Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive19

message: Is it mentioned anywhere that he is the first Pope to own an iPod? He has a nano. Later!!! Chili14 (Talk) 21:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this important?  No.  It is not mentioned in Pope John Paul II's Trivia section that he was the first Pope to own a certain brand of CD player?  No. In my opinion, this little bit of trivia is too insignificant to not be deleted. BirdValiant 23:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[iPod]] 

message: I decided to insert the Pope's maiden name somewhere in the article so that people would know who was being elected as the particular pope in question without having to reference the start of the article. 68.32.48.42 03:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't use née. This is not the French language wikipedia. "Born" is more appropriate. Also, né would be the masculine anyway. savidan(talk) (e@) 17:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: née Joeseph Ratzinger

message: Can someone explain to me the purpose and content of the "episcopal lineage" box at the bottom of this article? It seems like most popes create so many bishops and cardinals that this box would become unwieldly. Is there a style guideline for these in some central place, as I have seen them for a few popes before. savidan(talk) (e@) 18:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episcopal lineage? 

message: I contributed to this article and now I´m not able to do so anymore.I created the sections "Dialog with christian religions", "Dialog with Islam" and "Political positions". Please unprotect this article because unregistered users want to edit this article, too. I think we have better methods to stop vandalism.
84.146.244.122 15:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You had posted a note on my Talk page asking for the source on the "Germanism" article I had mentioned. The source is the article in New Yorker, which I also mentioned. I recommend you get yourself registered, though; why would you not want to? --Michael K. Smith 02:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, uh, why is this article protecte? What did the people do that warranted this? I'm interested to know.--80.42.149.37 20:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is semi-protected, and a formal request to unprotect by 84.146.225.254 was denied on 28 June. Registered accounts over 4 days old can edit; sign up for an account. Gimmetrow 21:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Semi-protection is only a temporary measure to prevent vandalism. It is not meant to be used to prevent anonymous contributions in general. Although, I'd love for 80.42.149.37 to get an account as well, he shouldn't have to. savidan(talk) (e@) 17:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Article is unprotected now anyway. The point is that if an anon really wants to edit a semi-protected article, one way is to get an account. No suggestion of a general rule should be construed from that point. Gimmetrow 17:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop the protection of this article

message: I wrote some words over Ratzingers position to homosexuaity and the opening of marriage in Netherlands, Belgium and Spain and Civil Unions for gay couples in many european states (Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Luxembourg,....). The text is deleted. Why ?--GLGerman 14:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I had nothing to do with the original removal of the text, but I agree that it couldn't be left there, as it violates the NPOV policy. It's also inaccurate, as the Pope is not against any rights of homosexual people.  He strongly upholds their right to life, to compassion, to our prayers, to our respect for their dignity, etc. He is against allowing something which, according to the teaching which he inherited, which he believes to come from Jesus Christ, and which he believes himself bound to uphold, is contrary to the law of God. Now, we could argue about whether or not he is correct in thinking that it's against the law of God (though it would be an abuse of Wikipedia server space to get into long debates here about who's right and who's wrong, as opposed to what wording is best for the article). But your text read like an attack on the Pope.  And it wasn't attributed to anyone, unless you count the "got a lot of criticism in western societies", which is a bit weaselish, so it was just your own, original research. AnnH ♫ 16:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ratzinger's position on civil unions and marriage should only be notable to the extent that it is a change from his predecessor or that he makes it an issue himself, or if he is criticized substantially for it. Otherwise, we would have to note in the article of every single religious official that they are part of the church hierarchy. However, his reaction to the legalization of civil unions in Europe does seem notable to me. savidan(talk) (e@) 17:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: But this is nothing specific to Ratzinger/Pope, but a common stance of the church. Irwing 06:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Irwing, i think that the position to civil unions is part of his teaching and should have a little hint in the text. But the whole discussion shouldn t be in the text.--GLGerman 09:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, yes and no. The point is, that this position is not just some "his" teaching, but rather "church's" teaching, therefore it belongs to the entry about Catholic Church. See the comments of savidan, about what is relevant for this article. Irwing 11:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As I stated above, this question of specificity should always be in the back of our mind. However, I think that his reaction to the wave of leagalized unions during his papacy would meet this standard. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ratzinger and CivilUnion/Marriage for gay couples

