Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pope Benedict XVI/Attempt 02
Pope Benedict XVI edit
I want to resubmit this article. It has grown considerably and has become much more stable since last time considered (May 3). 83.109.188.50 01:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Note: the archive can be seen at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pope Benedict XVI/Attempt 01. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Minor Object There are still a couple of external links that should become notes, in the Papacy section. Otherwise I would agree that the article has received major improvements.--JohnDBuell | Talk 03:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I am fixing those right now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Conditional Support Can a couple of the shorter paragraphs in the body of the article, describing the Pope's early career in the Roman Catholic Church be tightened up a little? --JohnDBuell | Talk 23:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Object. While the article is quite good now, my feeling is that this is one which will constantly be changing as Benedict does more in his papacy. We really haven't seen him address some of the major issues (adoption, contraception, etc.) that were so heavily discussed at the time of the conclave. I feel that these issues will set off POV edit wars, and this article is unlikely to remain stable for long. Harro5 05:08, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
- How's that any different than any other revisionist biographical writing? :) And years from now, if there's a MAJOR change in church teaching, how's that going to prevent anyone from prior to such a shift getting pages vandalized? Popes have been discredited posthumously before.... --JohnDBuell | Talk 05:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, he has clearly addresses all the issues you are mentioning while he was a professor, cardinal and prefect of the CDF, and has written numerous books. His views are well known. 83.109.174.82 17:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- As for the POV editing, that has pretty much been silenced now. The last main POV issue, the use of the styles, pretty much died off. Plus, every article that was featured on the main page was vandalized, no matter what topic it is. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- BTW, I will support the nomination and support this article becoming FA. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Better articles have been voted out beacuse they relate to the current events. Perhaps we should make it into some kind of a rule? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- That is already covered by the stability criteria. --mav 02:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Support My major worry the previous time was stability, and the article has quieted considerably since then. --MikeJ9919 01:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Object - Agree with Harro5. The lead section is also way too short and the TOC is a bit long. --mav 02:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- What I did in the references section is what we should do to reduce the TOC? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Support on condition the lead section has a solid 2 or 3 paragraph summary of the article content. Re: Harro5's objection, Featured Articles can be about on-going or changing events, in fact they are the ones usually picked up by mainstream news and "featured" by the rest of the world. Stbalbach 02:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- But we already have a section called "Overview". Wouldn't a longer lead section be redunant then? 83.109.149.64 13:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- See the Wikipedia style guidelines and other examples of featured articles. The purpose of the lead opening is a high level plain language low-factual high-style "hook" to draw the reader in, to let them decide if they want to read more, then like peeling an onion, the article gets progressivly more detailed, repeating the same material but with more detail each time, so the reader can stop reading when they know enough, or keep reading to get into the nitty gritty. Stbalbach 14:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I've tried to expand the section slightly, improvements are welcome. 83.109.128.127 19:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- See the Wikipedia style guidelines and other examples of featured articles. The purpose of the lead opening is a high level plain language low-factual high-style "hook" to draw the reader in, to let them decide if they want to read more, then like peeling an onion, the article gets progressivly more detailed, repeating the same material but with more detail each time, so the reader can stop reading when they know enough, or keep reading to get into the nitty gritty. Stbalbach 14:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- But we already have a section called "Overview". Wouldn't a longer lead section be redunant then? 83.109.149.64 13:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Support, looks good to me. Phoenix2 03:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: suggest anon assasinates the Pope in order to speed up the completion of the article as a current event. The only issue I see here is that the act of assasination itself could be seen as introducing original research into the article. HTH. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: ? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Object. The idea of having a feature article about a major world leader who has barely assumed a lifetime office is absurd. I have no doubt that perhaps the article will have some substance once something can actually be said about his papal reign in context, but doubtless that will require either considerable time or his vacating the role (if not both). As a matter of comparision, would you dare have a featured article about an active and ongoing war? --Girolamo Savonarola 01:33, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
- Do you have a problem with how the article is formatted? If not, then there is nothing I can do to resolve this objection. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I believe the problem is inherent to the subject at this point in time: the article is about a pope - clearly the most defining characteristic of the man - who has barely been pope. How possibly can the article cover his papacy at this point in time? I am not debating anything about the article's content or format. The problem is that I don't believe that an article about a barely regnant pope should be able to be featured, being as the defining facts for which he will be remembered have yet to be apparent. There's nothing wrong with articles about active people, but those just thrust into the spotlight for an influential job whose powers they've barely exercised? Clearly you can at least see my objections, even if you don't share them. To answer your question succinctly, the article itself does not concern me one way or another. The situation and context does. --Girolamo Savonarola 03:24, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
