Talk:Pope Benedict XVI - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GA bot (talk | contribs) at 14:51, 28 March 2013 (Transcluding GA review). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:51, 28 March 2013 by GA bot (talk | contribs) (Transcluding GA review)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pope Benedict XVI article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 15 days

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Germany: Munich Top‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Munich (assessed as High-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Italy High‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

European Microstates: Vatican City Top‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Microstates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of European Microstates on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European MicrostatesWikipedia:WikiProject European MicrostatesTemplate:WikiProject European MicrostatesEuropean Microstates
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Vatican City portal This article is supported by WikiProject Vatican City (assessed as Top-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Christianity: Catholicism High‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Catholic Church portal This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Top-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Bavaria Mid‑importance

	Bavaria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bavaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bavaria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BavariaWikipedia:WikiProject BavariaTemplate:WikiProject BavariaBavaria
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

There is a request, submitted by Chameleon, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages.

The rationale behind the request is: "Previously requested".

Pope Benedict XVI was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 6, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
June 27, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
July 9, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
September 4, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
June 14, 2009	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Template:Energy portal news

A news item involving Pope Benedict XVI was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 11 February 2013.

Misplaced Pages

Specific issues addressed

Use of the style "His Holiness": Johntex 21:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Article/Talk Page Vandalism: Zscout370: 21:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Use of Pictures: Bratsche 21:46, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
Infobox Picture: Jenmoa 21:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Page renamed to follow Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (names and titles) on cardinals. FearÉIREANN 02:28 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Page renamed following election to papal office. Bratsche 03:18, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pope Benedict XVI article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 15 days

Pope Benedict XVI is currently a Philosophy and religion good article nominee. Nominated by -- Aunva6 at 03:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

Rename / Redirect

Shouln't the name of the article now be "Pope Emeritus Bendict XVI" since he is no longer the Pope? ReformedArsenal (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed before - about three times. Probably not, since "pope emeritus" isn't a title as such. Arguably the "pope" bit should be dropped, but probably won't be. See above. -- Hazhk 20:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it won't be moved anywhere. Mocctur (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This article is still about the person who was pope. And that is his significance for the purposes of this encyclopaedia and this article, It should stay where and as it is. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. It is Pope Leo I, not Dead Pope Leo I. Evanh2008 23:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

That's because once Pope Leo I took his position there was never a time where he lived as NOT pope, and he never bore another title. This is not an analogical situation. It is no longer accurate to call him Pope Benedict, because he is not the pope. ReformedArsenal (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I said basically the same thing about a similar pope at Talk:Pope Celestine V. Consensus smoked me. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:17, March 3, 2013 (UTC)

And that still doesn't matter. Popes are notable primarily for being popes. Whether they are dead, emeritus, in a coma, or exiled on the moon makes no difference. Pope Leo is no less dead than Benedict is emeritus. We use article titles that are recognizable to non-experts and that readers are likely to search for. A year from now, how many people looking for info on Benedict are going to specifically recall what title he is now living under? Evanh2008 00:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

It's best to leave as is, per consistency of papal bio titles. GoodDay (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

George W. Bush is not called President George W. Bush even though he is primarily notable for being the President. ReformedArsenal (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I've made an argument based on our article naming guidelines. Can you? Evanh2008 02:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

To quote the guidelines you just gave me "Titles follow the same pattern of those of similar articles." Show me one other article of an BLP subject who uses a title that the person does not currently hold? ReformedArsenal (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

No. Misplaced Pages operates based on consensus and guidelines, not precedent. This is an encyclopedia, not a court of law. The particular guideline applicable to this case is For popes, whether Roman Catholic, Coptic, or otherwise, use the format "Pope {papal name} {ordinal if more than one} of {episcopal see}". The consensus applicable to this case can be found here. The Edward VIII comparison is particularly apt. Evanh2008 03:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:Article titles, specific naming conventions govern articles that fall within their terms (see WP:MOSAT). This article falls under WP:Naming conventions (clergy). Any argument that the "emeritus" change should be reflected in the title rightfully belongs there. But whether here or there, it doesn't look likely to change any time soon as there is no consensus. The best course may be to allow some time to pass; if "Pope emertius Benedict XVI" becomes the most common way of referring to him, then that would be cause for a rethink. At the moment, it is disruption as the change has been rejected multiple times in a short period. -Rrius (talk) 04:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the guidelines needs to be reexamined. Britannica does not use Pope in their article titles. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/676944/Benedict-XVI WP:Naming conventions (clergy) should be revisited. I don't think positions should be a part of a title. "General MacArthur" redirects to "Douglas MacArthur." Xkcdreader (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

