Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 15

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

This archive covers discussions from April 26, 2005 to May 9.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive09. Thank you. Bratschetalk random 03:21, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Abuse cover-up

I read in Harper's Weekly today that Jo ordered Catholic bishops to hide allegations against pedophile priests from the public in 2001. Anyone have a primary source for this? —Christiaan 22:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Has been discussed several times here, including references to sources, one of them the letter in question, published on the Vatican website (in Latin though) here. -- Brazzy 08:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How come it's not in the article? Could see anything at the link you provided. —Christiaan 22:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You'll see it if you go to that link, then click on "history" at the top of the page, and then select the first version of that page. Ann Heneghan 12:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Right now it is in the article, mentioned in the "Behaviour in relation to sex abuse scandal" section, with the link to the actual letter as footnote no. 11 -- Brazzy 08:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
For information about this "secret" letter, with explanation and commentary, please see this link [1]. And please, please, could I appeal to everyone involved in writing the Wikipedia article about Pope Benedict - let us not put anything in the article that implies that Cardinal Ratzinger was involved in the cover up of sex abuse cases unless we have clear, verifiable evidence. Guilt by association simply does not belong in an encyclopedia article. Bishops took part in a shocking cover up (true); Ratzinger was a bishop (true); therefore Ratzinger was involved in the cover up (not very impressive logic). We all have our opinions. There are faithful Catholics who are blind to the failings of their leaders. There are faithful Catholics who are horrified by the dishonesty and disregard for children's safety shown by SOME leaders. There are former faithful Catholics who have been shocked and wounded out of their faith. And there are plain anti-Catholics. All four groups may be editing Wikipedia articles. My personal opinion on Cardinal Ratzinger's innocence or guilt in this matter is entirely irrelevant (though a visit to my User Page would certainly give some indication). Let's keep unverifiable accusations and insinuations out of the article. Ann Heneghan 12:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I had already mentioned this on the Talk Page. The comments can now be seen in Archive 10. That Archive at the moment looks blank, but the relevant section can be found by looking at the history of the page and then selecting the first version. As I said there, I listened to the entire RTE Radio interview with Cardinal Connell and also to his television interview the same day. There was not one word about the sex abuse cases. For that reason, I have removed that paragraph from the article page (for the second time). If it is put back in, it must be correctly referenced. However, I have very serious doubts as to whether it should go back in as it was, even with the correct reference. The paragraph that I removed said that Connell "revealed to RTE News that Cardinal Ratzinger had been one of his key advisors in how to deal with the large number of clerical abuse scandals which had hit the archdiocese". Apart from the fact that it wasn't to RTE News that he said it, it gives the impression that Ratzinger was in some way complicit in the absolutely disgraceful way that Cardinal Connell handled the situation (transferring paedophile priests without warning people in new parish, allowing victims to be bullied and threatened, giving misleading statements about cooperating with the police). From what I have read - and it appeared in The Daily Star - the only thing that Connell actually referred to was the advice to sell land. That advice would have come after the scandal had broken. I understand that some people may sincerely believe that Ratzinger was complicit in the cover up, which left children in danger, but I don't think that such allegations and insinuations belong in an encyclopedia article. I have read the Daily Star article carefully, and (1) it's not a transcript, (2) it doesn't say what information Connell gave to Ratzinger (I can't imagine he said, "By the way, I have a couple of priests who have been molesting children, so I'm going to transfer them without warning the people in their new parishes, and I'll give a few misleading statements to the press, and I'll see if the victims can be either intimidated or bribed into hushing the whole thing up - what do you think?"), (3) the "key advisor" bit is editor's voice, not Connell's voice, and (4) the only policy that Connell actually mentions in the article is the one of selling land. So surely to put in the article that Connell revealed that his handling of the affair was guided by Ratzinger, and then to go straight on and refer to Connell's controversial "loan" and his attempt to prevent Andrew Madden from reporting the abuse to the police is unfair. Unless we have evidence that Connell told Ratzinger truthfully about the extent of the abuse and that Ratzinger told him to hush it up and to lie, even if it meant leaving children in danger, then we should not insert something that gives that impression. Ann Heneghan 08:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have listened to the interview twice. He spoke about how Ratzinger had in 'crucial' as someone he turned to for advice about handling the crisis. Joe Little asked him whether he spoke to and was influenced by Ratzinger in his handling of the sex abuse crisis that was overwhelming the diocese. He said "of course", and how Ratzinger was a great support to him through that time. I had hoped that RTE would put up the story on the website but not for the first time they didn't use their interview on the website (they really need to start putting links up to their interviews. Last week the 'inadvertently' left a lead story from the 9 O'clock off the website! They can be a pain in the butt sometimes!) I asked Joe when he gets back from his holidays to have them put the link up. He said he will try. But yes Connell did say it. But RTÉ may be nervous as it was rather a big allegation for Connell to make. Des (as anyone who knows him personally can confirm) may be tactless but he wouldn't say that unless it happened. But then there are whispers of a big case covered up on Ratzinger's orders in Europe. And his attempts to cover up the case of Fr Marciel Maciel, who has been widely accused by former seminarians of sex abuse (including having children masturbate him, telling them Pope Pius XII had said he could have it done!) is a crisis that could yet engulf him. Ratzinger himself was directly involved for years in advising churchmen on how to deal with sex-abuse cases. FearÉIREANN 22:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would be very interested in hearing that interview. Obviously it was not the same one that I listened to. I apologize for taking out that extract on false grounds, but believe that it should still remain out of the article for the other reasons I mentioned, and, of course, for the reason that the article is already too long. You say that Cardinal Connell "wouldn't say that unless it happened". Does that mean that you think he never gives misleading statements. What about "I compensated nobody" (it was just a loan), and "the archdiocese is cooperating with the gardai" (but not cooperating fully)?
I don't wish to use a Wikipedia talk page to express my disappointment at Cardinal Connell, who was my Bishop. However, it does seem obvious that he handled sex abuse cases disgracefully, and that, when found out, he was evasive and took refuge in excessive use of the passive voice and of words like "mistakes". The problem is not that he tried to hush it up; the problem is that he left offending priests in positions where they were still free to molest children. If I had discovered that some bishop, on learning of these offenses, had tried to keep the story from the general public so as to avoid scandal, but had sent the offending priest to an enclosed monastery where he would never have access to children, and had taken steps to ensure that the priest's superior and his superior's successors would know of the problem, I would not have turned a hair. It seems that Cardinal Connell left children in danger, although the media have, I think, made some accusations against him which were groundless.
The article, however, is not about Cardinal Connell, but about Pope Benedict. I think it is inappropriate to throw more mud at the new pope, based on an interview with a man who handled a very serious situation abonimably, and who specializes in making excuses. Have you ever heard Cardinal Connell talking about the sex abuse cases in a way that made you feel that he was frank, honourable, and direct? Have his interviews given the impression that he would have been very honest with Cardinal Ratzinger, and would have made sure Ratzinger knew of the extent of the problem and of his own failings in dealing with it? My impression of Cardinal Connell is that if he mentioned it at all, his speech would have been full of half truths, passives, modalities, and subordinate clauses. Can you really imagine him saying to Ratzinger, "Fr X has admitted molesting several children, so I'm going to move him to Parish Y, and say nothing to his new superior. What should I do if victims ask for money?" Some Wikipedia editors may privately be happy to blame Ratzinger for Connell's crimes. Unless the article makes it clear that it is not known how much information Connell gave to Ratzinger or what advice he received, I think we should leave it out. Ann Heneghan 10:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have made a change to the article where it said that Ratzinger had sent a letter reminding bishops of strict penalties for those who referred allegations of sexual abuse by priests to outside authorities. The secrecy related not to the abuse, but to the investigation. (Aren't juries sworn to secrecy in secular courts?) There is nothing in the letter to discourage victims or their parents from reporting the abuse to police, lawyers, or media.[2] The article, as it stood, suggested that victims might have been punished for reporting abuse to police. Ann Heneghan 12:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Photo Credits Need To Go Back

Not sure when they were removed (I don't have the stamina to go to the history page) but images that came from Reuters or AP need to be credited in the caption to prevent any adverse reaction from those organizations. I believe we have legitimate fair use claims on the images since they came from the Vatical press pool but we need to have credit on the images where they are used in addition to their pages.

When the page is unprotected It would be nice if they could go back, they were small and unobtrusive so I'm hopeful everyone will agree with their necessity.

--Wgfinley 22:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I have found a few photos online, but I need to email a few people and found out how they are used. Plus, had we used photos from the Vatican press pool before without any problems? Zscout370 (talk) 23:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The photos from the press pool we have claimed fair use on, however, if the distributing agency is known we have been crediting it as they still have rights to the distribution. I've fixed it now so that they're there, again, I made them small and unobtrusive so that we give the credit but it's subtle, I think it's similar to any other site where you would find photo credits properly given. --Wgfinley 03:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Please do not undo the archiving of the pages. If this archiving did not happen, the page would be really, really long. The page wasn't blanked on purpose, FYI. If you need to research anything, just go back up into the archives to find a subject. There are also a few subject-specific archives covering some major issues. Thanks, Bratschetalk random 23:03, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Issue about "No Tiara"

I believe it'll not be a surprise not to have a tiara there. Ever since Pope Paul VI decided himself to be the last to be crowned, Pope Benedict XVI is the 3rd pope without the tiara. To signal to complete end to "coronation", I think they might use a mitre to replace the tiara. Sir Luis 12:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, the papal mitre with golden stripes from the CoA can now be called a "tiara"... Who knows. Ausir 18:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since Paul VI sold the tiara, it would be difficult for Benedict XVI to wear it:) jguk 23:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are at least 12 others in the Vatican. So if Ben wanted to wear one, there would be no problem whatsoever. But the new 'mitre' on the supposed coat of arms (which still has not been confirmed, BTW. An Irish journalist supposedly enquired about the new Coat of Arms and was told 'there is none, yet' two days ago) is curious. It casts a poor light of Ben. If it showed a plain mitre that would be one thing. But it allegedly has three stripes meaning that it carries exactly the same meaning as the triple tiara. So at first glance the use of a mitre (if that is what it is) suggests humility and declining of power, yet the three stripes means that the same claim to power is still there and can be seen by those who can read the signs. In other words, it would suggest he doesn't have the honesty to admit to claiming power, but creates the lie of the supposedly humble mitre which cleverly makes all the same power. A plain mitre or an ordinary tiara would be being honest. A tiara-styled mitre is just a dishonest gimic. FearÉIREANN 23:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The tiara was the symbol of the Pope's spiritual and temporal jurisdiction over: (1) the diocese of Rome; (2) patriarchate of the West; and (3) the Papal States. The latter was lost to the nation of Italy during the pontificate of Blessed Pius IX. The mitre is a symbol of the office of bishop which Pope Benedict exercises as the bishop of the diocese of Rome and the Patriarch of the West (Roman Catholic Church). The pallium is a symbol of the yoke of servitude as chief Shepherd that Pope Benedict undertakes in his Petrine ministry to feed his "sheep." I suppose he could have used a patriarchal galero instead of the mitre... but I think he was conscious of ensuring that the symbols associated with his papacy underscore his first statements about being a humble servant in the vineyard of the Lord. Via il Papa!! Aloysius Patacsil 23:32, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

That is not actually what they meant. They are interpreted to mean variously

  • Universal Pastor (top), Universal Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction (middle) and Temporal Power (bottom), or
  • the three-fold office of Christ, who is Priest, Prophet and King, or
  • 'Church Militant on earth', the 'Church Suffering after death and before heaven', and the 'Church Triumphant in eternal reward', or
  • the Pope's roles as lawgiver, judge and teacher.

