Talk:Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Events leading up to the pope's resignation?

Benedict XVI is the first pope in at least 500 years to resign/renounce/etc... his office. Some commentators have speculated that having a former pope still living could cause administrative complications for the Catholic church. (E.G., "Do Popes Quit?". The New York Times. 10 April 2010. p. 1. Retrieved 25 February 2013. "There is a more practical reason why Benedict will most likely remain on the throne of Peter, said Alberto Melloni, a professor of church history and the director of the liberal Catholic John XXIII Foundation for Religious Science in Bologna. Who in the hierarchy would want an ex-pope sitting around, possibly passing judgment on his successor, possibly attracting a rival faction?")

So his resignation is a remarkable event. The only explanation for it suggested by this Wikipedia article is the one Benedict XVI gave himself. Even if that explanation is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, a reader might reasonably wonder whether any particular pressures might have lead Benedict XVI to conclude that the demands of his office were too great. A balanced article should at least explore the recent controversies, if only as factors that may have contributed to Benedict XVI's decision. Steve.Murgaski (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems fair enough but lets please adhere to Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources and not sticking in a point of view and due weight, i.e. just summarize what has been said in the mainstream media about possible reasons for the resignation in a neutral manner. The discussion in previous sections seems to show people wanting to stick their own point of view and blogs and personal web pages in. Dmcq (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Dmcq, and I might add that a speculative report from an Italian newspaper, followed by passing mention by other press, with no serious evidence, does not exactly adhere to WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, or WP:RECENT. If this is a BIG story in the mainstream press in six months, it might deserve mention in the article. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper. Cresix (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The difficulty we've been having is a general lack of reliable sources providing other reasons for his resignation - if they emerge, then yes, covering it would make sense. But it is easy to fall into the original research trap, by arguing that certain pressures must have been a factor, or synthesis, where we put forward sourced but unrelated points to lead the reader to conclude that they must have been an influence. We need to be careful to avoid this, so the "demands of office" need to be ones that have been presented, in reliable sources, to have been an influence on his decision. - Bilby (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

As things stand now the See Also link to Vatileaks scandal suffices. Personally I think that the reportage on the speculation bears watching (and at least merits some mention here), but we need a bit more meat. kencf0618 (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

There is never a shortage of "watching" speculation, so that's a non-issue. Including speculation in the article, on the other hand, is entirely inappropriate without solid evidence, which at this time does not exist. Cresix (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

That's right. We can never be seen as saying something like "The Pope gave X as his reason for resigning, but the real reason was Y", unless it is clearly established in reliable sources that Y was indeed the catalyst and X was merely the cover story. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Well we can say something like 'some sources say he is resigning because...' - but those sources need to be reliable sources like a national newspaper and not peoples blogs or the 'logical deductions' of Wikipedia editors. Dmcq (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the phrase "some sources" is quite vague and suggests that those "sources" have much more weight than they actually do (see WP:WEASEL). Unless this issue receives substantially more coverage in the mainstream press in a way that clearly confirms motives in the resignation beyond what Benedict himself has stated, it does not belong in this article. Cresix (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I meant for the sources to be instantiated with the actual sources, I shouldn't have put in quotes. Dmcq (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem, and you make a valid point. Cresix (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

There are full length news programs from agencies like CNN and the BBC (links posted in Immunity section above) where people were calling for the Pope to resign, and these programs delve into the specific reasons, showing original documents, yet editors for this article choose to not mention any of that. I fail to see how "we need a bit more meat", when these news organizations have already provided us with hours of coverage focused on Benedict/Ratzinger's culpability in major scandal.

