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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
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 from 15 July to 29 August.
Can someone point me to the theology under this concept ? I look to see the Biblical roots : how this relates to the Jewish faith , to Christian anti-semitism and to absorbtion (if it was or if it was not not ?) into Islam....Famekeeper 08:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Your reference to anti-Semitism is probably inspired by the often abused quote from Matthew 27,25. This verse has been used against the Jews in history, notwithstanding that not all Jews or their ancestors were present at that occasion. And anyway, anti-Semitism (including non-racial) goes against the basic principles of Christianity. Somewhere recently I have read the interesting interpretation, that the verse originally was referring to the Jews eventually accepting Jesus as the Messiah, hence bringing his (redeeming) blood on them - but for their salvation not their demise. This would of course been a thought in the Evangelist's mind, not in the mind of the actual speakers, but there is another example of such an "unintentional prophecy" (look John 11,50-51).
Str1977 11:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Just to clear up a bit here, Exodus 34:7 quotes who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the sin of fathers on the sons, and on the sons of sons, to the third and to the fourth generation. which is fairly well-known, and is echoed in Jeremiah 32:17 You show loving-kindness to thousands, and repay the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their sons after them. Isaiah 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his sons, because of the iniquity of their fathers, so that they do not rise.
Contradicting that stance are Ezekiel 18's Does not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son has done justice and right, has kept all My statutes, and has done them, he shall surely live. and Jeremiah 31's In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But everyone shall die for his own iniquity: every man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge. -Sherurcij 19:21, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Thankyou-I'm most interested in this .Famekeeper 21:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Sherurcij gave the long story to the synthesis I gave above. Str1977 16:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Good news folks, I found two photos from the Governor General of Canada's website: http://www.gg.ca/media/photos/2005/20050424_01_e.asp and http://www.gg.ca/media/photos/2005/20050424_02_e.asp. We can use these photos under the Crown Copyright. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
The result of the last Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pope Benedict XVI was 11 support votes, 8 objections plus 1 "mild objection" to the style "His Holiness" (which was decided to use by a vote). How are we going to interpret this? Is concensus necessary for featured status? Also, most of the objections were really not that logic.
Anyone care to put in a reference to the Harry Potter article in view of Benedict's comments on the subject: or to the list I put under Coincidence (and which I see as having no particular historical significance).
All I know is that there were reported comments in the newspapers for the former point (trawl enough through the writings of any person in the news and you will find something that shows them as batty/adopting strange political and other positions etc). As for the second point, one of my interests is the European microstates on which I have collected assorted information. User:jackiespeel 16:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
NB - there is a comment on the HP group of sites about BXVI's comments, so the reverse connection should be made.
Based from http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050726/lf_afp/canadavaticanreligion, Benedict does not want women to be ordained as priests. We need to follow this event and see what actions he takes. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Here is a large number of beautiful pictures. Enjoy!
http://www.freeforumzone.com/viewdiscussioni.aspx?f=65482&idc=3
(it would be nice if we could use a couple of them as fair use)
File:Pope Benedict Mass of Installation.jpg
Have you seen this: http://www.papalshop.com/images/bsticker-lg.gif
As "Pappa Razzi" is Benedict's occasional (and logical) nickname would someone care to include it in the text (and if not, this mention here will suffice))
I think it was an Italian newspaper which first used the term, but it has also appeared in some British tabloid newspapers - coming from the film reference. Mentioned here mainly so there is a record of it being used from the beginning of his papacy - and in case it were to become sufficiently widely used to mention.
(When does a factoid become a useful fact?)
Jimbo Wales cited our article in a annoucement about new editing rules: "Citing a recent example of vandalism, Wales recalled how following the election of the new Pope Benedict in April, a user substituted the pontiff's photo on the Wikipedia site with that of the evil emperor from the Star Wars film series.
"The picture was only on the page for a minute. But whoever opens the article at this moment will get annoyed – and therefore doubt our credibility," he told the paper." See http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/computing/20050805-1259-media-wikipedia.html. I know it is over a situation we do not like, but hey, thats something. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Boss man rap : Bill Dorich . Uh Famekeeper 18:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Uh: I'll Delete if u want me to , but let it remain in the archive what I say here : this posting referred to The Question of The Law : the posting was a compliance of civility : Corecticus is the uh best friend to Josellin & Roman Law . The posting is quartered elsewhere . Famekeeper 21:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
You require me to dig into the issue of how any of this relates to the BXVI article . It relates because there is an unfortunate historical conundrum apparent throughout the Wikipedia pages relating to the Reichskonkordat or Concorde reached in 1933 and in force still today . The WP reports throughout its relevant pages , upon the rise , accession, seizure , election or otherwise to power of Adolf Hitler . All these pages are comimg up now in cyberspace , taken to be the history and thereby informing the world at large what the WP classes as history . Indeed part of that history relates to the Concorde present ,still , with Germany , and thus brings alive into the contemporary arena that which is historical , or reported as historical - as well as that which is currently the province of BXVI . Repair to the portayal of history therefore will touch upon this existant legislation of accord . I may be alone in seeing the complete contradiction in the presentation of the history , but I claim that it exists . The WP is in historical error and is infecting the greater cyberspace with error . The fact that this error relates to the vastly more serious error actually being accepted by the vatican in this concord , and that BXVI has his own jurisdiction in the matter , does not cancel the error inside the WP . I can say that this is the chicken coming home to roost : the illegal activity by predecessors of BXVI is in fact still illegal , in so far as the Holy see has determined to continue adherence to an illegal Concord . The Concord is illegal because it was signed by an illegal Government , which illegality is the matter of historical error in the WP . The WP itself at present supplies nearly all the corroboration of this illegality in supplying translation of legalities from the historical period , namely the Reichstag Fire Decree and the Enabling Act . I refer the reader to the questions arising on discussion page of the Reichskonkordat .
