Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive 18

message: Is it is correct to say "Pope Benedict reigns" or is it more correct to say "Pope Benedict is".  I don't mean in the sense of whether the word reign fits in a dictionary sense of the word but is it the best word to describe in a verb what the Pope does?  Does the Vatican itself use that word routinely?  Is there some style guide out there that's assigned the word reign to the activity of the Pope? patsw 03:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As the Pope is an Elected Monarch and Vatican Head of state for life (unless he abdicates/resigns), then yes he does reign. GoodDay 18:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reign 

message: This section needs citations.  I found sources for the ermine-lined velvet mozzetta, but none for the double elbow-length simar.  Also, is there a proper name for the red cape?  Finally, although the article said that he revived the use of the papal slippers, in fact he revived the use of the red papal shoes, not slippers. Monsieurtode 09:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope so!--'s-Gravenhage 20:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope not!, the tiara is too arrogant a sympol. I hope the Pope stays with the tradition carried out previously by Paul VI, John Paul I & John Paul II. GoodDay 23:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I doubt that he will wear the Triple Crown (Papal Tiara)as he choose not to use it in his Coat of Arms.  Also, note that he did not elect to be crowned as Pope, nor even invested (though this makes sense in light of Canon Law 1983 Code), but rather choose to call it a "solemn inauguration."  Further breaking with tradition, he choose a variety of people to offer obdience, none of which notice was a head of state.  Part of the symbolism of the Papal Tiara was not only Papal Temportal power, but Papal Spiritual power over the State.  In light of Vatican II and the Church's teaching on the just Autonomy of the state, the symbol would make no sense.  But who knows, I may be wrong.DaveTroy 20:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jtdirl, I agree that in itself the Tiara was not too arrogant a symbol but its revival would be seen this way. Note that neither JP1 nor JP2 did wear the Tiara ever and B16 went a step further by issuing a non-tiara coats-of-arms. That all has nothing to do with Vatican II. John XXIII and Paul VI did war the Tiara and any supremacy over secular powers that might be implied in the triple crown is not incompatible with the Council's definition you quoted. But still, I don't think the Tiara will return. Str1977 20:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm rather more interested in the white tuxedo he seems to be wearing under the red tabarro. That's something new, isn't it? ProhibitOnions 22:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, it's the grecca, and it's an overcoat...--Samuel J. Howard 23:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditional Papal Clothing 

message: I was just watching CNN and they mentioned that the Pope signed his first encyclical, titled Deus Caritas Est (God is Love), on December, 2005. It will be published in mid January. I think we should start looking up info on it and look into which section of this article we will place it. For now, I will start the article regarding the encyclical. Deus Caritas Est <<Coburn_Pharr>> 03:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First Encyclical

message: Where the heck did all the language versions of his name come from? We don't include stuff in biographies. All we use are English (obviously, as this is English Wikipedia) and the relevant language(s), which here are Latin and perhaps his own native language, German. French, Polish, Italian etc etc are irrelevant on this page, unless we want to list 200+ language variations!!!! FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I actually think that even German is not relevant -- just English and Latin. Maybe a case for Italian, as the working language of the Vatican, but I'd still lean against it. Mlouns 21:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree to keep other languages out. Apologies if this is undesirable necromancy. I once asked a seminarian in Rome I know why he recited the Divine office in Italian and not in his native English. "Because," he said with a smirk, "it's the official language of the Church". It was a jest. I think those working in the Holy See use whatever language is most convenient for the task in hand. The language used for drafting the new Catechism was French. As for the language of the Vatican City: I would guess (having been in the tourist parts several times) that the language you are most likely to overhear in the Vatican City is Italian for the simple reason it is in Italy (tour guides and all that). None of this is reason to have BXVI's name here in any language other than Latin the official language of the Body which gave him such prominence as to warrant an article) and English (the language here). Stroika 13:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Names in languages

