Misplaced Pages

Talk:Pope Benedict XVI: Difference between revisions

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.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:03, 18 May 2005 editMusical Linguist (talk | contribs)13,591 edits Support: removed number from invalid vote← Previous edit Revision as of 00:25, 19 May 2005 edit undoJarlaxleArtemis (talk | contribs)10,978 editsm What the mother f****ng hell!?: "Fucking" is just a word. Get over it.Next edit →
Line 331: Line 331:
*Yeah, I think His Holiness should be linked. However, I am still not placing a vote on where HH will go in the article. ] ] 02:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC) *Yeah, I think His Holiness should be linked. However, I am still not placing a vote on where HH will go in the article. ] ] 02:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


== What the mother f****ng hell!? == == What the mother fucking hell!? ==


Why the hell does this page keep disappearing? ] ] 02:25, May 18, 2005 (UTC) Why the hell does this page keep disappearing? ] ] 02:25, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:25, 19 May 2005

Two RFCs have been called regarding the behaviour of editors on this page: and . Feel free to comment if you wish. Please remove this notice after the RFC's are completed.


Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.
Former FACThis article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed.
For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.
It is requested that an image or photograph of Pope Benedict XVI be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
Upload

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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:

Empty Archives To Be Used


Specific Issues Addressed

Retrieved from past talk pages


Notes to Editors


Archive

Sorry folks about the archive. The page was about 118 kb, and needed to be archived. I don't really have time to create subject-specific archives now, but if anyone wants to, feel free. Thanks, Bratsche 03:23, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

When you can , please can you make one for the Question of the Law , as it keeps recurring , called Pope Question. What is really needed is to refer links to the plethora of more thorough questioning and commentary on the actual article page but I do not wish a revert war at that level ......hence all discussions are lengthy only to overcome POV resistance . Of course ,I deny that I am POV . The wikipedia actually cannot contain the disperse information on the edge and everywhere and non-POV /POV link inclusion would save all the proving, disproving . The wikipedia needs to provide the directory to elsewhere with a balanced advisory guide as to the various POV but it is rather an uphill struggle , Cerberus the hound seems to have the doors covered always . Discussion is perhaps educative but , more tedious and combative as it gets more controversial between POV and POV . Certainly with archiving it warrants even less effort so the greatest interval possible is required .Flamekeeper 22:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Pope Pius XII

I have taken the liberty of deleting the long topic being repeatedly copied from the Talk:Pope Pius XII page. Conf 21:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

And I take the liberty of inserting this relevant statement by user [[John}}K "Trying to find some perspective on this subject, I looked at Priests, Prelates and People: A History of European Catholicism since 1750 by Nicholas Atkin and Frank Tallett, published by Oxford University Press in 2003. This can surely stand in as a relatively authoritative source. Looking at it, I will admit that the basic substance of Flamekeeper's accusations seems to be supported by Atkin and Tallett's narrative - Pius XI and Pacelli were willing to acquiesce in the Centre Party's demise as a quid pro quo in return for the Concordat, and Kaas was, essentially, acting as their agent."
Conf, can you shed any light on posthumous excommunication , by any chance ? Flamekeeper 09:44, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
What has all this got to do with discussion about an article on Pope Benedict? Ann Heneghan 09:56, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
It has to do with Pope Benedict XVI's use of the term 'complicity with Evil' in 2004 and his being the Prefect in charge of everything .The theological injunction comes from the Prefect . He is in charge of the above . But , were the possibility of excommunication to arise concerning the above then the article would indeed have to include a report that would answer the questions raised . A first question would be that if a Pope could, because he should ( debateable) , excommunicate a Pope (two here in this case ) posthumously , then would the legitimacy of the living Pope not be called itself into question ? It is just as well that the Pontiff is still the Prefect ,or, maybe theres a simple way out . To assert that this is speculation is contradicted by the Prefectoral re-iteration and by the above authors , if the user:JohnK report is correct . Flamekeeper 13:59, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I can't provide much knowledge regarding posthumous excommunication. (The other talk pages where connected issues arise are Talk:Centre Party (Germany), where the quote comes from, and Talk:Theology of Pope Benedict XVI.) Conf 17:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Flamekeeper. in this place you stated I had written "that it would be that a declaration of automatic excommunication would be declared under latae sententiae" At this time let me just state I did nothing of the kind. A fuller answer will follow.