Despite the apparent contrarians on WP denying the entry of the Centre Party and the Reichskonkordat into the historical conclusions of John Cornwell , it appears in fact wrong , and that the evidence brought by myself on Pacelli are slight in comparison . Hitler's Pope in other words may not be artificially separated from these other articles , at all , not they from Hitler's Pope .Famekeeper 11:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
The asshole who keeps coming back under new identities to put 'joke' pictures here and elsewhere has now had his account blocked indefinitely. He seemed not have got the message that endless short blocks were sending. Maybe now he will go away, get out his crayons and play somewhere else. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Done that in the past with previous images he used, though as some were used in real articles they could not all be deleted. He has since come back on a dial up modem using AOL. A 15 minute block was imposed. Zeech. What a f***ing asshole he is. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to see if a picture can be locked into an article so that this nutcase, and the other one who puts pictures of penises all over users' pages, can't use particular pictures from real articles to vandalise other pages. The penis picture has had to be deleted over 30 times from user pages at this stage, while the various Star Wars pictures have been used over 20 times on various papal pages.
FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
see this:
File:Guard tiara.jpg
It is very official Swiss Guard standard (picture from May oath). So, I think, that we will see both forms, with tiara and without. What do you thik? How to present it in the article? Fjl 16:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Fjl 16:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Is there any reason why His Holiness is in italics? It doesn't match the format for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth etc. etc. I'd like to make them consistent. Was there some agreement that I missed when I was busy, or can I just go ahead? Ann Heneghan (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Given the ongoing controversy over the usage of styles I have proposed that styles should be the subject of an infobox rather than used in the opening sentence. That way all factual information can be conveyed, but we can end the rows all over the place on the inclusion or exclusion of styles. I have an infobox for papal pages. In the case of Pope Benedict it would look as follows: (don't worry about the papal tiara, BTW. For visual unity crowns were used for each of the monarchical pages. Even if, as now in the papacy, the crown is not worn it still is a symbol of the office.)
Papal styles of Pope Benedict XVI | |
---|---|
Don't worry right now about the detail. The issue first of all is whether to use infoboxes instead of the current system. Please don't insert the draft infobox yet. This needs to be done by consensus, so all the draft infoboxes are protected and not yet live. If a consensus exists to go down that road, then issues like content, layout and colourscheme can be explored. I'd welcome any comments here or on my own page as to what people think about the infobox idea. The box can easily be slotted into any biographical page. There are identical boxes proposed for British monarchs, Austrian monarchs, presidents, HRHs, etc. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
To stop the vandalism and to stop the reverting, I locked the page. So, whatever issues that everyone seems to have with the page, let's talk about it now instead of reverting left and right. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
There is a proposed policy to provide the capability to block particular editors from editing particular articles. This article is an example of the need for such a policy. Particular anonymous IP addresses that have either vandalized this article or made dubious edits should be blocked, rather than having to protect the article. Robert McClenon 18:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I've made some further comments on this issue near to the bottom of the page --84.9.88.149 15:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC) (Vandal)
Ann Heneghan reverted a comment from this talk page, referring to it, correctly, as offensive nonsense. I would suggest that rather than being simply deleted, it should be archived at BJAODN. Robert McClenon 15:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
In this section the word "Portuguese" should link to Portugal, as Portuguese is a disambiguation page. Dr Gangrene 20:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
The following section needs rewriting:
On June 19, 2005, Benedict XVI beatified Father Wladysław Findysz, a martyr of the Communist regime, Father Bronisław Markiewicz, the founder of the Congregation of St. Michael, and Father Ignacy Kłopotowski, the founder of the Congregation of the Sisters of Loreto. Benedict XVI delegated Józef Cardinal Glemp of Warsaw to preside over the beatification liturgy in Warsaw's Piłsudski Square. The beatifications, originally scheduled for April 24, 2005, were delayed due to the death of Pope John Paul II
Is it that JPII started the process and B XVI completed it, or did Benedict-as-Ratzinger have control over the whole process? Jackiespeel 18:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Point clarified in text. Jackiespeel 17:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Someone, please begin writing of adding pictures of his first apostolic journey. This should be essential on a pope's article, especially since it is a current event. User: Coburnpharr04
I would like to make a change to the following paragraph of the section "Early church career (1951–1981)"
In the consistory of June 1977 he was named a cardinal by Pope Paul VI. By the time of the 2005 Conclave, he was one of only 14 remaining cardinals appointed by Paul VI, and one of only three of those under the age of 80 and thus eligible to participate in that conclave.
Cardinal Sin was unable to attend, and Benedict was one of only two cardinals appointed by Paul VI who participated in the conclave (the other was the American Cardinal Baum). So it should be:
In the consistory of June 1977 he was named a cardinal by Pope Paul VI. By the time of the 2005 Conclave, he was one of only 14 remaining cardinals appointed by Paul VI, one of only three of those under the age of 80, and one of only two who participated in the conclave, the other being Cardinal Baum.
83.109.154.100 18:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
As long we have the date of birth, I do not think we should add the time of birth too. Plus, I doubt his birth certificate is even available to see online. If so, still do not add his time of birth in. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
There are a lot of astrology sites which mention his birth certificate (=Geburtsurkunde) whose data was requested at a register office (=Standesamt). The time he was born was 04:15 local and 03:15 GMT. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 20:37, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Well, that's your opinion, but to a lot of astrology fans and fans of the pope, the information can be relevant. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 20:43, August 22, 2005 (UTC)