When popes were crowned, the words 'Father of princes and kings, Ruler of the world, Vicar of our Saviour Jesus Christ' were used That may indeed be the meaning. But not diocese of Rome, Patriarchate of the West, and Papal States, because the addition of the third of the tiaras occured long after papal rule in the Papal States had begun. So your explanation does not fit the timeframe. FearÉIREANN 01:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gone is the beehive-shaped crown whose actual use in important ceremonies was abandoned during the papacy of Paul VI. For Pope Benedict's ensign, the more modest and recognizable miter has taken its place.
But the silver miter has three gold stripes to mirror the symbolism of the papal tiara's three tiers: "order, jurisdiction and magisterum," said Archbishop Cordero Lanza di Montezemolo, who had served as an apostolic nuncio for more than 20 years. [3] Ausir 05:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


From the Vatican website. Zscout370 (talk) 00:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • A different one, but at the same link that is displayed above. Zscout370 (talk) 11:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Official Vatican Website

Ok, this website, is the official Vatican website of the Holy Father. It is quite empty now, but expect something in the next few months. Zscout370 (talk) 00:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you click on the date, you get, which has much more information. — WCityMike (T | C) 02:10, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Stop Over-archiving

Please discontinue archiving. The page WILL NOT get "too long", this is what TOC's are for; it allows you select the subject you find interesting. Long discussions are normal for high traffic articles. You are fragmenting discussions which are on-going; archives are for discussions which have been settled. - RoyBoy 800 16:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. Pages can get too long. If they go over 32K some browsers cannot enter them. That is why when you exceed 32K a warning message shows at the top of the page. This page was on the brink of being too long and was correctly archived on time. In contrast the page on Benedict is too long and needs severe editing as it now cannot be entered by people using certain types of browsers. FearÉIREANN 19:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Once the page is unlocked, I will see what myself and others can crack out. Though I will ask for the page to be unprotected probably tomorrow. Zscout370 (talk) 19:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I understand that - and I've read the documentation when I joined Wikipedia, but its a guideline - not a hard rule. To limit a page to 32k with this much activity is an inconvenience to the vast majority who have adequate browsers. I'm not wrong on that; and the necessity of doing it is a matter of perspective. Who is actually effected by this 32k limit? If there are contributors effected there has to be alternatives to this. The Terri Schiavo pages are HUGE, but as things quiet down they will be archived/split appropriately afterward. - RoyBoy 800 19:49, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Actually it is rule that is enforced regularly. Articles over 32K are regularly broken up. That is why Pope John Paul II was broken up to. This one is now 57K so is going to have to be halved. And yes the problem is widespread. That is why the rule was introduced. What happens is that those with problematic browsers who enter a page and save it inadvertently wipe everything over 32K. (I saw it happen twice this week already.) It doesn't matter if it is 1%, 10% or 50% of users. If someone cannot enter an article or a talk page because of a problem with a mainstream browser (some versions of Internet Explorer are notorious for this problem) then wikipedia is discriminating against some wikipedians, and that isn't acceptable. All articles over 32K are being systematically broken up to make them usable to everyone. This one is one the list. Text will probably be hived off into sectionalised articles, the way the funeral of Pope John Paul II was moved from the main JPII article, and why the list of papabili was moved from Papal conclave, 2005. FearÉIREANN 22:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well then Wikipedia needs to engage in a Firefox campaign and troublesome browsers need to be stopped from editing when they've encountered their limit. Yeah, I'm discriminating people into getting free software! Call to arms! :"D Hey, you're preaching to the choir... I know that ultimately smaller articles are easier to read, that's why I split Social problems in Chinatown; however I continue not to take the 32k limit seriously. Reiterating the topic; archiving every - single - day, is as Bratsche put it, overzealous. - RoyBoy 800 04:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That's not a reasonable solution. We don't want page wipe-out, and I don't think Wikipedia (a registered non-profit) is going to campaign on behalf of a software. The archiving is going to happen. If you don't want to fragment dicussions, copy and paste some of the relevant text in the archive to the current talk page for a better discussion. Bratschetalk random 04:24, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
I was kidding a bit, but I don't see a conflict for a non-profit to encourage people to use non-profit open source software like Firefox; or ANY software that doesn't have ridiculous variable limitations. This should seriously be a non-issue shortly. - RoyBoy 800 05:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I am condensing the archives and I asked the user doing the archiving to slown down a bit. Zscout370 (talk) 16:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • RoyBoy, is the above TOC archive what you wanted to see or something completely different? Zscout370 (talk) 16:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Archives by topic is a good innovation, but if those archives cannot be edited, you still get severe fragmentation and inconvience (although it appears you can edit them, so that placates me). I want to see the discussions for at least the past week in one place. Perhaps I've stepped into a new arena here since an article on the Pope is Euro centric. Do Europeans have a higher incidence of the 32k limitation? - RoyBoy 800 19:49, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No idea man. I am in the States and I have no problem getting this article. Hey, if things get bad enough, I could test my mic skills and see if I can make an audio version of the article (or the intro, at least). Plus, I will do the topics only, since I think many of the issues that we are talking about, we have been talking about like crazy (the arms, photos, vandalism/locking, etc). Zscout370 (talk) 19:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've only been archiving the talk pages in order to prevent accidently blanking by user whose browsers don't support the large pages. I guess I've been a little overzealous archiving, hmm ;). Really, what is needed is more of those subject specific pages, but it's a pain to go though all of the archives and paste the relevant information on the new page. Oh well, better start crackin'! Bratschetalk random 21:21, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Someone said stop over-archiving, people listened. But have we now gone from over-archiving to no archiving??? -- KTC 12:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I think many subjects are still being debated now, though we can move old talk into the empty archives page. Zscout370 (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Name Selection

From the Vatican Website, stated on 4/27/2005:"It is with great joy that I welcome you and also greet those following this audience through radio and television. After the holy death of my beloved predecessor, Pope John Paul II, I come before you today for my first General Audience. Filled with sentiments of awe and thanksgiving, I wish to speak of why I chose the name Benedict. Firstly, I remember Pope Benedict XV, that courageous prophet of peace, who guided the Church through turbulent times of war. In his footsteps I place my ministry in the service of reconciliation and harmony between peoples. Additionally, I recall Saint Benedict of Norcia, co-patron of Europe, whose life evokes the Christian roots of Europe. I ask him to help us all to hold firm to the centrality of Christ in our Christian life: May Christ always take first place in our thoughts and actions!" His first General Audience. Zscout370 (talk) 17:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Glad that is taken care of. Now, let's see about the arms! Zscout370 (talk) 01:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why didn't he choose a name like Pius MDCCLXXVI? Unless he does some big deeds, he'll be forgotten about half a century after his death. In the series of Roman numerals, you won't be able to tell Benedict III from Benedict VII from Benedict XVI. --WhiteTimberwolf 08:19, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
How would naming himself Benedict the 1776th would change that? And BTW, the Pope gets to choose his name, not the ordinal number attached to it for distinguishing purposes. Any irregularities in the numbering is either due to mistakes of historians (like forgetting to number a "John XX") or the problem of anti-popes (two Clemens VII, two John XXIII). First historians included anti-popes in the numbering (which then was strictly confined to history books), but in the 15th century (probably due to the Great Schism) the Popes themselves cared about the numbering, included it into official announcements and refused to acknowledge the numbers of anti-popes, as that might be considered "posthumously legimitizing" them.

Str1977 11:02, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Its about time to Unprotect

If I am counting correctly, the page has been locked for somewhere around two days. I understand it was, at one time, being vandalised. But that person was banned, and I think its been long enough. The normal flow of editing needs to occur, the article is by no means finished and does need work. Rangeley 20:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Once I get home, I will try to fill out a Unprotection Request, unless someone beats me to it. No matter whatever happens, I give my support for unprotection. Zscout370 (talk) 20:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This locking should not have happened. clearly anti catholics wanting to destroy the energy to make this a good article. i have requested it be unblocked at the appropriate page. Please unlock now, I strongly oppose it's locking, --SqueakBox 20:29, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

The reason it was locked was because of persistent vandalism, which reached a level where it was being vandalised every minute or two at one stage. The vandal had already been blocked once and had come back and begun again. They were blocked a second time under their latest IP. When a vandal shows a willingness to keep coming back under different identities, locking the page for a couple of hours or a day doesn't work. A two day block gets rid of them. They come back the first day, find they can't do anything and go away frustrated. If they come back a second day and still can't do any vandalism they usually give up and go away for good. Because of their persistence a two day block was the best way to get rid of this person. If it had been shorter they would be back now, and tomorrow, and we'd still be in a revert-a-minute edit war every couple of hours.
It is inconvenient for decent users, but it would have been even more inconvenient if you found your good edits being vandalised, and that you could not add to the article because everytime you tried to save something you found yourself in edit conflicts with the vandal or someone reverting. I've been there and when that happens the page becomes unusable for days on end. Rather than have days of messy edit conflicts, a two-day lock meant that you now have time to make changes without being effectively locked out anyway for far longer with edit conflicts. Arwel unlocked it. I was about to do that. Locking is a last resort, but sometimes the only way. It was in this case. FearÉIREANN 02:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Squeek. If you need support/backers on this idea, just tell me, I will support you. Zscout370 (talk) 20:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Unprotected. -- Arwel 20:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not a soapbox

This article should not be employed as a soapbox from which to express unrelated political views. plain_regular_ham 20:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"His stance, in accordance with Catholic doctrine, should not be confused with conservatism in a purely political sense. Note, for instance, his opposition to positions held by some American conservatives, e.g. on the death penalty and preemptive war and his emphasis on social justice and opposition to the excesses of capitalism and consumerism."

This editorial on "American Conservatives" has no basis in the article. Quotes from the Pope on such issues would be appropriate, but need not be assigned to "American conservatives". If somebody can explain why this assignment is appropriate in an article about the leader of the Catholic Church, please enlighten me.

Because many readers of the article are Americans, and it is helpful to compare and contrast the positions of Church doctrine to those of various American political views, rather than to simplistically brand it as "conservative" or "liberal". Firebug 20:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It appears as though "various" views were not compared. This is soapbox opportunism and we all know it. Let's have some integrity with regard to the purpose of the entry.plain_regular_ham 21:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think, the point of the paragraph in question is to warn readers to simply equate Benedict, supposedly a conservative cardinal and pope, with politicians of the conservative brand, regardless of what nation. Of course there are some agreements between BXVI (both as a person and as representing the Church) and political conservatives (or some pol-con) and some disagreements. Also the dualistic lib-con divide is really a political thing (and a very US thing too) and IMHO is not really appropriate in Church matters. Str1977 09:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The following was from the end of the "Overview" section:

"What some call his conservative stance should not be confused with conservatism in a political sense. Note, for instance, his opposition to capitalism and consumerism."

