Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23

Roman Rite

The Roman Rite comprises two forms, the Extraordinary and the Ordinary. The Tridentine Latin Mass is the Roman Rite because it was based on the missal being used in Rome at the time of the Council of Trent. So I see no problem in calling this a Roman Rite altar. Elizium23 (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

confusion will occur, as the current mass is also referred to as the Roman Rite mass, and the current "altar" configuration is a Roman Rite altar. Roman Rite is one of the Latin Rites, and all three versions, Pre-Tridentine, Tridentine, and Post-Tridentine, are all Roman Rites. The picture is actually of the Tridentine Mass, which is colloquially called "Latin Mass", as the mass was held in Latin in almost every church in the Roman Rite at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka (talk • contribs) 04:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
The colloquialism stems from and leads to confusion, as can be seen by recent remarks from a Vatican official regarding the Mass in Latin. The Mass is still in Latin; in fact it is still ad orientem, the fact that it is invariably said versus populum today also stems from confusion about the intent of Church documents, which never intended for existing altars to be ripped out or modified, only that new ones be freestanding so that the priest could walk around and incense them. Elizium23 (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Resignation

"On the even of the first anniversary ..." should be "On the eve of the first anniversary ..." (even -> eve) ... checked quote against original source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.180.187.190 (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Tnanks. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

pilot's licence

"The Pope has a pilot's license and enjoys flying the papal helicopter, however, he never got a driver's license.[1][2][3]" These references aren't reliable. I have never heard or read about it in serious articles or books about Benedikt XVI.--Magnus678 (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Pope Benedict XVI: 6 Surprising Facts". ABC News. 11 February 2013. Retrieved 12 March 2013.
  2. ^ "His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, General Information at". The Catholic Company. Retrieved 12 March 2013.
  3. ^ "What Are Some Facts About Pope Benedict XVI?". Biography.yourdictionary.com. Retrieved 12 March 2013.
I tend to agree. I'm unsure about the ABC source, as it is under a blog by an ABC employee, so it's not exactly hard news. The other sources are definitely not reliable. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
As I am not able to delete this sentence, may you can do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnus678 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 Done Chris Troutman (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2014

182.71.95.110 (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Elizium23 (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Beatifications

This section contains two significant errors. John Henry Newman was beatified in 2010, not in 2008. And Pope Benedict XVI personally presided at the ceremony, 19 September 2010, notwithstanding the earlier decision to delegate the responsibility to some other prelate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ELCore (talk • contribs) 00:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You are totally correct. I have modified this article according to the information and cited source at John Henry Newman. Is the wording acceptable as I have made it? Elizium23 (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I think something like the following would be better because (1) it keeps the date references in chronological order and (2) makes it more clear that Newman's beatification by the pope was an exception to the new rule. "Unlike his predecessor, Benedict XVI delegated the beatification liturgical service to a Cardinal. On 29 September 2005, the Congregation for the Causes of Saints issued a communiqué announcing that henceforth beatifications would be celebrated by a representative of the pope, usually the prefect of that Congregation. Nonetheless, on 19 September 2010, during his visit to the United Kingdom, Benedict personally proclaimed the beatification of John Henry Newman." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ELCore (talk • contribs) 13:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Luftwaffenhelfer

The word Luftwaffenhelfer does not mean "Air Force child soldier". It means "Air Force assistant" just like the article to which the term is linked says. Someone should correct the article. 66.86.117.120 (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC) ETO Buff (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning this. The resource doesn't mention the „child soldier“, moreover, scarcely anybody would refer to 15-18 year old people as „children“. --Turris Davidica (talk)

was pope

Please read MOS:BLP#Tense. We do not use "was" for people who are still alive! Honestly, when this change first went through I had to Google to assure myself he hadn't died. Elizium23 (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Didn't the lack of a death date after the birth date tip you off? I've no problem if you'd rather refer to him as Pope Emeritus, just reword more carefully. He wasn't that from 2005 till 2013. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
No, you change it now. I have no wish to go edit-warring about this stupid change that should have been left alone in the first place. Elizium23 (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Right... InedibleHulk (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I made an adjustment to ...served as pope.... GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Archive Index lists talk page contents, not archive contents...

Basically, the headline tells my story: The link "Index" that stands between the word "Archive" and the list of numbered pages, gives a page that lists the contents of this talk page, NOT the contents of the archive... Autokefal Dialytiker (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Polemics

To the author. I have much respect for the academic rigors employed in your piece. I read father Joseph from a different set of underlying assumptions. Though appreciative of the academic, I am not one. My foundational perspective flows from a faith many do not share. I am a "small c catholic" but embrace the Catholic religion as the home of my faith. My bias stated, I sees a man of great intellect who cautions against reliance on platonic argument. I hear a careful scholar who embraces all well-founded knowledge, but is not bound by it and warns against binding to it. Your article is not flawed, but causes me to wonder if you consider the full effect of your own foundational bias. I learned my need to question myself in my first real university course. My history professor "showed us his underwear" and then advised us to take what he said remembering that grain of salt. The only idea he rejected was the unfounded one. Again, I much appreciate the efforts and care you employ and understand why your piece was nominated for recognition. All I can do is give you mine. 76.92.236.214 (talk) 12:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Bill Kleine, no sources or references, just a guy

Sources modified on Pope Benedict XVI

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just attempted to maintain the sources on Pope Benedict XVI. I managed to add archive links to 2 sources, out of the total 2 I modified, whiling tagging 0 as dead.