In Germany german magazine Titanic

Titanic Magazine:Benedikt and his Georg (german)

In Germany a magazine titles, that Benedict XVI. has a longtime relationship with Georg Gänsewein, Now after he finished his job, Benedict XVI. has more time for him. Madrad4455 (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Titanic is a joke. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:44, March 4, 2013 (UTC)

it look like it's sort of the german equivalent of the onion... great for laughs, but not for Misplaced Pages sourcing Aunva6 (talk) 04:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Post-abdication title.

consensus not to change to Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pope Benedict XVI's post-abdication title should be given as Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI - (203.211.70.12 (talk) 10:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC))

Yes, but he was Pope for almost 8 years, which is why he was notable in the first place and where he got the title Benedict XVI from.

He has ceased to be pope, but he will never cease to have been pope. -- Jack of Oz 10:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Pope Emeritus IS an officially recognised title.

The name Benedict XVI is his regnal name, which he will retain for life.

This is why his title should be given as Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. - (203.211.70.12 (talk) 08:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC))

And that's exactly the title we accord him in the first sentence of the article. But the title of the article itself should remain. He is notable for having become pope - period. What happened after his election, including the manner and circumstances of his leaving the papal office, don't alter that. King Edward VIII of the UK abdicated and lived for another 36 years as the Duke of Windsor, but his article title is still "Edward VIII". -- Jack of Oz 08:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if you know this or not... but Pope isn't part of his name. Just like Edward VIII isn't King Edward VIII, Benedict's article shouldn't be "Pope Benedict XI" ReformedArsenal (talk) 10:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I know it, but there's a longstanding consensus that WP articles on Popes use the word "Pope" in their titles, while those on other monarchs do not generally use "King", "Queen" or whatever (but there are some exceptions, like Queen Victoria). -- Jack of Oz 10:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

If you know it... they why did you intentionally use an improper and non-analogous example? The fact is that regardless of consensus, there are so few examples of Popes who have abdicated, that the concensus clearly reflects the standard state of affairs, not the unique ones. ReformedArsenal (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

We seem to have two different proposals/issues here. One is about moving this from Pope Benedict XVI to Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. The newer issue is about whether the word "pope" should appear at all. I assume you mean that "emeritus" should not be part of the title either. Are you saying that it should be simply "Benedict XVI", and that if it had been that way before his resignation, no change would now be necessary? -- Jack of Oz 11:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I think Benedict XVI would be best, but only if all the dead, quit or otherwise ex-popes were also titled like everyone else on Misplaced Pages. Not really the place for that kind of talk, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:40, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

I think that Benedict XVI should be the actual article (I think all Popes should be just their name, but that's not a fight I'm willing to take up), but Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Emeritus XVI, and Joseph Ratzinger (Sp?) should all redirect. ReformedArsenal (talk) 10:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This article is governed by the established naming convention on clergy. Unless and until that changes, "Pope" should be part of the name. I don't see the point of adding "Emeritus", but if it is added, it should be changed back after he dies to conform to all of the other articles for men who have been Supreme Pontiff. -Rrius (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You're missing the point Rrius... those people never existed as NOT Pope after they became Pope... Benedict does. It's not the same thing. There needs to a separate policy governing Popes who abdicate. Also, it's not a general clergy convention since there are plenty of examples of other clergy articles who simply use their name, even when their clerical post was what they were famous for. (Thomas Cajetan for example) I don't have any problem having redirects for Pope and Pope Emeritus since those are likely search terms... but the fact is that titles in general are not typically part of the name of an article except in this one instance. Why do Popes get a special dispensation? ReformedArsenal (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

