Jump to content

Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

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

Please add new archivals to Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive08. Thank you. Bratschetalk random 22:03, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Is it unproteced yet? Because I still see the notice on this page, but about a minute ago I tried clicked the "edit this page" button which was still available and it took me to the edit page. I did not try to submit my edit because I had nothing useful to contribute. 68.126.102.143 22:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article is unprotected. Either everyone edits, or no one edits. That's what a protected page is. Administrators are expected to respect protection and not edit pages when they are protected. - Nunh-huh 22:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PR Commentary

From a estrategical and PR point of view, the election of Ratzinger as pope is a huge mistake. Choosing a pope that is fairly easy to attack (being a nazi and all) WILL make protestant churges grow to an historical number of followers around the globe. No wonder some people say that the Holy Spirit does not read the news. 200.31.163.246 22:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is not a discussion page on the Pope. You might easily find discussion boards to voice your opinion. --Maxl 22:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Editorializing about early life

Someone keeps reverting/vandalizing the early life section to include elaborate apologies in every clause concerning Nazism. None of these disclaimers ("forced to", "staunchly anti-Nazi", "everyone else did it", "just following orders", "he didn't want to", etc) is given any evidentiary support. Can we please restore this to a neutral POV description?! (e.g. the below) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Ratzinger was born in Marktl am Inn, in Bavaria, the son of a police officer. In 1937 Ratzinger's father retired and settled in the town of Traunstein. When Ratzinger turned 14 in 1941, following German law of the time, he joined the [[Hitler Youth]], . According to biographer John Allen, Ratzinger was an unenthusiastic member who refused to attend any meetings. In 1943, at the age of 16 he was, along with the rest of his class, drafted into the Flak or anti-aircraft corps, responsible for the guarding of a BMW plant outside Munich. He was then sent for basic infantry training and was posted to Hungary, where he worked setting up anti-tank defences until deserting in April 1945.

Your source is ratzingerfanclub.com... Talk about POV! Can we get verification on these statements that are a little more objective? 24.18.46.58 23:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not sure why User:KTC just deleted my comment, so I'm reposting it. 24.18.46.58 00:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Joseph Ratzinger was born in Marktl am Inn, in Bavaria, the son of a police officer. In 1937 Ratzinger's father retired and settled in the town of Traunstein. When Ratzinger turned 14 in 1941, he joined the Hitler Youth. According to biographer John Allen, Ratzinger was an unenthusiastic member who refused to attend any meetings. In 1943, at the age of 16, he was (along with the rest of his class) drafted into the Flak corps. The anti-aircraft corps was responsible for defending a BMW plant outside Munich. In September of 1944 he was discharged from the Flak and returned home, but was then drafted into labor detail for the Austrian Legion. In November he underwent basic training with the German infantry and was posted to Hungary, where he worked setting up anti-tank defences until deserting in April 1945. He went home to Traunstein where he was identified as a German soldier by the Americans occupying his village (using the Ratzinger house as their headquarters) and incarcerated in a POW camp where he attended de-Nazification classes.
On June 19, 1945 he was released, and he and his brother (Georg) entered a Catholic seminary in November.
There's obviously nothing wronb with including the background situation of Germany and the German military at the time, but there remains the distinct possibility that these details, such as the words "loyally served" and the fact that he finally desereted at the time when "continued service was ostensibly futile" and that the punishment by death was effectively mitigated, while not in the least factually untrue, may be taken by some as putting the emphasis on his Nazi loyalty and lack of opposition. How "loyally" he served can only be determined by the concrete details, which we do not see, and may even be POV. Moreover we ought to give some general measure of statistics to say what percent of deserters were prosecuted before the American/Allied takeover. Are these details given on every figure from his generation who served the Nazi regime? Possibly, possibly not...And "forced to" is not necessary incorrect, as he may indeed have felt a pressure to serve or die--surely history experts could corroborate. Additionally, none of his own sentiments on Nazism or his period of service are included. How neutral is that? ~ Dpr 01:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The above is not quite editorializing.

- Soon after joining the Hitler Youth when it was made mandatory in 1941, he writes in his book, "The Salt of the Earth," he was let out because of his intention to study for the priesthood.

- His decision to leave his army unit just after he turned military age could have cost Ratzinger his life. He knew that SS units would shoot a deserter on the spot or be hung as a message to others. He was stopped by other soldiers he recalled in his book, "Aus meinem Leben," published in English as "Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977."

"Thank God they were ones who had had enough of war and did not want to become murderers."

"They had to find a reason to let me go. I had my arm in a sling because of an injury."

"Comrade, you are wounded," they told him. "Go on."

After he returned home, the Americans arrived -- and set up their headquarters in his parents 18th century farmhouse on the outskirts of the town.

They identified him as a German soldier, made him put on his uniform, put up his hands, and marched him off to join other prisoners kept in a nearby meadow. Taken to a camp near Ulm.

He was released June 19 and hitched a ride on a milk truck back to Traunstein.

