Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Papal visit to the Czech Republic

Can someone please mention Benedict's visit to the Czech Republic last month in the "Apostolic Journeys" section?? It received quite a bit of media attention at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.76.120 (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Holy smokes?

WP:NOTAFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Not sure this is the appropriate place to make an edit suggestion, but, I was just thinking that it would be nic e if the article noted that he is the "Vicer of Christ" ([i]Latin Vicarius Christi[/i]) in his initial resume. The title denotes his right to speak for Christ. "It implies his supreme and universal primacy." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicar_of_Christ. I have no religious motivation whatsoever. Just a student of the Medieval Ages. Cheers... Does the Pope smoke? Not according to this article, which demonstrates a widely circulated photo of Benedict with a cigarette in his mouth has been altered: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.58.195 (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC) I don't know what Wall Street Journal is basing its claim on, but it probably isn't the mentioned photo. I kind of trust WSJ's opinion and judgement on this. Besides, the Pope is German, and ALL Germans smoke ;) Offliner (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC) I think we should put the smoking information back. Offliner (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC) I think it's reasonable to mention, using the WSJ as a source. That said, I support putting it under "Interests" and not under "Health". The latter is pointy and coatracky; this is not the place to get into a spiff about the health impacts of smoking. But if consensus deems the mention spurious, it is not a big loss either. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC) It's spurious, to say the least. The WSJ article states, with no citations, that "many Europeans", including the pope, "have been known to puff in private..." That's hardly well-cited. With the altered picture cited above, this material should stay out of the wikipedia article. Let's stick to verifiable, relevant content. --anietor (talk) 04:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Does it matter? Do we mention if the head of the Methodist Church smokes? Do we mention if the President of the Mormon Church Smokes (ok, that goes almost without saying) but you get my point. Whether or not he smokes is not germaine to this article, unless it becomes an issue during his pontificate (eg part of some controversy or if he catches some disease associated with smoking or becomes a part of some standing characture ala the smoking Pope?) If the point is simply to say, "the Pope smokes" then that seems out of place in this article.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC) We already have a section about his health, and I think smoking is an important detail to mention. It will probably affect his health a lot. We should try to find more sources for the claim though. Offliner (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC) If it hasn't affected his health yet, then it would have to be extremely carefully worded...and more than a casual reference---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC) The Pope doesn't even drink beer so I don't think he smokes (as to "all Germans smoke..."). Probably I've read things like this, maybe even an explicit remark on smoking, in "Salt of the Earth" or a newspaper article. - Whether the Pope smokes or no might be interesting as it is somewhat seriously (?) disputed whether smoking itself, or only abuse of smoking is a moral vice. A question that even becomes more interesting if asked more generally, namely, how far is man morally obliged to actively preserve his body's health. (Although of course, high clergy sins as well, unfortunately.) So let's mention that afaik, the Pope nominated a smoker to his previous arcdiocese. --84.154.116.92 (talk) 22:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC) If the Pope did not drink how would he celebrate mass? You can smoke and drink so long as you don't endanger your health(that is what catholics believe). I'm pretty sure he probably drinks wine at the end of a long hard day.- BennyK95 - Talk 18:53, October 9 2009 (UTC) The pope smokes dope; I know beacause he made me try too. /Strausszek (talk) 12:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC) (treoubleshooting test, guys) I'm pretty sure the only evidence is photshopped. Compare http://fourpointreport.com/blog/?p=210 and http://guanabee.com/2008/06/the-pope-is-smoking Caleb Withers (talk) 07:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment: should the AIDS section include discussion of reactions to the statement that "Condom distribution worsens AIDS in Africa"

As can be seen on the discussion above, Pope Benedict made an assertion in March that "Condom distribution worsens AIDS in Africa". The article once read as follows:

In 2005, the Pope listed several ways to combat the spread of HIV, including chastity, fidelity in marriage and anti-poverty efforts; he also rejected the use of condoms. The alleged Vatican investigation of whether there are any cases when married persons may use condoms to protect against the spread of infections surprised many Catholics in the wake of John Paul II's consistent refusal to consider condom use in response to AIDS. However, the Vatican has since stated that no such change in the Church's teaching can occur. Time Magazine also reported in its 30 April 2006 edition that the Vatican's position remains what it always has been with Vatican officials "flatly dismiss[ing] reports that the Vatican is about to release a document that will condone any condom use." In March 2009, the Pope stated: "I would say that this problem of Aids cannot be overcome merely with money, necessary though it is. If there is no human dimension, if Africans do not help, the problem cannot be overcome by the distribution of prophylactics: on the contrary, they increase it. The solution must have two elements: firstly, bringing out the human dimension of sexuality, that is to say a spiritual and human renewal that would bring with it a new way of behaving towards others, and secondly, true friendship offered above all to those who are suffering, a willingness to make sacrifices and to practise self-denial, to be alongside the suffering."

The Pope's controversial assertion that distribution of condoms increases the problem of AIDS in Africa was the portion of the statement that attracted media attention. Lisa Power, corporate head of policy at the Terrence Higgins Trust, said: "We deeply regret the continued misinformation around condoms, which remain the most effective way of preventing the spread of HIV. Both abstinence and condoms are valid weapons in the fight against HIV, but unfortunately abstinence has a far higher failure rate." The World Health Organisation noted that a "consistent and correct" condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90 per cent. The New York Times opined that the pope "deserves no credence when he distorts scientific findings about the value of condoms in slowing the spread of the AIDS virus." .

The Pope's spokesman, Father Lombardi, said the pope had been misinterpreted.

Discussion of the controversy was removed while the pope's quotation was retained. Does this violate NPOV standards by presenting only one side of a dispute? - Nunh-huh 13:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The comment that comes to mind is that the above editor, who has started now two concurrent RfCs on the same issue, seems to very much need to take a break from this article, as he has been suggested to do by at least one other party above. John Carter (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

First, I have to question whether this "alleged" investigation by the Vatican is relevant to this biographical article. To indicate by including reference to it here that Benedict had something to do with it, which seems unlikely considering it is alleged and any statement supporting its existence by him would confirm it, I would think that inclusion of such information could be reasonably seen as a violation of WP:BLP. I also have to say that the phrasing of the beginning of the second section, starting with "The Pope's controversial assertion that distribution of condoms increases the problem of AIDS in Africa", is, frankly, perjorative and argumentative, and probably unfit for inclusion in an encyclopedia, considering it seems to be taking the statement by only one aspect, ignoring other aspects of the statement, and, by extension, misepresenting it. So, yes, I myself am glad to see that that version is now a "former" version. John Carter (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the Vatican reassessment of condom use to prevent AIDS is not alleged; the article simply has not been updated to indicate the fact that it had in fact occurred. However, it probably needs no mention, as it produced only private documents....it probably seemed like it might be important when added to the article, but it produced no important results. It's still in the article, by the way; removing that would seem to be a separate question. However, the fact is that the pope's statement that distribution of condoms increases the problem of AIDS in Africa was controversial, and reporting that is certainly encyclopedic. - Nunh-huh 14:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(Transferred from above) it is clear that Nunh-huh and myself have been unable to reach a compromise for days. It is interesting to note that the original wording had stood for over half a year, unchallenged. Consensus among the wikipedia community had clearly been reached, excluding myself who didn't like the wording so decided to change it starting the edit war. Given that myself and Nunh-huh are unlikely to reach a compromise in the near future, I suggest that the fairest solution from the wikipedia community standpoint is to revert all edits by the two of us and go back to the original consensus view.Utopial (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Part of the controversy about the statement, however, is that, apparently, at least some of the individuals involved in the controversy were reacted solely to one part of it, rather than to the entirety of the statement. So, in effect, it could be argued that there is even a "controversy" about whether the controversy started may have been, in effect, POV pushing by some people who didn't seem to read the whole statement. Whether such controversies about partially misrepresented statements is a significant enough matter to be included in a biography article, which is supposed to deal primarily with the biography of the subject and his impact in the world and his field, etc., is another matter entirely. I note that there was earlier major controversy about his involvement as a child in the Hitler Youth movement, which is at best dismissively discussed here. I cannot see how this one controversy about him, which seems, at least in part to an overreaction of one side to a part of a statement, is any more notable and deserving of significant coverage than that other, earlier, controversy. John Carter (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not for us to decide if there should have been controversy; if there was documented, well-sourced controversy, it needs to be reported. That people have POVs is to be reported, not suppressed. NPOV is the reporting of all significant POVs, not the suppression of all but one. Certainly the fact that Benedict belonged to the Hitler Youth, like most boys of his place and time, and that there was later controversy over it, could not be left completely out of his article. Similarly, to report his statement that condom distribution worsens the problem of AIDS in Africa as if it were uncontroversial would be inappropriate. And of course the statement and ensuing controversy received significant coverage in reputable world press, which is Wikipedia's test for notability. - Nunh-huh 14:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither is it our place to seek to include in a biographical article material which, while notable, is basically both irrelevant to the biography and possibly based on misconceptions as well. Neither does the mere existence of a controversy based in large part on a possible misrepresentation of the statement of the subject of the biography provide reason for what is an essentially off-topic, to the biography, statement about the subject of the controversy. I don't think that those matters have been addressed yet, and I cannot see how, given the existence of at present roughly two or three dozen articles in the Cagtegory:Pope Benedict XVI, why such a prolonged effort by, essentially, one party to include a significant amount of material on this matter in the core article on this topic has persisted for so long. John Carter (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If his views on HIV are relevant, his statement that condom distribution worsens the AIDS crisis is also relevant. As you know, we don't count numbers here, we evaluate the strength of arguments. Personal comments on editors don't really help that. - Nunh-huh 16:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a red herring, Nunh. You are trying to throw the term "relevant" into this discussion in a way this is...well, for lack of a better word...irrelevant. As John Carter points out, the material you want to push into the article is not relevant to this biography article. Is it "relevant" somewhere? Sure. Everything is relevant somewhere. But this is not an article about different approaches to HIV/AIDS prevention. THAT article can go into the level of detail that you seem so interested in. This is Wikipedia...if such an article doesn't exist, feel free to create one. --anietor (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It was, of course, John Carter that brought up relevancy, not me. Hardly a red herring. This article purports to discuss the pope's views on HIV and AIDS. It can't leave his assertion that condom distribution worsens the AIDS crisis out of that discussion, and there's really no basis on which you can argue it should and still comply with our NPOV policy. - Nunh-huh 04:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have a response to my suggestion that we revert to the original 7 month consensus as a way of resolving this?Utopial (talk) 10:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

delurking Starting from scratch might be the best idea. There is always a tendency among a subset of editors to overlook WP:NOTNEWS, even with the best of faith. Starting over might temper the NEWSY temptations and allow for writing a cogent summary of this particular issue that would read well 10 or 100 years from now. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment from uninvolved user. Surely it should be easy to cover the Pope's statements in an NPOV way? There are plenty of reliable sources, and I think there are experienced editors working on this page. Of course you can't go into too much detail in this biography, but for each notable expression of view the minimum should be: "Pope said..." "Notable critic said"... And then IF the balance of what was said in the mainstream press justifies it follow with, "Catholic commentator said"... . At the moment you have a totally confusing statement about "the alleged investigation". What alleged investigation? Can someone change that, because it does not shed any light at all. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

After the pope made his March 2006 statement against condom use, the retired cardinal of Milan, Carlo Maria Martini, commented that condoms were the lesser evil in combatting AIDS, and was denounced. Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, who is in charge of the Vatican’s health care ministry, announced that the Vatican would issue a document about the use of condoms by persons who have AIDS. Ultimately, the Vatican commission produced a private document, and there was no change in the Vatican's stance on condom use, so at present, the use of condoms to protect against disease—even in circumstances such as a married heterosexual couple where the man has AIDs and the woman does not, and where the woman cannot avoid intercourse, and even if she is postmenopausal and there can be no question of conception, or contraception—is forbidden. I don't know who put "alleged" in there, but those two sentences certainly should be changed. The request for comments, however, was about the treatment of the pope's statement that condom distribution worsens the AIDS crisis, inasmuch as there is evidence (actual data, rather than opinion) that it does not. - Nunh-huh 14:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I am here in response to the RfC. I read the pertinent section of the article as it is today and the discussion above. The section as it is today does not acknowledge any controversy or responses to the pope's statement, and I think it should stay this way. Other people's responses do not belong here, but may in some other article, as Anietor said. NPOV does not come into play at all, because the debate is not about whether condom use is ethical, but whether the pope has taken a position on the issue. The pope has taken a position, and nothing more needs to be said here. Blue Rasberry 19:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Bavarian citizenship

Never heard/read/whatever of a Bavarian citizenship. Neither my passport, nor my national ID mentioned anything like this. (I'm a Bavarian). And have I never heard of any special emigration/immigration regulations. It is either bullshit or absolutely insignificant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.86.227 (talk) 05:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Bavarian Constitution provide for a Bavarian citizenship. See Bavaria#Bavarian_citizenship or the full text here. According to the Bavarian Constitution, everyone born in Bavaria (like His Holiness) is a Bavarian citizen. Article 6 of the constitution also states that "die [bayerische] Staatsangehörigkeit kann nicht aberkannt werden".

There are no special emigration/immigration regulations because of article 8 of the Bavarian Constitution, which states that "alle deutschen Staatsangehörigen, die in Bayern ihren Wohnsitz haben, besitzen die gleichen Rechte und haben die gleichen Pflichten wie die bayerischen Staatsangehörigen". Jeannedeba (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Add Category:Sustainability advocates per http://www.patriarchate.org/multimedia/video/green-patriarch

Add Category:Sustainability advocates per http://www.patriarchate.org/multimedia/video/green-patriarch 99.29.187.54 (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional biography

As the author of a well-received biography of the Pope, I would like to add my title to the list.

Pursell, Brennan, Benedict of Bavaria: An Intimate Portrait of the Pope and His Homeland (Circle Press, 2008). ISBN: 1-933271-17-5

Based on my research using mostly German sources, I would like to add some additional information about his family life. I will do so after my biography appears in the list.

Thank you, Brennan C Pursell BrennanPursell (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Woman knocks Pope

The eve Christmas mass a woman knocks Pope. Benedict XVI fall down but he sit up immediately. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8430118.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.47.47.89 (talk) 02:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

A woman didn't knock the pope. She knocked the pope down and Cardinal Etchegaray suffered a broken hip. Frankly, I don't see why this event was removed. Would someone care to explain to me why it is irrelevant in the context of the Wikipedia article? GeorgeC (talk) 05:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

As always in these cases no explaination has been provided. Let's put it back in. --Maxl (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't taken out, simply put into a new more appropriate section. The incident isn't notable enough to have an entire section on its own so was included in a larger section which deals with the topic of the Pope's activities. Gavin (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Birmingham

Can someone please add that pope will visit Birmingham in 2010 in the "Apostolic journeys" section. Thanks http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_midlands/8277503.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.58.111 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Bishop Müller did not mention the Pope

He talked about the Regensburger Domspatzen [2]. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hitler Youth

I am slightly concerned that the tone of the following sentence veers slightly towards the apologetic,"Following his 14th birthday in 1941, Ratzinger was conscripted in the Hitler Youth, as membership was required for all 14-year old German boys after December 1939, but was an unenthusiastic member and refused to attend meetings". It seems true that membership was mandatory by law for aryan boys but it did not necessarily follow that every aryan boy joined the Hitler Youth. The article cited as a source indeed says that "some 80 to 90% of Germans joined the Hitler Youth and refusing to sign up could mean being sent to a youth "reeducation camp," akin to a concentration camp...." That option was therefore open and Ratzinger could have risked arrest. Indeed Karol Wojtila seems to have been more directly active in underground anti-nazi movements during the war. Any suggestions about how we improve so we avoid the early hagiography?Contaldo80 (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see your point here. The article is correct. --Saint-Louis (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the article is correct. To put in any language implying some sort of editorial judgment for not risking arrest or not opting for a concentration camp would itself be POV and inappropriate. --anietor (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The HY, basically had a 'mandatory membership'. I've no problem with the current content. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(OD) That comparison to the 80-90% mention implied here is not at all consistent with the source. The source makes a very firm (based on considerable unambiguous primary sourcing) case for both Ratzinger's feelings and the local and cultural context; making anything of the fact that he was not in that 10-20% is completely contradicted by the source (cf. the in-depth descriptions of the difficulties and subtleties of resistance). I agree with the other responders that the passage is factually correct as it stands now.

However, despite that statistic being a red herring, I think the OP has a reasonable point in that there still can be room for discussion on the language of that passage. I sometime ago put in "conscripted" to replace "enlisted" (IIRC), as that former latter word could imply nefarious motives that no reliable source could justify. Because of that, the original passage had all that qualifying language put in, rightfully so, but part of my desire to change the word was to clean up that passage. While I agree with the other responders that the passage is factually correct as it stands now, the wording nonetheless is somewhat stilted (it takes more effort to qualify the action, a simple trivial factoid in reality, than just to mention it). As "conscripted" describes the action accurately, even if implicitly, a revisiting might be in order. So while the 80-90% example was poor, the OP has a point.

Perhaps a reword which is factually identical but whose tone and connotation are better: "Per national requirements, Ratzinger was conscripted in the Hitler Youth after his 14th birthday in 1941, although was an unenthusiastic member and avoided meetings." (say). Reduce the verbiage so while the message is still clear, we avoid any subtle suggestions that the article goes out of its way to emphasize his dissent. It might help to put the subsequent two sentences (about his father, and cousin) in parentheses to emphasize that they give context to the Hitler Youth issue, but are more ancillary to the rest of the article. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC) Updated/reworked Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

followup: I was bold and put the contextual information about his family's Nazi experiences/attitude in a parenthetical comment, and trimmed it somewhat. Further suggestions as to the wording of the OP's concern welcome (thanks Balloonman below). Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

In other words, Contaldo want to policitize his being a member of a mandatory organization when he was 14 years old? You have two choices: Join or go to a re-education camp, where you will be brainwashed. We are talking about the actions of a 14 year old boy living in the minute, not a grown adult looking back 70 years in hindsight. You also have to remember that Catholics were not the favored child of the Nazi's. I do agree with Baccyak about the content and wording.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally my user name is Contaldo80 - I'd be grateful if you could use it correctly - thanks. Disappointing that you've taken my comment as a desire to "politicise" discussion. The statement may be factually true but it is misleading in the context of this article. It implies that Ratzinger had no choice but to join the Hitler Youth as a result of conscription. When actually he did have a choice - he could have refused or resisted, but did not. I accept that refusal would have involved punishment and reprisal, but that's what comes with making some decisions based on personal morality. The issue of Hitler Youth membership is extremely controversial and it would be disappointing to pass over it in a way that suggests that it was inevitable; nor is it clear what aspect of the meetings he disagreed with that made him an 'unenthusiastic" attendee. Can we assume it was personal opposition to racial policies? Contaldo80 (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

But doesn't the word "conscription" in it of itself make the point you are trying to make? Conscription, in general, means that you must join organization X, or face whatever punishment the state will give you, which is exactly the choice you say Ratzinger had at the time. So doesn't merely saying he was conscripted get this point across? Also, regarding the "unenthusiatic" part, the parenthetical seems to help explain this. Yes, it is about his father, but Ratzinger was only 14 at the time, it seems reasonable to assume his father was still a major influence.--Msl5046 (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I still fully agree. Conscription implies something is compulsory yet that does not mean that an individual could not have resisted. Many early christians faced conscription into the roman army (see Saint Sebastian or Saint Alban), but nevertheless resisted. The failure to resist by the man that now leads the Roman Catholic church should not in my opinion be passed over lightly. We deserve to do the issue justice. Otherwise not to do so is to minimise the risks and sacrifices in the second world war taken by those that did resist Nazi atrocities or occupation or support the persecuted Jewish population (see article on Miep Gies). Nor is youth really an excuse - he was 18 not 14 when the war ended and he only deserted from the army when it was clear that Germany had lost. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a clearly biased argument, because it focuses on the appeal to emotions rather than the facts in order to defend a particular discourse. Let's see the facts: Conscription was obligatory in Nazi Germany, especially after the huge amount of casualties the armed forces had sustained in the final years .Even if it had notbeen the case , one cannot take the examples of those who resisted as the right measure of how one should have behaved as if people should be exactly the same. How can you prove it was "clear " he deserted ? Many people in good standing would choose to join the defence forces to avoid being persecuted by their political opinions , specially if their positions on Nazi regime were previously known as it is the case of the pope's family? Moreover, once the Nazi regime hated by him crumbled it would be only natural to call it quits —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.238.113.114 (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me outdent a bit here: The failure to resist by the man that now leads the Roman Catholic church should not in my opinion be passed over lightly. We deserve to do the issue justice. No, we don't. We "deserve", or, more properly, are required, to show what is reported by others in reliable sources, not add our opinion or editorialise the issue. Find what someone else has said, someone else's opinion, and cite it.--Vidkun (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I heard that the pope was in the hitler youth and came here to check it out. I did not realise that, after serving in the hitler youth, he later joined hitler's army, "In 1943...he was drafted into the German anti-aircraft corps" yet no reference was cited here. Is there any evidence as to the nature of his enlistment - was it this so-called forced conscription, promotion from hitler youth or did he sign up of his own volition? Also, I have to wonder if the "national catholic reporter" (citation 9) is really a reliable source for an encyclopedia? (86.148.109.94 (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC))

We can add the reference that is given for another sentence ("New Pope Defied Nazis As Teen During WWII". Associated Press. USA Today. 2005-04-23. [3]. Retrieved 2009-07-10.). It also explains that "[h]e was drafted into the Army in December 1944 [...]", which would certainly rule out the version about singing up voluntarily. As for the reliability of the source, would you consider explaining your concerns in a little more detail? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"This is a clearly biased argument, because it focuses on the appeal to emotions rather than the facts" - heelarious. Facts? Since when have facts been the cornerstone of religious enlightenment? I'm glad we've explained away the Pope's judgement based upon the virtues of reason, compassion, decency and love and replaced them with a rule book. "1) The Pope is not a Nazi. 2) If he was, it's cool, everyone was doing it. 3) Um . . . jebus, healz?". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.112.47 (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. People are obviously sensitive about having the issue raised at all, but I think it does his biography no favours to downplay it. Others went to their deaths for resisting the nazis; Ratzinger did not. If people want facts then this is one. It doesn't tell us he's a bad man - just that he was no different from the bulk of Germans at the time who went along with things. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

May I ask why a 14 year old boy should be expected to express a resistance to Nazism, on the chance that he might become Pope one day? If we were all expected to account for our failings as children, who would escape whipping? During his childhood a monster had an entire nation of adults alternately cheering and cowering. How can we demand more from a child?--Gazzster (talk) 05:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to draw attention to the fact that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We are definitely not going to policitize the fact that the Pope was conscripted into the army - very common at the time not only in Germany, but in a lot of countries, and nothing special at all. The article mentions the fact that he was conscripted into the army and served his mandatory military service - end of story. The article has remained neutral for nearly a decade and I have confidence that it will remain that way. Jeannedeba (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

<< May I ask why a 14 year old boy should be expected to express a resistance to Nazism, on the chance that he might become Pope one day? >> Wait. Is the implication there that his decision to resist (as some teenagers certainly did) should have been made on the grounds that complying with the Nazi Youth program or fighting in its army would later sully his resume....and THAT'S what should have affected his decision?Codenamemary (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

(Update & outdent) I trimmed the qualifying language per my own recommendation. The discussion here is a tempest in a teapot. The point of content is a triviality and the article should read like it is. There is no need (or should be no need) to bend over backwards to describe the context in undue detail. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Add Pope's position on Pedophelia

This is important to add, as he has written a special decree distributed international enforcing his policy with threat of ex-communication. It is called "Crimen Sollicitationis". Stop erasing history. There are millions of people affected, impacted, who need to see that the church is honest in its disclosure and not hiding anything. I wish to add the details of this.

http://www.vimeo.com/6835517 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcnetwork1 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, believe it or not. There is an article here in Wikipedia about Crimen sollicitationis (document). Regard Cyrus Grisham (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

well pope benidict is italian so i vote 1# for benedict LOL'Bold text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.141.50.106 (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

bullshit. the church hides everything, truth most of all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.188.73 (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Law in Germany does not require reports to police

Although there now some people wanting to change law, in Germany noone is forced to report sexual abuse to the police. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 06:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. This definitely needs to be mentioned in the article where this case is discussed. Jeannedeba (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned it because people with an anglo-saxon background could think that the non-report of the Hullermann case was punished by law. This isn't the case. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The case is not so simple I believe. Not reporting a crime can be judged as complicity or even organized crime in certain cases and in Germany there are certainly laws that could be applied. Its the decision of prosecution and judges how to classify it. Richiez (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Call form him to resign not NPOV?

I am surprised that discussing an editorial in Germany's largest newsweekly Der Spiegel calling upon him to resign is now considered undue weight / POV and was removed. How much more important must the news organisation be for this to be notable? The Vatican's own paper? If this was undue weight, it could have been cut down (though it was already very short in a long section that deals quite tangentially with other issues not directly related to the Pope) - but removal in itself is also not very NPOV. Ingolfson (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be POV for a Wikipedia article to call for the Pope to resign. Reporting that a major news magazine has called for him to resign is not a POV violation. However I took a look at the link cited and it does not (as far as I can tell) explicitly call for the Pope's resignation. At most it implicitly suggests that he should consider resignation. I don't think the editorial is notable enough to include in the article. If a major media outlet does explicitly call for his resignation then I think that ought to be mentioned. Grover cleveland (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot report every far-out point of view expressed by some random foreign language newspaper in the pope's biography. Popes simply don't resign, and there are absolutely no credible calls for the pope to resign (from those who matter). (Of course, there is also no reason for the pope to resign - noone has done more than Benedict against sexual abuse in the Catholic Church) Jeannedeba (talk) 08:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Pope's can resign actually Papal resignation, although i agree with everything you said. Just wanted to point out that they can resign (rarely) Smitty1337 (talk) 08:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of the technical possibility of resignation, but as no pope has resigned since 1415 it has little more than academic interest. Also see [4]. Jeannedeba (talk) 08:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeannedeba -- note that I said "a major news magazine". Please stop purposefully misrepresenting other editors' positions. Anyway, this is all moot for now.Grover cleveland (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ecumenism/dialogue

"Pope Benedict is open to dialogue with other religious groups, and has sought to improve relations with them throughout his pontificate".

- Given this has no citation, and runs contrary to what many Protestant groups would say of his pontificate, could it be removed? If it stays, I'd want to argue with the assertion, but I just don't think it needs to be there at all, since the substantiated aspects of this topic are all available in the linked article on Pope Benedict and Ecumenism... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.191.156 (talk) 05:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the statement is very vague. It's probably true, since it has been the policy of all papacies after Vatican II. On the other hand, both as Pope and cardinal (eg., Dominus Jesus) he's been the author of some statements emphasising the centrality of Catholic doctrine in Christian life, and this has drawn some criticism from non-Catholic groups. Such statements do not necessarily imply a lack of good will toward non-Catholic religions. He is however more intellectual about faith than John Paul was. I notice the Assisi prayer meetings no longer occur. So the statements needs to be expanded upon and cited.--Gazzster (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

New child rape cover-up by Ratzinger -- reported by AP

And added here. Must be reported: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hQ23iMWgAavK2KtnRugJkakF4V4AD9EVMF301 and included. Ratzinger personally covered up child rape. Peter Ian Staker (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Urging caution is hardly the same thing as covering up. I doubt this is actually notable enough to even be mentioned, but for now I neutralized your very biased edit and retained the info. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

My edit was no more biased the high-language attempts to obfuscate a simple point of fact. This article shouldn't be edited with a Christian apologetic tone as Ratzinger is just a normal person, no more or less important than any other BLP from a footballer to a local politician by our standards. With that in mind, I've restored extremely simple language here. Peter Ian Staker (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't play games. Why did you change the wording back to yours and then back to mine and link to change back to mine wording here? I assume you were just interested in making me look bad, but thanks for indirectly asserting that my language was the superior of the two to begin with. And yes your originally change where you changed "child sexual abuse" to "child rape" was unquestionably biased. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Because there were numerous intermixed edits and I got confused? Why are you unwilling to include Ratzinger's exact wording of "the universal good of the church"?" Peter Ian Staker (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Considering I was the one to add that exact language I have no idea what you are complaining about. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Keep calm. RV --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No, we "must" not "report" on anything, particularly not on unencyclopedic gossip and conspiracy theories like this, and that violates the WP:BLP policy. There is no cover up. Also, note that WP:BLP also applies to talk pages. Jeannedeba (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Gentle reminder: Christian or Catholic stances are golden calves here--NPOV is our God

Just a gentle reminder as I'm seeing edits that appear deferential or apologetic in tone. Christian or Catholic stances are no more important here or of value than those of the Na'vi or the Great Pumpkin. NPOV is your Lord now. Peter Ian Staker (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not use the talk page as a soapbox. Jeannedeba (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't apply Christian or canonical standards here. Peter Ian Staker (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

this entire section is not constructive to the article. please specify which portion of wp: not was violated, Jeanna's seems relevent at pointing out that this section is pointless. what exactly are you saying the posts violate, which section? also how is removing fringe material "apologist". Smitty1337 (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This latest round of Edit War

In the past ten minutes there have been over half a dozen edits related to some guy who wants to have the Pope Arrested. I AM NOT going to delve into the entirity of the debate above... but I will state the following:

1. If the edit is controversial as both sides seem to acknowledge, then the proper form for keeping until consensus is reached is the version that DOES NOT include the controversial edit! This is per BLP.
2. Based on what little I've seen and I'm not really paying much attention to this debate, the fact that some guy in England, regardless of his academic credentials is making some posturing, it does not warrant inclusion in this article. It might be a different thing if we were talking about an official stance of the government or if this person had the authority to act, but there are scores of people who hold wp:FRINGE positions---which is what this is. It is merely an attempt by an individual to gain notoreity at the expense of somebody else.

As the guy apparently denies this, it definitely does not belong. Stop the warring and discuss or blocks may be forthcoming.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with both your first and second point, I have been voicing my BLP concerns repeatedly and have obviously reverted per the BLP policy. The attack page-style paragraph does not belong in the article per BLP, until it has been agreed to include it. I have also pointed out several times on this talk page that the opinion of one person (who isn't even a legal scholar) does not belong in the concise summary of the most important aspects of the pope's biography and papacy. Jeannedeba (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Its not that black and white. There is some legal opinion that he may have a case, whilst otehrs say he has not. Also he does have the power to act (he can bring a provate prosecution) if its found that the pope doe snot have legal immunity. Also this is not (as I have pointed out) an isolated incident, he has been under this threat before. As such it seems to me that the concentration on Dawkin is only half the story, what is need is a whole section on what is, was and may yet be a major controvesy dating back at least 5 years. Also many people deny things, but if its major controvsey it has to be mentioned.Slatersteven (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

No, there is no case at all. The Pope has never been under "threat" (find credible academic sources, not worthless tabloid stuff). All serious legal scholars, as well as the governments of roughly the entire world agree on this case. I'd be happy to include a section when the British government moves to arrest the Pope, just like I'll be happy to rewrite the article on the Earth when it's proven that it's flat. Jeannedeba (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Then why ask for legal immunity in the USA? Its clear that in 2005 the Vatican thought this of suficant threat to ask for legal immunity. Moreover as far as Im am aware no country other then the USA has so far been asked to grant (or have stated that the pope has) legal immunity, including so far the UK. By the way in the UK libal actions are not brought by the governent but they are still notworthy in a BLP if they have sufficent profile, this has reviced more then engouh press coveragfe to make it noteworthy. Also if a newspaper quotes a legal expert he is a quoted expert. Geoffrey Robertson, who as a U.N. appeals judge and United Nations jurist who delivered key decisions on the illegality of conscripting child soldiers and the invalidity of amnesties for war crimes has said that The pope's conduct "amounted to the criminal offence of aiding and abetting sex with minors," making Benedict a justifiable target for either the International Criminal Court or a British court acting under the legal principal of universal jurisdiction. Is he accademic enough?Slatersteven (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should draw conclusions (original research) based on your interpretation of what the Vatican Embassy in Washington did several years ago in a civil case. This case was likely handled by some diplomat stationed in Washington, who might or might not have been familiar with US law. Jeannedeba (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The US granted the request. So its not OR to say that the vatican ask for and was granted legal immunity. This was i respponse to a threat of prosecution. How therefore is it OR to say that he was under a threat of leagl action and was granted immunity. The only elemtn of OR might be that this proves he did not have it in the first place, but that the point. Doubts hyave been raised as to his legal status, and the USA saw fit to grant him a status that some are claimng he does not have (such as Geoffrey Robertson, who as a U.N. appeals judge and United Nations jurist).Slatersteven (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Your interpretations are original research to promote a fringe theory which lacks any credibility. Show us academic sources that demonstrate that this is the predominant view in the academic community (international law) and the world's governments. I think you will have a hard time finding any credible sources backing up your claims, as there are no doubts at all concerning his status as a souvereign head of state recognized by almost the entire world and by long-standing tradition, final stop. It doesn't help if some far-left journalist with an agenda (Hitchens) or some obscure human rights lawyers from a country with a long history of Anti-Catholicism promote some far-out theory, if every single of the world's states and every notable authority on international law disagree. Jeannedeba (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

There are two things Jeannedeba is warring over, and it's getting mixed up. She's trying to remove the Dawkins stuff (which I have no interest in) and to downplay the fact that media are heavily covering that Ratzinger played any role in the concealment of child rape. Peter Ian Staker (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the one edit warring, I'm merely enforcing BLP. You're the one edit warring. Jeannedeba (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

[5][6][7] is what she is trying remove and play down with her consensus of none. Again I have no interest in the Dawkins farce. She has no consensus to push forward a Catholic apologetic take here. The Catholic god has no place in this encyclopedia. NPOV is our god. Peter Ian Staker (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, the only person removing it was Jeannedeba, against what had been discussed on the talk page. I agree it should be there (and there is now sufficient opposition to keep it out), but I was restoring it b/c Jeannedeba was unilaterally removing it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not unilaterally removing anything, I'm just following BLP. There is no consensus to include this controversial and has never been either. Some users like the aptly named Special:Contributions/Peter Ian Staker are unilaterally edit-warring BLP violations into the article, however. Notably, the material was removed by yourself (User:ThaddeusB) several times, citing many of the same concerns as I did [8] [9] [10]. Jeannedeba (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Please understand that my goal here is to maintain neutrality. Yourself and most the others here have a clear POV. Nothing wrong with that, but Wikipedia editing articles you have strong opinions about is usually a bad idea (this goes for everyone here). --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm the one who's here to maintain neutrality. I don't know about you, but I find it odd that you would claim that I was acting "unilaterally" when you yourself reverted the same material at least 3 times today (also agreeing on the talk page that the material should not be included), and then falsely claim that I was the only one reverting it. Jeannedeba (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, your POV is perfectly clear. That said, I was only describing the edit war, not your actions in general. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I refer to my former comment above ("I don't have any POV except upholding encyclopedic standards and neutrality"). I'm the one who has consistently worked to maintain neutrality and encyclopedic standards, while others are edit-warring fringe theories, BLP violations and unencyclopedic POV material into the article. Jeannedeba (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I oppose it as well for the reasons stated in the origional post of this sections. This is wp: fringe because he is not subject to the authority of a foreign nation's laws, since he is a head of state in another country, his own. As for saying that asking for immunity in USA has any relevance, thats wp: or unless you find a source saying that specifically constitutes legal precedent for Benedict being vulnerable to legal procedings in a country who's jurisdiction he is not within. Not to mention that recieving immunity from USA could just as easily be explained by his simply wishing to shut down a frivilous case, against his Sovereignty, before it could be taken seriously (see how easy it is to speculate wp: or! (i do not wish to push that claim; meerly an example). We cannot simply list every statement made by a notable person about an even more notable person such as a Pope, otherwise every world leader's wiki page would be a over a gigabyte worth of meaningless political posturing. The pope has thousands of scholarly critics why not list ALL of their silly statements and have a 50 page long attack page! (yay for slippery slope! but seriously its wp: undue because its really not that relevent in a story of the mans life) also see WP:NOTNEWSSmitty1337 (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Pope and scandals

In light of recent sex scandals, I find myself wondering: the Pope isn't a gay pedophile or an abetter of pedophiles, is he? Any reliable sources to back up or refute that notion out there? 192.12.88.7 (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

your first article is about Angelo Balducci, not Benedict XVI. the second article it says this "Msgr. Charles J. Scicluna, the director of a tribunal inside the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican’s doctrinal arm, dismissed as “false and calumnious” accusations that Benedict covered up abuse cases when he oversaw investigations for four years as prefect of that congregation before becoming pope" and then it says this "The archdiocese said in a statement on Friday that the priest was moved to Munich in 1980 for therapy with the approval of Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger, the man who later became Pope Benedict. But the priest was soon reassigned to pastoral work by Archbishop Ratzinger’s deputy, Vicar General Gerhard Gruber, and was later convicted of sexually abusing minors." If you wish to imply that you dont believe them, and you feel that he is guilty of something malicious and/or is as you put it he is "a gay pedophile or an abetter of pedophiles" that is fine you may interpret it that way if you like but for wiki wp: or (please read below also, libel and blp are a concern as well) Smitty1337 (talk) 12:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it worth just pointing out that being gay is not the same as being a paedophile. A paedophile is someone that is sexually aroused by pre-pubescent or pre-adolescent children. The paedophile can be male or female, and the object of arousal can be male or female. Someone who is "gay" is taken to mean generally someone who is attracted to the same sex (adolescent or adult). The conflating of the two terms is unhelpful. That said I have nothing to help you on whether the pope is gay or indeed a paedophile. I doubt strongly he is either. Is he an abetter? That depends what you mean. As a cardinal he set the Vatican's policy of encouraging silence amongst sexual abuse cases is my understanding. Happy to stand corrected. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Contaldo80, he has done much to correct policies regarding abuse; the Vatican plans to make the U.S. norms (hailed by Child Protective Services as a model for all major institutions) universal for the entire Church. At any rate, you are right to point out that it's unhelpful to conflate 'gay' with 'paedophile'. Resolver-Aphelion (talk) 03:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the association of 'gay' with 'pedophile' as well. That gays are necessarily pedophiles or inclined to pedophilia is a myth. There is no direct co-relation between pedophilia and homosexuality, just as there is no direct co-reolation between pedophilia and heterosexuality, even though many of these pedophiles are heterosexual. In fact, the statistics demonstrate that most pedophilic cases involves adult heterosexuals.Gays tend to be a convenient scapegoat for pedophilia, since they tend to be villified already, but that is another topic.--Gazzster (talk) 05:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticism on pope should be mentioned

The involvement with his decision regarding the handling of a sexual abusive priest and his remaining silence should be mentioned! For example read this article in the Time Magazine.Hive001 (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

that article says right in it "the archdiocese insisted that the decision to reassign the priest to pastoral work was taken by Archbishop Ratzinger's then deputy, Vicar General Gerhard Gruber, who said he took full responsibility for the decision to allow the priest to return to work." I don't mind the idea of putting it in if you can reasonably verify this, since it is a wp: blp issue and wp:libel is another concern, media gossip is a bit sketchy Smitty1337 (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm starting to become concerned about WP:RECENT and WP: undue and the BLP and LIBEL issues from above. The references are all recent media, the quote from the times is a guy's opinion without any supporting reasoning. And the vicar general outright said he did it without ratzinger's knowledge, and the vatican has taken this stance as well. That raises wp: libel concerns since its is a BLP article, can we at least find something more reliably then inflamitory recent articles. This was a known event from the 80's maybe something from that era? or some references regarding scholarly interpretations of the munich archdiocese? I'm not against a mention of this, its obviously a scandal Smitty1337 (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No one denies that then-Cardinal Ratzinger knew about the abuse allegations and that he approved the decision to send Hullermann for therapy. The Vicar General has taken responsibility for the subsequent decision to reassign Hullermann to pastoral care duties while his therapy was still ongoing. All the details in the current article are based on reliable sources. Grover cleveland (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

So what? What's the relevance? Wikipedia is not news, this is an encyclopedia article. You are making it look as if his tenure as Archbishop was all about alleged sexual abuse. Jeannedeba (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Smitty1337. I removed the whole under-section on the alleged abuse, it took up 80 % of the whole section on his tenure as Archbishop and was grossly disproportionate in addition to being libelous and Wikipedia:Recentism. Controversial and possibly libelous material should not be added without consensus. Jeannedeba (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Wikipedia is not censored. You can't whitewash negative material about Ratzinger from the article just because you don't like it. The material is reliably sourced, so there is no WP:BLP issue. There is no issue of reliability: the Church authorities have admitted that Ratzinger knew about the abuse and approved the transfer for therapy. The "relevance" should hardly need to be pointed out, given that some commentators are speculating that this may lead to his resignation. If your complaint is that the material takes up too much of his tenure as Archbishop, then add more material about the other aspects of his service there. I'm reinstating the material. Grover cleveland (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

As for being "totally disproportionate", the current section on abuse takes up less than 2% of the total article.Grover cleveland (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

"just because you don't like it" actually i have no POV issue, i actually dislike benedict for my own personal reasons. the part that i was concerned about and should have specified is the manner in which it is written appears to imply that benedict is lying and it is a coverup with the vicar general as the scapegoat, with that quote from Time with some random priest making his opinion known. An opinion stated in such a manner can be Libelous, it may be verifiable libel but it is still libel if it cannot be proven true and it defames a living person who denies that allegation wp: sources says that if a source relies on opinion is questionable, the things which are fact are just that, Facts and they can be listed I.E. he was archbishop and a pedo-priest came through his diocese, the vicar general made a really bad choice to send him out to work, thats fine but implying that its not true is either libel if the source stands or it is origonal research if it does not stand. I've not edited based on this, as i want others to chime in on it first, perhaps higher quality source then a magazine quoting some guy?Smitty1337 (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't object to the removal of that quote. It doesn't appear that the priest quoted has any particular insight and his point is pretty obvious anyway. BTW your "summary of facts" has a rather significant omission: Cardinal Ratzinger sending Hullermann to therapy in Munich after hearing the allegations. And your summary of libel law is incorrect, at least as applied to US libel law which is what governs Wikipedia. See New York Times v. Sullivan. Anyway I'll go ahead and remove the quote. Grover cleveland (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

i actually changed my stance (kinda neutral, i'd still prefer it gone but i always do what policy says i have no vested interest either way) so if you want to keep it in go for it, due to WP:ASF i forgot to strike out my comments on this section as i did below. As for libel, ya i know the odds of a libel case being brought are like extremely slim and libel is very hard to prove. Smitty1337 (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The new section on Peter Hullermann takes up 75 % of the section on his tenure as Archbishop. This material belongs in a biography of Hullermann, not in the biography of Pope Benedict who never met the person in question nor was involved in these matters. Pushing this in the pope's biography is a BLP violation in addition to being recentism and undue. Jeannedeba (talk) 05:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I find your removal of all references to the abuse scandals actually ethically wrong. At the moment it is as toned down as can possibly be - it is outrageous for you to remove everything. The 'Archbishop of Munich and Freising: 1977–82' section is only a brief section - any additional detail will always be a large amount of it! This wide-ranging story has been front-page news all over the world for a while, and is not simply 'wp:Recent' at all - it has been news on and off over years and years. The countless thousands who have been abused live with it every day. Work does need to be done on this, but you cannot simply delete everything. To evoke 'wp:undue weight' here is just ridiculous, and I'm wondering how someone with such a limited and single-purpose edit-count knows all the time-worn 'wikilawyering' tricks. Matt Lewis (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Pre-papal career is only a very short outline of the most important aspects of the Pope's early biograhy. These issues were not an important part of it in its time. It's not relevant what's in the news because Wikipedia is not news. If this is sufficiently important, there will be academic and reliable sources covering it in time. They will have to establish that this accounts for 75 % as far as importance is concerned in regard to his tenure as Archbishop for us to use 75 % of the section on his Archbishop tenture on this.

At best, a short section on his position on the alleged abuse issues could be included under section 7, not in the summary of his early life and career. As it currently stands, it makes the Pope's biography into an attack page unworthy of an encyclopedia. Jeannedeba (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Such a section should focus on his statements including his recent Pastoral Letter, and excessive detail about an unimportant German priest should be toned down. The fact that the Hullermann controversy might be notable does not mean it should be covered in detail in the biography of the most important person in the world just because he might have known about the existence of the person. It's not Benedict who's accused of abusing anyone! Jeannedeba (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Jeannedeba: statements such as "the most important person in the world" make me think that you might be the one with the NPOV problem here. The Hullermann material takes up less than 2% of the article: there is no possible way that it is a violation of WP:UNDUE except possibly in being too short. If you are concerned about the lack of other material on his tenure as Archbishop then add more material about it! The Hullermann material does not properly belong in a section entitled "position on alleged[sic] abuse": it chronologically belongs in the section on his tenure as Archbishop. I also note that you are perilously close to being a WP:SPA devoted to whitewashing this article of any material that might relect negatively on the Pope. I am moving the material back where it belongs. Grover cleveland (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the statement "...most important person in the world" is troubling. Truth is, each of us are just as powerful as the Pope. The trouble is, we just don't have as many people who believe it. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Describing the pope as the most important person in the world is an uncontroversial statement and this is a universally recognized fact. Whether User:Grover cleveland thinks this is the case or not is really not interesting - if he disagrees, he holds a fringe view in this regard. I'm merely referring to the fact that this is a high-profile biography on an extremely important person, which means that every allegation reported by newsmedia does not necessarily belong here, and particularly that mention of allegations should be proportional in relation to the rest of the biography. Notably the sections on his early life and career are merely short summaries - in-depth articles like Early life of Pope Benedict XVI exist. I have now instead moved the section on the allegations to a more appropriate place. Chronologically, the 2010 controversy/media campaign belongs under "Papacy". I have also added the criticism of the media campaign by the German bishops. Jeannedeba (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You need to read up on Fringe - I doubt that even the majority of Catholics would describe the Pope "the most important person in the world" when talking seriously. Like it or not, the unequivocal universal view is that it is the President of the USA. Which non-Catholics would argue that the Pope is more important than the US president? What would an athiest say? Or someone from China, India, Africa or the Middle East? An average person from the UK or the US even? I think you have now violated 3RR on re-writing my title section below - so I will revert you and will report you if you do it once more. What you are doing is trying to censor basic stuff. If you genuinely are a new account, please read up on 3RR. I am an experienced editor and am getting together a serious edit - you cannot just revert things you don't like on Wikipedia, esp when based on the kind of rationality you have been giving. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I've made one small edit to a serious inaccuracy in the current edit (although I'm not happy with the current edit, so this is pending further changes). I'm changing the word "allegation" to "cases" regarding the Irish sexual abuse cases. It is simply offensive to those who suffered the abuse to refer to these crimes as 'allegations' - Ratzinger doesn't, so we shouldn't. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

As you are referring to Wikipedia:3RR, I suggest you read "Exceptions to 3RR": "Libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons". I urge you to cease accusing living people of "paedophilia complicity" and remove your accusation at once. If you continue accusing living people of "paedophilia complicity", I will have no other choice but reporting this matter on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard as suggested by the 3RR page. Jeannedeba (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussing who is the most important of the Pope or a president is less interesting. And it's hardly an "unequivocal universal view" that George W. Bush (yes, former presidents need to be taken into account, soon, the current one will be a former one) is the most important person in the world. The Pope is the religious head of one billion people, the souvereign ruler for life, who enjoys a status no other person in the world does. Presidents come and go and are quickly forgotten, popes are not. You are confusing the influence of a country with the importance of a person as a person. It's an obvious and uncontroversial fact that this particular biography is the most high-profile biography on a living person in Wikipedia. Jeannedeba (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You are thinking in a Catholic bubble. This world has 6 billion people! This is certainly a major article though - which means that this issue has to be represented properly and accurately, and without bias - including censorship.

Bush was clearly a 'mascot president' and an exception to the general rule. By 'the president' with Bush, people clearly meant 'the Bush administration'. But even the dimwit Bush had more actual power than the Pope. The days of the Pope creating Crusades are over, America (and Bush in particular) does it now. They have the red buttons and the trade-power globally, which is rather more than just being god's-voice-on-earth to devout Catholics (and nobody else, including non-Catholic Christians).

As for "poorly sourced", I'm afraid you are obligated to read the news. You simply have your head in the sand. I haven't the time to fill out the evidence section myself (and nothing eats up Talk-time like SPA's like yourself) - but the sources are pretty much every major respectable (ie relatively non-biased) news outlet in the world. Some newspapers like the Times here and here, are extremely direct in what they say: Ratzinger knew what was going on, and tried to hide it to the detriment of other potential victims. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I quote again: "Libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons". I'm speaking of libelous material. 1) You will find that mainstream sources do not accuse the Pope of "paedophilia complicity" 2) Even if some newsmedia claimed this, it's still libelous and newsmedia are not quality sources. If he had been convicted of "paedophilia complicity", this would be different. Once again, I urge you to change your section heading. I don't see any reason for insisting on a section heading on a talk page which which accuses a living person of "paedophilia complicity". How about "Evidence for involvement in handling of abuse cases"? Jeannedeba (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

<--- I think it would be beneficial for everyone to step back a little.

