Talk:2005 papal conclave/Archive 3

Succession Order

In the Pope John Paul II article, it says that he was the 264th successor of Saint Peter. In this Papal conclave article, it says that they will be voting for the 265th pope. Wasn't John Paul II the 265th pope since he was the 264th successor? If this is true, then isn't the conclave voting for the 266th pope and not the 265th?

No...you are adding the same number twice.He was the 264th bishop of Rome as 263rd successor to St. Peter,and the new Pope will be 265th Bishop of Rome as 264th successor to St. Peter.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 05:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

Although John Paul II's successor has not yet been named, people have long said that "He who enters the conclave as pope, leaves it as a cardinal.

Maybe I'm being a bit thick today, but I don't understand this. Can someone provide some elaboration? Ben Arnold 07:25, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It means that the strongest "papabili" usually are not elected. For example Cardinal Siri, who was a "sure pope" in 1958 but was defeated by the surprise Angelo Roncalli, and Cardinal Benelli, front-runner in both 1978 election and defeated by Albino Luciani and Karol Wojtyla. On the other hand, Eugenio Pacelli and Giovanni Montini "entered the conclave as popes and leaved it as popes"

I expect that this is due to the most photogenic and media-ready Cardinals, who get far more exposure than those who are quieter, are often predicted to succeed–perhaps these types are counter to true papal expectations? --Oldak Quill 12:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Talk about media-ready Cardinals. Vow of Silence - Eyebrows have been raised at some cardinals behaviour. Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, a former curial official who was appointed as the Archbishop of Genoa in 2002 has been visiting the long queue of pilgrims, accompanied by a camera crew which recorded his every handshake. Meanwhile, Cardinal Renato Martino, who heads the Vaticans Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, has begun actively courting the press. -- KTC 00:34, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Carlo Maria Martini

I removed following sentence: The odds are against it, but it is theoretically possible that someone like the formerly papabile Cardinal Martini could be chosen by that route. Reason: Carlo Maria Martini is younger then 80, thus he takes part at the conclave! 83.65.250.91 12:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pronounciation

Norwegian television (NRK) has discovered Wikipedia, and as it turns out, one of the things they want is sound files with the pronounciation of the names of the papabili, especially the non-English names. Any chance that some native Spanish, Italian etc. speakers can make ogg-files of the names and upload them to Commons? Ctande 15:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Great idea - I'll get some people together. --Oldak Quill 15:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course, this would be more easily accomplished, and far more useful, with .wav files, for which everyone has the software needed, rather than the rather limited but obligatory .ogg - Nunh-huh

Actually, I should have included Portuguese in my wishlist - Norwegian television just pronounced Claudio Hummes" in a way that sounds like a comment upon his sexual preferences. Ctande 09:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That one is easy: forget the h (it is not pronounced); u sounds like english oo; mm sounds like m; e is barely spoken, it sounds more or less like e in Hume; s sounds like french ge (english j without the d sound), but you can pronounce it like an english s.

Anyway, it isn't a Portuguese or Brasilian name...

Suggestion

To avoid the possibility of causing offence as mentioned at the top of this article, perhaps it might make more sense to have a "running list" of cardinals, indicating who would be eligible under the present rules etc, leading off the main conclave page and, perhaps, from the (current pope) page. Thus, except during an actual interregnum the page would acknowledge that it is a hypothetical construct.

There is currently the List of Cardinals. All Cardinals, indeed, all male Roman Catholics, are eligable to become Pope. Eligibility only concerns who can vote. --Oldak Quill 18:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The most comprehensive list of current Cardinals in Wikipedia is at College of Cardinals,giving birthdates,nationalities,and positions for all of them.The List of Cardinals and List of Cardinals by country are more bare-bones,while the Category:Cardinals is missing some and the List of notable cardinals to maintain independent usefulness needs to be restricted to those of particular significance;both the latter two cover past as well as present cardinals.--Louis E./12.144.5.2 20:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

I think that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger is the most likely to become the next Pope. In the Catholic Church alot of people loved this Pope unlike any other and the election of Ratzinger would show that Pope John Paul II's legacy will be continued.