Please take a moment to review my changes to verify that the change is accurate and correct. If it isn't, please modify it accordingly and if necessary tag that source with {{cbignore}} to keep Cyberbot from modifying it any further. Alternatively, you can also add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page's sources altogether. Let other users know that you have reviewed my edit by leaving a comment on this post.

Below, I have included a list of modifications I've made:


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Dead link - 100

The dead link on Note 100 should be removed or may be updated to this excerpt. The full archived article is available only under paid subscription. Carlotm (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 17 external links on Pope Benedict XVI. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Top image

Per consistency with infobox images of the other popes, we should have an image of Benedict XVI in his white cassock & skull cap. GoodDay (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pope Benedict XVI. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse

Considering that the child sexual abuse scandal is perhaps the most serious one to affect the Catholic church in centuries, it seems odd that it merits no mention in the intro at all, and first appears a very long way down the article. Why might that be, I wonder? Ben Finn (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

He seems dead as the article starts

Ok there's no date of death but the article starts with what Ratzinger was and not with what he is. --134.147.174.79 (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pope Benedict XVI. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2016

"Served as pope" should become "was" the pope / in this case the title protocol is similar to that of religious leaders and state leaders (prime ministers/kings).

Kinema (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

It appears that your account will be autoconfirmed within 3 days, at which time you would be able to make the edit yourself. No need to re-open this request. Make sure the edits you make have reasonable consensus. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2016


At two places in the source code, Joseph Ratzinger's mother is called “Maria Ratzinger (née Peintner)”. Obviously “née”, which is the French word for “born”, was forgotten to translate: please replace it by “born” at each place where it appears.

Remsirems (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - née is an "English-adopted term" and perfectly acceptable to use on Wikipedia - we have even designed a template to make it easier to type, for people with simple keyboards (phones, pads etc.) - you type {{nee}} and it appears as née including the acute over the first e and a link to the term. - Arjayay (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

By whom?

WP:NPOV demands that we attribute POV statements. It is unseemly to slip in passive-voice weasel phrases like "remarks were interpreted as..." who interpreted them? why? We are clearly working with biased sources and contentious assertions in a WP:BLP. They need to be impeccably sourced and accurately portrayed. Elizium23 (talk) 07:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Resignation or Renunciation

Haven't many sources described Benedict XVI's departure as a resignation, rather then a renunciation? GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

"9th German pope" / or; concerning ethnicity in premodern times

I have removed the following sentence from the article:

"He was the ninth German pope, the eighth having been the Dutch-German Pope Adrian VI (1522–23) from Utrecht"

My reasoning for doing this, is the following:

1. The use of "German" as an established ethnicity or nationality in prior to modern times is highly dubious:

  • For example, the second "German" pope is said by some to have been Pope Gregory V. A man, born in the year 972. A time when there was absolutely no sense of people-hood among the (ancestors of the future) German people, let alone a Germany.
  • The first "German pope" (and mind you, the idea of this "list of German popes" is a 19th century creation) is said to have been Pope Boniface II. Boniface II (who died 532) was an Ostrogoth, meaning he spoke a language (Gothic) from a now-extinct language family, to which Icelandic is just as equally related as modern German and was not born anywhere near modern German, or German-speaking, territory.

2. The use of "German" as the adjective for the (inhabitants of the) Holy Roman Empire is highly dubious and inaccurate:

  • The Holy Roman Empire was a highly diverse and multi-ethnic state. To use "German" as its adjective, would be like using "English" as the adjective of the United States. Yes, the dominant culture can be said to be (the precursor to) German culture, but it varied greatly from region to region.
  • Pope John XIV was born in Pavia (then the Holy Roman Empire, now Italy) does this make him a German-Italian pope? Dozens of similar examples can be given.

3. The "Dutch were considered Germans at the time"-fallacy:

  • I did not find this argument in the article, but in case anyone brings it up I would like to point to its falsehood in advance. The idea that the Dutch (or English) are a kind of "breakaway Germans" is of course a grave misunderstanding of both history and the process of forming an ethnicity or nationality. To assume that a German ethnicity/nationality existed prior to a Dutch one, is simply wrong and no (self-identified, generally accepted) German ethnicity existed anywhere prior to the 1600s.

In conclusion, strictly speaking, Benedict XVI is first/only pope to have been born in Germany and if any special weight is to be given to his nationality/ethnicity; this is (in my opinion) the furthest way to go. If anyone disagrees, I would like to discuss this below - and invite other to join me in this. AKAKIOS (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Child Abuse Scandal

The single most important event of this Pope's period in office was the exposure of widespread child abuse by Roman Catholic priests.

This involved some hiding, some exposure, some financial settlements, some bankruptcies of dioceses in the United States, and so forth.

It is possible that the stress of dealing with the problem is what led to the man's resignation. It is within the realm of possibility that large-scale criminality remains unpunished though widely known and that this man was complicit in it.

