness. Whig 20:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I had to check myself and I was wrong, we *do* say Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II although whether this is well-advised, I still say it is not. In any case, we should be consistent and I will let the editors make the appropriate judgments for both (all) of these cases. Whig 20:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is his proper title, this has been discussed before. It isnt a point of view, its a title that he holds.Rangeley 21:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lock the picture

someone keep's changing it to the empire from starwars.

You cannot just lock the picture. Just keep watching and revert, --SqueakBox 18:40, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

• • You can lock the specific picture from it being changed, but someone can always upload a different one, under a new name and replace the original image on the article. Zscout370 19:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You can only lock articles, not individual pictures in an article. Anyway, I've banned 4 anonymous vandals in the last half hour from editing for 24 hours, so hopefully that might cut down on the vandalism for a while. -- Arwel 19:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Good job Arwel! Zscout370 19:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

German pope again

Someone has restored the awful

[Benedict XVI] is the first German pontiff since Adrian VI (15221523), who was born in the Netherlands of German descent. Benedict XVI is the eighth German pope; the first was Gregory V (996999).

language. This is by far the worst way we could possibly explain this. In the first place, I've never seen any evidence that Adrian VI was "of German descent" in the sense of "descended from inhabitants of present-day Germany. He was born in the Netherlands which was then considered to be German. That's quite different. Secondly, given that many sources are listing Victor II as the most recent German pope, it is irritating to me that the new version doesn't list him, but lists Gregory V as the first German pope. Thirdly, listing eight German popes is problematic - this means we include not only Adrian VI, about whom there is disagreement, but also Stephen X, in a similarly dubious condition. Why can't we just list both Adrian VI and Victor II as potential "last German popes," and explain that Adrian VI was from what is now the Netherlands, which was then seen as Germany, while Victor II was from within the territory of modern Germany? Why is this controversial? john k 18:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was changed to "is the first German pontiff since the Dutch-German Adrian VI (15221523). Benedict XVI is the eighth German pope; the first was Gregory V (996999). The last Benedict, Benedict XV, served as pontiff from 1914 to 1922 and thus reigned during World War I.", but I included a note saying that "(although some dispute the characterisation of Adrian VI as German, preferring to call Victor II the last German pope)" because, let's face it, people have been disputing it and that needs to be recognised. - SoM 19:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have made an edit that moves the explanation down to a footnote. However, the footnote link is not working like it should. The info is there, the reader just has to manually scroll down to get to it. I am investigating and hope to have it fixed soon. Johntex 20:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Public Opinion

Reading this article I found no mention to popular reaction against Pope Benedict's figure. It is imperative to respect him and the Church, but this is an Encyclopedia, and it should be listed. Maureen Dowd, New York Time's columnist, called him "God's rotweiller"; journalist Homera Cristalli reported that some italians, unhappy with his election, gave him an awful nickname; he has been called also Panzerkardinal. The "God's rotweiller" title has been widespread, and it really should be mentioned - but not under "Controversies", for this is popular reaction, not an intellectual controversy. How do we do it?

Use the precedent on where the term "Slick Willie" is included in the Encyclopedia Britannica regarding Bill Clinton. plain_regular_ham 19:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Since there are two nicknames, and I am sure there will be more to come, so why not have a section (at the bottom) of different nicknames and have sources on where they came from. Zscout370 19:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Clean Up

Could someone please try to make the page flow better, and then constantly check for lamers who constantly screw up the page?

Those two aims are incompatable - checking for "lamers" requires small, frequent edits to fix it.

