Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

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

This archive covers some of April 20, 2005.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive08. Thank you. Bratsche^{talk random} 23:21, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

4.35.155.182

[1] This guy is Constantly vandalising. Whether it be putting editing out his title, or calling him a nazi. It needs to be adressed somehow, he is hindering the effort to repair the article. Rangeley 02:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

http://www.BenedictXVI.com

Site with BenedictXVI name Probably not relevant, but someone had created this URL.

• But hey, I commend this guy for doing this. Zscout370 20:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What I find interesting after a quick look to what this guy writes on his web site, is that Paddypower took as 'favorite' - 3-1 - among the potential regnal names of the Pope 'Benedict' . How could they accurately predict 'Benedict' as most probable name ? Gloria Olivae ? Hektor 03:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't too difficult really. There is a limited range of modern Papal names. "John Paul III" would have looked presumptuous, "John XXVII" too liberal and "Pius XIII" too confrontational. That left Paul, Benedict and Leo. Adam 03:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Especially since they'd only be through John XXIV. It would be fun to skip a few just to confuse people, though... kertrats

Plus the new pope's birthday falls on Saint Benedict's day. I think that is the clincher. Johntex 03:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it's even easier, since Paul is still pretty recent as popes go. This probably shouldn't go into the article. Bratsche^{talk random} 03:54, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Paul VI was the pope who made Ratzinger both a bishop and a cardinal. That would have been a perfectly plausible name. Pius XII, Pius XI, Pius X, Pius IX, Pius VIII, and Pius VII all took the names of quite recent popes - Pius XII and Pius VII named themselves after their immediate predecessor, XI, X, IX, and VIII after their most recent predecessor but one. It should also be noted that the names John and Paul had not been used for several centuries before their revival in the second half of the twentieth century. A name like Clement (or Gregory, used in the nineteenth century) would seem plausible enough. john k 06:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well if it so easy, perhaps you can give us some initial ideas about the name of the next pope ? Hektor 05:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

George Pell (you read it here first). Adam 10:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is this An Alright Picture?

File:Benedictxvio.jpg

I added a copywrite, as it is from AP. I am unsure if this is all that needs to be done, and if this picture cannot be in the article I will take it down. Rangeley 04:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

            Caption: 
            Police: "I've come to arrest you senator" 
            Pope:   "Are you threatening me master jedi?" 168.243.218.6 04:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hah, that's exactly what I was thinking... Looks like he's being arrested. Quasipalm 06:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

World reactions

Should there be a section World reactions to the election of Benedict XVI. For instance here in the French media there is a huge Benedict XVI bashing campaign underway in the newspapers. Bush level in the scale of bashing I would say. Hektor 04:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I added a quote from The Washington Post column written by Tina Brown, which was quite graphic, intense, and memorable as to the liberal reaction against B16 but followed it with an observation re the broad support for the new pope among traditional Catholics. I hope this is all right with all assembled here. Mowens35 16:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Its already placed in various sections, I dont think it is worthy of its own section though. Its just oppinions. Rangeley 04:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)On September 10, 1944 his class was released from the Flak Corps. Returning home, Ratzinger had already received a new draft notice for the Reichsarbeitdienst. He was posted to the Hungarian border area of Austria which had been annexed by Germany in the Anschluss of 1938. Here he was trained in the "cult of the spade"

this single most interesting data point stands without explaination as to what the "cult of spade" is - nothing comes up on www searches, so inquiring minds need to know - whether it is real or not real - relevant or not relevant is up to the reader to determine, but how can the reader do anything with such a curious data point in an "encyclopedia" without some citable reference?

It comes from his memoirs. He says they were instructed in the cult of the spade" as part of the Reichsarbeitdienst (a kind of agricultural labor corps). They had to keep it immaculately clean and pick it up in a special way, carry it a special way etc. It is seen as being both a reflection of quasi-military indoctrination (teaching you to treat a rifle well, "this is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine) and at the same time being a result of the intense Nazi glorification of work and general tendency towards neo-gnostic fetishization of the implements of labor and of violence.

It's really not key to the article. I generally put it in there because before someone had suggested that he went to infantry training at that point, which actually was later when he was sent to the army. The training he got at that time was in the "cult of the spade". --Samuel J. Howard 05:34, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Balance of article

This obsession with every petty detail of what Ratzinger did during the war (three years in the life of a 78yo), when in fact he did nothing more than every other 18yo German was required to do, and a good deal less than most, is being driven by the insinuation that Ratzinger is "really" a Nazi and that this can be proved if only we dig around enough. This is false, malicious and unfair, and is distorting the whole balance of the article. Adam 05:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Umm, well, check out my blog [2] and I think you'll see that I'm not anti-Ratzinger. I think it's prefectly legitamite to wonder what he did during the war. Also, if you read his memoirs, they were important formative experiences for him. Besides, the truth of what he did is not objectionable.--Samuel J. Howard 06:03, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and the point of that was that I had written much of what is now in the war service section.--Samuel J. Howard 06:05, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

And my point is that what he did between 1943 and 1945 only deserves disproportionate attention (which it has at the moment) if he did something out of the ordinary or something discreditable, and there is absolutely no evidence that either is the case. How much space are we giving to what he did between 1953 and 1955? Adam 06:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's entirely relavent. This is a very high-profile, very powerful man we're talking about, so issues of his history and his character are important. You know it reminds me of the US Presidential campaign. Why was so much attention given to both candidates and what they did during Vietnam? Well, because it said a lot about their character and their experiences and it was relavent to the conversation -- even though it was a long time ago. The same is true here. Quasipalm 06:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to point out that all that is listed here are facts, and the article makes very clear the details surrounding his service in WWII. So, I think you're going to have a hard time convincing me that we should remove information from this article because it "sounds bad" to a Catholic.