First German Pope since 1523

Benedict XVI actually ís the first German Pope since 1523 and not since the 11th century. The last German pope was Adrian VI from 1522 to 1523. Certainly he also was the first (and so far only) Dutch pope but at the time the Netherlands were German provinces. So it is perfectly correct to also call him the last German pope until Benedict XVI. For Reference on Dutch history please read History of the Netherlands. --Maxl 22:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) The Netherlands became independant in 1648, long after the pontificate of Adrian VI.

Also, note that Dutch people were considered part of the German people at that time. They spoke Low German (which evolved into Dutch). Adrian's ancestor's also were from what is modern Germany (that is, the state founded 1871).
As I said in the archived section, I accept all the facts shown above. But for the benefit of all those that will read B. XVI's page and who most assuredly not look into the details of which control controlled the Netherlands in the 16 century, and to those who will most certainly will think of nationality based on modern day borders, I think we should classify Adrian VI and Victor II in terms of their birth place in relation to modern day borders.
No! This is ridiculous. Adrian was as German as any other German. Please stop this petty war. Also, the concept of "German" is described when you click on German.
It's not about today's borders but about those when the respecitve popes lived. Adrian was Dutch as well as Geman so please accept this. And please add your signature. --Maxl 22:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
He was both German and Dutch. He was not "Dutch of German descent". As RATZINGER is not Dutch, however, the Dutch nationality of Adrian is far less relevant. What is relevant is that Adrian was the last GERMAN Pope.
Correct! It seems that some Americans who are around here and do not have much knowledge about European history are trying to imppse their incorrect knowledge on us. --Maxl 22:55, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Let's keep the tone more polite, please. Comment on content, not on the contributor. WP:No personal attacks. Chris vLS
Sorry, but I start having an impression that there are some people around here with an anti-German attitude who, at all expenses, want Adrian not to be a German pope. What else reason could they have to fight this so hard? Else, I know Americans can be quite patronizing and thinking they're the center of the universe. --Maxl 23:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
N.B.: This was not considered an insult but it's a matter of experience. --Maxl 23:32, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Utrecht in 1459 was certainly part of the Holy Roman Empire, and part of the Kingdom of Germany. That said, so was Lorraine, now part of France, which has always been French speaking. Would a Lorrainer pope of this period be considered "German"? I think that would be questionable. Furthermore, Utrecht at that time was deeply under the political influence of the Dukes of Burgundy, the French princely house that ruled over much of the Low Countries in this period. In fact, a Burgundian was the Prince-Bishop at the time of Adrian's birth. Adrian's protege, Charles V, would virtually separate the entirety of the Netherlands from the rest of the Empire administratively, although it remained technically a part. I think it's worth mentioning both Adrian and Victor, and note that Victor was the last pope from what is now Germany. john k 22:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The prince-bishop in 1459 was not only a Burgundian, he was the illegitimate son of Philip the Good, BTW.
It was technically or whatsoever a part of Germany at the time therefore Adrian was a German as well as a Dutch!!! He was the last pope from Germany and not Victor!!
Would someone born in the Austrian Netherlands in 1793 be considered German, as well? Would Czechs from Bohemia? The Holy Roman Empire was not a national state. john k 22:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Contrary to French-speaking people, the Dutch people were German-speaking and part of the German people.
The way the page words it now (22.24 GMT) is acceptable to me. As long as it mentions "German descent" I've got no problem with it, though you can still make a case of what John Kenney just said. -- DanG
"German descent" is unacceptable. He was as German as any other German.

This is absurd. It is not your right to say what is acceptable and unacceptable, and the exclamation marks don't strengthen your case. I am happy to say that Adrian VI was a German pope, but I don't see why we can't also say that Victor II was the last pope from what is now Germany. This is useful and indisputably true information. john k 22:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know to whom you are talking. The comment with the exclamations was not by be. Anon.
Ok, it can be put that way but nevertheless Adrian VI was the last German pope because at the time of his pontificate the Netherlands were German provinces (even though they were fighting for their independence) and Adrian therefore was a German citizen. Why can't we agree that he was a German pope as well as a Dutch? --Maxl 22:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree with John, a lot of people reading this page have likely heard the media reports say that Victor was the last German pope, and they might be scratching their head about this (or worse, they might assume that Wikipedia is plain wrong). I agree that Adrian is the previous German person to be pope, but mentioning Victor as well makes perfect sense. Perhaps it can be put in a footnote? Put a footnote next to the original mention of Adrian, and at the very bottom explain why Adrian is considered German, and why some consider Victor to be the last German pope due to modern political borders. -Eisnel 22:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I propose this compromise. Sometimes you have to be wordy to be clear: "...At 78 years of age, he is the oldest pope elected in 275 years. He is the 8th German Pope in history and is the first Pontiff of German descent since Adrian VI (1522-1523). Adrian VI lived in what is now the Netherlands, but it was part of Germany during his life. Victor II was the last pope from what is now Germany." Johntex 22:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I might throw in how some German sources solved the problem: They refered to Adrian as the first pope from the Netherlands and the last pope from Germany. I think it is a rather nice compromise. -- AlexR 22:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Not acceptable. As I wrote before, the Netherlands were a conglomerate of German provinces at the time. Therefore Adrian was German not only by descendante but also by citizenship. By the way, it seems that a few of may posts here have been deleted. I think that' unfair. I don't delete posts here, so please do not delete mine!!! --Maxl 22:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I do think both sides have some merit to their arguments. Adrian was German, but did not live in present-day Germany. This shouldn't be an impossible concept to convey. Another compromise proposal:

At 78 years of age, he is the oldest pope elected in 275 years, and the first German pontiff since Adrian VI (1522–1523), who lived in present-day Netherlands, at the time considered German (alternatively: part of Germany). / Alarm 23:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Netherlands become independent in 1648 during the Peace of Westphalia. As far as I know, before, that area was part of the Holy Roman Empire, a precursor of what today is Germany. In those days in what is today Northern Germany the people spoke Low German, a language very related to Dutch today but hard to understand for Germans today. Martin Luther's bible was written in High German and therefore that language spread in what is today northern Germany, too, but not in the Netherlands. I don't know, but I don't think that in those days the concept of "Dutch" and "German" in our understanding already existed. By the way: I'm living in Münster, where Ratzinger lived, too. Not far from dutch border. Stern 23:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The BBC says: He is the first German Pope since the 11th Century. [1] Yann

The BBC doesn't seem to be well informed. Listen to the German media and you'll know what really is the matter. --Maxl 23:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By the way: The english word "dutch" was created, when Low German speaking people lived both in what is today the Netherlands and Northern Germany. The german word "deutsch" (= german) is very related to that word and has the same origin. Stern 23:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

t seems odd to me to be calling Adrian VI 'German'. His given name, and his birthplace, and the university where he taught, are obviously Dutch. It is probable that he spoke Dutch rather than the High German dialect that has become modern German. So, linguistically, he spoke a language in common with the ethnically distinct Dutch and Flemish (who were, during the years of his papacy, fighting against the Hapsburgs to be INDEPENDENT of the Holy Roman Empire. In addition, the Holy Roman Empire does not mean "Germany", and it never did. Yes, it historically encompassed mainly German-speaking regions, but it also included Bohemia and Northern Italy for most of its existence, as well as various parts of France from Burgundy to Alsace. And even if the Holy Roman Empire WERE simply "Germany", it doesn't work. alling Utrecht "German" because it was included within the Holy Roman Empire is like calling Warsaw or Riga "Russian" because they were within the Russian and Soviet Empires at one point. Similarly, I think calling Adrian VI "German" because he is from a province province that was under the jurisdiction of a large political unit which was (very, very loosely) identified with "Germany" is like calling Josip Tito "Austrian" because he was born in Croatia which was then territory of Austria-Hungary, or calling Peter Paul Rubens "Spanish" because he was a Flemish-speaking artist who lived in the area of modern Belgium controlled by Spain. All of these things are ridiculous. One might as well start calling Erasmus German, and Bosch. BUT: I do say this without researching Adrian VI's ancestry, so if his parents migragrated from Germany, he may be German indeed. Yet it seems that the arguments above rest solely on the fact that Utrecht and the other Dutch cities were politically part of the Holy Roman Empire.

---

According to Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung is Ratzinger the first German to be Pope for 482 years. Is FAZ not a very reliable newspaper?

"Damit wurde zum ersten Mal seit 482 Jahren wieder ein Deutscher zum Oberhaupt der römisch-katholischen Kirche gewählt." (from the front page of FAZ, http://www.faz.de )


His given name, and his birthplace, and the university where he taught, are obviously Dutch. It is probable that he spoke Dutch rather than the High German dialect that has become modern German. - He spoke the Low German dialect, which was then considered not less German than the High German dialect that dominates modern German now. Modern Dutch developed from Low German (there are also still similar dialects in today's Northern Germany, "Plattdeutsch"), but at his time, he was surely not less German than Martin Luther from Saxony-Wittenberg. Gestumblindi 00:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To call someone "German" just because he was born in an independent bishopric (Utrecht) in principle part of the Holy Roman Empire (in principle only!) and because the language spoken in Utrecht was a dialect of Lower German which would soon become the Dutch language is about as absurd as saying that a Paris born 2nd century pope was Italian because Paris was then part of the Roman Empire, and the language spoken in Paris was a sort of vulgar Latin that would later evolve into French. The concept of German ethnicity used here sounds extremely similar to the Third Reich concepts of German ethnicity, and that's rather scary! Hardouin 00:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Netherlands at Adrian's time had the same language and cultural background as the rest of Northern Germany. They were not less "German" than the areas a bit farther to the east that are part of modern Germany. I don't think that your analogy is really fitting. More fitting would be Immanuel Kant, who is still considered a German philosopher, although he lived in a city that belongs now to Russia - but this city, Königsberg, was considered German, and not only politically, at his time. Similarly, the Netherlands were one of many parts of the German culture area, consisting of lots of small states. Gestumblindi 00:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the 2nd century AD, Gaul had the same language and cultural background as Italy, and nonetheless nobody in their right mind would call a 2nd century inhabitant of Paris an "Italian". So my comparison is particularly well fitted. I suggest you also read "Let's hear what the Dutch have to say about it" below. Besides, your point about Immanuel Kant precisely defeats your argument, because you should know that Königsberg was not part of the Holy Roman Empire, which proves that being German is not equal to being an inhabitant of the Holy Roman Empire, and vice versa. Hardouin 01:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hardouin, what is your goal here? Just trolling? Why do you want to deny that a German person was German?

