Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

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 from 15 July to 29 August.

Sins of the fathers visited unto the generations following

Can someone point me to the theology under this concept ? I look to see the Biblical roots : how this relates to the Jewish faith , to Christian anti-semitism and to absorbtion (if it was or if it was not not ?) into Islam....Famekeeper 08:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I should be replying to this, who knows what you are planning now, but hoping for Good faith I will anyway.

Look at Exodus 20, 5-6 (or parallel Deuteronomium 5,9-10)

Please take to include the second verse as well.

Also note, that in the first verse "pursue" doesn't mean "punish children for their father's crimes", but more "check whether the children are following the sins of their fathers and if they do, punish them". It's sort of a divine parole, stretching over some generations.

it's certainly part of the brothers Judaism and Christianity, as they share the OT, but I don't know what Islam says about this all.

Your reference to anti-Semitism is probably inspired by the often abused quote from Matthew 27,25. This verse has been used against the Jews in history, notwithstanding that not all Jews or their ancestors were present at that occasion. And anyway, anti-Semitism (including non-racial) goes against the basic principles of Christianity. Somewhere recently I have read the interesting interpretation, that the verse originally was referring to the Jews eventually accepting Jesus as the Messiah, hence bringing his (redeeming) blood on them - but for their salvation not their demise. This would of course been a thought in the Evangelist's mind, not in the mind of the actual speakers, but there is another example of such an "unintentional prophecy" (look John 11,50-51).

Str1977 11:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

No, my refrence is to the barrage of allegations in historians . You are hoever a great fund and as I explained earlier , your contrary position allows for a more complete airing of the issues . Don't let that be the reason for ever with-drawing . There's an old scots saying " Ye propose , and aye'll (?) contravaert " . We certainly have that . When someone brings the case , you'll happily put it into the BXVI article , I guess . But will you yourself take the case , as you are a christian and require the proof against doubt , against the historians allegations , against what you call the 50 year calumny . I ask you again , will you take a suit and if not , why not ?Famekeeper 13:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Just to clear up a bit here, Exodus 34:7 quotes who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the sin of fathers on the sons, and on the sons of sons, to the third and to the fourth generation. which is fairly well-known, and is echoed in Jeremiah 32:17 You show loving-kindness to thousands, and repay the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their sons after them. Isaiah 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his sons, because of the iniquity of their fathers, so that they do not rise.

Contradicting that stance are Ezekiel 18's Does not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son has done justice and right, has kept all My statutes, and has done them, he shall surely live. and Jeremiah 31's In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But everyone shall die for his own iniquity: every man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge. -Sherurcij 19:21, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou-I'm most interested in this .Famekeeper 21:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Sherurcij gave the long story to the synthesis I gave above. Str1977 16:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Crown Copyiright

Good news folks, I found two photos from the Governor General of Canada's website: http://www.gg.ca/media/photos/2005/20050424_01_e.asp and http://www.gg.ca/media/photos/2005/20050424_02_e.asp. We can use these photos under the Crown Copyright. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

questionbable.Geni 13:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Featured status

The result of the last Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pope Benedict XVI was 11 support votes, 8 objections plus 1 "mild objection" to the style "His Holiness" (which was decided to use by a vote). How are we going to interpret this? Is concensus necessary for featured status? Also, most of the objections were really not that logic.

We needed more support votes, plus the votes about stability are logical: one of the requirements that a Featured article must have is that the content will be relatively stable, that meaning it will not change completely from month to month. And with the Benedict XVI being a current leader, this will fail the stability requirements. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Links

Anyone care to put in a reference to the Harry Potter article in view of Benedict's comments on the subject: or to the list I put under Coincidence (and which I see as having no particular historical significance).

Post it here, in the talk page first. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

All I know is that there were reported comments in the newspapers for the former point (trawl enough through the writings of any person in the news and you will find something that shows them as batty/adopting strange political and other positions etc). As for the second point, one of my interests is the European microstates on which I have collected assorted information. User:jackiespeel 16:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

NB - there is a comment on the HP group of sites about BXVI's comments, so the reverse connection should be made.

Newsweek had some comments too, but from what I read, Benedict made the comments before his election to the Papacy. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Women as preists

Based from http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050726/lf_afp/canadavaticanreligion, Benedict does not want women to be ordained as priests. We need to follow this event and see what actions he takes. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Is it really necessary? Wouldn't it only be noteworthy if he allowed women to be priests? --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, or this can be noted as an example of Benedict holding up the beliefs and policies of JP II. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Correct... perhaps just an example of the continuation of tradition, etc. from JPII and Benedict. More of the same, or something. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Pictures

Here is a large number of beautiful pictures. Enjoy!

http://www.freeforumzone.com/viewdiscussioni.aspx?f=65482&idc=3

(it would be nice if we could use a couple of them as fair use)

IMHO, some can be claimed as PD, because some of the pictures were taken years and years ago. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. There is also a picture of Benedict as a little boy there.