message: It looks like people are planning to insert every Canonisation and Beatification as and when they happen. Most of the Beati/ae and the Saints are red-linked. Therefore the only reason for interest in them is that they happen to have been raised to the altars under the first Pope elected after the creation of Wikipedia. For example there is no page for Blessed Christian of Spoleto (not even at the Italian wikipedia). This is silly, there is no reason for BXVI's entry in an encyclopedia to become a news blog. It is beginning to read like George Weigel's biography of JPII (blow by blow account of every single official engagement).
I propose: (1) delete most of them. (2)Include any who already have a page, IFF that page is in an advanced state (i.e. there is interest in the individual other than he or she happens to be amongst BXVI's early activity) (3) refer to the reversion to earlier policy in the matter of delegating beatifications to Cardinals. NB the communiqué by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints 
I'll do this myself in a few days time unless sufficient reason against presents itself.
Stroika 21:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just deleted a paragraph explaining how the beatification process (in general) affects JPII. Not necessary in an article on Benedict XVI. It's the first of a number of cuts I plan to make to this part of the article. I am less sure about deleting the content of the section 'pastoral activities'. Continuity (or not) with the practice his predecessor seems to be to be relevant. But I wouldn't squeal if you deleted it. Stroika 18:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now deleted all reference to the other Beatifications. I reckon once the main piece of information is conveyed - that BXVI has restored the older custom of getting a Cardinal to beatify - none of the others are particulalry relevant. A Blessed - by definition - is only of local interest. Unless an individual is particularly famous or the Beatification ceremony is particularly notable (owing to an unusually high number attending or whatever) it has no place in this article. The story about Leon Dehon although important I think can be safely deleted. I have moved the reference to the Washington Post story to Fr Dehon's article Stroika 20:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Beatifications and Canonizations

message: It says the Pope views Christianity as the religion according to reason. Has he expanded on this anywhere? It would be interesting to know how he finds this to be true. On the other hand, if he has not written on this, that would also be an interesting thing to note in that section. How does the Pope see the activity of God in the world? Is it clearly visible or hidden? Eiler7 10:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if it was there when you posted this but there is now a note taking you to the text of a lecture Cardinal Ratzinger gave the day before JPII died. That's where the phrase comes from. Stroika 18:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion according to reason

message: This article presents only the Catholic POV of issues relating to BXVI. There are lengthy quotations introduced with the weasel words "Benedict XVI says" but with no opposing viewpoints also presented, even where BXVI says something contentious or even inflammatory.
Any potential criticism is handled from the Catholic POV. For example, "His defenders argue that it is to be expected that a leader within the Catholic Church would forcefully and explicitly argue in favor of the superiority of Catholicism over other religions. Others also maintain that single quotes from Dominus Iesus are not indicative of intolerance or an unwillingness to engage in dialogue with other faiths, and this is clear from a reading of the entire document. They point out that Ratzinger has been very active in promoting inter-faith dialogue. In defending Dominus Iesus, Ratzinger himself has stated that his belief is that inter-faith dialogue should take place on the basis of equal human dignity, but that equality of human dignity should not imply that each side is equally correct."
:I suspect this is because non-Catholics consider the whole notion of the leader of a single branch of a particular religion as some sort of universal religious leader to be arrogant hogwash. As a non-Catholic, non-Christian, non-"Believer" in the most basic philosophical sense, it would not be worth my time -- or that of most other non-Catholics -- to add to the discussion of Catholic theology. --Michael K. Smith 15:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with any 'criticism' to be placed in this article is that secular members of society often fail to understand that the Catholic faith (like any faith) is under no legal or other obligation to adapt its teachings according to the mores of the secular society. Hence 'criticism' of the Pope's stance on homosexuallity / abortion / women in the priesthood is likely to be almost completely irrelevant in the sense that the answer would always be the same - the Church is not the World. One doesn't generally find encyclopedic articles about world faiths condemning or criticising that faith's religious teachings, but rather the articles tend to merely lay out those teachings.Iamlondon 04:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is NOT any other  encylopedia. There is a very strong policy called WP:NPOV. Futher, the Pope (any Pope) is also a Monarch, political figure and so on and, as such, is an inherently controversial figure. As I have often said elswhere, you do ni In any case, there are Catholics who critize the conservative views of the current Catholic leadership under THIS Pope. More generally, as I have argues elswehere on different matters, criticism and the presnetation of differnt views does not harm the subject in question. The Pope is a big enough and intelligent enough man to handle a bit of criticism in his biograophy!! Leaving out criticism, on the other hand, gives an impression that I don't think you would really want to convey about the Catholic Church. In any case, you can do what you like, but you won't make it through FAC that way. These comments are intended to help!!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No criticism in article 