A couple of absurdities to dispel. Firstly, the Dutch were certainly not fighting for their independence in 1522-1523. Secondly, the Dutch never fought for independence from "Germany." They fought for independence from Spain. However, the Holy Roman Empire is not synonymous with Germany. The Netherlandish parts of it, in particular, were rather distinct, being under the domination of the French House of Burgundy at the time of Adrian's birth, and remained, as of the time of his papacy's beginning, rather distinct from "Germany" proper. To say that the Netherlands were "part of Germany" at the time of Adrian is incorrect - there was not really such a state as "Germany." That said, to say that he was "considered German" at the time seems to me to be fine, although I'm not sure that's quite accurate. At the same time, I think we can very easily also say that Victor II was the last pope from the area of the modern country of Germany. To those advocating simply calling Adrian VI "German," I want to ask again how far this goes. Would French-speakers from, say, Lorraine or Hainault also be considered Germans under this model? What about Czechs or Poles from the lands of the Bohemian crown? Sorbs? An Italian from the Bishopric of Trent? Slovenes from Carniola? john k 02:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BTW, Tito was surely a Hungarian. ;) john k 02:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Latin Baptismal Name

Question, do you think it will have any use in this article? I also like to thank Bratsche for archiving this page too. Zscout370 22:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

why is the page protected? Adam 22:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zscout, I don't think that the latin baptismal will be of any use, since it is pretty similar to his German name anyway. I'm going to take it out. Adam, I believe the admins that protected this page wanted to clean up the mess that the flurry of edits after the announcement of Benedict's election made. At one point, the article was duplicated (in sections) about three times throughout the article. I don't know if I agree with this reasoning, but it's now free to edit. Hope this helps, Bratschetalk random 23:50, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hitler Youth reference

This needs to be rephrased to be more accurate, i.e., "he joined the Hitler Youth, as was required under German law of that time." Whig 22:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Was it literally required, or just "strongly encouraged?" The Hitler Youth page doesn't say. El Mariachi
It was required. Anybody not joining had to face major trouble. --Maxl 22:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There was a law since 1936 that said every child had to join, and indeed, resisting could get you into trouble. If his father was indeed known as anti-nazi, the boys not joining the HJ could have put their father into the KZ - things like this happened. So, yes, if you were really couragous, you didn't turn up, but well - not everybody, especially at 14 (or rather 10, as you were supposed to join the "Jungvolk"), is that couragous. -- AlexR 22:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Someone who was there doesn't seem to think so: "Some locals in Traunstein, like Elizabeth Lohner, 84, whose brother-in-law was sent to Dachau as a conscientious objector, dismiss such suggestions. “It was possible to resist, and those people set an example for others,” she said. “The Ratzingers were young and had made a different choice.”" [2]

140.107.71.148 22:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, obviously that shows, that those not joining had to face major trouble. He was 14 as he had to join the Hitler Youth. Does someone expect a 14 year old teenager to resist gloriously? I think it's not too far fetched to assume that Mrs. Lohner's brother-in-law might have been a bit older. Gugganij 00:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Either way, and however it needs to be properly phrased, the current wording is just wrong.
What trouble was that, specifically? Or more specifically still, shouldn't we neutrally present the fact that Ratzinger joined rather than "facing major trouble." A choice is a choice, after all... and religious figures have occassionally made choices despite "facing major trouble" for them. I've certainly seen no evidence that he was literally, physically forced to joinLulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Also, is there a source for the statement that his father was "staunchly anti-Nazi"? Whig 22:30, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Presumably this is discussed in the biography which is refered to in the text. Someone who has read it should comment. Adam 22:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Even if a POV is given by the biographer, it needs to be specifically attributed to that biographer, and balanced against alternate credible sources which may exist. Whig 22:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It has been reported that he was drafted at the age of 14 years of age and later fled and surrendered to the Americans. FroggyMoore 22:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also... "When Ratzinger turned 14 in 1941, he was forced to join the Hitler Youth, as all young men were required to do throughout World War II." makes it sound that all men regardless of nationality around the world were required to join the Hitler Youth. Perhaps changing it to "German young men". --208.253.80.123 22:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)-James

Or all young men of allegedly Germanic descent within the reach of the Third Reich at the time. --Maxl 23:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just throwing this in case this boils up again: There was a law effective from 1.December 1936 [3] making membership in the Hitler Youth compulsory, this was elaborated in another law from 25. März 1939 [4]. Don't be confused by the term "Hitlerjugend" (Hitler youth). This term refers to both the HJ which was the organisation for boys from 14-18, and the whole set of youth organisations, which also included "Deutsches Jungvolk" (boys 10-14), "Jungmädelbund" (girls 10-14), and "Bund Deutscher Mädel" (girls 14-18). In other words, Ratzinger became a member at age 10, not 14 - hardly the age to make any grave decisions. -- AlexR 03:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is going on?

