Misplaced Pages

Talk:Pope Benedict XVI

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.141.214.87 (talk) at 19:57, 22 April 2005 (→BMW Slave Labour). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:57, 22 April 2005 by 24.141.214.87 (talk) (→BMW Slave Labour)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template:Source Cite

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

Notes to Editors


Duplication

One article is one top of the same one. When will the constent vandalism stop? --Contrib 18:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • No idea. This is the same thing we saw on the article (and the talk page) hours after the announcement of B16 being the pope. Zscout370 18:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have seen such duplication occur mainly when an an article or talk page was edited by several people virtually at the same time. Could this be a technical issue? Gestumblindi 20:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was told it was, but I would not rule that possibility out. Zscout370 20:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm certain the article duplication is a problem of people trying to edit simultaneously. I've had it happen to me before (though not on this article). I think what happens is that if someone makes an edit between the time you start editing and the time you click the "save page" button, it spits you back to the old version and you think you're editing a section when you're actually editing the whole article, or something along those lines. I'm not exactly sure what happens, but it definitely is a byproduct of concurrent editing.Kevin M Marshall 20:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This should be reported to administrators and/or developers. --Eleassar777 20:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What happens is, if you edit a SECTION, then click Save Page, if a conflict occurs, the editor brings up the document with the section duplicated, so then the user re-edits and re-saves and the posted change has the duplicated content. Whig 21:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Homosexuality

The quote originally used took the meaning of his quote out of context. He did not talk about 'homosexuality'. He talked about the inclination of the 'homosexual person' and personalised the attack to imply that it was the inclination of each gay person, not the physical act of gay sex, that was an 'intrinsic moral evil'. Don't tone down this repulsive bigot's views by suggesting that he was talking theoretically about homosexuality or about sex acts when he made the attack personally on each gay person's identity. I've used the full quote, not the out-of-context version used here that disguised its personal nature. FearÉIREANN 21:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it is helpful to use terms like "repulsive bigot" in trying to establish a NPOV. Whig 21:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have every right to describe him as I see him here, and by the way I am a Catholic. And hundreds of millions of Catholics see him similarly. However as a historian I am perfectly able to write neutral language in an article. I have written numerous articles about people I detest and being praised for the neutrality of the writing. I can and will be academically neutral in writing about the new pope. But I have no intention of hiding my personal contempt for this man here. BTW I have heard him called much worse by Irish Catholics. One priest on radio called him a "contemptable old bigot". One man caused consternation on a live radio show when he called him a "bigoted c**t." I find it ironic that a man who wears a white dress, in a country full of men who wear red dresses, purple dresses and black dresses, where the population is 99% male and 100% unmarried, can think himself qualified to comment on other people's sexuality, let alone condemn fellow human beings whom he does not know as possessing an "intrinsic moral evil".
It was also revealed in Ireland by Desmond Cardinal Connell in a radio interview that the scandalous and universally condemned handling of clerical sex abuse cases in the archdiocese of Dublin by the then Archbishop Connell was a direct result of step-by-step advice on dealing with the crisis Des received from his close friend and then boss, Cardinal Ratzinger. That included secretly diverting funds from the archdiocese into the pockets of an altar-raping priest so that he could try to bribe one of those he raped into keeping quiet. And then Des had the gal to publicly lie and insist that funds weren't being used that way, which he justified by saying that the money was technically a "loan" not a "gift" to the priest-rapist. I made no apology for holding the man who advised Des to act this way, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, as beneath contempt. It is an absolute shame that the cardinals chose to replace the great John Paul II with this bigot of a man. And merely seeing pictures of him makes my skin crawl, as it does millions of others. FearÉIREANN 23:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have never understood why people who disagree with Catholic teachings on homosexuality demand a place for themselves inside the Catholic Church (which,since you claim no one disputes the True Catholic Church's claim to be the "true Catholic Church",you must consider a false Catholic Church anyway) rather than finding themselves a more congenial communion.Religion is by nature prescriptive and product-driven,to use dictionary and business analogies.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 00:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not this true Catholic Church paranoid rubbish again. Can you possibly write on any page without your dragging up your own unique interpretation of that article that no-one else agrees with (or even has a clue what your point is!) As to Catholic teaching on homosexuality, it is like Catholic teaching on birth control - constantly changing, except that the Catholic Church relies on the fact that only historians know that the teaching once was different. Just as Pius XII changed the Church view on the rhythm method (he said 'yay. Pius XI and his predecessors had all said 'absolutely nay'!), and Pius IX changed the Church's view on abortion by abandoning Thomas Aquinas's views on when a foetus developed a soul and a right to life, so homosexuality widely existed in Christendom for much of the last 2000 years. (One of the holiest sites in Christendom has an icon of two christians, both gay, marrying, with Jesus as their 'pronubus' between them, while same sex unions took place in the pope's own cathedral, St. John Lateran, as late as the seventeenth century.) If you are going to discuss an issue, try knowing the facts first, Louis! FearÉIREANN 01:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Eireann,
Though your spiteful posts should not require a response, some things must be said:
The supposed change in doctrine as regards to contraception are rather minor, adressing a new Method as it comes along.
There is not change in the Church's view on abortion. Thomas was theorizing about when a body is ensouled (as did the jewish Talmud and other theologians) in the context of Scholastic theology, that tried to bring all human knowledge (theological and non-theological) into one coherent system. The problem is that we don't know merely enough to attempt that. Thomas didn't know that, but we do now. We do know now that talking about a point of "ensoulement" is mere speculation and hence look towards the earliest possible time, conception. However the right to life of the babe in the womb has never been affected by this "ensoulement speculation". The Church (just as the Jewish religion before) has from the very first days held that killing of the unborn is a grave evil.
Your supposed history of homosexuality in Christendom is so hilarious, I'm speechless.
Str1977 08:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