Sorry- it was this you told me "The Church cannot excommunicate anyone posthumously. It can declare after someone's death that s/he had incurred automatic excommunication -- but that's not quite the same thing."
Your previous but one sentence had dealt with Hitler and latae sententiae.
"True, but Catholics argue that his actions and words would have incurred automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication."
Let the actual relevance of the law be the way forward , less my good faith. Eg: latae sententiae(automatic)? You can see that very minute assertion in the article would mitigate this quality of frustrated attention we see . I suggest you yourself are well qualified to provide the rendering . You could create a viable section perhaps on the Theology page and doubtless agreement would follow what be the simple bases of the laws as relevant to all the issues upon this current page . ] 00:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The Question of The Law , Theology and Prefecture of the CDF ,and America

It is very difficult to focus the apparent controversies concerning the Episcopal failure in America in 2004 to follow the CDF Ratzinger line when the Theology page is separated from the subjects main page . However there is much remark that there was an episcopal rebellion in 2004 in the U.S. against Cardinal Ratzinger's hardline CDF policy , including Avery Cardinal Dulles' assertion that the Church would risk opening itself to accusation that it was interfering in political affairs . The Ratzinger instruction or guideline for the U.S.Bishops is available on-line as is the entire history and everything except Ratzinger's own covering personal guidance to Cardinal McCarrick which he desired to remain entirely confidential and secret . There is in this subject ,known in the U.S as the communion controversy a revealing theological evolution , the suggestion that in Rome juridical disquiet existed at the application of a 2002 text concerning divorced and re-married Catholics and communion , to the issue of grave sin arising in the policies of the Democratic candidate Kerry. This is apart from the controversy concerning the effect on the actual vote, which is considered factually as having been advantageous to the Republican Party . The theological differences are nuanced and revolve upon the difference between public un-worthiness because of 'private' sin (as in marriage or abortion) and un-worthiness on the part of a public figure , such as the otherwise devout John Kerry . In other words it returns to the Question of the Law (from Humanae Vitae) that I raised , to that which Cardinal Dulles feared and that which is of such perfectly scandalous historical record (see Pope Pius XII etcetera ) that I foresee the above questions of Latae Sententiaeneeding equal inclusion with all the aforesaid . Flamekeeper 21:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Pius XII, latae sententiae ,Excommunication and Extracts from Canon Law

I take from excommunication.net 's Canonical action pages http:www.//excommunication.net/Canonical_action/Abortion_related_canons.htm in the Catechism of the Catholic Church .

canon 1336 section 1:Expiatory penalties can affect the offender either forever or for a determinate or an indeterminate period. Apart from others which the law may perhaps establish,these penalties are as follows part no 2: a deprivation of power,office,function,right,privelige,faculty,favour title or insignia,even of a merely honorary nature;
part no 3: a prohibition on the exercise of those things enumerated in no.2 , or a prohibition on their exercise inside or outside a certain place : such prohibition is never under pain of nullity.
section 2 : Only those expiatory penalties may be latae sententiae which are enumerated in section 1 , part no. 3 .

Other subsequent Canons refer back to Canon 1336. above but Canon 1329 may refer to the Question of the Law raised under Pope Pius XII

Canon 1329 Section 1 :Where a number of persons conspire together to commit an offence , and accomplices are not expressly mentioned in the law or precept,if ferendae sententiae penalties were constituted for the principal offender , then the others are subject to the same penalties or to other penalties of the same of lesser gravity.
Section 2 : In the case of a latae sententiae penalty attached to an offence , accomplices, even though not mentioned in the law or precept , incur the same penalty if, without their assistance , the crime would not have been committed , and if the penalty is of such a nature as to be able to affect them ; otherwise , they can be punished with ferendae sententiae penalties .

Ferendae sententiae refers to instituted legal trial and judgement whereas latae sententiae refers to automatic penalties incurred by the more serious classes of offences which do not require the judgement of a Superior judge . It would appear that 1329 relates to the situation of Pope Pius XI as opposed to Monsignor Ludwig Kaas and Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli (Pius XII).

With relevance to historical writers terming this the great scandal of history it says in

Canon 1399:Besides the cases prescribed in this or in other laws , the external violation of divine or canon law can be punished , and with a just penalty , only when the special gravity of the violation requires it and necessity demands that scandals be prevented or repaired.

The details of excommunication can be seen at newadvent.com see ] and it is stated that excommunication is the spiritual sword and is not merely the severing of the outward bonds that holds an individual to a place in the Church, but also the severing of the forum internum or internal bond to the Church and the sentence pronounced on earth is ratified in heaven affecting and binding Souls . Prevention of abuse and thus devaluation of the sentencing confined the judgement to Bishops . In foro externoexcommunication has become defunct whereas penalty in foro interno is close to the subject of the above American communion controversy . The penalty of excommunication is constituted as a medicative measure , that is to require the subject to undertake corrective measure .There once was ( before 1884 ) a difference between ,however, this minor corrective penitental measure , as in the denial of the Sacrements and real major excommunication as in the sword . Since then major excommunication alone is used , and charged either a jure( by law) or ab hominem ( by civil judicial act ).