Also, I think the fact that he looks like he could be from Brazil or Venezuala will play strongly in his favor. The Church wants to elect a Pope that appeals to Latin America but, they seem to be reluctant to have a Latin American Pope.

papabili

We have to be careful to avoid original research and not compile a papabili list based on our own "expertise". Names that we list as papabili should be sourced. there was a recent book on the "next" papal conclave relased last year which much of the media is quoting. I think we should copy the list from that book and source it and when we add any names not on the list, mention the source that considers that candidate papabile. Otherwise, our list will be a product of our own speculation and thereby unecnyclopedic. AndyL 17:04, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In this case, our guess is as good as the press'. But yes, such a list may be useful. Sadly, the variety of factors that come into play during the conclave are so diverse that the list of papabili varies widely. --Oldak Quill 18:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Peter Hebblethwaite wrote a book after the 1994 consistory assuming the conclave was imminent;he died soon,the Pope didn't.Frank Young (Francis A. Burkle-Young) wrote a book (ISBN 1568331304) after the 1998 consistory assuming the conclave was imminent;he died in January.John Allen wrote a book after the 2001 consistory,assuming the conclave was imminent;the 2003 consistory intervened and I don't think anyone has written a book since.Allen seems to be a prominent talking head,but he's clueless enough to have said in a speech that only two of the 1958 cardinals predated Pius XII (there were thirteen,including many key figures).In correspondence with Young after his book,he consistently leaned toward Tettamanzi,who had been one of his book's five candidates;of the other four,two are retired and one dead,the other is Danneels.--Louis E./12.144.5.2 20:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In Pectore cardinal

The 'add in' by an anonymous contributor, about what the papal spokesman said, is incorrect. He said he did not know if the document left by the pope named the in pectore cardinal. He also did not say such a naming would be invalid. Church spokespeople are uncertain whether the naming of the cardinal in written rather than oral form is adequate, but they have not said that is not. It would appear right now to be an absolute rule that says the pope must reveal the in pectore cardinal's name vocally. Some canon lawyers say that the 'vocal' tradition is simply a precedent and all precedents by definition can always be replaced by a new precedent. Precedents (unwritten rules) are, as they say, not worth the paper they are written on (ie, worthless). It is hard to see anyone in the College of Cardinals objecting to Pope John Paul's in pectore cardinal being accepted as legitimate because the pope wrote it down rather than saying it, considering the fact that the end the pope could barely speak. That would be seen as giving the proverbial two-fingers to the late pope and showing contempt towards his vocal limitations at the end. It would also be seen as attacking the local church whose leader had been made cardinal. So the odds are that if the pope did name the in pectore cardinal in his testament, the man will be universally accepted as a valid cardinal. FearÉIREANN 19:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am as "nonymous" as someone who objects in principle to registration for websites can be,I am Louis Epstein,controller of the server at 12.144.5.2 and no one but me has used it to edit Wikipedia.I think you are mischaracterizing the situation on the in pectore appointment;there is a long tradition that posthumous documents elevating someone to the cardinalate are not sufficient,and the spokesman did say that no revelation was made before John Paul's death even if there is a written document.At what point will you accept the appointment as having lapsed?--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 02:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But it's not elevating someone that wasn't in the cardinalate to being in it. It's making public the name of someone that was already in it. If Canon Law experts & Curie people can't agree upon themseleves whether a written name on his will is enough, and publicly whether there was even a name in his will, then we the public can't say for certain that 1) it's not in it 2) it's not enough. -- KTC 12:27, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well,there are still precedents that after death is too late to reveal a prior decisionl;I hope today's statement by Navarro-Valls puts this issue to rest.[1] --Louis E./le@put.com/le@put.com

As they say, precedent can always be change by a new precedent. But yes, it doesn't matter either way now. -- KTC 14:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was revealed today that Pope John Paul II's last will and testament did not name the in pectore cardinal. --Gerald Farinas 15:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE ARCHIVE PAGE

BY THE WAY, COULD SOMEONE ARCHIVE THIS PAGE. I'M USING THE DAMNED I EXPLORER SO IT CUTS OUT AT 32K. SO I CANNOT DO THE ARCHIVE (THE PAGE IS 45K+). ALL I CAN DO IS ADD IN NEW SECTIONS. *Given the topic here I better not swear about explorer here!!! FearÉIREANN 19:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead. I dare you to swear about explorer! Hehe. (This coming from an awful Catholic schoolboy who worked as a political advisor to the most ultra-conservative politician in the United States and ended up in bed with another guy in the bedroom adjacent to the candidate on Election Night at the hotel with an empty bottle of vodka. Where did the "traditional Christian values" my boss campaigned on go?!)

Anyhoo, I moved the longer, non-active threads to a new archive page for you. --Gerald Farinas 15:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ha! I once worked by a rather conservative politician and shocked him by bringing my boyfriend to the party's Christmas Party in Leinster House, the parliament building. He was even more shocked when three of his key male staff brought their boyfriends too, and his secretary brought her girlfriend! If his son had brought his secret boyfriend he would have dropped dead with shock!!! FearÉIREANN 20:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Avoid Exact Numbers of Nations!!

