This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)
This archive covers May 31-June 17, 2005.
I was under the impression that the coat of arms for Pope Benedict XVI replaced the tiara with a mitre. One image correctly reflects this, at the top of the article. The other image shows the papal tiara, not a mitre, ironically right next to the paragraph discussing the removal of the tiara. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Benedictcoatofarms.jpg I don't really know all that much about this system, so could someone fix it, or tell me why it is the way it is?
Is there any way that a link can be provided for the new information regarding the coat of arms? [unsigned]
How did this get started? I can find no documentation on this so-called battle over the papal coat of arms. As of May 31, 2005, the Papal Website still carries the coat of arms sans tiara, see, www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/elezione/stemma-benedict-xvi_en.html Papal Stemma. Until then, I think it best that the coat of arms with the tiara be removed from the page. Aloysius Patacsil 19:47, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
BTW the 'source' you mention doesn't contain a statement on meaning from the Vatican. It replicates comments by the man who drew them, based on what he said in the Vatican's unofficial newspaper. That sounds very much like someone designing the website deciding to cut and paste information into the page. If they were official, a formal statement by a senior official (probably of cardinal level), not a retired nuncio and parttime heraldist, would be there. FearÉIREANN(talk)
ÉIREANN - Until your journalist friend documents his findings in writing, I would consider your reportage of what happened within his earshot as unreliable. I would be most grateful if you could document where in L'Osservatore Romano or the Bolletino there is discussion on this alleged change in coat-of-arms.
In response to Gerald Farinas, I believe that the tiara-less herald serves as the personal arms of Pope Benedict. Official correspondence from the Holy See still uses the Stemma papale. For example, the diocese of Honolulu's arms on the dexter shield consists of two pulo'ulo'u sticks with a cross on a field of red, with a miter. Correspondence from the diocese still uses this. When Bishop Silva sends correspondence from himself to others, he would probably use his personal arms instead of the diocesan arms. In like manner, Benedict XVI would do likewise. Aloysius Patacsil 20:25, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm... my comment disappeared and I have no means of retrieving what I said. Anyhoo, what I said was that I do have documents bearing the papal tiara coming through my office from the nunciature. --Gerald Farinas 20:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
People slow down, I have a foto with Benedict XVI tapestry when it was shown, do you want to see it again?-PioM EN DE PL 21:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think it would be fair to keep both images in the article but move the mitred image back to the top where it originally was and move the papal tiara image back to the bottom of the article where it originally was, too. The language used in the image captions have already been changed so as to not declare either one "official." --Gerald Farinas 22:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
PioM... would it be possible for you to create a matching papal herald with the tiara to replace the one authored by Mark Poppoli? The fact that the Poppoli image doesn't have license citation worries me. Also, if we're going to have both versions (mitred image taking the lead in the article), we might as well make them matching pairs. The article would look a bit cleaner. (Plus, you didn't hear it from me but I think a lot of us like your artwork better; the other one looks like the bear is licking an ice cream cone at certain angles.) --Gerald Farinas 19:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
With the addition of a streamlined Pope infobox on all the papal articles, is there really a need for those in-the-way looking succession boxes at the very end of the article. That same information is more prominently displayed already in the Pope infobox. --Gerald Farinas 19:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have crated the article Wikipedia:Oh my God! You Deleted Bad Jokes and Other Nonsense! You bastard!/Pope Benedict XVI. All vandals can go and play there. Salleman 02:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But you have to admit, it's hilarious :)
Should we go for a new feature process soon? What do you think? --83
I believe the following is not verifiable, in 2005 moot, and the quote doesn't give you enough context to evaluate the intent of the speaker.
The complete paragraph
First of all, the Vatican did not "cover-up" nor give the appearance of a "cover-up" in the promulgation and implementation of the Sacramentorum Sanctitatis. Rather as other articles on this point out, rather than a cover-up, this clarified that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is responsible for offenses against the Eucharist (such as sacrilege, flagrant liturgical abuse, or unauthorized concelebration); offenses against the sacrament of Penance (such as absolving a partner in adultery soliciting sexual favors from penitents, or violating the confessional seal); and abuse of children. In all such cases, bishops are expected to report accusations directly to Rome for adjudication.