No I am not missing the point; I am disagreeing with you. Since he still uses a regnal name, the "other clergy" argument doesn't fly. He was a pope and is pope emeritus, so his article's title should remain as close to the established convention as possible. The fact that he stepped down is not a compelling reason to drastically deviate. Nothing in what you say makes any logical argument for why "Benedict XVI" is the best form for a pope emeritus. In other words, in the formulation "Because X, the unmodified regnal name is the most appropriate for a pope emeritus", you have yet to supply X. This seems to be more about your personal preference than rules or logic. Also, since the article should match the other popes after he dies, what we are really talking about is what to call him while he is alive. Does it really make sense to drop "Pope" then add it back? What is the difference? Keeping the article where it is no more suggests he is the current pope than Pope John Paul II does or that Queen Victoria suggests she remains a current monarch. Even in the unlikely situation that someone arrived here from "Random article" and momentarily thought he was still pope, that would be cured immediately by the lead, the resignation section, and the discussion of his pontificate in the past tense. No case has been made for this change, so I don't see why you expect everyone to agree to make it. -Rrius (talk) 12:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You are missing the point... He is not Pope Benedict XVI... the title as of right now, is inaccurate. Furthermore, the standard naming convention for regnal names, is to NOT include a title. Popes (and rare exceptions like Queen Victoria} are the only class of office that includes the title as part of the article name. Why are Popes treated different than others. Barak Obama does not have "President" as part of the article title, nor does Tony Blair have "Prime Minister", nor does Elizabeth II include Queen. Why does the classification of "Pope" have a different naming structure than the rest of Misplaced Pages... why the special dispensation? ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You are all missing one point. He was born Joseph Ratzinger, not Benedict. Misplaced Pages usually lists people who change their ceremoniously names under their new name. For example, all the Catholic religious on Misplaced Pages are listed with their new name. There is no "Marie-Françoise Thérèse Martin" (the birth name of Thérèse of Lisieux) for example. I think "Pope" is included in the new name when he picked "Benedict." This would explain this seeming anomoloy regarding Misplaced Pages naming conventions. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 14:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

No, Pope is not part of the name. Even Catholic sources are refering to him as "Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI". See http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1300847.htm for an example. ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I certainly am missing your point. Since when do articles about people who change their names have to include the word "pope" (any other word other than the actual name)? The article about Thérèse of Lisieux is not titled Saint Thérèse of Lisieux, for example, so why should there be Pope Benedict XIII? Surtsicna (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

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. For popes who are also saints, see Saints below.

In the titles of articles, cardinals generally go by their full name (both first name and surname) alone, without the title "Cardinal", as "Ascanio Sforza", not "Cardinal Ascanio Sforza", nor "Ascanio Cardinal Sforza". Exceptions are cardinals who are identifiable only by the cardinalitial title (as in the case of a hypothetical Cardinal John Smith), those best known by the title "Cardinal" followed by a surname (as Cardinal Richelieu), and those of the period before the introduction of surnames. (For many of the latter, however, their place of origin will serve the same function as a surname.)

-- from Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (clergy)

I would say that he is best known as pope benedict xvi. Aunva6 (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

We all know what the naming convention says... we're saying that the naming convention is wrong (There is also a similar discussion going on at the talk page for the naming convention) ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

then why did you bring this here? get a consensus on the conventions 1st, then a discussion can take place about this article. Aunva6 (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I brought it here because Benedict doesn't fit the pattern of the majority of other popes who held the title when he died... that is, they never HAD another title... he now does. His situation is unique among all the popes, because he is the only living pope emeritus that could present a BLP issue on Misplaced Pages. ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

well, it seems to me that it would be best to wait until consensus is re-established on the naming conventions for clergy before discussing this article, as he is still a clergy member. the consensus on the conventions could very well drastically change; it could be a consensus that popes should not have pope in the title, which would render this discussion irrelevant. Aunva6 (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The article about this person should be titled according to his current title and style. In accordance with a policy he enacted prior to his resignation, Benedict XVI is now officially titled His Holiness Benedict XVI, Pope Emeritus. He is not titled "Pope Benedict" or "Pope Emeritus Benedict" -- the title of "Pope" no longer precedes his name. For the duration of Benedict's life, this article should be called "Benedict XVI, Pope Emeritus" and, following is eventual death, the title should be "Pope Benedict XVI" in line with all other articles on former popes. Crm18 (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. Had they decided to start calling him "Lord Don Commander of the Universe", it would not mean that we had to. Furthermore, the idea that whether or not the subject is breathing should affect the way the article is titled is ridiculous. Surtsicna (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

the reason it is kept like this is that he is MOST notable for being pope, and 'pope' is very likely to be included with his name whenever speaking of him. WP:commonname. Aunva6 (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