message: Why does this article not include a list of his publications, especially monographs? Without that, the article seems to be quite lacking. --128.36.60.35 17:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books/Publications 

message: This isn't the Pope's blog, so listing his planned visits is probably not appropriate content wise. If we move his "Apostolic Journey's" to a daughter article, it might be more appropriate. But I don't think that every single one of his international visits is notable enough to be mentioned indidvidually in the main article of a biography. He is bound to make hundreds (perhaps thousands) of visists if his papacy lasts half as long as JPII's. Instead, this article should focus on the aspects of his apostolic journey's which are notable in his biography: how much he uses new media and new technology compared to his predecessors, overall trends in his choices of places to visit, etc. and a few of his individual visits which might be exceedingly notable, perhaps if he convinces a political leader to resign or something of that nature. savidan(talk) (e@) 17:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future journeys? 

message: This nomination is on hold for 7 days because of the neutrality tag.  If the POV issues are not fixed by then the GA nomination will fail. Rlevse 02:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issues have been addressed and since the article complies to all the requirements, it is promoted to GA status. Lincher 03:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA nomination

message: I learned in religion class (Catholic school) that the Pope is NOT considered the "head" of the Church - Jesus Christ is the head of the Church.  However, I do not know what comparable title the Pope holds instead--perhaps "leader."  Could someone check into this?  I know that religion-related articles are supposed to be written in accord with the pertinent group's beliefs.  --71.1.166.69 19:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Head of the Roman Catholic Church 

message: The image was tagged (by me) on June 30 as fairuse disputed. Nobody has provided a fair use rationale for the image - and I believe that there is no possible fairuse rationale for this image (per WP:Fairuse counterexamples). Another user has proposed using :Image:Benedict XVI.jpg in it's place, and while the quality is low - it is a "free" image. I am highlighting it here - because I believe it will generate discussion. Megapixie 00:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This image :Image:PopeBenedict16th.jpg is reversed, his hair actually dips to the other side of his head (see other images in this article). GoodDay 20:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:PopeBenedict16th.jpg]] is not fair use 

message: On March 19, 2006, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney received a special invitation — to attend the elevation of Boston Archbishop Sean O'Malley to cardinal at the Vatican. The trip to Rome is further evidence of a growing relationship between Romney and the local leadership of the Roman Catholic Church."This is extraordinary and particularly for someone of my faith," said Romney, a Mormon, before he spoke at a St. Patrick's Day breakfast in New Hampshire."I don't know that there's ever been a Mormon guy that's been to the Vatican for a Mass held by the pope, so it's a personal honor."Vatican invitation pleases Romney
I think this part should stay in the Dialog with christian religions section because Mormonism is listed as a christian religion on the christian portal.84.146.218.155 19:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dialogue with Christian religions

message: From the article:
*The Pope strongly condemned the Mohammed cartoons, first published by a Danish newspaper and later in other European papers, saying "In the international context we are living [sic.] at present, the Catholic Church continues convinced [sic.] that, to foster peace and understanding between peoples and men, it is necessary and urgent that religions and their symbols be respected". (...)
I'm concerned with the above paragraph. AFAIK, "SIC" is used when someone says something stupid or makes a grammar mistake. But it should be noted that the citation came from zenit.org and is probably a (bad) translation from the original language used by the Pope (Italian? German?). --201.19.239.118 07:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  There does not seem to be anything really wrong with the grammar, just doesn't sound like natural English.  I will remove the "sics" if they are still there. Steve Dufour 17:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, the part noted by the first sic is treating "live" as a transitive verb, which it is *not*, so it would need "in which we are living" in order to be correct; also, the word "continues" seems very awkward, though it may make more sense in a more complete context.  I don't know the original quote in whichever language, but if it could possibly be translated alternatively as "remains", then I could accept it. 69.168.161.140 00:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "SIC" 