Anyone actually taking the time to do what you suggest would run head-on into a major Edit conflict right now - SoM 19:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with SoM, many people are trying to edit this page, keep on getting the Edit conflict notice. I get it on here and on the article space a lot. Zscout370 19:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pictures

Will SoM and Cantus please discuss which pictures are used where in this article HERE and STOP REVERTING THE ARTICLE OTHERWISE I WILL BAN BOTH OF YOU FOR VIOLATION OF THE 3 REVERT RULE. -- Arwel 20:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to sound a bit abrupt, but i've been watching this article for over an hour and seeing the main picture switch multiple time without any discussion between the headshot, the throne shot, via occasional views of Emperor Palpatine and Osama Bin Laden, and there are far too many vandal edits going on right now to have two of our more reputable editors playing silly games. -- Arwel 20:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm willing to stop. Although I believe my set up is better. Cantus…☎ 20:32, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Well, my last post on this page seems to have got lost (it's not even in the page history), but I've only changed that pic twice in total, although I've seen more changes that I haven't instigated (I've made more edits than that, but unless you count my restoring a | I accidently left out, none of them were actual reverts).

Like I said on Cantus' talk page though, the headshot just isn't a good picture, and (although I didn't say this there) the throne shot is somewhat more consistant with the portrait-pics of other popes until an official portrait of Benedict XVI is released. - SoM 20:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And /Archive04#Image_Vote_Called_For agrees with me - SoM 20:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Guys, holding a vote for a couple of hours in the middle of the night is hardly the way to come to a wide consensus! The world won't come to an end if you wait a few days for an official Vatican photo. Personally I prefer the headshot, but I'm prepared to wait... -- Arwel 20:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

File:Palpatine.jpg RAWR! I'm not the one changing the pic to this on the front page, but I can do it here right? :p Quasipalm 21:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Number of the beast , Greek Numbering System

First all. John's Apocalypse is written in Greek. So the number system to follow should be greek not ASCII no Latain only Greek. The Greek numerical system is

Α,α=1 Β,β=2 Γ,γ=3 Δ,δ=4 Ε,ε=5 ΣΤ,στ=6 Ζ,ζ=7 Η,η=8 Θ,θ=9 Ι,ι=10 Κ,κ=20 Λ,λ=30 Μ,μ=40 Ν,ν=50 Ξ,ξ=60 Ο,ο=70 Π,π=80 (symbol copa )= 90 Ρ,ρ=100 Σ,σ=200 Τ,τ=300 Υ,υ=400 Φ,φ=500 Χ,χ=600 Ψ,ψ=700 Ω,ω=800 (symbol sanpi)=900

Now it's very simple to calculate some Names AFTER we translate them to greek

The Name JESUS as an example is written in greek ΙΗΣΟΥΣ if we add the letters we come up with Ι+Η+Σ+Ο+Υ+Σ = 10+8+200+70+400+200 = 888

Another example christians (catholics, ortodox etc.) believe in a "trinity god" , father son and holly ghost the greek word for trinity god is ΤΡΙΑΔΙΚΟΣ ΘΕΟΣ Τ+Ρ+Ι+Α+Δ+Ι+Κ+Ο+Σ+Θ+Ε+Ο+Σ = 300+100+10+1+4+20+200+9+5+70+200 = 999

So who ever this individual is if we translate the name in greek and then make the addition the result will be 666.

Β+Ε+Ν+Ε+Δ+Ι+Κ+Τ+Ο+Σ = 2+5+50+5+4+10+20+300+70+200 = 6 6 6

So, the previous 15 Popes that went by the name Benedict were antichrists too then? This type of number stuff is definately not wikipedia worthy. Rangeley 21:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well and has he something to do with Route 66? 68.165.99.171 21:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I say exactly that something is not ok. It's a FACT that the names above produce this result. Antichrist comes from Greek Anti- Christos means ANTI (upside down ) Christos (Christ, Jesus). And after all I don't thing that any Christian believes that the middle ages where from enlightened popes bud more from popes That acted at least not humane. Example the "holy inquisition" etc... Any such type of behavior is ANTI (against) the Values of Christianity. Or a much greater example the infamous Christian Crusades against nations of the world, who tolerated them ? who produced them ? Maybe the 15 previous popes. Did you see the man in his eyes dear Rangeley and you thing that human knowledge is not worthy of wikipedia. What I writte is FACT again and NOT FICTION.

