Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive 4

message: Ok, can we talk about removing the Works section?
1) 80% of it is not in English
2) it's a direct copy of the de version
If someone actually wants to translate it, that'd be fine too.  But the page is already getting too big, and that list is huge already -- and completely worthless to non-German speakers. --Quasipalm 21:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: WORKS SECTION HAS TO GO!

message: Since only five languages are presently listed, can this claim be corroborated or is it spurious? Whig 15:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He started his career as a university professor at the age of 30/31 and since every german priest has to learn old greek and hebrew I'm sure he has good reading abilities in these two ancient languages (Latin however is spoken fluently by him, quite singular even among the cardinals). As a rumour I can add that he speaks spanish and polish and perhaps portugese? That was said in TV, but I can't remember exaclty... Soky 16:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ten Languages? 

message: Maybe someone can provide links to good discussion boards where opinion about the pontificate is welcome?
Try here? You could start something, I think. --SqueakBox 17:55, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
I recommend this site  Rangeley 21:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good discussion boards 

message: Someone keeps changing this language. Saying he "had to join" is inaccurate. The previous language was good. Can this be reverted?
Whig, please explain why you think it is inaccurate; please give references. DJ Clayworth 18:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't intend to say that "Benedict XVI was a Nazi" and I think that could not be said without strong supporting evidence that I don't possess or claim to know of. In other words, Benedict XVI may very well have felt compelled by his circumstances and the existence of laws purporting to require his actions. Still, they were his actions, and his actions should not be stated as compulsions, but as choices made under very difficult circumstances. The fact that we all have done things we may have felt obliged to do while feeling opposed, does not change the fact that we did them and we acknowledge this. So state the facts, and the circumstances, but it is inappropriate POV for the Wikipedia project to offer apologetics, only provide the information without unattributed commentary. Whig 19:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: You equate joining the Hitler Youth with using the rest room? In that case, the whole mention of him having joined should be dropped altogether. As in, "At 9pm last night, he had to use the facilities" would be irrelevant data. But, he joined the Hitler Youth, this is undisputed fact, and if it is relevant at all, which many people think is, then it should be presented neutrally. This is an encyclopedia not an apologetic. Whig 19:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is indeed an encyclopedia.  Not a platform to discredit people without good reason.  I'll stand by for your fair and reasonable inclusions of relevant information. plain_regular_ham 19:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I have posted my proposed change to neutral POV without otherwise adding or removing statements of fact currently posted. Whig 19:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Membership in the Hitler Youth wasn't compulsory, but was needed to get a grant for studies. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 20:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring the Hitler Youth content =

message: I re-added the style His Holiness (see article), which is used for current (as opposed to non-current) popes. This is analogous to using "His/Her Royal Highness", "Sir", "Duke", "President", etc.
:This is poor style for an encyclopedia. We do not say Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth -- we give the title of her office as Queen without honorifics. By the same token, the title of Benedict's office should be given without the honorific His Holiness. Whig 20:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I had to check myself and I was wrong, we *do* say Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II although whether this is well-advised, I still say it is not. In any case, we should be consistent and I will let the editors make the appropriate judgments for both (all) of these cases. Whig 20:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  His Holiness 

message: someone keep's changing it to the empire from starwars. 
:You cannot just lock the picture. Just keep watching and revert, --SqueakBox 18:40, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
**You can lock the specific picture from it being changed, but someone can always upload a different one, under a new name and replace the original image on the article. Zscout370 19:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You can only lock articles, not individual pictures in an article. Anyway, I've banned 4 anonymous vandals in the last half hour from editing for 24 hours, so hopefully that might cut down on the vandalism for a while. -- Arwel 19:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock the picture 