message: Ratzinger attended gymnasium, German academic high school, where at the time Ancient Greek was part of the curriculum. That's Attic/Athenian Greek, Classical Greek. He may have learned some Homeric Greek as well. Koine is not a "combination" of Ionic and Doric, etc. -- these predate koine by about 1800 years. He knows koine Greek as well...Biblical Greek. BOTH are species  (OK, I wasn't using the linguistic technical definition of dialect) of Ancient Greek, by anyone's reasonable definition and any academician's use, and by Wiki's own article aon the subject! It is actually possible for a Catholic academic to know more than what is contained in the Bible, so please stop narrowing this with some Bible-thumping definition of what constitutes academic knowledge.HarvardOxon 01:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek 

message: I think the section about "Dialogue with Islam" focuses far to much on single statements and actioins made by the pope without bringing them into context. Wikipedia is not Wikinews! Gugganij 21:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section "Dialogue with Islam" 

message: Hi I added this as a protest against the category itself.  Here is an article which makes the case that the Catholic Church is a "cult".  Notice that to them a "cult" means anyone who doesn't believe exactly what they do.  Thanks for understanding.  Steve Dufour 17:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Steve, if you have a problem with this category (and I can see why one might) then please have the discussion on the category's talk page or bring it to WP:CFD.  Please, don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point by adding this category to articles where there is clearly not a wide consensus that the organization is a cult.  Thanks.  TMS63112 18:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  I feel that I did make my point.Steve Dufour 18:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Cult Leaders" tag

message: I have nominated Pope Benedict XVI to become a Featured Article. You can comment and see the discussion here. Dev920 00:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC 

message: As a result of a comment on the FAC, I have spilt off the majority of information on Benedict's time at the CDF. It can now be found here. It would be good if any of the regular editors here could go over there and spruce things up a bit, and maybe develop it a little. Dev920 00:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and if somone could add a suitably shortened title to the Benedict template, I would be grateful. I'm useless with templates. Dev920 00:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting article. 

message: It seems that some of the folks on this page (not including Dev920) just want to argue one side or other about the Pope's rightness or wrongness in his positions. That is bedise the point. You should be trying to improve the article by adressing objections, putting forth sourced facts. If X argues that Y about Pope Benedict's poisition on Q, then put it in and source it. If The Chruch counters that X does bnot understand/is wrong about Q, then explain THAT. That should be in the article, for example. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguing versus improving the article

message: I'm rather shocked that this article does not discuss his views on the relationship between science and religion.
His most recent visit (Sept 11, 06) to the town where he was born resulted in very important comments:
*"Put simply, we are no longer able to hear God; there are too many different frequencies filling our ears.  What is said about God strikes us as pre-scientific, no longer suited to our age."
*"People in Asia and Africa admire our scientific and technical progress, but at the same time they are frightened by a form of rationality which totally excludes God from man's vision, as if this were the highest form of reason."
I'm sure there are more comments form him on this rather important matter.  Hopefully this will get the ball rolling.--Roland Deschain 02:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position on Science 

message: An offical portrait of the Pope needs to be displayed. I recently reverted the image back to a previous due to possible vandalism. -- AJ24 19:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have an A4 poster of an official portrait. If I scanned it in, would that be copyright infringement? Or if I took a photo of it and uploaded that? Dev920 22:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it would be a copyright infringement. There are plenty of freely licensed images of the Pope available at Commons:Benedictus XVI and Commons:Category:Benedictus XVI. If you don't like :Image:Benedictus XVI Benedictio.jpeg, you can replace it with another free image, but do not use a so-called "fair use" image like the one previously used. Angr 07:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, calm down. I was only asking. Relax, have a nice cup of tea and look at Featured Pictures for a few minutes, it's only Wikipedia... Dev920 07:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if I seemed uncalm. If I did it was more a reaction to AJ24's reference to "possible vandalism" than to your question. Angr 08:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: "Possible" because I could not tell whether the image was placed as a joke, from malevolent nature, or from a confused user. Either way, replacing a good (however inadequate) image of the Pope with an image of poor quality, placement, and questionable theme is vandalism. The official portrait is still desperately needed. -- AJ24 01:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. :) Dev920 16:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The one from Commons you put in has been deleted for not having a source. And no, as long as any free images of the pope are available, it is a violation of Wikipedia policy to use any "fair use" images of him at all. I've put in a different free image now. Angr 06:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better main image NEEDED 