We can't verify who had the opinion this was a "cover-up" and I think the quote doesn't add anything that the rest of the text doesn't already include. In 2005, we know that the 2001 procedures mentioned here have worked effectively to deal with the laicization of priests when their cases get referred to Rome. There's been no cover-up in Rome when a bishop has presented a case to the CDF.
I present two choices: replace the "cover-up" sentence with the complete paragraph from the Catholic News Service, or delete it as being unverifiable and redundant to the rest of this section. patsw 20:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I removed the following note since it didn't have a corresponding ref and was throwing the list out of whack:
((Note|Maciel))Peter Popham, news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=632210 Pope 'ignored sex abuse claim against John Paul's friend'," ''The Independent'' (UK), April 23, 2005
—Wayward 19:28, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
I'm very busy at the moment, and would rather not do any editing until Wednesday. However, I have noticed a bit of reverting (very civil and good faith, etc.) going on in the "Dialogue with Other Faiths" section, and I believe there may be some misunderstanding.
The Nicene Creed, in the official (and appalling) English translation, says, "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son." "We" is, of course, a mistranlation for "I". The official Latin text says "Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem, qui ex Patre Filioque procedit". That's the same as the English version, except that the sentence just begins with "And in", rather than "I [or we] believe in". The word "Credo" ("I believe") is at the very beginning of the Profession, and is not repeated for each sentence in the Latin version.
My understanding is that the Eastern Orthodox Churches have a problem with the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son. I think they believe He proceeds from the Father through the Son, but I'm not sure. Since the word Filioque ("and the Son") was not in the original version of the Creed, it could be omitted (though not denied) as a gesture towards ecumenism. That seems to have been the case in the wording of Dominus Iesus www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_lt.html.
Some of the reverting seems to have been over whether it should be upper or lower case letters, and some over whether it should be "Patre" or "Patre Filioque". The Vatican document uses upper case ("Patre", not "patre"). As it currently stands, the Wikipedia article says the following:
That's incorrect because:
By the way, I'm not very keen on "quietly left out without notice" in that paragraph. You can't very well leave out something noisily. I'd go for something like "omitted without comment".
Would anyone like to have a shot at re-editing that section while I go back to my work? Ann Heneghan 14:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Dear Ann,
I had a shot.
I rephrased this into
This addresses all your four points, only the implied "I believe" is not explained in the text, though I'm not sure whether this is needed.
My former edits on this where only looking at the upper/lower case thing. And if it is "Spiritum Sanctum" it must be "Patre" and "Filio(que)".
I share your ill-feeling towards the mistranslation.
Your understanding of the issue is quite right. The original Nicean creed had only "proceeds from the Father" - the inclusion of the Son however is used by some Church Fathers (don't know which ones) and was later gradually adopted by the Western Churches (first the Spanish Churches, than the Frankish Churches (under Charlemagne) and than the Roman Church (under the influence of Emperor Henry II)), probably to combat a subordinationist mis-interpretation of the creed. However, the Eastern Churches have rejected this unilateral act as conflicting with provisions of the Council of Ephesus. So the opposition was mainly on the formal level until the Patriarch Photius of Constantinople claimed a difference in substance, in order to paint his Roman adversaries as heretics. I think, it was also him who came up with the wording "from the Father through the Son" in order to phrase the supposed difference, so of course he didn't change the text. Attempts of reconciliation have basically always interpreted the Western "and the Son" as equaling the Eastern "through the Son". These reunions were, whenever they were achieved, short-lived.
The ommission in Dominus Iesus might be a gesture of ecumenism towards the Eastern Churches. However, it also backfired, since some Protestant leaders in Germany complained about the ommission and denounced it as tampering with the creed. (This was a very hilarious complaint coming from Peter Steinacker. I won't get into details about him. If you want to know more, please tell me.) Str1977 18:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This Wikipedia uses a number of fair use images. However, for other Wikipedias which do not accept fair use, it is extremely difficult to find images of the Pope, with only one or two very mediocre being available. We should ask professional photographers or agencies to donate a couple of images of the Pope to Wikipedia under a license which make it possible to use for other Wikipedias. There are so many beautiful images of him taken.
There is a really good picture of Benedict darthbenedict.ytmnd.com here. → JarlaxleArtemis 01:03, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
There have been some reverts over whether to use the German title or the English translation in the succession box no. 1.