A jure is the law itself which declares that he that shall have been guilty of a definite crime will incur the penalty of excommunication at the offence ipso eo and therefore relates to this case of the law raised in virtue of the actions of 1933 through latae sententiae . No intervention of an ecclesiastical judge is needed if it is the case as contested under Humanae Vitae .

Contradictions ,in terms of time and how law presented by effectively excommunicated Pope's can be quoted , follow , as all laws promulgated under those circumstance would exist in nullity and therefore the relevant law would have to return to its origin in Romans 3,8.

According to the Church a dead Christian cannot be excommunicated because at death the baptised Christian ceases to be a part of the Church Militant . A dead Christian can be censured and it be declared that during his lifetime that he had incurred excommunication , or , indeed , be absolved .

It seems rather contra-dictory , considering the former ruling which bound even the souls in heaven .

Relating to Pope Benedict XVI's teaching concerning the Protestant Churches it says that it (their effective excommunication) is not a question of personal excommunication but that their censure overtakes them in their corporate capacity as members of a community in revolt against the true Church of Jesus Christ .

In relation to prosecution in the offence of 1933 it should be relevant that there was a consummation of the offence , the full use of reason , sufficient moral liberty , and a knowledge of the law and of the penalty of the law ( ].

In relation to defence in the accusation , a lack of liberty resulting from great fear ( of Communism ) will be more readily accepted as excuse for violating a positive law , than as palliative for offence against the Divine Law.

To overcome the above problems of nullity with respect more to the conditions for the remaining faithful than to the status of the excommunicated , a principle of severity as regards the excommunicated is balanced with a mildness towards the faithful . Inconvenience caused by the nullity of certain acts by the censured cannot be rigidly maintained , and , presumably less so in this case .

The subjects should not have consecrated mass throughout their condition , and should not have received or remain in their consecrated burial . They could suffer total loss of Jurisdiction both in foro interno and in foro externo and the rendering as null of all acts accomplished without that necessary jurisdiction . In such an extreme case the Church apparently would be able to supply jurisdiction ( in retrospect?)Flamekeeper 13:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

If it's your point to delegitimize the papal succession by alledging Pius XI or XII incurred excommunication, you are mistaken.

The pope cannot be excommunicated. The pope cannot be deposed for anything, except for heresy by a ecumenical council, and even then it's totally unclear what would happen, since there's also the principle that noone on earth can judge the Pope. It'd probably lead to some strange version of sedisvacancy, at least in effect. This is all unclear, as it has never happened - and God-willing never will. Even if the pope had incurred automatic excommunication, or lost the "state of grace", that doesn't affect his authority, as according to universal Christian tradition, with only the early African church dissenting (see Donatism), that a priest's or bishop's authority to distribute the sacraments (including ordination) or the validity of these sacraments do NOT depend on the priest or bishop being in the "state of grace". (That doesn't mean this state won't have consequences for the cleric in question.) Str1977 22:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

With respect to the above Canons relating to consecrated burial, please see Cadaver Synod for a rather interesting, albeit macabre, application of church law. Just leave it to lawyers (either canon or civil) to mess things up. Sorry, I promise - no more attorney jokes. Aloysius Patacsil 23:48, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Good heavens! Conf 00:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Phew! That'll save a lot of troube . Whatever you can prove ,you can prove and thus legitimacy may be or is safe . On discussion with you now on the Theology of Pope Benedict XVI , however , is the regularisation (Censure) . The Church is not only historically out of step , remaining at the stage of dishonesty about its Fascist collaboration , but is weakening its very Magisterium or Divine Law through hypocrisy. There cannot be Divine law for the Church and another Divine law for society . The relevance of Christianity is to mankind , not to a clerical elite . They exist to administer this 'divine' truth and have debased it to the extent visible on these two pages , on the Pope Pius XII article page and on the Centre Party Germany (as well as in multitudes of cemetaries and as well as in multitudes of personal genealogical tables.
Readers if they are not aware already , should know that the open-source and open-exit Misplaced Pages is now a battleground for faith-based wikipedians who are constrained by their religions , as with Str1977 . Their canonical law requires them to act as they do , which is to plug every possible little hole in the great dyke of avoidance of Church loss of face. As the Church everywhere interacts with history , the battleground is visible on all sectors wherein the Church relates . I leave it to serious Wikipedians to be concerned-it is tangential to this particular legal concern . Get off your asses wikipedians or , as the Church is harmed by themselves , so will the Misplaced Pages harmed by the dishonesty of its' own wikipedians . It's true - Str1977, you are very good but it is faith-based editing not pure history that you are good at .
Surely, you are referring to dike as opposed to dyke? Just checking. Aloysius Patacsil 23:50, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Highest ranking American

"Sources have indicated that Pope Benedict is likely to appoint San Francisco metropolitan archbbishop William Joseph Levada as the next Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. If confirmed, Archbishop Levada would be the highest ranking American in the church hierarchy."