I didn't say any such thing (and I'm an atheist by the way). I agree his history and character are important. What exactly do the details of his military service tell us about his history and character? Absolutely nothing, other than that he was an ordinary 18yo German who did what he was told as did nearly everyone else. If he had joined the SS that would tell us one thing, and if he had joined the resistance that would tell us another thing. But he didn't do either of those things - his military service was completely ordinary and uneventful. It has no connection with his subsequent career, since he had already decided to become a priest before the war. It should be given in outline, but every detail is not necessary in an article of this length. Adam 06:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Adam. -- 83

How about keeping the information but moving it to later in the article so that it is demphasized?--Samuel J. Howard 07:41, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'm ok with that. However, I like it best as it is because it's chronological order... WWII just happens to be about the first interesting thing to happen in his life. If you would like to break out the WWII events and put them in another section, I'm fine with that. Or, perhaps, move down the entire biography section. --Quasipalm 16:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New York Times and Father

Someone put in the article that the NY Times said there was no evidence for the claim that Ratizingers father was an anti-nazi. In fact they reported the claim themselves:

"The son of a policeman, Joseph Ratzinger was born in this river town on April 16, 1927. He lived in Marktl for only two years, before his family moved to another village nearer the Austrian border. His father's run-ins with local Nazi officials were said to have kept the family on the move."[3]--Samuel J. Howard 07:37, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

musical abilities

Even if this is a minor point I think one should not praise a person more than approbriate. I heard Joseph Ratzinger perform the prelude from Bach's welltempered clavier I No. 1 (not a difficult piece). Apart from the fact that his piano was terribly out of tune he stopped every few bars looking for the correct keys. --Tarleton 11:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where did you hear it, can you provide a source, etc. sk4p 12:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I heard him play in a documentary on bavarian television shown on the day of his election --Tarleton 22:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

--Subramanian 14:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)== Public Opinion ==

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

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

I wrote a small paragraph on this. Please watch it closely, because it is highly likely people will try to remove it without discussion.

Okay, they removed it. Putting it back again. Should you object, please talk it here first.

I think plain_regular_ham's case stated it clearly. It ia a valid expression by the major media such as the NYT. But they removed it again. --Subramanian 14:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maureen Dowd is ONE columnist. It shouldn't be included unless it is more widespread. As for Panzercardinal, it's not necessarily pejorative.--Samuel J. Howard 21:19, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

BMW slave labour

Can we please discuss the BMW slave labour thing. I don't think it's relevant to this article (though it might be relevant to an article on BMW, German industry in WW2, or the plant in question) Str1977

This has absolutely nothing to do with the Pope or his anti-aircraft military service. I suggest we block the POV vandal who keeps inserting it. -- 83

Comical. No, it is quite relevant, because he is a major moral authority for most Catholics, and defended a slave labor camp during WWII. It speaks of his morality, and it also is a historical note. I don't see why it wouldn't be relevant. Titanium Dragon 14:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think banning will work, there are a couple of changers on either side.

Dragon,

no, it's not relevant. Yes, he guarded or physically defended the plant including the labour slaves, but he neither advocated then or now using slave labour, no did he guard it of his own accord. Though the slave labour is indeed fact (I presume this info is correct), it is not relevant to Ratzinger's biography. If you could point out some conclusions the Pope drew from this "experience", you might have a point. But in regard to this article it is a mere detail that IMO only serves to smear Benedict (just as the whole HJ thing, when it first came up - not here, I mean, but in the press). If you want to avoid the smearing result it needs a more lengthy explanation and I don't think that's warranted in this article. Generally this is of course an important historical fact, but it should be discussed at a more appropriate place.

Str1977

How bizarre to see this argument. Facts are facts; just state them, and unless there's evidence that the young Ratzinger had actual contact with or knowledge of slave labor, just leave it at that. Otherwise, we're putting thoughts into his head, however well-intentioned and likely. Though I think it highly unlikely that he didn't know anything about what was going on in Germany at the time, even if he didn't support it in any way. His HJ membership and military service are public record and should be discussed accordingly, as they have been in his own memoirs (however glancingly) and newspapers and television programs. It is something he lived through, after all, during the most formative years of his life. Mowens35 16:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He was a 16yo conscript manning an anti-aircraft gun. To construe this as "defending slave labour" in a moral sense is a disgusting slander. No-one has not lived under a dictatorship has any right to make "moral" judgements about this. Adam 14:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

exactly my point, Adam,

one more thing:

one thing drives out another, but also one thing draws in another

it'd be a valid point not to state his exact whereabouts at all, but if we mention the BMW plant, we needn't necessarily mention what it produced or by what means. You could go on and on and on (not just on this issue, not just on this article) until you have one big wikipedia-general article, in which the whole of human knowledge is assembled, since IMO everything can in some way be connected to everythin else. A line has to be drawn.

Str1977

It is an illusion of neutrality to claim that the Pope must have "drawn some conclusion" from his experience guarding a slave factory in order to include the fact. In fact, if the Pope has NOT drawn a conclusion from the experience of the Holocaust, I believe that to be all the more pertinent to an understanding of the man. It seems to me that the fact that the Pope worked in proximity to a slave factory is far more relevant than the fact that it was a BMW factory or that it produced engine parts. So, let's remove the name of the industrial concern, shall we? Dickumbrage 15:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please note that this was already a discussion topic. The phrase itself is morally neutral. No accusation is made that Ratzinger "defended" slave labor, per se. The insertion provides vital context for his experience of WWII. It would be an irresponsible act of historical sanitation to remove mention of the Holocaust when it provided a backdrop for the everyday life of war-era Ratzinger. It is a fact that, during the 1940s there was a systematic and mechanized slaughter of nine million human beings, six million of whom died because of their perceived ethnicity. It is a fact that the Pope had direct experience of this monumental moral bellwether. Why the insistence that it be covered up? It seems the omission of such a fact is the POV problem in this instance. Dickumbrage 14:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) Dickumbrage 14:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dickumbrage, No one here (certainly not I) denies the Shoa and no one here wants to to a cover up, either in general (the NS crimes are well known) or in the Pope's case (it wasn't his crime anyway, as you yourself say). If it's POV, then it's POV on either side. And I stick with my suspicion that this is meant to "smear". Maybe you don't accuse him of "defending", but Dragon did just above (hence Adam's reaction). If we were writing a biography, I'd put the info in (and much more) but this is a encyclopedia. Str1977

I appreciate your concern that this article remain free from propaganda or "smears." I must insist, however, that the language used to describe the slave labor is utterly neutral with regard to the Pope. On the one side, I hear calls for moral judgment ("the Pope 'defended' slavery), which are simplistic. But, the same sort of judgment can be made about his participation in the Nazi military at all. Why not desert earlier? Where is the strength of his moral convictions? Again, this is a matter of oversimplification AND beyond the scope of the encyclopedia article. The capacity for some people to draw these conclusions, however, does not warrant the omission of fact.