I agree with Rangeley. How can a whole slew of people be the Antichrist? This seems more like a superstition/coincedence that the numbers add up to 666, which isn't really important anyway. We should remove this from the article. Bratsche^{talk random} 22:11, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, my god. My great uncle's name is Benedict as well. 85.124.45.190 15:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok. First of all there will be the "Beast" or "the antichrist" and there are many antichrists simply by doing things against the will of god. So cool down. Read the bible and see what John's Apocalypse says . Many people have appeart in history and produced a mess behind masks of sheeps bud in the inside they where wolfes. And by the way why to remove the article, where is freedom of speach ? Simply because you disagree (and good you do so) we should not discuss some facts ?

Um, well even though you have your freedom of speech, not all things are appropriate in the articles. Wikipedia policy shows that we need to keep a neutral point of view. Calling a person an "antichrist" does not adhere to this convention. Oh, and please sign you comments with four tildes (~~~~) Thanks. Bratsche^{talk random} 22:27, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

22:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) do you agree at least that the above paradigms are facts ? (sorry new at wiki don't know the mechanics of well..) and by the way Ratzinger is defenetly NOT "THE antichrist" he is too old bud I believe that he will play he's role in the worlds future abomination produced by the antichrist.

While in danger of violating the "Don't bite the newbies" princible, i'd have to say with complete authority that your Greek sucks. It's Μπενεντίκτος. Project2501a 04:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

new picture box

What happened to the picture box that had been agreed on? It looked impressive. The one in now looks tacky and amateurish. Please restore the properly designed one. FearÉIREANN 21:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Check out the discussion at Template talk:Infobox pope; people have been changing it. Bratsche^{talk random} 22:29, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Papal traditions

We have already learnt that this traditionalist pope will not be using a Papal coronation (which may be due to it being 6 hours long). Are there any vaticanologists who could suggest when we will know whether he will be using the Papal tiara, and similar "unofficially" abandoned customs? Further, does anyone know when his coat of arms will be released? --Oldak Quill 21:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He will most likely not use the Papal Tiara, as sources suggest. This tradition was stopped, in an effort to make the Pope's more down to earth and less glamorous if you will. Rather then focus on their earthly treasures they instead focus on God. The Coat of Arms is expected to be realeased on April 24th, in his Papal Installation. Rangeley 21:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That modernizing attitude may or may not be one he believes in continuing,but the practical obstacle to his having a traditional Papal Coronation is that Pope Paul VI sold the triregnum and gave the money to charity...they're not going to commission and create a new one in four days!--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 21:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that's not true. Pope Paul gave his tiara to the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington D.C. I think it was done to improve Vatican-American relations. It's now on display there. The tradition wasn't abolished (Benedict could still use it), but the gesture started by Pope John Paul I will probably stand. Bratsche^{talk random} 22:00, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

It would be rather symbolic to use the papier-mache tiara ;). --Oldak Quill 22:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apparently their is a battle royal over this right now in the Vatican. Benedict believed it should not have been abandoned (as well as the Latin Mass) but the protocol people are all anti-tiara-ists. The old style coronation may be gone, but we'll have to say whether the tiaraists or the anti-tiaraists win out. Back in 1978 the pope was in a minority in not wanting to use it, but won the day. It will be interesting to see who wins this time. The announcement of the inauguration was made early to try to kill off any demands for a coronation. As their being only one - wrong. There are at least 12. He could pick any one to use. The 1877 tiara used by Pius XII and John XXIII is available. So is Pius XI's, and the one Pope John XXIII got after his coronation. Leo XIII was given tiaras by the bucketload. If he gets his way and is allowed to be crowned, all he has to do is to walk into the museum, point at one and say "I want that one". It is as simple as that. FearÉIREANN 22:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The pope is infallible. He decides who gets which position, thus he has sovereignty over such decisions. As a non-Catholic, all the Vatican is too me is a living history book - it would be interesting to see the coronation and tiara brought back. --Oldak Quill 22:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Any chance he'll be taking the Papal oath? John Pauls I&II both refused to do so. (Alphaboi867 22:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Gah!