I don't have a great preference in this, though I guess most Wikipedians would prefer the English, as this is the English Wiki, not the German.
However, in either case it should be correct language and "Biskop" is not an extisting German word. It's "Bischof" and in this case "Erzbischof" (written as one word) - also then the preposition ("von" instead of "of") and the place names ("München" instead of "Munich")should be in German.
Anyway, I posted a correct German version and then immediately a English version. Others might choose between the two.
Str1977 21:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, "biskop" is Scandinavian, it was a typo, and I thought that I corrected it to Bishop. The title should be in English, and not German. It's very disturbing that some Germans insist that an English language encyclopedia must use German words instead of English (like those who occasionally change Chancellor to Bundeskanzler). --83
That's allright, so we should leave it as it is. Str1977 16:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I would propose to remove the following part: According to his cousin Erika Kopp, Ratzinger had no desire from childhood to be anything other than a priest. When he was 15, she says, he announced that he was going to be a bishop, whereupon she playfully remarked, 'And why not Pope?'. It's an anecdote without any encyclopedic information. Gugganij 11:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have resubmitted this article for featured status, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. 83.109.188.50 01:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Could whomever keeps inserting The Servant of God before John Paul II's name in the succession box please stop doing so. Those boxes are only there to link an office or title holder to their predecessor and successor. They are not intended to contain any titles, styles, or other terms that are not in themselves part of their name or regnal name. Servant of God should no more be in that box than should His Holiness, His Eminence, Venerable, Blessed or any other designation that is not part of the person's name or regnal name. Such designations belong in the text of the article where they can be explained and contextualised. Added in succession boxes where they cannot be explained or contextualised, they can be misread as indicating that Wikipedia is endorsing a POV. Benedict's predecessor was John Paul II and so that is all that should be in the box. Apart from anything else, he was not a Servant of God during his lifetime so should not be referred to as such when his regnal name is being used as a link. FearÉIREANN(talk) 21:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Most Tyroleans have Italian ancestors somewhere along their family lines, especially South Tyroleans.
We need to expand the lead section slightly to meet the criterias for this article becoming featured. The length should be approximately that of Pope John Paul II. I've made an attempt to expand the section, improvements are very welcome. 83.109.128.127 19:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually the opposite is the case. Both article at 53K and 54K respectively are well over the recommended maximum limit for size to ensure they are compatible with all browsers and can be edited by all Wikipedians. (This one is bigger, BTW) Pope John Paul II has already had to have chunks removed to linked articles even to bring it down to 53K. It is being further broken up to bring it to manageable size. This one too is going to need severe pruning, with some of its sections removed to linked articles, and smaller summaries left in the main article. FearÉIREANN(talk) 19:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It may be the case, but see the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. 83.109.128.127 19:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
All articles, featured and non-featured alike face the same technical and editing problems if they go over 32K. In addition a bug sometimes saves the article twice on the one page, with different text in each 'version'. It is alkward enough trying to untangle 'doubled' articles that are now at 60-70K. If that bug were to hit this article, it would be a crazy 108K and it would be a nightmare to compare each version of each paragraph to its rival, work out which is the one to keep and which is the one to delete, delete it, save the change, then do the same thing with the next paragraph, and the next, and the next etc etc etc. In addition some browsers won't save a page over 32K. So if the article is bigger than that, and a user with one of these browers (and millions still use them) edits the page, they inadvertently wipe out everyone over 32K, often cutting the article mid-sentence. If, as happened recently, some people working on the top of the page didn't notice the bottom had been lost, then all their work has to be wiped out as the page is reverted to the pre-cut article. Going over 32K causes a heck of a lot of problems, which is why the warning comes up once you reach 30K, saying that the article is getting near the size where additional text should be put elsewhere and not in that article.
Many users who don't have problem browsers, or who don't have to clean up accidental cuts by other people, or untangle bug-hit duplicates, don't realise that the 32K rule is there for a reason. Those of us who have devoted ages trying to sort out messes caused by cuts/wipeouts/duplicated paragraphs know from experience the problems that arise and the hassle involved in trying to fix the mess. FearÉIREANN(talk) 20:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I see. But it is claimed that the lead section needs to be longer than it was before according to the style manual before the article can be featured. 83.109.140.228 23:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please add new archivals to Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive12. Thank you. Str1977 19:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)