First, let's keep the discussion here to improving the article, not about the topic itself, and certainly not on other third parties, important or not. Oh yeah, and not about each other either.

Second, the issue here isn't censorship (note to Matt: the vast majority of users who use that word as you do turn out not to be here to build a respectable reference work, so you may find others taking you much more seriously if you dropped it), but of weight, due or undue. In a case where the content is very current, a good rule of thumb would be to envision how this exact version would read 100 or 1000 years in the future. With that in mind, while some mention is warranted, the current version clearly suffers from undue weight of the topic. This type of approach is suited for Wikinews, but not here. Also, after reading the blurb in the article, I note that the majority of the text does not even discuss Benedict himself but rather carries on about tangental material. I am not speaking to the intent here, but this reads like a classic case of paralipsis, or a weaselly guilt by roundabout association rhetorical device. It is poor and unencyclopedic writing, plain and simple. So this needs to be trimmed substantially.

Third, the issue of "importance" is an editorialization, so it would need to be sourced. The sole exception would be a case where there is virtually no contention about the matter, but that does not appear to be the case here (see the talk page discussions on Judit Polgar for discussion of these issues). So this should be sourced if used at all, although I would argue it is not really encyclopedic in this article.

Fourth, I think that some of the discussion above misrepresents the sources somewhat. The titles may be closer to what the discussion entails, but the content itself is much more nuanced, and indeed almost mundane, with all due respect to victims involved. In particular, nowhere is the phrase "[Ratzinger] tried to hide it to the detriment of other potential victims" supported, although the vigorous attempts at innuendo are certainly noticable (and interesting...). That is an unfortunate issue with many or most media outlets nowadays, especially on the East side of the Pond: it's all about the "hook" to get readership.

To wrap up, the section in question needs to be trimmed, in many different directions. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Baccyak4H: could you be a bit clear about which "section" you feel needs to be trimmed? Cheers Grover cleveland (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Paedophilia-related criticism of Ratzinger, it seems to me reading the above. Have you noticed that "paedophilia" often gets renamed as the more generic-sounding 'abuse' (not 'child abuse', just 'abuse')? I really resent the patronising lecture above on the dangers of using the word "censorship". I simply said "this issue has to be represented properly and accurately, and without bias - including censorship." I am a long-standing editor, and I am reminding people that 'censorship' is not an illegal word. Someone who is sceptical of the allegations, and feels that the current practical non-mention of world news is already too much information(!), then steps in and reinforces the quasi-'taboo' on claiming that some people on Wikipedia might want to censor damaging public information they don't want people to hear. UNDUE weight and VERIFY deals with these concerns, and this global 'news story' does not 'fail' by them. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Baccyak4H's comments. It's not a question of censorship, but a question of upholding encyclopedic standards. I've also noticed that much of the current content looks like "guilt by association". While we certainly should address this issue in some way, we should focus on the stance actively taken by the Pope on these matters. It is possible to describe the controversy related to a German priest, or others, in separate articles, but the Pope's biography is not the place to describe this in detail just because he might have had some remote knowledge of these issues 30 years back. The Pope is not accused of abusing anyone, he never met the person in question, and was not the one principally in charge of handling the case either. Also, the handling of this case back then needs to be seen in the context of church policies at the time, policies which Ratzinger was not responsible for. Jeannedeba (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The Pope is accused of allowing sexual abuse to happen! The "million Catholics" who are said to be considering changing denomination may not find that too much different to the hands-on variety of paedophilia that had been so distressingly prevalent. It has become so common, not because Catholic Priests are ignoring celibacy, but is because truly wicked men who are predisposed to living out their child rape fantasies know they can get away with it in the Catholic Church. The 'self denial' excuse is cynically over-played - what cannot be denied is the urge for sexual control of the minor - which is usually constantly in the mind, in the manor of all 'predators'. As for the devil's dance - to hell with that. Paedophiles always find jobs around children where the power structure will let them get away with their compulsive needs. They don't go into state education, health care, or general child-minding because (despite the quantity of children) they cannot prey on and rape children there without being caught and punished (per the full weight of the state laws) when the inevitable accusations come. Instead they go into the largely self-run environments of certain 'clubs', children's homes, and the Catholic church - because in those particular institutions they can survive the inevitable accusations and, especially in the case of the Catholic Church, the eyes of the state. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

[Ratzinger] never met [Hullermann], and was not the one principally in charge of handling the case either.. So we are told. However, you cannot deny that he did have ultimate responsibility for Hullermann once he was transferred to Munich. Grover cleveland (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

So we are told. keep in mind that is wp: or if you dont have a source saying he lied, as is your implication. Remember "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smitty1337 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the discussion page, not the main article. I didn't put "so we are told" in the main article so the criterion of WP:OR is not valid. I was merely responding to Jeannedeba's apparent claim that Ratzinger had no connection to Hullermann. He obviously did. The church authorities are obviously doing everything in their power to minimize that connection but it can't be totally denied. Grover cleveland (talk) 04:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

you misunderstand my point, you are discusing a statement made by another, followed by a statement implying disbelief, My use of mentioning wp: or is to say that such perspective is your opinion and would require a source to be included. Not to say that i am trying to improve the talk page (which is not the point of a talk page). This page is for discussion of improving Pope Benedict's page, and I assumed your comment to be in regards to expressing your opinion on content. Specifically your disbelief of the statement. sorry if this was misunderstood Smitty1337 (talk) 05:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

A number are in the section below. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

none of them use the word "Complicit" which is a legal term. since verifiable not true is the threshold for inclusion, find somebody that accuses him of complicity and you may include that word in the article. If this is still a talk about the talkpage section then this is going way to far, this is not a forum —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smitty1337 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I find it shocky that nothing of contravery is in this artical AT ALL. Nothing about his handling and shuffling pediphile priest. Nothing about the dust-up with Islam just prior to his trip to Turkey. What a disapoining white wash this article is. Really a shame and a disgraces. Those who are responsible know who they are. 03:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve kap (talk • contribs)

Matthew Lewis, you claimed that this story has been in headlines for years. That's simply untrue. The story just broke this month. Additionally, any mention of this story should be more complete. The priest in question was sent to the Archdiocese of Munich for therapy. Archbishop Ratzinger then had to approve that move, but that seems to have been more of a formality than anything else (bishops have to approve the movement of priests into their territories, but I believe it would have been pretty unconventional to refuse to accept priests into the rehabilitation facilities that happened to be located there.) If there's additional information about why the priest then remained in Munich after his discharge, that would be of interest, but I haven't seen that information available.

Also, since this story has been widely reported, it likely is appropriate for inclusion in the article, but I agree with the complaint that it shouldn't dominate the section on his time as Archbishop. He was a reasonably notable Archbishop. Can we flesh out this section?MikeNM (talk) 06:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence for alleged paedophilia complicity

As journalists are going as far as to say the following (quoted from the Independent below), we need to collect reliable sources and factual data so we can deal with the this properly. Wikipedia fails over WP:BLP when people are looking for 'recent' information, and it shies away from giving it (often just to keep the article stable), then it often uses highly-dubious 'style' and 'disruption' reasoning to tone things down thereafter. But the consequence are that Wikipedia will be complicit in hiding/dampening the truth. Wikipedia claims to strive for encyclopeidic accuracy, being the "encyclopedia of everything". It has to meet the claim in matters like this.

• Johann Hari in the Independent:

"It has emerged this week that when Ratzinger was Archbishop of Munich in the 1980s, one of his paedophile priests was "reassigned" in this way. He claims he didn't know. Yet a few years later he was put in charge of the Vatican's response to this kind of abuse and demanded every case had to be referred directly to him for 20 years. What happened on his watch, with every case going to his desk? Precisely this pattern, again and again."

"Far from changing this paedophile-protecting model, Ratzinger reinforced it. In 2001 he issued a strict secret order demanding that charges of child-rape should be investigated by the Church "in the most secretive way... restrained by a perpetual silence... and everyone... is to observe the strictest secret." Since it was leaked, Ratzinger claims – bizarrely – that these requirements didn't prevent bishops from approaching the police. Even many people employed by the Vatican at the time say this is wrong. Father Tom Doyle, who was a Vatican lawyer working on these cases, says it "is an explicit written policy to cover up cases of child sexual abuse and to punish those who would call attention to these crimes... Nowhere in any of these documents does it say anything about helping the victims. The only thing it does say is they can impose fear on the victims, and punish [them], for disclosing what happened." Doyle was soon fired." [11] Matt Lewis (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Quote from Christopher Hitchens:

"The Roman Catholic Church is headed by a mediocre Bavarian bureaucrat once tasked with the concealment of the foulest iniquity, whose ineptitude in that job now shows him to us as a man personally and professionally responsible for enabling a filthy wave of crime. Ratzinger himself may be banal, but his whole career has the stench of evil—a clinging and systematic evil that is beyond the power of exorcism to dispel. What is needed is not medieval incantation but the application of justice—and speedily at that." [12]

• Guardian today:

"It is such a big story because everything about it is extreme," says the religious affairs author and journalist Clifford Longley. "It is the worst crisis for the Vatican since the middle ages."

"So far almost 700 new cases have come to light. It was a week of unmitigated calamity for Benedict XVI, who became pope pledging to shore up Christianity in an increasingly secular Europe."

"The question remains why this situation should be judged so grave when the numbers involved are smaller than in the US, where a 2004 report found evidence in support of almost 7,000 allegations." [13].

Ratzinger is remaining silent, which is pretty clever when you think about it. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for being nitpicky, but he's no longer Ratzinger, he's Benedict XVI. Unless of course, you're talking about the Pope's brother (the priest) Georg Ratzinger. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for me being picky, but he is still Ratzinger. Benedict is his regnal name. Legally he remains Josef Ratzinger. I doubt whether the members of his family call him Benedict.--Gazzster (talk) 05:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's stick with Benedict, makes it easier that way. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Legally he's His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI - at least according to Vatican law. Jeannedeba (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, if you have issues with the Pope, push them somewhere else. The claims by notorious conspiracy theorist and POV pusher Christopher Hitchens are ridiculous, and he's absolutely not a reliable source. Benedict is 1) not mediocre 2) not a bureuacrat - he was a leading Catholic thinker long before he became the Pope. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to push some anti-Papal agenda or nutjob conspiracy theories. This article has remained relatively stable over the course of many years, and there is no urgent need to rewrite it. Controversial material should not be added without first reaching consensus. Also, let me point out that claims of "paedophilia complicity" are a violation of the WP:BLP policy, even on the talk page. Jeannedeba (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The above comment is actually incorrect on almost every single count I'm afraid. Firstly, the factual evidence within the news has given me issues with the Pope - I'm no anti-Catholic (ie specifically anti-Papal) at all, and I do reject any insinuation that I am. Secondly, I am discussing here in Talk first, not adding edits to the main article. Thirdly, I'm discussing many allegations that have been made all over the globe based on Ratzingers own actions and comments - I an entitled to cover that both here and on the main article page. Fourthly, the 'relative stability' of this article in the past is absolutely irrelevant, and should never be used to avoid difficult content. Fifthly, I don't like Hitchens either - but your reaction to using him is rather ironic given to how you wish to protect the Pope from libel! Hitchens has a well-regarded past himself, and is as good an example as anyone of how people can have variable careers.

What I am doing is discussing evidence - this often has to be done in current event BLP's, and can certainly avoid edit wars on the main article. With highly partisan subjects like religious articles, the 'faithful' (for want of a better word) often do not to afford the required level of concentration on evidence that provides a 'counter-balance' to the positive article they naturally desire, especially when it is as negative and damning as the evidence available is here. I'm sorry that is hard, but I've seen a lot of Wikipedia, and it is just true. But we do have the ability to debate and discuss on the Talk page. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

This part -- According to sex abuse whistleblower Fr Tom Doyle, who was quoted in the New York Times, “Pope Benedict is a micromanager. He’s the old style. Anything like that would have been brought to his attention. Tell the vicar general to find a better line. What he’s trying to do, obviously, is protect the pope.” -- is questionable, that man is being quoted but this does not meet the standards of wp: sources it is just the guys opinion he is not in any position to have reliable inside information, nor is he empowered to speak on anyones behalf, it should not be listed, the rest is fine its all verified. Smitty1337 (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

An opinion may be quoted, if it is noteworthy, as long as it is clear it is an opinion, and if it juxtaposes a balancing opinion. And that is the case here. It is certainly noteworthy that a bishop purportedly did not know of an investigation instituted against one of his priests by his own vicar-general. The obvious question is of course how he could not have known and the question may be commented upon.--Gazzster (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Which policy are you quoting? The one i listed says its questionable if it relies on Opinion. Wiki is an encyclopedia not a news organization we list facts here not opinions unless they come from a person previuosly published and well known as an expert. All i am saying is that the guy quoted is not an expert he may be a "whistle blower" but he is just a guy who is stating an accusation for which he offers no support that can be verified. The rest of the stuff there is just fine. It is noteworthy to mention the accusations against him, just not the random opinion of some priest. Smitty1337 (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:ASF Due to this you have my consensus, the opinion stays. I fully retract all previous statements and striked them out. Smitty1337 (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't got much time for this section (the main page is the important one), but as someone has said this accusation is "poorly sourced" I'm going to drop in some more links:

• Observer - Pope 'obstructed' sex abuse inquiry (from 2005 - this issue is not 'recentism')

"Pope Benedict XVI faced claims last night he had 'obstructed justice' after it emerged he issued an order ensuring the church's investigations into child sex abuse claims be carried out in secret.

The order was made in a confidential letter, obtained by The Observer, which was sent to every Catholic bishop in May 2001.

It asserted the church's right to hold its inquiries behind closed doors and keep the evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the victims reached adulthood. The letter was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was elected as John Paul II's successor last week.

Lawyers acting for abuse victims claim it was designed to prevent the allegations from becoming public knowledge or being investigated by the police. They accuse Ratzinger of committing a 'clear obstruction of justice'."

• Times

"Pope knew priest was paedophile but allowed him to continue with ministry"

• Times

Pope Benedict accused of ignoring abuse allegations against Hullerman.

According to a report in Der Spiegel, the German magazine, Benedict knew about the allegations against Hullermann in 1980 but chose not to report them to the police.

Giancarlo Zizola, a writer on the Vatican, said Ratzinger “very probably” was updated about Hullermann. “The archbishop is responsible for the diocese, people answer to him, so theoretically he is aware of what’s happening,” Zizola said.

The suggestion that the Pope may have known more than has been admitted in a case where inaction allowed sexual abuse to continue was echoed by Hans Kung, a dissident Catholic theologian who once taught with Benedict at Tübingen University in Germany.

In an article published by several European newspapers last week, Kung charged that Benedict knew about the sexual abuse of members of the Domspatzen (cathedral sparrows) choir in Regensburg. The choirmaster from 1964 to 1994 was Benedict’s brother, Georg, and the future Pope had also taught theology there.

Former choirboys at Regensburg have testified about ordeals stretching into the early 1990s.

“Joseph Ratzinger was perfectly well aware of the situation of the Domspatzen,” Kung wrote. “And it is not a case of slaps, which unfortunately were the order of the day at the time, but of sex crimes.”

Kung demanded that Benedict issue a mea culpa for his part in “covering up decades of clerical sex abuse”.

Bishops including the Pope should not just seek forgiveness, but “should finally acknowledge their own coresponsibility” in covering up “systematic abuses”, said Kung.

• New York times

“I find that deceitful because we know that this is a global and systemic problem in the global church,” said Colm O’Gorman, the co-founder of a victims’ group who said he was sexually abused by a priest as a teenager in Ireland in the early ’80s. “It’s all about protecting the institution and, above all, its wealth.”

“The greatest contribution the pope could have made was to stop the abuse of victims, and he’s not even done that,” he added.

In the case in Germany in 1980 that made headlines recently, Benedict, then Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger, allowed a priest who was accused of molesting boys to move to Munich for therapy. The diocese he oversaw did not notify civil authorities of the sexual abuse allegations.

• NYT

In a note read on Vatican Radio on Saturday, the Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said it was “evident that in recent days there are those who have tried, with a certain aggressive tenacity, in Regensburg and in Munich, to find elements to involve the Holy Father personally in issues of abuse.” He added, “It is clear that those efforts have failed.”

Msgr. Charles J. Scicluna, the director of a tribunal inside the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican’s doctrinal arm, dismissed as “false and calumnious” accusations that Benedict covered up abuse cases when he oversaw investigations for four years as prefect of that congregation before becoming pope.