And again... this is irrelevant, since Barak Obama is most notable for being President, Tony Blair is most notable for being Prime Minister, and Elizabeth II is most notable for being Queen... and most of the time in modern print those names include their titles. ReformedArsenal (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's so much that the naming convention is wrong but that it wasn't meant to deal with living, retired popes. Last time that happened was long before Misplaced Pages existed, and nobody could have predicted it happened. That being said, his commonly known name will still be Pope Benedict XVI - as far as we know. If sources start calling him Benedict XVI, Pope Emeritus or something like that, we can move it. Until then, we should keep it here. In any case, move it back here after he dies, as has been done with all dead popes including those who resigned before they died. Smartyllama (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

"If sources start calling him Benedict XVI, Pope Emeritus or something like that, we can move it. Until then, we should keep it here." - Oh... you mean like http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1300847.htm The "decisions about how the pope would be addressed and what he would wear were made in consultation with Pope Benedict and with Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the chamberlain of the church, along with others." And they decided that either "Pope Emeritus..." or "Roman pontiff emeritus" were the official title for Benedict XVI. ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree Title should be "Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI" As this is in line with Misplaced Pages naming conventions for clergy (pope) is cited as such by Catholic Church sources, as well as by leaders of other religions. Other sources are here, here etc etc. If the Catholic Church called him Dark Lord Benidict, and others referred to him as such then his title should be Dark Lord. It is not Dark Lord, however it is Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and thus that is what should be displayed. As always, commenting on current events unfolding usually requires edits, and this is no exception. Patriot1010 (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit category

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

] should be ] (with the space after the pipe) and moved to the top of the section above his birth year category, should it not? I think this is how it usually done with this kinds of categories.

hmmm? if your talking about the categories on the bottom, I don't think they are placed in any particular order... if that's not what you man, they you need to clarify. Aunva6 (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

(i) Most importantly (I think). The space after the pipe. In Category:Pope Benedict XVI he is appearing under "P", he should not, he should be like Pope Francis in Category:Pope Francis.

(ii) Since it is an eponymous category should it not be at the start? See the bottom of Pope John Paul II where it is at the start before the birth year category. --86.40.200.82 (talk) 23:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be

Already done so I am closing this request. Please reopen with a specific comment if it has not been done. —KuyaBriBri 15:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

edit request: his dress

Just a small correction, he will continue to dress as pope, but will no longer wear the shoulder-cape on his cassock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.50.65.85 (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

source? Aunva6 (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

edit request: "met with"

Done

Under "Pope Emeritus" please change "met with" to "met". "Met with" is incorrect English and is a really really ugly use of language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.51.80 (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitch Ames (talk • contribs) 07:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." The new wording makes it sound like they had never met before (although maybe that was the case). "Met with" just means they had a meeting, which is definitely accurate. It's not substandard English; at least, the dictionary doesn't say so. Perhaps it's different in British English, but not according to that source. --BDD (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, "met with" is fine. Better even, if they'd already met before. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:22, March 22, 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 March 2013

Not done

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Section 7.1: In March 2009, the Pope Stated: I would say that...... a willingness to make sacrifices and to practise (practice, spelling error?)... alongside the suffering. Eric01px2017 (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The quote in the article accurately matches the source reference, which takes precedence over our personal preferences as to the correct spelling. (I believe either spelling may be acceptable, per WP:SPELLING#English spelling comparison chart.) Mitch Ames (talk) 12:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Criticism

Why isn't there a section for criticism ? This is common for public figures that have been involved in controversies. Anyone researching him for this angle and looking at this website won't find any appropriate section that summarises this. This appears to be a major ommission.

Ratzinger has been explicitly named in cover up scandals of child abuse and was the author of instructions within the catholic church that supported moving paedophile priests to other churches rather than allow them to be prosecuted.

There are numerous articles covering this. There is even a recent article in Reuters where the vatican states that he will be allowed to remain within the vatican to avoid potential prosecution.

So a person who has been considered by many to be criminal, is the subject of several criminal investigations, has no section that suggests there is criticism or controversy ?