I get a "page protected" message but I can see that others are editing the page. Adam 22:34, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't know, I see the page as protected as well. I guess it was protected just a few minutes ago. However, since it's not listed in the Protected Page, I really have no idea why it's protected. -- KTC 22:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Adam, I know you asked this many times. Here is my reply: Only the admins are editing it, since this page has a high rate of vandalism. Once that threat is gone away, then we can try to make our edits. I know there are some things I have done to the page that got wiped out, but I will add them once this protection is lifted. Until then, just present what sources you have here, and I am sure they will come up on the article in the next few days. Plus, it was explained that the admins decided to protect the page w/o putting the tag in, thus, that is why it is not listed at protected pages. Zscout370 22:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • With or without a tag here, I thought all protected page is suppose to be listed at protected page with the reasoning. Where was this comments by admins you're referring? Any possibilities for a link so I can read whatever was said? -- KTC 22:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a page protection message but I don't get an edit tab, either. Jonathunder 22:44, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

The page has been vandalized just a short period of time ago. It's ok it's protected at this time. --Maxl 22:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is not okay to protect this page. please can someone unlock it. --SqueakBox 22:50, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Most of the recent protections of this page have been brief (2-8 minutes) for the express purpose of cleaning up page duplication due to the section bug. It was protected for 'vandalism' from 22:15, 19 Apr 2005 to 22:53, 19 Apr 2005 when it was unprotected. See Special:Log/protect. Niteowlneils 22:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Controversy

I think this page needs a controversy section. It could include more information on this pope's nazi history as well as his anti-contraceptive and anti-gay beliefs. I uploaded this letter: [5], which is quite staunchly anti-gay and I think that's important to note here.

Oh, and why is the page protected? >_< Quasipalm 22:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • If you are willing to do so in a NPOV way, please do so. But if your interest is just to put the Pope's dirty laundry to satisfy whatever bias you have, don't. 128.252.20.65 23:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Page Locked Unfairly

What is going on is out of order and I suspect in contradiction of various wikipedia policies. I have bought the locking of this page to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, where it should be discussed. i hope the people locking are not editing, and will scrutinise closely. this article needs opening now to everyone to edit. That way we keep our reputation as a source of up to date material and utilise the great energy to edit this page, --SqueakBox 22:48, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with SqueakBox. I just looked through the page history and the "vandalism" was no such thing. Small inaccuracies does not equal vandalism -- and the few times something started being entered with POV it was quick removed. So what's the problem? Quasipalm 22:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

... While I don't like protecting or blocking pages, sometimes it is necessary to keep the integrity of the article. Since this story happened today, many people are checking out the site (which is good) and adding rumors and other unverifiable items (which is bad). I personally think that to stop this and the vandalism, there should be some control of the site. Oh, I think the following which was on the site but now thankfully removed would be considered vandalism ....Benedict was considered to be Pope John Paul II's "right hand man" and also one of his closest friends, and during the Pope's final illness, he carried out many of the Pope's functions as leader of the Catholic Church, such as molesting young boys and degrating women. .... He is the eighth German pope. The last German pope, Adrian VI, was elected in 1522 and died in 1523. He is also the oldest cardinal to become pope since Clement XII, who like Ratzinger was elected at age 78. The reasoning behind picking such a old pope, is simple. They have not yet made up their mind and hope to soon find him dead so they can pick the guy they really want. Totally inappropriate editorializing in what is supposed to be an encyclopedic article. .... Poop Benedict XVI.Ramsquire 23:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's entirely inappropriate to have an "admin edit only" page. Either all can edit it, or none should. Policy is "Do not edit a temporarily protected page except to add a protected page notice." (we probably should have an exception for repairing our frequent duplication problem, but at present, we don't). It's entirely inappropriate to have a "sliently" protected page, as well. The reason given in the protection log for the latest protection is "Under some vandalism - seems hard to handle." As we can handle vandalism just fine, and since administrators have continued to edit it while in its protected state, I will unprotect it. - Nunh-huh 22:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. -- KTC 22:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree Nunh-huh, the purpose of the locking feature is not to allow admins to edit the page in relative peace. That may not have been the reason the page was locked, but if that's what's going on then it's against the spirit of Wikipedia: This encyclopedia is meant to be edited by the masses, not by an elite few, and admins shouldn't take advantage of the lock to get priority for their edits. If a page is locked due to constant vandalism or edit war then nobody should be editing it, like Nunh-huh pointed out. If it's locked due to technical problems like the duplication bug, then that should be fixed and then it should be unlocked. -Eisnel 23:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