If anyone feels that it can be rephrased in some way that makes sense and makes it relevant to the article, it would be welcome. plain_regular_ham 18:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dear Ham, Is it a call to rephrase or is it your suggestion? From what you've posted, it now looks like Benedict is opposed to capitalism per se, not just excesses or extreme forms. Yes, excesses is a relative term - in this case it'd be relative to Benedict's opinion. But it's also clear that we need an example, otherwise the meaning will get lost. Also I'm a bit uneasy about the "What some call ..." Yes, sometimes we have to resort to such phrases to incorporating judgements while distinguishing them from objective truth, but I think in this case, a "His views" or the like should be enough. Thanks again anway, Str1977 17:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for the lack of signature (and clarity) on referenced post.
This "Not a Soapbox" section is with regard to the following (not my writing) which I removed from the end of the "Overview" section.
"His stance, in accordance with Catholic doctrine, should not be confused with conservatism in a political sense. Note, for instance, his opposition to positions held by some American conservatives, e.g. on the death penalty and preemptive war and his emphasis on social justice and opposition to the excesses of capitalism and consumerism."
If anybody sees the part I removed as necessary to the article, please let me know why. I can assure you in advance that a great deal of revision will be needed to justify it in my mind. plain_regular_ham 18:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I see it as important, because a Catholic religious conservative is a different thing from a political conservative, at least in the United States and probably in most places. It might give the wrong idea to people who know next to nothing about Catholicism (like me), by implying that Benedict's positions are similar to those of political conservatives in their own country. While that paragraph is not written in an encyclopedic tone (use of the second person, especially) and seems slightly POV, something like it is a good idea. Nickptar 18:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. I would agree with you except that there was no mention of 'Catholic religious conservativsm' near the piece. In fact, specifically saying 'religious conservative' or 'Catholic conservative' would make further explanation unnecessary. I will welcome any contribution that is not intended to reflect negatively on a particular group. ::plain_regular_ham 19:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Dear Ham and dear Nickptar,
I understand the point of such a passage as an antidote to putting Benedict (or anyone else for that matter) into simplifying pigeonholes. However, with the liberal quote now posted this is happening again, only from the other side.
Without some reference to his attitudes towards social justice, capitalism, etc, (all very well documented, by the way,) this paragraph simply has the effect of pigeon-holing him as an "ultra-conservative". Those issues where he doesn't conform to the media stereotype need to be referred to for the sake of balance. I will have a go at writing a version which hopefully will be acceptable to all - if you don't think it well-expressed by all means try to rewrite it constructively but please don't simply delete it (unless the entire paragraph of which it is a part is deleted.) Vilcxjo 16:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It appears that you had clicked on 'Save' about the same time I wrote another note. Your contribution was very well thought out. I hope you don't mind, but I made reference to the article that called the Pope's statements 'condemnations'. After all, he did not come out and say 'I condemn capitalism.' or 'I condemn communism.'. That was somebody's analysis of his statements, which I also referenced. Excellent work Vilcxjo. Thanks for the unbiased translation. plain_regular_ham 17:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, thanks Vilcxjo.
But I still don't like that it just says "capitalism" instead of "excesses of capitalism", as the linked article said, or something along the line of: unbridled, unchecked, unlimited etc. I know, Ham, it's a relative term and also a matter of judgement, but now it reads like he had condemned capitalism per se. That works in German, where capitalism has a narrower meaning and negative connotations, but not in English where, I think, capitalism is a synonym for market economy. Any native speaker of English, please correct me if I'm mistaken.
Str1977 19:05, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Here's the trouble though Str... We are now talking about what CNN said (regarding what the Pope said). If their analysis of his meaning is wrong, we should go back to leaving the whole enchilada out because it is all based on what CNN reported (true or not). plain_regular_ham 14:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Ham, yes, I didn't like the cnn article as well, though mainly for its misleading definition of "liberation theology", its hypocritical reference to "religious pluralism", its wrong attribution of the late Pope's "failure" to restrain him because of their long-lasting friendship and his supposed "centralism". Now, enough of ranting. You probably have read my (unanswered) entry on the distinction between B16's personal theology and his work as head of CDF. Also further down the are complaints about the entry section being too long. What I'm going to do is this: I'm going to move "our problematic sentence" as well as the "other issues" from the CDF section over to the theology page. There will be some reworking going on there, though probably not today. Str1977 19:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church

I have made a couple of changes to correct inaccuries.

  • The link to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Many Anglicans also view themselves as part of this, and do not regard the Pope as their head. (At the Anglican Christchurch Cathedral we prayed last Sunday using the words "one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in the creed.) There is no need for any link there. The link is already in to the RC Church. I've simply said Church instead of the HC + A Church.
I've added a link to an existing article on marks of the church. Aloysius Patacsil 02:02, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • The correct terminology for the Pope's responsibilities vis-a-vis the Vatican is that he reigns as popes are elective monarchs.
  • He was not in any sense installed at the Inauguration Mass. The correct term describing the inauguration of a monarch is enthroned. Enthroned covers both inaugurations and coronations, and the pope does officially sit on the papal throne/throne of St Peter and that is still the official description.

The previous opening was full of wrong links, potentially offensive comments to Anglicans, and wrong terminology. FearÉIREANN 22:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And the Eastern Orthodox Church considers itself to be the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" and denies that "heterodox" churches such as the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches are part of that body. Michael Hardy 02:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe that the Orthodox and Catholic Churches view one another as heterodox. They view each other as schismatic. The Anglicans, of course, are a different matter. john k 04:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In the Christianity of the sub-apostolic age the patriarchs of the churches were considered equal and autocephalous; the Patriarch of Rome was accorded the title primus inter pares in ecumencial councils by virtue of its Petrine origin - but history shows that divisions over the church's identity continued to unfold. The claim by the Roman see that its primacy was temporal as well as spiritual in the forgery known as the Donation of Constantine did not help matters much. Aloysius Patacsil 02:20, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
I always thought the primacy had to do as much with its location (in Rome, the capital of the Empire) as with any Petrine origin - which, at any rate, was shared with Antioch, also founded by Peter, supposedly. john k 04:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You're right, John. Rome, Antioch and Alexandria (through St Mark, pupil of St Peter) are considered petrine sees and as such were the first (and only) patriarchates. Rome was considered first, as Peter died there, hence tying his bark at this city. Also of importance is that St Paul died there too.(It has however nothing to do with Rome being the Imperial city, at least not directly, of course Peter went to Rome for a reason) The disputes are not about the primacy but more about what that primacy means, is it just an honorary title or does it include real authority.
As for your former post, some Eastern Orthodox people view the RCC as heterodox/heretical but that shouldn't be generalized.
Str1977 13:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Aloysius, I wouldn't use the term autopcephalous in regards to the early times, as this is more of a legal claim, made since the 5th century, whereas in the first centuries the churches were separated for more "natural reasons". And there have been very early Roman directives (Clement I, Easter date dispute)
The temporal rule of the Popes however was not based on the forgery called Donation of Constantine, but stemming of the practical development of Italy's situtation, with the Pope filling in for a far away Emperor, and legally based on the donation of Pippin, King of the Franks. The DoC was only an attempt (noone knows for sure by whom) to date this state of affairs back into the times of Constantine. The document was already contested by Otto III, who however didn't have any practical disagreements about the Pope ruling in Rome.
Str1977 13:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


The footnotes are driving me nuts. The named ref/note approach is fine; what's needed is a (matching) automatic ordering of both, preferably so that if there are three refs to the same named note, then the note copes with that in a way that avoids needless duplication. eg

  • ...
  • 3. bla
  • 4. blabla
  • 5,17,74 blablabla
  • 6,8. er
  • 7. stuff
  • ...

Rd232 11:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • This is the first time I dealt with footnotes (which is a pain to even set up), but if anyone wants to give that idea a shot, thats fine with me. Zscout370 (talk) 11:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He was not definitively against pre-emptive war

I am a Roman Catholic Theology student at an orthdox Roman Catholic university. I have read three of Pope Benedict's books, and I follow news of the Church and current events closely. I assure you, Pope Benedict has not made any definitive statement on preemptive war. People keep putting preemptive war in this Wikipedia article as though Pope Benedict were against it. The truth is, the matter of preemptive war is still being discussed by the Church, and neither Pope Benedict, nor any other official from the Vatican, has put out an official teaching on it. Pope Benedict has never issued a doctrinal statement on preemptive war. He did, in some interviews, express displeasure at the specific event of the US invasion of Iraq, but he did not then expand this to say that he is against all preemptive wars. Catholic doctrine includes belief in such a thing as a justly fought war (Just War). Many theologians are now discussing whether, in our modern day and age, the doctrine of Just War must be expanded to include preemptive war, or if preemptive war is already tacitly included elsewhere in the teachings of the Church. Some day, Pope Benedict XVI might, or might not, issue a teaching on the matter, but until then, this article needs to be corrected by removing the claim that B16 (Pope Benedict XVI) is against preemptive war. Jack

The invasion of Iraq was a preventive war, not a preemptive war. john k 19:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, John, but the invasion of Iraq was not a preventive war in the classical sense, but a preemptive war, which is a recent extension from the preventive war. Whether such an extension is acceptable ("tacitly included")actually is the question and both JP2 and B16's comments on this specific preemptive war may indicate their stance on the whole issue. However, Jack is right in saying there is no Church teaching on this new category of war, but that also doesn't mean it (the war itself or the category) is acceptable under "Just war doctrine".
Str1977 09:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Generally, only opponents of the war suggest that it was either preventative or preemptive. Proponents usually classify it is a continuation of the first Gulf War affter SH failed to meet the terms of the armistice which had concluded the active hostilities. As such, questions of preemption didn't enter into it, the war began when SH invaded Kuwait. A universally recognized causus belli.--Samuel J. Howard 02:21, May 7, 2005 (UTC)


The Manual of Style vote is clearly running against use of prefixed styles. Pending final outcome and consensus, the contentious (and minority position) prefix should not be used. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:02, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

Lulu, I think you are jumping the gun. Right now we don't even have any alternative which achieves a supermajority of 3:1 against the default position, and even if the numbers might be running in one direction at one moment, they might run in the other direction in the next, and we don't need to keep changing and reverting pages all over the place while the survey continues. If you act like it's all over at the half-way point, you aren't respecting the process, and then even if your preference wins, those who disagree with you will say, why should we respect the process either? So I'm saying, leave it be. Making people angry at you won't win support for your position. By all means, publicize the survey appropriately if you think editors aren't sufficiently aware it's going on, discuss it on relevant talk pages, etc., but don't go enforcing an outcome that doesn't exist yet. Whig 08:39, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

The first link of the first paragraph makes little sense. Holiness links to the word discussion. Later there is a link to His Holiness, the title. I am not going to edit this, since it has been a hotly discussed topic, but I wanted to point it out. NoSeptember 13:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please someone in the know about the discussions (elsewhere) about styles have a look into the first paragraph. Unless the policy is changed now, there should be "His Holiness" (without links) in the beginning. Str1977 16:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there should be, unless titles are removed from the beginning of other articles on kings, princes, prime ministers, etc. Whether or not everyone thinks the pope is holy is of no more (or less) relevance than whether or not everyone thinks that Tony Blair is honourable, Queen Elizabeth II is majestic, and Prince Rainier was serene. Either the pope should be left with his official title at the beginning of the article, or all Wikipeda articles about people with titles should be changed. Ann Heneghan 16:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That was the consensus before the page was protected: include the title "His Holiness" without a link at the top, link the phrase in the middle of the paragraph. NoSeptember 16:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You mean there was a consensus at the end?? All I can remember was this huge edit war on JPII page when he died, JPII & B16 page when B16 was elected. Don't know, things kinda got blury after a while seeing exactly the same arguements given over and over again in more than one page.... ;-) KTC 17:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I guess the page locking probably made people stop worrying about reverts/vandalism and just worry about the issues at hand. I also think many people are not watching this page now as there were before. Zscout370 (talk) 17:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"You mean there was a consensus at the end??" LOL Yes, by consensus I mean a paper thin majority. :) NoSeptember 17:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This subject is currently being voted upon at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles. Whig 09:18, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So, before the vote is completed, how should the style be in the article? Zscout370 (talk) 16:06, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that if an existing policy exists to use prefixed-style, then it should be kept until and unless changed. It could be footnoted to the survey if that is seen to aid the editors in being made aware of the survey and to encourage participation. Whig 20:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
For this page, it mostly has been agreed to start it with "His Holiness Benedict XVI." Those who changed it see their edits reversed in a short amount of time. Zscout370 (talk) 23:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sidebar from the Manual of Style Survey

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters is back to his own tricks. He proceeded to doctor in style again, this time to add in a reference to say in effect that a vote is taking place to take out the style. Wikipedians are not supposed to add in footnotes to articles outlining their private gripe. It is nothing short of vandalism to do that. I've reverted it. (People on that page seem to spend most of their time having to undo Lulu's vandalism there.) And to add insult, he described his edit with the line That Jguk certainly is quite a vandal (time for an RFC?))