message: Look at http://hughhewitt.com/archives/2006/01/01-week/index.php#000962
Father Jospeh Fessio:Well, the thesis that was proposed by this scholar was that Islam can enter into the modern world if the Koran is reinterpreted by taking the specific legislation, and going back to the principles, and then adapting it to our times, especially with the dignity that we ascribe to women, which has come through Christianity, of course. And immediately, the Holy Father, in his beautiful calm but clear way, said well, there's a fundamental problem with that, because he said in the Islamic tradition, God has given His word to Mohammed, but it's an eternal word. It's not Mohammed's word. It's there for eternity the way it is. There's no possibility of adapting it or interpreting it, whereas in Christianity, and Judaism, the dynamism's completely different, that God has worked through His creatures. And so, it is not just the word of God, it's the word of Isaiah, not just the word of God, but the word of Mark. He's used His human creatures, and inspired them to speak His word to the world, and therefore by establishing a Church in which he gives authority to His followers to carry on the tradition and interpret it, there's an inner logic to the Christian Bible, which permits it and requires it to be adapted and applied to new situations. I was...I mean, Hugh, I wish I could say it as clearly and as beautifully as he did, but that's why he's Pope and I'm not, okay? That's one of the reasons. One of others, but his seeing that distinction when the Koran, which is seen as something dropped out of Heaven, which cannot be adapted or applied, even, and the Bible, which is a word of God that comes through a human community, it was stunning.
(This contribution was made by 84.146.247.61 on 23rd January 2006
:Caution! These remarks were made in an interview with Hugh Hewitt. Fr Fessio has qualified them in a letter to the Washington Times. In particular note the following:
::"The meeting was an informal one of the Holy Father and his former students. The presentation and the discussion were in German, and the Holy Father was not speaking from a prepared text. My German is passable, but not entirely reliable. My later remarks in a live radio interview were extemporaneous. I think that I paraphrased the Holy Father with general accuracy, but my mentioning what he said at all was an indiscretion, and my impromptu paraphrase in another language should not be used for a careful exegesis of the mind of the Holy Father."
:(My emphasis) Stroika 18:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Benedict XVI on Islam and the West

message: Was there discussion about whether to create a separate page for BXVI's early life? Well somebody has created just such a page. Can we delete the relevant section on this page? It would be a wearisome business comparing the two and making sure nothing important gets lost. Stroika 19:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I got bored waiting for replies and did it myself. I hope no toes were trodden on. I'm going away for a few days so can't stop you if you revert back to that cumbersome unnecessarily redundant mess. Stroika 20:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate page for early life? Don't keep adding to this one!

message: I certainly don't but it is the other obvious place to cut content. Stroika 20:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anyone fancy pruning the teachings section?

message: We say he: "celebrated his Papal Inauguration Mass on 24 April 2005, and took possession of his cathedral, the Basilica of St. John Lateran, on 7 May 2005."  Do these dates really deserve such prominence in the lead para?  They may have been news in April/May 2005, but that is not the case any more.  We don't give corresponding dates for any other pope (that I can find). These dates could appear in miscellaneous information about him, later on in the article.  The concept of "taking possession of his cathedral" is not explained anywhere, and it would be little known even to most devout Catholics.  JackofOz 02:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody has answered JackofOz but nobody has acted on his suggestion either. Here's my defence of keeping mention of taking possession of the Lateran. The Pope is first and foremost Bishop of Rome. This is the starting point for all the claims about the particular charisms or gifts (authority over other bishops, infallibility etc) that are made on his behalf. No Catholic ever denied the Pope was a Bishop, the argument was always about what powers did this particular Bishop have that other Bishops lacked. The Lateran Basilica is the Cathedral Church of the Bishops of Rome. What St Patrick's is to Denis Hart (JackofOz is from Melbourne) the Lateran is to Benedict XVI. His taking possession of this Basilica is therefore significant - more so than his taking possession of the other Patriarchal Basilicas. (If that ever formally occurred). The Lateran has the inscription "Mother of All the Churches" on it - which explains why the wikipedia article on the Lateran claims that it is more important even than St Peter's. By contrast, any mention of Benedict taking possession of the Papal Appartments in the Apostolic palace (which was huge news at the time I recall) could certainly be left out. I admit that the significance of a Bishop taking possession of *his* Cathedral Church is not explained anywhere obvious in wikipedia. Apologies for the necromancy but I wanted to ask a question myself and it seemed rude to leave the most recent question unanswered Stroika 19:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that information.  Now I'm wiser about what taking possession of his cathedral means, but I'm none the wiser about why Wikipedia considers this an important date for the current pope but not for any of his predecessors.  JackofOz 09:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia has no opinion on the matter whatsoever, it is down entirely to the editors and the information at their disposal. We have reams of Press releases for BXVI and JPII. The Vatican site also has a very full timeline for JPII. It is easy to get dates right for those two and to source them properly. That's all. If I could source the dates for Pius XII et al. I would put them in. Mind you lack of a source doesn't seem to stop people round here. Cheers.Stroika 13:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Important" Dates