... But should anyone have to constantly check out an article everyday to make sure it hasn't been vandalised. BTW-- When I joined wiki, I was told to make suggested changes in the discussion page first so that everyone can discuss and edit before changing the article. If everyone followed that wiki rule, we wouldn't need to block pages, except for technical problems. Ramsquire 23:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contradiction in elected age

There is a contradiction in he is 78 years old: but Angelo Roncalli was the same age when he became Pope as John XXIII. It is said below that he is the oldest elected pope in 1000 years. Yann

Roncalli was 77 at the time he was elected pope (born 1881, elected 1958.) --Maxl 23:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Actually, he was 76. Roncalli, b. 25 Nov 1881, elected 28 Oct 1958 at the age of 28095 days (76 years, 11 months, 3 days). Ratzinger, b. 16 Apr 1927, elected 19 Apr 2005, at the age of 28493 days (78 years, 5 days). - Nunh-huh 23:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Isn't this a great (but late) birthday present for Ratzinger, eh? Zscout370 00:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't know. The burdens of the papacy are very great, and would easily overwhelm a mere man without any divine inspiration. Bratschetalk random 02:01, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

vandalism

The page was locked i think because some idiots were vandalising the page with anti-german phrases and slogans. I saw these but they were removed quickly so may not have been noticed.

There are people watching the page to revert vandalism. The positive effects of keeping the páge open far outway the brief vandalisms, --SqueakBox 23:10, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • I would not be surprised if this talk page has been blanked by a vandal. You know what, it might have been, already, since I tried to edit something, then the page went blank except for two words "Seig Heil" in all caps. Zscout370 23:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Name in Latin

The official Vatican site says BENEDICTVM XVI. But the Latina article is Benedictus XVI. What gives? —Cantus…☎ 23:08, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:Pope_Benedict_XVI/Archive01#BENEDICTVM_XVI. / Alarm 23:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Vatican says "Habemus PapAM BenedictUM XVI". --> Benedictus XVI (latin grammar)

Yes, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pope_Benedict_XVI/Archive01#BENEDICTVM_XVI - "Benedictum" is the accusative case, as in "We have pope B. XVI". The normal citation would be nominative case, "Benedictus" (User:Sk4p) Gestumblindi 23:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not sure who keeps deleting this but here goes again:

Born 1927

Joined Hitler Youth once it became compulsory (1941), aged 14,

Served in the Wehrmact from 1943 to 1945 (aged 16 to 18 )

Surrendered to Allied Forces in 1945 and was sent to a POW camp.

The claim he 'defected' is just political word play.

The black sweater

Why is it notable that he put the papal robes on over his black sweater? And why the assumption that he forgot to take the sweater off? Maybe he was cold and consciously chose to leave it on. And what difference does it make anyway? --Angr/comhrá 23:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. If no source is found that indicates he forgot, or that it is some sort of a no-no to wear a sweater under the robe, then that comment needs to come out. Johntex 23:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Unless this can be shown to be taboo, it is largely irrelevent. Rje 23:51, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree, but just like with the 'outrage' over Dick Cheney's outfit at the Auswitz Memorial, it will take a few days for the fashion police to look it over. Zscout370 23:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've removed the reference to the black sweater. If anyone finds a source that shows it is relevant they can put it back. Johntex 00:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Seven or Eight German Popes

At various times this article has said Pope Benedict XVI is the seventh German pope and at some times it has said the eighth. Sometimes the article has even said both at once with one number in the into and the other in the body. Is he eight if we count Adrian VI and seven if we do not? If that is the case, then a simple "eighth German pope counting Adrian VI" will suffice to clear this up. Johntex 23:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All reasonable people are counting Adrian simply because he was a German Pope, just like George W. Bush is an American President. All newspapers says 8th Pope.

Is Stephen X, who was a Lorrainer, also to be considered a German pope? Can somebody list out the eight? john k 02:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adrian VI

I believe that Pope Adrian VI is generally regarded as a Dutch pope, rather than a German one. The BBC certainly suggest that Ratzinger is the first German pope since the 11th century [6]. Rje 23:50, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

See the discussion above - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pope_Benedict_XVI#First_German_Pope_since_1523_2 . German-langauge media claim Adrian VI usually as a German pope, see e.g. http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,352294,00.html ("Ratzinger ist der erste Deutsche auf dem Stuhl Petri seit dem Jahr 1523"). Gestumblindi 23:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And the FAZ and most other newspapers correctly informs that Adrian was a German and Dutch Pope, which is not a contradiction (Ratzinger is both Bavarian and German too).

I just listened to BBC World, and they said Ratzinger is the first german pope in nearly 500 years.

