Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive19

iPod

Is it mentioned anywhere that he is the first Pope to own an iPod? He has a nano. Later!!! Chili14 (Talk) 21:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this important? No. It is not mentioned in Pope John Paul II's Trivia section that he was the first Pope to own a certain brand of CD player? No. In my opinion, this little bit of trivia is too insignificant to not be deleted. BirdValiant 23:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

née Joeseph Ratzinger

I decided to insert the Pope's maiden name somewhere in the article so that people would know who was being elected as the particular pope in question without having to reference the start of the article. 68.32.48.42 03:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't use née. This is not the French language wikipedia. "Born" is more appropriate. Also, né would be the masculine anyway. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Episcopal lineage?

Can someone explain to me the purpose and content of the "episcopal lineage" box at the bottom of this article? It seems like most popes create so many bishops and cardinals that this box would become unwieldly. Is there a style guideline for these in some central place, as I have seen them for a few popes before. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess this is for reasons of Apostolic Succession. --UAltmann 13:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The Pope's "Germanism" and Forgiveness of the Third Reich

Since I'm not Catholic, I'm not going to take time to add a section to the article, but for what it's worth to anyone else who cares to do so, there's an excellent article in The New Yorker (6 February 2006, pp. 66-73) on Benedict's prayer at La Cambe Cemetery near Omaha Beach in the spring of 2004, in which he essentially said WWII was the fault of the Allies, not of the Germans. It goes from there to discuss his version of state-loyal Germanism, the oath he took to the Minister-President of Bavaria in 1977, and so on. Have fun. --Michael K. Smith 15:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What a nonsense. He definitly never "essentially" said this. What kind of tabloid is "The New Yorker"? Maybe he relativated something, but he definitly never said "WWII was the fault of the Allies, not of the Germans"- how stupid can tabloids (or the readers which can't make differences between black, white and grey) be --Knarf-bz 11:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have not read the article in question, nor am I familiar with Benedict's views on WWII, but The New Yorker is certainly not a tabloid. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If someone could scan the article and give us a link we'd have much more to go on. It would be interesting to read it. --Rebstar 00:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The article that Michael K. Smith refers to must be a product of his imagination. This is the article and this is the public prayer offered by Cardinal Ratzinger and other comments. Basically, Cardinal Ratzinger said that the harshness of Versailles Treaty made Germany seek retribution on the French and the other allies who imposed it on them. That view is common among historians and it is my view as well. patsw 03:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't imagine the article. I also didn't reprint the entire thing here as that would be a copyright violation. IAC, "made Germany seek retribution on the French" sounds an awful lot to me like "it was the fault of France that we invaded them." I note that your own page insists the Church should be able to "self-identify its origins." Is that like "making up its own history"? --Michael K. Smith 00:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, it was the fault of the French they were invaded. First, the French aggressors started the entire thing with their invasion of Germany during the reign of their tyrant Napoleon. They also started the Franco-Prussian War which they lost. Secondly, it was the French who declared war on Germany, not the other way round, in 1940. When you declare war on a country, you may expect that the country in question (Germany) will militarily defend itself. I think it is a good thing that the Pope is able to think, in contrast to people like you. Szegedy 15:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Excusie Mua? I have no argument about the Napoleonic invasion of PRUSSIA (NOT GERMANY, tough of course you could backtrack and say he did invade what is now Germany, which is true, with the SUPPORT of some German States) even though the Prussians had been very very obvious about their support for the allian, but the Franco-Prussian War was started by Otto Von Bismark, also kowen as Otto Von Goosestep (as he was known in England for his love of the march) and the French were diplomatically manuvered into a corner thanks to Bismark's skilled diplomacy until the French were FORCED by nessesity and continued Prussian skirmishes into France to declare war. And lastly, if you think that FRANCE was the Agressor in WWII, there is absolutly no hope for you as a historian. The Allies were bound to uphold Polish independance and when Hitler and Stalin goose stepped all over it, they had to declare war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.158.221 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Shortly after two o'clock, Ratzinger entered the cemetery, accompanied by Pican and Fortunato Baldelli, the papal nuncio to France, as well as a few other Church officials. The procession moved solemnly along the central axis of the cemetery, and assembled at the base of the tumulus.

"In this hour, we bow in respect to the dead of the Second World War," Ratzinger said. "We remember the many young people from our homeland whose futures and hopes were destroyed in the bloody slaughter of the war. As Germans, we cannot help but be painfully moved to realize that their idealism and their obedience to the state were misused by an unjust government." Ratzinger regretted that Pflicht--the blind and unquestioning obedience to duty, a distinctly Germanic quality--had been exploited for evil purposes, but he insisted that this had in no way dishonored the service and sacrifice rendered to the fatherland. "They simply tried to do their duty--even if beset by terrible inner conflicts, doubts, and questions," Ratzinger said. He made no mention of the Waffen S.S., but said that it was not within his spiritual commission to judge the fallen of La Cambe, "into whose conscience only God can see."

Ratzinger speaks fluent French--"softly and elegantly," as one priest told me--and the following day he conducted a Mass in French at Bayeux Cathedral. But at La Cambe he spoke in German to forty or so French men and women and several Germans who happened to be present. In recounting the origins of the Second World War, he blamed the Allies, particularly the French, for driving the Germans into the twelve-year nightmare of Nazi rule. "Animosity and bitterness remained between the combatant nations after the First World War, especially between the Germans and the French, resulting in a poisoning of the nations' souls," Ratzinger said. "The Treaty of Versailles was deliberately intended to humiliate Germany and to burden the country with so much debt that it radicalized the people, thereby opening the door to dictatorship, and to belief in its deceptive promises of the return of freedom, honor, and might to Germany." The German people, he said, had been doubly victimized: humiliated by their French neighbors; seduced and deceived by Nazi leaders. National pride had been wounded; collective humiliation had been exploited. War and destruction were the outcome. " 'An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth'--that does not lead to peace," he said. "We have seen the results." It seemed, in Ratzinger's view, that the Allies had learned a lesson. "Thank God the same thing was not repeated after the Second World War," he said. "The Americans generously helped us Germans with their Marshall Plan, helped us rebuild our country, and made prosperity and freedom possible." He praised postwar reconciliation efforts, and credited Europe's Christian traditions with the ensuing healing process.

Ryback, Timothy W. (February 6,2006). "Forgiveness". The New Yorker. 81.45: p.66. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Check date values in: |date= (help) patsw 03:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Pat, for providing that article. It seems that Michael really overstated the case, if there ever was a case. Ratzinger's view is certainly not outrageous or unusual. However, I want to add two notes:

• The difference between the treatment of Germany after the 1st and the 2nd World War was not that in the former case it was treated harshly (it was) and in the second lenient (it wasn't). The Versailles treaty was harsh, but the French government wanted it even harsher, while the US eventually dismissed the whole treaty (along the with League of Nations). The Versailles treaty humiliated Germany (most of all by the "war guilt clause") while it did not, in the end, strip her of the ability of revision. After the 2nd World War, Germany was in fact stripped of all abilities, but despite all misgivings and understandable grudges, the Western Powers did in the end settle for a constructive policy. So, the difference IMHO is one of vengeance versus one of constructive prevention.
• As I said, the Versailles treaty humiliated Germany and it wasn't just the Nazi Party that felt this way. Philipp Scheidemann, first prime minister of Republican Germany, resigned in protest, saying that "the hand would wither that signed this treaty". Unfortunately he was right, but unfortunately a responsible government had no choice but to sign first and then to work for a revision. All German parties aimed at such a revision (with the exception of the Communists, but they were working towards and even greater revision). The trouble was that Republican governments could not highlight their aims while they were attacked as collaborating by the right-wingers, and that the Western Powers were steadfeast towards the Republican governments, and later lenient towards Hitler.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the issue is the correctness or incorrectness of the historical thesis, or the details of its subtleties. Str1977's comments, while interesting food for discussion on the "causes of World War II" page, if there is to be one, really are not the point here. The point was what did Ratzinger say and what did he mean. While his comments were certainly in the mainstream of most high school history courses today, I think, there IS a relevant argument to make of whether he should have made them, or in the abbreviated way that he did. I'm an American, of Catholic background and German ancestry (I say that only to disclose what biases others might presume I would have), but I think any German and any German Catholic has to be excruciatingly careful about the appearance of shifting blame. I don't think that Ratzinger meant that Germany wasn't responsible for Nazism, but I think he was perhaps a bit incautious in that he didn't emphasize the ultimate responsibility individual Germans had. Sure, the post-Versailles collapse set the stage for a dictator, but each individual German at some point had to say to himself or herself, "Yes, I am going to vote for this party, this man, in spite of (or because of) his racism, militarism, imperialism, totalitarianism, etc. - or at least, I am going to choose to do nothing about it." Individual Germans had to choose to respond -- his own father did, by refusing to join the Nazis, and lost his job. Ratzinger himself did by deserting after being drafted. Austrian Franz Jagerstaetter, a Catholic, did by refusing to report for his draft, and was shot. The soldiers in the cemetery might, in some way, deserve a degree of understanding (having been raised in the world of Pflicht, etc.), but ultimately, they chose to fight or continue fighting for a Nazi regime. That doesn't mean that we can't be healed by forgiveness, but it does mean that the lesson in international politics that the post-Versailles disaster wrought is second to the deeper lesson about personal responsibility in the face of a social evil. I think Ratzinger was right, but easily misinterpretable as "soft" on this issue.

In any case, even I have now strayed from the point. The narrow issue for this particular article is what exactly did Ratzinger say, and what exactly did he mean. I think that has been admirably settled by Pat's posting of the article. Shoulda, coulda, woulda are speculations for his staff.HarvardOxon 22:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop the protection of this article

I contributed to this article and now I´m not able to do so anymore.I created the sections "Dialog with christian religions", "Dialog with Islam" and "Political positions". Please unprotect this article because unregistered users want to edit this article, too. I think we have better methods to stop vandalism. 84.146.244.122 15:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You had posted a note on my Talk page asking for the source on the "Germanism" article I had mentioned. The source is the article in New Yorker, which I also mentioned. I recommend you get yourself registered, though; why would you not want to? --Michael K. Smith 02:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

So, uh, why is this article protecte? What did the people do that warranted this? I'm interested to know.--80.42.149.37 20:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It is semi-protected, and a formal request to unprotect by 84.146.225.254 was denied on 28 June. Registered accounts over 4 days old can edit; sign up for an account. Gimmetrow 21:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection is only a temporary measure to prevent vandalism. It is not meant to be used to prevent anonymous contributions in general. Although, I'd love for 80.42.149.37 to get an account as well, he shouldn't have to. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Article is unprotected now anyway. The point is that if an anon really wants to edit a semi-protected article, one way is to get an account. No suggestion of a general rule should be construed from that point. Gimmetrow 17:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a link to Interfaith would be appropriate - and comments to Religion and politics and Women as theological figures. Jackiespeel 16:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ratzinger and CivilUnion/Marriage for gay couples

I wrote some words over Ratzingers position to homosexuaity and the opening of marriage in Netherlands, Belgium and Spain and Civil Unions for gay couples in many european states (Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Luxembourg,....). The text is deleted. Why ?--GLGerman 14:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)GLGerman

Well, I had nothing to do with the original removal of the text, but I agree that it couldn't be left there, as it violates the NPOV policy. It's also inaccurate, as the Pope is not against any rights of homosexual people. He strongly upholds their right to life, to compassion, to our prayers, to our respect for their dignity, etc. He is against allowing something which, according to the teaching which he inherited, which he believes to come from Jesus Christ, and which he believes himself bound to uphold, is contrary to the law of God. Now, we could argue about whether or not he is correct in thinking that it's against the law of God (though it would be an abuse of Wikipedia server space to get into long debates here about who's right and who's wrong, as opposed to what wording is best for the article). But your text read like an attack on the Pope. And it wasn't attributed to anyone, unless you count the "got a lot of criticism in western societies", which is a bit weaselish, so it was just your own, original research. AnnH ♫ 16:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ratzinger's position on civil unions and marriage should only be notable to the extent that it is a change from his predecessor or that he makes it an issue himself, or if he is criticized substantially for it. Otherwise, we would have to note in the article of every single religious official that they are part of the church hierarchy. However, his reaction to the legalization of civil unions in Europe does seem notable to me. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"A lot of critics gets Ratzinger in western societies for his negative position to the rights of gay couples (civil union/same-sex marriage). During his time as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in many european states (Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany, France, Switzerland, Great Britain, Luxembourg, ...) civil unions were recogniced or marriage for gay couples (Netherlands, Belgium, Spain) were opened. Many catholic cardinals in the various european countries argued against the rgihts of gay couples (Joachim Meisner, Ratzinger, ...)". This was the text, which i wrote, and i think, that it should be part of the text. And i wrote, that Ratzinger is against the rights of gay COUPLES/UNIONS (!); i know, that he is not against any gay PERSON, so that he always would defend each gay person, Musical Linguist. So and i am from Germany and so i know that still here in Germany since a long time Ratzinger argued against homosexual partners.GLGerman 23:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)GLGerman

But this is nothing specific to Ratzinger/Pope, but a common stance of the church. Irwing 06:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Irwing, i think that the position to civil unions is part of his teaching and should have a little hint in the text. But the whole discussion shouldn t be in the text.--GLGerman 09:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)GLGerman

Well, yes and no. The point is, that this position is not just some "his" teaching, but rather "church's" teaching, therefore it belongs to the entry about Catholic Church. See the comments of savidan, about what is relevant for this article. Irwing 11:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

As I stated above, this question of specificity should always be in the back of our mind. However, I think that his reaction to the wave of leagalized unions during his papacy would meet this standard. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Books/Publications

Why does this article not include a list of his publications, especially monographs? Without that, the article seems to be quite lacking. --128.36.60.35 17:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Future journeys?

This isn't the Pope's blog, so listing his planned visits is probably not appropriate content wise. If we move his "Apostolic Journey's" to a daughter article, it might be more appropriate. But I don't think that every single one of his international visits is notable enough to be mentioned indidvidually in the main article of a biography. He is bound to make hundreds (perhaps thousands) of visists if his papacy lasts half as long as JPII's. Instead, this article should focus on the aspects of his apostolic journey's which are notable in his biography: how much he uses new media and new technology compared to his predecessors, overall trends in his choices of places to visit, etc. and a few of his individual visits which might be exceedingly notable, perhaps if he convinces a political leader to resign or something of that nature. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• So far the Pope has only made two international visits (but is leaving for his third international visit around the time I am writing this). So I don't think that the list of international visits will grow excessively throughout his papacy. On the other hand, I would advise against including the list of "future journeys" since some of it constitutes crystal-ballism. Let's focus on where he actually travels, not where people think he might travel or want him to travel, which could be anywhere. --Metropolitan90 06:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination

This nomination is on hold for 7 days because of the neutrality tag. If the POV issues are not fixed by then the GA nomination will fail. Rlevse 02:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The issues have been addressed and since the article complies to all the requirements, it is promoted to GA status. Lincher 03:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Head of the Roman Catholic Church

I learned in religion class (Catholic school) that the Pope is NOT considered the "head" of the Church - Jesus Christ is the head of the Church. However, I do not know what comparable title the Pope holds instead--perhaps "leader." Could someone check into this? I know that religion-related articles are supposed to be written in accord with the pertinent group's beliefs. --71.1.166.69 19:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Essentially, of course, you are right, but it is still common to speak about the Pope as th head of the RCC, though strictly speaking he is only head of the episcopate and vicar of Christ and thus the visible head of the Church. So the term can be used on two different levels.