As an example http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/15/us-pope-resignation-immunity-idUSBRE91E0ZI20130215 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.83.163 (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: see Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (clergy) (non-admin closure) . -- Aunva6 14:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI → Benedict XVI – New naming convention for Popes has been agreed upon by consensus at Naming conventions (clergy)#Popes, so Benedict XVI (currently redirected here) and this article need to be swapped so this is the redirect and Benedict XVI is the primary article. ReformedArsenal (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I put a g6 csd on the redirect, an admin will make the move shortly. -- Aunva6 22:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose moving this article anywhere. Consensus on this page after half a dozen discussions in the last few weeks is that we do not move the article anywhere. Your proposed title in not in accordance with how articles on popes are titled and have been titled for the last ten years, and is clumsy and less user friendly. Mocctur (talk) 05:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, there is no new consensus on Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (clergy), just a handful of users proposing a change and multiple others rejecting this. We do not move high profile articles such as this one because two or three users propose a change on an extremely obscure project talk page, this page can only be moved following consensus to move it here on Talk:Pope Benedict XVI. The article has been move-protected for this reason. Mocctur (talk) 05:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I see a consensus there, and I don't see any opposition, other than you, and nyttend, maybe rirus. I do see several users in support of it. anyways, I don't think lack of consensus is not a reason to oppose, rather than form a consensus. also, remember that consensus can change-- Aunva6 06:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You are the only one who can see a consensus there, which (surprise!) means there's no consensus. Evanh2008 08:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It's funny how people don't feel they need to be involved until someone actually does something. When two editors agree on something, and ask for objections and further discussion, and no one (not even the original dissenter) responds, it's a fair conclusion that no one dissents further. ReformedArsenal (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be a clear consensus on that talk page that pope articles should not be moved anywhere. Mocctur (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose There is no reason to change the style of naming. The Pope X style is used widely in current medias, in historybook and in common days conversations. Nothing good will come out of changing it to X (pope), except utter confusion. I would think this discussion is so far out from normal use of language and common style that most wikipedians wouldnt use time to put it down, since it is would be to break with all common use of the popes names. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose, as the naming of the articles are stable & acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Move to close The pope naming issue has been taken up at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (clergy)#Article Move due to updated convention. While it looks unlikely to succeed, if it does, it should apply to all popes where there are no disambiguation problems, which certainly wouldn't apply to Benedict XVI. There's no point in changing this article alone, so I call for a close. --BDD (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Strongly oppose per past discussions. -- Hazhk 18:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I also agree that this should be closed. Unless there is a special circumstance that would require this page to be moved unrelated to the debate at the naming convention page, I see not to centralize the discussion there.--64.229.164.74 (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I am in favour of changing the naming rules for popes and patriarchs to make them consistent with those for other people. Once that has been done, this article will have to be moved. I am certainly not in favour of changing this article while the present naming rules are in effect. Such a change to such a long-standing rule requires very wide debate, and I see the present move request as one of many steps to make a sufficient number of interested editors aware of what is being proposed. Hans Adler 23:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. There is no "new naming convention". Bede735 (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
move to close consolidate the discussion on the convention page. -- Aunva6 14:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

closed, as there is no new convention yet.-- Aunva6 14:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 14:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Review

This article contains a lot of good information, and I want to open by thanking everybody for their work on this so far. The article draws on a range of sources, demonstrates no serious neutrality problems at first glance, and appears to cover all "main aspects" of Benedict's career.

I think it does have some areas in which it needs to improve before being listed as a Good Article. I've listed specific concerns below, but to summarize, the article appears to need some additional citation, to better summarize its contents in the lead, to delete or merge the redundant "overview" section, to update the most recent events (Benedict is presumably no longer awaiting the end of the papal conclave to choose his successor, unless nobody told him yet), and to address various clean-up tags on the article. The article also appears even on a fast read to need some minor copyediting (I've done a bit of this as I went). On a more general note, while the article has many excellent sections, it still doesn't read in other places as a very coherent whole--lots of one-sentence paragraphs and lists of meetings, statements, and events.