In 2001, Benedict, who was then in charge of Vatican investigations of abuse allegations, sent a letter to bishops counseling them to forward all such cases to his Doctrine of the Faith office, where they would be subject to secrecy.

Monsignor Scicluna dismissed the idea that secrecy was imposed “in order to hide the facts.” Rather, he said, it “served to protect the good name of all the people involved, first and foremost, the victims themselves, then the accused priests who have the right, as everyone does, to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.”

• NYT

There was immediate skepticism that Benedict, as archbishop, would not have known of the details of the case

The Rev. Thomas P. Doyle, who once worked at the Vatican Embassy in Washington and became an early and well-known whistle-blower on sexual abuse in the church, said the vicar general’s claim was not credible.

“Nonsense,” said Father Doyle, who has served as an expert witness in sexual abuse lawsuits. “Pope Benedict is a micromanager. He’s the old style. Anything like that would necessarily have been brought to his attention. Tell the vicar general to find a better line. What he’s trying to do, obviously, is protect the pope.”

• Guardian

Arrogant, corrupt, secretive – the Catholic church failed to tackle evil

Much of the criticism has focused, understandably, on the actions of individuals such as Brady when he investigated Smyth in 1975 or Benedict (Joseph Ratzinger as he then was) who sent an abuser in his Munich archdiocese for "therapy" in 1980. But the system for dealing with these crimes was the same everywhere: swear the victims to secrecy; send the abuser to be "cleansed" in a clinic; shift him to another parish (or in extreme cases like Smyth's to another country); and, above all, do not tell the police.

• Guardian

Alan Shatter, the Fine Gael spokesman on children, said: "We should not regard it as acceptable that the Vatican uses its ecclesiastical authority to interfere in the internal affairs of this state and also invokes diplomatic protocol when it suits it, to withhold information from a government-appointed commission investigating allegations of clerical abuse.

"Nor is it acceptable that the Vatican refuses to permit its ambassador, in the guise of the papal nuncio, to co-operate with such a commission or to attend at a parliamentary committee meeting requested by members of the sovereign parliament of this state to discuss these issues.

• Guardian

"Pope Benedict has passed up a glorious opportunity to address the core issue in the clerical sexual abuse scandal: the deliberate policy of the Catholic church at the highest levels to protect sex offenders, thereby endangering children."

Lewis also accused the Pope of dodging Vatican responsibility for failing to tackle child abuse.

"If the church cannot acknowledge this fundamental truth, it is still in denial," she added.

• Guardian

Writing in the Italian newspaper, La Repubblica, the Rev Küng, who once taught alongside the Pope, added: "No other person in the Church has had to deal with so many cases of abuse crossing his desk ... Honesty demands that Joseph Ratzinger himself, the man who for decades has been principally responsible for the worldwide cover-up, at last pronounce his own mea culpa."

• Guardian

But never before has a scandal cast doubts on the judgment and authority of a pope.

The problem for Benedict is that, as in many other theological respects, he changed his mind. The US Vatican-watcher John Allen this week published in National Catholic Reporter an extract from the transcript of a conference in Spain that showed that, as late as November 2002, Ratzinger dismissed the American abuse scandals as the result of a "planned campaign" in the media.

By 2002 the then cardinal had signed what critics claim was an incitement to the obstruction of justice. A letter he circulated to bishops the previous year reminded them that internal church inquiries into certain serious offences were covered by what is known as papal secrecy, for which the penalty is excommunication.

"The question is whether Ratzinger's past may trump Benedict's present," wrote Allen.

• The Independent

Firstly, it must not make any attempt to blame anyone else for Church failures. Pope Benedict must not suggest the revelations of clerical crime and cover-up are part of a global media conspiracy as he has previously done. He must not seek to blame the decadence of Western society, the sexual revolution, gays, secularisation or even the Devil, as senior church leaders have asserted over the years.

He must also move beyond bland statements expressing his shock and dismay at the revelations of recent years. As head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, he was the man charged with the management of cases of child sexual abuse on a global scale for more than two decades. He, more than anyone, knows about the scale of abuse across the Catholic Church.

• The Independent

Now the personal reputation of the pontiff has come under threat, with some senior church figures demanding an apology and accusing him of involvement in a lengthy cover-up.

Some theologians and senior church figures want a personal apology from the head of the Catholic Church. As a cardinal in 2001, he had declared that complaints against paedophile priests were covered by "pontifical secret", and should be handled by bishops in strict confidence, despite admitting that "very grave sins" had been committed

Lawyers acting for abuse victims claim this was designed to prevent the allegations from becoming public knowledge or being investigated by the authorities.

• [The Independent]

What makes the latest allegations so potentially damaging is that much of the criticism about the Church's response to paedophilia goes right to the top – to the Pope himself.

Before he was appointed pontiff five years ago, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger oversaw the Vatican body charged with investigating abuse by clergy. In 2001, he issued a now controversial order insisting that even the worst cases should first be investigated within the Church, something that Germany's Justice Minister said recently had helped to create a "wall of silence" for secular investigators.

There are also questions about whether Ratzinger – when he was bishop of Munich in the early 1980s – was aware of a known paedophile priest who was returned to pastoral duties after a short spell of therapy. The priest, who cannot be named for legal reasons, went on to abuse more children and was only convicted in 1986, four years after Ratzinger had moved to Rome. A German support group for abuse survivors, We Are Church, says it now wants the Pope to detail exactly what he knew about paedophile priests, and what action he took if and when he uncovered their crimes.

The Vatican, however, is determined not to let its leader (who is, after all, supposed to be "infallible") become personally dragged into the scandals. The Vatican Secretary of State has suggested that a secularist conspiracy in the Western media is using abuse scandals to undermine the Pope. But until the wall of silence is broken, questions will remain about the conduct inside St Peter's.

• Boston Globe

Back in the 1980s, the archdiocese led by Joseph Ratzinger, archbishop of Munich and Freising, and the future Pope Benedict XVI , ignored repeated warnings about a priest accused of sexually abusing boys. According to current news reports, while Ratzinger was in charge, the accused priest — the Rev. Peter Hullermann — was transferred to Munich for therapy. But, he was allowed to return to parish work and interactions with children. In 1986 — several years after Ratzinger had been transferred to the Vatican and put in charge of reviewing sex abuse cases — Hullermann was convicted of sexual abuse. Even after that conviction, the priest continued working with altar boys. He was finally suspended, just this month.

It sounds familiar, right? That’s because the basic story line closely parallels what happened in Boston under the watch of Cardinal Bernard Law, who once dreamed of becoming the first American pope.

Law was at the epicenter of the scandal that rocked the church from Boston to Rome in 2002. As allegations of the sexual abuse of children by priests were revealed, Law ducked, dodged, and lied about what he knew and when he knew about it. As public pressure built, underlings took responsibility. Ultimately, it became clear in depositions that Law knew about the sexual misconduct, moved the transgressors from parish to parish, and covered up for them.

Eventually, Law was forced to resign his position. Yet, he retained his cardinal’s hat and never provided full details of his role in the scandal. He was transferred to Rome, where he is archbishop emeritus of Boston and archpriest of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore. He took full part in the conclave that selected Ratzinger to succeed John Paul II.

So far, a deputy who served Ratzinger in Munich at the time is taking responsibility for the personnel decisions involving Hullermann. Eventually, the details will catch up with the former archbishop of Munich, just as they did with Law. Even a pope cannot escape truth forever, although serious consequences for a sitting pontiff are hard to imagine.

• BishopAccountability.org

The pope's former diocese of Munich confirmed a report that, as Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger in 1980, he had approved housing so that a known paedophile priest could seek therapy, while Georg directed a boys choir whose members later suffered abuse.

Vatican spokesman Lombardi charged at the weekend that there had been a "dogged focus" on the Ratzinger brothers in a bid "to personally implicate the Holy Father in questions of abuse."

"It is clear that these efforts have failed," he added.

• Sydney Morning Herald

If the accusation is considered "serious enough" but not sufficient to begin an accusatorial process, information should go to the archive.

Should an accused priest go before a church trial, "in every way the judge is to remember that it is never right for him to bind the accused by an oath to tell the truth."

Mr. Shea in a separate letter to Mr. Sullivan explained that the 1962 Vatican document appears in a footnote to a letter from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who heads the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, dated May 18, 2002, to all bishops of the Catholic church.

Matt Lewis (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I said your section heading ("paedophilia complicity") is libelous. And I don't think any of these sources accuse the Pope of "paedophilia complicity". Even if they did, it would still be libelous. Also, see my comments above. Jeannedeba (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Then the Times et al ("Pope knew priest was paedophile but allowed him to continue with ministry") are libelous. Why don't you just take a deep breath and read them. They all use slightly different ways to say the same thing. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

just to be clear complicit does not mean participating in it, it means this "An individual is complicit in a crime if he/she is aware of its occurrence and has the ability to report the crime, but fails to do so" however, since german law does not have a requirement to report he technically isn't complicit in the legal sense. that is the legal use of the word, the definition is "The state of being complicit; involvement as a partner or accomplice, especially in a crime or other wrongdoing. " technically this makes Jeannedeba correct, you'd need a source to actually use that word verbatim or its WP:SYNTH interpreting multiple sources to lead to a conclusion that none outright say. btw why are we arguing over a word on the talk page can we get this back to discussing improvement of main page? wp: notaforum. Smitty1337 (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I do find this talk about the 'legal sense' horribly ironic given the Pope's recent comments, and very much in bad taste. Ratzinger has claimed (clearly to try and deflect responsibility) that 'technically' people could go to the police if they wanted, but the church deliberately chose not to themselves, and 'frowned upon it' to the point of making some abused people sign secrecy forms. They moved known paedophiles on from parish to parish. The church is supposed to follow scripture (inc small matters like goodness, and God's love etc), not to hypocritically blur their own rules with those of the state in which the child abuse occurred. They did not protect the children - and the horror is that they didn't properly help the abused children either. Children were just not factored in. The only excuse for not going to the police was for the church to do a better job themselves. But by so many accounts, the 'job' was primarily focused on hushing it all up.

It's not all about Germany anyway. It seems that the Germans have actually been the most damning - in German, so we have to use the translated reports. The edits will come when we have discussed this properly. I'm not risking an edit war as admim are not in great shape at the moment, and the page will likely just get fully protected. I'm working on text, and we can sort out the language in here. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

my point about wp: notaforum is still valid. lets focus on fixing the article, not changing a section name on the talk page. Smitty1337 (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I've certainly no desire to defend Benedict in this matter. But to help put things in context, the practice of 'keeping it secret' was, and still is to varying extent, prevalent across a wide range of institutions, both ecclesiastical and secular. One could say it was the norm, in fact. And the obligation to report these matters to the authorities only began within the last two decades. So while the complicity of the Catholic Church, for which it would appear Ratzinger must bear his share of responsibility, is indefensible, we must bear in mind that all kinds of institutions were and are complicit in child sex.--Gazzster (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to make such serious allegations, it seems like you should have something that's not off an op-ed page. Additionally, can we please get the story straight on this page? Ratzinger's ignorance of the priest's reassignment might be worthy of question, but we first need to sort through what happened. The priest was sent to Munich for therapy, was released, remained in Munich, and was assigned by the Vicar General to work in the Archdiocese. (I thought this last claim was suspect, but I've been told that the vicar-general was known to have handled most personel decisions in Munich, and that this is not uncommon in Germany... if that's incorrect, then that would be worthy of note.) It seems, as pathetic a commentary as this is on the Church's legal system at the time, he followed the procedures set forth. Additionally, to go through just a few of the "sources" quoted above, Christopher Hitchens has a well-documented open hatred of Catholicism and this Pope. Tom Doyle, though perhaps reliable on some matters, didn't have any contact with Archbishop Ratzinger and his observations are laughed at by many who have worked closely with Ratzinger/BXVI. The comment that the complaints were protected is misrepresented here... the issue was not that the Pope has the right to keep them secret but that they're guarded by an expectation of confidentiality on the part of the person who brought the charge. I could go on, but it would be a waste of space on the Talk Page. Until you've got something better than what you've presented so far, your allegations should not be included in the article. MikeNM (talk) 06:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Another sex abuse case

Warned About Abuse, Vatican Failed to Defrock Priest" -- But Cardinal Bertone halted the [defrocking proceedings] after Father Murphy personally wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger protesting that he should not be put on trial because he had already repented and was in poor health and that the case was beyond the church’s own statute of limitations. 'I simply want to live out the time that I have left in the dignity of my priesthood,' Father Murphy wrote near the end of his life to Cardinal Ratzinger. 'I ask your kind assistance in this matter.' The files contain no response from Cardinal Ratzinger. Grover cleveland (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This really needs to be mentioned in this article. There is a pretty good summary of it in the Sexual abuse scandal in Catholic archdiocese of Milwaukee article under the "Lawrence Murphy Case" section. Maybe we could import it to this article or place a link to it in the "2010 controversy over child sexual abuse within the Catholic Church" section? In fact that section probably needs to be retitled. Mrbusta (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The Holy See has an statement: Statement of the Director of the Holy See Press Office, Fr Federico Lombardi, S.I., concerning the "Murphy Case". I think. if you include the "Murphy case" into the article, this should be included. --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It's now been pretty clearly proven that the investigation was never actually halted. Fr. Murphy simply died beforehand. Additionally, can we please stop relying on the word "defrocked," which doesn't mean anything in Canon Law?MikeNM (talk) 06:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV threatened by edits from a very small groups of religious individuals

I'm really surprised to see a few openly catholic individuals (specializing in editing "anti-catholicism" pages and this one) stalling the completion of this page and consistently removing edits that keep the balance of what is obviously an important controversy in the Catholic Church (by their own word, they mentionned it directly during Mass). Please include relevant material in the page and stay neutral, which doesn't mean covering up facts or at least worldwide controversies. As a proof my edit to the talk page was removed by the very same individuals. There is clear evidence of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.227.168.86 (talk • contribs)

Yes there is. That wasn't a personal attack and the user who removed it is crossing the line on acceptable behaviour. RutgerH (talk) 10:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks. This is your last warning. Jeannedeba (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of insinuating POV puff

I suggest we remove the following paragraph:

In early April 2010, attention was drawn to Ratzinger's role in a 1980s sexual abuse case where he urged "due caution" and consideration for "good of the universal Church" before defrocking American priest Stephen Kiesle, who had been convicted by the criminal courts of pedophilia in 1978.[123][124] The letter was described by the Vatican as standard form letter, and denied that it indicated Ratzinger resisted pleas to defrock Kiesle.[125] Kiesle was defrocked in 1987.[125]

This is essentially POV puff. The reality was that Cardinal Ratzinger sent one standard form letter where he recommended the appropriate caution in a serious matter. He was not really involved in that case except sending a standard form letter. I don't see any reason why recommending the appropriate caution should be controversial, the priest in question was eventually defrocked as well. I.e., this is nothing and I don't see any reason to cover it in this article, it's only purpose is trying deliberately to make the Pope look bad. As I previously pointed out, the whole paragraph is insinuating, presenting some very select issues taken totally out of context, in a tone (by referring to an unspecified "role" in a sexual abuse case, by it's polemical use of quotes) that is inappropriate for an encyclopedia and which makes it sound like an accusation. The section is not neutral, it's also a BLP violation, and it's given undue weight. Also, see Wikipedia:Attack page. I have opposed the inclusion of this material since it was introduced a few days ago and cited my BLP and UNDUE concerns. As long as there is no consensus to include it, it should be removed. Jeannedeba (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I continue to oppose removal of this content. It meets all policies. Peter Ian Staker (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I lean towards inclusion. While I agree that the initial complaint is unfounded and looking for an issue, the criticism has reached the mainstream media and is well known. People may expect to see it and if we choose to exclude it, it will probably be an issue that we have to revisit continually. This short entry gives the subject the proper amount of attention. It gives both the gist of the criticism and the response of the Vatican.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The press reports have addressed a number of cases that aren't currently mentioned, I don't think this particular one will have any lasting impact (significant enough to be mentioned in the pope's biography) as there is no case against the Pope at all, which I think is evident to any serious person at this time. This is a minor issue as far as the Pope is concerned, that is going to go away. Jeannedeba (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Right or wrong, this is one of the allegations that is tied directly to Ratzinger, as such I think it might have some staying power.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 08:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I am baffled how anyone can have issue with the quoted wording--except from an apologetic standpoint which has zero value here--as it's a perfect short summary of the actual global media uproar.