I must say I find this latest Wikipedia controversy absolutely appaling. If I understand the argument, Adrian VI was born in Utrecht, then in principle part of the Holy Roman Empire (in principle only! in reality Utrecht was an independent bishopric, and not part of the Burgundian empire as was wrongly stated above, and became the 17th province of the Lower Countries in 1528, after Adrian's death). The argument goes on saying that Utrecht was located in an area where a dialect of Lower German was spoken, a dialect which would soon become Dutch (or Nederlands, i.e. "of the Lower Countries" as it is known in the Netherlands), and so therefore, Adrian VI was German, voila. This is appaling! It's about as absurd as saying that a Paris born 2nd century pope was Italian because Paris was then part of the Roman Empire, and the language spoken in Paris was a sort of vulgar Latin. The concept of German ethnicity used here sounds extremely similar to the Third Reich concepts of German ethnicity, and that's rather scary! (all the more scary if indeed the German media quoted above also purport that Adrian VI was German). Adrian VI was Dutch, or of the Lower Countries if you prefer, and there seems to be no doubt about it, except on Wikipedia. I was listening today to BBC 1 and to France 2, the main public TV channels in the UK and France, and both channels known for their rigor, and both clearly said that the last German pope was Victor II. Does Wikipedia really want to appear ridiculous on that matter? Finally, about the claims that Adrian VI had German ancestry, I find them quite spurious. Where are the proofs? As far as I know, there's lots of mystery surrounding his birth, and not much is quite sure. Even if it were true that he had German ancestry, it doesn't make him German. General Einsenhower had (proven) German ancestry, but he was certainly not German! Let's get serious please. Hardouin 00:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hardouin, the Bishopric of Utrecht was no less a part of the Holy Roman Empire than any other territory, all of whose allegiance in the 15th century was semi-dubious. In terms of the Burgundian stuff, I did not say it was part of the Burgundian Empire. However, at the time of Adrian's birth, the prince-bishop was the illegitimate son of Philip the Good, and Utrecht was certainly within the Burgundian sphere of influence. john k 02:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm tired of ridiculous propaganda from persons with no knowledge of European history. Dutch people were a part of the German people in the 16th century. Finito! Nothing more to discuss! In fact, people from Schleswig or Lower Saxony and Dutchmen were much more related than the first with Bavarians. Furthermore, the ancestors of Adrian were from present-day German territory. He was as German as any other German, politically, culturally and ethnically.

I suspect the Dutch would strongly disagree. Dutch Wikipedia's article on him doesn't discuss the question of how many German popes there have been before him, though. --Angr/comhrá 00:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Petty nationalism among some Dutch people is not relevant for the English Wikipedia.
Nor is petty German nationalism. john k 02:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Capitalize the word "Pope"?

I've seen a few minor skirmishes in the article history regarding the capitalization of the word "pope". Does it get capitalized or not? What are the rules? I've seen a number of pages on Wikipedia that don't capitalize it, even though it seems natural to capitalize it. I've never quite understood the rules regarding that word. -Eisnel 00:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When using in the form of "the Pope" use capitalization. Do not capitalize for "a pope." Capitalize when used as a title as in "Pope Benedict XVI." Capitalize "Pope of the Roman Catholic Church" when used in reference to a single person. Do not capitalize "pope of the Roman Catholic Church" when refering to a generalized statement concerning any pope.
Example of correct usage: "Pope Benedict XVI serves as a pope of the Roman Catholic Church." "Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church." --Gerald Farinas 00:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess I've never thought of "the Pope" and "a pope" as being different. "John Paul II was the Pope, and a good pope he was." How fascinating. =o) -Eisnel 00:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Amen. --Gerald Farinas 00:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

German Christian name

As it has been previously discussed, is not his first Christian name correctly spelled "Josef?"
Not necessarily. German uses both spellings. --Angr/comhrá 00:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See http://www.spiegel.de/. Nough said. —Cantus…☎ 00:26, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Works Section Translation Please

Perhaps the works section needs someone who is bilingual to add English translations after the names of each of the works. I think it's of questionable value to have a list that long on an English page with no translated text or explanation. It appears to be a direct copy from the de version of the page.

That might a sapient idea, sir.

Papal Coronation

Is there any likeliness of a coronation instead of a mere "installment"?

  • I know the ceremony will be full of pomp and circumstance, but we will have to just wait and see. Zscout370 00:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Paul VI was the last to be crowned, and he surrendered his papal tiara as a sign of humility. John Paul I, I think, got rid of coronations, but they could theoretically be re-instated. Unlikely, though.

Let's hear what the Dutch have to say about it

In the latest (typically Wikipedian) raging controversy about Adrian VI's ethnicity, I thought à tout seigneur, tout honneur, let's hear what the Dutch have to say about it. Here are quotes from the four largest Dutch newspapers published today:

  • De Telegraaf: "Het is de eerste Duitse paus sinds Victor II en de 264e opvolger van Petrus." (for the millions of us who sadly do not speak Dutch, that means "He is the first German pope since Victor II, and the 264th successor of St Peter").
  • NRC Handelsblad: "De laatste Duitse paus was Victor II, die regeerde van 1055 tot 1057. Sinds 1523, toen de Nederlander Adrianus VI paus was, tot 1978, toen de Pool Karol Wojtyla paus werd, heeft de rooms-katholieke kerk altijd een Italiaan als paus gehad." (i.e.: "The last German pope was Victor II, who ruled from 1055 to 1057. From 1523, when the pope was the Dutch Adrian VI, until 1978, when the Pole Karol Woktyla became pope, the Roman Catholic Church always had an Italian as pope.").
  • De Volkskrant: "Ratzinger is de eerste Duitse paus sinds Victor II (1055-1057) en de 264e opvolger van de apostel Petrus." ("Ratzinger is the first German pope since Victor II (1055-1057), and the 264th successor of the apostle Peter.")
  • Algemeen Dagblad : "Het is de eerste Duitse paus sinds Victor II (1055-1057)." ("He's the first German pope since Victor II (1055-1057).")