On the other side, I sense a fear of placing the Shoah and the Pope in the same context. Doing so puts some sort of onus on the Pope to discuss this event. Unfortunately, history put the Shoah and the Pope in the same context. To publish an article with four or five paragraphs of 1940s German history without a single mention of the Holocaust is simply irresponsible.

In a more flippant mood, I vandalized the article thus: "During the 1940's the Nazi regime carried out a systematic program of genocide, resulting in the death of an estimated six million Jews. Ramarkably, Ratzinger had no knowledge or experience of these events." This is what you are saying, Str1977, when you remove the Dachau reference. Does that make you more comfortable?Dickumbrage 15:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"It is a fact that the Pope had direct experience of this monumental moral bellwether." It is not a fact, it is an accusation for which no evidence has been produced. He was (let me repeat) 16 years old. How could he possibly have known what was going on in Poland (where the Holocaust actually took place)? He might have known there were slave laborers in the BMW plant, but this needs to be demonstrated, not merely asserted. Adam 15:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes Adam, that's my point

if we want to mention this isssue, this "direct experience" has to be described, how the presence of the slave labourers affected the young Joseph. But just to say: "he was there, where they were there", might be a correct statement, but bar of any relevance to this article, except for smearing purposes.

Str1977

The fact that the lion's share of the death camps were in Poland does not mean that the Holocaust "took place" there. It "took place" across Western Europe. It "took place" wherever Jews and others were detained, murdered, and enslaved. Dickumbrage 20:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does it likewise need to be demonstrated that the factory produced engine parts for airplanes? Dickumbrage 15:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sticking it in is not POV, much like including the Monica Lewinsky "scandal" in the Bill Clinton article is not. Titanium Dragon 15:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We do not write encyclopaedia articles by "sticking things in." We write them by including relevant information. As I have said above, in my opinion the details of Ratzinger's military service are not relevant, because his service was completely uneventful and had no significance for his later life. The details of the BMW plant are even less so. The only possible reason for saying the the factory where his Flak unit was stationed used slave labour is to make some snide inference that this is somehow a moral reflection on him. (as Titanium Dragon said quite directly). This is garbage, firstly because it has not been shown that Ratzinger knew there were slave laborers in the plant, and secondly because it has not been shown, if he did know about them, what he, as a teenage conscript living in a police state, was supposed to do about it to gain the moral approval of people living safely in democratic countries 60 years later. Adam 15:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"As I have said above, in my opinion the details of Ratzinger's military service are not relevant, because his service was completely uneventful and had no significance for his later life."

Have you flipped your lid? Serving in a fascist military during wartime at the age of 16 has no significance on the development of a human being?

Here's a sensible comment on the subject: "The new Pope, Benedict XVI, endured being forced into the Nazi army as a teenager in the 1940s. This gave him firsthand knowledge of racist evil, a scourge that is by no means defeated in the world of 2005." - Thabo Mbeki Adam 15:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, Adam, as this would make the mentioning of "slave labour" relevant to the biography.

What do the others think?

Str1977

This isn't NPOV at all. We don't know for a fact he "endured" it. Talking about "a scourge" is again not NPOV. Yes, the Nazis were evil, but we can't say that outright because it isn't NPOV. Do we know that he considered it to be "forced" at the time? Would he have joined otherwise? This is not known, and this is not NPOV. Stating that he served in the Nazi army (perhaps "conscripted" might be used if this was so) and stating what he did while he was in it is totally valid. Compared to his becoming pope, this section is TINY, but the event of him becoming pope only took a single day. Should we "minimize" that? It is not an irrelevant detail what he did while he was in the Nazi army, any more than what Bush and Kerry did during Vietnam was irrelevant. Titanium Dragon 16:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then give an alternative, please.

Str1977 18:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As the "vandal" who keeps inserting the reference to slave labour, let me just ask this: Do most casual readers of this article *really* know that BMW used slave labour? If we also omit, as suggested, the fact that the factory in question produced aircraft parts, won't a fairly large number of readers simply assume that Ratzinger was guarding a benign automobile plant? Until yesterday, the BMW article contained no reference to slave labour in its section relating to WWII. And if the fact that it manufactured aircraft engines is relevant, surely the factory's use of slave labour is too? I have no doubt that some who want to remove the Dachau reference simply think it isn't relevant, and have no intentions of downplaying attrocities. Others, however, have referred to the inclusion of the slave labour reference as "propaganda". In what sense? I want to echo Dickumbrage's point: the pope is a major moral authority. Is it possible to say, for instance, that anyone guarding this plant would have been unaware of its use of slave labour? If there is a possibility that Ratzinger was aware of the condition of the workers of this plant, even as a conscripted teenager, surely its inclusion is merited? When the camps were liberated, the allies (or at least the Americans and the British) forced German civilians from nearby towns to tour them, civilians who claimed they had no idea what was going on even while living right next to the camps. If this issue is relevant when discussing ordinary German civilians who lived adjacent to concentration camps, surely it is relevant when discussing a future pope who was part of a unit guarding a factory that used slave labour. --Bwventril 15:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I (and probably others) am not denying the facts they used slave labour (how many times to I need to repeat that).

The "aircraft engines" are in there, because a reader might ask why this plant needs guarding.

The "slave labour thing" however is relevant to a supposed article about the BMW plant, but not in a Benedict article unless you show how it has affected his thinking etc. Or if you want to smear him, but that is at least POV.

I don't want to jump conclusions, but this constant talk about "but he's a major moral authority" makes me add "so we must smear him down to size". Guilt by association etc. But I hope I'm wrong.

As for "propaganda". Be careful. Whoever used the word, might either call the facts propaganda (meaning this all never happened), which I think you imply. But maybe the person meant that the inclusion of the facts, which he doesn't dispute, into this article is (anti-papal) propaganda (or smear, as I have called it). Again, I don't know what that someone thought, but please don't jump to soon.