It seems to me that the current situation of this article is such as to simply cause insanity. The editing comes so fast that it's almost impossible to be sure that one isn't editing a vandalized/POVed version of the article, which makes correcting vandalism/POV insertion (the latter especially) prohibitively difficult. It seems likely it'll be weeks before this article reaches any kind of state where we can actually go through and make sure it's not full of nonsense. While this happens to an extent with a lot of articles about things in the news, the situation with this article seems worse than that of almost any other article I can think of. Does anybody have any thoughts on resolutions to this? john k 21:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To create a special college of Wikipedians, called the Cardiwikis, who are the only ones allowed to modify the papal articles ? 68.165.99.171 21:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edit individual sections, rather then the whole thing. Thats the best way to do it. Rangeley 21:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you can't revert individual sections. john k 21:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is driving me crazy too. We're going to need four archives of this talk page in only two days. Oh, and you can edit the individual headers: just click the edit button above the line on the individual header.

We really need an [Edit] for the top section (above the first headline) - SoM 22:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can I be a Wikardinal? Bratsche^{talk random} 22:02, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I know it's frustrating, but look how much information has been put on this page in the last two days. Seriously, out of the chaos a really great article is emerging. Wikipedia already has more information on the new Pope than any other website I've seen. So, in short, the process isn't fun, but it's working! My advice is to copy a section of the page into an external editor. Then when you are ready to upload it, you have an external copy in case the page has changed -- if it has, just copy and past it back in.

I would suggest putting a notice at the top of the page stating that the article is currently in a state of constant fluctuation, and due to the high volume of edits, inaccuracies and vandalism may be present. --Poiuyt Man (talk) 22:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Benedicti

I'm not the best in latin class, but sholnd't it be "Benedicti Decimi Sexti"? At least that's how they called them in the balcony

"Benedicti ..." is the genitive case of "Benedictus ..." The announcement goes "... who takes for himself the name of Benedict the XVIth" - the "-i" represents the English "of". It could also say "take ... Benedict's name" (though that's akward in English) and you still wouldn't call him Benedicts in English. There was a similar problem before with the accusative "Benedictum". Unfortunately that's the setback of the simplicity of English (analytical language) in this field as compared to Latin (synthetical language).

Maybe there should be general trust towards names ending in "-us" (male) or "-a" (female). (Neuter would be "-um", but that doesn't apply to persons.) There are other endings possible (-o,-or,-er) but "us" and "a" are the most common ones.

Str 1977

I took out the dealie about Benedict translatin to "the blessed". I'm pretty sure it's more like "well-speaker" or something to that effect, more of like "blesser". If anyone has anything to say about this please do and feel free to replace it if you feel it's warranted. FilthMasterFlex 01:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think that literally, Benedict means "good speaker" (bene = well, dict = speaker, speaking). But now, I think that the most commonly used translation is now "blessed". See [3]. Bratsche^{talk random} 03:57, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I reposted it (though in the naming section), as the translation "the blessed" is correct. You are right the word consists of the elements "good" (> adverb "well")and "to speak", but speak is in the past participle form so literally it means "he who is well spoken of/about". Of course, theoretically that could be rendering public opinion about someone, but in this case it is "blessed" - a blessing is sort of a uttering of a positive opinion. The opposite is "maledictus" - badly spoken of, hence cursed (there's an episode in the life of Benedict of Nursia playing with that dichotomy).

"Well speaker" would have been "benedicens", "blesser" would have been "benedictor" (though I'm doubting either the English or the Latin verb really exists, I have heard neither)

Thanks for your openess, Flex

Str1977

His Holiness

I re-added the style His Holiness (see article), which is used for current (as opposed to non-current) popes. This is analogous to using "His/Her Royal Highness", "Sir", "Duke", "President", etc.