Yet there is no mention of the question anywhere in the article. This would seem to me a fairly major shortcoming.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 08:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@David Lloyd-Jones: What you're suggesting is original research or synthesis of primary sources, both of which are prohibited. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, so you need reliable secondary source analysis that says explicitly what you're claiming in order to add that sort of content. Because the subject is still living, our sourcing requirements are especially strict. Wikipedia does (and should) lag behind the coverage written. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Chris, Thanks for your note. I'm not suggesting anything. I simply point out that the most important thing to happen to the Roman Catholic Church since, since I don't know when, since it confronted the labour movement in the 19th Century maybe, happened on this guy's watch -- and there is no mention of it in the article. This strikes me as odd.
All of that secondary, tertiary, sources and so forth stuff is way over my pay grade.
Can I simply leave it in your hands? Perhaps you could point other people more competent than me at the issue.
Best wishes,
David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 12:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 34 external links on Pope Benedict XVI. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Intro & Infobox

Though it's true that he now has the title of Pope Emeritus. We shouldn't be treating that title as though it were an office. Therefore, going with simply "...served as Pope from 2005 until his resignation in 2013..." should suffice. Also in the infobox "Bishop of Rome" suffices. Though he's still living, he's still like all his predecessors - a former Pope. GoodDay (talk) 11:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Nevertheless, since it is rather unusual in our days to have a living „former pope“, in 2013 the Holy See specially proclaimed his title to be Pope Emeritus (or Pontifex Maximus Emeritus) as the article points out.--Turris Davidica (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
They're only titles & not offices. Pope/Bishop of Rome is an office. You'll note that the article's name isn't Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Definitely shouldn't be Pontifex Maximus Emeritus (the phrase Pontifex Maximus is very rarely used in English-language sourcing, almost always translated as Supreme Pontiff). I'm open to Bishop Emeritus of Rome, in line with all the other bishops/archbishops emeritus. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
"Bishop of Rome" is best, as that's the highest position he's held. Alive or dead, like his predecessors, Benedict XVI is also a former pope. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 74 external links on Pope Benedict XVI. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pope Benedict XVI. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Love this article

The wikilink of Pope Emeritus links back to the article itself. I've done a lot of editing and have not seen this anywhere else and I'm fine with it. But wouldn't a separate article on Pope Emeritus be better. Retain all content and just expand on this fasinating topic. This article is very well done and a pleasure to read. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 13:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pope Benedict XVI. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Liberal?

It is being mentioned that Ratzinger was once considered liberal. This claim should be debated as the term “liberal” does not quite fit well to Ratzinger, even to the young Ratzinger. He was “modern”, ok, but liberal? No! OnSpeech (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

OnSpeech, Wikipedia's core concept is verifiability, not truth. As Der Spiegel characterized his views this way, we are not in a position to do otherwise. For more information, see Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Der Spiegel is a news magazine which is proud of its strong opinions. So what does it verify more than a journalist’s opinion. A solid religious book would be of another league. But Der Spiegel? Not really? Really? OnSpeech (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

"Pope Emeritus"

I believe this to be an entirely informal and unofficial title. If there's evidence of this title having some official usage, please speak up. My intention is to label "Emeritus" as an informal and unofficial title. patsw (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

It's the term used by the Vatican. I pretty much think they can decide what Benedict is called - certainly their use means it's not "unofficial", and you would need some actual secondary source to support your opinion that it's informal. [1] [2] [3] [4] - Nunh-huh 23:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the encouragement to research this. The Vatican assigned the title. It was not invented by the secular media. patsw (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

The word emeritus means you're not in the job anymore

To editor Peter K Burian: Please re-read your sources. Benedict has not been pope for years; Pope Francis accepted the resignation. NPR, for example, says "Pope Francis has accepted the resignation of Cardinal Donald Wuerl". I understand you made a mistake. If you do this again, I'm going to use a template to get your attention. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Yeah. Benedict XVI is not pope. If you found a source that says he accepted the resignation, it’s wrong and we could show 30 more proving it was Francis. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
    • The source he used was in fact NPR, which stated that Francis accepted the resignation, not Benedict. The only mention of Benedict was that he appointed Wuerl to his position as archbishop. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Of course, Francis is the pope now; I had a mental block today and I am Roman Catholic. Fixed it. One word in that paragraph was a mistake. Would it not have made sense to change that word instead of deleting the entire paragraph? Peter K Burian (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian: So if nothing in that content has to do with the subject, why are you including it? Chris Troutman (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Because the allegations of coverups occurred during Benedict's papacy and he had appointed the Cardinal. But OK, I agree the content makes more sense in the Pope Francis article. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I reverted it. Inclusion of this clearly is controversial and would need talk page consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced category

Please remove Category:Theistic evolutionists. There is nothing in the article which even mentions evolution, let alone the "theistic" variety of it. Per WP:CATV, all categories must be described in the article body and backed with a reliable secondary source. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

See Catholic Church and evolution#Pope Benedict XVI. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
That is irrelevant; WP:CATV requires that it be documented IN THE ARTICLE, with a RELIABLE SOURCE. It is not. If you care to add the information to this article, then the category can stay. Up to you! 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
This seems to be of more importance to you than it does to me and my editing. If I have time this week I will get to it. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 05:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 Done This is a WP:BLP and sources are required for all statements in the article (especially for potentially controversial statements). I've removed the category with no prejudice to readdition when some content is added with some sources. Izno (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Pope Emeritus title

In the lede, we read that The Vatican bestowed on him the title pope emeritus shortly after his resignation. This is not what the National Catholic Register article says - and it's canonically impossible. What happened is that Benedict chose this title for himself, and it was announced by his spokesman two days before Benedict's resignation took effect. Also, as the lede is meant to summarize article contents, a corrected statement should be duplicated in the appropriate section of the body. Thanks. 2600:8800:1880:9A3:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 07:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit request, 15 January 2019

  • Please change The Vatican bestowed on him the title pope emeritus shortly after his resignation. to:
  • Benedict chose to be known by the title "pope emeritus" upon his resignation. 2600:8800:1880:9A3:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
The source is already provided. The current incorrect assertion does not match the source information. 2600:8800:1880:9A3:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Infobox usage of 'Bishop of Rome'