Does that settle it? or do we want to be plus royaliste que le roi? Hardouin 00:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is only too natural that Dutch newspapers tend to claim Adrian VI for the Dutch only, as well as the German newspapers (Spiegel, FAZ etc.) call him just a "German". Both viewpoints are understandable. I think the solution of calling him "Dutch and therefore considered German at his time" or something similar should work. Gestumblindi 01:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Languages

Anyone know all ten languages that he speaks? 68.230.39.252 01:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A quick search reveals English, German, Italian, Latin and Greek. French is probably another, and if he is smart he will have learned Spanish too. Adam 02:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Finally this business is over...for now

Frankly, I'm glad that we have a new Pope. This hubbub will die down soon, and everything will be as it was. Pope John Paul II was dying an old man: he was in a terrible condition, he couldn't talk, and he was almost in a vegitated state. I realize that since Benedict XVI is old, people might be talking about the new Pope's death as soon as they are done talking about John Paul's, but at least all of the Christians are at rest.

That's all I have to say.

--bobbo king 01:31, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • I think Benedict XVI will do a good job, but with this process taking place, I began to fully appreciate the steps and the various ceremonies that take place from the death of the Holy Father to the conclave. I will remember this experience when the election of the next pope takes place. Zscout370 01:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio Images

I removed a slew of copyvio images from the article. Images from the Holy See would be preferable as a legitimate fair use claim can be made, ripping off AP and Reuters images from various web sites is not a legitimate fair use claim. --Wgfinley 02:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I think the AP and Reuters photos were used as place-holders until we can find fair use/free use images. I would check some blogs and see what we can find. Zscout370 02:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"First Jewish Pope" dubiousness

I'd like to see sources cited for this, as it has been pointed out that this may not be entirely accurate. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:22, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

I've never seen anything of the sort before. I removed the reference to a Jewish mother - half Jews weren't allowed to join Hitler Youth, for one thing. john k 02:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If it were even a rumour it would be widely commented on, but Google reveals nothing. Someone has just made this up to annoy us. Adam 02:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Isn't the stupid German/Dutch nonsense annoying enough for everyone? Sigh. john k 02:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They just say that because he looks jewish

And...what else? Plus, whoever you are, please sign after every edit (by using this ~~~~). Zscout370 02:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the name that were coming up as a possible pope that is technically jewish was French Lustiger who had a Jewish mother, not Ratzinger. -- KTC 02:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anyway I assume the first popes were Jewish (starting with the first one) no?

Benedictus, Benedictum

The Latin language has five cases for nouns: nominative, accusative, dative, ablative, genetive. This man's adopted name is "Benedictus" in the nominative case and "Benedictum" in the acccusative -- I think; correct me if I'm wrong. Which case is appropriate depends on context. When a cardinal said "Habemus papam ... Benedictum XVI", the accusative case was used because it's the object of the verb "habemus". But nominative seems right in the first paragraph of this article. (I'm rather illiterate in Latin, to say the least; it's one of those languages I can occasionally understand, but not speak, so I could have this wrong.) Michael Hardy 02:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, if it's accusative, it's -um; if nominative, then -us. Thus, "Benedictus Papa est" -- subject, thus acc. "Habemus Benedictum" and dative "Benedicto biblam do" (I'm giving Benedict a bible) --Zantastik 02:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You forget the vocative, there are six cases in latin. Hektor 03:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sounds right to me. JP2 was Ioannes Paulus, was he not? --User:Jenmoa 02:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

odd picture

removed an rather odd picture that was posted in the place of the previous actual picture of the Pope.

Not that I condone that sort of thing on Wikipedia (my precious), but if you had a look at the cover pic of "A New Pope" on www.smh.com.au, you might have a giggle like I did! The framing of his arms - just like a hood! So appropriate! Tez 04:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A good source for writing about him

Here's something he recently wrote: [7] --Zantastik 02:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Latin name

I'm hardly fluent in Latin (barely remember my single university course!) but according to the Vatican website his reign name in Latin is "BENEDICTVM XVI", romanized that would be "Benedictum XVI" would it not? Why does the page say: "officially in Latin Benedictus XVI"? It would seem to me that even if Benedictum is technically incorrect it is his official name.

Gabe 03:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Doh! I see that this is being discussed above! ;)

Gabe 03:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope_Benedict_XVI/Archive_2&oldid=1137092650"