Str 1977

I ask again: what evidence is there that he knew about the slave labor? It wasn't posted on the main gate, you know. And even assuming he did know, what was he supposed to do about it? What would you have done, in his position? Adam 15:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

These aren't relevant questions. Nobody is judging what he did or did not do, except, possibly, you. Is this the reason you don't want this information concluded? Do you want a sanitized Pope, one without fascist military service, one who did not share a country with a Holocaust? When JPII became Pope, the word was that life under authoritarianism had given him moral clarity. That was the Big Deal. So, why shove the new Pope's exposure to the Holocaust, unwitting though it may have been, under the carpet? Doesn't that just make him an even better Pope than JPII? Dickumbrage 20:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am in no way trying to "smear him down to size". I certainly hope that most people would agree that the pope is a major moral authority. As such, the pope is held to a higher moral standard than most people: i.e. as someone who embodies the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. It then follows that the pope's own moral development is of significant interest, including his moral development as a youth. Just by virtue of living through WWII, his actions and opinions in relation to the Holocaust would be of interest. This was also true for John Paul II (for some in a very positive sense), and you see this for Benedict in the Mbeki quotation (above). I have no idea whether or not the young Ratzinger saw slave labourers from Dachau marching through the gates of the BMW plant, for example. However, his *possible* (some might say probable) exposure to such scenes would (one might hope) have an effect on his moral development. Including the reference to slave labour in the Dachau plant simply indicates what Ratzinger was exposed to as a young man, i.e. events of extreme moral gravity. How he reacted to such events is speculation, but his presence guarding a plant that used slave labour is pertinent information about the environment that shaped his moral development. If Ratzinger had spent the war in a monastery with no exposure to wartime attrocities, that would be relevant too. --Bwventril 15:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous and Bwventril,

If you say you have no intention to smear, than I do believe you.

No, I don't want a sanitized Pope (I'm quite happy with what I got) and I think everyone knows that he's German and so he shares a country with the Shoa. So do I (though I was born in 1977, but I'm well aware of the shared responsibility). If his experience resulted in moral clarity (I think it probably did) than the article should say so. If there is relevance than it should be excplicit, if not than the issue should be left out. Of course there's the danger of speculation, if we don't know the effect on him from his mouth, but than we could still say generally "has shaped his moral clarity" or even "might have shaped" or "influenced" other the like. But if that's too much of speculation, than I'm for leaving the "slave labour" out for lack of clear relevance. What do you think about Adam's proposition he made at 15:24.

Str1977 16:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Holy Father has never had anything with the holocaust or forced labourers to do! His concern was aircraft attacks on Germany, his responsibility was to guard cities against them. He was a teenager doing his duty and defending his country just like teenagers still do all around the world and always have done. Do you have problems with this? -- 83

I won't comment here on the relative merits of teenagers defending various regimes. The issue at hand is Ratzinger's wartime experience, his wartime actions, and the environment within which his moral development took place. I am a little troubled by the reticence of some here to allow readers to draw their own conclusions. Ratzinger's experience guarding a BMW plant that used slave labour might a) have increased his hatred of fascism and oppression in all its forms, or b) have had no effect whatsoever. We simply don't know. What we do know is that the young Ratzinger was in a position that one might call "morally charged", just as John Paul II was in a "morally charged" position in Poland during the same period (something that is seen as highly relevant for many Poles). Mentioning that the BMW plant used slave labour indicates to the reader exactly high how the moral stakes are. They can then draw their own conclusions or make further enquiries on their own about Ratzinger's knowledge of all this, the effect on his views, etc. If Ratzinger knew nothing about the conditions at the plant, that is important. If he knew all about the conditions, that is important too. As we don't know what he knew, we need to keep the slave labour reference in so readers can make further enquiries, and so that the reader who doesn't wish to pursue this matter further at least knows what was happening in Ratzinger's immediate environment. The alternative is to give the false impression that the stakes were not that high, that he was, for example, guarding a plant that (for all the reader might know) was staffed by happy, well-compensated German workers.--Bwventril 16:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It simply doesn't have anything with the Pope to do. It is relevant to the article about the plant in question. You may write that article, but please leave the Pope alone. I don't accept this outrageous POV pushing, smear and "guilt by association". -- 83

Would it also have been "guilt by association" if he had been a guard at Belsen? Have you even heard of Belsen?--Bwventril 16:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Belsen is a part of the city of Mössingen. And the Pope did not work as guard in any prison. He was a military conscript defending cities against air attacks. --83

Yes, it does have something to do with the Pope. What we know is that he guarded this plant during the war. We know the name of the plant, but what about the location (if that is needed or not, thats up to yall). We can move the slave labor section farther down in the contraversy sections, since we just do not know if slave labor was used, and if slave labor was used, then we have little clue on how much it affected B16. However, with his election, I am sure B16 will give many interviews, and I am sure that this question will be brought up (either then or in the documentries that will follow). Zscout370 16:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will remove the smear every time you insert it. And I see no reason why completely irrelevant things which do not affect the Pope should be brought up. I'm sure the Pope will refuse to comment on such ridiculous propaganda. -- 83

Zscout: it is common knowledge that slave labour was used at this plant. Whether or not you think a mention of slave labour in the B16 article is merited, the actual use of slave labour itself (from Dachau) is not a matter of controversy. It is a matter of fact. --Bwventril 16:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Zscout (referring to your 16:47 post), we this and that and that and there's no disputing the facts by me.

If it's relevant to his biography, then it should be in the early life section, but with an explanation how it is relevant. (Bwventril: your trust in the reader is honourable, but the writer has also do the best he can not to mislead the reader, you know what I mean.)

It has no place in the controversy section since these are about real life controversies, not just Wikipedia ones (though of course some parts of this section are imbalanced) Right now there is no Ratzinger and slave labour controversy, but I'm afraid it won't be long before ...

Again, please comment on Adam's proposal or put up some alternative.

Str1977 16:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Peace!!

Could we please stop dsiputing facts (if you want to, open up a different section) and get back to the question: Is the "slave labour clause" relevant to this article and should it be included?

How about a proposal for expressing the biographical relevance?

Also, it's not helpful comparing or equating KZ guards with the task young Ratzinger was involved.