Myself and another editor, appear to be in a dispute over whether or not to use Bishop of Rome in the infobox. It's been my understanding that we always go with the 'highest title' used by the person, living or dead. Thus for example, the reason this article is named Pope Benedict XVI, rather then Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the infoboxes for articles on the few previous Popes who resigned... they don’t list either “Pope” or “Bishop of Rome” under the heading “Previous positions”. I would say omit both. Blueboar (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Shall we remove Bishop of Rome from all past popes? Resignation or death, the person ceases to be pope (i. bishop of Rome). GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
No need... if you look at a random sampling of infoboxes for other Popes, the title “Bishop of Rome” is already NOT included in the “previous posts” field (we cannot remove what isn’t there). I would have this article’s infobox match those. Blueboar (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
I'd have no problem removing Bishop of Rome, including from the current pope's infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Emeritus

There have been multiple talks on this but I am going to bring this up again. While Benedict 16 is still living, I recommend the use of Emeritus in his title. After his death, Emeritus can be removed. The title now suggests two popes.Manabimasu (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Just like his predecessors, Benedict XVI is a former pope. It doesn't matter whether he's dead or alive. PS: Note that the article itself is named Pope Benedict XVI, not Pope emeritus Benedict XVI. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I suppose the unique situation here would be that all other former popes are dead, and that is why they are former. Benedict XVI's resignation was extremely unusual and not following the normal customs of a Pope, who traditionally holds the office until death. That being said, I am looking at other living former monarchs (of extant monarchies) like Juan Carlos I of Spain, Beatrix of the Netherlands, Akihito, etc. and all of them use their highest office, that of monarch. It would be consistent with other articles to use Pope Benedict XVI in the infobox, title, and opening of the lede. It is worth mentioning in the lede that he is now referred to as Pope Emeritus, and that should suffice. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, it's mentioned in the lead that he's referred to as pope emeritus & that should suffice. Also, you're quite correct in how we handle the infoboxes of living former monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Missing Word

In the last sentence of the section "Encounter with Romano Guardini" states "At the close of the twentieth the future Cardinal Ratzinger would write an introduction to a 1996 reissue of Guardini's 1954 classic "The Lord".[31]" and is missing the word century after the word twentieth. ReadTheWholeBook (talk) 08:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done that paragraph was in need of copyediting. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. Elizium23 (talk) 08:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2020

The categorie: Popes was not in the profile

Category:Popes Chateaudemerckem (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done (assuming your intent is to add this category) per WP:SUBCAT. It's already a member of (at least) one subcategory of this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

All the other popes are in the Category:Popes ... a strange discission... Pity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chateaudemerckem (talk • contribs) 19:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Category:Popes is a non-diffusing category. Elizium23 (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

In November 2017, images emerged on the Facebook page of the Bishop of Passau, Stefan Oster, of Benedict with a black eye; the bishop and author Peter Seewald visited the former pope on 26 October since the pair were presenting Benedict with the new book Benedict XVI – The German Pope which the Passau diocese created. The former pope suffered the hematoma earlier after having slipped.[220]

commas are needed after Passau and Oster as shown above — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:3397:5A01:1940:4733:330E:DB2 (talk) 13:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Longest lived pope since Middle Ages possibly.

Today many news announced that Pope Benedict XVI surpassed Pope Leo XIII as oldest pope in history,this may not be the case. Pope Agatho lived according to tradition 104 years (577-681), Pope Gregory IX 96 years (1145-1241) and Pope Adrian I 95 years (700-795). Their birth dates and even years are not recorded and are just tradition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miloradovan (talk • contribs) 19:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Homosexuality

The article is vague at best and misleading at worst. Although it quotes him saying that being a homosexuality isn't inherently sinful, it leaves the reader with the notion that homosexuality is a disorder because it leads disordered acts. However, if you read the full letter written by Benedict, he views homosexuals as equally responsible to not have sex outside of marriage, and not to see marriage as permission to indulge in sexual acts. Rather, marriage is a union of love given only by God, not a self chosen permission to self indulge in sexual acts for fun and using another person to indulge in pointless sexual acts purely based on desire for recreational sex.

Quote:

"You cannot belong to Christ unless you crucify all self-indulgent passions and desires."

Christians who are homosexual are called, as all of us are, to a chaste life." Rjenman123 (talk) 05:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The Catholic marriage views sexual union as the full expression of family and creation of life, not separating sexual recreational activity from love in a family Rjenman123 (talk) 05:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Quote

"The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a "heterosexual" or a "homosexual" and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life" Rjenman123 (talk) 05:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2021

Change: Same-sex marriage

During a 2012 Christmas speech,[253] the pope made remarks about the present-day interpretation of the notion of "gender". He stated that "sex is no longer a given element of nature, that man has to accept and personally make sense of: it is a social role that we choose for ourselves", and "The words of the creation account: "male and female he created them" (Gen 1:27) no longer apply".