• I read the recent controversy section expecting to see too much bias against the pope, but to my surprise, the section is painting him as a hero, this is a joke. Sole Soul (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Er, no, the section is currently biased against the pope for the reasons stated above. Naturally we cannot only include criticism. There is no doubt Pope Benedict has been involved in combating sexual abuse for several years, notably in the Maciel case but also in regard to sexual abuse in Austria, in both cases John Paul II blocked Ratzinger's efforts to various degrees. Critics of sexual abuse shouldn't direct their attacks against the one person who has done the most in combating sexual abuse within the Church and earned himself many enemies within it for this reason the last ten years or so. (also see the section below Talk:Pope_Benedict_XVI#A_more_balanced_view_on_the_controversy) Jeannedeba (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
    • The section is neither a joke or significantly biased in either direction. Just because something is being talked a lot about in the current news doesn't make it super important. The amount of coverage the current "controversy" receives (two-three sentences) is sufficient. Once it is out of the news (in approx. a week) it will quickly become a forgotten matter.
      His past attempts to "clean up" the church deserve the larger amount of coverage they receive because they 1) took place over a longer period of time; 2) have a more meaningful impact on the church; and 3) most importantly, have had a larger impact on his life. Obviously, there is a lot more that could be said about both the controversy and the clean up efforts. However, that is not feasible in a biographical article that summarizes his entire life (which is what this article is supposed to be, after all). --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

EARLY LIFE SECTION

Does anyone have a policy-based problem with this version? Peter Ian Staker (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's take the first sentence: "Following his 14th birthday in 1941, Ratzinger was a member of the Hitler Youth, and implied that his school enrolled him.". So, when did he "imply" that? "Following his 14th birthday in 1941"? It is not what the source says... Also, is there any specific reason to write "arranging with a Nazi party member to alter records" instead of, let's say, "a math teacher"..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-04-23-new-pope-defied-Nazis_x.htm

The birthday bit preceded me. It can come out. Onward...

"Benedict implies it was the school that did the enrolling, but he doesn't make it clear."[14] Is where that comes from. Literally using the source as we are required.

"Thank God, there was a math teacher who understood. He was himself a Nazi party member, but an honest man who told me, 'Just go so we have it,'" he recalled.[15]

Is from the source verbatim. We can mention he was a math teacher but I think it's important to mention he was a Nazi party member. There is no reason to exclude that. Peter Ian Staker (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Where are we required to "Libterally using the source as we are required?" Where is that requirment? Your version inserts a lot of peackock terms. It also implies that their not belonging to the Hitler Youth willingly is merely Ratzinger's own fabrication. But if you look at the source, there are other first hand accounts that support the notion that they didn't join willingly and only because they had to. There is even a second hand source, Volker Dahm, director of Nazi-era research for Munich's Institute for Contemporary History, who supports the notion that somebody living "in the countryside it was nearly impossible (to avoid) because everyone knew you." The fact that the author felt that Ratzinger implied that he thinks the school signed him up is irrelevant. The mechanism is not necessary---two other historians (besides Dahm) are cited supporting the fact that certain activities were mandatory.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

These issues have been covered by countless sources, notably by the biography written by John L. Allen. USA Today is just some random source, we could find a different and better one. Jeannedeba (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, see the last paragraph of the first section of Early life of Pope Benedict XVI, which deals with his HJ membership in more detail. We don't need any more detail in this article, a brief mention, like in the stable version, is all we need. This is not a significant issue, and shouldn't be politicized as pointed out previously. Jeannedeba (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 

Just for the record, it seems John L. Allen, Jr. is the original source upon which most other English language sources are based. Allen writes in his biography (John L. Allen, Pope Benedict XVI: A Biography of Joseph Ratzinger, New York, Continuum, 2005)

Neither Ratzinger nor any member of his family was a National Socialist. Ratzinger has said several times that his father's criticism of the Nazis was responsible for the four moves the family made during Ratzinger's first ten years. (p. 2)

In 1941, membership in the Hitler Youth was made compulsory, and Ratzinger's brother Georg joined. Later Joseph too was registered as a member, though after he left the seminary he did not go to any meetings. Back in the Traunstein gymnasium, Ratzinger said that an understanding mathematics teacher let him keep his tuition reduction despite the fact that he did not have a Hitler Youth certificate. Thus Ratzinger was only briefly a member of the Hitler Youth and not an enthusiastic one. The way Ratzinger describes his Traunstein experience today, it sounds as if most of the political chaos and the war was "out there", while he was reading great literature, playing Mozart, joining his family on trips to Salzburg, and poring over Latin conjugations. To the extent the war intruded, it was in the form of his father's denunciations of the Nazis, or newspaper notices that friends and classmates had died in some faraway place (p. 15) -- Jeannedeba (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely have a problem with the version User:Peter Ian Staker has tried to revert war into the article, and that has now been removed once again[16]. I say we stick with the stable version that has been the same since at least 2006[17] (possibly longer, didn't bother spending more time on the page history). The wording suggested by User:Peter Ian Staker is, frankly, quite hopeless and unsuitable for an encyclopedia, being unprecise ("implied that his school enrolled him" - no, membership was mandatory by law (Richard J Evans, The Third Reich in Power, 2005, p. 272), he was automatically enrolled as a member just like everyone else) and hard to read ("Ratzinger claimed to not attend meetings, arranging with a Nazi party member to alter records so that he could receive a school tuition discount available to Hitler Youth members" - I don't understand this sentence. In addition, "claimed" is POV, there is no evidence suggesting the Ratzinger family were not staunchly anti-Nazi). Also, the bombardment with "fact" templates is uncalled for. Having checked the page history some time ago, I noticed that the sources for this were all in this article some years ago, but must at some point have been moved to Early_life_of_Pope_Benedict_XVI where the same sources are found today. Which I think is OK, since this section is just a summary of that main article (for instance, the source for the fact that "his father was a bitter enemy of Nazism, believing it conflicted with the Catholic faith" is found in Early_life_of_Pope_Benedict_XVI, footnote 3). Jeannedeba (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

OK it seems that there is some question over consensus. So lets make it easy. PLease vote for either. A: the inclusion of the Dawkiins material. B:Its exclusion. That was we can see who is for and against.Slatersteven (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't vote in Wikipedia. Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy & Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Jeannedeba (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Its been susgested that only you oppose the inclusion of this material. This was susgested by me in order not to vote on the inclusion but just to see who wants its inclusion. If it is only you then you then we have consensus (just not a majority) for its inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

suggestion incorrect, i oppose it also. and so does the above topic. Smitty1337 (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the consensus is to not include it. Also, it cannot be included per the BLP policy. Jeannedeba (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

OK thats all we wanted to know. The susgestion that only one user objexcts tov this material is clearly not true.Slatersteven (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, did you see my note above about the edit warring. The edit warring needed to be stopped. But beyond that, IMO, the material didn't belong. It was a WP:FRINGE position that isn't going to gain any real traction with any government and just an individual spouting off trying to garner attention. If that changes and a legal authority actually issues a warrant then it becomes worth mentioning. Furthermore, the fact that the guy who supposedly was calling for it appears to deny it, supports the notion that caution should be used when adding contentious materials to a BLP. The standard is to protect the individual that the article is about---it doesn't matter if the person is the Pope or the Anti-Christ, the principles BLP says that if doubt exists in keeping material in an article we should err on the side of caution. In this is completely support Jeanne's removing of the contentious materials.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not fringe as we've already explained and it's not being "neutral" to claim it is. Again it's not the evil Richard Dawkins doing this is Christopher Hitchens and Geoffrey Robertson with Dawkins support among others. This does not violate WP:BLP. A consensus doesn't mean the majority of people with a POV get to decide what's not included. That said I think we should delay adding it pending further developments as it may come under WP:Recent and turn out to be nothing with no historical importance. RutgerH (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a fringe position when the position is held by a distinct minority of people who are speaking outside of their area of expertise (law). This position, that the Pope should be arrested in England is not one that is going to gain any credible following. It is the position of a few activist who are attempting to embarrass the pope and garner fifteen minutes of fame for advocating a position that no legal institution is going to take up. IF and when a legal authority (court system/state/government/etc) acts upon this call, then it will become noteworthy, until then it is distinctly fringe. A comperable analogy would be the people who called for George Bush to be arrested because of his "crimes against the environment." That position is just as fringe, and there were people who made that claim. There are people who have called upon any number of world leaders at various times to be arrested for "crimes", but until a government/legal body acts or says they will act, it remains the realms of a few fringe individuals.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You've failed to read the other posts explaining why it's not fringe and so I'll repeat yet again. Geoffrey Robertson is one of the worlds leading legal experts who's opinion is highly valued in the field. Whether you've heard of him or not is irrelevant. A private prosecution, as they've stated, can go ahead if the CPS decides not to proceed so that point is also not relevant. We don't ignore all civil legal action do we? I've given my reasons for not including it at this stage but it's got nothing to do with Bush analogies, Undue weight or BLP problems like people are claiming to try and justify their POV pushing. If you want to exclude it for those reasons you have to justify it and I haven't seen any justification for those reasons yet. RutgerH (talk) 06:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a fringe theory, it doesn't belong in the article for the reasons already explained to you by Balloonman. It does not matter if you can find one British human rights lawyer who says something outrageous, as long as you have not proven that this is the dominant view among scholars of international law and the world's governments. Every single government in the world, roughly speaking, happen to disagree with this Robertson fellow that I've never heard of, and I doubt very much that this position has any standing at all among scholars in the field (international law). Our articles on the Legal status of the Holy See and Foreign relations of the Holy See don't mention the fringe theory at all. The Pope is a souvereign just like the British monarch and is only subject to his own law (with the same right, the Vatican could arrest the British monarch - actually, the Pope is by European tradition above other monarchs), and I'm sure anyway that the British government 1) will do nothing to arrest the Pope 2) will bring their house in order if necessary, but probably just ignore this bullshit. It is unacceptable for an encyclopedia to promote fringe theories which lack any credibility, specifically in biographies of the world's most important living individuals. If someone had added nonsense like this to the article on Barack Obama, they would have been blocked instantly for disruption. Jeannedeba (talk) 09:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I've explained why it's not a fringe theory and it seems you've failed to even look at his page on here to try and comprehend the status of the man in legal circles which is another clear example of your POV pushing. Would you care to cite a source stating what every single government in the world thinks of this theory? Lack of inclusion in another article has never been a reason for excluding something. An action by a small number of people is in no way automatically a fringe theory and I'm not even sure if it does apply to this given it's going to be an action, not just a theory. I've explained why I don't think it should be included (WP:RECENT) and my opinion on that hasn't changed. RutgerH (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you are the one who wants to include this fringe theory in the article, it's your obligation to demonstrate that this is the dominant view among scholars of international law and of the world's governments. It's not enough to refer to British political extremists with agendas who are neither legal scholars nor representatives of the British government, or to some obscure (as far as this field is concerned) British human rights lawyer/media personality who is neither a leading authority on international law nor a representative of the British government. I don't need to demonstrate anything because I'm not the one who wants to include controversial/dubious materal, but I refer you to our own articles on the Legal status of the Holy See and Foreign relations of the Holy See. Jeannedeba (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Read my last sentence again. This is not Judge Judy. Geoffrey Robertson is a leading authority on international law as you would have seen when you read his page. If you want to claim an appeal judge for the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone is not a leading legal expert you're not going to get very far. RutgerH (talk) 13:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No, he's not a leading authority in this field. The Pope is not accused of any war crimes. He's a political activist from a country with a long history of Anti-Catholicism, trying to garner attention (15 minutes of fame) for himself (they specifically said they wanted to embarrass their government, why should an encyclopedia be abused as an instrument to push their POV, as long as the British government has done nothing in this regard?). Where are the academic sources demonstrating that it is a credible view that the Pope is not a souvereign, despite being recognized by the governments of almost the entire world? This is a fringe theory, just like it would be to include the views of some North Korean lawyer that Barack Obama needs to be arrested because he's not a president in the article on Barack Obama. Jeannedeba (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, heads of state have been arrested before when travelling to different countries. It is not unheard of. BUT that is usually when dealing with some no-nothing country with whom nobody really notices or cares. The reality of the situation is that it doesn't matter who the individual is who is spouting the position, this will never go anywhere. There is a reason why the previous Pope was not arrested when he lead a revolt in Poland. If an athiestic communistic country like the USSR won't act to stop the Pope from leading a revolt, then what are the odds that England will allow it? Can you imagine the domestic and international outrage that would accompany such an act? It is fringe because A) nothing is going to come of it and B) nobody except that guy thinks anything will come of it. Like I said before, we respected individuals around the world calling for George Bush's head, but it won't happen. You name the head of state, there is probably somebody someplace calling for them to pay the price somewhere for some crime. It goes with the territory. It would almost be more noteworthy if there wasn't anybody calling for action! The fact that some guy wants his 15 minutes of fame to last 16 minutes, doesn't make the material less fringe or more encyclopedic.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"The fact that some guy wants his 15 minutes of fame to last 16 minutes, doesn't make the material less fringe or more encyclopedic." You had me up until this sentence. One of the world's leading living biologists is simply getting 15 minutes of fame? No sir. Dawkins' statement may in fact be goofy; but it is encyclopedic that a pre-eminent scientist is publicly calling for another public figure's arrest; no matter how silly the statement is. I vote for inclusion of Dawkins' statement. Mrbusta (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that he is a biologist is not relevant, he's not in the same division as the Pope, a souvereign monarch and religious head of more than a billion people holding the oldest and most significant office existing in the world. He's acting outside his field of expertise and he doesn't have any government authority, he's just a private individual, his opinion doesn't matter more than my opinion or your opinion in this regard. The Pope is not going to be arrested because some biologist calls for his arrest. The only other person (at least during the last couple of hundred years) who dared to arrest the Pope was Napoleon, who suffered from megalomania. I think anyone else who claims they will arrest the pope will be taken care of by doctors. Jeannedeba (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"The fact that he is a biologist is not relevant." In your response, you repeatedly refer to Dawkins as simply a "biologist", ignoring the fact that he is one of the world's living pre-eminent biologists. This is the equivalent of calling the Pope a "priest". While it is true that he is not a government official; he sitll is a pre-eminent living scientist. There is in fact historical precident for pre-eminent scientists getting into a dispute with a sitting pope (see Galileo). So it does strike me as encyclopedic that a pre-eminent scientist is in a dispute with a religious leader and head of state. Mrbusta (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Is he really? I thought he was more of a popular science author. And what's the relevance? Bobby Fischer was one of the world's leading chess players. He was also critical of Jews and denied the Holocaust. Should his fringe views be included in the articles on Jews and the Holocaust because he was one of the world's leading chess players? The biologist you are referring to has no legal qualifications and has no government authority. Final stop. Jeannedeba (talk) 09:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Dawkins has written popular science books; but he has also done actual scientific research. He is similar to Stephen Hawkings in this respect. As for your comparison to Bobby Fischer, I don't see this as a fair comparison at all. First off Fischer's claims are factually incorrect (I won't recount them, some of them are listed on his wikipedia page); where as there have in fact been child abuse by priests in the Catholic Church and certain members of it's heirarchy have in fact shielded some of those priests from prosecution by secular authorities. It has been alleged that Pope Benedict in the past (at least before he became Pope) was a part of this. As for his immunity from prosecution as a head of state; The Vatican is not a member of the United Nations. This doesn't necessarily mean that he doesn't have immunity as a head of state; but it does call it into question. It also calls into question whether the Pope has any legal qualifications or government authority. So this would just be an arguement between two private citizens. Mrbusta (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This is all your original research, isn't it? The Pope doesn't need any legal qualifications because he's not promoting any fringe theories in regard to international law (the Pope is actually making the law (many widely adopted legal principles stem from the church), and the Holy See has excellent lawyers/legal scholars (likely some of the world's leading one) working for them). No, this is not an "argument between two private citizens", the Pope is not a private citizen but a souvereign monarch recognized by almost all the states of the world. The Holy See has existed for 2000 years, long before the UN (which is just one international organisation initially formed by a limited number of countries) existed. The modern Vatican City State has been an internationally recognized state in its current form decades before the UN existed as well. No, the pope's immunity (or government authority for that sake, being recognized by nearly every government in the world) isn't called into question by any government or anyone serious, just by some popular science author or some obscure human rights lawyer/activist trying to get their 15 minutes of fame. I think I'm done discussing this fringe theory now. Jeannedeba (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No, this is not my "original research". The Vatican is not a member of the United Nations. From wikipedia's List of United Nations member states, "Vatican City is currently the only sovereign state with general international recognition that is not a UN member". Here is the U.N.'s website listing of all member nations starting with the letter V [18]; notice some one missing? Here is the Vatican's U.N. mission page stating that they are not a member of the U.N. [19]. This is not a "fringe theory". And it does call into question if the Pope is in fact a sovereign head of state. "The Holy See has existed for 2000 years" and according to the Holy See Vatican City has only existed as an independent nation since 1929 [20]. "the pope's immunity (or government authority for that sake, being recognized by nearly every government in the world) isn't called into question by any government" except for the United States government that felt that it had to grant the Pope immunity from lawsuits [21]. If the Pope had legal immunity already as a head of state, then why did the President of the United States feel that he had to grant the Pope immunity? Or was the President of the United States just some obscure figure trying to get his 15 minutes of fame by pushing some fringe theory? Mrbusta (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