I have a few concerns about this paragraph: (1) I would prefer that we don't refer to sources as "sources" in the articles. Do an in-line citation if you know it. For example, "Time magazine said...." or something like that. (2) Wouldn't the highest ranking American in the church hierarchy remain Edmund Cardinal Szoka, Governor of Vatican City? The new office holder would certainly be one of the most influential, but technically speaking not the highest ranking in the hierarchy. And we have to remember that personality made the office of Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith influential during the tenure of Cardinal Ratzinger. He made it influential; it wasn't for several generations before he took office and there remains a small possibility that the successor won't be as influential at all. (3) Levada was not the only person named. Cardinal George of Chicago was cited as a candidate. So was the Austrian cardinal and several others internationally. Mention them or don't mention Levada at all. (4) Is it really relevant to devote such precious article space (kb) about who the Pope will choose to fill a bureacratic position? --Gerald Farinas 20:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The Doctrine of the Faith is the second highest Vatican position, the man in charge of the Inquistion.
Agree. The Vatican City State has a spiritual as well as a temporal aspect. In a religious monarchy as the Vatican, the spiritual as in the Congegation for the Doctrine of the Faith assumes a greater role than temporal as evinced in the Role of Cardinal Szoka. Aloysius Patacsil 23:28, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Eh? The Cardinal Secretary of State and the Cardinal Camerlengo are both clearly higher positions in the curia than the Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. One might also argue that the Dean of the College of Cardinals is the second highest ranking figure in the Church, or that all Cardinal-Bishops outrank all Cardinal-Priests, no matter what specific curial office they hold. john k 23:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, I guess it's my POV as a Catholic. The CDF has more influence in my life than Cardinal Szoka will ever have. Aloysius Patacsil 23:53, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Latin

Hey. Changed the Latin to Benedictus P.P. XVI a little while ago. It was reverted, which I'm fine with, but why? I had asked about whether P.P. should be included on Pope John Paul II and someone added it in, so I figured it held true here as well. Only because I assumed we were translating the boldface Pope Benedict XVI into Latin, so I thought the "Pope" should be carried over. Thoughts? --Jen Moakler 01:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the change because I don't think that the P.P. is actually part of his name. It's just an abbriviation for "pope," or "papa," as he's known in Italian. It's found in signitures, which is where you've probably seen it, but not on documents and other things. Hope this clears it up. Bratsche 02:49, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
P.P. is an abbreviation of Pater Patrum (Father of Fathers) Fjl 10:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! I always wondered what that meant. Aloysius Patacsil 19:01, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Conclave Presidency

Removed the "over which he presided" comment regarding the conclave. No one really "presides" over the conclave...the three panels of three cardinals that perform its important functions are rotated continuously. However, if anyone is said to "preside", it would be the Cardinal Camerlengo, not Ratzinger as Dean of the College of Cardinals. --MikeJ9919 04:54, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Benedict, or rather Cardinal Ratzinger, did preside over the conclave, over the election proceedings, though of course helped by two other Cardinals. The Camerlengo, on the other hand, was responsible for the more administrative duties around the Vatican. Str1977 07:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected with regards to the Camerlengo. Having reread Universi Dominici Gregis, I still believe that there cannot be said to be a "presider" in Conclave. The only mention of the Cardinal Dean acting in an executive capacity is this: "The Cardinal electors, after reciting the prayers found in the relative Ordo, listen to the Cardinal Dean (or the one taking his place), who begins by asking the College of electors whether the election can begin, or whether there still remain doubts which need to be clarified concerning the norms and procedures laid down in this Constitution." --MikeJ9919 15:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Allright, I know what you mean. If you can think of a less 'presidential' wording please change it. Str1977 21:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

What do you think? I think this solution has the elegance of including his former position as Cardinal Dean in a compact form.--MikeJ9919 04:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

"officiated ..."? that's ok by me. Str1977 20:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Preside simply means "sit in front", i.e. chairman. That's the only function the Dean has during the conclave, besides the convocation of the electors. Thus, it is perfectly normal to say that Benedict presided over the election, because sitting in the front of the college is exactly what he did. Pmadrid 05:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, both the Latin and English translations of Universi Dominici Gregis use preside in reference to the function of the dean in two instances:
  • The general congregations, and
  • The conclave
but I'm going to use chair in order to avoid the confusion between being presiding officer and executive officer. Pmadrid 05:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Blessing video of pope.