Lulu's behaviour shows complete contempt for those of us trying to find a consensus here. What sanction should be taken? FearÉIREANN 00:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

(Whig said for this message to appear here). Zscout370 (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Zscout370 and Jtdirl are among those trying to impose their stylistic preferences by dishonest means--contrary to the general consensus, and before the vote on usage has been completed. Jguk is clearly the worst of these, but the above two are close second and third (not necessarily in order). The footnote I restored, of course, was written by the Wikipedian conducting the vote, Whig. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:19, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
Lulu: The style has been debated before this poll was taken. It was agreed to (and check the archives) that the style should remain. Though I voted for the consensus to keep the style, that is something the group has wanted to do. I have not edited this page today, but it has been reverted a few times to have the style included. As mentioned above, Whig said the style can stay until the vote has been completed. Until that vote is complete (which I did vote on anyways and my voting perferences is not POV pushing), the style should remain. Zscout370 (talk) 02:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
I did check the archive, and can find no evidence whatsoever that consensus was reached on this usage. What I can find evidence of is Jguk unilaterally changing the Wikipedia style guide to duplicitously force the usage in the JP2 page (before the death of JP2). User:Whig, of course, was the person who added the footnote to make readers aware of the usage vote. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:31, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
Jguk did revert my edit to footnote to the survey. His reasoning was sound enough, however. I don't think we need to add footnotes to every page that uses styles while the survey is ongoing. Whig 02:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
I do encourage everyone who is interested in whether the style is NPOV to prefix in this case, in all cases, or in no cases, to participate in the survey. Whig 02:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, OK. I'll let Whig decide whether to restore his (useful) footnote. But it is pretty darn clear that most of the "Alternative 1 only" voters are motivated solely by a desire for the style next to the pope, and could not care less about what styles are or are not used for anyone else in the world. At the least this includes Zscout370, Jtdirl, and Jguk. Essentially the vote has turned into a forum for evangelizing Catholicism. It will be very sad if Wikipedia loses its commitment to NPOV because of these few Catholic advocates. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:50, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
I really wish the debate could be less personalized. There are clear differences of opinion, and ultimately I do hope that the Wikipedia community will choose to participate in the survey in large enough numbers to overcome any small number who might be voting on the basis of a single biographical entry. The present consensus of the survey is to use prefixed style in all cases where a formal style is known. I don't agree personally but if this is the ultimate decision then it should only be ensured that it is enforced in all serious cases to maintain NPOV. There's still more than a week and a half to run on the survey, however, so no conclusions should be drawn now. Whig 03:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
If the style policy changes, then I will go along with it with no problems. I am not Catholic (but I want to be), but I have no problems if I used the title or not. However, I do want to clear things up, but not about this sidebar. This is what I got about Titles of Articles: "For popes, whether Roman Catholic, Coptic, or otherwise, use the format "Pope {papal name} {ordinal if more than one} of {episcopal see}". Popes of Rome should not be linked with their episcopal sees; Rome is understood. Also, do not use a pope's personal name. For example, use Pope John Paul I, not Albino Luciani or Pope John Paul I of Rome." I know the Article title is not disputed, but I wanted that to be clear for everyone. We do not want His Holiness to be part of the Article Title. This is the Honorifics that is being debated over: "If the person has any honorifics, these should be used in the initial reference, and elsewhere in the article where appropriate, but not included in the entry title." And honorific is clearly defined as: "An honorific is a term used to convey esteem or respect. "Honorific" may refer broadly to the style of language or particular words used, or, as in this article, to specific words used to convey honor to one perceived as a social superior.

Zscout370 (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

The question being addressed in the survey is not about whether we use the honorific title (like Pope) but whether we prefix the formal style of address (like His Holiness) to the biographical entry, not just for this particular biographical entry, but for all others (like using Dear Leader for Kim Jong-il as well). Whig 03:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Honorifics are usually placed immediately before or after the name of the subject. They may also be used to denote occupation, such as "Doctor", "Father" (for a priest), or "Professor". Some honorifics can act as complete replacements for a name, as in "sir" or "ma'am". Subordinates will often use honorifics as punctuation before asking a superior a question or after responding to an order, "Yes, sir"." Though I would be happy to move the His Holiness to the Pope article (which will get mich pressure off of me), I know there is going to be an edit war over it. I just pray this ends soon. Zscout370 (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Um, forgive my ignorance folks. I got tired trying to follow the logic of this debate across 4 pages. Could someone please try to NPOV sum up both sides of this debate?

BTW, what led me to the debate & survey is not the Pope's article. It was the Terri Schiavo article, and the effort to legitimaize the use of Formal Style over Journalistic Style in certain cases. The MoS allows for this at this time, although it does so be being vauge. In that case, the majority lent towards one of two forms of Formal Style over Journalistic. Interesting, the article is currently in Informal Style (my personal preference, but not position nor my edit). No one has challenged this choice since the edit.--ghost 03:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to fairly summarize as best I can. Since I have a POV on the issue, others may wish to comment. The advocates of prefixed style believe that it is just a formalism and not an expression of any particular endorsement by the Wikipedia when we use them to prefix the biographical entries. Jguk and others have expressed that using the prefixed style at the outset is simpler, less verbose, and communicates to readers information which they should reasonably be informed of. Thus, His Holiness does not imply that we think Benedict XVI is holy, only that this is his formal style of address. On the other hand, it seems that presently we do not use prefixed styles universally throughout the Wikipedia. In some cases this may be simple oversight, and can be corrected as we discover them. One possibility would be for a NPOV convention to be established for exceptions to the prefixed style rule. Another position is that we should not use prefixed styles of address at the beginning of biographical articles in any cases, as they may be perceived as POV even if they are not intended to be, and either exceptions cannot be carved out in a NPOV way or would be offensive when prefixed in certain cases if we cannot make exceptions. Whig 03:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Disclaimer of my POV. I do believe that it is impractical and potentially offensive to use prefixed styles in all cases, and I do not believe it is easy to carve out a NPOV rule for exceptions, and no proposal has been made yet which does so. Therefore, I think the styles should be mentioned in the introductory paragraph but not used to prefix the biographical entry. Whig 03:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the attempt. As someone who's debated at length this metatopic in an unrelated context, I feel that I can speak to this semi-independantly. Unfortunately, the MoS is vague on this point, as are most style guides. Deliberately so. I personally advocate clarifing this subject for Wikipedia. In the meantime, this rule of thumb seems to work:

  • The default style of Wikipedia is Journalistic. Therefore, the MoS advises using the Honorific in the initial reference, and dropping it in subsequent references. However, Formal Style may be used. So if a majority as stated their opinion, or if a contributor takes particular offence, switch styles.

In an effort to further clarify this issue, I've submitted it to the Chicago Manual of Style Q&A page. Enjoy. Back to Comedy Central now.--ghost 04:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Some clarification here. The honorific title is not the same thing as the formal style. In the case of B16, his honorific title is Pope, and his formal style is His Holiness. We aren't really debating whether or not and how to use the honorific. Pope Benedict disambiguates from some other guy who might be named Benedict. (Well, there probably aren't many Benedict XVI's, but there are probably a lot of Charles's who aren't Prince Charles of the United Kingdom, etc.) The style does not disambiguate anything. It just gives a formal manner of address. Whig 04:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

This is the response I got from the CMS staff:

In scholarly books, the use of such honorifics is rare, and CMS doesn't cover the topic. We would refer to the pope simply as "Pope Benedict XVI."
For the use of honorifics in formal correspondence, we follow “Forms of Address,” a comprehensive listing at the back of Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. This list is specifically for use in addressing a letter.
I'm sorry not to be more helpful. Thank you for thinking of us.

Hope it helps. --ghost 20:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

You might want to copy your precise question along with their answer to the survey discussion page. Whig 22:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

For the record (and I'm sure people will complain about Google testing) only about 1 in 5 web pages with the word "pope" say "his holiness" anywhere in them. Compare the search for [4] and the search for pope without "his holiness". Among news articles, only 3% of articles about "pope" include "his holiness". Dave (talk) 03:17, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

New Picture

Just want to say I like the new picture that matches the color scheme on Trödel|talk 14:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is, since I took it from the Vatican website. The image is just a "seat warmer" until we get better, PD/Free Use images of the Holy Father. Zscout370 (talk) 16:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually I think the image is hideous. Surely there is something better out there. Was the one we were using not available. It was infinitely more real and alive-looking than that new one, which is too faded out. It really looks awful. FearÉIREANN 22:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I will look for something, but people here wanted a PD image of him. I delivered, but I know many are not satisfied. I will see what else I can do. Zscout370 (talk) 22:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are some new pictures at commons:Benedictus XVI. There is one good portrait, but it is as a cardinal, not a pope yet. And pictures from are certainly not PD. They can be fair use, though. Ausir 22:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. The currect picture is de facto fair use, as it counts as a promotional image. The same is not necessarily true for other pictures from, however. Hopefully a nicer promotional/fair use shot will appear soon. — Asbestos | Talk 22:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Or a free image... Especially for Wikipedians from Wikipedias which disallow fair use. Ausir 23:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Church doctrine and personal theology

Dear all, I feel somewhat uneasy about a lack of distinction between Ratzinger's personal emphasis and stances as a theologian and his pronouncements as head of the CDF. Not that there is a disagreement, but I don't think it appropriate to e.g. list his condemnation of Boff or of female priests as a personal view. This is why I moved these two to the CDF section. But this might be appropriate for other paragraphs as well, e.g. the Homosexuality paragraph (but needs rephrasing to start with statement, not with critics) or the abortion paragraph. Also, if anyone has greater knowledge about the theological writing of Ratzinger please post it. Str1977 10:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Simplifying the article

I tried to shorten the article by removing some deadwood, and some less significant info but keep getting reverted. Are people really happy with the size of this page? jguk 23:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes. With the size.
Str1977 23:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't know about the size, but certainly don't think that Benedict's name should keep being changed from "Ratzinger", the way you've been doing. He was Ratzinger before he was pope, now he is Benedict. History relating to what happened when he was called Ratzinger should refer to him as such, in the same manner as we refer to Pope John Paul II as Karol Wojtyla for his early years. — Asbestos | Talk 23:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No. It is beyond the 32K limit so has to be severely cut. The way to do it, though, is to create linked articles, move much of the stuff there, and then leave a short two or three page summary for thos sections in the main text. But good information was being removed rather than moved, and that was wrong. Asbestos is right. Nothing involving Ben before April 2005 should be attributed to him under the name his current name but under the name he had then. That is the standard way of writing biography. FearÉIREANN 23:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The article certainly doesn't have to be cut. Those are old rules pertaining to days when browsers weren't up to much. See Wikipedia:Article size, where it says "... there is presently no firm policy dictating any precise limit on article length... Do not take precipitious action the very instant an article exceeds 32K". — Asbestos | Talk 23:48, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, we have problems with people trying to access this information because of its length. When we had people duplicating the article, it was sometimes 70-90k big, which I had problems accessing. So we can take very long issues relating to Ratzinger/Benedict and put it on different pages (like his works). Zscout370 (talk) 00:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
These duplications were due to a software error, which crept up because many people tried to edit the article at the same time. Since by now there are considerable less edits, this will probably not happen again.
I also don't think the article should be cut; the only articles that should be cut are those with redundant or irrelevant content. Only when a very specific sub-topic becomes extremely long one might consider a sub-article, but nothing in this article is anywhere close to that. -- AlexR 00:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That problem still exists for many browsers and for many wikipedians. (Two articles this week had edits done by 32K browsers that inadvertently wiped out everything over 32K). This article at 57K (the last time I checked it) is over 20K longer than can be edited by many wikipedians. I've got one of those damn browsers. I had to get John Kenney to made a change to remove a glaring error to the start of the article. The only other way I can edit this article is to open another browser I have which regularly freezes my screen and throws up open files in an unreadable form of courier font. But at least with it I can get in to an article over 32K. I cannot due to a technical problem currently replace my browser as the newer edition has a fault that causes error messages all over the place. I have spoken to other wikipedians who have had the same problem and they like I are stuck with the older version of the browser while that glitch that apparently happens randomly with a small minority of the newer versions is being investigated by the maker of the browser. The warning message that pops up about article length is there because there are still millions of net users worldwide who cannot enter pages over 32K. Wikipedia is meant to be an open edit encyclopaedia, which means that as long as some users for technical reasons cannot enter pages over 32K it cannot have pages over 32K. All articles over 32K are being systematically broken up. This one is going to be. You can get involved in breaking it up now, or you can wait until the group of users doing the breaking up come along and break it up for you. (People involved in the Pope John Paul II article broke it up before it was broken up for them. ) FearÉIREANN 00:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think his theology can be its own sub-page, since we can cover nearly almost all subjects with that one page. Zscout370 (talk) 00:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
45K is still probably bad for many folks, but that is a hell of lot better than over 50k we had earlier. Zscout370 (talk) 02:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hey, thanks mate. I appreciate the work you are doing. FearÉIREANN 02:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Your quite welcome. Before I move any more sections, what type of sections do you think should be broken up. We can add more to the theology, since we got the room there, or can make an entire section on his symbolics (arms, name, motto, debates, etc. BTW, once the Papal arms is finished, most likely B16 will have a personal flag.) Zscout370 (talk) 02:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article about Pope mentions Wikipedia

Taken from the article here: Yahoo news article ""When (he) chose the name Benedict XVI, this was seen as fulfilling the prophecy for this pope," wrote one entry on" Dismas 12:15, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

how is the Pope received in Poland?

The new Pope was welcomed by conservatives/traditionalists, and demonized by "liberals" and some anti-catholic forces in countries like England. Not even all Germans like the new Pope. (Both England and protestant parts of Germany has a history of anti-catholic policies). How does the Poles view their new Holy Father?

Eastern European Roman Catholics are often considered some of the most conservative in Catholicity. That, in conjunction with the knowledge of Poles that Ratzinger was one of Pope John Paul II's favorites, makes Pope Benedict XVI somewhat popular in Poland. There are always dissident factions, not as large in Poland as it is in industrialized Western countries. --Gerald Farinas 17:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mass Deletion

Ok, did someone go on a massive deleting spree or what? Last time I visited this article it had lots of information that is now just completely gone. Not moved to a new page -- just deleted. Before this article sounded like a conversation of different ideas, now it looks like catholic literature. Whoever went on the deleting spree has done Wikipedia a huge disservice. Please, follow policy and move sub-subjects to new pages and then link to them, don't just delete entire sections. -Quasipalm 17:15, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The theology section was moved to a sub-page, which was linked earlier at the bottom (but the link was moved when I was waking up). I am not sure what other sections were moved. Zscout370 (talk) 17:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Early Life Section

Do you think the main article space could have this section trimmed, since everything is included on the subpage? Thanks. Zscout370 (talk) 17:52, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think so, besides I find his Wehrmacht time completely unremarkable, uninteresting and quite irrelevant for his later career. Andries 18:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I created Early life of Pope Benedict XVI with a view to then summarising the text in the main article. This still needs doing. Rd232 17:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VfD and cleanup help needed

Hi, I'm posting this request here because there doesn't seem to be a WikiProject for the Catholic Church. Apologies for the slightly eccentric nature of the request.

Someone has listed Ernesto Corripio Ahumada for deletion. Although too old to be eligible for the College of Cardinals, he's a former Primate of Mexico and certainly encyclopedic, though the article when nominated was a single defamatory sentence and I'm not really surprised it got itself listed while it was in that form. He's an old Vatican insider, and probably significant to the early reign of the last Pope.

I've written a basic stub, but I could still use some help because there are still a number of votes to delete this, and as it stands the article may well get deleted (recreation can be done but is problematic and is best avoided). Please visit the article (link above). Help with improving this article would be welcome. Votes to keep, if you please, would also be welcome, especially from regular editors.

Thanks. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is it because there's an article on Ernesto Cardinal Corripio y Ahumada? *snickers* --Gerald Farinas 20:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, I wonder who was so nice to create that article... ;) -- KTC 21:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

HJ membership requirement years

The London Sunday Times article provided as citation for Ratzinger's Hitler Youth membership states HJ membership was required "from 1941." However, some people keep changing that to state "from 1938." I'm happy to accept the 1938 fact if some citation of it can be included; but otherwise, we shouldn't silently mischaracterize the citation.Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:43, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

If you're unsure, de:Hitlerjugend knows it best. German children were required by lkaw to join the Hitlerjugend beginning Dec. 1, 1936. A second law to tighten the first one was passed on March 25, 1939. Children entered the Hitlerjugend at the age of 14. (The organization for 10-14 year olds was called "Deutsches Jungvolk".) Ratzinger entered the Hitlerjugend at the age of 14 in 1941. --Fb78 23:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It was poor etiquette for Fb78 to delete my followup comment:
OK, I found a source that seems reliable that gives March 25, 1939 as the mandatory membership date. I put that in, with a link. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:08, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
Aside from the rudeness, I would be happy to accept a substitute citation, but it would need to be an English language one for the En.Wikipedia. Note, however, that the citation I found stated that "only" something like 80-85% of German youths were HJ members prior to March 1939. To characterize the 1936-1939 period as "mandatory" (as opposed to "strongly encouraged") seems incorrect. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:53, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any requirement that citations be in the language of the book being worked on. None of this matters because it was very mandatory by 1941 when R turned 14.--Samuel J. Howard 01:08, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
Huh?! I would think an encyclopedia entry was about conveying accurate information. If the only fact of possible interest is "was mandatory on Ratzinger's 14th b-day" we shouldn't include anything extraneous like 1933, or 1938, or 1941 when the law became effective. That said, I think the actual year is notable enough for three or four words about it. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:35, 2005 May 1 (UTC)


Neither purgatory eschatology_(book) or this entry have anything to say of value about Ratzinger's eschatology_(book). Someone write something useful about this guy, like oh, maybe information about his frakking book. i imagine there must be something worth repeating from it. bad christians, turn off your tv.

Huh?--Samuel J. Howard 01:06, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

HJ again...

See [5]

Not sure who provided that link, as the person forgot to sign. Anyway, I recommend visiting that page, as it's a vote for deleting the category [Former members of the Hitler Youth], a category which seems to have been set up for the purpose of putting Pope Benedict into it. I had a little trouble voting, as my vote did not appear on the page, so I thought something had gone wrong with the submission. In fact, I needed to click at the top where it says "Purge the cache to refresh this page." Ann Heneghan 23:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Alois or Aloysius

Why do many sources give his middle name as Aloysius instead of Alois? How do we know we've got the right one? jguk 19:36, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Haven't done any research on this, but suppose that it should be either Josef Alois or Joseph Aloysius. However, I don't have a strong opinion either way. Ann Heneghan 23:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aloysius is the Latin (and English) version of the name. presumably from St. Aloysius Gonzaga, a Jesuit saint. The Italians call him "Luigi", which is also their translation of the French "Louis". "Josef" is only one German variant of the spelling.

I personally like the old German "Chlodovech" or "Ludwig." Aloysius Patacsil 20:31, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

- Isn't Clodovech Clodovicus and Ludwig Ludovicus? Sometimes, different names are given the sam equivallent in another language, such as Vasyl/Vasylij rendered as Bill (short for William) instead of Basil.

Yes. Perhaps a name like "Yusuf Louis Ratzinger" may arise in the future as a result of increasing globalization; or the cathedral basilica in Missouri may be rededicated under the title of "Saint Ludwig?" Aloysius Patacsil 16:49, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Some other Wikipedias are using "Joseph Aloysius". Since we're the second highest ranked webpage after the Ratzinger fan club for searches for "Joseph Ratzinger" on google, we should get this right. What should we be calling him? jguk 08:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
German Wikipedia calls him "Joseph Alois", which also gets the most google hits of the possible variations. Josef/Joseph is equivalent and the latter seems more common; Alois is German, Aloysius is Latin and the former would be his given name and is more commonly cited. Rd232 09:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the Aloysius should be removed as it is presently unreferenced and clutters the introduction. Whig 16:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

There are plenty of references for it [6] jguk 18:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I removed the Aloysius sentence. Firstly, his name is "Joseph Alois Ratzinger" in German, that would be "Josephus Aloysius Ratzinger" in Latin. Aloysius might be the form in other languages (maybe Spanish, Portugues, Italian etc), but Wiki has only Benedict as well, not Benedikt or Benedetto (though there was one attempt) or Benoit. In fact, Aloysius in German would be rather comical, since that's the name of the main character of the cartoon "Ein Münchner im Himmel (A Munich-ian in Heaven)". In regard to Ratzinger I never heard of Aloysius out of wikipedia. And even if it were a correct or current alternative form, it is unnecessary information (like giving Benedict in various other languages as well) and we don't need to enlarge the page needlessly.
Str1977 19:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Tom Hope has just added the Italian, Benedetto. I don't see a problem with its being there except that one could argue, "why not have his name in French/Portuguese/Korean?" Does it need to be there, or couldn't one just click on to the article in Italian? Just a thought, is all. --User:Jenmoa 17:51, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


Is it just me or is the introduction getting a bit too long and confusing? There are various paragraphs of one or two sentences with a million internal links (making the reading confusing). Really, does anyone need all those links to all kinds of dates and years... Also, there are some pieces of information, that I think are not necessary in the introduction. Example:

"According to CNN, Ratzinger has condemned communism by calling the Soviet Union "a shame of our time", and capitalism by saying, "We must coordinate the free market with the sense of responsibility of one towards the other." [3]"

I didn't want to start cutting the intro up, at least not before knowing if others think the same. But really, is the pope's opinion on communism needed in the introduction (among other things)? If his opinions really need to be mentioned in the article why not just make a whole new section for those instead of putting all of them in the introduction.--HJV 23:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear HJV, IMO the communism passage can very well be transferred to either the theology subpage or the CDF section, but note the "soapbox" discussion above. Str1977 11:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear HJV, please read my entry in the "soapbox section". Str1977 19:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidate

Wow, that is pretty quick. Well, let just see how the vote goes and see what happens. If this article becomes a Featured Candidate, there will be a lot of people who deserve great praise for building it up and making it what it is right now. Zscout370 (talk) 01:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Notes number 1

What does that mean? It seems a little unclear. --Contrib 16:25, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

  • You mean: "AAS 93 (2001) 737-739 and AAS 93 (2001) 785-788 respectively" . I don't know either. Can anyone tell? Str1977 17:27, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I've modified it. A short description of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis is in the article. (Str1977, I assume you didn't mean to delete your reply. If I'm mistaken, delete it again, sorry.) Conf 19:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

No, Conf, I was cleaning up the page a bit and suddenly it was gone and I had to attend other business. Thanks for restoring it. Str1977 19:47, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm glad to know that. (Note to self: Don't touch others' comments.) Conf 20:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Now, I understand the acronym better, I cleaned up the notes section, i.e. put the notes in the correct order. It's very confusing when you don't know which note is the one you're looking for. That was part of the AAS problem, as it was note #1 supposedly referring to Pope Hadrian. Str1977 20:32, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Heh, I thought it was the Hadrian footnote Contrib asked about. The current footnote technology is kind of evil. Conf 21:01, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Latin translation

Not exactly worth getting into an edit war about, but "impono" does not mean "take", it means (or rather has as one of its many meaning: #14 in the Oxford Latin Dictionary, if you're really interested) "bestow"/"confer". So if we're after a "proper" (=literal?) translation, "has given himself" is better than "has taken to himself". (See [7]) 20:22, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I confirm meaning of "imponere" (impono, imposui, impositum est) as "impose", "bestow", it is etymological root from "impose". The literal translation of "qui sibi nomen imposuit Bendictum XVI" would be "who has bestowed the name Benedict XVI upon himelf". --Alksentros 22:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Please comment

Can someone in the know please comment on this paragraph:

NOTE:: the ecclestical crime in question is solicitation where the priest solicits a penetiant to sin. This is a very very limited crime. To claim it applies widely to the sexual abuse scandal is libleous at best.

Str1977 23:01, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

It could apply to any type of solicitation-to-sin, such as, soliciting to steal, to cheat, to lie etc.

Ok, I am rephrasing my query: Someone put in the quoted passage in the "abuse" section and some other removed it again. Please, can someone in the know, comment on whether the passage is factually correct, meaningful and should be put in or not. And please sign with your name or IP. Thanks. Str1977 18:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

The section quoted above comes from an anonymous edit on 4 May from computer It was removed, also anonymously, the same day, by computer
Solicitation, in Catholic law refers specifically to the crime whereby a priest uses the sacrament of Confession to request sexual favours from a penitent. It is called solicitation whether the penitent is male or female, adult or child, whether the penitent grants the favours or not, and whether the sexual act takes place there and then in the confessional or at at later time and or a different location. It is called solicitation regardless of the nature of sexual favour requested by the confessor. I don't want to be unnecessarily graphic, but just to point out that it can refer to any kind of impurity (such as looking at pornography together), as long as it was requested during (or just before or after) Confession. If the favours are not requested in the context of Confession, or if they are not sexual favours, the term solicitation is not used.
Since solicitation can involve a child penitent or an adult penitent, it may or may not involve paedophilia. The Church has always taken solicitation very seriously, as an abuse of the sacrament, and has punished it more severely than simple acts of impurity committed by a priest. The Church has also punished very severely the crime of making a false accusation of solicitation against a confessor. Anyone who does so is automatically excommunicated; the excommunication can only be lifted by the pope.
An enquiry into an accusation of solicitation has to be carried out with the utmost secrecy, to safeguard the sacrament of penance. The priest, whether innocent or guilty, is limited in what he can say, because the seal of confession would still apply if a priest were falsely accused. (Indeed, it would still apply if a penitent confessed to murder and the priest were later accused of the murder himself.) Those hearing the enquiry would be sworn to secrecy.
In 1962, before Pope Benedict was even a bishop, the Vatican sent a confidential document to bishops throughout the world. The document was called Instruction on the manner of proceeding in cases of solicitation; an English translation can be seen here. As is obvious from the title, it dealt specifically with the crime of solicitation.
In May, 2001, Cardinal Ratzinger sent a letter to all the bishops concerning "the more serious offenses". These offences included sexual abuse of a minor by a priest, but also dealt with other offences, such as desecration of the Eucharist. As far as I know, the letter mentioned that the 1962 document was still in force. It also dealt with the secrecy which should be observed in carrying out enquiries into these crimes. It did not discourage victims of child abuse (or their parents) from going to the police, the media, or their lawyers with their accusations. However, it did threaten sanctions against those who revealed confidential details of the enquiry. So a victim would still be free to go around saying, "Fr X molested me". He could say it to the police; he could say it in court. He would not be free to say, "At the secret enquiry, when Fr X was giving evidence, he said . . ."
The media got hold of that letter in August 2003, and made a big story about it, saying (or in some cases implying) that it was a confidential, secret document, which threatened excommunication on victims who reported sexual abuse by priests. As I have explained, victims were absolutely free to go to the police with their accusations; they were, however, required to keep silent about details arising from secret internal Church court cases. (I believe that jury members in secular courts have to take an oath of secrecy about proceedings in court, but I could be wrong.)
With regard to the media accusation that this was a "secret" document, it was published in 2001, in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis [AAS 93 (2001) 785-788], the official journal of the Holy See, which is sent monthly to thousands of libraries and offices around the world. I think it appeared on the Vatican website early in 2002. However, it's only available in Latin. You can see it here.
Catholic World News reported on the 2001 letter on 7 January, 2002. Unless the article is for subscribers only, you can see it here. A Canon Lawyer has a commentary here.
So - the extract that Str1977 is asking about? I think that as it stood, it was not suitable to be part of the article. That does not at all mean that I am happy with the article as it stands right now. I think Wikipedia should make it quite clear that the 2001 letter was not secret, and did not discourage anyone from reporting abuse to the police. The anonymous edit from implies that the 2001 letter was dealing with solicitation. In fact, the 1962 document was entirely devoted to solicitation. The 2001 letter dealt with various crimes, including solicitation, but solicitation is certainly not the main topic of the letter. (I wish I knew more Latin!)
So, I'd like the article to be fairer towards Pope Benedict in the case of the sex abuse cover-up, but I wouldn't think that the edit should be included, unless it's completely rewritten, made more accurate, and made to fit in with the rest of the article. I think the sex abuse section still needs quite a lot of work! Ann Heneghan 22:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
There are three documents (four if you include the 1962 document): the letter from Ratzinger, the promulgation of the norms by John Paul II, and the norms themselves. The promulgation of the norms and the letter from Ratzinger are all public, having been published in AAS. The norms themselves however are not public and were to be given out as needed. We know what the norms are due to leaks. Solicitation can happen even when the penitent requests sexual favors from the priest and the priest agrees to them. VViki 00:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

AIDS Section in Theology

Can someone either put a more balanced view to the Uganda reference, or remove it entirely. As a student of mathematics and statistics it seems to me that the conclusions of the article and study cited were faulty. My thoughts were confirmed upon finding a letter in the Washington Post which disputes the claims of the study, saying that it was done in an area that was not representative of the population. Here is the letter: Further, the position on condoms against AIDS, I believe, is not solely the position of the Pope, but of the Church and as such should be included in a section on the Catholic Church. Further much of this entire section seems to be completely anti-Benedict, anti Catholic Church, with something as prestigious wikipedia, can we at least have something more balanced. Every single view relayed in the section seems to make the Pope's position look arbitrary. If people were to do some reading they would realize that it is not.

Dear ?,
Which of the studies are you talking about? There was one giving evidence for what the referenced article called the social vaccine, and another study denying this, referenced in the WaPo. The latter had a very limited scope, according the WaPo. If you're talking about the latter study, I think I reworded it accordingly.
As for the Pope-Church thing - You're right it's the Church's view and not merely his own, but he also subscribes to it (as any Catholic should) I am planning to set up different categories in the theology page:
1)His personal theology: views, emphases and fields of his own scholarship (as a theologian) - though I must admit that I'm lacking knowledge there.
2)Views and pronouncements as head of the CDF, hence representing the Church - the "controversial stuff" should go in there too.
If anyone has the energy and knowledge to do the editing, please do so.
Str1977 17:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
To keep the discussions organized, I would like to suggest that all the possible highly controversial issues regarding the Theology of Pope Benedict XVI page take place on the Talk:Theology of Pope Benedict XVI page. (This time, I resisted the urge to move the posts above to the other page.) Conf 20:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

I have vectorized Benedict XVI coat of arms (see Commons)



Are you sure that they are the real coat of arms? I have severe doubts. Apart from anything else papal coat of arms for over a millennium use the Papal tiara on them, even if the pope was not crowned. The crown is usually instantly recognisable as one of the real tiaras. At the spot where the tiara would be this has something that looks unlike any tiara in existence. It looks much more like a mitre. The tiara, along with the keys, remain the symbols of the papacy and I very much doubt if Ben would jetison a thousand year old symbol, certainly not for a mitre that is the symbol of any bishop, in any church with bishops. Nor do I imagine he would have on his shield a figure that looks like someone from the 1960s and 1970s BBC Black and White Minstrels Show. And I can't imagine for one moment Ben allowing his pallum to hang at the bottom of his coat of arms like a penis. Unless I see credible evidence my gut feeling is that this is a joke someone put out claiming to be the new coat of arms. FearÉIREANN 00:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    • This coat of arms was used on the programs that were passed out at the instalation ceremony, and I can provide you with a German church website that is currently using these arms, along with a signature of the arms paper from the Holy Father. Remember, the Vatican is a bit slow on things, since it took them a while to even post a decent picture of the Holy Father. Zscout370 (talk) 00:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If thats the coat of arms, its a strange one for a tradional pope to use. Why drop the tiara? Rangeley 00:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • The Pope refused to wear/given one for his installment. I would not be surprised if he asked for the tiara to not be included in the arms. Zscout370 (talk) 00:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • That is exceptionally unlikely. He did not refuse. He was told simply that a tiara could not be used because they could not plan from scratch a new coronation in 4 days. And there was no time to design a new style of coronation. So he was stuck with an inauguration. JPI and JPII both included a tiara. I very much doubt if he would go against his precedessor. The tiara may not be worn, but it is one of two still used 3 symbols of the papacy - tiara, keys and flag. I've been doing some checking around. Only one source announces a 'new' coat of arms, an Associated Press story. AP are usually (though not always) right. But something is fishy. The story was filed in Bavaria. If and when a new coat of arms are announced, it will come from the Vatican, not Bavaria. It sounds like someone filed a story about how a papal coat of arms might look using Bavarian symbols, and it was issued as a 'this is the coat of arms' story by mistake. (That sort of cock-up often happens.) Wait and see what the Vatican says. A story filed in Bavaria, involving a highly unlikely type of coat of arms, is highly dodgy IMHO. If he had issued them, they would now be on the papal website. In fact they would be there first. And they are not. FearÉIREANN 00:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So didnt John Paul I, and John Paul II (refuse to be crowned). But if you check their coat of arms, they still have the tiara. Rangeley 00:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • As mentioned in the archives, the person who did both of their arms is now dead. New artist+new pope=anything can happen my friends. Zscout370 (talk) 00:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The same could be said for any of the artists and popes, as the coat of arms has always included keys and the tiara, regardless of the artist. I have looked into this, and according to the article, what you presented there is a basic sketch, not the final one. The only parts described in your article are the ones dealing with the shield itself, not the outside elements. Rangeley 00:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I like the papal coat of arms --- sans tiara (they are so hard to accesorize). To my knowledge, this is the first time the pallium (in the style of the sub-Apostolic fathers, with the three pins) is included. Aloysius Patacsil 01:32, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Too many inconsistencies.
    • No tiara.
    • Phallic symbol in a papal coat of arms.
    • A representation that would be criticised as rascist.
    • A story announced by only one news agency. (Where is Reuters? The BBC? Why isn't it on the Irish Times website?)
    • A story from Bavaria, not the Vatican.
    • No image on the Vatican website, where it surely have been put first.