...then a couple of weeks ago we were given reports that the Pope received a report on the VatiLeaks Affair back in December. Eight weeks later he announces his resignation, and we have chosen to ignore all of the reports that have discussed the link between these two events and people here express satisfaction that we have included a 'See also' link. Hardly what I consider a thorough article.--Tdadamemd (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You commented after watching some shows 'After weighing the facts presented in those programs...'. We are not experts who are entitled to weigh facts and come to conclusion. That is WP:Original research. You need to find a WP:reliable source where someone says something. We need to be able to go back to a source and say, "yes that's what they said", not xyz Wikipedia editor weighed the facts and came to the conclusion that. Dmcq (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not see the weighing of facts to be original research. I would call it an evaluation of a reference. And what you are critiquing is a comment posted to this Talk page. That is very different from edits I had made to the article. Anyone can look back to my edits of the actual article and see that they were all straightforward quotes and facts that were well-referenced.--Tdadamemd (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is the exact quote of what I had stated on this page that you are critiquing as my "original research":

"After weighing the facts presented in those programs, the biggest thing I am surprised about is that anyone was surprised with Benedict's announcement last week."

Dmcq, if you have to take my words so far out of context in order to make your point, then that would be a strong indicator that your point is lacking in a solid foundation to stand on.--Tdadamemd (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't be weighing the facts presented in those programs. You should jut point out stuff which directly support what you are saying and which mentions the resignation. How much clearer can I be? No weighing or anything like that. As to your 'I do not see the weighing of facts to be original research', thank you but no thanks for your opinions. However if some noted Vatican watcher is quoted in the New York Times and says the resignation was probably prompted by xyz or that the pope might need to seek asylum then that very probably should be included. Dmcq (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

If you look back on my edits to the article, you will see that I was adding direct quotes and facts regarding what was being reported by reliable sources with no weighing or interpretation. Here is a direct quote from one of the full-length documentaries I had highlighted above:

"Many people are now saying that this [the sex abuse crisis] is a personal crisis for Pope Benedict himself."

"Critics have called on him to resign."

That is from the BBC documentary Benedict - Trials of a Pope.

Benedict's resignation was preceded by loud calls for him to resign, including major protest marches to places he visited. What we have is an article about his resignation with absolutely no mention that many people were demanding this from him. This has been widely reported on by many reliable sources, yet all edits to include this in our article here have been removed. The only mention of sex abuse scandal that remains in the article today is this:

"U.S. Cardinal Timothy Dolan said that he "brought a listening heart to victims of sexual abuse"."

Absolutely no hint of criticism, let alone all of the sources that see the scandals to be the cause of his resignation.--Tdadamemd (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

That same documentary concludes the section by saying that Benedict had no cause to resign. More to the point, though, the documentary was filmed in 2010. While it shows that there were at least some calls for his resignation, it can't show that those calls had any impact on his decision in 2013. The risk of synth comes from connecting those claims with his actual resignation. - Bilby (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

2010 or 2013?? What's the big deal?? Synthesis to reach unique, unsourced conclusions?? No problem!! Oh ... no, wait ... I thought I was logged in to Tabloidipedia, not Wikipedia. Cresix (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

^^^^ This is exactly what I am talking about. Sources like a feature documentary by the BBC being dismissed as tabloid. Extremely curious.--Tdadamemd (talk) 03:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

You missed the point. I don't have a problem with BBC. What I have a serious problem with is your pushing synthesis from source(s) to reach your own conclusions. Cresix (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not advocate any synthesis whatsoever for inclusion in the article. What I have been pushing for here is the documentation within the article that there were calls for Benedict's resignation from as far back as 2010 because of his culpability in the sex abuse scandals. Such facts are highly relevant to this article about his resignation. And these facts are extremely well documented in many reliable sources.

For all of the editors who OPPOSE inclusion of the 'immunity' issue, not a single one of them commented on the article's huge bias by not having any mention of these prior calls for the Pope's resignation. What has happened here strikes me as absolutely bizarre. The Vatican itself could not have written a "better" article about this topic of the Pope resigning. But this is Wikipedia, and we are supposed to be presenting the neutral point of view of the facts relevant to this matter. Obviously the process is prone to having major breakdowns.--Tdadamemd (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? Exactly which reliable source states that the calls for Benedict's resignation in 2010 led to his decision to resign in 2013? If you want to try to write an article about the calls for his resignation in 2010, go for it (although I doubt that it would survive AfD), but before adding anything to this article, you need to give us a source stating that Benedict decided to resign because of the calls for his resignation in 2010. And Tdadamemd, I think you have made your points sufficiently here (numerous times), so before doing so again please read WP:IDHT. Cresix (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not aware of any reports that say that the 2010 calls for resignation led to his 2013 decision. That was never my point. The point remains that any significant call for him to resign is salient to an article about his actual resignation. And since my effort here is no longer seen as useful information in reply to Steve.Murgaski's question, I expect that I will have little more to add.--Tdadamemd (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Bilby, there are two responses to your post: I have provided plenty of 2013 references that relate the Pope's resignation to scandals. And just because a source is more than a couple of years old, that does not in and of itself make it irrelevant. Ratzinger's involvement in sex abuse cases spans decades, and many people see that to have come to a head with the December VatiLeaks Dossier. The 2010 calls for his resignation are a key part of the story that leads up to the events of Feb 2013.

I have voiced agreement that it would not be proper for the article tosays whatever it i synthesize any connection between calls for his resignation (whether they happened back in 2010 or in 2013). If the references do not draw such connection, then the facts about calls for his resignation should be mentioned in our article without drawing any connection to what Benedict's actual motivations may or may not have been. You and I have discussed this at length.--Tdadamemd (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

You have not provided any reliable sources which say his resignation was probably caused by anything like that or which quotes some noted person as linking the resignation to anything like that. If people have not made the connection in reliable sources then Wikipedia should not draw or imply any such conclusion. If you need to write reams on a talk page to make a point you have already lost the plot, we summarize what is in the reliable sources which directly relate to a topic with some sort of weight and all you really need to do is point to a something that is about this resignation that says whatever it is you think should be summarized in the article. Was for instance the 2010 article about this resignation? No. Has somebody mentioned the 2010 programme in a reliable source when talking about the resignation? No. Has anybody in a reliable source even discussed the resignation and referred to matters which were well covered by the BBC 2010 programme? No. What you are doing is covered by SYNTH in the WP:OR policy. Dmcq (talk) 06:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

A reference to the La Repubblica article alleging some link between the resignation and a secret dossier like the reference in [1] is probably okay even though everyone knows the Italian newspapers are always a hotbed of gossip and most of it is rubbish. I like the way the newspaper tries to imply something by its 'decline to confirm' at the top when the Vatican doesn't confirm or deny rumours anyway! Dmcq (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is what I stated over three weeks ago, which subsequently got squelched as "off topic":

"People were calling for his resignation and then he resigns. It is not necessary to prove that he resigned because of those calls for his resignation. The simple fact that there was a movement calling for his resignation in and of itself is notable and salient to this article."

Adding these well referenced facts to the article, if done properly, would in no way constitute Synth. We are discussing the article about the Pope's resignation, and the consensus view here is that prior calls for his resignation are irrelevant to this article. Astounding.

As for your view that the length of an argument is the measure of its lack of validity, while that might be accurate in some cases, I don't see how that can apply as a blanket rule to all arguments ("Once you have exceeded a certain length, your argument is proven to be invalid by that very fact of its length.")--Tdadamemd (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

What's your problem with finding and using something which actually mentions the resignation and is in a reliable source like I provided instead of something which doesn't like you did? Dmcq (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

These are direct quotes from an NBC article from last month:

"Pope Benedict XVI cited failing health for his historic decision to step aside, but it is increasingly clear that the rich seam of scandal and strife running through the Vatican weighed heavily on his mind."

"The biggest headache for Pope Benedict XVI was the issue of alleged child sex abuse and the extent to which it had been ignored in some quarters of the church."