In short, this nomination seems to me a bit premature. I'd suggest taking a leisurely readthrough of the article, doublecheck that everything of significance is cited (particularly interpretation or quotations), that the language is up-to-date, and that the clean-up tags have been addressed. Since these concerns seem to me fairly extensive, I'm not listing the article for now, but I hope the nominator and other editors will continue work on this important topic. I've added some more specific comments below. I apologize in advance that these are so ridiculously out of order--I was bouncing back and forth in the article to double-check different aspects, and noting issues as I went.

Hope this helps, and again, thanks for everyone's efforts on this top-importance article! -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

sounds good, I guess I didn't catch some of that in my look through. I fixed all the citations (except one was something about Benedict and a kitten, the angelqueen one). -- Aunva6 02:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Terrific--thanks for taking a look at those. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I must have missed a couple, I know of at least one dead ref... i'll fix it -- Aunva6 17:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Specifics

The lead appears to need some work to properly summarize the article per WP:LEAD. Some information appears in the lead which does not seem to appear in the body, such as the pope's views on art and the sacred. Some details in the lead, like his tutoring Cardinal Schonborn, seem comparatively trivial. In contrast, large sections about interfaith dialogue, the sex abuse scandals, and views on political and moral issues don't appear to be touched on.
On a related note, I'm not sure of the value of a four-paragraph "overview" section in the article. Providing this overview is the purpose of the lead, making this section unnecessary and redundant. I'd suggest merging this content with the lead, or deleting this section entirely. Repeating content unnecessarily is problematic for criteria 1a and 3b.
Some tags, including a "broken citation" tag, a "who" tag, a "dated info" tag, and a "citation needed" tag need to be addressed.

Done -- Aunva6 04:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

This paragraph appears in need of update: "There he will stay until after the conclave to elect a successor completes its task. Afterwards he will return to the Vatican, where the monastery Mater Ecclesiae located in the Vatican Gardens will serve as a retirement home."

Done -- Aunva6 04:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a small point, but I don't believe it's necessary to write "Pope Benedict" instead of just "Benedict" in every instance that his name is used. Generally the MOS recommends that a title be used the first time a name is introduced ("King Henry V said...") and dropped after that ("Henry invaded France").
"According to a Vatican spokesman, Benedict spent the first day as pope emeritus with Archbishop Georg Gänswein and, among other activities, watched the news in Italian" -- this seems rather trivial; I'd suggest cutting.
Angelqueen.org, the source used for the Pope's kitten's name, does not appear to be a reliable source on first glance, and is a dead link besides; if no other source exists for this info, it's probably not significant enough to include anyway.
What does the abbreviation "Bl. Pope" in the caption mean?
Considering that we have a sub-article for Benedict's bibliography, I don't think it's necessary to list all 65 of his books here. It's probably enough to just mention that he wrote 65 books, and leave the full list for the subarticle.

Done -- Aunva6 03:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The article has a number of one-sentence paragraphs that could be combined into more coherent wholes.
""it was, if not Ratzinger, who? And as they came to know him, the question became, why not Ratzinger?" -- I'd suggest attributing this quotation to its author in-text
"International Society for Krishna Consciousness" -- is this meeting significant enough to need a full subsection in the article? If so, perhaps some quotations from notable sources could be added to discuss its significance in his papacy. If not, I wonder if this could be merged elsewhere and simply noted in passing.
The following statements/sections appear to me to need citation:
- " the Financial Times gave the odds of Ratzinger becoming pope as 7–1"
- " In April 2005, before his election as pope, he was identified as one of the 100 most influential people in the world by Time"

Done -- Aunva6 03:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

- "Ratzinger most clearly spelled out the Catholic Church's position on other religions in the 2000 document Dominus Iesus which also talks about the Roman Catholic way to engage in "ecumenical dialogue"."
- " though he increasingly chose less reformist themes than other contributors to the magazine such as Hans Küng and Edward Schillebeeckx."
- "In 2007 Benedict sent a letter at Easter to Catholics in China that could have wide-ranging implications for the church's relationship with China's leadership" (the "wide-ranging implications" appears to be interpretation of a primary source)
- "Only creative reason, which in the crucified God is manifested as love, can really show us the way."
- The block quotation in "Global Economy"--this appears to be from Charity in Truth?
- "Thus, he said that prayer is "urgently needed... It is time to reaffirm the importance of prayer in the face of the activism and the growing secularism of many Christians engaged in charitable work.""
- "Tone of papacy" paragraph

Categories: