Talk:Papal conclave, October 1978

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Roman Curia (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the realms of the Roman Curia Taskforce, a joint taskforce of WikiProject Catholicism and WikiProject Vatican City and a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Roman Curia on Wikipedia. Please help us by improving a Roman Curia-related article, or visit the Taskforce Homepage or Talkpage, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

What is the Roman Curia?

"The Roman Curia is the complex of dicasteries and institutes which help the Roman Pontiff in the exercise of his supreme pastoral office for the good and service of the whole Church and of the particular Churches. It thus strengthens the unity of the faith and the communion of the people of God and promotes the mission proper to the Church in the world." - Ap. Const. Pastor Bonus, Art. 1
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Vatican City (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Vatican City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Vatican City State on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Catholicism (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Catholicism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
WikiProject Elections and Referendums  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 

Article merged: See old talk-page here —Preceding unsigned comment added by VirtualSteve (talkcontribs) 11:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Secret votes[edit]

Aren't the votes secret? How do we have them recorded? --Error 01:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you referring to the board? Those are not the votes, that's the distribution of the cardinals by continent. Other than that, after the conclave cardinals may well reveal who it was that they voted in. But that is done individually, there's no "report on the conclave", no sensus. Regards, Redux 02:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I thought the Cardinals pledged on the Gospels that they will not tell anything about what happened in the conclave...Is this a new rule instaured by Jean Paul II ?

Revas 21:14 18/04/05 (UTC)

Naming[edit]

Would this article be better placed at "Papal conclave, October 1978"? --Oldak Quill 10:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The standard wikipedia way of dealing with elections is [location election, year] Where a couple of elections take place in the one year, it is usually written as [location election, year (month)], for example Irish general election, 1982 (February). In this case papal replaces location, because many people in google searches may use papal in searches, while others mightn't immediately recognise what a conclave is, so papal contextualises it. FearÉIREANN 20:12, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Winner?[edit]

Am I the only one who finds the terms 'winner' and 'defeated' a bit out of place here? Elde 19:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is an election. Some people canvass for votes, though rarely for themselves. Someone wins. Ipso facto, there is a winner. FearÉIREANN 23:33, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree, there is no winner, because there is no official candidate. Someone is elected, but he is not a winner because he did not officially campaigned for. Revas 21:16 18/04/05 (UTC)

Oh really? Have you not seen the Ratzinger campaign in the last week? Conservatives know that Ratzinger has no chance of winning, but by hyping him up, they know other conservatives can appear moderate. Both 1978 conclaves saw campaigns around Benelli and Siri. If you think there are no campaigns you don't know how conclaves actually work, my friend. FearÉIREANN 21:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But it was not an official campaign. And you said that Ratzingerhas no chance of winning. And that's certainly true, and he knows it. So he is not "campaigning" in order to be elected. Both camps (conservatives and reformists) were counting there troops last week, but it doesn't make a campaign as we understand it. Revas 22:17 18/04/05 (UTC)