Smells very very fishy FearÉIREANN 00:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So, I see you have problems, but I have head at Polish Section of Vatican Radio introduction about this Coat of Arms and at Polish Catholic Information Agensy is presented project but without colour, see KAI(Catholic Agency of Information), I will translate you that article -PioM "As the first pope in history Benedict XVI resign to place in coat of arms Thiara - simbol of secular power, he would rather use bishops "mitre". Section of coat of arms are similar to his coat of arms from archibishops/cardinals times.

The coat of arms is stresing that pope resign from secular power, he want to stres that he is a bishop of Rome. You see on mitre three lines that are similar to three level crones.

Under the field there is pallium (with three red crosses) that he get at the begining of his pontify, it says that pope is shepherd (see popes homily). It was first time when pope resign to be croning was 1978 (John Paul I), but it is ascient simbol.

At field are elements from cardinal Ratzingers coat of armsas a archibishop of Munich and Freising - "Croned Negro of Freising", and bear of St. Korbinian, pathron of Munich and Freising, the shell is a simbol of pilgrim." - This is translation from Polish Catholic Information Agencys (KAI) text -PioM

If Benedict is using this coat of arms, it will count as a monumental blunder worthy of the Guinness Book of Records for Stupidest way to start a pontificate. People will see the 'Crowned negro of Freising' as rascist and insulting to the Church in Africa. Traditionalist Catholics will go ballistic over the dropping of the tiara (they are always demanding it be worn again), while gay groups will have a field day at a papal coat of arms that looks like it has a dangling penis at the bottom. If I was his press advisor I'd advise him to chuck it in the nearest bin. He has enough negatives around him without making himself look like a rascist laughing stock. I really find it hard to credit that a pope with his history would use images guaranteed to infuriate two important groups in the Church (Africa and conservatives), not to mention a dangling penis that will would become the butt of jokes from comedians the world over. It would be mindbogglingly stupid in the extreme. But the central question is, if he has a definite new coat of arms,

  • why isn't it on the website of the Vatican?
  • why haven't major news agencies picked up on it?
  • Why has the only news agency to use it (AP) sourced the story from Bavaria and not from the Vatican, where the announcement, if it had been made, would have come from? There are too many serious question marks around to justify its inclusion. Better wait for the Vatican, and not just AP in Bavaria or a Catholic website in Poland, to announce it. FearÉIREANN 01:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vatican Radio website confirms the CoA: The colors might change, though. Ausir 02:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why doesn't someone just email His Holiness and ask :)? Slac speak up! 02:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fear ÉIREANN, you're being an idiot. Why would a "Negro" wearing a crown be seen as racist? For the record, it's a "Moor's head", goes back to the 14th century and is interpreted as either depicting one of the Magi or one of a number of saints, see [[8]]. And "dangling penis"?? Only if you really, REALLY want to see it, and again: why would gay groups be offended? You may be right about the traditionalists, but Benedict obviously either does not care or does not think it will be a problem, and he should know. -- Brazzy 08:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think we're looking at a depiction of the actucal coat of arms by a graphic designer who chose to make the triregnum look like a mitre and vice versa. It's an artistic interpretation that we're debating about. What we might have to do is wait for a version that depicts the triregnum to look like a triregnum. --Gerald Farinas 01:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AP Article: The article (in English) can be found at Zscout370 (talk) 01:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That story proves that the pope has not released a coat of arms. It refers to a claim by a diocese in Germany. I suspect the phones to the diocese were hopping from the Vatican when it came out telling them to shut up. This is clearly a working draft, nothing more. Gerald is right. In the final draft the mitre will no doubt be replaced by the tiara. And I suspect the Vatican will strongly urge the pope to kill off the 'crowned negro' and the phallic bit at the bottom. Indeed that may be the delay. The diocese probably heard he was thinking along those lines, let it slip to the media. But in the Vatican a rethink is going on, with the words "You can't, Holy Father" echoing around the papal apartments. They are probably working on a new draft to add in the tiara, replace the 'crowned negro' (God I hate that term. Is that image really called that???) and reposition the pallum in a less phallic-looking location. FearÉIREANN 02:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I have found out, the black man in crown is actually Prester John. Otto von Freising, a 12th century bishop, included him in his CoA. Please enlighten me, how is an image of a black king racist in any way? Ausir 02:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The image as shown when originally added in quite large here showed a black man with large red lips and staring eyes. That is a classic rascist stereotype image used for black people in Europe right until the 1970s and in the US until the 1960s. It is not in any way an accurate image of someone of African origin, but looks like something you used to get in the Black and White Minstrel Show on BBC, and which today is seen as so rascist and clichéd that the BBC will not even release clips of the show to be shown in programmes. The only clips available (and which do occasionally appear) are clips they released but forgot to demand the return of and apparently conceded copyright of. A recent BBC programme that featured a clip had to get it from an ITV company that had one of these clips, because the BBC will never let it be shown as they are seen as so rascist and demeaning of black people. If Ben wants to use Prester John, he'd better get a less clichéd, less rascist version that a black man with big lips and bulging eyes. FearÉIREANN 02:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So go to Vatican site, there are materials form Radio Vatican (Today (26.04.2005) at 16.15 I have heard about this coat of arms FROM Polish Section of Radio Vatican). This Polish Catholic Agency of Information is a basic oficial agency of information of Catholic Church in Poland. I don't know the colour scheme (I have taken that sheme from cardinals coat of arms), but if it change (color scheme) I will change it simply because I have drawn it in InkScape ( in vector graphic (SVG file format). -PioM

Vatican Radio website confirms the CoA: The colors might change, though. Ausir 02:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) No, it should be also somewhere at Vatican Services-PioM

I'm pretty sure that it's stuck in canon law of the Church that the coat of arms for a pope has to have the papal tiara, just like a cardinal has to include a red gallero with a certain number of tassels, a bishop a green galero, and a preist a black one. Since that canon law is the official collection of laws and regulations governing the church, I'd be surprised if this turned out to be the official CoA. Bratschetalk random 12:17, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

News Flash I guess it's not so far from the truth. Check out this "official" coat of arms. [9]
This one is in no way official. It is even more speculative than the Radio Vatican one. Ausir 15:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Slightly more convincing but still not enough. Vatican Radio got John Paul II's coat of arms wrong initially, announced three premature ends to the October 1978 conclave, said categorically when the current one ended that it hadn't and that the smoke was black, etc. It is famous for jumping the gun, or missing it entirely. When the Vatican itself formally announces it then we can believe it.

But, thinking as a journalist, if Ben goes with this design, I'm going to have so much fun slagging him off. I can see just how my colleagues will react. It will be (1) the phallic symbol, (2) the rascist image, (3) the missing tiara, and (4) what sort of an ejjit is he to use such images on his coat of arms. That is what I find so surprising, if it is true. Anyone who does journalism would take one look at the coat of arms, utter a Homer Simpsonesque 'd'oh' and roll their eyes to heaven. Any PR man or woman with the slightest grasp would see this image as a PR disaster. Is the Vatican Press Office and the new pope really that stupid? (But then looking at their handling of the sex abuse cases, maybe they are.) FearÉIREANN 02:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As for the "racist" image, he used the same image in his cardinal Coat of Arms, and I didn't see anyone protesting it. Even if it can be considered racist, it is the standard portrayal of black people in heraldics, AFAIK... As for the missing tiara, I don't see how not including the tiara in the CoA is more radical than refusing to wear the tiara, as Paul VI did. And anyway, the image can be added to the article as being the CoA according to (mention sources here), and later the real one can be added if this one turns out to be false. Ausir 03:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That sounds good; I have said that colour scheme is imagined by me, it can be different, I have this coat of arms in vector graphic, so I can change colours anytime.-PioM

Here is the Vatican Radio notice in Italian: The Vatican Radio is affiliated with the Holy See/Vatican City State. Zscout370 (talk) 02:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's your problem FearÉIREANN that you have so aberrant and rascistic suggestion/projections, sorry -PioM

Oh, and I see you are Apple user ;), that talks to much :D , all is clear :) (that's joke, of course :) )-PioM

FearÉIREANN , I understand your doubts about how this isn't the final coat of arms for Benedict XVI, but as it is found in the programs from his installation ceremony, and revealed not on a random Polish Catholic website, but by his home Archdiocese of Munich and Freising, which shows a copy signed by Benedict himself, I can't see how you can regard this as a joke. Worst case scenario, it's a working Papal coat of arms (and should probably be designated as such for the time being until the Vatican formally puts it on their site), but otherwise it's pretty legit as far as I can see. If he does go with this design, I think it's a nice change of pace to make the Papal tiara less crown-like and more mitre-like (again, the shift of perception from Pope as monarch to Pope as humble servant has been ongoing since JPI), and including the pallium as another symbol of the papacy. Regarding the Moor's bust on the site, it is the historical symbol of Freising, and can be found on the town's, as well as the archdiocese's coat of arms. I won't even touch the subliminal penis reference. Maybe if the pallium was redesigned to be blunted or fringed... moded 08:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I finally found the image of the coat of arms hanging over the balcony on April 19, 2005.

Could this be the real deal or JUST the coat of arms to signal the election of a new Pope?

This one is the CoA of John Paul II. Ausir 15:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes they had only this, so they hanged it, but how "official" is this site coat of arms?, I will now change colour scheme (and do tiare if it will be needed)-PioM
But on the same page next to pope name is link to this site, I don't understand Italian, can anyone translate it?-PioM
It says, roughly:
It has been presented, on the day of the solemn beginning of His ministry of the universal Shepherd of the Church, as a shield divided [i.e. in the manner shown with those curved lines], but without colors or enamels.
The coat of arms was created by Fabio Ceresa, Hans von Heijningen, Giovanni Sicari. It was designed by Fabio Ceresa.
In the first, of Monaco, which is of gold, the head of the black Moor, crowned and [ornated] in red; In the second, of Frisinga, which is of gold, the bear of St. Corbiniano in black, passante, armoured, and [?] in red, carrying a load of the same [i.e., also in red?] crossed by the cross of St Andrew in silver; In the third, blue with a silver shell.
Sorry it's not precise, I'm not too hot on Italian heraldic terminology... I'm not entirely sure about what the colors refer to (on a gold field? I'm not sure), so don't make pictures based on this. — Asbestos | Talk 17:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if non subscribers (to Catholic World News) will be able to read it, but there's an explanation of the Coat of Arms here [11]. Ann Heneghan 20:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I received an image similar to what PioM first showed, and it probably was from that same website. I think that is just an artists endition, since no papal arms has ever used the motto in them. Zscout370 (talk) 16:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
ok, so I will delete motto -PioM
Done (you must refersh image (choose View image, than Refresh button, than return to this page))-PioMtalk

Articles are now trickling in that the Vatican has unveiled the coat of arms:

Catholic News Service: includes information about replacement of tiara with mitre and pallium; also includes info on color scheme. Red background for shell, brown-faced Moor, brown bear
The Times of London -moded 23:44, 27 Apr 2005
what background is for bear, for Moore and bear's pack (color), and St. Andrew cross on pack?-PioM talk
not very clear from the article and very rough sketch in the 4/28 edition of L'Osservatore Romano (proper only on 28.04.2005) (was online for a day, but has since been taken offline. If I had to make an educated guess, I'd say the background for the bear and the Moor are the same. My personal taste is that the bear should be the same color as the Moor and be outlined in black. Hopefully, now that this image has been released by the Vatican's official newspaper, and now that a Vatican official has gone on record (with the Catholic News Service) about the elements of the crest, this can lay to rest any questions about the legitimacy of this image. -moded 15:08 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
But what about pack, what colour should be there and the outline of the pack cross?-PioM talk 14:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It should be silver. Zscout370 (talk) 17:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What should be silver? -PioM talk 17:48, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone should detail the elements of the coat of arms in the main article. Extra information from the Catholic News Service: The papal crown has been given the boot once again, this time no longer appearing as part of the new pope's coat of arms. Pope Benedict XVI has dispensed with the image of the three-tiered tiara that traditionally appeared at the top of each pope's coat of arms and replaced it with the pointed miter. The pope also has added the pallium, the woolen stole symbolizing a bishop's authority, to the elements surrounding the shield. The details of the new papal blazon were published in the April 28 edition of the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano. A copy was released April 27 to journalists. "Benedict XVI has chosen a coat of arms that is rich in symbolism and meaning, so as to put his personality and his papacy in the hands of history," said Italian Archbishop Andrea Cordero Lanza di Montezemolo, an expert on heraldry and creator of Benedict XVI's new insignia. "For at least the past eight centuries, popes have had their own personal coats of arms in addition to the symbols of the Apostolic See," the archbishop said in the Vatican newspaper. --Gerald Farinas 15:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Avvenire online has reported that the Sala Stampa (Vatican press Office) has released the final colour version of the Pope's arms: Wikipedia continues to show an artists rendition. The artist has done an admirable job, especially in the lines of the arms, but he needs to change the shape of the pallium and make its crosses red. Also, the "mitre-tiara" should have tips at the end of the gold bands. See:

OK, thanks, I will change it in a moment - -PioM talk
I've done it --PioM talk

Well done ! Your version is more faithful to the original sketch, released by the Diocese of Freising-Munich, than the one on the Vatican website.

I have changed coat of arms colour scheme on that from Vatican Site. I don't realy know if you realy wish me to draw the Etiopian king's face looking that, and bear looking like a dog.. like pittbull: [12], they realy don't have any good graphics (the first one from [13] ware much better in shape), and those pink parts...? So could be this coat of arms that is now on Wiki Commons, or....? -PioM talk

Leave your bear and blackamoor as are. While being faithful to the "official version" yours is, by far, the best rendition, especially of the bear.

Here is a picture of the flag the Swiss Guard will use during B16's papacy. Note at the top and left that the Papal arms appear. Note that the papal arms on this this flag is different from the arms that were presented to us from the Vatican wesbite. However, this is intentional, since the arms on the Swiss Guards flag is always different from the one the pope uses on documents, etc. Zscout370 (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

The crown on the Moor is not the same as the one on the Vatican site. Will you be updating it? bjerabek 6 May 2005

I'm reading a roll of arms of the college of cardinals, and it lists Benedict's arms, minus the arms of the see of Munich and Friesing, as Per fess wavy azure and argent, an escallop counterchanged. Basically, a blue and white background with a seashell alternating color. This is obviously not how they're rendered on the Vatican website, since it's a gold seashell on a red background. Does anyone know why it was changed to Gules, an escallop or? Pmadrid 19:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

So, I should leave Moor and bear, but what about crown, should I simplify it, like on Vatican Site or it should stay as it was in orginal first release? Those colours are also not nice, gold is like dirty gold, silver like an iron, and red like pink...
For one week I'm compiling new Qt/KDE, and asociated programs, so it will not be so easy to do much.-PioM talk 20:31, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the old version was better. While not identical to the Vatican one, coat of arms doesn't have to be identical, as long as it matches the official blazon, which your version did. Ausir 20:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

So may be we should vote: 1)only change colours to warmer; 2)should stay as is; 3) change crown; 3)do as it is on Vatican page (moor, bear, colours);? Many says also about wrong rendering by Vaticans (that shell's background should be blue)...
Oh, and may be this subject should have separate site for discussion, it is the longest?-PioM talk 21:11, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Guys, CHANGE BACK the color to gold, red and silver. The colors appear dark on the Vatican website because that's just the way they site shows it....If you check John Paul II's page, you will see that his coat of arms is also darkened, when in truth it actually isnt that dark. Outside of the Vatican website, I guess the colors ARE actually gold, silver and red and aren't darkened. Also, change the shape of the tassle by the keys and the crown on the Moor's is now official because its on the Vatican website.

I agree, change back to the lighter colors, since we are getting more official photos from the Vatican. I would also include the flag the Swiss Guard carries for B16's Papacy on the main article space. I have no word on his personal flag, but I am just hoping and praying that I get to make a flag for the Holy Father. Zscout370 (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Two days, I have problems with my machine that compiles KDE and other programs.... hmmmmm, OK, done. --PioM talk

WOW that is perfect! GREAT JOB! However, the right and left crosses need to be a little closer to the center. The pallium is not a curve but has a straight edge on the center. With these things fixed it is completely perfect!

As you wish. -PioM talk

Thank you for your help. This coat of arms is our common ( ;-) ) work. Thanks for your patience, advices, critical look and time spend at Wiki :). I also would like to thanks everyone from Polish Wiki, they help me at the begining. They have, as first, announced me where to find the image in the Internet.-PioM talk 12:04, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

PioM: wonderful job in your design. Thank you for bearing with the guesswork and changes we've all thrown at you. On a sidenote, the coat of arms made its "debut" on Pope Benedict XVI's tapestry this morning at his weekly Sunday blessing. Image can be found here. The colors were the vibrant reds and golds PioM used all along!

Involvement in the Civil Order & The Question of the Law

Has been revived (following its censorship by Str1977) upon the Theology page, and the theological law is stated. Flamekeeper 06:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Flamekeeper, I did not censor your "entry"! I only moved it into the archive since a) the talk page is quite long b) your "question" hadn't been discussed here for some time c) your "question" neither has anything to do with Benedict XVI himself nor with editing the wiki page (as can be seen by your absence from the history. If you want to discuss this, you should do so on the pages of Kaas, Pius XI and Pius XII, but it'd best to concentrate on one page to concentrate the discussion (if it is that what you want) For my part I will address your post in time on the Pius XII talk page and nowhere else. Str1977 09:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

ClockworkSouI and Temporary

"Pope Benedict said of his election that he prayed to God to not be chosen. "Evidently," said the Pope, "He didn't listen to me this time." Written by user imposter User:ClockworkSouI and User:Temporary. Can anyone verify this with sources? --Silversmith 15:40, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I've read this mentioned on and I believe I've heard it on CNN as well. --Golbez 15:54, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, it's legit. But it needs to be added in an appropriate location, and altered slightly.--Silversmith 16:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
I've heard him saying it in german TV, this translation into english is also correct. Soky 14:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


I read it too, is perfectly legitimate. Why has the page been locked without explanation. Sounds to me like someone trying to get their way. Please unlock immediately, --SqueakBox 16:16, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

I locked it to fix the doubling. There was no notice because it would have doubled the time it would take to fix the doubling, since I'd have had to sit and wait for the edit with the protected template to go through. --Golbez 16:22, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
thanks for the explanation and quick unlocking. Good to se the quote in there, pretty sure I read it in the BBC (I don't read CNN), --SqueakBox 16:26, May 6, 2005 (UTC)


Ok, I got this email from the Vatican about photos of B16. This is what I got: I can send you the official photo of pope Benedict XVI. The price of the picture is euro 4,00 , the authorization to use the photo in your website is euro 50,00.sincerely MAURIZIA. So, for right now, we are stuck. What can we do? Zscout370 (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Tell them we are only using the photo for educational purposes under fair use as we are a free online encyclopedia. If they still insist on charging a licence fee, then I say use something else. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Let's just use something else. I bet there is a standard procedure that is involved with websites and organizations. Let's check the other Wiki's and see what they use. Zscout370 (talk) 17:27, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Audio file

Who deleted the audio file with the German pronunciation of the original name of Benedict XVI? It was a very useful feature. Hardouin 01:52, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

No idea, but I can see if anyone can add it back in. Zscout370 (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

New pic on

There's now a new one:

Bring it up if it's ok.

If someone can erase the arms in that photo, we can use it. Zscout370 (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

will this do?[14]Geni 17:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
I will save it as a JPEG and I will uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons later on today. A png is too big, file size, in my POV. Zscout370 (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
What? What? POV? I think there's a need for a {{NPOV}} here. ;). No, actually, I think a jpeg would work for this. The PNG took kind of lond to load, even on my broadband. Bratschetalk random 22:49, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
It has been done, I might get rid of some of the "dead space" on the photo. Geni, you can go ahead and speedy delete your image. Zscout370 (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the old picture was better. It looked more "portraity," if you will. But that's just me. --User:Jenmoa 04:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

We should have it archived. If not, then I have it. Zscout370 (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Styles Survey Update

This is the (current, vote is still ongoing) results from the Manual of Styles survey:

"Without creating all the matrices out by hand for the purposes of getting a quick count, we can use a handy online calculator ( to tally these results by selecting Beatpath Winner and pasting these values into the form as the list of ranked ballots.

Currently, with 50 votes counted, Alternative 3 is the Condorcet majority winner, preferred 28:22 (or 56%) to Alternative 1, and defeating all other alternatives by a larger margin. This means that 28 ballots preferred Alternative 3 to Alternative 1, and 22 ballots preferred Alternative 1 to Alternative 3, as you may see if you count the sorted list of ballots above.

No option currently is preferred by a supermajority of more than 3:1 against the default (none of the above, or Alternative 5), so no current consensus can be determined to exist."

This was updated by User:Whig on 06:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC). Alternative 3 is stated as:

"No. The formal style of address should always be provided in the introductory paragraph of the article, but only after the name is provided, and not otherwise prefixed. For instance:

Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, formally addressed as Her Majesty... Pope Benedict XVI, formally addressed as His Holiness... Kim Jong-il, formally addressed by the North Korean people as Dear Leader... "

Though there is no consensus, as Whig stated, but I am just playing messenger here. Zscout370 (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

What if we just do a runoff vote between Alternative 1 and Alternative 3? Although it probably still won't result in consensus... =( --User:Jenmoa 15:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
That could be an idea, and I will do the up or down vote on this, since the method Whig used confused many people. Or, if that does not work, I should let every page decide. Zscout370 (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)