To maintain a neutral position on certain political/nationalist matters,it's important not to use exact numbers for nations represented.Whether England and Scotland are counted separately or as part of the United Kingdom,for example,will offend someone either way.--Louis E./12.144.5.2 16:20, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone tell me exactly how they manage to count 3 Cardinal-electors for UK? Fine if you want to put together England & Scotland's together to make 2 and get rid of the seperate count. But exactly how is the retired Archbishop of Dublin counted to UK and not Republic of Ireland? (And yes, this is ignorning the problem of the Primate of Ireland and Primate of All Ireland crossing the boundary of Northern Ireland & Republic of Ireland.) -- KTC 17:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think counting England and Scotland together as part of the UK is offensive to anybody. On the other hand, the Irish stuff is really complicated. john k 19:02, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we could list Cardinals from England, Scotland and Wales as Great Britain and Cardinals from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland as Ireland. Isn't that what the Olympics do? (Alphaboi867 19:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC))

If only it could be that simple. Olympics country are based on National Olympic Committees. There's "country" that's not really a country there as well, for example Hong Kong. And of course, there's country that isn't represented, most notably in related to this article Vatican City. Also, Ireland in turns of Olympics I think refers to Republic of Ireland only as Northern Ireland is included in Great Britain. -- KTC 19:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is very simple. While politically Northern Ireland is part of the UK, in religion it is counted by all sides, both nationalist and unionist, as part of Ireland. The various churches, like some sports organisations (Irish Rugby Football Union, Gaelic Athletic Association, etc) never split with partition. So in the case of Ireland it is really simple. Bishops (both Anglican and Roman Catholic) from Northern Ireland dioceses are regarded as Irish bishops, never ever British bishops. In addition, many dioceses stretch across the border, again reflecting the fact that they don't in any way reflect the political divisions post 1922.

Contrary to general belief, the Primate of Ireland is not the primate of the Republic. Basically the Anglican and Roman Catholic Archbishops of Dublin found it irritating that, though based in the capital, they were of lower status than the Archbishop of Armagh, the Primate of all Ireland, even though the latter was based in what until recently was a town, not even a city, much less the capital city. The Primate of Ireland tag was simply a bit of ego massage for Dublin's archbishops. After partition, it allowed the Archbishop of Dublin to claim to be the head bishop in the south.

In doing articles on earlier conclaves, what I have done is to describe someone from their modern country if there is one, but with it stated in brackets what contemporary state that country existed as part of then. So Michael Cardinal Logue is described as (Ireland, part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) for the 1903 and 1914 conclaves, because in 1903 and 1914 Ireland was part of the UK of GB and I. But from 1922, when Ireland was split between two states, I'll simply say (Ireland). Similarly a polish cardinal in 1903 was from the part of Poland in the Austro-Hungarian Empire.So he is described as (Poland, part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire). He couldn't simply be called Polish as he was the person sent by the Austro-Hungarian Emperor to exercise the emperor's veto. So Austro-Hungarian Empire had to be mentioned for him, as did Poland.

We could use the same solution here regarding English and Scottish cardinals: Murphy-O'Connor could be called (England, part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). The only caveat would be that, given that the political unit called the UK has changed its name and boundaries, it is worth specifying which United Kingdom by using its full name. FearÉIREANN 20:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts - First, I think we should just use "Great Britain" and "Ireland" for the dignitaries from the British isles. This is what catholic-hierarchy.org does, and it seems to accord fairly well with reality. Secondly, for earlier conclaves, I think we should simply use the countries as they existed at the time. A Polish Archbishop of Cracow should be from "Austria-Hungary," one from the Russian part should be listed as from Russia, and one from the Prussian part as from Germany. Certainly, a Cardinal-Archbishop of Prague from the 19th century should not be referred to as from "the Czech Republic, part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire." john k 23:08, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fair point, John. The reason I put in Poland is because of the old edit war syndrome here. If I left it out I felt sure someone was going say 'that's wrong - Krakow is in Poland and so change Austro-Hungarian Empire for Poland. As to Prague, I would instinctively put in Bohemia. (Pity they didn't keep that name instead of the repulsive 'Czech' stuff!) FearÉIREANN 23:13, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you're doing the right thing. "Poland" and "Bohemia" have been known as geographical names for centuries, even when they weren't independent; the same is not true of "Czech Republic". As far as why the modern state is not called "Bohemia", my guess is that that's because the modern Czech Republic includes the historical province of Moravia as well as Bohemia. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 18:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe this has to do with the UK issue, but the article's number of electors by country totals up to 118 rather than 117. I corrected the number of European electors from 78 to 58, though the list by country indicates 59 from Europe. I'm sure the number 117 is correct, as that has been widely reported; maybe someone can figure out which country has one too many indicated? MisfitToys 18:19, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Meanwhile Susvolans went back to exact numbers (I went fuzzy again) saying "see talk" without putting any argument here on why an exact number would,as I contend,necessarily offend some nationalist or regionalist.The list by countries at Salvador Miranda's site counts 53,while the exact number often used here is 51...they are talking about the same 117 men's nationalities...where agreement is impossible,only a ballpark range is NPOV.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 19:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To solve the issue of whether Scottish or Northern Irish cardinals should be counted as hailing from separate nations or not, it seems like it'd be the best solution to list their origins as "Scotland, United Kingdom" much as in the United States we often include the state along with the country to account for regional differences. I know this is a bit of a stickier situation where there is more of a nationalist edge to things, but this is easily the best method of listing the exact numbers of countries from which the cardinals come without stepping on any toes. --PatadyBag 20:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So long as we say "Great Britain" I don't see why we need to do anything more to avoid ruffling the feathers of overly sensitive Scottish nationalists. john k 02:57, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But the dispute (if any) is not about England and Scotland though. I'm sure even Scottish nationalists whatever they want, recoginze the fact that as it stands, England, Scotland, Wales, & Northen Ireland is recoginze worldwide together as United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northen Ireland with the Queen as head of state and the British government at Westminster as the governing government.