It then goes on to talk about the relevance of VatiLeaks. The consensus in this section is that it is satisfactory to leave VatiLeaks merely as a 'See also' link, in spite of the fact that there are numerous reports that see this to be a major factor, if not central.--Tdadamemd (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you again for elaborating on your point of view, Tdadamemd. Now once again, please read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT before repeating it again. Cresix (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I read that and I couldn't see anywhere it said that anything it mentioned might have led to his resignation. They just mentioned things without drawing any connection that I could see. Dmcq (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

This will be my last post here, until there is some major new development. I'm posting to point out how freakin bizarre it is that I produce a source that clearly states that scandals were a major factor in Benedict's decision to resign - this is the plain meaning of the first sentence that I quoted - and others here will read those exact same words and be in complete denial of what that source is so clearly saying. One point we are agreed on is that there is a major WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problem going on, but such a problem is possible to be on the part of the majority.

...and with that, I will say goodbye. Clearly my effort here is seen by an overwhelming vocal majority to be a waste of their time, so I will put this on hold.--Tdadamemd (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

What you say is simply untrue. To be used in Wikipedia, especially about living persons, the citations must be directly relevant and not require any special work trying to interpret it. Have a look at the Guardian link I gave you for the sort of thing required [2]. It says 'Papal resignation linked to inquiry into 'Vatican gay officials', says paper' and it was published in the Guardian. It was about the Papal resignation, it linked what it said to that, and it was in a reliable source. Now look at even the best of what you produced - the one that actually mentioned the papal resignation rather than people calling for something like that two or three years ago and which was in a reliable source. an NBC article. Read the headline 'Vatican history of 'cover-ups and disarray' will challenge new pope'. Does that sound like it is about reasons the pope resigned? No it doesn't. Read further and does it say anywhere that any of the challenges might have influenced the pope to resign in any way? No it doesn't. Now please stop going on about bizarre and complete denial and just follow the policies thanks. Dmcq (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to request that an uninvolved editor close this discussion because it has run its course and is no longer productive. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The editors who continue to vandalize this article need to be banned from wikipedia

There has been persistent vandalism of this article by editors who have abused their authority and violated gravely the ethical code of Wikipedia. I ask that all editors who see this notice review the edits on this article, and see that the offending editors are banned and punished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:189:C480:29F0:D951:7DBD:9A54:55BE (talk) 10:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The correct term is "Renunciation" not resignation

This was discussed in the Talk section on Papal Renunciation. To be consistent with the rest of Wikipedia, it seems that this article should reflect that, since its not the place of anyone adding to this article to contradict what is said in that article on the point of how a pope leaves office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:189:C480:29F0:D951:7DBD:9A54:55BE (talk) 10:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

When did Pope Benedict leave office, ministry?

There have been so problems in the initial paragraph of this article. It currently says that it occurred, but that it was announced. Since the papal Motu Proprio of Feb 12, 2013 was more than an announcement, it perhaps should be said to have taken effect, on such an such, and was declared on such and such. Also since the renunciation of Benedict regarded the petrine ministry, it should said that he renounced the ministry and left the ministry, to be historically accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:189:C480:29F0:D951:7DBD:9A54:55BE (talk) 10:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: I have been contacted by the IP who posted this section and the two above it, and offered some advice. I don't plan to work on this article, it's outside my usual areas of interests, and I lack any specialist knowledge or relevant experience to have an immediate view on the questions raised. I only ended up making some reference changes as a consequence of something else I read. Feel free to let me know if my comments were problematic for some reason, or if I can help. Regards, EdChem (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Reactions

What is the encyclopedic value of this list of quotes? Why are they here and not at Wikiquote? Surtsicna (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Benedict XVI's Last Audience.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Resignationism/Benevacantism/Beniplenism

@SnowFire: I agree the opinion B16 did not resign you removed is not notable. This position has a few names such as Resignationism, Benevacantism, or Beniplenism. I have only seen it expressed in blogs and on Twitter. Veverve (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)