Str1977 17:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I reject Adam's 15:24 proposition to insert the quotation from Mbeki. This quotation, laudable though it may be, is much more loaded than a simple statement of fact - that the plant used slave labour from Dachau. The reader will then know how high the moral stakes were. To omit this gives the false impression that the actions at the plant B16 was guarding were entirely benign. Whether or not he knew what was going on inside, he contributed to its defense. This is relevant both to discussions of his actions and to his larger moral development (positively or negatively - the reader is free to make their own judgement). --Bwventril 17:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bwventril, if you reject Adam's proposal please give an alternative that expresses the relevance. The actions of the plant were certaily not benign, even if there were no slave labour, as it was war production and hence guarded, and even more so with the slave labour, but your phrase actually reveals what I think is the problem "the actions of the plant were not benign" talks about the plant, not about Ratzinger. His actions, seen on their own, were not the crime some make them out to be. "The reader is free to make their own judgement" sounds like the lawyer in trial movies that bully their witness saysing: "just answer my question". Str1977 17:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In all honesty, I still think a simple statement of fact is enough. The relevance is clear: Ratzinger is Pope, and thus is seen as a moral authority; he guarded a plant that used slave labour, which is morally problematic, albeit in a way that could well have strengthened his loathing of oppression (or not, we don't know). To state this much in the article is cumbersome and bludgeons the reader over the head. To omit mention of the plant entirely, on the other hand, gives the false impression that the plant was something it was not. I write this in a bit of a rush and stand by my original proposal, but how about: "... which used slave labour from the Dachau concentration camp. The use of camp inmates as slaves in industrial plants was both widespread and widely known at the time. [I don't think this is a controversial statement given the extent of forced labour and the presence of camps within Germany itself.] Ratzinger has not written about the effect of this experience on his larger moral development." (Unless he has, in which case put it in.)--Bwventril 17:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some things are problematic in your previous post, Bwventril:

1) This measuring the Pope with harder standards. Might be true today, but back than he was only a lad

2) You say that "he guarded a plant that used slave labour, which is morally problematic". If you see it that way, you should also understand why I think this presentation of fact can be misleading.

But is it really morally problematic,

given the fact that he didn't chose to guard the plant, he was put there (both into guarding something at all, and into guarding this particular place

did his guarding really make life worse for the slave labourers (from what I have heard he was in a flak squad. That is anti-aircraft defense (Flak is FLugAbwehrKanone, that's the canon used) so one could argue he was defending the slave labourers as well.

but the text sounds like he was somehow involved in the "slave labour thing", which he wasn't (again he was not a KZ guard)

Str1977 18:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Defending the slave labourers? Just following orders? I give up.--Bwventril 18:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bwventril,

I said "one could argue", not that I would go down that road, but absolute moral condemnation you want to put into the article via the "slave labour angle" is not fair IMO.

"Just following orders" of course was often used as an excuse by war criminals and the like (e.g. Eichmann), but first of all: Ratzinger did not commit any crime back then, and you should also put yourself in young Ratzinger's place: living in a totalitarian state during war, as part of, well, not highly though of religious minority, and with a father that's known for being less than "linientreu". And then the state comes along, puts you into the HJ, puts you into the Flak squad, into the Arbeitsdienst, into the Wehrmacht and puts you in front of a plant, where there happen to be slave labourers. And now you, living in a rather cosy present without war or oppression, and say it's "morally problematic" and "we have to leave judgment to reader". If you want to judge him, don't hide behind the readers.

Str1977 19:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To express my agreement with what someone wrote above, this is an article about the Pope, not about the BMW plant. If someone wants to write an article about the BMW plant, then it makes sense to describe it there. Not here. JYolkowski // talk 19:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Wartime Record From Article

Adam -- you have committed some serious vandalism by removing nearly the entirety of the discussion of the Pope's wartime service from this article. I took a peek over in the discussion area on this topic, and there is by no means widespread support for your action. Your self-serving, propagandistic omission of this vital context is an abuse of Wiki and an example of quixotic denial. The Pope wore a Nazi uniform. The Pope guarded a factory that employed slave labor. The Pope deserted the Nazi army, and the Pope entered the seminary. Deal with it. He has to.

Dickumbrage 16:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are the person vandalizing this page, Dickumbrage! Quit silliness! -- 83

The Pope did not wear a Nazi uniform, and he did not desert the "Nazi army".

What sources are you reading? The pope's own memoirs, "Milestones", state that he deserted and feared for his life as a deserter. Mowens35 16:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What sources are you reading? The Pope was never member of the Nazi paramilitary organization. He was a conscript in the German Army and wore a German uniform. The German Army is not, and have never been, a political organization. --83

So the German Army was fighting for a different country or cause? That's news to me. As far as I know, Germany was ruled by the Nazi party, so ipso facto, any individuals conscripted into serving in the country's Army were doing so at the orders of the Nazi government; even the Pope's memoirs make very clear that he served in Hitler's army with great reluctance. Am I missing something here? And by the way, I've got the Pope's memoirs at hand; that's my source material re the political situation of his youth and his military service. Mowens35 16:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So, we may talk about the Republican or neo-conservative occupation of Iraq!? -- 83

We must consider that Hitler was a dictator, however elected to the post, and the Germany Army of the time is synonymous to many, both within Germany and without, as being directed to serve Nazi political ends. If you disagree that he served with the "Nazi army," which I do as well disagree, the German Army of the day did have Hitler as its commander in chief. All I'm trying to say is that any rational individual would be hard pressed to divorce the "Germany army" of the day from the political leadership that put it into action for various purposes. This is not an argument for the Pope's entry, just a discussion here. And as a now highly disgruntled former Republican, I'd be happy to talk about the "neo-conservative occupation of Iraq", but that's not my call! :) Mowens35 17:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Army was not known as the Nazi Army, it was not a political organisation and Mr. Hitler even distrusted the German Army and persecuted thousands of officers after members of the German Army tried to kill him (1944). It is highly unusual, unless in Stalinist propaganda, to refer to the German Army as the "Nazi Army". Doing military service in Germany is not voluntary and was not voluntary.!

Peace!!

While, Dickumbrage, I don't approve of your using the terms "Nazi uniform" and "Nazi army" - it was the German army and I say that as a German who despises the Nazis, but it was Germany who did all this not just the NSDAP (though of course they were the "chiefs in that crime") - I also want to advise 83 not to overreact. This is a discussion page on the internet (not university class), so we all have to bear with some incorrect or questionable terms used. I could get upset about Holocaust, Fascist all day long and get distracted from my point, but I don't want to.