To: Same-sex marriage

During a 2012 Christmas speech,[253] the pope made remarks about the present-day interpretation of the notion of "gender". He stated that a new philosophy of sexuality, which he rejects, suggests that "sex is no longer a given element of nature, that man has to accept and personally make sense of: it is a social role that we choose for ourselves", and "The words of the creation account: "male and female he created them" (Gen 1:27) no longer apply". Dgkoning (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

American Thinker

@Jclemens:, why did you restore an American Thinker source in the article? You reverted David Gerard, but gave no reason for the reversion. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, has that source been blacklisted somewhere? WP:RSP says nothing about it. Jclemens (talk) 06:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
There is no way on earth that a weird white nationalist blog is of due weight in a BLP about a pope - David Gerard (talk) 08:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2022

Article states that “with the death of Cardinal Baum in 2015” Pope Benedict XVI is the last man made a Cardinal by Pope Paul VI. This is patently false. Cardinal Arns, who died in 2016, was actually the penultimate Cardinal named by Pope Paul to die. 2601:602:9600:F5A0:0:0:0:7AE3 (talk) 08:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Already done [5] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2022

Article states that “with the death of Cardinal Baum in 2015” Pope Benedict XVI is the last man made a Cardinal by Pope Paul VI. This is patently false. Cardinal Arns, who died in 2016, was actually the penultimate Cardinal named by Pope Paul to die. 2601:602:9600:F5A0:0:0:0:7AE3 (talk) 08:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Already done [6] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn’t we mention the accusations by the German Church against him and the Munich report

Obviously include the Vatican’s response against Munich Report, https://apnews.com/article/europe-religion-crime-germany-sexual-abuse-by-clergy-a7926c80e9af1a6c7688e3529231de82 and other information inside of it.

I’m wondering if anyone would like to add this section about the accusations. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I would say yes, but as the investigation is still in progress I would not add it, as those information would need to be updated, and updating those takes up a lot of time. By all means, if you feel up to the task then add those information. Veverve (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I’m trying to learn more about the encyclopedia rn and not really make edits so I’m just kinda suggesting Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

(Eventually I plan on editing again after having more knowledge on how the process works) Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Hagiography

The section on Ratzinger and the child abuse scandal in the Catholic church reads more like a hagiography than an impartial analysis of his role in it. Was it written by the Vatican PR team? 2A00:23C6:5C04:6601:800:9B72:D302:89F7 (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of "St." in context of religious studies

The article contains the following: "Ratzinger's 1953 dissertation was on St. Augustine and was titled The People and the House of God in Augustine's Doctrine of the Church. His habilitation (which qualified him for a professorship) was on Bonaventure. It was completed in 1957 and he became a professor of Freising College in 1958." I added "St." before Bonaventure to a) match with St. Augustine; and b) to help identify "Bonaventure". I was reverted (in good faith, just as my original edit was) on the basis of WP:HON, which I concede could have application. However, I maintain that in the context of religious studies, calling a saint a saint is helpful and not an improper honorific. Further, with the use of "St. Augustine" in the very sentence before, it causes a reader (as it did with me) to conclude that Bonaventure is not referring to a saint. Ultimately, while not a huge issue, I wanted to raise this here: should St. be added before Bonaventure? ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 18:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve: - courtesy ping. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 18:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
The "St." for Augustine should also be removed. The rule is not that on religious articles, the honorifics apply, rather it is a general rule. Veverve (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
I just don't think WP:HON applies as strictly as you think. While MOS:SAINTS refers to article naming conventions and not usage within articles, it states "For example, we use Joan of Arc (recognizable, natural, concise, and unambiguous) but Saint Monica. (Disambiguation is necessary because Monica is a disambiguation page; editors have preferred "Saint Monica" over other possible titles, such as Monica of Hippo.) The word "Saint" should never be omitted if it is the only way of referring to the title in a recognizable way. Patrick of Ireland is merely a redirect to Saint Patrick for this reason. "Saint" should never under any circumstances be shortened to "St" or "St." in article titles about the person in question, though redirects should be created from such titles. (See also List of saints.)" Expanding this reasoning, even outside of article titles, where it is necessary to refer to an individual as a "saint" in order for their name to be recognizable, it makes to do so. "Saint" is different from a lot of other 'honorifics' since in many cases, sainthood is what makes the individual notable, or at least what they are best known for. This is different from calling him the "Blessed Saint Bonaventure" or "Bonaventure, peace be upon him". ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 19:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Pope Benedict's academic qualifications

I think it is highly unlikely that Pope Benedict received a B.A. at the University of Munich, because B.A.s were not awarded at German universities until the last 20 years, in the train of the so-called Bologna reforms. Even as recently as 1994, when I took my masters at the University of Munich, no B.A.s were conferred; the first degree that you took was the Magister Artium (M.A.). 2003:F2:674F:CF27:113D:30:3BD8:8B66 (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I clicked through the autobiography that is cited there for his ordination, and I didn't see anything about University of Munich conferring degrees on him. Whatever degrees he may have earned were in the course of his seminary work on theology towards ordination to the sacred priesthood. @Mreditoratlast: added the disputed field relatively recently, and this editor seems to engage in WP:OR on more than one occasion. Barring any sources about Ratzinger's degrees I'll just remove it entirely. There's no rush to add it without accurate sourceability. Elizium23 (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect link in section 3.1 for Jorge Medina

In section 3.1, Election to the Papacy, paragraph 3, it states that he was announced as Pope by Jorge Medina. This incorrectly links to the activist Jorge Medina, not the Chilean cardinal. ElChorizoTX (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done — Archer1234 (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2022

37.159.41.210 (talk) 10:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I want to remove the "Living people" category from his page.