I doubt it is pre 1928Geni 21:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

File:Pope Benedict Mass of Installation.jpg

Bumper sticker

Have you seen this: http://www.papalshop.com/images/bsticker-lg.gif

It's cute :) Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Benedict and Paparazzi

As "Pappa Razzi" is Benedict's occasional (and logical) nickname would someone care to include it in the text (and if not, this mention here will suffice))

When did this nickname come into play? Who first mentioned it? It is it widespread use? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• • More importantly...what does this have to do with his papacy..it would be ridiculous to include it in the article!<<Coburn_Pharr>> 18:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it was an Italian newspaper which first used the term, but it has also appeared in some British tabloid newspapers - coming from the film reference. Mentioned here mainly so there is a record of it being used from the beginning of his papacy - and in case it were to become sufficiently widely used to mention.

(When does a factoid become a useful fact?)

We got mentioned

Jimbo Wales cited our article in a annoucement about new editing rules: "Citing a recent example of vandalism, Wales recalled how following the election of the new Pope Benedict in April, a user substituted the pontiff's photo on the Wikipedia site with that of the evil emperor from the Star Wars film series.

"The picture was only on the page for a minute. But whoever opens the article at this moment will get annoyed – and therefore doubt our credibility," he told the paper." See http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/computing/20050805-1259-media-wikipedia.html. I know it is over a situation we do not like, but hey, thats something. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

It was also on CNN. --EatAlbertaBeef 22:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I am glad that we had users who reverted it quickly and admins who blocked quickly. While I am also glad the article has stablized on the past few months, I hope we do not face the same problems with the article on Michaelle Jean, the new Canadian Governor General. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

What Does The "Question of The Law " Have to Do with Benedict XVI?

I fail to see what this dispute about analyses of events between 1933 and 1945 has to do with Pope Benedict XVI. It is relevant to Ludwig Kaas, the Centre Party (Germany), and Pope Pius XII. Robert McClenon 16:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Boss man rap : Bill Dorich . Uh Famekeeper 18:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Uh: I'll Delete if u want me to , but let it remain in the archive what I say here : this posting referred to The Question of The Law : the posting was a compliance of civility : Corecticus is the uh best friend to Josellin & Roman Law . The posting is quartered elsewhere . Famekeeper 21:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

You require me to dig into the issue of how any of this relates to the BXVI article . It relates because there is an unfortunate historical conundrum apparent throughout the Wikipedia pages relating to the Reichskonkordat or Concorde reached in 1933 and in force still today . The WP reports throughout its relevant pages , upon the rise , accession, seizure , election or otherwise to power of Adolf Hitler . All these pages are comimg up now in cyberspace , taken to be the history and thereby informing the world at large what the WP classes as history . Indeed part of that history relates to the Concorde present ,still , with Germany , and thus brings alive into the contemporary arena that which is historical , or reported as historical - as well as that which is currently the province of BXVI . Repair to the portayal of history therefore will touch upon this existant legislation of accord . I may be alone in seeing the complete contradiction in the presentation of the history , but I claim that it exists . The WP is in historical error and is infecting the greater cyberspace with error . The fact that this error relates to the vastly more serious error actually being accepted by the vatican in this concord , and that BXVI has his own jurisdiction in the matter , does not cancel the error inside the WP . I can say that this is the chicken coming home to roost : the illegal activity by predecessors of BXVI is in fact still illegal , in so far as the Holy see has determined to continue adherence to an illegal Concord . The Concord is illegal because it was signed by an illegal Government , which illegality is the matter of historical error in the WP . The WP itself at present supplies nearly all the corroboration of this illegality in supplying translation of legalities from the historical period , namely the Reichstag Fire Decree and the Enabling Act . I refer the reader to the questions arising on discussion page of the Reichskonkordat .

Despite the apparent contrarians on WP denying the entry of the Centre Party and the Reichskonkordat into the historical conclusions of John Cornwell , it appears in fact wrong , and that the evidence brought by myself on Pacelli are slight in comparison . Hitler's Pope in other words may not be artificially separated from these other articles , at all , not they from Hitler's Pope .Famekeeper 11:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

