Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pope Benedict XVI/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Pope Benedict XVI edit

I am nominating this article for FA status because I feel it has sincerely achieved it. This article has been nominated twice before, the first time because the article was poorly written and unstable, the second because Pope Benedict had only just been elected and it was felt time needed to be given for him to deal with the issues thought to be important to his papacy. Both issues have now been dealt with. The article is well written with a good lead section and concentric levels of detail, and suitable images. Pope Benedict has been in office for a year now and the editors on this have added his views and actions with an objective and exhaustive eye. I feel the time has come to elevate Pope Benedict XVI to FA status. Dev920 00:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment too many paras close to each other start with "On xyz date". Footnotes go at the end of punctuation, not in the middle of a sentence.Rlevse 01:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to replace those paragraph starts, but 1)it's difficult to know what to replace them with, see my current efforts here, and 2) they being added on a regular basis by a changing IP. Where are these footnotes you refer to? Dev920 01:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the footnotes your have. The footnote number should be immediately after the period or comma without spaces. For example, footnotes 10,11,32,33 need fixing. Look over the others too.Rlevse 02:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Footnotes go after punctuation per WP:FN, usually without a space. (Some editors prefer a space, but if so they are consistent throughout the article.) See notably this section and this section needing work. I haven't read the whole article at once because it is 100k; something would needs to be broken off or cut. A good candidate for a sub-article is section 5, and the trivia section could be deleted. For an article this long it is somewhat under-referenced. Gimmetrow 02:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have both made extremely valid and helpful criticisms. It is currently 5:24 am in England, and I have been unable to sleep because I want to include your recommendations so much (dreaming about editing; what a wikiholic). However, I MUST attempt it, so if I could ask for your patience for 24 hours, and I will be on it asap (assuming another editor doesn't do it in the meantime, which would be great). Thankyou. Dev920 04:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Article would benefit from the use of summary style. In particular, the Dialogue with Islam section is a bit tedious. Kaldari 06:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object - There are entire sections of this article on one of the most controversial figures of our time that have no in-line citations. In the lead section, I immediately saw one bald assertion: "When he was younger, he was considered a liberal". I have never heard this in my life (I live in Italy!!). And it is not attributed. I also agree with the criticims formulated above. Most of the references are just links with no further information. Date of publication? Access date? Author? WP:CITE requires full bibliographic information. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, 1a (or 2a) Brilliant prose is important:

Ratzinger came increasingly to see these and associated developments (such as decreasing respect for authority among his students, the rise of the German gay rights movement as related to a departure from traditional Catholic teachings. Increasingly, his views, despite his reformist bent, contrasted with those liberal ideas gaining currency in theological circles.

What is that?

Like his predecessor, Benedict XVI maintains the traditional Catholic doctrines on artificial birth control, abortion, and homosexuality while promoting Catholic social teaching.

Is this a good paragraph? --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out prose objection. I've read through it more thorougly and made some minor corrections. It seems alright, except perhaps that repetitive "in 1926, in 1927..." thing. More citations and more "NPOV", I think, are the main issues.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 11:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Object. - article lacks in referencing criticism. There is no criticism section (see the Tony Blair featured article for a good example). - article doesn't mention the 1990 ratinger-galileo controversy: at that time he supported the process against Galileo saying that it "was reasonable and just" [1] [2] [3] [4] --BMF81 23:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have just split off the section the event you refer to would go in. Dev920 00:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • I apologise for not addressing these concerns quickly. However, I have been working hard on both Wikiquote and Jake Gyllenhaal, so have not been able to give this article my full attention. I have, however, moved all footnotes to after the sentence's full stop, and have split off the information on Benedict as Prefect into a separate article.
Tomorrow I will conduct a thorough copyedit of Benedict's article, and tidy up those rather turgid paragraphs you referred to. The information is there, but you're right, it needs a little touching up.
Regarding a criticism section, I was under the impression that criticisms were raised and dealt with in the relevant sections on this article, rather than in one block. Is this not enough?
I have reviewed the the article and it seems to me that the people who wrote it did so using the books listed in the References section (I know because I've read most of them!); they simply haven't been footnoted. The article therefore seems under referenced when in fact it is not. WP:CITE does not seem to require the entire article to be footnoted: am I reading it wrong? Dev920 00:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not the whole article, but this is pretty strong:

This means that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor.

I interpret this, and I know there are many other editors who agree with me, as basically saying "if it's a claim, source it." Accodring to this rule, I could go in and put a verify tag on the vast majory of the the sentences in the article (I won't do that). It's a good idea to add in-line cites to prevent people from coming in and saying "where did this come from" and having to point to the reference section every time. I would prefer an in-line cite a paragraph and/or for all non-obvious claims. But I could be satisfied with just some progess on this front. Thanks. I will help with some of the copyedit myself today, sicne I have some time. The other editors object is more serious, however. There does seem to be a lack of substantial criticism, IMO. Criticism sections are not required. But--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC) there should be mention of controversy that has taken place in Italy, for example, about the Church's interference in the politics of artifical insemination. To mention just two names: Umberto Eco has criticized the Pope's talk about relativism. I'll see if I can find a source. Umberto Veronese, former minister of health and famous doctor over here in Italy, has criticized the poistion on stem-cells and other resrach issue. Eugenio Scalfari has critizied the Church's general "politicization" under the new Pope. These are obviously controverisal poistions even within the Catholic community. But there's not much discussion.[reply]

