Jump to content

Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 23

Pope Palpatine?

Did anyone notice that this article is linked by "Pope Palpatine"? Grimreape513 (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That page has been deleted. Not by me, but by someone else. Micasta (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I nominated it quite awhile ago. Gavin (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Migrants and refugees

i think this section needs to be balanced with information about the vatican city stance on these issues, because as the faith says a man is judges by his needs not by his words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.248.225 (talk) 04:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the recent calls to act against racism...which some see as an attack on Berlusconi? Gavin Scott (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Books by Pope

Can we have specific articles about books which was written by Pope Benedict XVI?--Vojvodaeist 16:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

We can, if you can include enough sources etc to make a good little article...no real point in just creating a stub. Try and make them go places :) Gavin Scott (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless there are two books titled The God Of Jesus Christ, Benedict XVI didn't write it. That book is authored by another German Cardinal, Walter Kasper. I own a copy of it from my seminary days. I didn't change it in case there actually are two books with the same title.--Kjrjr (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

After waiting for response and futher looking into the Authorship of the God of Jesus christ, I have removed it from the list of books by BXVI. That work was by Cardinal Walter Kasper not the pope. --Kjrjr (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

What's the wiki policy on Edited volumes? i.e. The Essential PB XVI edited by Thornton and Varenne. I didn't see it listed.

Mother from South Tyrol

"His mother's family was originally from Bolzano-Bozen (Italy)" I would assume that his mother left Bozen before it was annexed by the Italians. In either case, please add a source. --85.181.231.100 (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Condemnation of War in Iraq

This is not mentioned in article. article is pure/obvious partisan wash —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.143.204.162 (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Languages

Among languages pope Benedict fluently speaks is spanish missing.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Marketaklara (talk • contribs) 12:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Half a sentence missing for more than half a year!

Does any editor ever read this page? I was just wondering what the weird sentence "the following passage from the Pope's speech" was doing at Pope Benedict XVI#Islam, and found out that it's been there since May, when the first half of the sentence ("Muslims were particularly angry at") was removed.[1] I've reinserted it, but I'm rather surprised that no one noticed that half a sentence was missing in the article for more than half a year so far. Makes me wonder if people even read our articles. --Conti|✉ 21:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Critics against Benedict XVI

Arcigay or german LSVD critic Benedict XVI, because of his speech on 22 December, 2008.

I have undone edits related to this due to the fact that quotes were taken out of context, original research is stated as to what he is actually stating. There are multiple issues with what was placed in the article including POV, undue weight and recentism. Marauder40 (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Really, your good sense should tell you that this kind of censorship isn't going to stand. "Recentism" doesn't mean we don't report recent events, only that we don't overemphasize them. A few short sentences in a long article is not an overemphasis, and there have been and will be more papal pronouncements on gay issues that can be added to the paragraph. Similarly, a paragraph is not out of line in terms of undue weight; the Pope very clearly has rather strong feelings on gay issues and has no compunctions about making them known. There's also no POV issue that I see; if you see one, the appropriate approach is to discuss it, attribute it, or try to fix it, not to remove a whole section because of it. The strong POV in the quotations is the pope's, and it's attributed; it hasn't been written into the pope's remarks by a Wikipedian. - Outerlimits (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
This is not censorship. "My good sense" tells me that many people are taking one phrase out of an extremly large speech and placing undo emphasis on it. POV pushing is going on pure and simple. This is very similar to the address where Muslims took one paragraph out of a huge address and placed undue emphasis on it. The paragraph as stands does not state the opposing viewpoint. If you read the references (two of which are not valid since one is in German and the other only provides part of the story) you will see this quote. "Father Federico Lombardi, a Vatican spokesman, claimed the pope had not wished specifically to attack homosexuality, and had not mentioned gays or lesbians in his text." This is what you get when you have people taking words out of context and trying to apply them to whatever cause is important to them. I have cleaned up the POV section and made it reflect the actual reference. I still believe this section stinks of recentism and undue weight but at least it now reflects what really was said instead of POV. I also think the German article needs to be removed since this is the English wiki, I am sure someone can come up with some organization calling the remarks homophopic in an English article.Marauder40 (talk) 13:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, blanking a section because you're annoyed by it and disagree with it is censorship. You introduced some additional problems which I've repaired. German references are perfectly valid. And yes, I'm sure you can find additional references in English. - Outerlimits (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Remember to assume good faith, Outerlimits. It was written in a rather non NPOV way. Nor is the statement very notable, as it is nothing new. He has made similar statements in the past and he will make them again in the future. We do not need to note it in this article every time it happens - especially not the the extent that it was.Farsight001 (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, the current pope has a long history with regard to homosexuality - most of which you just removed, and which I have restored. The homosexuality section shouldn't just deal with his latest pronouncement, but with his long history dealing with homosexuals. Sorry, but we need to cover this, whether you like it or not, so I suggest you try to make whatever changes you feel necessary rather than try to delete it out of existence. - Outerlimits (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The problem was that the original edit as written was extremly POV and violated many wiki policies including the fact the text inserted didn't even correctly reflect the references given. It isn't my job to rewrite a very poorly written section. I removed and said why I removed it. That is not "blanking" or "censorship". It is then up to the original editor to rewrite it and/or come to concensus. Since some people insisted it be added, I rewrote the section to be a little less POV. Most of my edit still exists in the article. Which editor is behaving more in the spirit of Wiki, someone that accuses someone of "blanking", not having "good sense", "censorship", etc. or someone that is actively editing a section and rewriting things in a less POV way. Marauder40 (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I recommend this discussion ends and rather than arguing about who is the better editer we move back to how best to improve the article. Gavin (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have reorganised the Homosexuality section because it started with the 2008 speech which to me made it seem like the speech was the defining moment of Bene's campaign against homosexuality. Of course it wasn't and hardly even (if at all) addressed the issue and so the 2008 speech was given and is still given undue weight. However I think its now been balenced with his work as Prefect of the CDF and a little more research into some of the other pronouncements he has made will sort out the section. I recall he made moves to exclude all homosexuals from the Clergy or something like that recently...which hasn't really been mentioned and is a little more important than the 2008 speech. Gavin (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"Homophobic"

