Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive20

message: I have done what I think is a pretty major reorganization of this article: adding or renaming headings, moving subsections around to under other sections, breaking long paragraphs into shorter ones, etc.  I know this is a lot, but I do note I changed/added/deleted almost no content, so hope all the editors who have done good work here approve.  My main motivation was that the article read like editors were adding sections in at the end sometimes that had better logical fit within already written sections.  I admit there is still good work to do.  Baccyak4H 18:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thank you for continuing what I began. The article is much improved for your efforts. I would suggest a peer review may now be in order. Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 22:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization 

message: "His mother's family was originally from South Tyrol." This statement is a mistake, even if Joseph Ratzinger (probably erroneously) wrote so in his biography. In the meantime it is officially confirmed, what has been researched by a local bavarian archivist: Undoubtable documents say, his mother, Maria Ratzinger (maiden name: Peintner) is born in Mühlbach, nowadays a town-part of Kiefersfelden, but definitely not in Mühlbach in the Puster Valley ("Pustertal"), South Tyrol. --217.233.4.246 16:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early years 

message: I don't suppose anybody thought to mention his stance on the war in Iraq?  
I looked; maybe I missed it.  This article is more bloated than a tick, and what's ironic is that people are going on and on about how much Benedict hates Muslims.  What seems to be ignored is that while Benedict may have said harsh things about Islam, he was adamantly opposed to America dropping bombs on Muslims.  
Which is more than you can say about, say, Tony Blair.
Does NOBODY think it significant that the Vatican was opposed to Bush's "Operation:  Iraqi Freedom", which is the most defining element of US foreign policy today?
I.e., the Pope's remark that "the doctrine of pre-emptive war is found nowhere in the catechism of the Catholic Church."
I think there is a very simple-minded binary narrative at work here among both the pro-Pope and anti-Pope editors, a narrative leading you folks to gloss over some not-insignificant matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.252.103.70 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To say that "American Catholics are pro-war" is factually incorrect and an idiotic generalization.HarvardOxon 01:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same for point B. Jimp 07:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq War, And Assorted Remarks 

message: This section suffers from recentism. Anyone is invited to help reducing it. Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 18:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Str1977. What I understand when I read Wikipedia:Recentism is opposite of what you did with the section. Turkey (November 28 to December 1, 2006) I kindly ask you to tell me your POV. Thank you. CeeGee 15:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "Articles accused of recentism need not be deleted; they should be revised to become more balanced and timeless. The aim should not be to remove information about recent events (see wikipedia:deletionism and wikipedia:inclusionism), but to add information of the same detail to other events. If an article becomes difficult to use because of its length, that should be countered by structuring the article better. Wikipedians are reminded that in-depth information on current events more properly belongs on Wikinews."
What I meant by recentism is that recent events are covered in relatively more detail when compared to events of the more distant past. Just compare the size of the sections on the various papal visits and you will see, even after my shortening of the Turkey section, that the latter still is considerable larger than the other ones. That is the problem I wanted to address. Up until now I have not removed anything that would change the meaning, except in the cases where the separate issues of POV and verifiability and factual accuracy where involved. Remember, this article is about the Pope in his entirety, from his birth until now, with his academic and eccleasistic career, his views and writings, and his actions, including his visits. For all this stuff to fit into one article, things have to be kept concise and short. If you think that this is not feasible in this case, we would have to start a separate article on the Turkey trip. However, I don't see any need nor any precedent for that. Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 17:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Visit to Turkey

message: The article doesn't talk about Ratzinger's application of Crimen sollicitationis.--BMF81 13:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major detail missing 

message: Think you guys ought to see the picture of the Pope with Patriarch Bartholomew I (currently showing at http://www.ecupatriarchate.org/), where the Pope is using his personal coat of arms with the tiara above it...! Nainfa 00:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the Papal Tiara  

message: how come nothing about Popes comments on buddhism is mentioned? http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0882-0945(1998)18%3C221%3ACRCOB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1 http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=8,1089,0,0,1,0 Its and interview said to have been published in L'Express in March 1997 under the title Le Testament du Panzerkardinal, and includes condeming buddhism as spiritual autoeroticism - that some strong wording indeed? --83.131.148.195 14:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddhism 

message: A recent edit by Msl5046 inserted all of the official titles of the Pope in the first sentence.  It seems a little too crowded up there, especially since there is already a section (5: Titles) specifically on the official titles.  Any consensus on deleting all the titles up front?  Msl5046, did you notice that the titles are included in a lower section?--Anietor 20:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me, but I haven't been watching this article for long. Freder1ck 23:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed them. Using the main honorific is acceptable, but any others is verging on POV. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I now agree, the titles shouldn't all be there, however, I was trying to make this page uniform with the Bartholomew I page (the Ecumenical Patriarch), because that page has all of his titles right at the beginning. Perhaps those should be removed instead of these being added though. --Msl5046 13:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that the titles should be all in one place, if for no other reason than clarity of the article.85.20.110.148 14:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles 