Note also that it says "... of the RCC" ., not merely "... of the Church". Now, Catholics believe that the Church is or subsists in the RCC, but others disagree. So NPOV would already prevent us from declaring Jesus the head of the RCC.

PS. The title would be Pope.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:PopeBenedict16th.jpg is not fair use

The image was tagged (by me) on June 30 as fairuse disputed. Nobody has provided a fair use rationale for the image - and I believe that there is no possible fairuse rationale for this image (per WP:Fairuse counterexamples). Another user has proposed using Image:Benedict XVI.jpg in it's place, and while the quality is low - it is a "free" image. I am highlighting it here - because I believe it will generate discussion. Megapixie 00:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This image Image:PopeBenedict16th.jpg is reversed, his hair actually dips to the other side of his head (see other images in this article). GoodDay 20:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Dialogue with Christian religions

On March 19, 2006, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney received a special invitation — to attend the elevation of Boston Archbishop Sean O'Malley to cardinal at the Vatican. The trip to Rome is further evidence of a growing relationship between Romney and the local leadership of the Roman Catholic Church."This is extraordinary and particularly for someone of my faith," said Romney, a Mormon, before he spoke at a St. Patrick's Day breakfast in New Hampshire."I don't know that there's ever been a Mormon guy that's been to the Vatican for a Mass held by the pope, so it's a personal honor."Vatican invitation pleases Romney

I think this part should stay in the Dialog with christian religions section because Mormonism is listed as a christian religion on the christian portal.84.146.218.155 19:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

But, with all due respect to Storm Rider, many Christians do not consider Mormons to be Christians. The RCC does not consider the Church of the LDS to be Christian. Hence, from Benedict's perspective it is not "dialogue with Christian religions" (anyway, then it should be denominations) - it is in fact this special position that makes the meeting noteworthy. Also, I wonder in how far the presence of the governor is "dialogue" with the religion he adheres to. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Then I add this to the dialog with non-christian religions! 84.146.211.42 22:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

In this context I have spotted a major difficulty - we have a section: "dialogue with Christian religions" and then "with Orthodox and non-Christian religions" - the placement of the Orthodox doesn't sit well with me. I will probably make some changes in that direction. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 06:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: why do we include sections, especially the dialogue with Christians, filled with events with Benedict as Pope under the "CDF" section?

"SIC"

From the article:

• The Pope strongly condemned the Mohammed cartoons, first published by a Danish newspaper and later in other European papers, saying "In the international context we are living [sic.] at present, the Catholic Church continues convinced [sic.] that, to foster peace and understanding between peoples and men, it is necessary and urgent that religions and their symbols be respected". (...)

I'm concerned with the above paragraph. AFAIK, "SIC" is used when someone says something stupid or makes a grammar mistake. But it should be noted that the citation came from zenit.org and is probably a (bad) translation from the original language used by the Pope (Italian? German?). --201.19.239.118 07:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There does not seem to be anything really wrong with the grammar, just doesn't sound like natural English. I will remove the "sics" if they are still there. Steve Dufour 17:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC) I see it was already done.

On the contrary, the part noted by the first sic is treating "live" as a transitive verb, which it is *not*, so it would need "in which we are living" in order to be correct; also, the word "continues" seems very awkward, though it may make more sense in a more complete context. I don't know the original quote in whichever language, but if it could possibly be translated alternatively as "remains", then I could accept it. 69.168.161.140 00:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Greek

Ratzinger attended gymnasium, German academic high school, where at the time Ancient Greek was part of the curriculum. That's Attic/Athenian Greek, Classical Greek. He may have learned some Homeric Greek as well. Koine is not a "combination" of Ionic and Doric, etc. -- these predate koine by about 1800 years. He knows koine Greek as well...Biblical Greek. BOTH are species (OK, I wasn't using the linguistic technical definition of dialect) of Ancient Greek, by anyone's reasonable definition and any academician's use, and by Wiki's own article aon the subject! It is actually possible for a Catholic academic to know more than what is contained in the Bible, so please stop narrowing this with some Bible-thumping definition of what constitutes academic knowledge.HarvardOxon 01:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Section "Dialogue with Islam"

I think the section about "Dialogue with Islam" focuses far to much on single statements and actioins made by the pope without bringing them into context. Wikipedia is not Wikinews! Gugganij 21:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"Cult Leaders" tag

Hi I added this as a protest against the category itself. Here is an article which makes the case that the Catholic Church is a "cult"[1]. Notice that to them a "cult" means anyone who doesn't believe exactly what they do. Thanks for understanding. Steve Dufour 17:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Steve, if you have a problem with this category (and I can see why one might) then please have the discussion on the category's talk page or bring it to WP:CFD. Please, don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point by adding this category to articles where there is clearly not a wide consensus that the organization is a cult. Thanks. TMS63112 18:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I feel that I did make my point.Steve Dufour 18:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

FAC

I have nominated Pope Benedict XVI to become a Featured Article. You can comment and see the discussion here. Dev920 00:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Watch out for user Wumbo, who has been vandalizing Pope-related articles. Wahkeenah 01:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yup, I've seen him around. I think he's more just convinced entirely of his own view and doesn't get how Wikipedia works rather than vandalising for fun. Dev920 01:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I don't know about that. His page says something like, "I plan to start improving wikipedia right away!" Read "improving" as "messing with". I've seen worse, though. Wahkeenah 02:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Exactly. He thinks he's improving Wikipedia. A user who just needs some persistent reversion, and eventually he'll get the message WP:AGF :D Dev920 04:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
        • One way or another. Wahkeenah 06:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • • Can he cite these views?? If so, these are some rather disturbing comments!!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Splitting article.

As a result of a comment on the FAC, I have spilt off the majority of information on Benedict's time at the CDF. It can now be found here. It would be good if any of the regular editors here could go over there and spruce things up a bit, and maybe develop it a little. Dev920 00:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and if somone could add a suitably shortened title to the Benedict template, I would be grateful. I'm useless with templates. Dev920 00:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Arguing versus improving the article

It seems that some of the folks on this page (not including Dev920) just want to argue one side or other about the Pope's rightness or wrongness in his positions. That is bedise the point. You should be trying to improve the article by adressing objections, putting forth sourced facts. If X argues that Y about Pope Benedict's poisition on Q, then put it in and source it. If The Chruch counters that X does bnot understand/is wrong about Q, then explain THAT. That should be in the article, for example. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The Title

I am so sick of the title His Holiness being removed when it is a proper title; by anti catholics no doubt. yet Khomeiini who mureder thousands gets his holy titles. this comment was added by 195.93.21.34, i just moved it to the bttm of the page.

Now, here's my reply. In Khomini's page the only title the appears is that of Ayatola (sp?) just like here for Benedict we write Pope, so please don't say things that are not true. Moreover, the issue about the title has been discussed at length before, so just read those archives. Also, be nice, don't assume that people are anti-catholics. We are not, we are just trying to be fair to everyone and keep this a real encyclopedia.Cjrs 79 03:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that some or maybe all of the British Monarchs, for example, aren't preceded by any title. Queen Victoria had a gazillion titles, but it simply says "Victoria". Not "Her Majesty", not "Queen Vickie"; nada. I think it's fair to give one title. More than one is pushing it. "His Holiness" OR "Pope", but not both, ja? Wahkeenah 03:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Pope is a title, His Holiness is a style.