message: (1) It seems that a lot of the edits to this page are swapping photographs back and forth. Is there some private joke I am not getting? I notice from the archives that there has been some kind of discussion. Was there any conclusion? If not I back the only one where he doesn't look creepy and doesn't look wierd.
(2)Can someone who knows how to do this sort of thing please place the two photographs illustrating clothing better?
(3)Do we really need the photograph of him signing the Encyclical?
Stroika 22:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody just replaced the current photograph with a presumably copy-vio photo (it has a water mark!) so I reverted it. Whether a copyright violation or not it was a much worse quality photograph. Talk please before changing again. Stroika 14:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Because the one that was there is nicer. AnnH ♫ 18:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photographs

message: The portrait in the begining of the page is not his offcial portrait. Someone needs to upload his offcial portrait.—Preceding unsigned comment added by KoolKid2006 (talk • contribs) 
:What is the official portrait. There are that many official looking ones (confused by the use of many different pictures by parishes), has there even been a definitive one yet?
::The portrait in th begining of the page is a reversed (mirror) photo. The Pope's hair flows over to the right side of his forehead Not the left side (see other Papal photos in article for proof).  GoodDay 16:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: The article says
"such an interpretation is wide of the mark as Benedict XVI is far from being a fundamentalist"
What is the source for this conclusion? If there is no source, I think the response to the criticism of Sullivan should be removed.
Eiler7 22:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need a source. It's as wide of the mark as a descriptipon of BXVI as a Jain, Jew, Muslim, Hindu or whatever. Fundamentalism is a particular expression of *Protestantism*. The Pope is (surprise surprise) a Catholic. Stroika 14:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The wikipedia page on Fundamentalism does not limit it to Protestantism. If the article is to respond effectively to the criticism by Sullivan, it needs to take on board exactly what Sullivan was saying. If Sullivan was condemning the Pope for being a Protestant, it seems to me that he would just come out and say so. But this kind of speculation is not appropriate. We need to establish the source of the criticism and then we can determine the best way to respond to it. I have checked the article and the web in general. I have not been able to find a web page where Sullivan talks about "a form of fundamentalist edict". If anyone can supply one, that would be good. Otherwise, I will look at updating the article in line with what Sullivan has said on his blog. He said something like "a fundamentalist triumph" when the Pope was elected and also came up with other criticisms. Eiler7 23:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: In a Christian context, the common meaning of Fundamentalism is belief in the The Fundamentals.  It is always incorrect to refer to a Catholic as a Fundamentalist. (see ).  A Catholic profession of the faith is "I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God."  The term Catholics use is "faithful" or "professing". patsw 20:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wide of the mark

message: Would anyone be interested in beginning a Roman Catholic Collaboration of the Week? There exists such a wide array of topics dealing with the Roman Catholic Church that I feel there should be a weekly collaboration dedicated to it. If there is an expressed interest, I would love to assist in starting such a collabortaion. Message me or express your interest at Talk:Roman Catholic Church if the idea appeals to you. --Caponer 19:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Roman Catholic Weekly Collaboration

message: I read in the book "We Have A Pope! Benedict XVI" by Matthew Bunson that his original middle name was Aloysius not Alois... does anyone have anything else supporting this??? 68.175.27.35 02:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Middle Name

message: I removed the following for the article:
During many years even Vatican officials like Silvio Cardinal Oddi and theologians as close to John Paul II as Mario Cardinal Cappi had claimed that the content would contain a warning, that heresy and apostasy in the Church would "begin at the top" and "in the hierarchy".
I really think that this needs to be cited if it is to be included.  -- Psy guy Talk 17:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fatima 

message: I wonder if we could mention (in the article), that the Pope's birthday is on Easter Sunday (April 16th)? GoodDay 16:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I myself don't find it relevant. A neat little trivia fact for some, but that is not what Wikipedia is for. If Easter was on that date every year, it would be worthwhile to mention. OsFan 20:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I see what you mean. GoodDay 01:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Easter Sunday (2006) & the Pope 

message: An anon removed :Category: Hitler Youth here with the explanation "remove POV vandalism". Nothing could be farther from the truth. The category is for members of the Hitler Youth, which Ratzinger was. The article does a pretty good job of explaining that he was forced to join, and in truth most of the people in this category were (because it consists of members who went on to get famous). Being as it is already stated in the article that he was a member, removal the category seems more likely to be "vandalism" to be. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We already had this discussion last year, and the category for HJ members, which was initially created for the sole purpose of smearing the Pope, was deleting following vote (at cfd if I remember correctly). A category which includes every German males of a given age (8 million in total) and has nothing with their own decisions in life to do does not make any sense. I fail to see that the creation of such a category to put the Pope in can be the result of anything else than anti-Catholicism, and given that the question is already sorted out, any readding of such a category will be removed from the article. 83.109.161.130 22:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with 83.109.161.130. This was discussed last year. AnnH ♫ 22:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where I come from, this is called special pleading. --Michael K. Smith 15:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Category:Former members of the Hitler Youth was deleted on May 9, 2005 following vote at categories for deletion log discussion 83.109.161.130 22:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm surprised it got deleted. Yes there were 8 million members, but there are only a handful notable enough for Wikipedia articles. I don't see how this is smearing Ratzinger. The category isn't called "People who wanted to join the Hitler youth". It's fine to explain in the article that he was forced to join, but its quite another thing to try to erase history. Nominate the category for deletion if you want, but I think its inappropriate to only remove it from certain articles, while leaving it in the articles of other former members. savidan(talk) (e@) 07:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Hitler Youth should be a category for articles primarily associated with the HJ (leaders etc.), not random people who when they were 14 years old were forced to join, and by the way never were active members. 83.109.147.221 08:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And for that purpose other "Nazi leader" categories suffice. Str1977 (smile back) 09:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it is notable that he was a member though; though most German youth of that age joined, as was stated before, only a few are Wikipedia worthy; however, I'm not sure if he belongs on the list. On the other hand, he was a member of Hitler Youth, so it might apply. I don't think it is a slur or defamation to have some link to it in some manner. Titanium Dragon 09:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category: Hitler Youth 

message: The user Dominick is on a vandalism spree, adding a lot of stupid "citation needed" templates in the early life section for a bunch of obvious facts, which are already referenced in the long version of that section, the Early life of Pope Benedict XVI article. When removed, he keeps reinstating it. That is blatant sabotaging of the article.
There was a reason some stuff was moved to a separate article, and we don't need to double it all up. 83.109.147.221 08:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I didnt add those, I reverted the removal of those citations that were requested. Removing valid citation requests is suspect. They were also not on the subpage. Adding them is not a bad thing. If it is true, then in an encyclopedia, they should be referenced. Dominick (TALK) 12:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: "Pope Benedict XVI (Latin: Benedictus PP. XVI), born Joseph Alois Ratzinger (born April 16, 1927) is the 265th and reigning Pope, the head of the Roman Catholic Church, and sovereign of Vatican City State. He was elected on April 19, 2005 in a papal conclave, celebrated his Papal Inauguration Mass on April 24, 2005, and took possession of his cathedral, the Basilica of St. John Lateran, on May 7, 2005. Pope Benedict XVI has both German and Vatican citizenship."
83.109.168.150 14:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass adding of "citation needed" templates for already referenced facts 

message: There is no way that this wikipage is not going to inextricably become involved with the POV of many thousands of Wikipedians, particularly active Catholic apologists like Demiurge.
It is incumbent on administrators to monitor this site to ensure that propaganda, censorship, etc. are dealt with quickly.
216.194.3.89 01:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV/NPOV

message: so that was Marini's idea, not Ratzinger's.... and we wondered.....:
3.7. Papal insignia
Separate mention must be made of the proposal to reform papal insignia. Since Pope Paul VI renounced the tiara, the Bishop of Rome uses a mitre similar to that of other Bishops during liturgical celebrations. This expresses better the bond of communion and unity which exists between the Successor of Saint Peter and the College of Bishops. The pallium, on the contrary, has not changed with the liturgical reform; it has retained the shape adopted in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The Office intends to introduce a modification of the pallium which takes into consideration both its earliest forms and its mediaeval symbolism, in order to express more clearly the ecclesiological and christological significance of this insignia, which was of great importance in antiquity. For the ring of the Bishop of Rome, the traditional anulum piscatoris (‘ring of the fisherman’) will probably be reinstated, to be consigned with the pallium to the new Pope on the occasion of the solemn inauguration of his pastoral service. + PIERO MARINI Titular Archbishop of MartiranoMaster of Papal Liturgical Celebrations Anchorite 16:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Papal Arms

message: Saying the pope will visit "Latin America" instead of "Brazil", it means he will be in more than one country of Latin America, but he will visit only Brazil. Fsolda 15:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Travels