message: Keep a kind of his official images in papal clothes to the waist level at least:) --Brand спойт 09:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image 

message: Apparently, some of those "offended" by the Pope's remarks have resorted to vandalism on Wikipedia as a means to blurt out their anger and frustation. Does anyone else agree to have this article semi-protected from anonymous edits? Most of the vandalism are done by anonymous editors. ResurgamII 00:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not object.  It is taking some serious and immature abuse.   Baccyak4H 01:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have beem following the made changes in the article during the past 24 hours... I think semi-protection is really needed (until the the whole issue will calm down). Hectorian 02:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's now semi-protected. I filled in a request and it came through. ResurgamII 13:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for protection? 

message: Has Ian Paisley made any comments on Benedict XVI?
As with Enoch Powell's Rivers of blood comment a quote turned into a soundbite with a totally different meaning because the original speaker did not consider all the implications/meanings that could be drawn out of it. (This is #meant to be a general observation# about the two statements, not drawing any comparison between the two people.)
: I doubt that this has in any way changed Ian Paisley's opinion of the Pope, which is already (a) well known and (b) globally insignificant. Guy 14:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am confident that his opinion is being offered unsolicited at every opportunity; I believe it will be clearly audible from Fleet Street without the need for telephones. Guy 23:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ian Paisley and Benedict XVI

message: --- Begin cut container
* The worldwide Head of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, Hadhrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad, the supreme Head of the Ahmadiyya Muslims in his Friday sermon Sept. 15th 2006, delivered to millions around the world via satellite TV voiced fears that the Pope’s comments on Islam were adding fuel to the fires of Western propaganda against Islam. And, he said western nations should heed Christ's own message of peace before lecturing Islamic nations on Jihad. "The Pope's comments have created such a wrong impression of Islam that one wonders what the motivation was. Does it somehow reflect his own sentiment and, if so, it demonstrates a fundamental lack of knowledge about Islam", he said.
--- End cut container  
Maybe citations by page and date to the Times or to the New York Times would be good, since they are in English and this is the English version of the Wikipedia.  --Rednblu 04:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awaiting a citation for a good comment 

message: The photo of Pope Benedict with John Paul II under the heading "Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1981–2005)" seems to have an incorrect date.  It says 1978, but that photo appears much more recent.  I looked but cannot find the correct date. --Undead1 17:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the mistake of date is mine. I mistakenly thought the photo was from JP2's Inaugural Mass (Oct.22, 1978). I'll remove the year date, as I'm not sure what date the photo is. GoodDay 20:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph date 

message: According to another Wikipedia article, what Benedict quoted about Islam "being spread by the sword" is partially true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_as_a_general
Should somebody cite that? Because it seems that part of the widespread criticism has to do with revisionists claiming that he is completely wrong about that.  --Captain Cornflake 20:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Citations to Benedicts comments on Islam 

message: I can understand wanting to put someone's private photo of the Pope on such a visited site - heck, if I had one I'd post it as soon as I downloaded it to my PC. But the one that is there now simply isn't adequate, the lighting is poor (low light for a private audience, understandable), and the focus seems not quite right. Surely there are some public domain photos out there, or fair-use pictures that could be accurately attributed? Check the Vatican website, something is bound to come up. 24.218.216.126 04:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Picture Needed

message: Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, who becomes what is often dubbed the "deputy pope" on Sept. 15, said in a newspaper interview on Sunday that the Vatican had "great faith in the role of the U.N. and the international organisations involved in resolving conflicts"[72]
The Google string "deputy Pope" is theologically incorrect but that is forgivable. The phrase only generates 831 Google hits at time of writing and that justifies taking it out. It's not a popular usage. TMLutas 17:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deputy Pope?