This is poor style for an encyclopedia. We do not say Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth -- we give the title of her office as Queen without honorifics. By the same token, the title of Benedict's office should be given without the honorific His Holiness. Whig 20:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I had to check myself and I was wrong, we *do* say Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II although whether this is well-advised, I still say it is not. In any case, we should be consistent and I will let the editors make the appropriate judgments for both (all) of these cases. Whig 20:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is his proper title, this has been discussed before. It isnt a point of view, its a title that he holds.Rangeley 21:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that we should keep "His Holiness" in the article. I'm not a Christian, and I don't personally think he's holy, but that is Benedict XVI's legitimate title. The same with using "Her Majesty" for Queen Elizabeth II, even if she isn't my queen. The same with using "The Right Honorable" for British MPs, and so on and so on. Kairos 23:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the point that we should be consistent in our usage. I don't agree that honorifics are a necessary part of a title for the purpose of identifying the personal and positional attributes of an office holder. Certain positions may entail a great many possible honorifics making the situation even more annoying. I think that if the absence of the honorific caused ambiguity, it should be included, otherwise it should be omitted, in all cases, including "The Right Honorable" and so forth. Whig 00:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Most pages regarding Americans simply use their name. Perhaps this is causing the confusion -- is it more common for Europeans to honor a persons title? I just checked GW Bush and it doesn't say "President Geor..." it just says his name. Same with Antonin Scalia, it doesn't say "Justice Antoni..." even though that's his title. However, all UK titles are there, from Sir Elton John to Her Magesty Queen Whoeverisqueen. My preference is that pages just use names -- to me, "His Holiness" is POV just as putting Führer Adolf Hitler would seem to be POV. It's certainly easier just to omit all titles rather than pick and choose, no? Quasipalm 03:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"His Holiness" is a style (manner of address), not a title. In articles for royalty, Wikipedia does seem to fairly consistantly begin them with the style as part of the first reference. And yes, the pope is a monarch. Jonathunder 03:30, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

Which seems consistently *wrong* to me, unless and in case a style and/or honorific is necessary for the purpose of disambiguation. Whig 11:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

President is NOT an example of style; it is an actual title. Pope, Bishop, Cardinal, King, Queen, Prince, Princess, Baron, ect. are all offices; there's no way you could not include them in the article, and oftentimes it is only possible to identify people via these titles - Elizabeth isn't exactly a rare name, for instance. Queen Elizabeth is more distinctive though. In reality styles should probably not be appended before people's names because they are inherently PoV; for instance, Lucian Pulvermacher (aka Pope Pius XIII) is a modern-day antipope. In theory, he too should have the His Holiness title before his name, and it would be PoV to NOT give him that title if the "real" pope has it because we are essentially stating that Benedict XVI is the real pope and Pius XIII is not. I don't think anyone really wants to see that, but it what needs to be done if we have decided it is Wikipedia pollicy, as it certainly is not encylopedic. Titanium Dragon 11:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gah!

It seems to me that the current situation of this article is such as to simply cause insanity. The editing comes so fast that it's almost impossible to be sure that one isn't editing a vandalized/POVed version of the article, which makes correcting vandalism/POV insertion (the latter especially) prohibitively difficult. It seems likely it'll be weeks before this article reaches any kind of state where we can actually go through and make sure it's not full of nonsense. While this happens to an extent with a lot of articles about things in the news, the situation with this article seems worse than that of almost any other article I can think of. Does anybody have any thoughts on resolutions to this? john k 21:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To create a special college of Wikipedians, called the Cardiwikis, who are the only ones allowed to modify the papal articles ? 68.165.99.171 21:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edit individual sections, rather then the whole thing. Thats the best way to do it. Rangeley 21:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you can't revert individual sections. john k 21:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is driving me crazy too. We're going to need four archives of this talk page in only two days. Oh, and you can edit the individual headers: just click the edit button above the line on the individual header.

We really need an [Edit] for the top section (above the first headline) - SoM 22:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is not a standard form, but I think its a good idea. I'm putting it in. Johntex 03:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can I be a Wikardinal? Bratsche^{talk random} 22:02, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I am already selecting the name I will use as Wikipope!Grace Note 01:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know it's frustrating, but look how much information has been put on this page in the last two days. Seriously, out of the chaos a really great article is emerging. Wikipedia already has more information on the new Pope than any other website I've seen. So, in short, the process isn't fun, but it's working! My advice is to copy a section of the page into an external editor. Then when you are ready to upload it, you have an external copy in case the page has changed -- if it has, just copy and past it back in.