message: In section 4.8 (Dialogue with Other Religious Traditions) a few editors keep changing the heading of Christians to "Protestant and Orthodox Christianity". The problem is that Protestant and Orthodox Christianity is too narrow a heading.  For instance, the section has a whole paragraph on Mormons, which don't consider themselves Protestant or Orthodox.  They do, however, consider themselves Christian (although others may disagree).  Someone may want to add a sentence or more on other interactions between the Roman Catholic  Church and other Christian groups that are not really Protestant or Orthodox.  Therefore, the title "Other Christians" seems to be the best way to keep it broad enough to include these churches.  If someone wants to have a specific section for just Protesetant and Orthodox Christianity, that would be fine...but then you need to creat yet another section for Mormons and other Christian churches that don't fall within those groups.  --Anietor 06:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason behind renaming it was because naming it Christianity made it seem to that specific editor that this meant Catholicism was not part of Christianity - as it was in the "other religion" section. Perhaps renaming it from Christianity to "Other Denominations" or even what you named this section, Other Christians would be a solution. This way it both shows its other christians, without making it appear as though Catholicism was something other than christianity. ~Rangeley (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that changing it to "other denominations" is sufficiently broad enough and that Protestant and Orthodox Christianity is too narrow. While there may not be an ability to list each one individually, a broad enough summary may be incorporated with the creation of sub articles. --Strothra 06:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I agree, Rangeley.  Frankly, I really didn't think that the original title "Christianity" would have made anyone think Catholics were being called non-Christians (I mean, it's a section about Pope Benedict XVI's dialogue with other religious traditions!).  But I agree with you that something like "Other Christians" addresses everyone's concerns. --Anietor 06:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As a Catholic myself who once lived in an area dominated by southern Baptists, I believe that there is a reasonable concern over the marginalization of Catholics and concern that some would have us labeled as non-Christians, even today.  I once walked out of mass one day about 10yrs ago to a parking lot filled with cars that had been pamphleted with papers about how Catholocism was not Christian. --Strothra 07:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was very interesting, Strothra; I had no idea that (some of?) the southern Baptists have such ideas about the Catholics. At least this is not the case in the Orthodox world. Though there are many Christian denominations and the Catholic Church, as been the largest, has relations with all of them, I do not think that a header 'Other Christian denominations' is the appropriate one... I would propose two sections: 'Dialogue with other Christian denominations' and 'Dialogue with other religions', so as to make clear the distinction between them, and not use the "weird" term 'religious traditions'. Then, we can make subheaders about each Christian denomination and each religion in the respective sections. I do not have particularly something against the Mormons (i do not even know much about their beliefs), but 4 lines about a Mormon governor (note: not even a religious leader!) is not enough to support a rename of a quite long section that talks about the Orthodox and Protestants. This way we underestimate the steps made towards the reconciliation of the Churches (the Pope's recent trip to the Ecumenical Patriarchate illustrates this perfectly) and the dialogue with the Protestants (especially the Anglicans, by the Archbishop of Canterbury), as well as the Pope's own will, since he has publicly declared that the approach with the Orthodox is a primary goal for his papacy. Hectorian 18:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, relations are certainly better in the United States between Catholics and Protestants than they have ever been in the past although historically. However, anti-Papism has reared its head in the U.S. many times throughout its history and there are still many individuals who hold those sentiments.  Not to mention its unique relationship to racism in the U.S. - the KKK has always held both racist and anti-Catholic views. I agree with the idea of those two sections instead of just the one.  --Strothra 19:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. If there will not be any objections, I will make the new headers and subheaders. Hectorian 19:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made the changes. I hope this helps a lot. I have placed the Mormons under "Other Christians", hoping that there will be more info added in the future about other denominations, but believing at the same time that there will not be much info to create separate subsections (as for the Orthodox and Protestants and the other religions-however, i may prove to be wrong on this). For the Orthodox, i strongly believe that there could even be a separate article, since the available in the web info could support such a creation. Hectorian 20:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dialogue with Other Christians 

message: It appears that in lieu of a main image for the Pope - an image of Palpatine from Star Wars VI has been used. While personally I find this funny -- it is vandalism and so I've taken the liberty of removing the image, but I suggest the page be locked and that an image be found!! 68.145.128.30 19:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I reverted further back, in order to re-add the image that originally was there. Hectorian 19:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And if you see vandalism, please post a warning to the person's user profile.  See Wikipedia:vandalism for instructions on how.  It's important to keep track of who vandalizes, so more of them can be blocked. --Anietor 01:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  VANDALISM! 

message: I spun off the apostolic journies section because it was getting rather long. It is now at List of journeys of Pope Benedict XVI. Someone may wish to take a look at the summary I left behind, which is a bit rough, and perhaps tidy it up a bit. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  splitting off 

message: If someone has been elected pope already, is it correct to say he's no longer papabile?  —  Rickyrab | Talk 04:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would seem to be correct, since the word suggests someone who MAY become pope, as opposed to someone who IS pope.85.20.110.148 14:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Papabili