  • Comment. Since being the pope, he has also been extensively satirized, and I think the most prominent examples should be mentioned. I have one book to reference on this (Bollito misto con mostarda by Daniele Luttazzi), unfortunly that is in italian.--BMF81 10:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Rid of the trivia section. Either incorporate the info elsewhere, or rid of it - trivia sections aren't recommended for FA's but only for a stub/start class articles so an editor with more time on their hands can incorporate the info into an appropriate section. LuciferMorgan 16:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed that section.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have become unwell, brought on by working too hard on Wikipedia and it's sister projects. I therefore have to take a break to recover. I will definitely be back within two weeks, but more likely one. I hope you all understand, I just need some time off to get over this and devote my full attention to Pope Benedict. I ask that that the FA director bear this in mind when deciding when to close the nomination. I'm sorry to have to delay this, but I promise I will return. If any other editor from the article can take up the cause in my unwilling absence, that would be great. Thankyou. Dev920 18:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, look here!! Take care of yourself and your health before ANYTHING else on this earth. Don't worry about the FAC. I hope it is not this, in particular, that is troubling you. Let me know and I will withdraw my object before you can sneeze. But if it's general overwork or other matters, then I will try to do what I can but I cannot really address the objection about balance and so on that even some others have lodged. Just try to get well and stop thinking about Wikipedia if it is a more serious problem, of course. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. It is a great article and a really intersting read. HOWEVER:

Todd661 08:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object This is a well organized article on a world leader, but one can read all the way through it without encountering much evidence of the fact that many both within and without the Catholic Church object to some of his policies or have criticisms of him. This makes it too POV for a featured article. At the end are a list of a few "Criticism" references which are not cited in the body of the article. One of these is from Andrew Greeley: "He is an intellectual opposed to questioning doctrine. He is a shepherd with scant pastoral experience. He is a creature of the 20th century deeply opposed to the modern world. In these seeming contradictions, you can begin to see the contours of one of the most unusual, gifted men to become Pope." Liberals within the church have criticized his forceful orthodoxy. There are over 600,000 Google hits under '"Pope Benedict XVI " criticism'so there should not be a shortage of verifiable sources that there has been thoughtful criticism of his policies and his tactics in his career in Rome before becoming Pope. I do not advocate editors simply using the article as a forum for their own criticism of the man or the church or his policies as Pope, but there certainly should be a listing of the criticism many have of him. The article leaves the impression everyone in the world loves him and approves everything he has done. Edison 18:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objection withdrawn. Edison 20:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's why there is a criticism section...to put criticisms. For all the biographies I have seen, the critics are not allowed free reign throughout the article page but are kept to that section. Judgesurreal777 04:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that there is no "Criticism" section in the body of the article. I have re-read the article, and despite much criticism of the Pope's orthodoxy and conservatism among many liberal Catholics worldwide and especially among liberal American Catholics, the only whiff of criticism in the body of the article is that gay Catholics complained about his position towards homosexuality, and Eastern Orthodox Catholics complained about his dropping the part of the papal title which said the Pope was head of the Western church. A reader only hears the Pope's side of issues facing the church. On August 22, a section criticizing his handling of the sexual abuse of minors was deleted. Apparently there have been editors at work for quite some time to immediately delete criticism in the body of the article, even though the criticisms cited verifiable sources. It is thus unbalanced and too POV to be a featured article. A "puff piece" should not be a featured article, but a balanced treatment of the subject might well be. Edison 16:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have a diff? I don't see that a section was deleted. Gimmetrow 16:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no section of text called "Criticism." There is a section of websites, which is not at all the same. See the article "George W. Bush" for an example, which is "Criticism and public perception ". This should be a well edited section of the main article, presenting what I described above. Apparently any such section inserted in the past was edited out. Edison 18:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You stated, "On August 22, a section criticisizing... was deleted." I couldn't find this; I would work it back in if it could. Gimmetrow 21:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The section I described as deleted was in fact move by Dev920 to a separate article on his time as CDF at 00:24 on 26 Aug. Looking back over the edit history for the past couple of years I see lots of revert wars over various issues, (sush as his title, his picture, his car registration, and his war service) but not the repeated deletion of a general "Criticism" section. So I have removed my objection to this being a featured article. However, I would hope that the numerous editors working on this article might yet introduce a "Criticism" or "Criticism and public perception" section, such as one may see for Pope John Paul II (745 words, 6 basic criticisms) or about Pope Paul IV ( 2 separate criticisms) or about Pope John XXIII (a 230 word criticism section) or even George W. Bush, whose article is pretty carefully vetted by his supporters, yet which has a lengthy criticism section. I am the wrong person to write such a section, and I suppose it is unfair to require the admirers of the Pope to write it, so please leave a mental spot for it if a thoughtful critic of the Pope wishes to take the time to list the main criticisms properly sourced to liberal Catholics, nonCatholics, or other groups who disagree with his actions or teachings. The peril of requiring his supporters to write a critism section is that the criticisms might turn into yet more praise: "Some say he is too honest and pure hearted." Bettter to wait for a critic to write the criticsm, because there certainly is some, but the lack thereof should not be a bar to the article being featured. Edison 20:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway you, as me, recognize that the article lacks in reporting the wide criticism on B16. Therefore the 2(b) criteria "Comprehensive", is not met by current revision.--BMF81 02:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Pope_Benedict_XVI/archive1&oldid=107364716"