I would suggest putting a notice at the top of the page stating that the article is currently in a state of constant fluctuation, and due to the high volume of edits, inaccuracies and vandalism may be present. --Poiuyt Man (talk) 22:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposed notice:

--Poiuyt Man (talk) 23:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why this notice is silly:

--Quasipalm 16:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I changed the part about Pope Benedict XVI being "opposed" to homosexuality and abortion. This has an offensive, and biased sound to it. Rather than being "opposed" to homosexuality and gay marriage, it can more positively and neutrally be said that he is committed to the Church's teaching which states that heterosexual intercourse and marriage are the only valid forms of human sexual and marital behavior. This way, a negative is eliminated and NPOV is maintained. I have included it this way, "He accepts the Catholic doctrines which state that heterosexual marriage and intercourse are the only valid form of human sexual behavior. He also proclaims the Catholic Church's teaching that euthanasia and abortion are intrinsically evil acts." - JW

"it can more positively and neutrally be said" ... so which is it? more positive or more neutral? I think it's clear you're trying to make his stance sound less resolute than it really is. And he's not just supporting the Catholic stance anymore -- he's setting the direction of the church now, so to pretend that he's not in part responsible for it isn't accurate. Please read wikisource:On_the_Pastoral_Care_of_Homosexual_Persons, a letter by Ratzinger, and it'll be clear that this guy is very opposed to homosexuality. Quasipalm 06:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He is not setting the direction of the Church based on his own personal ideas. He has no power to change Church teaching. It is not the Pope who decides that homosexual sex is wrong. A Pope's job is to teach what was handed on to him from the previous Pope... who himself taught what he received from the previous Pope... and so on, all the way back to Christ. The job of a Pope is not to "come up with teachings", it is to preserve and defend the original teachings of Christ and His apostles. - Jack

I'm not sure it's all that biased to say that Benedict is "opposed" to homosexuality when he says that gay people are intrinsically evil. Kairos 23:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He doesn't...he says their refusal to be celibate is "objectively disordered".--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 23:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As Prefect, Ratzinger wrote a 1986 letter to bishops that identified homosexuality as a "tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil" and "an objective disorder." Kairos 00:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You have provided a true quote from him. But nowhere will you ever find a quote from him that says, "Gay people are intrinsically evil." One reason for this is that the Catholic Church teaches that all human beings are inherently good. That also applies to gay people. In Vatican II, Pope Benedict (then Bishop Ratzinger) helped to write the papers that explained the Catholic Church's teaching. The Church's Catechism, which contains a summary of Catholic doctrines, is based on those papers among other things. As a Cardinal, and now as Pope it is his job to defend and preach the Catholic faith to the world.

The following quote is from paragraph 2358 of the Catechism, and it shows what the Catholic Church, and thus Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict truly say about homosexuals: "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition." (Paragraph 2358) You can go to the following link and scroll down to read what the Church truly teaches about homosexuality (the numbers on the left side of the page are the paragraph numbers): http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art6.htm -JW

Of course B16 is opposed to homosexuality and abortion, and there is nothing offensive or biased about saying so. Please give the man credit for his convictions, even if you and I disagree with him. Adam 00:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're confusing the issue,though.His church is opposed to homosexual acts as well as acts such as abortion,contraception,fornication,and so forth. "Hate the sin,love the sinner" is certainly among his convictions as well,and clarity demands distinguishing between the Church attitude toward homosexual activity and homosexuality.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 00:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the previous post. "Opposed to abortion" is ok, since it is both clear what abortion is and it is not offensive to describe the Pope's stance that way. "... to homosexuality" however is not so good, since it blurs the distinction between an "orientation" and an "act" (before anyone asks - whether you agree with the distinction is irrelevant, since this is about the Pope's and the Church's stance on the issue and there the distinction applies). So maybe: "homosexual acts" or "practised homosexuality" or "homosexual practice".