 Done ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 10:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Death

He died peacfully in Vatican City age 95. 86.8.175.39 (talk) 10:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Nominated for the main page

This article has been nominated to be linked on the main page under the section In the News. Interested editors are invited to discuss the nomination here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

It had already been posted twenty minutes before you said this. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. I failed to refresh the nomination page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Religious style

Wasn't he still called "Holy Father", after his resignation? GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Source for FT odds

In the 'Election to the Papacy' section, there's a reference to the odds given by the Financial Times, that's tagged as 'citation needed'. I think the relevant article is this one - https://www.ft.com/content/5b02c77a-a431-11d9-9778-00000e2511c8 - but as I'm not a subscriber, I cannot confirm this. Can someone with an FT subscription check it out, please? Thanks. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I've just looked and there are no odds quoted in that article as currently archived. In fact it makes no reference to Ratzinger at all that I can see.
There certainly were odds offered at the time (I remember betting on it) but what the odds were I can't remember, let alone source. CC0Rider (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Looking elsewhere, though this BBC article references Ratzinger as opening at 12/1, then shortening to 3/1 favourite by the time of the conclave:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4465591.stm
It seems to have been accepted as a source on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling_on_papal_elections#21st_century page, so maybe amend the odds and use the BBC link as a source? CC0Rider (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2022

Add Writings from Pope Benedict XVI: Meditated for quite a time regarding the versicles of the Latin Vulgata: 26 Cum vidisset ergo Iesus matrem et discipulum stantem, quem diligebat, dicit matri: “ Mulier, ecce filius tuus ”. 27 Deinde dicit discipulo: “ Ecce mater tua ”. Et ex illa hora accepit eam discipulus in sua.

One day a thought from God himself, help him concluded that the Mother of Jesus has the same participation in the inhabitation of the Trinity in every person. Thomas Hugon (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Thomas Hugon Please spell out the exact wording of your proposed edit, where you want it inserted, and include a citation to a reliable source. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Place of birth

I know that there is a (hidden) note for editors which tell that both Bavaria and Germany should not be geolinked wikilinked. However, in the case of Pope Benedict XVI, while Marktl has always been located in [the Free State of] Bavaria, the country/state of his birth was known as the German Reich or Weimar Republic at the time. The other preceding popes – including his predecessor Pope John Paul II – had the entirety of their birth places geolinked on the account that they were born in state which no longer exists today (e.g. Second Polish Republic for John Paul II, Kingdom of Italy for the 4 popes preceding JP2, Austrian Empire for Pius XI, and Kingdom of Sardinia for Benedict XV). So, my question is this: should his birth place be edited to include a link to the Weimar Republic article? Vida0007 (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

It should absolutely say Weimar Republic as that was the name at the time. From what the standard seems to be, if the country currently exists, it’s not linked, but if it doesn’t anymore, then it is. It also makes sense to link a place like that since the link would actually serve a purpose for those who don’t know about it. 2605:B100:115:863D:451B:FD2B:287:7F83 (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
@Vida0007: I am not sure what you mean by "geolinked". Do you mean GPS coordinates, or wikilink? Currently, the article incorrectly shows "Germany" which is an anachronism. In the infobox we indicate the place names as they were known at the time and we do not "update" them with modern geography. Weimar Republic is the correct designation. Elizium23 (talk) 22:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
My bad. It should be wikilink. Got confused with the hidden note which said that one should refer to MOS:GEOLINK. Vida0007 (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
"Weimar Republic" is not the name of a place. It's a name for a historical period, much like Antebellum South or Victorian England. You can wikilink it with a pipe, [[Weimar Republic|Germany]], but that's about it. --bender235 (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
No, I don't buy that. We have articles such as Hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic and Military ranks of the Weimar Republic. The main article says that, at the very least, it was one of the names of the government. Elizium23 (talk) 16:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Both of these articles refer to historical periods, not present-day locations. --bender235 (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Well I think you're being unnecessarily narrow about this; Britannica is also convinced it's a government. Can you cite a source which supports what you are telling us here, that it is not a government or a name for Germany but a time period only? Elizium23 (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
The "Weimar Republic" is a different entity than the current Germany (FRG). Even if it was not normally called that at the time it is the name used to describe it is now. I do not see why place of birth should not be linked to the Weimar Republic. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
The Weimar Republic article itself tells you right in the lede that the country's name was "Germany" or "German Republic", but never "Weimar Republic". --bender235 (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
It says that "Weimar Republic" has been commonly used in English after the 1930s. Elizium23 (talk) 00:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
That was my point. Say Germany, but link to the Weimar Republic. Just linking to Germany would lead to FRG which was a different entity and would not be accurate.3Kingdoms (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I've no objection to linking as [Weimar Republic|Germany], as that was the country in which he was born in. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree.3Kingdoms (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the straightforward answer here is to write Germany, but link to Weimar Republic as our software easily allows us to do. Jahaza (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

As the one who opened this discussion, I support the suggestions made by bender235, GoodDay and Jahaza. Frankly, that is what I would have actually done before seeing the hidden note; I only started this topic here mainly because I did not want this to descend to an edit war. Also, I think "German Reich" can be used in place of "Germany" (which now usually refers to the post-1990 state); after all, that was the official name of the Weimar Republic during its existence. Vida0007 (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Legacy

As of now, there is a section called Legacy. This seems to duplicate a few criticisms of the article's subject documented elsewhere in the article. However, the `Legacy' section itself seems to me to be a bit one-sided: I am sure that there is quite a lot more that can go in here. What's the best way to tackle this without sparking a huge edit war? The Parson's Cat (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