- Well, I mainly think the purpose of the FAC is to allow people to comment about any technical issues about the article. This is from the main WP:FAC page: "If you oppose a nomination, write Object followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. This includes objections to an article's suitability for the Wikipedia Main Page, unless such suitability can be fixed (featured articles, despite being featured, may be marked so as not to be showcased on the Main Page)." Of course, some might say it has been quick to be put on here, and this is the second time around the article has been placed on FAC. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree then. I believe that my objections have been at least partially reflected within other objections which may touch more directly on policy, such as rapidly changing events and so on. I believe, however, than an article about a Pope that deals very little with his life as Pope can be regarded as a technical issue. As can I suggest a technical solution: continue to work on the article and wait for more events to develop until his papacy can become a full and substantial part of the article (what he's done beyond his initial investiture). Look at virtually all other Pope's articles (aside from the short-lived ones) and you'll see that the best written ones are mostly about their papacy, not their backgrounds or initial beginnings. Also, your citing a second nomination for FAC within a short time of a religious leader a large number consider second in authority only to God should not be seen as anything other than what it is - a second nomination, not a mandate for featured status. I appreciate that it's a good article about an important person, but I simply can't support it at this point in time. I know that my technical solution is not what you want to hear, but suggestions can be specific and helpful while also unable to be immediately implemented. These are merely my thoughts - if you want to force a specific policy objection, then I suppose I'll just agree with the other objections and cite the fact that the article is almost certainly going to be heavily re-edited, likely with points of editorial controversy and contention, for a long time afterwards and thus deals with current events and is too unstable to be realistically expected to be consistently a model article. I don't know what more you want me to say. --Girolamo Savonarola 02:30, 2005 Jun 27 (UTC)
- Thats fine. FA requirement three states: "Be uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy, and not have ongoing edit wars (see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes)." Of course, we might have issues about his early days, especially those of him involved with the Hitler Youth. I have no clue on what is the truth or not, since many of the people that could mention his activities in the group might have lost their memory of him or have passed away. Plus, every article on the front page has been vandalized, and we still have problem with vandals. One problem with the article itself is that some want more pictures of the Pope for the article. I will not fight anymore, mainly I am just here to fix anything that could be done. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:31, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree then. I believe that my objections have been at least partially reflected within other objections which may touch more directly on policy, such as rapidly changing events and so on. I believe, however, than an article about a Pope that deals very little with his life as Pope can be regarded as a technical issue. As can I suggest a technical solution: continue to work on the article and wait for more events to develop until his papacy can become a full and substantial part of the article (what he's done beyond his initial investiture). Look at virtually all other Pope's articles (aside from the short-lived ones) and you'll see that the best written ones are mostly about their papacy, not their backgrounds or initial beginnings. Also, your citing a second nomination for FAC within a short time of a religious leader a large number consider second in authority only to God should not be seen as anything other than what it is - a second nomination, not a mandate for featured status. I appreciate that it's a good article about an important person, but I simply can't support it at this point in time. I know that my technical solution is not what you want to hear, but suggestions can be specific and helpful while also unable to be immediately implemented. These are merely my thoughts - if you want to force a specific policy objection, then I suppose I'll just agree with the other objections and cite the fact that the article is almost certainly going to be heavily re-edited, likely with points of editorial controversy and contention, for a long time afterwards and thus deals with current events and is too unstable to be realistically expected to be consistently a model article. I don't know what more you want me to say. --Girolamo Savonarola 02:30, 2005 Jun 27 (UTC)
- Well, I mainly think the purpose of the FAC is to allow people to comment about any technical issues about the article. This is from the main WP:FAC page: "If you oppose a nomination, write Object followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. This includes objections to an article's suitability for the Wikipedia Main Page, unless such suitability can be fixed (featured articles, despite being featured, may be marked so as not to be showcased on the Main Page)." Of course, some might say it has been quick to be put on here, and this is the second time around the article has been placed on FAC. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I believe the problem is inherent to the subject at this point in time: the article is about a pope - clearly the most defining characteristic of the man - who has barely been pope. How possibly can the article cover his papacy at this point in time? I am not debating anything about the article's content or format. The problem is that I don't believe that an article about a barely regnant pope should be able to be featured, being as the defining facts for which he will be remembered have yet to be apparent. There's nothing wrong with articles about active people, but those just thrust into the spotlight for an influential job whose powers they've barely exercised? Clearly you can at least see my objections, even if you don't share them. To answer your question succinctly, the article itself does not concern me one way or another. The situation and context does. --Girolamo Savonarola 03:24, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
- Do you have a problem with how the article is formatted? If not, then there is nothing I can do to resolve this objection. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Object. The article still contains the POV-laden prefixed style, "His Holiness" which issue has been silent of late but is not at all dead. Wikipedia should not pronounce honorific styles but mention them in referred context. The Pope John Paul II article was appropriately changed before submitted for FAC (though since defeated, he is now prefixed "Servant of God"), this practice should not be endorsed as the best Wikipedia can do. Whig 29 June 2005 04:38 (UTC)
- Support: The article is well written and thorough. "His Holiness" once at the beginning of the article is not POV, it is information on official address, he is correctly referred to as Ratzinger throughout the rest of the page. The very nature of the papal office will ensure that such a figure will be controversial from now through to eternity, so the page will probably be vandalised and frequently updated etc. However the page as it is at the moment FA standard, and has to judged on that, if that standard changes in the future then there is a process to deal with that eventuality. Giano | talk 29 June 2005 09:39 (UTC)
- Object As someone said before: His reign as pope has just begun and when he starts dealing with more major issues POV wars will wage. We need to think about the future of this article. No sense in having it featured now only to have another vote to remove featured article status later Nick Catalano (Talk) 29 June 2005 12:35 (UTC)
- The papal office is only a part of his life. He has been the most influential man in the Catholic Church for years already and is famous also as a theologian. He has already dealt with the "major issues"; everyone knows what his opinion on these issues are and he has made them clear numerous times.