These are all your fringe theories (and irrelevant strawmen) that are not supported by any credible sources as explained time and again. The fact that you have no knowledge of the Papal States, and that you don't know the difference between the Holy See and the Vatican City State, yet you are insisting on content changes in this article, is funny. Come back when you've made yourself familiar with the basics. Jeannedeba (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It's irrelevant that the Vatican is not a member of the UN. It's quite voluntary to be a member of the UN, until recently there were a lot of countries that weren't UN members, notably Switzerland was not a UN member until 2002[22]. A state doesn't have to be a UN member. The relevance (and legitimacy) of the UN is questionable in itself, and such organisations come and go (the League of Nations doesn't exist any longer). The Holy See, however, has existed continously for 2000 years and been constituting an internationally recognized state (as the Papal States and the Vatican City State respectively) as long as states in the modern sense have existed, only interrupted briefly between 1870 and 1929. It is recognized today by nearly every single country in the world, and there is no serious scholarly (or government) debate over this question. You are just making up your own fringe theory.  Jeannedeba (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 

First of all I would appreciate it if you would stop refering to the theories of whether the Pope can be arrested in the U.K. as my theory or my original research. This is the theory being advanced by Dawkins and others; you can find it here: [23]. As to whether or not this is a legitimate theory is of no concern to me. I am not a lawyer and do not live in the U.K. I am utterly unqualified to know how this would play out legally. That is completely besides the point. The staments made by Dawkins should be included because it is noteworthy. I don't know why you are going on about the Holy See. The Holy See is not a nation. So, that doesn't make the Pope a head of state. If you follow the link I have provided you will see that Dawkins makes the claim that the Vatican was refused membership to the U.N. *IF* (notice that word) this is true then it *MAY* (notice that word) call into question if the Pope is a head of state. But we're getting away from the away from the main point which is that a prominent biologist is calling for the arrest of the Pope. It seems to me that this in fact a noteworthy occurence. There weren't any prominent citizens calling for the arrest of John Paul 2. Mrbusta (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"The staments made by Dawkins should be included because it is noteworthy." No, it's not noteworthy per WP:FRINGE as explained by several editors dozens of times. Why should it be noteworthy in the Pope's biography what a biologist thinks about international law, that differs from the opinion of almost every government in the world and all serious scholars in the field? What is noteworthy is the international law that exists in the real world, i.e. the view of most of the world's governments and scholars in the field of international law. The Pope is the head of state of the Vatican City State. I don't care what the biologist claims about issues he's utterly unqualified to have an opinion of, and it has nothing to do in this article. If he threatens to "arrest" the pope, he's the one who's running the risk of being arrested by the police during the state visit of His Holiness. Jeannedeba (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

They're WP:RECENT reasons balloonman like I said above (aka in six months this will most likely be a dead issue). It's not WP:Fringe if it happens is it (no facts need to change)? If it was just Hitchens then I'd agree it's fringe but Robertson brings a great deal of weight to the issue. Just like if Obama said something it's taken much more seriously than if I commented on the same issue. I can understand if you're in the US and have never heard of Robertson but trust those who have and his brief bio on here that he is a highly respected and recognised legal expert. I'll repeat yet again this is not Dawkins, it's Christopher Hitchens enlisting Geoffrey Robertson with Dawkins saying "good idea". RutgerH (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Being recognized (in a different field) only in his own country is not enough. You have not provided us with sources that demonstrate that this is a mainstream or credible view in the international scholarly community. We cannot include the view of every activist human rights lawyer around the world in the Pope's biography. Also, thanks for pointing out that Christopher Hitchens is behind all this. Christopher Hitchens is not a legal scholar, he doesn't have any authority, he is by his own admission a political extremist ("radical"), and he is just an author who has an agenda against catholics, very much in the tradition of British Anti-Catholicism. His opinion in this regard doesn't matter, he can call for the pope's arrest as much as he want, it's not going to happen. What does matter is the opinion of the world's governments. When the British government does something to arrest the Pope, I'd be very happy to include that information in this article (and probably contribute to a separate in-depth article covering the scandal). Jeannedeba (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The very fact that you recognize that this won't likely be an issue in 6 months proves that this is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not news. If his stance had staying power, then it would be worth keeping. If he succeeds in taking this to court and a court accepts the case, then it might be worthy mentioning. But the fact that his stance won't be relevant in even a month is proof that it is a fringe position. I have no doubt that he is a notable individual, but being notable does not mean that warrants going into an encyclopedic biography. For example, a few months ago, the US Secretary of Transportation made an off the hand comment that people who owned Toyota's should stop driving their cars. This is comment would be inappropriate on the Toyota main page, but there is a subpage for the Toyota recalls where it is appropriately mentioned. If this is worth mentioning anyplace, it would be in Robertson's article and perhaps an article on the Catholic Sex Abuse cases. Compare this to Nancy Pelosi (the head of the US House of Representatives) who at one point called for Cheney/Bush to be tried for War Crimes or former Democratic Presidential hopeful calling for Bush to be impeached. Both Kucinich and Pelosi are more notable (due to their positions of governmental authority) than Robertson, but their rhetoric isn't worth including in the article on George Bush. As is, this is fringe, notnews, recent, and undue---in other words, not something to go into the article on Benedict.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Another key point to remember, just because somebody is respected does not mean that they can't have Fringe theories or that their believing something makes it less fringe. There are many notable scientitist, theologians, historians, lawyers, doctors, etc who are respected in their professions, but are also known to have some outrageous beliefs. There are many notable scholars who are known to be experts in their fields, but only insofar as you stay away from X. We might be talking about a respected lawyer, but that does not mean that he is incapable of having a fringe belief. A belief that virtually nobody else accepts that he is the one of the few people who advocate and that most people look at and shake their head. The fact that you acknowledge that in 6 months this will be a dead issue, goes to show that you are probably shaking your head at it. Notable experts who are respected in their fields, can have fringe beliefs even within the fields to which they are respected!---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not proof of that at all. To say it's probably not newsworthy in six months only comes under only one policy, WP:RECENT. Just because something seems outrageous or unlikely doesn't automatically make it excludable under WP:FRINGE and an idea might be new but that also doesn't mean it's excluded under that policy. Not likely is the appropriate phrase to use, not impossible. I advocate wait and see but using appropriate justification. It's certainly not undue weight and has been proven to be somewhat newsworthy even at this stage. It doesn't violate the WP:FRINGE policy specifically the second paragraph as it's someone else's idea, Hitchens, that was then supported by a very mainstream, very notable person who is an expert in that field (I probably failed to make that clear enough before). In your example that political rhetoric isn't automatically considered fringe, it's recorded as it happened but usually such rhetoric fails WP:RECENT which is where this is failing at this stage though of course that may change. If the pope is charged or arrested or even changes his plans because of this it most definately should go on this page and I doubt you'll argue against that. RutgerH (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you not understand what a Fringe theory is? Let's look it up: A fringe theory is an idea or a collection of ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. This position certainly fits that definition---it doesn't matter if single notable person in the field says something, it is still a fringe position. Notable respected scholars often hold fringe theories. And yes, if he is arrested or charged, then the scenario changes. Bur right now, this is a fringe theory of a small group of activist who hold a stance that nobody gives serious attention too----that is the definition of a fringe theory. As for UNDUE, yes it still is undue. This is a small group of activists pushing an agenda that nobody else has embraced and is unlikely to materialize into anything. This isn't worth including in the main article---do you realize how long this article would be if every person who said anything about the Pope had their opinion included in this Bio? The Bio can only cover the most important aspects of his life/career, and only then each section is generally 1-3 paragraphs. Unless this materializes into something, this blurb isn't even in the top 20 items I would cover in this section. There are other more pertinent details that could belong before this one does. So, yes, this still fails FRINGE, UNDUE, RECENT, and NOTNEWS.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

---

"There are many notable scientitist, theologians, historians, lawyers, doctors, etc who are respected in their professions, but are also known to have some outrageous beliefs" - exactly. Even though Bobby Fischer was recognized as a chess player (i.e. a "notable person", just like Christopher Hitchens), his views on Jews has nothing to do in the articles Judaism or Jews. That would violate both FRINGE and UNDUE, just like the views of Christopher Hitchens, some biologist/popular science author or some random human rights lawyer are not relevant in this article. What would be relevant is a statement or action by a government (although just a statement with no impact would not necessarily be that important - compare all the statements by members of the Iranian government on various political and historical issues, the Iranian position on the Holocaust is not prominently featured (not even mentioned) in that article). Jeannedeba (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That's another faulty analogy. Was Bobby Fischer "going to arrest Judaism"? This is one person we're talking about, not the entire faith. RutgerH (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If Bobby Fischer said he wanted to arrest the Prime Minister of Israel, this wouldn't belong in the biography of the Prime Minister of Israel. If Bobby Fischer, a notable person, held fringe views on Judaism, the Holocaust etc., these views wouldn't belong in the articles on Jews, the Holocaust etc. just because Fischer was a well-known person and it could be verified that he held those views. It's the same principle: Person notable for something else (or less notable - there is no doubt Robertson, your biologist friend & co. are way less notable than the Pope) holds fringe view on something that is outside his area of expertise, and that contradict the opinion of pretty much every expert in the field and pretty much every single government in the world. Jeannedeba (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

And if he was supported by a supreme court judge and it then resulted in the Israeli PM not visiting the US it would be. If you're going to make a claim of others opinions you'll of course be able to show us that source. Where? My friend? Your neutrality is showing. RutgerH (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

And if this is supported by the British Supreme Court and results in the Pope not visiting England, then it too would be noteworthy and worth having in the article---because it would not be the lone theory of a small group of activist. Right now, that is all it is.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, I'm not the one who needs to show you anything because I'm not the one who wants to add controversial material to the article. Jeannedeba (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

both balloonman and jeannedeba are right, the burden of citation and proof of notability lies on the side of inserting controversial material that is fringe (jeanne's arguement). And Balloonman is right to point out the flaw in your example "And if he was supported by a supreme court judge and it then resulted in the Israeli PM not visiting the US it would be." which is exactly the action required in order to prove the material isn't fringe. Your argument is basically (A) isn't fringe because if (A) happened it would be notable. while they are saying (A) isn't notable because its extremely unlikely and foolish to think it would, but if it did happen by some bizarre chance, then (A) would be notable. The arguments seem to be in agreement, the event needs to actually be taken seriously and happen for it to be worth mentioning. At any rate the material should not be included for many of the reasons listed already, WP:NOTNEWS parts 4 and 5 look down on inclusion of this. and the section above it wp: crystal likewise would prevent speculation that some government might actually take that nonsense seriously. Smitty1337 (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Questionable sources

Regarding the edit I made before does anybody have any objection to the removal of this text? Both sources are clearly questionable sources, not reliable sources (Catholic newspapers), and is very much just advocating what the church might want people to believe rather than a thoughtful and unbiased opinion that's very much needed to include such a statement. If a few reliable sources have stated this then they need to be added but as it stands I don't see how it can stay.

He would refer to the abusers as "filth" and starting a tough campaign of zero tolerance for sexual abuse, acting far more aggressively against sexual abusers than any other leading cardinals or recent popes.

RutgerH (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you cannot remove this. It's highly relevant (very much unlike the fringe theories and nonsense some users are attempting to add to the article) and appropriately sourced. Catholic newspapers are not "questionable" (any more than atheist newspapers, Jewish newspapers etc.) as long as newspapers are accepted as sources, and the article is full of newspaper sources. Jeannedeba (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:OWN WP:RS WP:SOAP are the policies you should read. A catholic newspaper is promotional for that religion and not a mainstream paper hence questionable, not reliable. The burden is on the person who added or restored the objectionable material as per WP:RS and I can't see any exclusion for admins so unless an appopriate objection is raised by an unbiased party I will revert that restoration. RutgerH (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you make yourself familiar with those pages as well as WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. A newspaper that happens to be Catholic is not "promotional", that's nonsense, and similar to claiming that atheist newspapers are "promotional" for atheism. The article you are referring to is written by John L. Allen, Jr., a highly respected journalist specializing in news about the Catholic Church, for the National Catholic Reporter, an independent and respected American newspaper (actually a rather liberal one) (Allen is also the Vatican analyst of the CNN and the National Public Radio). I'm going to revert unjustified removal of content as simple vandalism if necessary. Jeannedeba (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes a paper with a clear atheist agenda is an innaproriate source for making claims which must be verifiable in an atheist article. Why wouldn't it be? Do we use Fox news as a source to claim a fact in wikipedia that it's actually fair and balanced? WP:BLP has nothing to do with this though I'm sure we'd all like to hear how it is. RutgerH (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Fox News is a good example of a source that shouldn't be used. John L. Allen, Jr. is the opposite of Fox News, being a respected, balanced and serious journalist, knowledgeable about the issues he's reporting on. Your claim that a piece of journalism written by John L. Allen, Jr. is "promotional" is hilarious and demonstrates that you have no interest in contributing seriously to this article. Allen is the leading expert on the Pope's life, having written the first biography of him in English several years before he became Pope (Cardinal Ratzinger : the Vatican's enforcer of the faith, New York, 2000) and the first biography after he became Pope, both standard works. Several of his books and articles are already cited elsewhere in this article. Should they be removed? Jeannedeba (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You might want to redact your edit, it looks like you are saying that Fox News isn't a reliable source, as compared to responding directly to Rutger's comment above.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was that Fox News is not known for balanced journalism, but that John L. Allen, Jr. is regarded by both liberals and conservatives as a serious journalist, and the leading expert in this area, that cannot be compared to Fox News (he's the Vatican analyst of the National Public Radio, which many would say is the opposite of Fox News). Jeannedeba (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the left decries Fox News does not make Fox News an unreliable source. Recent polls have shown that Fox News is (by far) the most watch news station in the US. It is the most respected News Station in the US. The same polls also show that it is the least respected News Station in the US. But it is still considered a reliable source---even by people who don't share it's "bias."---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't claim to be an expert on US media. I interpreted the comment by RutgerH as being critical of Fox News, using that channel as an example of a biased source. I just wanted to point out that those who think Fox News is biased (I've never watched Fox News myself) would have no reason to consider Allen, who reports for the NPR, to be comparable to Fox News. I agree that my wording above was unfortunate, I don't have a strong opinion regarding Fox News myself. Jeannedeba (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Obviously not an American ;-) Fox is the sole conservative news channel in the US, so people who are conservative love it while those who are liberal hate it. Because it is the sole conservative channel, it gets all the love/hate for being such. The other news programs CBS/MSNBC/CNN etc are seen as liberal, so they split the votes when asked which channel you like/dislike/trust/distrust the most. Foxes opinion columnist (O'reilly and Beck) are some of the most extreme; but it's news content is still beyond reproach.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Being a Catholic newspaper does not negate facts or make reputable sources unreliable. Now care might be warranted, but the above example does not show blatant bias any more than some of the sources used to criticize the Catholic Church. ALL newspapers have falacies. To cite your own words, your bias shows.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't. But it does mean it has to be verifiable and for such a statement that means another source given the nature of the only two sources for that material. If it's a verifiable statement then you should easily be able to provide those sources. To say a Catholic newspaper isn't promotional of the Catholic religion or isn't inherently biased towards that religion is being disingenuous (the hint is in the name). Where Balloonman? Not being pro-catholic does not equate to bias. I can't see any WP:BLP justification yet. RutgerH (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP applies to other isses discussed, but not specifically to this one. Jeannedeba (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC) 

I haven't brought up BLP here have I? I think you're confusing your arguments.