That's quite a vague basis to tag the section and start a dispute on. Do you have any specifics about criticism that is missing that you can document with significant coverage in reliable sources? Elizium23 (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I completely agree. It's nothing of need, as it is already stated in the lead section, and it only points out Pope Benedict XVI’s most reprehensible actions and criticisms, evidently being one sided. I say just remove it altogether. PolPot1975 (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
We have similar wording - both praise and criticism - for other leads on religious figures pages. See Mother Teresa's page, for instance.
It's hard to see how He played the piano and had a preference for Mozart and Bach merits inclusion while this is somehow not notorious enough to include. KlayCax (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Nobody's suggesting that we remove criticisms, but we prefer it to be integrated into the appropriate sections of the article and not segregated/highlighted in a separate section. See WP:CRITS for description of best practices. Elizium23 (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
The legacy section could be expanded with positive assessments, similar to Mother Teresa's page. I don't think we should be deleting it. The vast majority of reliable sources have mentioned the forementioned topics.KlayCax (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
I would support this approach, and it would address the problems with the Legacy section. The Parson's Cat (talk) 09:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Let's fix the problem before changing the tag - at the moment it really is unbalanced and falls foul of WP:NPOV. The Parson's Cat (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
@Pbritti: Thanks for fixing the NPOV issue. The Parson's Cat (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

No problem. I'll keep my ear to the ground to expand that section by maybe one or two paragraphs over the next few months. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Resignation announcement date

We seem to be using two dates (Feb 10 & Feb 11, 2023) for Benedict's resignation announcement. Which is the correct date? or is this a matter of time zones. GoodDay (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2023

Add the following KalGal2424 (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

"God's redemptive love" in lede

"He taught the importance of both the Catholic Church and an understanding of God's redemptive love.[1]"

Huh??

This is counterfactual. He was a doctrinalist. This is cited to an opinion column, which is hardly a reliable source. Schierbecker (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

This is an appropriate source for such a claim. Deseret News is only deprecated for information on the LDS/"Mormons" and opinion pieces with editorial supervision from a reliable source are essentially of equal weight to obituaries. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
The column describes one theme of the Pope's first encyclical. It is undue. This doesn't accord with the whole of his teachings. Do any obits say he preached "God's redemptive love," whatever that means? Schierbecker (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
A lede is supposed to summarize the article. I'm not seeing anything in the body of the article that says something about this redemptive view he supposedly had. Correct me if I'm wrong. Schierbecker (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Johnston, Jerry Earl (18 February 2006). "Benedict's encyclical offers hope for world". Deseret News. Archived from the original on 2 April 2015. Retrieved 12 September 2010. WebCitation archive

Pilot/helicopter licence

There are statements in the newspapers variously that Benedict held a pilot's licence and would fly the Papal helicopter. If this is so it is 'a notable fact' (and probably not many other 'heads of state and government' have this qualification). Jackiespeel (talk) 11:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

A papal pilot, quite unique. No objections to addition. GoodDay (talk) 11:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
More information would be needed (when he acquired the licence etc). Anyone know of other examples (among heads of state and government)? Jackiespeel (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
There is no proof that Pope John Paul II didn't serve in Polish People's Army therefore it's likely he knew how to operate most of military vehicles used back then, maybe even T-55AM tanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.204.141 (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
IP's comment is a non sequitur/irrelevant to this discussion (and, from what I know of JPII probably not accurate).
A brief search shows references to 'the papal pilot's licence' in The Times (UK) in 2010 (behind a paywall) and several in 2013 and after, along with a mention on Archive 23 of this page; but no further information (when and where etc), sometimes in conjunction with his not having a road-vehicle licence.
Further research would probably require German/Italian/Latin beyond my (basic) level. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

There appear to be no images -still or film - of him, either as Joseph Ratzinger or as Benedict XVI actually taking the controls of a helicopter, when such would provide good photo-ops; and the statement is merely repeated verbatim in different locations since at least 2010 (so effectively only one source): I presume that other people will have made the same search (as the statement is mentioned variously/it has been flagged up here) but there has been no update, therefore the most that can be said is that 'someone somewhere, in 2010 or before, made a statement (without there being any corroborating evidence).' Jackiespeel (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Date of death

Many other language wikis don't say his date of death KentuckyPony (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

So? We have reliable sources with an exact date and time of death, so we should include it. What other language Wikis choose to do is up to them. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Why would we not show his death date? It's kinda needed, to show that he's no longer alive. GoodDay (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Of course his date of death should be in the article. The problem is that some other languages don't show it.--KentuckyPony (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying that's a problem for the English Wikipedia? The different language versions are not just straight translations of each other, but separate articles written by different people at different times, using different sources, so of course there are going to be differences. That said, though, it is surprising that some of them don't show his date of death, but there you go. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 17:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Shouldn't you be making that complaint at those other language Wikipedia? GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image

I believe that the image that i had cropped and put on this page was a better image than the one currently on the page. In the image i had edited into the infobox he was not depicted in an unflattering camera angle as for the current one does. Kedokinnie (talk) 02:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

My personal favorite is Option 5. It has the highest resolution complies with MOS:PORTRAIT better than options 4 and 6 since he's facing towards the text. In contrast to option 7, Benedict is smiling as well. Option 3 and 2 could also work, but my concern with option 2 is that I'm unsure if it's best to portray a former pope in more cardinal-like regalia. Option 4 is my least favorite since he's more blurry, somewhat frowned (or not as obvious in joy), and the blurriness. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Vested for Mass in gold, with pallium, hand raised in blessing (Option 1)
    Vested for Mass in gold, with pallium, hand raised in blessing
    (Option 1)
  • In choir dress with red cappa and pectoral cross, smiling (Option 2)
    In choir dress with red cappa and pectoral cross, smiling
    (Option 2)
  • Vested in red with pectoral cross and stole (Option 3; current)
    Vested in red with pectoral cross and stole
    (Option 3; current)
  • Benedict XVI in 2011 (Option 4)
    Benedict XVI in 2011
    (Option 4)