Can the Name field be made to say "Birth Name"? Whig 21:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I personally think the term "Baptismal Name" is a lot better. Zscout370
Baptismal Name sounds fine to me too. Whig 03:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Isn't "Christian name" the normal term (And the Christian in there does them from the baptism/christening)?
Str1977 08:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I have heard the term used before, but I think in various articles dealing with the papacy, the term "baptismal name" was used. Also, with the debate on the style of the Pope, I would not be surprised if people found "Christian name" to be POV. But thanks for the suggestion Str, but I am sticking to what I have suggested. Zscout370 14:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Footnotes and references

I've changed the footnotes and references structure to match that of Misplaced Pages:Footnote3. If you add or remove footnotes or references to external links, please try to keep the structure the same. Fortunately, with the new system, one doesn't need to go through and change every number when one wants to add in a new reference: you just give the {{ref|xxx}} a unique name and slot the {{Note|xxx}} into the correct position within the numbered list at the bottom. Thanks, — Asbestos | Talk 22:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Style

I've added his style in English as "His Holiness" after his official Latin style in order to forestall recurring changes of his official title. I hope this edit is considered appropriate Wiki convention. Whig 22:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not it is appropriate for Misplaced Pages to use styles is a matter of some debate. Mentioning them is one thing, but referring to Pope Benedict XVI as His Holiness Benedict XVI seems inherently POV to me. Lucian Pulvermacher (or should I say Pope Pius something-or-other) claims that the Catholic church has an "antipope" and that he himself is Pope (as he was elected to the position by a number of sedevecationists (sp?) who are in his group). He is not referred to as His Holiness in the article, which I think is a good thing. However, this is not neutral, as by giving Benedict XVI the style and not giving it to Pius indicates that Misplaced Pages supports Benedict XVI's claim to the papacy. Also, the Dalai Lama does not have His Holiness appended before his name, despite the fact that I've actually heard the Dalai Lama called "His Holiness" more often that I have the Pope! When I see articles they usually refer to the Pope as Pope Benedict XVI, not His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. Same goes for presidents, queens, and prime ministers - people may SAY it to them in a formal situation, but that's about it. I think it is appropriate to note that they are styled by their followers as "His Holiness", but it is not NPOV to append it before their names. Same goes for any style, be it "His Excellency" or whatever. It isn't soly a religion related issue. Obviously he is the Pope, and should be called Pope Benedict XVI at the beginning of the article, the same as George W Bush is President George W Bush and Elizabeth is Queen Elizabeth. But appending various styles to the aforementioned people is probably POV, and I've never noticed an encyclopedia doing so. Titanium Dragon 00:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the Dalai Lama's website refers to him as "His Holiness" ... he must know something you/we don't. Mowens35 09:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
FWIW, the entry on Queen Elizabeth II does title her as "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II" but the entry on George W. Bush does not title him as "His Excellency" and this sort of inconsistency is really the problem. I think styles can be included as NPOV but not if they are used selectively at the start of the biographical entry. Whig 03:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Re President of the US: that's because there is no convention, formal or historical, for any "style" used for the holder of that office. So GB's not having on in his entry doesn't mean its "not" being used selectively; it just is. The office doesn't have any such honorific. Mowens35 09:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages recognises that Benedict XVI is the official pope, just as it recongises Elizabeth II as the official Queen of England. To do otherwise would be to adopt an extreme minority POV. The article doesn't have to "refer" to Benedict XVI as anything other than Benedict XVI in the body, so long as the article *contains* his correct title. To say that an article should not contain a correct title in the opening, is, IMHO, indefensible. It's not just a styling used by "his followers" - anyone - ie. world governments, news agencies, other religions, etc. - recognising him as official pope concedes his right to use the style "His Holiness". Slac speak up! 01:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Referring to him as Pope Benedict XVI recognizes him as the official (i.e., person holding the Roman Catholic title) Pope. The honorific style is not necessary to that recognition. Whig 03:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Totally! It doesn't mean we think he's holy. It just is what he's called. By all means, though, add a footnote saying that some contest his right to the title. Be sure to add same to all contested titles though.Grace Note 01:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Styles should not be used at the start of biographical articles unless this practice is universally applied, otherwise it is not NPOV, and does not in any case follow the Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (names and titles) standard. Whig 02:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
From Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions - Naming conventions is a list of guidelines on how to appropriately create and name pages. As a subpage of the naming convention, the rule you quote refers to how we title the article. As no one is suggesting moving the article's title to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, the policy you quote does not apply. For the policy that deals with this issue, see Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (biographies), which states that styles and honorifics should be used at the begining of an article. Gentgeen 06:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean is not NPOV? Not using the style endorses the POV that he is not entitled to the style, which is a minority POV. As I said before, he's not styled his holiness by "his followers", any more than Bush is styled US President only by "his citizenes". "Her Majesty" doesn't mean that we think QE2 is in any way majestic. The page you reference does not contain any guidance as to the correct styling of Popes. Slac speak up! 03:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please look under the heading Clerical Names in the cited page.
  • "For popes, whether Roman Catholic, Coptic, or otherwise, use the format "Pope {papal name} {ordinal if more than one} of {episcopal see}". Popes of Rome should not be linked with their episcopal sees; Rome is understood. Also, do not use a pope's personal name. For example, use Pope John Paul I, not Albino Luciani or Pope John Paul I of Rome."
Note also that we do not style George W. Bush as "His Excellency President George Walker Bush" at the start of his biographical entry. Nor should we do so, but my point is that we should not be selective about this practice. Whig 03:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In the case of Bush, one should point out that "His Excellency" is not the standard American style for the President. The President has no style other than Mr. President or President Bush Roadrunner 06:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I want to reiterate, the style should be included, just not at the start of the biographical entry. Whig 03:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why include it anywhere else but the start, where it belongs? Mowens35 09:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Those guidlines detail how the article for Benedict XVI should be titled (ie. the article's title, not the person), and the entry follows them. "His Excellency" is not a presidential style, so that's why we don't style him that. Accepting someone as a legitimate pope (or as a legitimate Dalai Lama, or as a legitimate member of the Order of Saint Michael and Saint George or whatever) requires the acceptance of their official styling. It's simply a matter of convinience and convention that a style should appear at the beginning of the biographical entry, just as we mention that George W Bush is President of the United States right from the start. Slac speak up! 04:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But we don't style the Dalai Lama in this way, demonstrating the inconsistency. Whig 05:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If the Dalai Lama's article is errant, then that should be changed to. However, Manual of Style (biographies) is explicit on this. We use the style right at the start when the formal papal name is given. This way we impart the interesting factual information that Pope Benedict XVI is styled "His Holiness". Also note that this way does not draw attention to the style, which should not be made out to be a bigger deal than it is, jguk 06:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

George W. Bush is fine, President George W. Bush is fine, but not His Excellency President George W. Bush. John Paul II is fine, Pope John Paul II is fine, but no, people here in the place I live, which also including me of course, will not call him His Holiness Pope John Paul II. The above discussion mentioned that the style is a convention of international diplomacy, but you should be reminded that what we called international is really meant to be western in fact. Since not all of the English speakers will willingly use the style - and they will not be a minority, since there are tons of people in places like China or India have English as their second language - the using of the style itself violates NPOV, IMHO.--G.S.K.Lee 07:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

STOP ADDING "HIS HOLINESS". It does not belong. It is an eye sore, and if it be the case that this is allowed, all other religious leaders should be added as such. ie. "His Holiness L Ron Hubbard" or "The Great and Wise Buddha" or "His Holiness Moktada al-Sadr".

Other religious leaders should have their honorifics, if they are officially utilized, ie The Right Reverend, et cetera. If Moktada al-Sadr has a style, then it should be utilized appropriately. I don't see why so many people are getting so worked up over this; a style is an official usage, formal and traditional, and sometimes legal as well. There can't be anything offensive or POV in that. And please use your name when posting in comments. Mowens35 09:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No it isn't. It's more like an adjective that describes him as "holiness" but only in terms of the definition of holiness by the Catholic Church, rather than any universal terms of holy, thus it is NPOV. No one on any news station or history book book will say or write "his holiness" unless of course they are part of the catholic institution. "His holiness" is inappropriate. If you want to include it, add it in the paragraph with an explanation as to who calls him "His holiness" and why. Refer to the Dali Lama entry. For me to read "His Holiness.." would lead me to believe right away that the article is biased towards the Catholic religion.

As noted above, "His Holiness" is simply a style. See Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (biographies), which specifically specifies the use of "His Holiness" with the Pope. 青い(Aoi) 10:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wow... Well, the reason it isnt 'His Excellency George Bush' is because that is not an official Title for an american president. But His Holiness is the official title for a Pope, just like 'Her Majesty' is the official title for the queen of England. His Holiness is the official maintained in International Diplomatic relations. To Disrespect his official title is to show extreme POV. In order to keep neutrality, His Official Title must be kept. And Misplaced Pages agrees, note the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (biographies). Its quite clear that it is Misplaced Pages policy to show styles such as this. Rangeley 14:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree, His Holiness must be kept. It is the style as how pope is addressed (When I sent my email to him, I addressed him as Your Holiness, fyi). George Bush is just called President Bush or Mr. President. When he is introduced, he is usually styled by: The President of the United States, George W (or Walker) Bush. We have monarchs who have their style in the article (HRH The Prince of Wales, HSH Prince Albert) and British politicians (Right Honourable). Though the president is styled H.E., it is not official and should be discouraged. Having the style of the Holy Father in the article is NPOV, and his baptismal name is usually in brackets or the info box. I would like to ask whoever is keeping on removing it please stop, we believe it is important to keep that information there. Zscout370 14:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The problem with your example is that GW Bush's entry doesn't say "President George Bush." It just says his name, "Geoge Bush." I like it better that way personally. --Quasipalm 16:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • In the Bush article, this is what was wrote "George Walker Bush (born 6 July 1946) is an American politician and currently the 43rd President of the United States. He is a member of the Bush political family, the son of former President George H.W. Bush, and the brother of Jeb Bush the Governor of Florida." What the debate is all about if the name "His Holiness" should be included in the first sentence of the article, not the article name itself. Plus, I still think His Holiness should be added in the article. Zscout370 16:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • To whom does the Commonwealth title "Right Honourable" apply exactly ? As I understand it, the only politicians in Britain that are referred to by "the Rt. Honourable" are those who are members of the Queen's Privy Council, which typically includes current and former cabinet ministers as well as non-politicians like senior judges. Is there anyone else who may be referred to as "Rt. Honourable" ?
Every holder of a peerage below the rank of marquess is by right "Right Honourable".--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 18:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other Catholic Schools of Thought

The article currently has the statement: "This is a sharp contrast with the school of thought represented by Karl Rahner, Hans Küng, and Edward Schillebeeckx." Do these individuals share a common school of thought and if so, can it be identified by some name that can point elsewhere in the Misplaced Pages? Whig 22:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BMW Slave Labour

I've reentered the information as a note, and I also noted that there is no current consensus about this information's inclusion. Please stop unilaterally deleting it -- we need to come to a consensus here before it is removed or reentered. Maybe we could resolve this by leaving the information in the notes section.

My personal opinion is that it should stay in because 1) it's noteworthy 2) it's factual 3) it's relevant as a character building experience of a world leader. I also don't see it as necessarily a negative -- perhaps being forced into this job he grew to be a more compassionate person? --Quasipalm 16:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No-one is unilaterally deleting it. The talk discussions keep getting archived, but in all of these, the majority of people are in favour of deleting it. JYolkowski // talk 16:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A slight majority may prefer it be gone, but Misplaced Pages strives for consensus, not a slim majority. con·sen·sus (kən-sĕn'səs) pronunciation n. 1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole
No need to be rude. My point is that you are accusing people of unilaterally deleting that, when that is obviously not the case. JYolkowski // talk 17:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could we please stop reinserting the reference attempting to tie him in with Dachau? For God's sake, he was a conscript, not a concentration camp superintendent. His service record is identical to many thousands of other Germans during the war, but you don't seem them being linked up with Nazis. As Adam said earlier, I don't like the man much, but let's at least be fair in our criticism of him. Slac speak up! 23:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've given up trying to impose some standard of rationality about this while everyone is in such a state of moral righteousness. I would like to know how some of these people would have behaved if they had been 16yos in Nazi Germany. They would have defied the regime? I don't think so. I will wait till the article has settled down a bit then try and edit it. Adam 23:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Adam, good idea. Not only wait to edit this section, but probably a few sections many of the people here try to toy around with, but kept on getting removed by the various edits/reverts/vandalism/etc. Zscout370 23:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Adam, I think you're looking at this from the wrong point of view. The amount of time he spent defending the slave labor camp currently exceeds the amount of time he has spent as Pope. How many people have turned down the papacy? Probably not a whole lot of them. So why should we mention him being Pope, as any 78 year old chosen by the Cardinals to be Pope would have accepted the position. You see why this is an absurd argument? Yes, some people might turn it down, but some 16 year old Germans refused to comply with the Nazi regieme as well.
  • It doesn't necessarily reflect either way on Benedict XVI. Mentioning it is perfectly fine, and is totally NPOV. We are not here to censor information, and this is obviously important to many people. Remember the whole Vietnam fiasco with Kerry and Bush? That was important to a great number of people, while other people saw it as a "smear" against Bush because it might have reflected negatively on him. (Okay, it DOES reflect negatively on him, but still). Perhaps there is a better example; I don't know. But saying he defended a BMW plant which used slave labor is about as important as the names of the men who named him to various offices (other than Cardinal and such). He did it, we aren't saying he's evil because of it. The statement is totally neutral in tone and doesn't lead the reader to any conclusion; it simply states a fact. Titanium Dragon 01:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
How can it reflect NEGATIVELY on Bush that he refused to take part in the horrific US war crimes and criminal war of aggression against the people of Vietnam and POSITIVELY on Kerry that he did so, while it also reflect NEGATIVELY on the Pope that he just like Kerry did his duty and served his country, guarding his home town against air attacks? Is the one standard for Bush and Kerry, and another standard for the Pope? According to you, Kerry and the Pope should be the heroes, and Bush the coward. --93

Guys, give it a couple of weeks, then come back and fix it. The brouhaha will have died down and the anons will have lost interest. Grace Note 23:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Much as I dislike the man, it is absurd to make a big issue of what he did in an era like Nazi Germany. If mature adults could not withstand the threats and fear generated by the Nazis, can you really be surprised if a 16 year old did what he did. Come on, be fair. People like me dislike the current pope intensely for the sweeping ill-informed generalisations he made of many of those he criticised. If we twist his childhood actions and misrepresent them as a cardboard cliché of reality, we will be doing the same injustice to him as he has done to gay people, etc. Treat the man with the same standards of objectively and fairness in the main article as we wish he would treat others. FearÉIREANN 23:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. I think it's both factual and of interest to the general public. Why do you folks all asume that nobody will take the context of the situation into consideration? I also don't think this is necesarily negative. Maybe having been close to German atrocities he has a better sense of compasion? Who knows, but I think it should stay in the article. Let wikipedia give out facts and information and let the reader consider it. Err on the side more information (even if you rephrase it), not deletion, please. Negative facts ≠ POV. --Quasipalm 00:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
But the reader can't consider it fairly if they are presented with information that gives elements of his life undue weight. The "slave labour" thing is an aside that doesn't play any part in the actual narrative of his career. Its pragmatic effect therefore is to invite the reader to draw a conclusion. It *does not* tell us anything about the personal development, attitudes, or outlook of Benedict XVI. It's exactly such a small, seemingly inoccuous aside that contributes to building an unjustified impression. Cf. "He fought in the German Army, which was commanded by Adolf Hitler and the cause of numerous wartime atrocities". That's perfectly factual too.
George W. Bush threatened to beat up his father when he was a teenager. Factuality ≠ relevance. Slac speak up! 01:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Concur with Grace Note. Leave it alone for now. Hopefully, the article edits on a whole will die down soon.Bratsche 01:08, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. The reader can consider it fairly; it is factual and a neutral statement. John Kerry served as a swiftboat commander during the Vietnam war. Is that a loaded statement? If we said where he did it, and what his missions were, would those be loaded statements? No. They're factual and likely important in some way or another, or at least notable. We should not remove it. Titanium Dragon 01:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is if we say "John Kerry served in the US Army during the Vietnam War. This army was involved in atrocities such as the My Lai massacre." See where I'm going with this? If we include it, we're presenting it on the assumption that it's relevant to understanding him. Slac speak up! 01:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If we were writing an article about the BMW plant, the statement would be relevant and should be included. This is an article about the Pope, though, so it isn't relevant. If such a statement is in the article, it appears to be relevant when it really isn't. See also the example immediately above. JYolkowski // talk 01:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Guys, I think you're looking at this the wrong way. The sentence may allow the reader to infer some guilt, but it also implicitly limits it. It will probably do more to protect the Pope from inaccurate accusations than it does to expose him to them. Clearly, people are interested to know what the Pope did during the War. No doubt, accusations and smears are going to circulate. Many people will come to Misplaced Pages looking for a somewhat more reliable version. Maybe they have been told that he was a concentration camp guard. They will read the sentence and go "Oh, I see." Then they'll make their own judgement, just as you have. Comment by User:136.182.2.221.
But the point is that they could make the assumption that Ratzinger was involved in or endorsed slave labour. This would be an inaccurate and unwarranted assumption, but it is encouraged by the editorial decision to stop actually narrating his activites and make an "oh, by the way . . ." aside. If the reader was thinking he was a concentration camp guard, the article will set them right by telling them what he did: guard a machine parts factory. Unless it can actually be proven that Ratzinger knew there was slave labour inside, or that he had some sort of contact or involvement in it, it's wholly irrelevant. Using my presidential examples from above, these little throwaway asides could cultivate in the reader the impression that GWB is a violent drunk or Kerry is a war criminal, without the need for anything so rigorous as actual proof. The statement doesn't "let" the reader make an assumption, it invites it. Slac speak up! 03:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There is another angle that has to be considered. The flak batteries around the factory defended it and everything in it and around it. Hence, to the extent that they made the bombing more difficult and less accurate, they probably saved the lives of some of the slave laborers. This was especially important as often air raid shelters for slave laborers were inadequate or nonexistent. I hope this point illustrates the moral complexity of this whole issue. Balcer 03:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Moral complexities are part and parcel of the biographical history of the person who takes the title of a major religious leader. These can be presented in a way that is relevant (i.e., directly tied to their own actions, not coincidental or irrelevant details) without presenting a bias one way or the other. It is not the job of encyclopedists to cleanse history nor to make moral judgments one way or the other, but to present the relevant facts in the most neutral way possible. Omitting facts will not conceal them, it will only push them to other places where they will pop up in a biased form more conducive to unwarranted attacks upon the character of the individual. Let's present what we know and can document, and not offer condemnations or apologetics. Whig 03:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The key points here are "relevant" and "neutral". The slave labourers had no documented interactions with Ratzinger: he may have never met them; he may have never known they existed. No outside material has been cited to establish the material relevance of this fact. It's simply irrelevant to say he saved their lives, that one day he let one borrow his shoe polish, that he did whatever to them, since there's no evidence to state that he did and in any case it doesn't tell us anything about his 78-year-long life. It's just a random bit of factual information that gives a misleading impression by implying a connection where none in fact exists (I keep coming back to my Kerry/My Lai example). The premise that something has to be included solely on the basis that it's factual is superficially sensible but in reality leads to all sorts of unpleasant side effects. We have no control over anything but this entry; our entry should be a simple, neutral description of his wartime life. I can't stress this enough: **his wartime experience did not involve slave labourers,** any more than it did gas chambers. To imply otherwise involves a lot of torturous misdirection. Slac speak up! 04:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The statement is factually correct and neutral. I don't see how it is at all misleading; all the specific context that is being used to argue about it here is present in the article. It is furthermore relevant since it addresses concerns and questions many readers are likely to have about Benedict XVI. --67.163.45.65 05:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)Snarks

I see the statement as somewhat misleading as it creates a somewhat false impression of the situation in Germany during the war years. During the war Nazi Germany imported millions of slave labourers to work in its industries and agriculture. These were quite ubiquitous, and practically every German would have encountered them routinely. They were often allowed to go out into the street, wearing special badges. They were severely restricted in how they could interact with a German population, for example sexual intercourse with Germans was punishable by death (). Many German farmers were assigned individual slave labourers to help them on their farms. Thus, just like most Germans at the time, Ratzinger would have encountered slave labourers in daily life just about anywhere in Germany. Therefore, singling out the BMW factory which he guarded for the fact that it had slave labour is in fact misleading. It implies that the closest Ratzinger came to victims of the Nazi German system was guarding the factory which employed slave labour. This is not the case. Balcer 06:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Even if two individual pieces of information are factual, putting them together tends to imply a connection. That's guilt by association. Ratzinger guarded a BMW plant against air attack + the BMW plant used slave labor = Ratzinger was involved with slave labor. The last part isn't explicitly stated, but it's implied by the association. I like Slac's example, so I'll repeat it: "John Kerry served in the US Army during the Vietnam War. This army was involved in atrocities such as the My Lai massacre." Both are factual statements, but when put together it suggests that Kerry is somehow involved with war crimes, and is thus completely POV editorializing. If Ratzinger directly guarded the slave laborers, managed them, made statements approving of their enslavement, etc, then that would be appropriate to mention. Yes, people deserve to know that BMW used slave labor during WWII, but that info belongs in the BMW article, that's why we have these wonderful hyperlinks. If it's OK to put any fact in this article, then perhaps we should say: "Ratzinger served in an anti-aircraft outfit that guarded a BMW plant. That BMW plant made airplane engines for Luftwaffe." Both are true, but are those engines at all germane to the Pope Benedict XVI article? -Eisnel 07:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This argument is just stupid, all the Jewish organizations have stated that he has helped Catholic-Jewish relations and that he is not a nazi and is not connected to war crimes. The ADL even said that he is not an anti-semite, THE ADL! They think that someone who doesn't like Ariel Sharon is a servant of Hitler, I mean come on give it a rest.

Is anyone here happy about moving the issue into a footnote? I don't think it solves the problem. Str1977 19:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fairuse

Do we really need half a dozen press photos of him? It rather weakens our claim for fair use if we're just building a gallery of AP images. ed g2s • talk 00:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think we're waiting until official Vatican photos come out. At least, that's the case with the infobox photo: no promotional photo has been released yet. Bratsche 00:52, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Only one photo of him was released from the Vatican. Maybe we should use his cardinal photo in the info box until we get a free use one from the Vatican. BTW, I sent an email to the Pope, so I will see what he writes back. :) Zscout370 01:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I like the idea of using his cardinal photo in the info box. It would be nice if some wikipedia users could get/take some free license pictures however. I would take some, but I am kind of nowhere near Rome right now :p SenorAnderson 03:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I could use a trip to Rome myself. Imagine all of the flag spotting/hunting/buying I will be doing....(smack from reality). Ow, I do not have any cash though :(. (Seriously, try a Google search). Zscout370 03:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Funeral Information

To whoever removed the funeral information, I want to know what was your logic behind it. I believe it is important that B16 was heavly seen (by the world for almost the first time) at the funeral of John Paul II, and I believed that visibility and the way he handled that situation probably caused him to win the approval of his peers for the papacy. Zscout370 01:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Controversial views>AbortionAbortion">

Shouldn't Benedict denounce both the Democrats and the Republicans? The Democrats support abortion and the Republicans support the death penalty. Aren't both against catholic social teaching? SenorAnderson 03:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Technically, yes. JP II was against both of those ideas, and did anything he could to pressure the United States (as a whole) to stop allowing both to happen. And since JP II's thinking is nearly the same as B16's, I am sure B16 will say something about it yearly. Though (my pov here), the latter has a better chance of it being stopped than the former. Zscout370 03:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why more angry? The killing of innocent babies somehow seems more evil then removing a dictator from power who... killed innocent babies, and humans in general, ordered rapings, tortures.. etc. Rangeley 04:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Because this war had just happened. All I am trying to say is that he should denounce all politicians that don't follow a principle of the catholic social teaching, not just the ones who don't follow the one on abortion. SenorAnderson 05:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"The war had just happened", but the atrocity called abortion is also happening right here and now and the war would have to continue for a very long if it wants to emulate the "abortion body count". But that's not the real point. There's a difference in these three issues: abortion, death penalty, war (in Iraq).
Abortion is an intrinsically evil act, just like murder is and never be justified (save for the defense of the mother's life)
The death penalty however is in itself within the scope of the state's measures to keep the peace (traditionally represented by the sword). However it is a highly problematic measure for a couple of reasons and therefore it should be restricted and avoided as long as there's no alternative to keep the peace. Now the Church, the Pope (and me too) think that there are alternatives in the US (and elsewhere) and hence their stance.
With the war, again, Catholic doctrine holds that there can be just(ified) wars, where both the ends are just and the means too (obviously my rendering is superficial). Think about wars in the last century and you will come up with just wars, don't you. Of course there's a shift towards more pacifistic view in the Church because of the changes in war technology (you can see that especially in JPII). Now in the case of the Iraq war the Pope has admonished those in power towards peace, but the decision in this complex issue rested with the government (see, the Church doesn't take over governments) and those that went to war will have to answer for it somewhere. Of course that's true for abortion proponents too, but the difference is: their stance cannot ever be justified.
As for Democrats and Republicans: the Church doesn't discriminate according to party affiliation.
Str1977 08:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My POV
1)The death toll of war in general is much greater then the death toll of abortion and we should not promote war.
2)Also, by not giving communion to politicians the church does not solving the problem. The church should be working on changing peoples opinions on abortion and not on changing the law. Even if abortions are illegal there are still going to be abortions and as well as other related problems. Fight the problem at the source by changing people opinion. Abortion can not be justified under CST, but keeping it legal can.
3)As long as prisoners are in jail, they are not a threat to peace.
4)This war has not followed many of the principles of the Just war theory.
5)Also, the church is discriminating because of party affiliation since it will give communion to politicians with one view contrary to CST but not the other. SenorAnderson 17:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"the Church doesn't discriminate according to party affiliation." Actually they do. The whole controversy was based on the Catholic Church saying, more or less, that democrats were evil because they are pro-choice. They never once said that Bush supporters were evil for supporting war or the death penalty. --Quasipalm 18:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Quasiplam, no she doesn't. Any pro-abort republican will be treated just as any pro-abort Democrat and every pro-life Democrat will be treated just as any pro-life Republican. Yes, unfortunately one party is much more devoted to abortion but neither is that the Church's fault nor does that mean it is discriminating according to party. The difference of the issues is explained above.

Str1977 19:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pope's email address

There was an article on the new pope's email addresses, one for Italian and one for English. Should that be included in the article? --LeoTheLion 03:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • We can do that. I mentioned earlier that I sent an email to the Pope. I will let you know if I get anything back (and what it is included in the email). Zscout370 03:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Awesome, I just realized that JP2 had his own email address too. I'd be curious to hear his reply.
      • You'd be curious to hear JP2's reply? Me too! Probably something like: "Heaven isn't quite what I expected. They didn't let me keep my hat. :( -JP2"   -Eisnel 07:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)   ;o)

"Cult of the Spade"

A little clicking suggests that this is probably a semi-ironic term for Reichsarbeitsdienst.

If so... excellent color phrase. But a parenthetical (like this one) defining this would be appropriate. The word "cult" is an eyebrow-raiser in a bio of a pope.


"Traditional, Traditionalist, Orthodox etc."

Removed

Consequently, orthodox theologians have hailed his elevation, while liberal theologians have not.

This isn't clear from the interviews that I've heard. Roadrunner 06:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Changed the wording of supported traditional Catholic, as the term "traditional Catholic" is used to refer to Catholics that have issues with Vatican II which does not seem to be the case with Benedict XVI. Roadrunner 06:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Roadrunner, I reinserted "traditional". The word "current" has a fashion-like, temporary implication (as if it will or could be changed next week), so I don't think it's appropirate. I understand your objections to "traditional", but I think that would be more "traditionalistic" or "ultra-traditional" or "radical traditionalist" (rad trad). Tradition is of vital importance in the Catholic Church both before and after the Council. It's the rad-trads that accuse the postconciliar Church of breaking with tradition, but that's IMO not true. Again, I don't insist on "traditional" but only opposed "current". Str1977 08:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My last post refers to the "supports the traditional catholic doctrines" or "opposed changing ...". Further down I made a change concurring with your point, changing "traditionalist" to "orthodox". Also further down I changed "modernist and tradionalist" to "modernist and anti-modernist". That's more appropirate as traditionalist is a bit anachronist (see above) and can be misleading. Also the efforts of Pius X back then are generally called anti-modernist (by himself) and Benedict XV tried to reconcile the factions while retaining orthodox teaching. Str1977 08:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since Traditional Catholic has an accepted meaning referring to those who demand exclusive use of the Tridentine Mass,it should be avoided as a description of Benedict's admirers within the Roman obedience.If you look at Traditional Catholic websites like traditio.com you will find they are already denouncing the new Pope as a left-winger.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 18:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That the rad trads claim tradition all for themselves is clear, but should we surrender the term? And I don't think traditional with a small t is such a set term. But my concern was more what I posted above (especially the "current")
Str1977 19:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"His Holiness"

Isn't the parenthetical in the introduction ("considered holy by the Catholic church") taking neutrality to an absurd end? If that parenthetical remains, we should, logically, put "considered majestic by historical convention and some of the British people" after Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. I've removed the "considered holy" because it just seems so patently mealymouthed. Mowens35 09:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, someone removed the parenthetical before I had a chance to. But the intro hould state His Holiness, because that is what he is called. (Even the Dalai Lama's own website describes him as His Holiness.) Who keeps removing the HH? And for what reason? If we're going to be consistent, then we have to remove all such styles across Wiki. Mowens35 09:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't consider "His holiness" to be POV (as the remover obviously does), but also would not object muchly to removing it (despite my personal opinion). The Parenthesis however should not be allowed, as it is actually a negation of the "formal reference to the pope" (which is a fact) and a comment on the person's holiness (though that's not the meaning of the form). I agree with Mowens, it is neutrality taken to an absurd end, neutralityspeak used as POV. But in the end the article should conform to the style book and retain "his holiness Str1977 10:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To not allow 'His Holiness' is the exact opposite of neutrality, and to somehow make the title less then it is would be an extreme POV. His Official title is 'His Holiness.' I dont care if you find Queen Elizabeth majestic or not, her title is 'Her Majesty.' Likewise. it doesnt matter if you find the Pope holy or not, his title is 'His Holiness.'Rangeley 14:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Somebody once proposed "title: His Holiness" after the name. 18:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Has Entry been Frozen?

I cannot edit anything at all; was trying to shift a comma but was blocked from doing any editing at all. Has the entry been blocked? Or have I for some unknown reason? Mowens35 09:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Panzer Cardinal

It's not so much the content of his opinions as the forceful way that he expresses them that has gotten him his nicknames. One thing that needs to be mentioned is that his opinions aren't that different from Johnpaul II, but John Paul II didn't tend to provoke such a strong reaction as Benedict XVI. Roadrunner 14:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it's more the intellectual consistency in his statements (a Panzer - a tank is something very solid and firm) that has earned him that name. And note, that his previous office (in a way his office was to be enforcer) was more prone to such attack, than the Pope was. And his German descent makes it easier - try to come up with a Polish parallel? I can't. Plus: he is from Germany, which is also a hotbed of dissent (though I think the term Panzerkardinal is more of US provinence. Never heard it in Germany.) Str1977 14:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, your post got lost in reverting the vandalism. I now took out the "most", as it's not warranted and wrote "consistent and unyielding stance" with "orthodox" (even though IMO it is orthodox) Agree? Str1977 14:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Inconsistent DOB info

Current revision says "He was born at 4:30 A.M. on Easter Sunday and baptized only four hours later", but also gives DOB as April 16, 1927, which was a Saturday (Holy Saturday/Easter Eve, when baptism would in any case have been extremely unlikely except in an emergency). Anyone know which info is correct? Vilcxjo 14:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The issues

So short a time in office and so much debate about the man already.

Are we not conflating two issues - (1) Ratzinger/Benedict XVI the theologian/philosopher/person and (2) the legacy/influences of WWII?

Ratzinger is probably the last public figure for whom what that person did in WWII is considered relevant.

Will there be similar debates long after the event about other persons influenced by a negative legacy from the past? For example - the Communist regimes of Eastern Europe, dictatorships in Latin America, and Apartheid - to pick three different examples from widely separated regions.

Duplication

With all the rewrites the list of works seems to be duplicated - and the link on papal conclave should be fixed.

Works Page

I think I found another one of his works: Europa - I suoi fondamenti oggi e domani. Zscout370 15:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Latin mistake in coat of arms

I don't know his motto, but "Cooperatores Veritatis", given in the text, is good Latin, whereas "Cooperatores Veritas", in the image, is not (it makes no sense). Bill 17:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I have no idea either. I was just used the image that was presented to me on a mailing list. If the image is wrong, then we should make a note on the page. If the text in the article is wrong, then we can change the text. Zscout370 17:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Transportation

Could the article have some information on the pope's transportation? --Contrib 18:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Unless he is using the Popemobile (or if you are a fan of Dennis Miller, the Popebulance), he has not (to my knowledge) went anywhere using a special vehicle. Zscout370 18:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How does he get around? --Contrib 18:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • A car, from this photo grab. It looks like it is heavily secured by Italian police. Zscout370 18:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • In a Panzer tank towed by Rottweilers. 18:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The thing about the Panzer tank is that vandalism? Is that false information? --Contrib 18:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A car will be used on most occasions. The popemobile is a way of presenting a pope to crowds, as on trips and formal occasions, and would expected to be used by this pope. --Oldak Quill 19:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Condoms

Some rewriting on the section on condoms. Although the Catholic Church has officially condemned the use of condoms as contraception, it has to my knowledge not spoken as authoritatively on the use of condoms for the purpose of preventing AIDS.

Furthermore, even if it were to do so, it's not clear what the Church's position is or would be on education on the use of condoms.

This is what makes Ratzinger's comments interesting. He took one side of a debate that has not been closed within the Church.

Roadrunner 19:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)