message: Someone has restored the awful
:[Benedict XVI] is the first German pontiff since Adrian VI (15221523), who was born in the Netherlands of German descent.  Benedict XVI is the eighth German pope; the first was Gregory V (996999). 
language.  This is by far the worst way we could possibly explain this. In the first place, I've never seen any evidence that Adrian VI was "of German descent" in the sense of "descended from inhabitants of present-day Germany.  He was born in the Netherlands which was then considered to be German. That's quite different.  Secondly, given that many sources are listing Victor II as the most recent German pope, it is irritating to me that the new version doesn't list him, but lists Gregory V as the first German pope.  Thirdly, listing eight German popes is problematic - this means we include not only Adrian VI, about whom there is disagreement, but also Stephen X, in a similarly dubious condition.  Why can't we just list both Adrian VI and Victor II as potential "last German popes," and explain that Adrian VI was from what is now the Netherlands, which was then seen as Germany, while Victor II was from within the territory of modern Germany?  Why is this controversial? john k 18:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was changed to "is the first German pontiff since the Dutch-German Adrian VI (15221523). Benedict XVI is the eighth German pope; the first was Gregory V (996999). The last Benedict, Benedict XV, served as pontiff from 1914 to 1922 and thus reigned during World War I.", but I included a note saying that "(although some dispute the characterisation of Adrian VI as German, preferring to call Victor II the last German pope)" because, let's face it, people have been disputing it and that needs to be recognised. - SoM 19:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  German pope again 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Public Opinion 

message: Could someone please try to make the page flow better, and then constantly check for lamers who constantly screw up the page?
:Those two aims are incompatable - checking for "lamers" requires small, frequent edits to fix it.
:Anyone actually taking the time to do what you suggest would run head-on into a major Edit conflict right now - SoM 19:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with SoM, many people are trying to edit this page, keep on getting the Edit conflict notice. I get it on here and on the article space a lot. Zscout370 19:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean Up 

message: It seems to me that the current situation of this article is such as to simply cause insanity.  The editing comes so fast that it's almost impossible to be sure that one isn't editing a vandalized/POVed version of the article, which makes correcting vandalism/POV insertion (the latter especially) prohibitively difficult.  It seems likely it'll be weeks before this article reaches any kind of state where we can actually go through and make sure it's not full of nonsense.  While this happens to an extent with a lot of articles about things in the news, the situation with this article seems worse than that of almost any other article I can think of.  Does anybody have any thoughts on resolutions to this? john k 21:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We really need an [Edit] for the top section (above the first headline) - SoM 22:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I know it's frustrating, but look how much information has been put on this page in the last two days.  Seriously, out of the chaos a really great article is emerging.  Wikipedia already has more information on the new Pope than any other website I've seen.  So, in short, the process isn't fun, but it's working!  My advice is to copy a section of the page into an external editor.  Then when you are ready to upload it, you have an external copy in case the page has changed -- if it has, just copy and past it back in.
I would suggest putting a notice at the top of the page stating that the article is currently in a state of constant fluctuation, and due to the high volume of edits, inaccuracies and vandalism may be present. --Poiuyt Man (talk) 22:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gah! 

message: I re-added the style His Holiness (see article), which is used for current (as opposed to non-current) popes. This is analogous to using "His/Her Royal Highness", "Sir", "Duke", "President", etc.
:This is poor style for an encyclopedia. We do not say Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth -- we give the title of her office as Queen without honorifics. By the same token, the title of Benedict's office should be given without the honorific His Holiness. Whig 20:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I had to check myself and I was wrong, we *do* say Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II although whether this is well-advised, I still say it is not. In any case, we should be consistent and I will let the editors make the appropriate judgments for both (all) of these cases. Whig 20:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with the point that we should be consistent in our usage. I don't agree that honorifics are a necessary part of a title for the purpose of identifying the personal and positional attributes of an office holder. Certain positions may entail a great many possible honorifics making the situation even more annoying. I think that if the absence of the honorific caused ambiguity, it should be included, otherwise it should be omitted, in all cases, including "The Right Honorable" and so forth. Whig 00:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most pages regarding Americans simply use their name.  Perhaps this is causing the confusion -- is it more common for Europeans to honor a persons title?  I just checked GW Bush and it doesn't say "President Geor..." it just says his name.  Same with Antonin Scalia, it doesn't say "Justice Antoni..." even though that's his title.  However, all UK titles are there, from Sir Elton John to Her Magesty Queen Whoeverisqueen.   My preference is that pages just use names -- to me, "His Holiness" is POV just as putting Führer Adolf Hitler would seem to be POV.  It's certainly easier just to omit all titles rather than pick and choose, no? Quasipalm 03:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Which seems consistently *wrong* to me, unless and in case a style and/or honorific is necessary for the purpose of disambiguation. Whig 11:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  His Holiness