It goes so quickly it's just a blur. Just a thought maybe a slower video would work or something else? --Contrib 19:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Infobox picture

Surely we can find a better picture of Pope Benedict that that truly dreadful one currently being used. It really is appallingly bad. FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\ 22:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Just like with the last photo I put on here, this one is not that great. I am hoping I get some PD/Fairuse photos soon, but I do not think it will come for a while. I am not going to pay the Vatican for any photo, so we are kinda stuck, in my POV. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:40, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Anyone opposed to using the picture that we used before this one? I have it on my computer still. --Jen Moakler 23:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, the last one we used before this one also came from Vatican.va, which also still has the goldish background. I know others complained about that. Man, I am about ready to go to Misplaced Pages:Requested_pictures and put in a request of PD/GDFL pictures of the Holy Father. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
The infobox photo was replaced by a photo that was used later on in the article. The photo is also copyrighted by the Associated Press. Is that legal for us to use? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

shame on the power trip speeding cannonization

QWhat the hell are you doing pope. Are you going to portend you're predecessor is more hearchycal than even mother theresa. WOW!!! Who will be here when mother theresa dies. HUH! Already the german pope fucked up! According to the good st. Malachy...what the fuck u doing little worm nobody. Is HE gonna have to kick the pope out of Rome. HUH!!! Who hath come to hiss... ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss Family planning, and God created woman to be Man's companion. Got the picture?! Don't make me get into this dead predessor. No wonder all the chatholics are leaving the church. You a perverted abomination...HUH!!! Little nobody pope. son of a bitchssssss (Comment was made by IP 68.253.117.209).

I take it the Pope is answering the calls of the Faithful, who wanted JP II to become a Saint. I know the process will be long and hard, but I hope it makes it through. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:56, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Also, though I don't know why I'm even commenting on this...JP II waived the waiting period on Mother Theresa, too.--MikeJ9919 03:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
And there were other popes that probably did that too, but we just never heard about. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
What does hearchycal mean? 66.238.96.241 06:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

On anti-Ratzinger sentiments

Should there not be some discussion of the objections held by many to Ratzinger's history and politics, and of the fact that he was a Hitler Youth? Exploding Boy 00:22, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

I think those were discussed earlier, I would check the archives. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:34, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, there is something about the Hitler Youth thing. I missed that before. But I don't see much about opposition to him. Exploding Boy 00:46, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

You might see some opposition in the Theology section. If some sections get to long, we break things up. I know there is opposition to the Holy Father and I think we should document it. However, I just do not know where. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 14:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Prefixed Style

Since those opposed to the prefixed style seem intent on enforcing a shaky concensus before it is ratified I suggest you voice your opinions here pro or con Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles/Ratification Trödel|talk 04:34, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, the survey is over, so there are some people going around and fixing some of the pages. Personally, I still think each page should decide, or, in our case, put the styles that are used for the pope at the Pope article. We are still introducing the styles as a fact/perk with the office, but we still do not have them in front of the Pope's name. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

There is no current consensus on a new convention, which is the purpose of the ratification vote. The prior policy of prefixing style is overturned, and it is presently up to the editors of each page how style should be addressed. Whig 05:16, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

That's a unique theory. You vote to decide whether to create a new convention to replace the old one. People disagree on what to do, and so you declare that the old convention is overturned! Surely logic says that if there is no agreement on what to do, one leaves the current convention in situ and try to find a consensus over whether to replace it and if so with what. But if no-one can decide, and one declares the old convention dead, what was the point in having the vote in the first place? All one has to do is call a vote and bingo, the old rules are out. Votes on wikipedia do not operate on a 'lets throw out the rules and start again' basis. They operate on the basis of 'lets see if we can agree an alternative'. I think Whig as in so many things lately is as confused as he has gotten everyone else at this stage. In any case there might have been a consensus if there had been a logical vote using a voting method that people could make head or tail of. About the only consensus reached was to never ever use that damn voting method again. FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\ 05:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