And yes, 83, he deserted from that army.

As for Adam:

As much as I agree with him on that issue (see above discussion) and as much I can understand his point about the "war section" being rather longish in comparison, I cannot applaud his unilateral cutting it down, while there's still a discussion going on about this.

Str1977 16:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't dispute that he deserted. I disputed that he deserted the "Nazi army" as such an army did not exist. --83

Suggestion: instead of the Nazi or German army, why not use the term "Wehrmacht" instead. I think it is less politically charged, in my PoV. Zscout370 17:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok. by me, though I think there's nothing wrong with "German army" (>maybe "German Wehrmacht"). As I said, IMO one can be a bit nonchalant in the discussion, but in the article everything should as accurate as possible (Is that a German trait in me?)

Str1977 17:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I hereby retract the phrase "Nazi army" and the phrase "Nazi uniform," which I used irresponsibly and in the service of polemic. Does everyone feel better? Dickumbrage 17:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Would somebody kindly, and gently, explain to me why the inclusion of Tina Brown's quote in today's Washington Post would be considered by Blueboy69 as "excessive vandalism"? Particularly since I barely touched anything else from a previous edit of the section re World Opinion. Surely such a description of the inclusion of a quote by a prominent individual, since it was balanced with respect for traditionalist support of the Pope's views, is both extravagant and unwarranted. I'm anything but a vandal. Mowens35 16:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mowens, I don't think Blueboy called your quote vandalism. From what I can see he actually re-inserted it and many other things after the vandalism by 204... (popes are bad, mormons rule) Str1977 17:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

68something removed your quote but without giving a reason. I don't think you committed vandalism, though IMHO the quote was a bit awkward (the nun remark and the political comparisons) and also in the wrong section, You posted it in overview, where it should have been in the "public reaction" section. Str1977 17:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the quote was a trifle awkward but i wasn't going to smooth it out; it was a direct written quote from Tina Brown's column. Mowens35 18:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

of course not, a quote is a quote - i'm a historian, so i must know

i also know that sometimes a writer (journalists in particular) is to excited about her own formulation to leave it out when it should have been.

somehow the "reaction" section has disappeared, which contained basically the same points your quote was making, but without nuns or politicos :-)

so no offense

Str1977 19:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Signatures

I hate to be stubborn (borderline anal) on this, but sign all entries with four tildes ~~~~. I am getting tired for telling yall this, and I still see a couple posts without them. Zscout370 16:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

E-mail Address

Should their be information on the pope's E-mail Address? --Contrib 18:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Pope JP II is the first pope to use email, but we can say that the Pope can be contacted via email by accessing the Vatican website (which is listed at the bottom). Zscout370 18:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The E-mail Address information could go under notes. Just a thought. --Contrib 18:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• It is worthy to mention, no doubt about it, but just where (and I think Notes is a good idea) could be the subject of small debate. Zscout370 18:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Extra article and constent vandalism

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

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

Picture Wars

Okay...hello everyone. Two days ago there was a nasty edit war about the picture on the front page of this article. I didnt think about it at the time, but there were certain violations of the Three revert rule. I might have been one of them, but who knows. Anyway- after all that happened, a vote was held to which at least 5 or 6 people responded. It was agreed that the "face front" picture wasnt very flattering and that another picture should be used. Since then, two more photos have been posted which looked good. NOW- the same photo that was removed tow days ago is back up on the front page Will this madness never end. I thbik there might be one or two users who keep on putting it up there, but ALOT of people have said they dont like it as the Pope looks rather cold and stern. I will not change it again to avoid another edit war. But, lets just agree on one picture and stick with it. In my opinion, the picture up there right now shouldn't be it. -Husnock 20:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Picture wars, picture wars, time to get your picture wars, time to get your crayon and your pencil! Picture wars, picture wars, fill your wars with picture wars, time to get Bill Cosby play your picture wars with you!" -I wrote it based on Picture Pages! -- by Anon

Duplication

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

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

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

I was told it was, but I would not rule that possibility out. Zscout370 20:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm certain the article duplication is a problem of people trying to edit simultaneously. I've had it happen to me before (though not on this article). I think what happens is that if someone makes an edit between the time you start editing and the time you click the "save page" button, it spits you back to the old version and you think you're editing a section when you're actually editing the whole article, or something along those lines. I'm not exactly sure what happens, but it definitely is a byproduct of concurrent editing.Kevin M Marshall 20:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This should be reported to administrators and/or developers. --Eleassar777 20:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What happens is, if you edit a SECTION, then click Save Page, if a conflict occurs, the editor brings up the document with the section duplicated, so then the user re-edits and re-saves and the posted change has the duplicated content. Whig 21:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Homosexuality

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

I don't think it is helpful to use terms like "repulsive bigot" in trying to establish a NPOV. Whig 21:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

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

Footnotes and references

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

Style

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

Duplication

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

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

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

I was told it was, but I would not rule that possibility out. Zscout370 20:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm certain the article duplication is a problem of people trying to edit simultaneously. I've had it happen to me before (though not on this article). I think what happens is that if someone makes an edit between the time you start editing and the time you click the "save page" button, it spits you back to the old version and you think you're editing a section when you're actually editing the whole article, or something along those lines. I'm not exactly sure what happens, but it definitely is a byproduct of concurrent editing.Kevin M Marshall 20:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This should be reported to administrators and/or developers. --Eleassar777 20:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What happens is, if you edit a SECTION, then click Save Page, if a conflict occurs, the editor brings up the document with the section duplicated, so then the user re-edits and re-saves and the posted change has the duplicated content. Whig 21:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The duplication is back again. --Contrib 17:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Homosexuality

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

I don't think it is helpful to use terms like "repulsive bigot" in trying to establish a NPOV. Whig 21:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have every right to describe him as I see him here, and by the way I am a Catholic. And hundreds of millions of Catholics see him similarly. However as a historian I am perfectly able to write neutral language in an article. I have written numerous articles about people I detest and being praised for the neutrality of the writing. I can and will be academically neutral in writing about the new pope. But I have no intention of hiding my personal contempt for this man here. BTW I have heard him called much worse by Irish Catholics. One priest on radio called him a "contemptable old bigot". One man caused consternation on a live radio show when he called him a "bigoted c**t." I find it ironic that a man who wears a white dress, in a country full of men who wear red dresses, purple dresses and black dresses, where the population is 99% male and 100% unmarried, can think himself qualified to comment on other people's sexuality, let alone condemn fellow human beings whom he does not know as possessing an "intrinsic moral evil".