The thing is with archdiocese such as the Irish's which crosses over national boundaries. Or maybe with area in which there is dispute by different sides as to the name/ownership. -- KTC 03:26, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually,the dispute IS about,among other things,treating England and Scotland as separate or one.Because this affects the use of an exact number of nations with voting cardinals,I have repeatedly removed insertions of an exact number in favor of "slightly over fifty",which is true enough whoever's count is used.The Salvador Miranda website counts England and Scotland separately and says there are 53 nations with cardinal electors.Others count 51 (UK as one and I'm not sure what other difference).AVOID USING AN EXACT NUMBER and nobody will say the number used is wrong!!--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 17:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not disputing about using exact number or otherwise. I'm happy enough to use the "slightly over fifty". I live in England, go to university in Scotland. Whatever one wants otherwise, everyone I know recoginze the fact that Scotland is part of UK. HOW can people count othewise if they use country political border? If there's any disagreement, first it haves to be about Ireland. That one actually cover and crosses over the boundaries of 2 countries !!! -- KTC 18:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...yeah, this may be best. john k 17:11, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Saw the request for comment and thought I'd take a look... one suggestion is to defer to the existing article List of sovereign states, where this issue has been explored exhaustively and apparently resolved to everyone's satisfaction. - Bantman 04:10, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Arms

They cannot be the arms during the sede vacante as they have no shield. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

According to http://www.vatican.va/, there is. --Oldak Quill 10:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does the title really need a comma?

How about Papal conclave 2005 or 2005 Papal conclave? zen master T 06:18, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The non comma version should be the acticle, the comma version should be the redirect but I guess it doesn't matter. zen master T 06:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I always thought commas in titles were ugly. However, it is the accepted form for election articles chosen by Wikipedia editors. I hate it; but I'm a nobody. --Gerald Farinas 14:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Many of the election articles have been changed to no comma I believe, I will check and fix further perhaps. We can make titles without commas the new standard if you want to? :-) zen master T 19:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The version including comma is the agreed version used by everyone making articles on elections. If you want to change it, you'd better debate it and get a consensus. The consensus right now is to use the comma and has been used for hundreds, probably thousands of election articles. The reason was simple. Some people wanted to say in, as in Papal conclave in 2005, while other used of, as in Papal conclave of 2005. It was getting extremely messy. A comma was judged to be the best compromise that allowed us to ditch the of versus in battle. Leaving it out and writing Papal conclave 2005 was judged to be grammatically poor and ugly. The comma was judged to be the best way to construct a grammatically correct title that avoided endless of versus in battles.

It was also agreed that all elections would be in the format [location election-type, year] and no other form. Year is at the end because people categorise elections firstly by means of where, then what. When is merely a form of disambigulation. When people want, for example, to look at the list of US presidential elections, or British general elections, the key question is firstly where was the election, then what type of election was it. Few people want to look through lists of elections by year. That is done by category. Wikipedia would look like a right ass if some elections are in one format and others in another. The community agreed the logic of following the format of where what, when and rejected other versions which were seen as illogical and unworkable.

As that is the format overwhelmingly agreed any articles moved unilaterally to a version that conflicts with the agreed consensus form are automatically reverted. With over 500,000 articles wikipedia simply cannot operate on the basis of everyone doing the version they want and ignoring the agreed format. And with vast numbers of election articles it simply is impracticable at this stage to change. We tried to change the agreed format for referring to Japanese monarchs some a year ago and it proved a disaster. The person who decided to change the format openly admitted to regretting starting it, and that only involved less than 100 articles. But it involved changing thousands of links. The guy ended up exhausted at having to spend weeks doing it. And half way through a major technical problem was found that had left over five hundred broken links. So all the changes had to be undone, then restarted all over again. The poor guy ended up saying he wished he had never started the whole thing. And he was only dealing with a fraction of the number of articles, and a small fraction of the links, that would be involved in changing how elections worldwide are categorised. FearÉIREANN 20:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)