It certainly is an outrageous position Jtdirl advances! A minority position was once written into the MoS w/o any prior consensus (prefixed styles; but in practice only for European Christians). A vote was conducted that showed this position to be opposed by most Wikipedians (well, those that voted). Therefore we ought to keep the old minority position (because no other positive MoS guideline has yet established 75% support). Somehow the deduction doesn't work in my mind Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:07, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
Firstly it is not an outrageous position. One doesn't propose a law and say that if fails the all the law is abolished. One proposes a change to replace the old rule. If one fails, then the old one exists until one can pass a replacement. Secondly the idea that it was being pushed for European Christians is ignorant, illinformed and ridiculous. Thirdly it was no more a minority position than the one now. In fact then those people participating did find a consensus (which I opposed, BTW. I was not happy at the time using styles). Fourthly I am not saying keep the minority position. I am saying keeping trying for a consensus. But a free-for-all, any free-for-all, will simply lead to edit wars all over wikipedia. I am saying 'keep working for a consensus. When we have it (and with a less ridiculous voting system, and a clearly thought through approach, rather than the hamfisted one we got) then enforce it. But right now there is no consensus for anything, which means there is no consensus either for removing styles, using styles or deleting styles. So to do anything in the circumstances would be a recipe for chaos. (And BTW I would be saying the same thing if the vote had been on another issue also.) With time a longterm consensus may arrive if we work on it. But a free-for-all will kill the issue stone dead and leave pages all over the place an incoherent mess. What we need is a proper vote, using a proper voting method, asking the proper questions -
  • Styles - yes or no?
  • If yes - use or explain?
  • If explain - what form?
  • If use, how?
  • If styles are used: What categories should they be used for, in what context, for what office-holders?
None of those questions were adequately explored in a coherent voting methodology. Instead we got poorly worded alternatives that did not the clarify the key questions when, who and in what context. And we got a so-called voting system that could not have been worse; one that few people understood and which was relying on one person to issue pronouncements as to what the result was. That isn't democratic and that is not how you take reach a consensus. That is simply how you produce a meaningless mess. About the only thing we have learnt is that that voting system should be binned and never ever used on wikipedia anywhere again.
Lulu, we can keep working for a consensus, and maybe find it. But a free-for-all will set the task of finding a consensus back months or longer. And that is in none of our interests. FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\ 06:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
The old convention has no consensus, no majority, not even a plurality. Suggesting that prefixed styles ought to be retained when they have been clearly rejected by a majority as POV, because a new convention is not yet established is rather strange. Your personal opposition to the voting method used is not a consensus, either. It worked well enough to prevent tactical deception from succeeding. Whig 05:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

There was no tactical deception, only self deception on your part, and an inability to recognise that tactical voting is a standard part of any election. In that case, we'll simply call a new vote, and by doing that that will have the effect of overturning your 'non-consensus' decision by the sheer fact that a vote is taking place, whatever the outcome. There was no consensus on changing the system, which is what we were voting on. FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\ 06:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I will not continue this discussion here, but those who are interested in seeing what Jtdirl is talking about may wish to view the archived discussion. Whig 06:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Since whig (yet again) brought up this lie, let me be quite clear. Whig used a voting system that registered the support being attached to different options. Not understanding it a lot of people voted along First Past the Post linesfor one option and stopped. I pointed out openly on their talk pages that it was useful in helping reach aa consensus decision that they recorded all their votes in order of preference. As the users in question seemed more au fait with FPtP than proportional systems, I pointed out that in proportional systems one can also vote tactically. I also pointed out that tactical voting was a double-edged sword that can backfire. I never suggested to anyone how anyone should vote, never told them they must cast a full vote, never said they must vote tactically. Whig interpreted this as an attempt to corrupt his beloved voting system (the fact that so many people needed to be told that they should vote for every option and not just one shows much confusion his system caused) and has repeatedly accused me of trying to deceive and corrupt his vote. I did no such thing, as people on all sides of the discussion about styles on the page have made clear. But Whig keeps putting about the lie that I did all over the place, as here above where he wrote about tactical deception. It is a complete lie and I am fed up having to deal with his lies. FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\ 06:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC) (Note: This paragraph was deleted twice by Whig and restored by Mackensen and then Proteus.)

Information icon Hello, I'm ]. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Misplaced Pages is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on ]. Thank you. Whig 19:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
You have accused me of lying, deception, trying to rig your vote on a whole range of pages. It got so bad even your supporters had to tell you to stop it. Jguk has been accused of vandalism. Yet when anyone ever stands up to your and Lulu's abuse, you suddenly proclaim no personal attacks. Any chance that you might begin to practice what you regularly preach? Or does that rule mean 'no attacks on Whig while Whig can abuse and defame anyone he wants'? FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\ 00:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I did not accuse you of lying or deception. What I did say can be read in the archived discussion referenced above. Whig 05:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Since this is going nowhere, I am going to try my method out:

Vote or Die!

Should the style "His Holiness" be used in front of Pope Benedict XVI's name (as in His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI)?

Place a vote in a section of your choice, and if you want to state why, keep it brief. Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC) (The vote closes in two weeks and one day (May 30th). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC).)