The asshole who keeps coming back under new identities to put 'joke' pictures here and elsewhere has now had his account blocked indefinitely. He seemed not have got the message that endless short blocks were sending. Maybe now he will go away, get out his crayons and play somewhere else. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I put the image he used to vandalize the article with up for speedy deletion. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Done that in the past with previous images he used, though as some were used in real articles they could not all be deleted. He has since come back on a dial up modem using AOL. A 15 minute block was imposed. Zeech. What a f***ing asshole he is. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Just calm down. Though I know it will be annoying, but this is something we have to do for now, especially since of the news report I mentioned above. It will have it's time, then it will go away, just like the Snape kills .... fad. Plus, you will get some more admin help once my RFA is over. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Since I completed my streak of vandalism on these pages, it has brought me much amazement and satisfaction seeing the amount of discussion and work that has been put in by the wikipedia community. I take pride in what I have done to the articles. Though I am retired for good from vandalism, I set back every day and reap the rewards from my actions. By the way, its nice to see that I am an official wikipedia asshole. That has a nice ring to it. Though, I could come up with a few more to describe me. Keep up the good work, and may the force be with you. Adamwankenobi 03:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to see if a picture can be locked into an article so that this nutcase, and the other one who puts pictures of penises all over users' pages, can't use particular pictures from real articles to vandalise other pages. The penis picture has had to be deleted over 30 times from user pages at this stage, while the various Star Wars pictures have been used over 20 times on various papal pages.

FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

We can request for page protection, but I think the page will be stable for a while. IMHO, if it were not for the Reuters report, we would not be facing this problem. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

we can lock an image out of all articles but we can't do it per article.Geni 21:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The locking only prevents the image from being replaced by uploading, so someone can still remove the image from the article. The only solution is to lock the article itself, and any changes can be suggested here. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Papal tiara in coat of arms

see this:
File:Guard tiara.jpg
It is very official Swiss Guard standard (picture from May oath). So, I think, that we will see both forms, with tiara and without. What do you thik? How to present it in the article? Fjl 16:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC) Fjl 16:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a very special coat of arms, only used on the Swiss Guard Standard. The Vatican still uses the arms without the Tiara otherwise. But, what we can do is display the tiara-less arms first, then we display the tiara arms later. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not have picture, but "tiara CoA" is displayed in Vatican Gardens (made of flowers). Fjl 18:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant we can use the photo above. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

His Holiness in italics

Is there any reason why His Holiness is in italics? It doesn't match the format for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth etc. etc. I'd like to make them consistent. Was there some agreement that I missed when I was busy, or can I just go ahead? Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 21:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

No. One user proposed the idea. (I forget who. I think it might have been Eloquence, or maybe he just came up with the idea of linking HH, HM etc to articles explaining the style.) It might be a way, though, of NPOVing the use of styles, by highlighting that they aren't being used but explained. Until Wikipedia changes policy on styles, italising and wikifying them might be the best way to go. But if I go near any pages to do that, the same ragbag of 'style crusaders' go ballistic and scream abuse, so someone else should do it. I think Her Majesty Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom or His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI is more neutral visually than simply Her Majesty Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom or His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm very happy to put italics in all of them. But, one question first. Am I mistaken in thinking that something was said here about not using His Holiness for dead popes? Actually, I've just had a look, and many of Benedict's predecessors are now marked as Servant of God, or Venerable, or Blessed. I had to go back as far as Pius XI to find one who started without anything (other than "Pope") before his name. But what about deceased Kings and Queens? Looking at Wikipedia articles on British monarchs and princes, etc., it seems that deceased monarchs have His/Her Majesty at the beginning, back as far as Victoria, stopping for William IV, starting again for George IV, and stopping again for George III. There's also some inconsistency in that we have King George I, but just George II. Deceased consorts (Elizabeth the Queen Mother, Queen Mary, Queen Alexandra) or Royal Highnesses (Princess Margaret) don't seem to keep their styles on Wikipedia. I'm happy to make them all consistent, but I'll wait a day or two to see if their are any objections. I'm not anxious to ruffle any feathers, but I would like all the articles to be consistent. What does everyone think about italics, no italics, styles for deceased popes, monarchs, and princes? Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 23:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Styles

Given the ongoing controversy over the usage of styles I have proposed that styles should be the subject of an infobox rather than used in the opening sentence. That way all factual information can be conveyed, but we can end the rows all over the place on the inclusion or exclusion of styles. I have an infobox for papal pages. In the case of Pope Benedict it would look as follows: (don't worry about the papal tiara, BTW. For visual unity crowns were used for each of the monarchical pages. Even if, as now in the papacy, the crown is not worn it still is a symbol of the office.)

