Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive 10

message: "Sources have indicated that Pope Benedict is likely to appoint San Francisco metropolitan archbbishop William Joseph Levada as the next Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. If confirmed, Archbishop Levada would be the highest ranking American in the church hierarchy."
I have a few concerns about this paragraph: (1) I would prefer that we don't refer to sources as "sources" in the articles.  Do an in-line citation if you know it.  For example, "Time magazine said...." or something like that.  (2) Wouldn't the highest ranking American in the church hierarchy remain Edmund Cardinal Szoka, Governor of Vatican City?  The new office holder would certainly be one of the most influential, but technically speaking not the highest ranking in the hierarchy.  And we have to remember that personality made the office of Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith influential during the tenure of Cardinal Ratzinger.  He made it influential; it wasn't for several generations before he took office and there remains a small possibility that the successor won't be as influential at all.  (3) Levada was not the only person named.  Cardinal George of Chicago was cited as a candidate.  So was the Austrian cardinal and several others internationally.  Mention them or don't mention Levada at all.  (4) Is it really relevant to devote such precious article space (kb) about who the Pope will choose to fill a bureacratic position?  --Gerald Farinas 20:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. The Vatican City State has a spiritual as well as a temporal aspect.  In a religious monarchy as the Vatican, the spiritual as in the Congegation for the Doctrine of the Faith assumes a greater role than temporal as evinced in the Role of Cardinal Szoka.  Aloysius Patacsil 23:28, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Eh?  The Cardinal Secretary of State and the Cardinal Camerlengo are both clearly higher positions in the curia than the Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.  One might also argue that the Dean of the College of Cardinals is the second highest ranking figure in the Church, or that all Cardinal-Bishops outrank all Cardinal-Priests, no matter what specific curial office they hold. john k 23:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Highest ranking American

message: Note: the discussion of the vote is now at Talk:Pope_Benedict_XVI/Styles_Vote. The vote, totaled 44, came out withm 25 support for the His Holiness style being prefixed, and with 19 against. This does not meet the "consensus" rules that has been tossed around on here and at the MoS page. Though we do have some room to figure out what we can do as a whole, at least we can say that we try to figure something out. I thank everyone for participating in this poll/debate. Thank you. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prefixed Style 

message: The link to yahoo news for note no. 1 is no longer active. Algebraist 15:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Conf 22:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: I am not sure I understand why the link on the His Holiness honorific is being reverted - it seems natural - that someone would want an understanding of what this title means in this context. I was reverted when I restored it a few days ago, and for me this wasn't part of the debate on using them or not but just the wikipedia thing to do. Can someone please explain? Trödel|talk 21:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to the link or to not having it.  I noticed also that it seems to have become a minor issue in the bigger edit war over "His Holiness", but I don't think it's worth a war.  I'm happy to link.  I'm also happy if people prefer not to.  My personal preference would be to have it linked, so that people could find out a little bit about the title and what it means.  Ann Heneghan 21:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I can think of no reason not to link Dave (talk) 21:51, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
When Lulu and others added a footnote to His Holiness I opposed it for its wrong content, but this link seems all right to me. No need to delete it.
Str1977 22:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link on the Honorific 

message: There are duplicate endnotes, leading to an inconsistency between the numbers in the text and those in the list at the bottom. This happens because some endnotes are referenced multiple times, e.g. #13 and #15. These should be split into ref_CNSa and ref_CNSb, with the entry for CNSb just reading "ibid." (There may be more such duplicate endnote refs.)
I couldn't correct this myself because somehow section editing is screwed up: the section edit links go to the wrong sections. Lupo 14:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The section edit links seem OK. As for the footnotes, it's just the footnote templates are deficient. You get duplication or numbering problems.  Also consider there are instructions in the comments in the notes section. Conf 15:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, yes, section editing worked now. I've fixed the endnote numbering. "Avoid duplicates" applies to both reference identifiers and references themselves; as two references to the same target will screw up the numbering. Rather fragile, that whole scheme. But then, so are all currently available alternatives. Lupo 19:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, I know what the instructions mean because we edited them many times and you are wrong. I don't like footnotes too much but you have only increased bloat. Bah. Conf 20:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with endnotes and section editing 