So the Chicago Times is not a reliable source related to news related to Chicago? Nor USA Today related to US News? Notice the names? Religious magazines/papers can have excellent reputations and be reliable sources. Nor does it mean that they aren't objective. The fact that they focus on a specific religion is not de jure evidence that the paper can't be objective/reliable---any more than than Poker Player Magazine is a biased source regarding Poker or Pro-Wrestling for wrestling---notice the names there as well? Notice their bias? Having a name or hell even a bias doesn't necessarily mean the source isn't reliable---hell if it did, then most of the US National Papers (namely New York Times) would have been deemed an unreliable sources long ago. When reporting the news, most are still reliable. The challenge with ALL newspapers/magazines is identifying when they aren't reporting the news and are pontificating a position. The above example, is reporting the news. The Vatican has taken a stronger stance on the subject and that stance will likely continue to become stronger as the Vatican responds to the issue.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The WP:BLP comment was probably directed at the person who said it don't you think? To say the Chicago Time's can't report on Chicago is just being ridiculous BUT is another failure because if they were claiming that Chicago is the worlds greatest city and that's the only source for that information, then no, we wouldn't use it to represent that as a fact. Anything else? Would you like to claim any newpaper can't be used as a source for an article on paper? I've asked for reliable sources and instead of finding any if they exist you're both trying to argue that they're not questionable sources despite what's clearly written in the WP:RS article. Unless someone else steps in I believe the matter appears resolved for the removal of the material. The burden is on you (WP:RS) if you want it included, not on me when removing it. RutgerH (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

So you unilaterally have made this determination?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The material is properly sourced, an article by John L. Allen, Jr. is one of the most reliable quality sources imaginable in this article. I think we can consider this issue resolved now. There is no reason to remove it, it's sourced, relevant and it's not controversial per BLP (i.e. it's not negative material). Jeannedeba (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Per BLP it doesn't have to be negative information... just questionable. A positive comment can also be a BLP violation. But the fact remains, that Rutger cannot unilaterally declare a source unreliable and act upon his own interpretation. The article is written by one of the most respected journalist on the Vatican (a journalist who has been critical of the Pope and the Vatican.) In a source that is independent of the church and any church oversight---and has actually been criticized by church officials for its stances. Of course it does have that one word, "catholic" which means that in Rutger's eyes that it is by definition unreliable.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Balloonman's arguments on the reliability of the "Cathloic" sources used. However, I wouldn't object to removing the "called it filth" part, as that doesn't really add much. The rest of the sentence is necessary - It is certainly true that Benedict has campaigned hard against child abuse and the article should state as much. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I too wouldn't object to cleaning it up/working on it. The article is not perfect, far from it.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it adds an important element to the article. To have a complete picture of the story here, one should be aware of the Pope's tougher stances against abuse in addition to any accusations of laxity against it. Until very recently, he was frequently portrayed as a leading crusader against sex abuse. Now, the media has decided to play up the other side of things. In my personal (but rather well researched) opinion, the truth lies somewhere in the middle but closer to the former one... Just as it wouldn't be appropriate to edit out any accusations that the Pope didn't take the cases seriously, it would also be inappropriate to edit out the stories that point to the reverse. Additionally, that is a quote that has drawn a lot of commentary, making it intrinsically valuable to this sort of article. 76.100.172.130 (talk) 05:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

A Catholic newspaper isn't automatically biased or considered not neutral. The state tabloid put out by the Vatican or Vatican PR however, are no more neutral than a Chinese government newspaper reporting on the arrests of dissidents. As long as it doesn't come out of the Vatican it may be valid. Peter Ian Staker (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

A Vatican Press release/pr notice would be given the due credit that such a first hand report would deserve, but you are correct independent magazines/newspapers that chose to make Catholicism their subject or cover issues of interest to Catholics, does not make the source invalid. That doesn't mean everything is valid/reliable (just as not everything you read in other news media is 100% reliable/neutral) but it does mean that you can't make defacto judgments based upon one word.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

A Catholic paper isn't a bad source just because it's Catholic, but it has to be read in context, and we shouldn't use exclusively Catholic sources to describe this issue. This is doubly so since there is now a very large body of sources to use. Here and here are mainstream sources that have similar, but more specific, content. --Dailycare (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree 100%. Nobody was saying that we should use only Catholic Sources.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Dailycare. For us to include a statement that the pope was the greatest ever we need independant, verifiable sources to do so as per WP:RS. The first link is a blog BUT not your average blogger and I think that it's credible for the inclusion that the pope described these people as 'filth' (though when, where and in what context would be much better). It also states he's done more than other cardinals but not more than every single other pope in the history of the church which is how the statement in the article reads.

We wouldn't use a press release from their record company to say soandso is the greatest rock star ever. We wouldn't use an article in a newspaper owned by the same company to say that UNLESS there's other independant and verifiable resources that also claim that. That's all I'm asking for and they're the only supporting sources I've seen so far that's not from a Catholic perspective. WP:RS clearly states (even bolded) that the burden of proof is on the side for the inclusion of the material and I haven't seen such proof yet and as such should be deleted OR greatly qualified to give balance to the section if no further information can be found. RutgerH (talk) 05:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

And yet again you show your complete and utter inability to be objective. You think that just because a magazine/newspaper has the word "Catholic" in it that it is not objective nor uses editorial oversight. Just because a source uses the word "Catholic" in its name does not mean that it is not a reliable independent source... but you refuse to even consider that as a possibility don't you? You show yourself incapable of distancing yourself from your personal beliefs. So far, just about everybody (but you) who has commented has agreed that a source using the word "catholic" in the title does not equate to being incapable of being reliable sources. Even other people who generally want to include critical material have acknowledge that fact. Your attempting to compare independent newspapers/magazines with the Vatican's PR office is just disingenous.

It is only after other sources without the word "catholic" in them come forward that you acknowledge that the material might be valid, but you still can't acknowledge that John L Allen Jr was right! When the University of Dallas invited Allen, they had no problem using the standard description of Allen as the prize-winning Senior Correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter, CNN’s Senior Vatican Analyst, a frequent commentator for other media outlets, and the author of five books on the Vatican and Catholic affairs. The London Tablet has called Allen “the most authoritative writer on Vatican affairs in the English language.” His work is admired across ideological divides; liberal commentator Fr. Andrew Greeley calls his writing “indispensable,” while conservative Fr. Richard John Neuhaus calls Allen’s reporting “possibly the best source of information on the Vatican published in the United States.” According to Touchstone magazine, “Allen has achieved something remarkable, and that’s genuine dialogue among sometimes competing voices in the Catholic Church.” [24] Random House says that his column "is considered by knowledgeable observers to be the best single source of insights on Vatican affairs in the English language."[25][26] "John L. Allen Jr. is CNN's senior Vatican analyst and senior correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter"[27] As for the Magazine, it is obviously a pawn of the Vatican and would NEVER write something that flew in the face of Rome? Wrong[28] Of course, this probably doesn't matter, because the source still has that one little word which in your mind equates to insurmountable bias---Catholic. I'm sorry but your bias reeks.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Balloon is right, the requirement is for it to be a "publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions" note the "widely acknowledged" part. remember "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" per wp: verify. Smitty1337 (talk) 09:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

What's right got to do with anything? Verfiability is what I've always asked for.

You're continuing to misrepresent my stance and are still failing to acknowledge that a catholic newspaper is in any way biased towards a catholic perspective. You claim this guy is an expert but don't blink at all when the other user claims a leading QC isn't a expert on law. You need to disclose your association with Catholicism and any potential conflict of interest if it exists as does the other user. btw You're quoting his publisher/employer for his credibility just like that rock star example I gave above. RutgerH (talk) 09:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Smitty thank you. You're 100% correct except you've replied to the wrong section. Now apply that standard to the Catholic papers claiming the pope is the greatest. RutgerH (talk) 09:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Rutger, you seem to be missing the single most important point, which people have explained to you repeatedly - that it DOES NOT MATTER that it is a Catholic magazine(which it actually isn't). It is entirely, completely, and utterly, irrelevant. Likewise, the religious affiliation of the users here, which you just asked for, is just a irrelevant.Farsight001 (talk) 10:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's relevant as per WP:RS and so is the potential bias of any editors as per WP:COI. You've clearly missed something as The National Catholic Review and Catholic News are the two sources we're talking about. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills... RutgerH (talk) 13:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No, everybody knows what we are talking about. As for the National Catholic Review Reporter... it's what is called an independent magazine. But you refuse to acknowledge that Catholics can be independent. You have been provided with numerous (repeated) examples of how John Allen is deemed one of the leading Journalist covering the Vatican. You've been provided repeatedly with the fact that NCR is independent and has spoken critically of the Church (to the point of being condemned by the local bishop). But the facts don't stand in your way, they are catholic and thats all that matters right?---that is classic bigotism. Do you believe Catholics are pope-a-trons who give up individuality at the altar?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bigot now? I'm pretty sure they didn't put Catholic in the title just for the fun of it. RutgerH (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In their own words.

The Catholic News, as the official newspaper of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Singapore, shares in the mission of proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ and His Gospel values by providing information, education and a forum for discussion.About Us

So you'll now accept that as a questionable source in that it's promoting an agenda and not independant of the Church?

NCR is the only significant alternative Catholic voiceAbout Us

I think that's pretty clear cut. RutgerH (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Have I once said that the Catholic News is independent of the Church? It doesn't mean that the Catholic News isn't a reliable source---it still is, but you'd have to take into consideration who/what it is. The fact that it is Catholic does not mean that it is not committed to truth/verifiability/etc.

The NCR, however, is independent of the Catholic Church and is recognized as such. It is recognized for being an objective source committed to journalistic integrity.

No I do not pretend that their being Catholic makes them better, heck you do have to use them with care, but being Catholic Newspapers do not make them by definition faulty. It would be parallel to somebody from England saying, you can't trust the New York Times or USA today to report on the President of the USA because they are American Papers. Or that you can't rely on an Israeli newspaper to talk about issues in the Gaza Strip. Take the Huffington Post for example, it is a very liberal news organization, but that does not diminish the fact that it is a reliable source. On the other side you have the Drudge Report. The New York Times is criticize by conservatives as being jaded, while liberals scorn the Wall Street Journal objectivity. Then there is Playboy... You may want other sources, but these sources have shown themselves to be reliable sources. You may prefer sources other than Catholic newspapers/magazines (I would too) but that does not mean taht you can make blanket statements condemning them.

And yes, you have shown yourself to be a religious bigot. You cannot fathom that Catholics can be objective. By your definition, Catholics should not have any voice whatsoever. You might have garnered more sympathy if you had criticized a specific source and given specific reasons why you questioned a specific source, but your reasoning was "Both sources are clearly questionable sources, not reliable sources (Catholic newspapers)". That shows your bias. Even when presented with the facts showing you that Allen is a highly respected journalist and the NCR is independent, you refuse to even entertain the notion that they might be objective and reliable because they are Catholic. That my friend is religious bigotry.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You knew, or at least it seems like you knew, one source was the official paper of a branch of the church yet you failed to mention that and denied they were promotional or in any way biased. You claimed the newspapers were independant three times.

independent magazines/newspapers that chose to make Catholicism their subject or cover issues of interest to Catholics, does not make the source invalid

Just because a source uses the word "Catholic" in its name does not mean that it is not a reliable independent source

Your attempting to compare independent newspapers/magazines with the Vatican's PR office is just disingenous

RutgerH (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice attempt to twist the facts. Actually, no I was not familiar with either source until this past week and it is a nice assumption of bad faith that I deliberately obfuscated the background of the Catholic News. First, I didn't bother to look into the Catholic News article because the article is simply an interview with a Monsignoir---which means that it has to be treated as a primary source! That would be true if it was an interview directly from the Vatican Web Site, USA Today, or in Time Magazine. Second, I never said that the Catholic News was independent---in fact, I never addressed it because it was irrelevent to the discussion. You make the baseless allegation that any magazine with the word "catholic" in the title is questionable and unreliable. We showed (repeatedly) that the NCR is a respected independent magazine and that Allen is a noted respected expert on the subject. That is enough to disprove your biased position. Other independent newspapers/magazines do exist. Each of your mis-quoted comments from above comes from a place where I am rebutting your biased belief that a catholic source is by definition unreliable, in NONE of them are we talking about any specific source. So once again, your logic fails.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Twist the facts by quoting you referring to the sources as independant? This section is about those two sources so if you weren't referring to them what on earth were you referring to?

You're claiming I'm acting on bad faith but you're constantly misrepresenting what I've said, claimed I'm a bigot and was POV pusing because I asked for verifiable sources. Really? You've said yet again I'm biased by you have failed to show ANY example of this that isn't just based on your bad faith assumptions of my position. As I've said before cite my statements, quote me. You're still making a misprepresentation of my opinion regarding the use of the word 'catholic' and their use as the only source for that statement.

You're now changing your stance on one of the sources by claiming it's primary and not RS like you've tried to claim all along? This entire discussion is about those sources being questionable so to claim that's irrelevant to the discussion is just silly? Keep digging that hole. RutgerH (talk) 07:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

1)Fact: I never said anything about the Catholic News being independent---I cited NCR and cited Allen's reputation. Catholic News is irrelevent to this discussion as I'll show below! 2) Fact: The reason why you challenged these sources is because they are "not reliable sources (Catholic newspapers)" and "inherently biased towards that religion ... (the hint is in the name)." These are broad ranging allegations which are not based on any specific aspect of the sources, but rather upon an overarching issue of their being "catholic" magazines/news papers. 3) Fact: Everybody (as far as I can tell) who has weighed in on this subject agrees, your belief that Catholic Newspapers/Magazines are by definition aren't reliable is wrong. 4) Fact: You keep saying that I am misrepresenting what your saying, but beyond making that statement over and over again, you haven't backed it up. In the two places where I made a mistake (the timeline about one of your edits and who introduced the fringe theory), I acknowledge the mistake and ammended my statement. 5) Fact: You have shown your bias repeatedly by holding to the notion that Catholic newspapers/magazines (and to a lesser extent Catholics themselves) are by definition unable to be objective reliable sources. 6) Fact: You framed the question not around these two sources, but around Catholic sources in general! Your challenging of sources might have gone better for you if you provided a reason other than a general wholesale condemnation of every Catholic source. EG, "I don't think we should use {insert name} because of A, B, and C." Heck, I'd be more than willing to listen to reasonable concerns about specific sources. Instead, you turn it into a meta debate, "Since it is a catholic newspaper, it is naturally unreliable." That type of statement definitely paints a cloud over your objectivity. It framed the conversation away from the two specific sources used on the sentence in question, and throws it into the meta discussion "are catholic sources by definition unreliable." It took you almost two days (at 14:21 on April 14) before you addressed either of the sources specifically! Prior to that, the entirety of your argument was that Catholic sources are intrinsically unreliable. A biased position that everybody (that I've seen) disagrees with and paints you as a bigot. (I don't know if you really are, but the view sure is biggoted.) We repeatedly showed NCR/Allen as examples of how your stance is faulty. But you failed to address the evidence provided concerning NCR/Allen. Hell, there is zero indication that you read or understood who/what they are. Instead you continued cast dispersions upon them simply because they are Catholic. Those are the facts.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 08:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Er, the fact that a newspaper is Catholic doesn't mean it's biased, any more than any newspaper published by humans would be "biased in regard to humans". The NCR is an independent American newspaper just like any newspaper, and it's a quality source on all things Vatican. It's comparable to a magazine focusing on, say, Latin America. Such a magazine wouldn't be "biased" in regard to questions concerning Latin America, on the contrary it would be a quality source because of its expertise in that field. The NCR is a quality source in this article because the Catholic Church is its primary focus, yet, it's an independent source. The NCR is not "owned by the Vatican", on the contrary, and it's often critical of the Vatican, and John L. Allen's 2000 biography of Cardinal Ratzinger was actually quite a critical book. Also, the information in question is found in countless sources, not just in the NCR (that particular source was just chosen because it's a high-quality source, you might have noticed that lots of information found in other English sources originally stem from publications by John L. Allen, the leading expert on the Pope's life). I would also like to just point out that the fact that the URL of the article written by Damian Thompson (see above) contains the word "blogs" doesn't make it a blog in the sense of WP:RS. Thompson is a journalist with The Daily Telegraph. His article must be considered as a journalistic piece. Also, your comparison with the human rights lawyer is ridiculous. Allen is an internationally recognized expert on the pope's life (as demonstrated by the fact that vast parts of this article as it has been for the last 5-6 years and a vast number of other English sources are based on his work). Just being some human rights lawyer (which is a different field!) with fringe views doesn't make you an expert on what constitutes a state, when you are in disagreement with nearly every single government in the world (and probably every serious scholar in the field). We've been through these questions now over and over again, you haven't provided us with any real sources or arguments that can be taken seriously (you have not proved that this [the Vatican not being a state] is a credible/mainstream view, just that one random human rights lawyer holds this view, which is irrelevant), and I think it's time to take off your suit. Jeannedeba (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)