Papal styles of Pope Benedict XVI

Don't worry right now about the detail. The issue first of all is whether to use infoboxes instead of the current system. Please don't insert the draft infobox yet. This needs to be done by consensus, so all the draft infoboxes are protected and not yet live. If a consensus exists to go down that road, then issues like content, layout and colourscheme can be explored. I'd welcome any comments here or on my own page as to what people think about the infobox idea. The box can easily be slotted into any biographical page. There are identical boxes proposed for British monarchs, Austrian monarchs, presidents, HRHs, etc. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I, for one, think it's a fine idea. Pointedly not discussing layout, content and colorscheme, the idea of an infobox (presumably instead of using the style in the article) is a good one. So, uh... support. --User:Jenmoa 05:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Support (btw, Jtdirl, please email me). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Locking

To stop the vandalism and to stop the reverting, I locked the page. So, whatever issues that everyone seems to have with the page, let's talk about it now instead of reverting left and right. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Per-Article Blocking

There is a proposed policy to provide the capability to block particular editors from editing particular articles. This article is an example of the need for such a policy. Particular anonymous IP addresses that have either vandalized this article or made dubious edits should be blocked, rather than having to protect the article. Robert McClenon 18:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I've made some further comments on this issue near to the bottom of the page --84.9.88.149 15:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC) (Vandal)

BJAODN Nomination

Ann Heneghan reverted a comment from this talk page, referring to it, correctly, as offensive nonsense. I would suggest that rather than being simply deleted, it should be archived at BJAODN. Robert McClenon 15:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

No matter what it is, because of thise comments, this page is still staying locked. And it looks like the annon that was trying to get a revert war started has not come up with the evidence I was asking for. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that, unfortunately, as a temporary measure, the page needs to be locked. Locking a page is never desirable, but is less undesirable than having a revert war. I agree that the comment about the importance of a previous Pope was an opinion and as such was POV. (If a historian had made that statement, a reference to that statement would be a fact.) The deletion of that statement was not vandalism, and labeled it as vandalism was inappropriate. Robert McClenon 17:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure how it can be locked, but it will stay locked until enough people flood my mail box asking me to unlock it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Ratzinger and Fatima

In this section the word "Portuguese" should link to Portugal, as Portuguese is a disambiguation page. Dr Gangrene 20:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

The following section needs rewriting:

On June 19, 2005, Benedict XVI beatified Father Wladysław Findysz, a martyr of the Communist regime, Father Bronisław Markiewicz, the founder of the Congregation of St. Michael, and Father Ignacy Kłopotowski, the founder of the Congregation of the Sisters of Loreto. Benedict XVI delegated Józef Cardinal Glemp of Warsaw to preside over the beatification liturgy in Warsaw's Piłsudski Square. The beatifications, originally scheduled for April 24, 2005, were delayed due to the death of Pope John Paul II

Is it that JPII started the process and B XVI completed it, or did Benedict-as-Ratzinger have control over the whole process? Jackiespeel 18:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

JP started it, but B 16 completed it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Point clarified in text. Jackiespeel 17:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

First Apostolic Journey

Someone, please begin writing of adding pictures of his first apostolic journey. This should be essential on a pope's article, especially since it is a current event. User: Coburnpharr04

You mean his activities during the World Youth Day? I unlocked the article specifically for that event but it had to be locked again. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

If you unprotected the page I guess I could write some about it. But I'm afraid Wikipedia has no free license pictures of the Pope from this event (see Commons:Category:WJT 2005), so we have to use one or two fair use images. We need to stop that Palpatine idiot, he cannot force us to have this page protected forever. 83.109.154.100 18:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

One of two

I would like to make a change to the following paragraph of the section "Early church career (1951–1981)"

In the consistory of June 1977 he was named a cardinal by Pope Paul VI. By the time of the 2005 Conclave, he was one of only 14 remaining cardinals appointed by Paul VI, and one of only three of those under the age of 80 and thus eligible to participate in that conclave.

Cardinal Sin was unable to attend, and Benedict was one of only two cardinals appointed by Paul VI who participated in the conclave (the other was the American Cardinal Baum). So it should be:

In the consistory of June 1977 he was named a cardinal by Pope Paul VI. By the time of the 2005 Conclave, he was one of only 14 remaining cardinals appointed by Paul VI, one of only three of those under the age of 80, and one of only two who participated in the conclave, the other being Cardinal Baum.

83.109.154.100 18:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Time of birth

As long we have the date of birth, I do not think we should add the time of birth too. Plus, I doubt his birth certificate is even available to see online. If so, still do not add his time of birth in. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

There are a lot of astrology sites which mention his birth certificate (=Geburtsurkunde) whose data was requested at a register office (=Standesamt). The time he was born was 04:15 local and 03:15 GMT. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 20:37, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, but IMHO, his time of birth is not relevant for use in the article. We do not have the time of birth for most people on here anyways. Usually, exact time of events is more useful in events such as 9/11, 7/7, 3/11. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's your opinion, but to a lot of astrology fans and fans of the pope, the information can be relevant. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 20:43, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

What I can suggest is to add a link to the relevant information to the bottom of the page at the External links section. While it gives your astrology friends something to look at, the article will still conform to standards. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)