It was also revealed in Ireland by Desmond Cardinal Connell in a radio interview that the scandalous and universally condemned handling of clerical sex abuse cases in the archdiocese of Dublin by the then Archbishop Connell was a direct result of step-by-step advice on dealing with the crisis Des received from his close friend and then boss, Cardinal Ratzinger. That included secretly diverting funds from the archdiocese into the pockets of an altar-raping priest so that he could try to bribe one of those he raped into keeping quiet. And then Des had the gal to publicly lie and insist that funds weren't being used that way, which he justified by saying that the money was technically a "loan" not a "gift" to the priest-rapist. I made no apology for holding the man who advised Des to act this way, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, as beneath contempt. It is an absolute shame that the cardinals chose to replace the great John Paul II with this bigot of a man. And merely seeing pictures of him makes my skin crawl, as it does millions of others. FearÉIREANN 23:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have never understood why people who disagree with Catholic teachings on homosexuality demand a place for themselves inside the Catholic Church (which,since you claim no one disputes the True Catholic Church's claim to be the "true Catholic Church",you must consider a false Catholic Church anyway) rather than finding themselves a more congenial communion.Religion is by nature prescriptive and product-driven,to use dictionary and business analogies.--Louis E./[email protected]/12.144.5.2 00:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not this true Catholic Church paranoid rubbish again. Can you possibly write on any page without your dragging up your own unique interpretation of that article that no-one else agrees with (or even has a clue what your point is!) As to Catholic teaching on homosexuality, it is like Catholic teaching on birth control - constantly changing, except that the Catholic Church relies on the fact that only historians know that the teaching once was different. Just as Pius XII changed the Church view on the rhythm method (he said 'yay. Pius XI and his predecessors had all said 'absolutely nay'!), and Pius IX changed the Church's view on abortion by abandoning Thomas Aquinas's views on when a foetus developed a soul and a right to life, so homosexuality widely existed in Christendom for much of the last 2000 years. (One of the holiest sites in Christendom has an icon of two christians, both gay, marrying, with Jesus as their 'pronubus' between them, while same sex unions took place in the pope's own cathedral, St. John Lateran, as late as the seventeenth century.) If you are going to discuss an issue, try knowing the facts first, Louis! FearÉIREANN 01:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Eireann,

Though your spiteful posts should not require a response, some things must be said:

The supposed change in doctrine as regards to contraception are rather minor, adressing a new Method as it comes along.

There is not change in the Church's view on abortion. Thomas was theorizing about when a body is ensouled (as did the jewish Talmud and other theologians) in the context of Scholastic theology, that tried to bring all human knowledge (theological and non-theological) into one coherent system. The problem is that we don't know merely enough to attempt that. Thomas didn't know that, but we do now. We do know now that talking about a point of "ensoulement" is mere speculation and hence look towards the earliest possible time, conception. However the right to life of the babe in the womb has never been affected by this "ensoulement speculation". The Church (just as the Jewish religion before) has from the very first days held that killing of the unborn is a grave evil.

Your supposed history of homosexuality in Christendom is so hilarious, I'm speechless.

Str1977 08:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Minor??? You really don't understand the change if you think that. The teaching up to Pius XI was that any wilful' interference with conception was a grave sin. The teaching after Pope Pius XII was that wilful interference with conception was OK once it was done so-called 'naturally'. They are fundamentally different things. One says 'never deliberately interfere'. One says 'sure it is ok to deliberately interfere', with the qualification that once you do it naturally it is OK. Under Pope Pius XI 'natural family planning' was morally wrong because any form of family planning is wrong. Under Pius XII family planning is OK once you do by the supposed natural methods. Under Pope Pius XI you could never knowingly plan sex to avoid pregnancy. Under Pius XII you could deliberately have sex knowing pregnancy couldn't occur and abstain when pregnancy was a possibility. They are polar opposites, not a minor change. As for homosexuality in the Church, details are in the archives of the early Christian church, in the Vatican archives, on the walls of St Catherine's on Mount Sinai, in the records of the St John Lateran, in the writings of Geraldus Cambrensis, in the early biographies of Sts Serge and Bacchus, where one is described in an 11th century religious biography as the "sweet lover" of the other. I have come across two documented cases in my own local parish in 1184 and 1412. A local cemetery used to contain a gravestone that contained the image of two men masturbating each other. It was smashed in the reformation. FearÉIREANN 23:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the earliest would be egg and sperm. `\o Every sperm is sacred\Every sperm is great\If a sperm is wasted\God gets quite irate `\o On a more serious note, it is true that Christianity used to be a more inclusive religion, and the celibacy rules for priests are not actually a part of the original tradition. There is no proof "ensoulement" occurs at all, and everyone knows it but most people don't want to admit it. Titanium Dragon 21:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

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

• I personally think the term "Baptismal Name" is a lot better. Zscout370

Baptismal Name sounds fine to me too. Whig 03:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Isn't "Christian name" the normal term (And the Christian in there does them from the baptism/christening)?

Str1977 08:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I have heard the term used before, but I think in various articles dealing with the papacy, the term "baptismal name" was used. Also, with the debate on the style of the Pope, I would not be surprised if people found "Christian name" to be POV. But thanks for the suggestion Str, but I am sticking to what I have suggested. Zscout370 14:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Footnotes and references

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

The footnotes are wrong. 4 does not lead to a mention of slave labor, but footnote 5 does.