The section on the Pope's views on homosexuality quotes (toward the end) that some organizations labelled his statements as "homophobic," and it uses the quotation marks. The quotation marks should be removed. The use of quotation marks creates a pejorative or dismissive feel toward the statements made by the organizations that critized the Pope. In actuality, his statements are, indeed, homophobic, according to the conventional meaning of the term, in the sense that they disagree with a gay-affirmative position. If the authors of the section wish to use quotation marks as a way of underscoring the fact that they are quoting the organizations who criticized the Pope, then they should give a longer quote from these organizations' statements, instead of simply putting "homophobic" in quotation marks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.145.226.46 (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That's called scare quotes and is clearly biased. See WP:NPOVREASON. --84.153.90.195 (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

We use the "..." to indicate that this article is not labeling the Pope or his views as anything- calling them homophobic would be a POV...this way it is Neutral. Gavin (talk) 07:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

What part of "Neutral distancing" do you think applies? (I can't see that the word homophobia is "unusual, colloquial, folksy, startling, humorous, or metaphoric" nor that use/mention distinction applies.) And it is certainly curious that the word appears in scare quotes when it is used by Arcigay and LSVD, where it is already attributed and no quotations are needed, but does not appear in scare quotes when a Vatican document is said to 'condemn homophobic attacks' rather than to 'condemn "homophobic" attacks'. In short, these are being used as sneer quotes, and are editorializing rather than avoiding editorialization. The sneer quotes need to be removed. - Outerlimits (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
It is a direct quote from those articles: They called the Pope homophobic, homophobia and what constitutes as it is a POV. We can not have a POV on wiki- "They may indicate special terminology that should be identified for accuracy's sake as someone else's, for example if a term (particularly a controversial term) pre-dates the writer or represents the views of someone else" (From neutral distancing). Look at the sentence: groups such as the Italian Arcigay and German LSVD have labelled his comments as "homophobic"- we are quoting what the article says they have labelled his comments as- the quotes are not even scare quotes and are perfectly fine. Gavin (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
No, the non-snide way to report this is: Groups such as the Italian Arcigay and German LSVD have labelled his comments as homophobic. You don't need any quotes to convey who has said the Pope's remarks are homophobic: it's the whole point of the sentence. So we need to remove the sneer quotes if we want to avoid giving the impression that Wikipedia sneers at their statement - because that's a very real and very bad POV problem. - Outerlimits (talk) 08:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
They don't, it is a quote- it is distancing Wiki from the opinions of the articles and thus ensuring a NPOV. Gavin (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
In general such quotes should be avoided, or more of the relevant quote given, as using them for a single word can constitute scare quoting and contribute to a non-neutral read. In this particular case, care needs to be taken as this word has a double meaning, or at least usage: the longstanding nominal one of a certain type of bigotry, and a more recent one of holding certain contrary opinions. As the OP concurs with this particular usage being the second type, it would be proper per BLP to attribute the usage as much as possible, so as to avoid this ambiguity. A fuller quote is preferable than doing nothing, but no quotes would be worse. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Avoiding using the term "homophobia" as a term (by eliminating the verb "labelled") allows us to avoid the sneer quotes. - Outerlimits (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Judaism

The Judaism section has been given a bit of an overhaul- lots of important information that should have been there was missing. If anyone would care to give it a look over and feedback, edit etc. I think this section is going to get a lot more traffic soon, as Pius XII gets closer to canonisation (or so the rumours go) and the SSPX thing will only get bigger when the Congregation for Bishop's finally gives Williamson something to do. Gavin (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Good first pass, with a more balanced flow from point to point. I have been recently trimming the verbiage (although not the sources) of the issues with Williamson as we should be careful not to let this article become a coatrack about his misconceptions. As the whole subsection is fleshed out more, returning some seems OK. But let's be aware of the issue. Baccyak4H (Yak!)

what is the problem to mention the protest by the French Jews, It is just few words?Oren.tal (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Why would it be relevant? Cush (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
because it is reflect the Jewish response to the Catholic decision.Of course there are other things as well.But that give the full picture.Oren.tal (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Also it show that the condemnation come from the individual Jews and not only form organizations.Oren.tal (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Questions: was the lift of excommunication started before or after the interview in Swedish media was made? I believe that since two years (or so) ago, holocaust denial is a criminal offense in all EU member states (per EU law), then why have no charges been put forward against Williamson? This should be clarified in the article. And as for the relavancy of Jewish protests against any papal conduct: Jews (15 million) are just not numerous enough to give the Roman Catholic Church (1.2 buillion) or its pope a headache. A pope can just sit and wait. Cush (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
To Oren.tal, this Judaism Williamson thing is filled with needless information- it does not contribute to the POPE'S article and should be put on a seperate article, Willamson's or a Benedict and the Jews article. Not here, it is filling out space needless. To Cush, Williamson and whether or not he is being charged should not be clarified in this article, only in his own article. Gavin (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
you are free to create a separate article about this issue.right now this is sub article about the relation of the pope and the Jews and this information is need to reflect the reality of the relationship between the Jews and the pope.As long as this is the sub article about the pope and the Jews is here than it should be here as well.You can of course create from it article for itself and then move the all issue.Oren.tal (talk) 10:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
It is not at all clear that all of this information is needed, though clearly one might think so. However, the issue which you do not show evidence of understanding is that there is just too much information about this particular indident/topic in this article. If that section read the same way it read now 100 years from now, it would sound completely absurd. As it stands, it is simply excessive. The article would be improved by summarizing the topic more.
The idea of a separate article might be reasonable as I suspect there is a lot of scholarship and good sourcing available on the topic. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
this pope's action created more impact from the Jews than any other pope action 9that were related to them like canonization of pius XII).This few words are not what will make this section too long.Oren.tal (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Um, there have been myriads of things written about Pius's historical legacy and his canonization controversy, among them books and TV documentaries. Your claim, as heartfelt as it is, is quite frankly absurd. Even five years from now, Pius's canonization discussions will still be making waves, in one way or another. Williamson and SSPX will be a footnote. Please read about recentism, that will help clarify ways to write about this. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it will be relevant for people to know who the Jews have reacted to the decision.Oren.tal (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I do see the merit in that. However, that would be better served by giving more detail on either the Society's article, Williamson's article, or perhaps both. (I haven't read either yet, so maybe they both already do; I am just making a point.) The notability of Benedict is so broad and deep that it's inappropriate to have so much detail here. The notability of the other two topics is much smaller (albeit still worth articles of course), so the relative importance of these actions and reactions is higher. And wikilinks from this article to those articles could be our friends. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I am fine by adding more information from all sides.Oren.tal (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Williamson

Williamson is mentioned because the decision to lift the excommunications of him. That issue is mention is the sub article about Judaism because the that decision has outraged many Jews. Sine he is already mentioned there I think it important to mention some of his opinion regard the Vatican. For example like the fact that he believes that the Vatican is controlled by Satan.Oren.tal (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That is not relevant to the Judaism section. Indeed, too much of that section is dedicated to Williamson- the real problem with Catholic-Jewish relations is Pius XII, it has been a consistent theme since 2005. Anyway, Williamson- his views that the Vatican is controlled by Satan, those belong in HIS article and possibly in the "dissident Catholics" section- as a sentence at most. Gavin (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
the Judaism section is part of an article about the pope.The most important figure in the Catholic church.As such it is very relevant what Williamson believe abut the Catholic church. I mean if there is a decision to welcome him and he is mentioned then it is only fair to mentioned that he believe that the Catholic church is controlled by Satan..22:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Williamson deserves mention but only briefly; this is an encyclopedia not a news outlet. The whole Vatican/Satan thing is completely misplaced here. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
mentioning this is not more than mentioning him briefly.Oren.tal (talk) 07:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Let's not forget, that we would really need multiple sources that he actually did say Vatican controlled by Satan- it seems a bit odd that only one artcle has mentioned it. Also, it is still irrelevant to the Judaism and this section as a whole. It doesn't belong. Gavin (talk) 07:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality

„Aurelio Mancuso, head of Arcigay, noted that the speech had no scientific basis, saying "A divine programme for men and women is out of line with nature, where the roles are not so clear."“

Well, pure hard science (Natural science) is telling us „nothing“ about „ A divine programme for men and women“, because thats something no human being can prove or disprove with the scientific method. This sound more like metaphysics and ethics/morality, about the human nature. Therefore I think that „ noted that the speech had no scientific basis“ should be removed. What do you think? --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I found the whole paragraph somewhat confusing, although perhaps its a translation artifact. I have no objections to the removal. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
That section does need retouching again, I did it quite a while ago but this article really needs to be kept on top of otherwise paragraphs get fragmented and confusing like Cyrus said. Gavin (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Template

I added the revised "Roman Catholicism" template to the lead sectiom, plus the papal arms as a separator. I think the template is needed in the article to link important Catholicism articles, and there is space for it there.Xandar 00:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The camerlengo link in the overview links to the wrong camerlengo page. It should lead to the Camerlengo_of_the_Holy_Roman_Church article. Can this be fixed? I can't, so I thought i should notify someone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jderonde (talk • contribs) 18:16, 5 March 2009

Sorted. Thanks for pointing this out. Vilĉjo (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Pope Benedict and Judaism

Should there be an independent article on the Pope's relations with Jews, as there already is with Pope Benedict XVI and Islam ? ADM (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely! I have often thought about starting it...but never had the time. P.s. has everyone read the letter he sent to the Bishops concerning Williamson? Gavin (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Otherwise every fringe group the pope has relations to must have its own article about said relations. Cush (talk) 09:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, I also created Pope John Paul II and Judaism, because Wojtyla had a very special relationship with the Jews. In general, the Papal pages tend to get very cluttered up over interfaith relations, this is why I feel that splitting them can be a good thing. It must be made clear the the Pope is the leader of the (Roman Catholic) Church, and is not the leader/head of all religions in the world (including Islam and Tibetan Buddhism). Therefore, this distinction or separation of content would be either necessary or at least very helpful. ADM (talk) 09:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to respond to Cush's worries, the Pope's relationship with Judaism is a major part of his pontificate. If you think about the major events of his Papacy so far, Jewish relations are involved in many i.e. reinstating the Trad Mass with Good Friday prayer, Pope Pius XII controversy, lifting the excommunications of the SSPX bishops, appointment of hard-liners in the Curia- perceived as a trouble with Jews. His relations with the Jews warrant an article more than relations with Islam does. Gavin (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Pope Benedict and Ecumenism

I created a page for Judaism after Gavin Scott agreed with the idea. Do you think that a similar page on Ecumenism (ie relations with other Christians) would also be appropriate ? See also Pope John Paul II's relations with the Eastern Orthodox Church for example. ADM (talk) 08:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The material exists, and you did a good job with the last one. I say go for it! Gavin (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

4.2 Choice of Name

Under 4.2 Choice of name, the first line states:

Ratzinger chose the pontifical name Benedict, which in Latin means "the blessed"

This is incorrect. Benedict comes from the Latin word Benedictus, which means the blessed. Benedict itself is not a Latin word and would thus mean nothing in Latin.

I don't know how, since this article is locked, but could someone please correct this? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.133.42 (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but "Benedict" is the English form of the name he adopted. Wouldn't the Latin form be "Benedictus?" McGehee (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I have checked the habemus papam and his name was announced as "Benedicti". From my latin studying days I recall Sextus was also called Sexti and therefore I would assume that the Pope's latin name is indeed Benedictus. Well done McGehee! Gavin (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok Latin scholars out there, check me on this, but I think Benedictus traces back to "good word" or "good speech". This could (and probably is) synonymous with "blessing", after all that is what a blessing IS, sort of. But I think "good word" is a more primal root translation. Bigmac31 (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary has it as, "I speak well". Gavin (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Case endings:

  • nominative benedictus
  • vocative benedicte
  • accusative benedictum
  • genitive benedicti
  • dative & ablative benedicto

Benedict is English. The name means blessed. Peter jackson (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Benedictus does translate into English as "blessed"; in Latin the verb it comes from can be split into bene dicere, literally, to speak well, or to say nice things. However, its opposite maledicere is used idiomatically to mean to curse, hence benedicere logically means to bless.
Nuttyskin (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Il papa gattaro

Credo che gli americani stiano confondendo Benedetto con Anna Magnani. Questa robaccia non è per niente enciclopedica --93.146.201.149 (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Es porque los cristianos estan cambiando la página para eliminar la información negativa. 64.134.252.10 (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Senza dubbio, nessun puo' confonderlo con Magnus Hirschfeld.
Nuttyskin (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

Shouldn't we add a section with all the criticism surrounding Mr. Razitger? Most articles about living people have them. Example: Noam Chomsky's Wiki entry. I think it's fair to the people that disagree with him. Wikipedia also recommends to add some controversies at the introduction of each article and this one doesn't have any of the many controversies we can find about 'The Pope'.Andrewire (talk) 14:09 BST, 07 May 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 13:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC).

There are many criticisms throughout the article, especially in the section on his political views. Per Wiki guidelines criticism sections are not really appropriate, sort of a easy mans way of editing an encyclopedia and usually lead to POV judgements on the subject of the article. Criticisms should be intergrated into the article, not seperate sections. Marauder40 (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. I personally think that criticisms of figures, institutions, etc., should be featured as a separate section in the article. Just like you can see it in Pope John Paul II's article. That way is easier for readers to go to a specific information rather than reading the whole article in search of a specific thing. --Andrewire (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
That goes against project consensus, mainly because it makes for poor articles, even if nominally balanced. By incorporating all relevant and duly weighted context in together, the reader gets a better sense of the overall picture, without the article reading like a transcript from a high school debate club meeting. So I disagree on this point: it is actually easier for the reader in the status quo to find specific information using the ToC (the one exception would be the one who wishes to find any critiques without regard to the specific subtopic). Otherwise, to get the whole picture the reader needs to jump around. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Update please

PLEASE update the info on this page:

A spokesman from Vatican stated today Pope was "never, never, never" in th Hitler Youth. Here the reference:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242029508906&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.105.70.136 (talk • contribs)

I think the page should stay as it is, despite the gaffe. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

SSPX

I changed the description of the SSPX from "anti-semetic" to "traditionalist Catholic." The SSPX is not widely regarded as anti-semetic, and the Superior General of it has denouced Williamson's holocaut denial.--Msl5046 (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

this was undone a little while ago with the note "see talk page" but I don't see an addition. So I've revised the wording, to read a group accused of antisemitism. I think it is POV to call the group anti-semetic, but perfectly legit (especially in context) to say they have been accused of such.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
In fact, SSPX is widely regarded as antisemitic. I already added sources attesting to this fact:

  • "The latest issue of the SSPX's newsletter for German-speaking countries ... contains several anti-Semitic statements. 'The Jewish people were once the chosen people. But the majority of the people denied the Messiah on his first coming,' reads the February issue's cover story .... According to the newsletter article, this is why the Bible's Gospel of Matthew states, 'His blood be upon us and upon our children,' a phrase historically used by some Christians to justify anti-Semitism."

    - Spiegel Online
  • "SSPX has promoted theological and conspiratorial anti-Semitism among its adherents." - Anti-Defamation League
  • "The [web]site from Germany ... clarifies that 'contemporary Jews are for sure guilty of the murder of God, as long as they don't recognize Christ as God.'" - Haaretz --GHcool (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Adding sources opining that the group is anti-semetic does not make the claim relevant or NPOV. There certainly may be anti-semetic members of the organization, but that doesn't make the organization such...especially when the Superior General himself denounces the offending member and his views. Also, saying that "the Jewish people were once the chosen people..." is hardly anti-semetic. It's pretty much mainstream Christian theology, and not derogatory. If failing to recognize Jews as chosen people is anti-semetic, that would pretty much make all non-Jews anti-semetic. Stating that the group is anti-semetic in this article is really quite POV, not to mention irrelevant to the article and just outright non-encyclopedic. --anietor (talk) 04:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The new wording I introduced solves the issue. Gavin (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The issue isn't whether or not the Jews are the chosen people. The issue is that SSPX accepts the Jewish deicide canard as true. This is classic antisemitism. --GHcool (talk) 06:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Then provide a citation to that effect. Right now, I've seen statements from one of the Bishops who i agree is anti-semetic. I've also seen comments from Germany, which are anti-semetic. But I would need to see something showing that the foundation of the organization accepts this anti-semetism before I'd accept a defacto statement that the group is (as a whole) anti-semetic. The allegations that it is, is undeniable. The fact that there are elements of the group that are, is undeniable. Before I accept it as such, I'd need to see something proving it--preferably from a neutral source. (EG the Anti-Deflamation League is not a neutral source.)---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Is Haaretz a neutral source? According to an article in Haaretz:

"[SSPX's] official U.S. Web site described Jews as 'the enemy of man, whose secret weapon is the leaven of the Pharisees which is hypocrisy,' adding that 'heads of Jewry have for centuries conspired methodically and out of an undying hatred against the Catholic name.' The South African site said that 'Jews have come closer and closer to fulfilling their substitute-Messianic drive towards world dominion.' The Irish site asks whether 'the Jews are guilty of Deicide,' answering: 'We must say yes.' The site from Germany ... clarifies that 'contemporary Jews are for sure guilty of the murder of God, as long as they don't recognize Christ as God.' The Belgian site accuses Jews of ... 'awaiting world domination.' The Austrian site warns that the Jewish organization B'nai Brith ... 'commands the entire world.'"

--GHcool (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you have the actual links to the cited sections of the SSPX web sites? I don't think Haaretz' article is enough. If these various web sites have offending statements, we should be analyzing them directly. --anietor (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The SSPX was wise enough to take down the pages with the offending quotations. I do not know how to retrieve them, but here are a list of URLs to the offending pages if anybody is interested and able to get a backup somehow. I fail to see why the Haaretz article is not enough. Haaretz is not just a website. It is the Israeli equivalent of the New York Times and is universally regarded as a reliable, neutral source. --GHcool (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
It's the difference between fact (X criticizes Y for anti-semetic statements) and opinion (Y is anti-semetic). This is an encyclopedia, and different than an article in Haaretz, or NY Times, etc. Besides...by your own admission the web sites have been purged of anti-semetic language. If you have something CURRENT and OFFICIAL from SSPX, let's discuss and analyze it before Wikipedia decides that SSPX is an anti-semetic organization. --anietor (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Anietor, I am convinced that "labeled by many as antisemitic" is less POV than "antisemitic." I expect that the examples of antisemitism cited to three reliable sources will be honored and not censored. WP:NPOV is not the only Wikipedia policy that applies here. Thank you. --GHcool (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
If Williamson was the sole voice or the other leaders of the SSPX echoed what he said, then yes, I would agree. The problem is that with large groups such as the SSPX, you often have different voices. There are definitely voices in the SSPX that are anti-semetic. Williamson is not alone, which is undoubtably where some of those quotes you mentioned about come from. But even then, the question becomes are those statements official position statements or are they the articles/pages written by individuals within the SSPX? The fact that the group took down the offensive material, has been critical of Williamson's position, and other actions makes it less black and white. It would be tantamount to saying that the Republican Party is homophobic because a small percentage of the group is, or that the Democratic party is communistic because a small percentage of the group is. Both of those positions can be supported with quotes from people in positions of power within both political parties, but that does not make it. As for the Jewish newspaper? It still is focusing on a specific clientelle and represents an agenda. The NY Times/Washington Post are fine respected newspapers, but that doesn't mean that they are always neutral and unbiased.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
GHcool, You may be convinced about what is POV and what isn't, but I'm not sure you've convinced anyone else. First of all, you are not being censored. I do not believe that your calling the SSPX "antisemitic" keeps being revised merely because someone finds it offensive, but rather because it truly isn't a neutral point of view. If you look at the following points on the NPOV page, you may see where we are coming from:
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements
At this point, all we know from your sources, is that the SSPX has been labeled by many as anti-Semitic. We cannot infer from that, tempting as it may be, that the group itself (as a whole) is anti-Semitic. "Resist the temptation to apply labels or moralize—readers will probably not take kindly to being told what to think. Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide."--Msl5046 (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: I just dropped a note at the SSPX talk page regarding this discussion.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Personally, I think this is more of a discussion oriented for the SSPX page. This page is about the Pope, not the SSPX. The fact that the SSPX is or is not anti-semetic should not override the focus of this page. IMO, it is enough that many organizations believe it to be so. That being said, it is the Pope's job to reconcile the black sheep of the family---and in so doing, hopefully, curtail some of their more extreme positions. Even if the SSPX is anti-semetic, the Pope has to have a dialog/relations going with them before he can really do anything. And what do the various 'critics' want him to do? Ignore members of his flock? The Catholic Church has an ideal, that ideal is that it is one church. It is not like Protestant Churches where you have a different church with a different heirarchy on every corner. If the Pope doesn't work with them, then they go unchecked.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Msl5046 has a good argument. I've decided to let the facts speak for themselves. I'm reverting this censorship edit so that the relevant passage reads:

"... Society of St. Pius X, a traditionalist Catholic organization which has been labeled by many as antisemitic for engaging in perpetuating the Jewish deicide and Jewish world domination plot canards in its official newsletters and on several of its websites internationally (although the offending websites have been removed since the controversy surrounding the bishops' reinstatement)."

All of the above are facts properly cited to reliable sources in the footnotes. I agree not to say anything like "SSPX is anti-semitic." "SSPX has been labeled antisemitic for reasons A, B, and C" seems reasonable and in line with Wikipedia policy. --GHcool (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem here is that this is not an article about the SSPX, this is an article about Pope Benedict XVI. I'll have to look at it when I get a chance, but the concern I have centers on undue weight. The issue with the SSPX is but a blimp on the radar of the papacy, the stuff you want to include would better fit on the SSPX pages, but I'm not sold on having more than a sentence or two here.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


GHCool, it is unnecessary to explain why people consider the SSPX to be anti-Semitic in this article. That is for the SSPX article. All this article needs state is that people DO consider them to be anti-Semitic. Gavin (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that he wants to place the tag "they are anti semetic" as compared to something like "are considered" or "have been labelled." He wants to make it black or white, which, IMO, is not accurate. Are there anti-semetic elements in the group? Yes. Have they been labelled anti-semetic? Yes. Are they anti-semetic? Not necessarily.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
A good solution would be to attribute both the critique and the consideration of SPXX to the common source. That is, something like "X [thought it problematic that] Benedict [SSPX details], an organization they claim is antisemetic". If you cannot find a common source, then it raises questions about reliability of either single claim. But in no way should a listing of the organization's purported antisemetic sins be in this article. This is about the sitting pope, and to do so would be flagrant coatracking and an abuse of WP:WEIGHT. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I have been convinced that it is not Wikipedia's role to call SSPX antisemitic. Whether they are antisemitic a matter of opinion. Whether they perpetuate "the Jewish deicide and Jewish world domination plot canards in its official newsletters and on several of its websites internationally (although the offending websites have been removed since the controversy surrounding the bishops' reinstatement)" is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact verified by reliable sources. I must insist on including these facts for context as to the controversial relationship Benedict's has with Judaism. Please feel free to suggest ways in which the facts may be presented in a more neutral tone, but do not censor facts. --GHcool (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it is ok as a footnote. As for facts it is also a fact that Williamson is currently without role in the SSPX due to his Holocaust Denial statements and has been warned that if he repeats them he will be excluded from the SSPX. It is also a fact that the SSPX has made efforts, for instance taking down the offensive materials, in this arena. The point isn't that the SSPX is/is not anti-semetic, but rather that this is not the place for those statements. Now, if you want to discuss these facts on the SSPX page, that is a different story, but here all we need to do is report that the reason why the controversy exists is because of Williams and the belief that the SSPX is anti-semetic. If people want more information on either of those, they can follow the links.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The "facts" if they are indeed true, we only have the website's word for that. Do not belong in a brief summary of Benedict's relations with Judaism in this article. The belong in the Pope Benedict and Judaism article or the SSPX article where more lengthy consideration is given to these matters. Not here. Gavin (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Williamson

Ok, I know it is true, otherwise I would remove it right now. But without a reference, the stuff about Williamson is technically a BLP violation. It needs a reference immediately, or it will be removed.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the refs, I knew they were there, just didn't have time to look for them... but as it was, without refs, they were BLP vios.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Spoken languages

Why isn't Spanish listed in the fluent spoken languages? In the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops website "Quick Facts" section (cited as a reference in the article) Spanish is listed as a spoken language by the Pope. Seems to me the one that edited that section copied it from the USCCB website and listed out Spanish. After all wikipedia seems like the free encyclopedia, where people can contribute by writting what they want to hear. Could the editor of the page or the one that edited that section of the article re-edit the section and list Spanish as a spoken language or give a reference to the currently spoken languages listed in the article. Thank you.

"Along with his native German, Benedict speaks fluent Italian, French, English, Spanish and Latin. He can read ancient Greek and biblical Hebrew." From the USCCB website http://www.usccb.org/comm/popebenedictxvi/benedictfacts.shtml 74.61.44.157 (talk) 03:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Judaism criticism section errors

Ok another problem with the section. Right now the wording is such:

The two most prominent instances were the reinstitution of the Tridentine Mass, calling for the conversion of the Jews to Catholicism, and the reinstatement of four bishops from the Society of St. Pius X, a traditionalist Catholic organisation which has been labelled by many as antisemitic. Let's over look the fact that in that list of two prominent instances, there are three items, but the first two are not unique to Benedict XVI. Every pope since Peter has called for the conversion of the Jews. Like it or not, it is part of the Christian charter to call for the conversion of non-believers. This is not unique to Catholicism nor is it new with Benedict XVI. Second, the reinstitution of the Tridentine Mass? As far as I know the Tridentine Mass has been said for centuries. When Vatican II came out, there were some under the SSPX that continued to say it with the blessings of Rome. When the SSPX had their falling out, the Fraternity of Peter became the principle organization that continued to say the mass in the original latin form. Additionally, while those are the two largest organizations, there have been numerous smaller groups that have continued to say it with (and without) the blessing of Rome. Now Benedict has allowed for and encouraged the adaption of the wider use of the Latin Mass, but it is not a reinstitution of the Latin Mass.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Also, the four bishops were not reinstated, their excommunication was lifted. Their orders are still considered valid, but illicit and they continue to operate without Canonical Jurisdiction.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a spin off article about Benedict and Judaism which might benefit from expounding those common issues, but perhaps the articles on Catholic/Jewish relations would even be better places. I know I haven't chipped in here much lately, but it seems this article goes through periodic spells when it moves towards being a coatrack for these otherwise common standard comparative issues. I support consolidating that content. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
which calls for the conversion of the Jews to Catholicism, much better wording than what was there originally. I had read calling for the conversion of the Jews to Catholicism as a separate issue, not an explaination of the concern related to the Tridentine Mass. I think we are slowing getting to a working compromise.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
Delist--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Notified: Str1977 (talk · contribs), Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs), Baccyak4H (talk · contribs), Anietor (talk · contribs), Oren.tal (talk · contribs), Gavin Scott (talk · contribs), Rickyrab (talk · contribs), Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany, Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity, Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism, Wikipedia:WikiProject Italy, Wikipedia:WikiProject Vatican City, Wikipedia:WikiProject European Microstates--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
As part of the GA Sweeps, I am placing this article on hold. It is a very high quality article that does not meet the current standard of citation. It often has entire paragraphs without any citation and at times even almost entire sections have no references. Furthermore, the article ends with a multitude of {{fact}} tags. This is inexcusable for a WP:GA. I hope this can be corrected in a week or so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll get on it asap! Gavin (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The concerns have gone virtually unaddressed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect usage of "modernist" in Academic Career:1951-77

"He was viewed during the time of the Council as a reformer, cooperating with radical Modernist theologians like Hans Küng and Edward Schillebeeckx." The phrase "radical Modernist" is inaccurate, "moderinism" is a particular heresy condemned in the late 19th early 20th century, whether Küng and Schillebeeckx fit this category later is debatable, but had they been Modernists, much less "radical modernists" at the time of the Council they would have been condemned. If you want to say "ultra-progressive" that might be closer to a purely descriptive term but is still somewhat loaded. Brmattop (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

ADL

ADL for the person who removed the reference from the ADL. You can't remove the citation wherein a group makes a claim citing bias, and in the same edit ask for clairification on who made said claim. EG the ADL says X. Well, we can't trust the ADL, so I'll remove the comment. Now who says X? Well, the ADL. Also, the piece about the Latin Mass, the wording was added to make it clear that the reason why the Latin Mass is a controversy is because of the prayer about lifting the veil. That is not a separate piece, but a clarification of the Mass piece.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The pope's biography is not the place to make advertising for the views of an extremist organisation like the ADL. The wording "the Tridentine Mass, which asks God to lift the veil so they may be delivered from their darkness" is completely inappropriate and misleading (and as such, POV). Christians prey for the conversion of all peoples, and if the Tridentine Mass should be addressed, it should be so in a much more balanced way, not using selective quotes out of context. Furthermore, labelling the Society of St. Pius X as anti-semitic is completely unacceptable. Using much space to discuss an unimportant bishop is not appropriate in the biography of the Pope either. UweBayern (talk) 06:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but the historical reality is that when the Pope relaxed the conditions on the Tridentine Mass, there was a large out cry from Judaic groups because of the single passage from the Good Friday Prayer. This event received wide scale coverage, do a quick search if you don't believe me, but the reality is that many Jewish groups found this to offensive.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
In a quick search, Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley met yesterday afternoon with about 20 Jewish community leaders in Boston to discuss concerns over the Vatican's decision to lift the excommunication of Bishop Richard Williamson or The Italian episcopal conference had planned a day of dialogue Jan. 16 with leaders of Judaism, just ahead of the annual Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. The rabbis, however, declined to participate because of Benedict XVI's approval of this prayer. or recent letter to bishops authorizing wider use of the 1962 Roman Missal, commonly referred to as the Latin Mass, has provoked strong reactions from Jews and Catholics worldwide who are committed to furthering the historic work of reconciliation begun at the Second Vatican Council ... the 1962 Roman Missal was not informed by Nostra Aetate and later church teachings on Catholic-Jewish relations. That missal (sometimes called the Missal of John XXIII) contains a prayer for use on Good Friday that singles out Jews for conversion, attributes to them a particular blindness and asks God to lift the “veil from their hearts.” Or this essay by a [ http://compassreview.org/spring08/7.html Jesuit] on the prayer in question. Even the SSPX website acknowledges everal personalities of the Jewish world voiced their concern to see the ancient prayer for the Jews re-introduced into the Roman Rite. It doesn't take much to realize that, right or wrong, the increase of the use of the Latin Mass was received with concern. Before you delete whole sections that have citations, please check the veracity of the subject. And yes, Christians pray for everybody, the Jesuit article I cited above references that fact, but that doesn't change the fact that this particular prayer has been at the forefront of Judaic/Catholic relations for decades.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Presenting opposing views, even fringe views, should not be a problem so long as the "fringe view" is not given so much space, in relation to the rest of the article, as to violate WP:WEIGHT. The problem here, in my opinion, is more one of proper sourcing and proper presentation of NPOV. The sentences that read "The Tridentine Mass includes a prayer that asks God to lift the veil so they [Jews] may be delivered from their darkness. This prayer has historically been contentious in Judaic-Catholic relations and the several groups saw the restoration of the Latin Mass as problematic" has footnotes that, while showing that there is, indeed, a controversy, also indicate that the problematic wording may have been removed. To present proper NPOV, I think this could be stated in the article and then properly sourced, even if using the material already present. It might also be worthwhile to check if someone had access the actual wording of the Mass as approved by Pope Benedict. Any thoughts?
Also, one of the section's footnotes is improperly written and should be fixed or removed. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 05:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Calling the controversy a fringe view is an injustice to the outrage expressed by many segments of the Jewish community. It wasn't just the ADL, as demonstrated by the references, but many within the Jewish community who found the restoration questionable. The problematic wording was removed, in the subsequent version of the Missal. In other words, what was removed due to Vatican II, remained in the prayer that was restored. In 2008, the there was a change in the prayer, but that was a year after the controversy arose. As for the wording, it's avaialble, I used it on another article, Pope_Benedict_XVI_and_Judaism#Tridentine_Mass to correct a misquote that was being perpetuated on the web.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I am not expressing an opinion on the subject nor am I trying to state whether ADL is or isn't a fringe view. I am simply saying, for the benefit of those who feel it is so, that even in that case there is a place for it within an article, as long as it is expressed in a NPOV way and WP:WEIGHT is being respected. Ultimately I do agree with you that the amount of coverage that can be quoted for this give credence that it is not a fringe view. I also feel that the amount of sourcing available is a good standard that should be used in order to determine how "mainstream" or "fringe" an argument is .--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I've been working with people on both sides of this trying to come up with a NPOV way to discuss this. The reason behind having the quote from the prayer is because without it, it is not clear why the tridentine mass created a stir. The controversy really isn't the Mass itself, but rather the prayer in the Mass.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Tittles

I decided to be bold and remove the tagged material from the "Titles" section which lacked proper referencing. Please restore the material if you can add citations to reliable sources. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Offhand position statement in Overview: out-of-place?

While doing some cleanup of citation templates (of which I plan to do more), I found this sentence in the "Overview" section. "Like his predecessor, Benedict XVI maintains the traditional Catholic doctrines on artificial birth control, abortion and homosexuality." While factually beyond reproach, I am questioning its utility of being there in that section. There is a whole later section about his positions, especially for ones which gain attention, such as these. As placed currently, it reads like a subtle effort to fight a culture war, which is not a good idea here.

I propose to simply remove it. As it is in the Overview section, near the important top of the article, I wanted to bring it up here first. Any objections (or encouragements)? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

excellent point, although I wouldn't get rid of it wholesale. I would end the sentence with "traditional Catholic doctrines." The details can then be expounded upon in the article itself.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I like that suggestion. Further feedback welcome. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, get rid of 'the traditional Catholic doctrines."---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I like the new version a lot more, it is much look cleaner and NPOV. Good job. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of source

At present, the article misrepresents the source "The Pope May Be Right" Edward C. Green, Harvard's Aids Prevention Centre http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html" as "scientific support" of the notion that condoms have worsened the AIDS Crisis in Africa. The article (an editorial, not a scientific paper) only supports the idea that the benefit of condoms - while scientifically validated in some places where they have been used - has not been scientifically validated in all such places. The author does not support the pope's position that condom use is counterproductive; in fact he urges providing condoms in the same article. Accordingly, I have placed a "disputed" template to alert the reader that the page provides misinformation, and placed a second tag regarding the misrepresentation of the source. I have tried giving an accurate summary, but it has been reverted; I await further discussion here. I suspect the problem is the headline; while certainly Green says the pope is right about some things, he neither says nor suggests that the pope is right that condoms worsen the AIDS crisis, or that their use and distribution is counterproductive. - Nunh-huh 19:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, this section is POV and unbalanced. In order to work as a wikipedian and make it balanced additional information is necessary. This source clearly provides a different view to the outright black and white criticism offered by others and thus can be used to make this section balanced. Removing this source does not achieve the wikipedia goal of neutrality. Including it and wording it appropriately does.
Secondly, Green - "The best evidence we have supports the Pope’s comments." [1] It would be engaging in original research to reword his comments as not supporting the Pope.
Thirdly, the Pope said "If the soul is lacking, if Africans do not help one another, the scourge [of HIV] cannot be resolved by distributing condoms; quite the contrary, we risk worsening the problem,"
Nunh-huh, currently this section of the article states that the Pope rejects the use of condom use. It does not say that he says they will make it worse, which he didn't - he said it 'risks' making it worse and based on the prob distributions that would have been employed in assessing if condoms work or not there is clearly risk of either 'worse' or 'better'. So based on what the article currently 'represents', the addition of the source in the manner in which it is added is consistent and not-misrepresented. If people are interested then they can open the references and read them to find out more about both Green's exact position and the Pope's exact position, both of which the article is fairly brief on.
Irrelevantly, there are two ways to consider the Pope's position: (1) The Pope/Church's position is that in the ABC strategy you don't need to do C if you are already doing A & B. This is obviously true. Note that this position offers no comment on the people who ignore the Pope/A&B - see next point: (2) In this statement, the Pope said 'if the soul is lacking' (which is likely to mean 'if you ignore A&B') then condoms won't stop HIV, which is what the evidence & Green and others are supporting - you also need A&B, C alone doesn't work.
Here are some more sources:
cambridge uni
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/304/5671/714
Reports
Population-Level HIV Declines and Behavioral Risk Avoidance in Uganda
Rand L. Stoneburner* and Daniel Low-Beer Uganda provides the clearest example that human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is preventable if populations are mobilized to avoid risk. Despite limited resources, Uganda has shown a 70% decline in HIV prevalence since the early 1990s, linked to a 60% reduction in casual sex. The response in Uganda appears to be distinctively associated with communication about acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) through social networks. Despite substantial condom use and promotion of biomedical approaches, other African countries have shown neither similar behavioral responses nor HIV prevalence declines of the same scale. The Ugandan success is equivalent to a vaccine of 80% effectiveness. Its replication will require changes in global HIV/AIDS intervention policies and their evaluation.
Population Health Evaluation Unit, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK.
uni of california & Green again
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Editorials/1113172.html
http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/17429
http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/news/-/2558/525956/-/rku48lz/-/index.html
"the joint United Nations Program on HIV-AIDS, asked a Dr. Norman Hearst, physician and epidemiologist at the University of California, to do a scientific review to see if condom promotions had reversed HIV-AIDS epidemics. His review found the contrary was true. Countries with the most condoms per man tended to have the highest HIV rates. UNAIDS refused to publish Hearst’s findings. “Condom promotion in Africa has been a disaster,” Hearst said."
"Edward Green is director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies. He wrote Rethinking AIDS Prevention: Learning From Successes in Developing Countries and reported that, between 1989 and 2001, the average number of condoms per male ages 15 to 49 in African countries skyrocketed. So did the number of those infected with HIV."Utopial (talk) 03:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
It is not Wikipedia's job to "even out" sides; where one side predominates, it is our job to reflect that predominance. You seek to distort the "argument" by pretending the "sides" are equally supported; that's not something allowed under the NPOV banner, it's the opposite of what we are supposed to do. You suggest that "The best evidence we have supports the Pope’s comments" can be used to argue that Green supports any comment made by the Pope, which is nonsense. If you can find a scientific source that says "condom use worsens the AIDS crisis", then by all means add it (and then we can add all the scientific sources that say otherwise). But the present source does not say that, and this article leads one to believe that it does, which is a gross, and dishonest, misrepresentation. - Nunh-huh 03:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
You consistently make the fallacious statement that the Pope said that condoms definitively worsen HIV in Africa. He did not. He said that there is a risk of HIV worsening (conditional on abstinence and faithfulness being ignored with only condom application). As a result, most of your arguments are rendered invalid:
Pope:"if the soul is lacking, if Africans do not help one another, the scourge [of HIV] cannot be resolved by distributing condoms; quite the contrary, we risk worsening the problem" [2]
Given that the media liked to leave out these key words as well, I'm not surprised that many people don't know exactly what he said.
Your second misunderstanding is that of balance. Balance doesn't mean 'evening out', it means that the article reflects what has been said, which is that the majority of sources were against the Pope's comments whilst there was some support. That is what NPOV means - reflects all POVs in equal proportions.
The article doesn't say that Green supports any comment by the Pope, it says there was some support offered - which is what Green himself said - 'the evidence supports what the Pope said'.Utopial (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Where could I have gotten the "fallacious" idea from? Perhaps it's "Butt, Riazat. "Pope claims condoms could make African Aids crisis worse." The Guardian. 17 March 2009. 17 March 2009.". There is no support in the Green article for that statement, with or without the "could".
As it stands at present, the article says that there was scientific support for the pope's "condemnation of the distribution of condoms in fighting AIDS in Africa". However, the editorial cited specifically endorses the distribution of condoms for fighting AIDS in Africa. The article is egregiously misrepresenting the source cited. - Nunh-huh 06:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
How about looking at what he actually says: The Pope says condoms alone don't help HIV crisis in Africa. The evidence and Green/Hearst support this. There is nothing scientifically wrong about this and Green/Hearst entirely supports this statement which is why they have written numerous articles and publications about his support for that particular Pope statement. As far as that statement goes, Green is in full support. In that statement, the Pope didn't condemn condom use, or say it should stop - he merely said that alone they dont work. Green says the same thing.
Yes, Green doesn't agree with the Pope on not using condoms, a separate view of the Pope's. I suggest that we break this section of the article up into two areas as it fails to distinguish between the two independent statements (which I have highlight above:
two ways to consider the Pope's position: (1) The Pope/Church's position is that in the ABC strategy you don't need to do C if you are already doing A & B. This is obviously true. Note that this position offers no comment on the people who ignore the Pope/A&B - see next point: (2) In this statement, the Pope said 'if the soul is lacking' (which is likely to mean 'if you ignore A&B') then condoms won't stop HIV, which is what the evidence & Green and others are supporting - you also need A&B, C alone doesn't work.
First the section should talk about the Pope's view on A&B without C. Second the section should talk about this particular Pope statement, stating that there was widespread condemnation of this statement despite some scientific support.
This can be done by changing the final sentence to be:
In March 2009, the Pope stated "if the soul is lacking, if Africans do not help one another, the scourge [of HIV] cannot be resolved by distributing condoms; quite the contrary, we risk worsening the problem." This statement was sharply criticized[112], although there was some scientific support[113].
Note: this is the only time that the Pope is commenting on people who refuse to follow him/A&B.
Update: I've updated the article for this.Utopial (talk) 08:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Your proposal does not remedy the misrepresentation of the source. Green did not say "we risk worsening the problem" by distributing condoms; he said we should continue to distribute condoms. I see now you've changed the article to something else than you proposed here: however, again, your proposed change does not solve the problem. The fact is, the pope and everyone else agrees that condom distribution will not end AIDS in Africa. No reasonable person would suggest that condom distribution alone would end AIDS in Africa, and no reasonable person has! What makes the pope's position different is that he claims condom distribution is counterproductive, and the works cited do not support that claim. - Nunh-huh 09:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop putting words into the Pope's mouth and taking them out of context. The Pope does not claim that 'condom distribution is counterproductive'. He says that "if the soul is lacking", condom distribution alone has risk of being counterproductive. Like there is a risk it could be productive. It's a moot point. You are leaving out two major factors: 1. "if the soul is lacking" - ie if people ignore abstinence and fidelity. 2. "risk" - i.e. probability distribution.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=527691