message: Wasn't a nun killed in retaliation for recent comments? --Gbleem 12:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. An Italian nun at a hospital in Somalia. Pope Benedict XVI recently made a comment about that death in which he praised the nun. See here: NY Times Article ResurgamII 19:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nun killed? 

message: Why is there no entry for this? There is a considerable volume of evidence that Ratzinger instigated an official Vatican policy of obstructing investigation of allegations of child sex abuse by Catholic priests, but there isn't a hint of this. Anyone want to start it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iantnm (talk • contribs) 22:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is already done: Joseph Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith#Response to sex abuse scandal Str1977 (smile back) 22:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratzinger and child sex abuse by the clergy 

message: The present wording of the article:
"Despite the general atmosphere of turmoil with the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, the murder of Father Andrea Santoro and the recent violence due to his comments on Islam and Terror, Pope Benedict will visit Turkey in November 2006 at the request of Patriarch Bartholomew I. He remains most unwelcome in many different circles in Turkey."
A head of state does not "request" a foreign dignitary to visit his country (or in any case very rarely does). Such a visit is the consequence of long prior contacts, after which an official invitation is issued. The invitation in this case took about a year in coming, therefore one can explain it by polite non-enthusiasm. I am removing Ahmet Necdet Sezer, putting a link to Andrea Santoro, mention in passing the Pope's being "most unwelcome in many different circles in Turkey" (even from usually opposing ends). The affirmation is extremely easy to source, that I can provide if objections. Check also the main page of Turkish wikipedia.
Cretanforever 14:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planned visit to Turkey 

message: ===Dr Zakir Naik's invitation to pope Benedict XVI for open interfaith dialogue===
Muslim scholar Dr Zakir Naik invited Pope Benedict XVI for open interfaith dialogue on 29th September 2006. To see Dr Zakir Naik's dialogue invitation to pope see links  and  
"I am more than willing to participate in the inter-faith dialogue with Pope Benedict XVI. I am ready on any topic he (the Pope) wishes as long as it focuses on Quran and the Bible," Dr. Naik said. He said he can go to Rome or Vatican to meet the Pope. 
"I can go to Rome and to Vatican on my own expense if an Italian visa is arranged for me," 
"I am absolutely ready for an open and public debate with the pope under live international TV coverage," he said. 
Let the 1.3 billion Muslims and 2 billion Christians around the world listen to the debate based on equal slot of time allotted to both sides, he said. "It is not only a debate but also a question and answer session allowing the people to ask queries," he said.'''
Many times i posted this message but it was of no use as someone else is deleting it always, can u please say me the reason for your this behaviour as this news is true.
Cretanforever 21:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been removed repeatedly because you have added it about five times in a single edit, all in different places in the article where it shouldn't be. Additonally, what you have posted above is mostly given over to an extensive quote by Dr Nazik, which isn't relevant to an article on Pope Benedict. The invitation by Dr Nazik is actually mentioned in the article, it's buried in Dialogue with Islam somewhere. The issue isn't whether it is true or not, but whether it is appropriate for the article you want to put it on. Thankyou for discussing this on the talkpage. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 21:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this news removed, when it is correct. 

message: Does anyone else think that the lengthy Islam sections should be moved to a daughter article (I suggest: Pope Benedict XVI and Islam) and then summarized without about a sentence or so for each current section. It currently takes up about three screenshots of the article and is quite unmanagable for readers who only want a general introduction to Benedict XVI. savidan(talk) (e@) 15:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the stuff on Islam shouldn't be there anyway. Someone just keeps adding non-notable news preports and and no-one can be bothered to edit it. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 16:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Although decently written for the most part, much reads more like a newsfeed and something that should better be in say Wikinews.  I support the daughter article idea and trimming down here (Note: this was already tried with the Islam controversy topic, and that part of this article is still creeping up in size...not to mention what an exhaustive mess that daughter article has become.) Baccyak4H 16:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people may find this information interesting. In general, I think that branching out into a daughter article would be a better way to prevent overemphasis in this article than by simply removing sourced content. savidan(talk) (e@) 17:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam daughter article