message: Anyone else concerned at this afternoon's deletion of the habemus papam announcement text, etc? Did we lose  useful info there? –Hajor 03:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We can always put it back in. It should be noted it was given partially in a few languages and the rest of it was in Latin. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

text: If we do not have the full announcement, then we should note that the words "Dear Brothers and Sisters" was read in several languages, then list the language in the order it was spoken. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of announcement text

message: Would there be any objection against consistently italicizing and linking prefixed styles like His Holiness? That seems like a reasonable way to defuse the debate, and to make it clear that we are mentioning the style, not using it.--Eloquence* 15:47, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
:Linking, no, that seems perfectly sensible. Italicising, yes, they are never italicised in normal use. People might write about the style The Right Honourable, but no one would ever write The Right Honourable Tony Blair or His Holiness The Pope. Putting the style in italics is doing exactly the same thing as putting it in scare quotes would. (Plus italics at the very beginning of an article look very ugly.) Proteus (Talk) 16:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Proteus.  Ann Heneghan 17:05, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Indeed, I object to it. Prefacing a name with such is not NPOV, as the entire point of a style is to show respect to the possessor of it. Styles are "real words" precisely because they are meant to imply the person they are referring to possesses the related attribute; holiness, majesty, honor, or what have you. Also, the fact that people object to certain people (Kim Jong-il, Lucian Pulvermacher, ect.) having styles is a strong indicator that prefacing someone's name with them is not neutral. Why do they even need to be included at all in the article on Benedict XVI? He is obviously the Pope, and if you want to know how to address the Pope formally why not go and look on the page on his position, the Pope page? It seems far more logical to put them on the positional pages rather than in individual biographies, especially given that many people do not keep their styles or the same style throughout their lifetime; examples include judges and various elected officials. Titanium Dragon 06:48, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The styles are already refered to at the Pope article: "He is styled "Your Holiness" (Sanctitas Vostra) and is frequently referred to as "the Holy Father."" Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:19, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italicizing styles 

message: The following was inserted to the Response to sex abuse scandal by 68.251.118.126, replacing paragraph 3:
:On April 23, 2005, The Independent reported that Ratzinger had since 1997 ignored specific sex abuse allegations made by nine different people against Father Marcial Maciel, the founder of the Legion of Christ. But Cardinal Ratzinger re-opened the investigation in December of 2004. Following months of interviews, on May 20, 2005, the Legionaries of Christ released a statement saying the Holy See had informed them "there is no canonical process underway regarding our Founder, Fr Marcial Maciel, LC, nor will one be initiated." On May 22, 2005, the New York Times reported "The founder of an influential Roman Catholic order in Mexico will not face a church trial on longstanding allegations that he molested teenagers, a Vatican spokesman said on Saturday." While some criticized the move, others saw it as exoneration for Father Maciel.--68.251.118.126
Some of the content may have merit, but needs to be integrated into the section, rather then replace referenced facts about statements made.--ghost 21:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a link to the article online? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Who cares what the The Independent reported or what the New York Times reported?  What are the facts?   I've read the articles in question and it's like the flushing of the Koran down the toilet.  The only people on the record are those saying "no comment" It should be deleted for being speculative, unsourced, unconfirmed, and insigificant to Pope Benedict XVI. This isn't an artcle titled Fr. Marcial Maciel or Legion of Christ  I propose deleting this, we can revisit it when there's something on the record.  Right now there's a spin war going on between pro- and anti-LC leakers. patsw 02:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The facts are that the actual unsigned statement from the office of the Secreteriat of State did not say that no canonical process would be initiated, only that none is foreseen at the moment. In Italian: "non vi è nessun procedimento canonico in corso né è previsto per il futuro nei confronti di P. Maciel"  which in Vatican-ese often describes something that may eventually happen but is not "officially in the works." According to John Allen's report, the Vatican office responsible for the case has not communicated its intentions to anyone, including the Secreteriat of State.  Thus it is not known if there will eventually be a canonical process in the case. VViki 15:42, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Agree with Patsw.  Also have doubts about quoting "one bishop who is well informed on the issue and who asked not to be named".  Admittedly, the article, as it currently stands, says, "According to Catholic News Service".  So it is possible to verify that Catholic News Service said it.  It's just not possible to verify that the bishop really said what Catholic News Service said he said.  Ann Heneghan 23:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breaking news on Response to sex abuse scandal