Support

  1. JYolkowski // talk 22:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ann Heneghan 23:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\ 23:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC) Under wikipedia's normal rules, a consensus is only changed when there is a consensus for change. Under the deletion of categories, for example, a lack of consensus to change means the default 'no change' and 55% there has been ruled as not being a consensus. The vote on the issue on wikipedia only had 53% support for a change in policy. That therefore is not a consensus, which means that default rule applies, which is to stick by the previously agreed policy of using styles on all relevant articles. Articles on popes here have styles. It is the agreed overall policy. FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\ 23:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. Basileus (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. KyleSammin 02:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  6. Rangeley 03:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  7. Evil MonkeyHello 04:02, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • //83 04:21, 16 May 2005 (UTC) (Anonymous votes don't count - even when the voter votes the same way as I do! This attempted vote came from IP 83.109.130.50, and even a bit of the address is missing in the vote. I got it from the diff . The user was not logged in. I'm reformatting, so that the vote number is removed. That should make the valid votes easier to count. Maybe user 83.109.130.50 might log in and revote, or validate this one? Ann Heneghan 23:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC) )
  8. Gentgeen 05:01, 16 May 2005 (UTC). However, it should not be bold, and should link to the His Holiness article.
  9. Per Jtdirl. Whig's duplicity in this matter astounds me. Mackensen (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC) (Note: The comment in this vote was deleted by Whig and Samboy and restored by Proteus twice)
  10. Yes, since it is his official title. Samboy 06:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  11. Yes. I'm also utterly appalled that Whig has been deleting people's comments on this talk page. Proteus (Talk) 07:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  12. Sigh. john k 07:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  13. Yes, hasn't this already been discussed several times before? This is really getting ridiculous. 青い(Aoi) 08:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  14. Yes, it is his title. This is a no-brainer vote. Bratsche 12:12, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  15. Yes, jguk 12:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  16. Yes. --MikeJ9919 14:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  17. Yes. Vilcxjo 14:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  18. Yes, since it is still the current wiki policy and the opposition is POV by constantly using the false argument that including the style is POV. Str1977 20:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  19. Yes. It's his title, and it's not POV to say that. For the record I am an atheist. Dbiv 09:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  20. VViki 11:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  21. Just seems respectful to use the proper style Jesus is the Christ 21:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  22. Yes. Aloysius Patacsil 21:35, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:36, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  2. Gugganij 23:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fawcett5 23:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC) In general, if we add this style here, it should be in fairness applied everywhere, which would be horribly distracting. Besides, it is a style, NOT part of the name (as with "Sir"), and should be explained elsewhere in the text. Putting it first makes it appear part of the name, and interpreted as such, it looks unacceptably POV. It is NOT the normal encyclopedic norm to preface names with a style - Britannica for instance, does not, and nor should we. The same applies for the Queen, Prime ministers, members of parliament, congress critters, military officers, etc. etc. Fawcett5 23:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. Flyers13 03:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. Whig 01:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC) This issue has already been resolved in the Manual of Styles (biography) survey on prefixed styles. This ("Vote or Die!") survey is unadvertised and limited in participation to the limited number of people who might be reading this specific talk page. In the past survey, a majority opposed the prefixed use of style in all cases, and NPOV trumps consensus — no consensus is necessary where a significant NPOV dispute exists. The style should not prefix the name, here, or elsewhere in the Misplaced Pages.
    Whig, it is a test survey, which has also been mentioned at the MoS Accept/Reject page (see my comment at Abstaining section). It is running for two weeks. Since there is a disagreement at that page, I figured I would settled things here. I encourage you to do the same thing at other articles, gather the results and see what we come up with. We will have a better sense of what people feel, since we will be at the pages people will focus on. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
    One more thing, if this survey is easy to understand by many folks, then we can focus other Wiki-surveys and MoS style debates using this method. And since you claim it is not mentioned, go ahead and make it mentioned. I will mention it again at the MoS style just incase a few miss it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  6. --Kbdank71 19:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ausir 02:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  8. Jeltz talk 18:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC) Keep prefixing at a minimum. I don't think that encyclopdias generally preface names. Jeltz talk 18:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  9. --FvdP : would not be neutral. --FvdP 20:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Now, I hope we can settle the issue here with this vote. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

My objections stand as stated above. This poll is redundant as it has already been decided by a majority that prefixed styles violate NPOV. Leaving it up to individual page editors to conduct and enforce private polls to allow an overturned non-NPOV style guide to remain in effect would violate NPOV. A more constructive question could be asked, because the prescriptive language of the prevailing survey alternative did not carry a consensus, whether the style ought to be provided in the introductory paragraph or elsewhere in the article, however, this particular question is already being addressed in a general ratification vote. Whig 04:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
What?? A very slight majority preferred not to use styles. I see no evidence that a majority views styles as POV. john k 07:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
The reason why I am conducting this is that if the new idea is rejected, then pretty much we will be back to square one. And, based on that square one, titles are used. If the whole community cannot think up of something for all, then we should deal with the question on individual pages. As mentioned before, it is kind of hard to use a blanket policy on people and their titles. Some people have titles that we use everyday (Sir, Dame), while others were created by a cult (Dear Leader). Each page has the capibility to decide on their own about the prefixed styles and that is what I am doing with this poll. Oh yeah, one more thing, I will not vote in this poll unless there is a tie. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 14:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Josef or Joseph