- Support. While I agree that major POV wars will results in this article in the future, his life up til now is fascinating and worth feature article status.--Alabamaboy 29 June 2005 16:19 (UTC)
- Object, I don't think an article on any current leader can become a FA, as they cannot meet the stability criteria. - SimonP June 29, 2005 17:05 (UTC)
- I do agree that we still have vandalism issues with the article, and once it becomes featured, it will be possibly be hell on earth to revert it back. As for the styles issue, there was a vote conducted on the use of HH prefixed in the article. The result did not meet consensus, but a slight majority voted to use the prefix. As for it being dead, I know not many have talked about the issue, but I still think Wikipedia will not have a set gudieline for a while. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 29 June 2005 18:48 (UTC)
- We have to judge this article on what we see before us now; not on what it may or may not become. We cannot assume the role of prophets. The Pope is indisputable important to many millions of people. He is an international figure. This is an encyclopedia, the subject and the page currently meet the criteria for FA. What more is there to say. Giano | talk 29 June 2005 18:58 (UTC)
- I'll see what happens here, report to the guys who work on the article what happened at the FAC and see what kind of magic we can pull off. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 29 June 2005 19:01 (UTC)
- Comment it is pretty plain to see that this article does not meet the stability criteria. All the arguments for keeping here are also in fact arguments against the stability criteria for FAs. Personally, i dont understand the necessity of that criteria; wikis are, of course constantly evolving. Perhaps we need to look at the big picture and redefine/eliminate the stability criteria? Borisblue 30 June 2005 10:00 (UTC)
- I'll see what happens here, report to the guys who work on the article what happened at the FAC and see what kind of magic we can pull off. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 29 June 2005 19:01 (UTC)
- We have to judge this article on what we see before us now; not on what it may or may not become. We cannot assume the role of prophets. The Pope is indisputable important to many millions of people. He is an international figure. This is an encyclopedia, the subject and the page currently meet the criteria for FA. What more is there to say. Giano | talk 29 June 2005 18:58 (UTC)
- I do agree that we still have vandalism issues with the article, and once it becomes featured, it will be possibly be hell on earth to revert it back. As for the styles issue, there was a vote conducted on the use of HH prefixed in the article. The result did not meet consensus, but a slight majority voted to use the prefix. As for it being dead, I know not many have talked about the issue, but I still think Wikipedia will not have a set gudieline for a while. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 29 June 2005 18:48 (UTC)
- Mild Objection. 2 comments: First, this article is too holy. How can an encyclopedia article start with "his holiness"...!? Second, just a comment (this point itself is neutral): articles in this wikipedia are designed to be changeable. Therefore possible changes in the future does not affect its wellness.
- Object. The image Image:Benedict-salute.jpg is claimed as "copyrighted fair use", but I don't think we can claim that, and further, "fair use" images should be avoided if at all possible. Also, the image tag {{vatican}} is unclear. Are these fair-use images, or are they free-use under certain conditions? (Note that I'll be out of town until Tuesday, and probably won't be able to access Wikipedia until then) --Carnildo 1 July 2005 03:52 (UTC)
- Support.--Xixicoco 1 July 2005 19:17 (UTC)
- Support Well written, and also well structured article, detailing the Pope's life. Besides...he is a Pope. Antonio Not Holy in any way Martin 1 July 2005, 21:52 (UTC)
- Support Well written, stable and NPOV. Worthy of being a featured article. FearÉIREANN
(talk) 2 July 2005 21:01 (UTC)