Style

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

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

Actually, the Dalai Lama's website refers to him as "His Holiness" ... he must know something you/we don't. Mowens35 09:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's really an NPOV source to use. I more meant the media and other more neutral sources. But note that the Dalai Lama article does not do so. Titanium Dragon 21:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, the entry on Queen Elizabeth II does title her as "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II" but the entry on George W. Bush does not title him as "His Excellency" and this sort of inconsistency is really the problem. I think styles can be included as NPOV but not if they are used selectively at the start of the biographical entry. Whig 03:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re President of the US: that's because there is no convention, formal or historical, for any "style" used for the holder of that office. So GB's not having on in his entry doesn't mean its "not" being used selectively; it just is. The office doesn't have any such honorific. Mowens35 09:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia recognises that Benedict XVI is the official pope, just as it recongises Elizabeth II as the official Queen of England. To do otherwise would be to adopt an extreme minority POV. The article doesn't have to "refer" to Benedict XVI as anything other than Benedict XVI in the body, so long as the article *contains* his correct title. To say that an article should not contain a correct title in the opening, is, IMHO, indefensible. It's not just a styling used by "his followers" - anyone - ie. world governments, news agencies, other religions, etc. - recognising him as official pope concedes his right to use the style "His Holiness". Slac speak up! 01:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Referring to him as Pope Benedict XVI recognizes him as the official (i.e., person holding the Roman Catholic title) Pope. The honorific style is not necessary to that recognition. Whig 03:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

Styles should not be used at the start of biographical articles unless this practice is universally applied, otherwise it is not NPOV, and does not in any case follow the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) standard. Whig 02:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Naming conventions - Naming conventions is a list of guidelines on how to appropriately create and name pages. As a subpage of the naming convention, the rule you quote refers to how we title the article. As no one is suggesting moving the article's title to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, the policy you quote does not apply. For the policy that deals with this issue, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), which states that styles and honorifics should be used at the begining of an article. Gentgeen 06:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean is not NPOV? Not using the style endorses the POV that he is not entitled to the style, which is a minority POV. As I said before, he's not styled his holiness by "his followers", any more than Bush is styled US President only by "his citizenes". "Her Majesty" doesn't mean that we think QE2 is in any way majestic. The page you reference does not contain any guidance as to the correct styling of Popes. Slac speak up! 03:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please look under the heading Clerical Names in the cited page.

• "For popes, whether Roman Catholic, Coptic, or otherwise, use the format "Pope {papal name} {ordinal if more than one} of {episcopal see}". Popes of Rome should not be linked with their episcopal sees; Rome is understood. Also, do not use a pope's personal name. For example, use Pope John Paul I, not Albino Luciani or Pope John Paul I of Rome."

Note also that we do not style George W. Bush as "His Excellency President George Walker Bush" at the start of his biographical entry. Nor should we do so, but my point is that we should not be selective about this practice. Whig 03:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the case of Bush, one should point out that "His Excellency" is not the standard American style for the President. The President has no style other than Mr. President or President Bush Roadrunner 06:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lacrimosus, you misunderstand what I am saying. What I am saying is that labelling him "His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI" is not NPOV. It is fine to say he is officially styled "His Holiness" in accordance with his office, but not to start it out as "His holiness". Anyone from the True Catholic Church would tell you he is not the real pope and is not entitled to the title, just as Catholics would say that Lucian is not entitled to the honorific. In reality, as both are officially styled as such (just Lucian is styled as such by a much smaller group). Either BOTH should have the style starting out their entry, or neither should. Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV. It is fairly obvious from Lucian's article that he is the leader of a small breakoff group, but that does not mean that Lucian is any less entitled to the style "his holiness" in his entry. I think it is a lot more neutral to leave the styling off the beginning and put it elsewhere in the article - it will not make it seem like Wikipedia is endorsing any group in that way. Titanium Dragon 21:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

But we don't style the Dalai Lama in this way, demonstrating the inconsistency. Whig 05:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

You know why the pope is specifically listed there? Because when the argument came up in the Pope John Paul II article, one of the people advocating for "his holiness" unilaterally went to that page and CHANGED IT because he wanted it to agree with him. Apparently he changed it again, as I removed that change when I saw that he had done it. It is POV pushing, and has been going on for a while. Titanium Dragon 21:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

• I agree, His Holiness must be kept. It is the style as how pope is addressed (When I sent my email to him, I addressed him as Your Holiness, fyi). George Bush is just called President Bush or Mr. President. When he is introduced, he is usually styled by: The President of the United States, George W (or Walker) Bush. We have monarchs who have their style in the article (HRH The Prince of Wales, HSH Prince Albert) and British politicians (Right Honourable). Though the president is styled H.E., it is not official and should be discouraged. Having the style of the Holy Father in the article is NPOV, and his baptismal name is usually in brackets or the info box. I would like to ask whoever is keeping on removing it please stop, we believe it is important to keep that information there. Zscout370 14:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • The problem with your example is that GW Bush's entry doesn't say "President George Bush." It just says his name, "Geoge Bush." I like it better that way personally. --Quasipalm 16:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • • In the Bush article, this is what was wrote "George Walker Bush (born 6 July 1946) is an American politician and currently the 43rd President of the United States. He is a member of the Bush political family, the son of former President George H.W. Bush, and the brother of Jeb Bush the Governor of Florida." What the debate is all about if the name "His Holiness" should be included in the first sentence of the article, not the article name itself. Plus, I still think His Holiness should be added in the article. Zscout370 16:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • • • To whom does the Commonwealth title "Right Honourable" apply exactly ? As I understand it, the only politicians in Britain that are referred to by "the Rt. Honourable" are those who are members of the Queen's Privy Council, which typically includes current and former cabinet ministers as well as non-politicians like senior judges. Is there anyone else who may be referred to as "Rt. Honourable" ?

Every holder of a peerage below the rank of marquess is by right "Right Honourable".--Louis E./[email protected]/12.144.5.2 18:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Prime Minister of Canada for one, is styled "Right Honourable". --Kvasir 20:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • No idea, but here is a website that will (hopefully) end this once and for all: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/elezione/index_en.htm. The Vatican always address B16 as "His Holiness Benedict XVI." Zscout370 20:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I just think that it's the whole rejection of the use of style and titles in the American culture that give rise to this debate. Honorifics have been used EVERYWHERE really until the abolishment of class and nobility in that society. It's not a matter of POV, it's just tradition. I propopse that style be used for individuals only when he/she is entitled to be in his/her own realm. In this case, the President of the United States has no custom of using the style then his name is not to be appeared with one. But I think the article itself should mention what the proper style would be in the place of formal correspondence and communication. In places where a style is customarily used, ex. The Right Honourable Prime Minister Paul Martin of Canada, then i think his name should be listed with one. --Kvasir 20:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other Catholic Schools of Thought

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