I can't see where this is discussed, but the Vatican website (German section) spells his name as "Joseph" . Kind regards, jguk 09:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The vatican calls him "Joseph" and a google search indicates that "Joseph" is how it's spelled on Geramn sites as well. Jeltz talk 12:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
But this CNN article notes that the car registration says "Josef Kardinal Ratzinger" VViki 05:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Is that how he wrote his name, or just the way some random car registry bureaucrat wrote his name? The CNN article doesn't say. Tupsharru 06:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I have often seen "Joseph" - "Joseph" can be a proper German spelling. john k 07:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, I am of Austrian origin, and I can assure you, that a) both spellings are correct and b) the bearer of the name (or of course his parents) determines which spelling in his case is used - thus, in official documents, media reports etc. those two versions cannot be interchanged arbitrarily. Ratzinger's birth certificate shows Joseph. IMHO it is clear that in German Joseph is the right spelling in Ratzinger's case. Gugganij 13:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
May I ask how you came to access his birth certificate? VViki 11:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
There is a copy of his birth certificate which is shown in the museum of local history in Markl am Inn (a village close to the Austrian border). Gugganij 12:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

It's spelled with "ph", if you search the german booklist, all his books are published "Joseph" Ratzinger. And John is right, in german, you can spell names either with "f" or "ph" (Stefan or Stephan; Joseph or Josef, etc.) both is correct, the spelling only depends on what version your parents preferred when they named you Pharlap 12:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Request for Comment

I've listed this page on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment. The issues being discussed on the page have been, if I'm not mistaken, debated several times since this man has become Pope. 青い(Aoi) 09:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Dead link

The link to yahoo news for note no. 1 is no longer active. Algebraist 15:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. Conf 22:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Link on the Honorific

I am not sure I understand why the link on the His Holiness honorific is being reverted - it seems natural - that someone would want an understanding of what this title means in this context. I was reverted when I restored it a few days ago, and for me this wasn't part of the debate on using them or not but just the wikipedia thing to do. Can someone please explain? Trödel|talk 21:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to the link or to not having it. I noticed also that it seems to have become a minor issue in the bigger edit war over "His Holiness", but I don't think it's worth a war. I'm happy to link. I'm also happy if people prefer not to. My personal preference would be to have it linked, so that people could find out a little bit about the title and what it means. Ann Heneghan 21:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
I can think of no reason not to link Dave (talk) 21:51, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

When Lulu and others added a footnote to His Holiness I opposed it for its wrong content, but this link seems all right to me. No need to delete it. Str1977 22:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\ 22:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

What the mother fucking hell!?

Why the hell does this page keep disappearing? File:Drink.gif JarlaxleArtemis 02:25, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Is this the reason?: File:Beammeup.gif JarlaxleArtemis 02:26, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Probably because you tried to edit while we (several admins) were trying to repair damage from page-move vandalism. It should be fine now. Mackensen (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I am glad the talk page was back. Man, I did not want to lose all of that good stuff we have on the Holy Father. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
You know Holy Father and "mother...." just don't seem to go together :) Trödel|talk 02:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Just like switching from the Papal funeral to Jerry Springer one day at home. Oh wait, I am guilty of that. Off to Confession I go! Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Problems with endnotes and section editing

There are duplicate endnotes, leading to an inconsistency between the numbers in the text and those in the list at the bottom. This happens because some endnotes are referenced multiple times, e.g. #13 and #15. These should be split into ref_CNSa and ref_CNSb, with the entry for CNSb just reading "ibid." (There may be more such duplicate endnote refs.)

I couldn't correct this myself because somehow section editing is screwed up: the section edit links go to the wrong sections. Lupo 14:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The section edit links seem OK. As for the footnotes, it's just the footnote templates are deficient. You get duplication or numbering problems. Also consider there are instructions in the comments in the notes section. Conf 15:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Hm, yes, section editing worked now. I've fixed the endnote numbering. "Avoid duplicates" applies to both reference identifiers and references themselves; as two references to the same target will screw up the numbering. Rather fragile, that whole scheme. But then, so are all currently available alternatives. Lupo 19:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me, I know what the instructions mean because we edited them many times and you are wrong. I don't like footnotes too much but you have only increased bloat. Bah. Conf 20:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Categories: