Talk:Pope Benedict XVI

NPOV problem

The article is heavily biased; I think it fails NPOV. Gene Ward Smith (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Without specifics, there is little to respond to. You have not even clarified in what direction you think the bias is - pro or con. Please post a specific objection, quoting a specific part of the article. We can go step by step.Farsight001 (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that there is a definite pro-Pope bias, as I feel like many statements have a subsequent statement defending the pope, such as where Hitler Youth is mentioned. ~~ theM1r0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Them1r0 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

And how would you imagine a neutral version of such text..? Please, give a specific example. Without any example, there is little to discuss. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• There is no references seriously analyzing Ratzinger's negative role in the paedophilia scandal. Apparently the article is apologetic, defensive, leaving no room for a serious insight in his life. A lot of insignificant details about his life, his personal opinions, favorable opinions of other about him, etc.--71.178.108.23 (talk) 02:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I can just tell you what the other editors directly above were told - what would you change? Specific changes? What sources would you use? We need something more than a generalized complaint about non-neutrality.Farsight001 (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is not in specifics. It is in the editorial approach: impose the Catholic Church view of its bureaucrat to the reader. Here is an example:

He views relativism's denial of objective truth, and the denial of moral truths in particular, as the central problem of the 21st century. He teaches the importance of both the Catholic Church and an understanding of God's redemptive love. He has reaffirmed the "importance of prayer in the face of the activism and the growing secularism of many Christians engaged in charitable work."[5] Pope Benedict has also revived a number of traditions including elevating the Tridentine Mass to a more prominent position.

Which way it is important to a non-Catholic what he thinks or what he says? The above is just a poor sermony in the light of all scandals of the Roman Catholic Church: money laundering, peadophilia, pornography selling, etc. Most of us are non-Catholics and many are just declarative Catholics, too secular to this Pope.--68.98.166.189 (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how your quoted section applies to your objections above. The quoted section repeatedly says "He views" and "He reaffirmed". These beliefs are attributed to him, not promoted or stated as fact as you suggested.Farsight001 (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

So, the problem is that, er, you don't want to find out "what he thinks or what he says"??? Well, if that's the whole problem, then there is a good solution - don't read this article. And if you simply expressed your thoughts badly, then, please, express them better next time. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This article is written the way it can be digested only by 'devout' Catholics. I expressed my thoughts correctly: the article is not more than a poorly written sermon.--68.100.93.247 (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

And in that case, the article is very wrong. Wikipedia should be able to be readable by everyone, not just "devout Christians". But, you state an opinion. What proof can you provide that it is "sermonlike"? Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 03:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• • The article talk archive shows a number of very particular objections to the current article content. See, for example, this or The Vatican already has their own website, why can't Wikipedia be an encyclopedia instead? or ... a few openly catholic individuals (specializing in editing "anti-catholicism" pages and this one) stalling the completion of this page and consistently removing edits that keep the balance of what is obviously an important controversy in the Catholic Church (by their own word, they mentioned it directly during Mass).--68.98.163.79 (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are some people who do not like the article. But, unfortunately, they have often failed to explain what exactly do they want. For example, you have given one paragraph that you do not like but didn't explain what would you change it to. It is rather clear that you do not like the Pope. It is clear that you do not like the article. It is not clear what exactly do you want to achieve - to add something, to remove something, to reword something...

Other than that, the article about a person has to explain the views of its subject, when it is possible. Thus "Which way it is important to a non-Catholic what he thinks or what he says?" is simply not a legitimate criticism. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• The "some people who do not like the article" explained exactly what they want: a seriously and academically written article about this supreme bureaucrat of Catholic Church, free of sermonic phrases, "qualified" opinions, positive attitude toward Catholicism, etc. Except blind denial of the article failures exposed here now and before, you do not say anything useful worth of any attention.--68.98.163.79 (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you think that the comment demanding "a seriously and academically written article about this supreme bureaucrat of Catholic Church, free of sermonic phrases, "qualified" opinions, positive attitude toward Catholicism, etc." (or similar comments) is helpful, feel free to make the necessary modifications yourself. It's Wikipedia, after all. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

WWII

Can I ask what this sentence adds in the section dealing with WW2: "In 1941, one of Ratzinger's cousins, a 14-year-old boy with Down syndrome, was taken away by the Nazi regime and killed during the Action T4 campaign of Nazi eugenics"? It doesn't suggest that Ratzinger did anything to stop the removal, was particularly close to his cousin, or indeed even noticed that he was gone. Why single out this particular event? Contaldo80 (talk) 12:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the source says "It may be worth noting that Joseph Ratzinger had personal experience of the Nazi approach to "rejects."". I suppose that is a sufficient reason..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The source says that, but if it's not in the article then it's pointless if the source mentions it. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 19:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am not sure I understand you correctly... Do you propose to add some equivalent of the statement (that I cited) to the article..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. That's what I mean. Sorry if I was unclear. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. Well, I've been thinking for some time, and am still not sure what would be better... On one hand, adding this sentence would clarify the importance of this fact and prevent even the smallest imaginable problems with "original synthesis"... On the other hand, there are many important facts that should be mentioned in this article, and having two sentences instead of one might be seen as giving "undue attention" to it... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Similarities to Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars?