These are the last three articles in the infobox. I agree that the second one is very good, Kedokinnie. Elizium23 (talk) 05:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Out of the three, I'm inclined to option 3 since it looks like an official portrait (though not). I added a fourth option to the mix. --38.106.246.198 (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I think Option two is the strongest of these. Option one is striking, but slightly blurry. I agree that the angle on three is difficult. Option 4 might be an acceptable alternative to three if it were cropped a bit wider. Jahaza (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
    Also, option 1 is already on the page further down in the Theology of Benedict XVI series box, which militates against using it again. Jahaza (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that option 1 is the best and I also ask other people what image they thing is the best and here are reasons that they think this option is the best:

1. The robe looks nice

2. Less simplistic than the fourth image

3. He is in his full papal attire איתן קרסנטי (talk) 11:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

While I am in favor for Option 4, as it is simplistic, there is also this image as an option, which is the opposite:

  • Benedict XVI in his liturgical Vestment in 2010 (Option 5)
    Benedict XVI in his liturgical Vestment in 2010
    (Option 5)

LennBr (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I like Option 5 more than the current image, which in my opinion is too low quality. Here are some other options:

  • (Option 6)
    (Option 6)
  • (Option 7)
    (Option 7)
  • (Option 8)
    (Option 8)

jonas (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Option 6 per above. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 7 - both 6 and 7 are great, but 7 has better lighting and he faces the correct way which falls in line with MOS:PORTRAIT. 2605:B100:115:863D:451B:FD2B:287:7F83 (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 6 by far the most high quality and best image. Sea Cow (talk)
  • Option 4 - best to have him in a 'white only' outfit. Don't care too much for the regal images. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 4 is a good closeup which shows the actual person best. The other images are too distant and so mostly show his regalia. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 6 for being the image of best quality and because it accurately represents the subject. Planetberaure (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 4 is an option which has a better closeup of Benedict. - Option 7 also has a good closeup too and seems to be from the same day as picture 6. Stv26 (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2023

Within the subsection regarding legacy, add something to the effect of:

A number of funeral attendees called out "Santo subito!" - Saint now! (Italian)- as was chanted at the funeral of Pope St. JPII. Many, including Cardinal Müller, anticipate that, for his immense theological contributions, he will be recognized as a 'doctor' of the church. SanctaEcclesiaDomini (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Here are a handful of articles from a quick search:
https://www.ncregister.com/interview/cardinal-mueller-benedict-xvi-will-be-remembered-as-a-true-doctor-of-the-church-for-today
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/253211/benedict-xvi-thinker-preacher-saint-former-students-and-scholars-discuss-legacy
https://www.pillarcatholic.com/santo-subito-catholics-say-emotional-farewell-to-benedict-xvi-at-funeral-mass/
https://news.yahoo.com/sign-benedict-xvis-funeral-reads-115500453.html
https://newsbook.com.mt/en/santo-subito-pilgrims-weep-at-benedict-xvis-funeral/
https://www.cbsnews.com/philadelphia/video/sign-at-benedict-xvis-funeral-reads-santo-subito/
https://www.ncregister.com/cna/pope-benedict-xvi-doctor-of-the-church
https://apnews.com/article/religion-vatican-city-frank-walter-steinmeier-sergio-mattarella-germany-b660406a0c07d50ba34408a40becc428
P.S.
making mention of the "santo subito" calls seems to be a good way to 'round out' the section as is called for in the "legacy" heading of this talk section
It can be stated that these cheers were much lesser than those of PP ST JPII's funeral, but, I believe, their presence merits a statement within the article. Certainly, Cardinal Müller's comments are worthy of note, given his stature among the cardinals. SanctaEcclesiaDomini (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Merely a observation, but perhaps calls for sainthood will be the trend at every popes' funeral, in future. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 Partly done I have added info about the cries of "Santo subito" to the funeral section, which I think is a better placement than the legacy one. I have not added the part about church doctorship yet. You wrote that Cardinal Muller believes Ratzinger will be made a Doctor of the Church, but in the NCRegister interview, he merely describes him as one, which is a bit different. Fessio calls for him to be elevated, but I'm not sure he's important enough to merit mention by name. However, the NC Register does write, "Long before his passing, the name Pope Benedict XVI has been proposed as a worthy candidate to become a doctor of the Church," although it gives no further detail; meanwhile, the Newsbook article mentions people holding signs with that title. Given all this, with the sourcing currently here, I think we could add a sentence like: Some have called for his recognition as a Doctor of the Church, with Cardinal Muller describing him as "a great thinker and personally a believing Christian." What do you think of that? Of course, if you can find other sources, that would be even better. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
FWIW, we should be using "Pope Benedict XVI", rather then "Ratzinger". GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm a little confused. I would use Benedict XVI in the article, of course. Are you complaining that my use of "Ratzinger" as a shorter name in a talk page discussion is inappropriate? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Making sure, if said addition is made to page. We'd be using Benedict, rather then Ratzinger. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Because SanctaEcclesiaDomini has been active since my reply but hasn't commented, I have gone ahead and added a modification of what I proposed above. They are, of course, welcome to comment if they think something else would be better. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Great; no objections from me. Thanks for keeping me honest to what is explicit rather than implicit (re: Muller) and making the addition
- Pax Christi tecum SanctaEcclesiaDomini (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

"Bxvi" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Bxvi has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 13 § Bxvi until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope_Benedict_XVI/Archive_23&oldid=1184222411"