According to MoS, no style should be mentioned. Not His Majesty, not His Holiness and not such other things. --Fertuno 19:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Position on Science

I'm rather shocked that this article does not discuss his views on the relationship between science and religion.

His most recent visit (Sept 11, 06) to the town where he was born resulted in very important comments:

• "Put simply, we are no longer able to hear God; there are too many different frequencies filling our ears. What is said about God strikes us as pre-scientific, no longer suited to our age."[2]
• "People in Asia and Africa admire our scientific and technical progress, but at the same time they are frightened by a form of rationality which totally excludes God from man's vision, as if this were the highest form of reason."[3]

I'm sure there are more comments form him on this rather important matter. Hopefully this will get the ball rolling.--Roland Deschain 02:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Better main image NEEDED

An offical portrait of the Pope needs to be displayed. I recently reverted the image back to a previous due to possible vandalism. -- AJ24 19:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have an A4 poster of an official portrait. If I scanned it in, would that be copyright infringement? Or if I took a photo of it and uploaded that? Dev920 22:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would be a copyright infringement. There are plenty of freely licensed images of the Pope available at Commons:Benedictus XVI and Commons:Category:Benedictus XVI. If you don't like Image:Benedictus XVI Benedictio.jpeg, you can replace it with another free image, but do not use a so-called "fair use" image like the one previously used. Angr 07:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude, calm down. I was only asking. Relax, have a nice cup of tea and look at Featured Pictures for a few minutes, it's only Wikipedia... Dev920 07:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I seemed uncalm. If I did it was more a reaction to AJ24's reference to "possible vandalism" than to your question. Angr 08:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"Possible" because I could not tell whether the image was placed as a joke, from malevolent nature, or from a confused user. Either way, replacing a good (however inadequate) image of the Pope with an image of poor quality, placement, and questionable theme is vandalism. The official portrait is still desperately needed. -- AJ24 01:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. :) Dev920 16:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've put in a temporary one from Commons. It is crap, but it will hold for a while. As to Angr's claims above: we can use a fairuse image, even if we have commons ones, if the fairuse one is the official portrait and is being shown as such. An official portrait image is in itself unique and not just an ordinary image and so as the official portrait can be carried because of its intrinsic and unique value, as it is not simply a picture but the showing of the official picture. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The one from Commons you put in has been deleted for not having a source. And no, as long as any free images of the pope are available, it is a violation of Wikipedia policy to use any "fair use" images of him at all. I've put in a different free image now. Angr 06:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Lead image

Keep a kind of his official images in papal clothes to the waist level at least:) --Brand спойт 09:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Major controversy over Pope's statements about Islam

Umm....why is this not being covered?? It's all over the international newspapers!! --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It is now.

There is a forked article about the controversy which is essentially the same material, but which has undergone a flurry of refinement and now reads quite nicely. Of course, it is a current event and will be in flux for a while. So, with that in mind, I would like to reduce it's mention here to a couple of sentences and refer to the fork (which is already done).

Baccyak4H 16:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The mention can be reduced, but the magnitude cannot. The reduced version failed to indicate the severity of the backlash to Benedict's ill-conceived comments, and read to an extent like whitewash. •Jim62sch• 11:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether it was the Pope's lecture that was ill-conceived or his so-called critics' reactions is beside the point. Please stop adding more and more critics into this section. At best you can mention them, but stop outlining their points. We a have a fork article for this. However, I support the removal of the "call for action". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Simply put, if you are going to have the spokesperson for the pope offer an apologia in the article, you need to balance it with other comments of criticism. The reality is that the pope is subject to criticism just like every other human on this planet. As such, the points need to be outlined as well. If they cast a bad light on the pope, so be it. •Jim62sch• 12:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Simply put, I don't object to an outline of criticism in NPOV but I object to a parade going and Imam A from country X says this, and Mufti B from country Y says this and Ayatollah C from city Z says this. Sum it all up in a short passage. Also, could you please stop to throwin insults and insinuations around. It appears that everyone is subject to criticism but Islam. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Since all this broke yesterday and the details are barely available, still changing and much heat is distorting the reporting still, would it really hurt to let, oh, say, 72 hrs. pass before putting it into an encyclopedia? Please note that as a Lutheran I don't particularly agree with a lot the Pope says. My gut instinct is that there is a lot of context missing here and not available at the red meat market -- I mean news sources. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, CTS, long-time no see. I understand what you're saying, but my gut instinct is that this will get worse long before it gets better. And if there are qualifying sentences in the pope's comments, by all means they need to be in the article. However, we simply cannot ignore it, and keeping it out of the main article smacks of censorship, especially given that we do not afford any other world leader the same luxury. •Jim62sch• 13:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No one ist proposing this. But keep it short. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Certainly your rv and edit summary implied it, as did your post above. However, it is relatively brief at the moment, so I see no issue there. Also, in keeping with CTS' comments, I read the coverage in El Mundo (Spain), Le Monde (France), La Repubblica (Italy), El Periódico (Catalonia) and La Dernière Heure (Belgium), and the accounts match up very well.

Also, two Churches in Nablus were attacked with incendiary bombs as a result of the pope's comments.[4]. •Jim62sch• 13:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

My comments and rv imply what? That I want to silence the issue? If that were true, I would have deleted it all. The issue needs to be covered and the gist of Muslim objections should be stated, but not a series of comments from different people. And if you think some equations with Hitler and Mussolini will do, I can only say that they hurt the one who utters them more than anyone. Also, your shífting the blame for the nablus attacks from the actual criminals is remarkable and disgusting. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Wiki is not here to praise nor tear down Benedict, it is here to write his story -- the good the bad and the ugly. Period. It is clear from the Chi Rho on your user page that your defense of Benedict is one born out of your faith, not out of any sense of fairness or logic. Benedict at the very best erred in bringing up the comments of Manuel II Palaeologus, the Emperor of a dying Empire, and a staunch anti-Muslim; at the very worst he was appealing to anti-Muslim senbiment in the land of his forebears.

If you'll take the time to actually read what I wrote, I shifted no blame (and even had I done so, so what), but I pointed out that the attacks were a response to the words of Benedict. Get over it. •Jim62sch• 19:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the greeting.. we've been off in different corners of the wiki I see... The detail on the incident itself seems to be coalescing. It appears that the Pope was giving an academic essay, in which he was citing various views on the concept of Holy War. The quote was not represented as his opinion or that of his church, but as the statement of a ruler whose state was under siege by Ottoman armies. I imagine the same emperor would have had a dim view of crusaders. Someone tore the quote out of context and put it on a news wire. The result: outrage, the burning of churches not catholics -- so far. Seeing the sensitivity of this subject, do we want Wikipedia on the news and protested worldwide. I'm not going to oppose additions here, but I think it wise to wait for the fires to literally die down first. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 18:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

So, how's your corner of Wiki? Has the Jesus article coalesced?

One question: did you defend John Lennon back during the "the Beatles are more popular than Jesus" bit? Point being, taken out of context or not, Benedict should have known better than to quote Manuel II Palaeologus' diatribe against Islam.

Manuel is not likely to have held the same opinion of the Crusaders as they might have been able to save his empire, alas by the 1400's the crusades were over and there was to be no rescuse of the Byzantine Empire.

Why would wiki be on the news and protested? I'm afraid I'm not following you here (perhaps I'm being dense). •Jim62sch• 19:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Jim, while you go around practising religious racism, crying foul at Christians or even Catholics from contributing (which is at least against WP:AGF, I was trying to bring this section in proper shape. You yourself again and again bloat it with stuff not informative enoug for this article. The name calling can be included at length in the main article, but here we should give a substantial outline of the issue. I am all for including the muslim objection, as thin in substance as it might be, but your re-additions are just not doing the trick.

And of course you are constantly shifting blame or making strange accusations like Manuel being anti-Muslim (what would you expect from the ruler of a realm attacked for centuries by Muslim forces, but it was probably his fault that he didn't know that his was a "dying Empire". Had he known he would have just capitulated). You laid the blame for burning churches on the Pope, who has done nothing wrong (and hence has not apologized, as you falsely inserted into the article in spite of your own reference), instead of the ones who actually burned the churches. Or didn't you write this? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

First, I falsely inserted what? Sparky, get your ducks in a row. Second, your assertions re Christmas and the rest are best known as bullshit. You don't know me from a can of paint, so before making sweeping generalisations you might want to do some homework. BTW, the churches were bombed. Learn how to read. As Galileo once noted, eppur si muove. •Jim62sch• 22:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Galileo, did he really say that? Did Marie Antoinette really say, "Let them eat cake?" Regarding bombing and burning, I've been out all day, and haven't seen the news, but you did say "incendiary bombs", Jim, and "incendiary" means capable of causing fire. Your post is not particularly civil. Remarks about other editors' religion are best avoided; they're in rather bad taste, and violate WP:AGF; and not having a religion can lead to just as much POV pushing as having a religion can. I agree that a list of quotations from all the Muslims who criticzed the Pope (or at least from every one that you can find) is out of place. This is an encyclopaedia article, not a news article. Regarding Str1977's complaint that your posts attempt to shift the blame for the burning (or bombing if you insist) of the churches on to the Pope, well it's interesting that you use the passive voice (actually agentless passive) when you mention the attacks on the churches, but seem to prefer the active voice when talking about what the Pope said. I studied that particular "trick" in detail in the final year of one of my linguistics degrees, but I know that it can sometimes be done unintentially by people who have a particular viewpoint, but who are unaware of how their use of language reflects it. AnnH ♫ 23:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It has been kept hidden in the top secret archives at the Uffizi for several hundred years now, but I will finally reveal the truth of this matter. Galileo actually wrote, in L'epistolario romanorum degli sconfitti et della rotazionciella del puro orologio sul tempio all festa della nona cena prima edizione publicazione quarantaduesima eitumis bottimus alcoharbindi ain tafaljalunifgtnnnenness: "Yo pappy!! L'eartsa be rockin' ende rollin' onada axese. you getta o no"? As to Marie Antonietta, she said: "La gente non ha veramente tutta la TORTA." --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 13:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ann, your history as a Catholic-apologist is well-known. I don't see that you can comment neutrally here. As for Galileo, yes, MA, no. The shifting blame bit is irrelevant to the article, no? Additionally, so is the part about bombing as it was not placed in the article. I believe that the article is what we are here to discuss, no?

A final point: prefering "the active voice when talking about what the Pope said" is because it was in the aricle, which, heaven forfend, should not be in passive voice, yes? The agentless passive (could you read Catalan) is because no agent was identified in the Catalonian article. Very simple, no? •Jim62sch• 00:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Jim,

first of all, despite your twisting facts, the churches were indeed bombed, but earlier you laid the blame on the Pope's doorstep and it was that to which I objected. And if you raise issues on the talk page that are "irrelevant to the article", then don't be surprised if others comment on it.

I said nothing about Christmas on WP in over two months at least.

The Gallileo quote is indeed apocryphal.

Your false insertion however I misattributed to you (I was using the "cur" mode in the history) when it was in fact done by another editor [5]. For that I am sorry.

However, in your last post you still continue with what I termed "religious racism". Please stop it, or I will report your breach of AGF and CIVIL.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Report away all you want, just make sure you have all of your facts straight and aren't merely inferring something that ws not implied.

Note, that in "Also, two Churches in Nablus were attacked with incendiary bombs as a result of the pope's comments." I dould probably have said "in response to" rather than "as a relult of". But in neither case would the blame be on Benedict -- the blame is on the bombers. Benedicts words were the casus operando, and in a court of law would be raised as a mitigating factor. Yes, it would be a bullshit mitigating factor as each human is responsible for his own acts, but it would be raised nevertheless.

As for "religious racism" -- there really is no such thing as you are mixing apples and celery. I assume though, that you refer to my comments to Ann? These are merely a matter of speaking the truth. This does not however mean that Ann is not a good editor (she is), but rather that to an extent her edits on certain subjects have been coloured by her religious beliefs. Finally, if I were a "religious racist" (whatever that is), explain why I excised anti-Muslim and anti-Catholic statements from this talk page. Wouldn't I, given your use of the term "religious racism" in reference to Catholicism and Christianity, be more than happy to let them stand -- especially those against Catholicism?

Re Christmas -- I misread Christians as Christmas -- sorry, although I guess I inadvertantly hit a sore spot.

Finally, the point you seem not to be getting -- Benedict, as a world leader, is subject to the same criticism as any other leader for his comments and the fallout they engender (the argument that Wiki is not a newspaper, made by Ann, is while true in a sense, false in another -- Wiki frequently covers current events, in fact we even have a cute little template for it). In this case, it took him too long to apologise, although, to his credit, he finally did so today. •Jim62sch• 12:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You will excuse me, but I put the NPOV sign back on. The reference for the somalian nun being killed does not contain such information. Please, tell me if i've made a mistake, or an incorrect reference has been made. (Truth 06 04:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC))

Ok, I added a reference to the somalian nun being killed and removed the npov sign(ignore my previous post). (Truth 06 04:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC))

Somalian nun? Who added that? •Jim62sch• 21:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for protection?

Apparently, some of those "offended" by the Pope's remarks have resorted to vandalism on Wikipedia as a means to blurt out their anger and frustation. Does anyone else agree to have this article semi-protected from anonymous edits? Most of the vandalism are done by anonymous editors. ResurgamII 00:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not object. It is taking some serious and immature abuse. Baccyak4H 01:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have beem following the made changes in the article during the past 24 hours... I think semi-protection is really needed (until the the whole issue will calm down). Hectorian 02:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It's now semi-protected. I filled in a request and it came through. ResurgamII 13:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

For section 22

Changes:

On September 12, 2006, in a lecture on "Faith, Reason and the University", Pope Benedict directly quoted the opinion of Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos (1350-1425) in a 1391 dialogue with a Persian Muslim, where Palaiologos said: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." In the original German, Benedict XVI described this critical opinion of Manuel II as "astoundingly ... surprisingly harsh," ("in erstaunlich schroffer, uns überraschend schroffer Form").

Above unsigned comment was added by User:Gooble at 17:07, 16 September 2006

What is that posting supposed to mean?

• The text is included not in this (22), but a later section.
• It also includes a false naming, as Manuel is anachronistically called Palaiologos instead of Manuel. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

"The text is included not in this (22), but a later section." Huh?

False naming? Anachronistic? That's his name in history. •Jim62sch• 19:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The name he should be called by is Manuel and not Palaiologos, just as the Western Emperor from 1152 to 1190 is properly called Frederick I or Barbarossa but not Hohenstaufen. Even contemporary monarchs are called by their first name, or have you ever heard how Bourbon-Bourbon mounted the Spanish throne in 1975?

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There was no Western Emperor in 1152. If you mean HRE "emperor", fine, but the HRE was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. BTW, I looked up WP:BLOAT...funny thing, I couldn't find it. •Jim62sch• 22:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, there was a Western Emperor in 1152, and yes, I am talking about the ruler of the Holy Roman Empire. Quoting Voltaire, the world's expert at making big words without having any knowledge on the subject, will not do. Anyway, the name issue stands whether your nitpicking would be right or not.

Just because there is no WP policy page on bloating an article doesn't mean that you can just do it. I am sure it somewhere says that we are supposed to write concisely and on topic - if not common sense will tell you that. Funny thing? There is nothing funny about your editing here, the word you are looking for is "sorry"! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Find the WP link.

Sorry? For abiding by WP:V, WP:RS and, yes, WP:NPOV? Doubtful. Believe it or not, history is not written from the Catholic perspective. No doubt, in your eyes, that is unfair, but it is nevertheless true. No, I'm not sorry about anything...but neither is Benedict.  ;) •Jim62sch• 22:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

How about AGF and NPA? Not one of your posts here is without "bad faith" accusations and personal attacks. I don't know what you are but I myself am an historian and I can very well look at things from different perspectives (that separates me from narrow-minded fanatics as Voltaire). I can very well see why a Muslims would get worked up over the Manuel quote and when he thinks the Pope endorsed thee, also about Benedict.

What I repeatedly proposed and which you constantly answered with attacks was outlining the Muslims objection and not just echoing name calling. Or can you see any substantive point (no matter whether anyone agrees with it or not) in the current voices reported? I don't. All I see is "The Pope is bad! The Pope is like Hitler! Christians are dumb!" As you may well know, I do not oppose including these in the proper place in the main article, where we have much more space, but this is after all the article on Benedict. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You're a historian? Paid? •Jim62sch• 23:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are assuming bad faith! I will reveal anything more about my person than what I have already stated on my user page. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Bad faith? Nay, I just find it hard to believe -- the historians I've known have been more objective, less worried about hagiography. •Jim62sch• 00:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, bad faith again in this post. Nothing I have done here borders anywhere on hagiography. I am concerned about organizing this article properly (I never saw you moving the section to its chronologically proper place), to cut back the bloating that always occurs in regard to a current event (but you seem to think yourself entitled to bloat the article). Nowhere have I inserted hagiographical narratives or POV statements e.g. "This criticism is of course nonsense!". I might be of that opinion and I am entitled to that. But my article edits are a different subject and have in no way violated Wiki-principles.

So please stick your attacks. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

So much for any chance you had to report me for WP:CIVIL. And quite frankly, this fascination you have with bloat both puzzles and concerns me. Aside from its dubious applicability re Wiki standards, it seems to be used as an excuse or censorship. Interesting, that criticisms of Benedict are excised, while justifications, apologia, etc are allowed substantial coverage. •Jim62sch• 12:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I have seen no criticism of Benedict. I have excised none. I have excised name calling that was utterly uninformative. If the passage contained information I wouldn't have a problem, but as it is, it bloats the section. An again, incivility. See below. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, everything here needs to be excruciatingly well-documented down to the minutest level of detail: the inappropriate, hateful and indefensible comments of the new Pope against atheism and secularism; the extraordinarily violent and wacky overreaction of Muslims the world over; but, sopratutto, the absolutely calm and rational nonchalance of atheists and secular humanists to uncalled for provocations from all over the religious spectrum once again. What better counterexample to the ridiculous generalizations about the immorality of atheism and secularism can there be: 95% of the speech was an attack on the moral dangers of non-belief and the usual blah, blah, blah; 5% was a reasonable criticism of the irrationality of Islamic dogmas and behavior. but it was a bit like the pot calling the kettle and so on. Reaction from atheists: "Ho , hum, what nonsense!!" Reaction from Muslims: let's burn some churches and threaten to destroy the planet unless he apologizes. reaction from many Christians: "he's right, these folks should be kicked out of Italy" (Aunt Gaetana, speech to the family council at cena, 5:20 pm.)... No further comments. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLL!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be a non-issue. Muslims at least have a quote they can legitimately offended about, though of course they attribute it to the wrong guy and reacz in an unacceptable fashion. However, does thougtful discourse really offend secular humanists? I wouldn't think as lowly of them. And I might be right, as we see no protests! As for the lecture's contents, you must have confused with some other speech: most of it was about the importance of reason. Your aunt, charming as she might be, does not constitute "many Christians" and, I am afraid, she also constitutes OR. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Muslims?? All Muslims?? The majority of muslims? I don't think so. But, anyway, my comment was intended as a sort of satire of internet outrage. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 11:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course not all Muslims. Those Muslims that do. Satire is okay by me. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the Islam controversy - NPOV tag

I have removed the NPOV tag. As far as I can see, this summary is balanced, factual and sourced. If an editor continues to have POV concerns perhaps they would spell them out here, please, so that we can resolve them? BlueValour 23:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it was because of the over-long list of quotations from Muslims criticizing the Pope. It skewed the balance somewhat, causing problems of style, as well as of POV. It was out of place, as this is an encyclopaedia article, not a news article, and especially since there is a separate article about the Benedict/Islam controversy. If someone fills a subsection of a subsection of a subsection of a section of an article about a public figure with a list of nasty things that people said about him on a particular occasion, the (sub)section may be factual and soucred, but it won't be balanced. Anyway, I've trimmed down the list. The top of that section already refers the reader to the separate article. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 00:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I placed the tag there because I thought these additions did not only bloat the section but also contained POV language, as they did in an earlier version. Reviewed them now, I couldn't find these again here but only in the part about Indian politics ([6]) I also removed earlier. So my tagging was misplaced and based on an insufficient reading of the text that was there. Sorry about that. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Ann, but balanced is not an apologia for the Pope -- whether or not there is a separate article. Additionally, your use of "nasty" shows your POV. Not that it matters, you and Str1977 will do what you want with the article anyway. •Jim62sch• 12:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The criticism the Pope recieved has been needlessly harsh. If Islamofundamentalists do not agree with him that violence is bad, that shows their (the Muslims') barbaric prediliction toward violence. Cerebral Warrior 13:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The above comment by who calls himself cerebral is alarming and in sync with his leaders irresponsible mannerism that is inconsistent with the level he somehow reached in his personal journey. The 'apology' released today is as pathetic as the conduct he exhibited which was in effect an indirect and sneaky endorsement (a second time today) by using the medieval ignorant statement as presentation material to bolster his arguments. Read what he gave as apology which was 'At this time, I wish also to add that I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims.' which he says he is sorry for the 'reactions' in some countries, not for his technique and damaging approach. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.130.214.126 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 17 September 2006.

"Barbaric predilection"? Take cerebral off your nick, you have no cerebrum. You sicken me with your massive ignorance and racial hatred. (Odd too that Str1977 doesn't take you to task for "religious racism").

The criticism of your dear holy father has not been needlessly harsh, it has been anything but. As an alleged man of learing he should have known that his formation of the sentance would virtually ensure that the statements of Manuel would be what registered in the minds of the listeners and anyone else who heard or read the quote. In fact, such rhetorical devices, are well-known tricks used when one wants plausible deniability. •Jim62sch• 18:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think His Holiness has been extremely imprudent. Remember, he is 'new' at the job, despite his advanced age. I think however, we have to take his discourse in the context of his life's work. He has always been a proponent of religious dialogue and tolerance. It is unlikely then, that he is now villifying Islam. However, he is becoming a prisoner of political correctness, as we all are. We aren't allowed to say that religious holy war committed by both Christians AND Muslims is wrong. We are only allowed to condemn Christian holy war. It is, I'm afraid, a matter of historical fact, that the Islamic faith was initially propagated by war in the 7th century. And I'm sure many of our Muslim friends would agree that that was unfortunate. Just as many Christians would agree that, for example, the Catholic Charlemagne converting the Saxons at the pont of a sword was unjust. If we esteem religious equality, we must recognise that all religions are subject to critique as well as praise.In treating this issue we should also remember that it is complicated by political issues, such as Western colonialism. Remember the continuing occupation of Iraq, and the support of the West for Israel's invasion of Lebanon.--Gazzster 08:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If I may this is fascinating topic but our opinions on the matter really aren't very relevant. The talk page is for discussing improvement to the article not debating. JoshuaZ 18:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. What is important is what the international media and governments say about it, which is for the most part, as far as I can tell from the BBC, that it was a jaw-droppingly naive selection of text. Guy 14:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hysterical bedouins.

In principio creavit homo deos et ex eo tempore poenas dederat •Jim62sch• 20:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Str1977 should explain the basis of his reversal of my contribution, clarifying what was misrepresentative in the contribution and seek a compromise in the content and language. Until he does that his reversals are not beyond vandalism.

Who wrote this? If it was Jim, I have already addressed it above: that it wasn't him that added a misrepresentation, but that it is him who bloats the section (which however was not misrepresentation). If it was the one, that called the previous statements and apology, it misrepresented at leat the referenced text.

As for apology in general. Hitherto there has been no apology and I sincerely hope there will be no apology, as the Pope has done nothing wrong.

Jim, I can only deal with so much at a time. You showed "religious racism" to me and Ann and I warned you that this would be reported. And I will report you tomorrow, as right now it is too late in the day. That gives you some time, if you want to apologize (yes, that means "I am sorry for my wrong actions"). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, first, you yourself have now failed at AGF, by assuming rather than looking at facts regarding the section you wrongly attributed to me, and yet I see no mea culpa de profundis animae meae.

Second, there is no such thing as "religious racism", so no, I will not be apologising (if you knew me at all, you'd know that I do not suppport bias of any type). If you note, I questioned your ability to be neutral -- this is a valid question given your edit history here and the concerns of WP:NPOV. If you somehow think that you can adopt the means of the current US Administration and ascribe "evil" motives to those who question you, you are free to do so, although in so doing you are in violation of another of Wiki's tenets.

As for Ann, she can speak for herself -- although I note that she has not done so in the case of anti-Muslim comments such as "Barbaric predilection" and "Hysterical bedouins".

Finally, you feel Benedict has done nothing wrong, I feel I've done nothing wrong. It's a goose and gander kind of thing, infallibility notwithstanding. •Jim62sch• 22:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Jim, I saw your remark "I note that she has not done so in the case of anti-Muslim comments" two days ago, but deliberately did not reply, as I felt this page was heated enough. I feel that I have built up a record of dealing calmly and fairly with people of opposing POVs who have attacked me in the past. I have in mind in particular an indefinitely-banned atheist user whose article I voted to keep, from whose talk page I removed several taunts, and whom I agreed to give a second chance after his first indefinite blocking. There are many other examples. I say that in context of your insinuation that I, as a Catholic, turned a blind eye to anti-Muslim remarks — an unfortunate insinuation, and one which does not show you in a good light. For the record, I had not seen those anti-Muslim comments, and had to use "find" (from the edit menu on my browser) before I even knew what you were talking about. It shouldn't be necessary for me to say that I object to anti-Muslim comments, but since you have made it necessary, I'll say it. I do not in any way condone anti-Muslim remarks. I do not check every single comment on this page, and as you know, there have been many posts to it recently. May I point out that you are making the atmosphere unpleasant here, and you seen to be doing it deliberately. Considering you seem to disapprove of what the Pope said, on the grounds that he should have known better than to make comments that might give offence, perhaps you might like to reflect on the following quotations, all of which come from you:

• It is clear from the Chi Rho on your user page that your defense of Benedict is one born out of your faith, not out of any sense of fairness or logic.
• Get over it
• Sparky, get your ducks in a row.
• your assertions re Christmas and the rest are best known as bullshit
• Learn how to read
• your history as a Catholic-apologist is well-known. I don't see that you can comment neutrally here.
• You're a historian? Paid?

It seems rather inconsistent for you to criticize the Pope for saying something (unintentionally) that would offend people of other faiths, when you're doing exactly the same thing yourself — but intentionally. After all, when the Pope heard of the reaction, he said he was "deeply sorry", and said that it hadn't been his intention to offend. He didn't say, "Get over it", "Your indignation comes from your faith, not from fairness or logic", "Sparky, get your ducks in a row", "Your assertions are best known as bullshit", "Learn how to read", etc.

I am not interested in a discussion, especially since talk pages are meant to be used to discuss how to improve the article, but I'd ask you to reflect on whether you're making Wikipedian atmosphere better or worse by such posts? AnnH ♫ 00:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ann, until you resolve, comment upon, act like an admin in relation to these two comments, "...barbaric prediliction toward violence", and "Hysterical bedouins", I'm afraid I simply cannot take you seriously. There's also some of Str1977's behaviour, both in terms of civility and in terms of NPOV vios I could highlight, but knowing your own predilection for picking and choosing your criticisms, I see little point.

BTW, I'm not interested in a discussion here either, as there is no point to it. As an admin there is an expectation that your behaviour in dispute be neutral (see the example set by KillerChihuahua's), but you have certainly not met that expectation on this page. End of discussion.

PS, your explanation of what the pope said and when is just a tad out of chronological order. •Jim62sch• 21:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Str1977 to which comment are you atributting to Jim? JoshuaZ 23:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Joshua, the unsigned comment that was addressing me: "Str1977 should explain the basis of his reversal of my contribution, clarifying what was misrepresentative in the contribution and seek a compromise in the content and language. Until he does that his reversals are not beyond vandalism." I have now seen that it was posted by the User:172.145.198.169. [7] I will reply in a minute. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

172 complained about this edit of mine: [8]. The misrepresentation clearly was that only one kind of reaction was reported, while other reactions were kept out. 172 clearly understands this, as he reflected it in his second edit. However, in this edit he also returned to a former, anti-chronological order. I have moved the section back to its proper place and also made a few tweaks needed for NPOV:

• "for his indirect endorsement of the quote to bolster his speech and teachings" implied that Benedict had indeed endorsed the quote which is directly contrary to what he actually said. You don't endorse something by calling it "suprisingly harsh".

I also removed the word "minority" from "religious minority leaders", as it might imply that these comments are either dishonest or irrelevant. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I posted, " In September, 2006, Pope Benecict the sixth, after quoting an ancient text critical of Islam, made a non-apology. Rather than regret his intemperate remarks, the pope stated that "he was sorry he caused offense."

This is a legitimate criticism. Somebody tried to revert within one minute. Who is this person/

No, it is not. first, it is Benedict XVI (id est sixteenth). secondly, Manuel II Palaiologos is not ancient. thirdly, Rather than regret his intemperate remarks: is this NPOV?! maybe some expect from him to say mea culpa, but this is not how the case is, nor how others see the issue. Hectorian 01:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

172, please sign your posts if your want to be taken seriously.

Please don't insert POV pushing. You say it is legitimate criticism. You might think so, but it is not WP's job to criticize but to report.

"Non-apology" is not a word. WP should report what happens and not what might have happened but didn't. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

See Non-apology_apology. •Jim62sch• 22:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. But IMHO this only works supposing that the statement claimed to be an apology. But it doesn't. We have a statement that just isn't an apology. We should state what it is and not what it is not, unless some notable voice than says: "but this not ...", of course in NPOV fashion. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't supporting inclusion of the term in the article as it is rather subjective absent a reliable source, I was just pointing out that the concept really does exist. Also, Francesco was correct -- secular humanists look at comments from the Pope regarding secular humanism as, well, not really important. No offence, mind you, but given his point-of-view, it's simply that his comments are expected, pro forma and nothing new under the sun. •Jim62sch• 23:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is oxymoronic, "...it is not WP's job to criticize but to report." What if the reportage is critical? And what of the thousand of Wiki articles tha hae a criticism section? Should these be removed? If so, cite the appropriate Wiki policy. •Jim62sch• 22:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course we report critical utterances. But a) is this not criticism but mere name calling, so it adds nothing to the statement that Muslims were offended and uttered criticism. b) all this is included in great length in the main article. Since I don't propose deleting "criticism sections" (though sometimes they are of low quality) I don't have to cite a policy for it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ian Paisley and Benedict XVI

Has Ian Paisley made any comments on Benedict XVI?

As with Enoch Powell's Rivers of blood comment a quote turned into a soundbite with a totally different meaning because the original speaker did not consider all the implications/meanings that could be drawn out of it. (This is #meant to be a general observation# about the two statements, not drawing any comparison between the two people.)

I doubt that this has in any way changed Ian Paisley's opinion of the Pope, which is already (a) well known and (b) globally insignificant. Guy 14:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

At least Ian Paisley is consistent in his beliefs/statements - which is more than can be said of many politicians (though there is a case to be argued for knowing when to change): I just wanted to know if the "rentaquote mob" school of journalism had asked him for his viewpoint.

I am confident that his opinion is being offered unsolicited at every opportunity; I believe it will be clearly audible from Fleet Street without the need for telephones. Guy 23:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Awaiting a citation for a good comment

--- Begin cut container

• The worldwide Head of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, Hadhrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad, the supreme Head of the Ahmadiyya Muslims in his Friday sermon Sept. 15th 2006, delivered to millions around the world via satellite TV voiced fears that the Pope’s comments on Islam were adding fuel to the fires of Western propaganda against Islam. And, he said western nations should heed Christ's own message of peace before lecturing Islamic nations on Jihad. "The Pope's comments have created such a wrong impression of Islam that one wonders what the motivation was. Does it somehow reflect his own sentiment and, if so, it demonstrates a fundamental lack of knowledge about Islam", he said.

--- End cut container

Maybe citations by page and date to the Times or to the New York Times would be good, since they are in English and this is the English version of the Wikipedia. --Rednblu 04:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Photograph date

The photo of Pope Benedict with John Paul II under the heading "Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1981–2005)" seems to have an incorrect date. It says 1978, but that photo appears much more recent. I looked but cannot find the correct date. --Undead1 17:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe the mistake of date is mine. I mistakenly thought the photo was from JP2's Inaugural Mass (Oct.22, 1978). I'll remove the year date, as I'm not sure what date the photo is. GoodDay 20:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Historical Citations to Benedicts comments on Islam

According to another Wikipedia article, what Benedict quoted about Islam "being spread by the sword" is partially true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_as_a_general Should somebody cite that? Because it seems that part of the widespread criticism has to do with revisionists claiming that he is completely wrong about that. --Captain Cornflake 20:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

New Picture Needed

I can understand wanting to put someone's private photo of the Pope on such a visited site - heck, if I had one I'd post it as soon as I downloaded it to my PC. But the one that is there now simply isn't adequate, the lighting is poor (low light for a private audience, understandable), and the focus seems not quite right. Surely there are some public domain photos out there, or fair-use pictures that could be accurately attributed? Check the Vatican website, something is bound to come up. 24.218.216.126 04:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Deputy Pope?

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, who becomes what is often dubbed the "deputy pope" on Sept. 15, said in a newspaper interview on Sunday that the Vatican had "great faith in the role of the U.N. and the international organisations involved in resolving conflicts"[72]

The Google string "deputy Pope" is theologically incorrect but that is forgivable. The phrase only generates 831 Google hits at time of writing and that justifies taking it out. It's not a popular usage. TMLutas 17:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Nun killed?

Wasn't a nun killed in retaliation for recent comments? --Gbleem 12:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. An Italian nun at a hospital in Somalia. Pope Benedict XVI recently made a comment about that death in which he praised the nun. See here: NY Times Article ResurgamII 19:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ratzinger and child sex abuse by the clergy

Why is there no entry for this? There is a considerable volume of evidence that Ratzinger instigated an official Vatican policy of obstructing investigation of allegations of child sex abuse by Catholic priests, but there isn't a hint of this. Anyone want to start it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iantnm (talk • contribs) 22:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It is already done: Joseph Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith#Response to sex abuse scandal Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Planned visit to Turkey

The present wording of the article:

"Despite the general atmosphere of turmoil with the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, the murder of Father Andrea Santoro and the recent violence due to his comments on Islam and Terror, Pope Benedict will visit Turkey in November 2006 at the request of Patriarch Bartholomew I. He remains most unwelcome in many different circles in Turkey."

A head of state does not "request" a foreign dignitary to visit his country (or in any case very rarely does). Such a visit is the consequence of long prior contacts, after which an official invitation is issued. The invitation in this case took about a year in coming, therefore one can explain it by polite non-enthusiasm. I am removing Ahmet Necdet Sezer, putting a link to Andrea Santoro, mention in passing the Pope's being "most unwelcome in many different circles in Turkey" (even from usually opposing ends). The affirmation is extremely easy to source, that I can provide if objections. Check also the main page of Turkish wikipedia.

Cretanforever 14:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is this news removed, when it is correct.

===Dr Zakir Naik's invitation to pope Benedict XVI for open interfaith dialogue===

Muslim scholar Dr Zakir Naik invited Pope Benedict XVI for open interfaith dialogue on 29th September 2006. To see Dr Zakir Naik's dialogue invitation to pope see links [9] and [10]

"I am more than willing to participate in the inter-faith dialogue with Pope Benedict XVI. I am ready on any topic he (the Pope) wishes as long as it focuses on Quran and the Bible," Dr. Naik said. He said he can go to Rome or Vatican to meet the Pope.

"I can go to Rome and to Vatican on my own expense if an Italian visa is arranged for me,"

"I am absolutely ready for an open and public debate with the pope under live international TV coverage," he said.

Let the 1.3 billion Muslims and 2 billion Christians around the world listen to the debate based on equal slot of time allotted to both sides, he said. "It is not only a debate but also a question and answer session allowing the people to ask queries," he said.

Many times i posted this message but it was of no use as someone else is deleting it always, can u please say me the reason for your this behaviour as this news is true. Cretanforever 21:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It has been removed repeatedly because you have added it about five times in a single edit, all in different places in the article where it shouldn't be. Additonally, what you have posted above is mostly given over to an extensive quote by Dr Nazik, which isn't relevant to an article on Pope Benedict. The invitation by Dr Nazik is actually mentioned in the article, it's buried in Dialogue with Islam somewhere. The issue isn't whether it is true or not, but whether it is appropriate for the article you want to put it on. Thankyou for discussing this on the talkpage. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 21:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Islam daughter article

Does anyone else think that the lengthy Islam sections should be moved to a daughter article (I suggest: Pope Benedict XVI and Islam) and then summarized without about a sentence or so for each current section. It currently takes up about three screenshots of the article and is quite unmanagable for readers who only want a general introduction to Benedict XVI. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 15:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of the stuff on Islam shouldn't be there anyway. Someone just keeps adding non-notable news preports and and no-one can be bothered to edit it. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 16:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Although decently written for the most part, much reads more like a newsfeed and something that should better be in say Wikinews. I support the daughter article idea and trimming down here (Note: this was already tried with the Islam controversy topic, and that part of this article is still creeping up in size...not to mention what an exhaustive mess that daughter article has become.) Baccyak4H 16:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Some people may find this information interesting. In general, I think that branching out into a daughter article would be a better way to prevent overemphasis in this article than by simply removing sourced content. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)