Str1977

"Opposed to homosexual acts" sounds good to me. Kairos 00:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wish to concur with Kairos. Zscout370 00:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I strongly disagree. You cannot seperate homosexual identity from homosexual expression. That's like saying I have nothing wrong with Catholics, but Catholic Acts are evil.Quasipalm 06:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's statements like this I tried to address beforehand above. It is the Pope's and the Church's stance that is described here (as being controversial) and you might not agree with it. That's fair enough (but your PoV). But to take out the distinction is misstating the Church's stance.

Str1977

I also agree that the best phraseology would be to say something to the effect of "committed to Church teaching on homosexuality." To say "opposed to homosexuality" makes the Pope sound as if he is a politician taking a position on an issue "du jour" rather than a religious leader guided by doctrine. Brian Brockmeyer 00:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'A "tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil" and "an objective disorder."' doesn't sound like the words of a man who is supportive of "homosexuality. Those are clearly words directed against the broader notion of homosexuality and not just against the acts. Grace Note 01:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Our new Pope happens to love and respect people who decide to engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex, while at the same time adhering to Catholic doctrine that the behavior of these people is not acceptable. The Catholic Church teaches the following (and this is directly from paragraph 2358 of the Catholic Catechism): "The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."

So, to recap, the pope is opposed to homosexuality. Quasipalm 06:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On consideration I agree that "opposed to" is not the best phrasing. If one considers something to be a disorder one is not really "opposed to it". It's like saying a psychiatrist is "opposed to" schizophrenia. It is better to quote what he said - buit in the appropriate place in the article, not in the introduction, which is already too long. Adam 02:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wow, Adam. Of all the comments in this article, this one of yours is among the most logical and perceptive. Very cool. - JW

But surely, gays should have some say in the matter. If almost all gay people do not see themselves as suffering from a disorder, why should Catholic apologists be allowed to explain away their opposition to homosexuality so easily?

Homosexuals(and others), in a way, already have a say by putting it into the "controversial" section, but regardless of your POV, the Church's stance should be described acurately (see my comments above) That's not explaining away anything, just stating the facts (and the Pope's and the Church's POV, if you want to call it that, are the facts this paragraph deals with)

Str1977

I am gay, by the way, and my view is that this article should just state what B16 has said on the matter. This is not an article about Catholic attitudes to homosexuality, which someone should write. Adam 11:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Being gay as well, I agree with Adam. Just state what B16 has said on the matter and move on. Now, who's going to write the article about Catholic attitudes to homosexuality??? Mowens35 16:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That would be an interesting article. Please add it to this category if you write it: Category:LGBT issues and religion --Quasipalm 17:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unless there was an agreed language to the above issues, I wish to give an idea to yall. I am thinking of more like this: "Benedict XVI, though following the Church doctrine on homosexuality, believes that homosexuals "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition." Though I used the same quote as mentioned above, I personally think this could work. Zscout370 16:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Scout, I disagree. Your solution puts words or thoughts into Benedict's mouth/head. Wiki cannot say that he "believes" anything unless he has stated it. Or unless we know, and declare, that he wrote the doctrine himself. Mowens35 16:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zscout,

I disagree with the "though" in there. It might give the impression of a difference between the Church's stance and Benedict's adherence to it on the one hand, and the belief that they should be treated "with respect". It sounds like "A" is church doctrine and "B" his personal belief, whereas in fact both are church doctrine to which Benedict adheres to.

Str1977 09:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just a little post here from a person who is not an editor, but I am a little knowledgable on the subject: in answer to Mowens35, Zscout is quoting from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Benedict was the person in charge of the project, and it is noted at the page after the title page). I could be wrong, but I believe that this quotation is taken directly from the 1986 letter that Benedict wrote on homosexuality itself, so it is his thinking, and it would seem that he does believe it. If you guys have a standard for not using the word 'believe' in this context I guess that's fine, but it seems that is his belief to me. kraine 16:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was quoting JW, who quoted the quote from paragraph 2358 of the Catechism. From what JW stated, this shows what the Catholic Church, and thus Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict truly say about homosexuals. Zscout370 20:00, 21 Apr 2005