[1] - [2] highly incriminating evidence. Perhaps something could be added to the article on this? --Τασουλα (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Why in the world would we do that? It doesn't reveal a single thing about who he is as a person. It's satire. And furthermore, The pope as a person has been around longer. He's not similar to the emperor. the emperor is similar to him.Farsight001 (talk) 01:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Cloyne Report & Irish embassy

I removed the following section (reasons see below)

On July 13 2011, The Cloyne Report indirectly blamed Ratzinger for not taking steps to restrain abusive priests. In an open meeting of Parliament, Ireland's Prime Minister Enda Kenny accused Ratzinger and The Holy See of obstructing investigations into sexual abuse by priests. Kenny denounced "the dysfunction, disconnection, elitism and the narcissism that dominate the culture of the Vatican to this day," in a speech that represented Ireland's sharpest-ever direct attack on the Pope. The Irish parliament then passed a motion deploring the Vatican's role in "undermining child protection frameworks". Ratzinger responded on July 25 by officially ending diplomatic relations with Ireland and recalling the Vatican's ambassador to Ireland. After four months of inaction Ireland closed it's embassy in the Vatican, making Ratzinger the first Pope to have an embassy closed since the Vatican was recognized as a State in 1929.

Reasons:

1. section not directly related to the lemma: The Cloyne Report critizised the activity of the nuncios in, I think 1998 (before Benedict XVI was elected pope), and, later, of the Vatican's insistence that demands for information from the Vatican have to be handled over proper diplomatic channels. The lemma however is about Benedict XVI and, in this section specifically, about his handling of child abuse within the Catholic Church (his policy, failings, etc). To justify an inclusion in this article a more direct link has to be provided.
2. section is partly OR: a) That Prime Minister Kenny "indirectly blamed Ratzinger...." and that he "accused Ratzinger..." is not substantiated by the sources, he didn't even mention the Pope in his speech. Therefore the section is a free interpretation and original research. b) There is no official link between the closing of Ireland's embassy and the Cloyne report or sexual abuse by members of the church. Now, the strained relationship between the Holy See and Ireland might have played a role. But that does not justify stating it as a matter of fact. It has to be clearly marked as an interpretation (backed up by sources). However, I fail to see why it should belong in an article of the pope.
3. section is partly not accurate: diplomatic relations are not ended by recalling an ambassador (or as matter of fact by closing an embassy).

Gugganij (talk) 11:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Did he really write those books?

Hello everyone, I thought that some of the books listed under "Books Written by Pope Benedict XVI" were not written by him, but rather were compilations made of his Wednesday audiences and other talks by independent editors. For example, "The Virtues", "The Fathers", and "The Apostles." I think that these are relevant texts to mention in the article, but perhaps it would be more accurate to list them under a sub-heading of "compilations of Pope Benedict XVI's writings" or something similar. This would also enable you to list additional compilations, if you desired to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domichael (talk • contribs) 02:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 October 2012

Under "Titles and styles", I find > Pope Benedict chose to remove the title at a time when discussions with the Orthodox churches have centred on the issue of papal primacy.

Try the spelling "centered" instead of "centred".

128.63.16.20 (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Makes far more sense. Whoops, got an edit conflict. Will try again. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 06:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC) I don't know what happened, but it's fixed.  Done A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 06:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Sexual orientation of Ratzinger

In Germany different publications, internetblogs and internetportals write, that Ratzinger ist gay. But he speaks not about his sexual orientation. This topic should be part of the biography. 178.11.191.77 (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

We can't include this information without a source. do you have one?Farsight001 (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

npov

The article currently portrays the pope as a defender of the children, which is not NPOV, because there are quite a few reliable sources saying the opposite.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/munich-abuse-case-archbishop-ratzinger-failed-to-deal-with-suspected-pedophile-priest-a-731683.html

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/sex-abuse-scandal-did-archbishop-ratzinger-help-shield-perpetrator-from-prosecution-a-684970.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/world/europe/26church.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/09/pope-benedict-xvi-stalled_n_532099.html

Trio The Punch (talk) 13:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't find any information about the pope's position on atheists in the article. Reliable sources say he likened the rise of atheism to Nazi Germany. Trio The Punch (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

May I direct you to WP:SOAP. Goodbye. Jeannedeba (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

May I direct you to WP:POV. Goodbye. Trio The Punch (talk) 09:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)