The unfortunate irony of this episode—as Africans continue to suffer from the pandemic—is that those who would arraign the Pope for callous disregard for reality are in fact the ones moralizing in ignorance of the data. Except that they have abandoned a traditional regard for moral virtue and absolute truth in favor of a vain and vacuous worship of freedom.

Utopial (talk) 10:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The pope opposes condom distribution to prevent AIDS. In this statement he additionally claims that it could worsen the AIDS crisis. Please stop obfuscating the facts, and misrepresenting the sources. Feel free to propose rewording of the article here; the talk page is for discussion of the article, not debates about condom use. - Nunh-huh 10:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
You have no basis for your claim of misrepresentation. The pope says "if the soul is lacking", condom distribution alone has risk of worsening HIV in Africa. ie C alone doesn't work. Green and all the experts support this. Name one problem without ignoring 1. "if the soul is lacking" 2. "risk".
Every single post you have made have ignored either or both of (1) and (2). Stop manipulating the quotes to suit your dogmatic position. Utopial (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
(1) and (2) are pretty much irrelevant. Are you claiming that the pope only opposes condom distribution conditionally? If so, you're wrong. Green does not support the statement "If the soul is lacking, condom distribution has the risk of worsening HIV in Africa"; Green is silent on the subject of "soul". Nor does Green ("and all the experts") make any statement about condom distribution worsening anything, or "risking" worsening anything! He most specifically does not endorse the statement that continued condom distribution risks any ill consequences, as he endorses condom distribution! Please stop misrepresenting him. - Nunh-huh 10:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm only talking about this particular statement, which is all that Green is talking about too. You are trying to synthesize in other quotes of the Pope and say that Green doesn't support those other quotes. Forget the other quotes - this article paragraph is purely focused on that quote. Focus on the Pope's quote and Green's quote "The best evidence we have supports the Pope’s comments." Stop trying to misrepresent both of them. Green only comments on that 1 particular quote of the Pope, so forget the other quotes.
Purely on this quote itself, the Pope is making a conditional (if) statement about condom distribution, and is not saying it worsens HIV, he is saying there is a risk.
If i made the statement that there is a risk a plane may crash, am I saying that it will crash, or that it won't be successful? No.
If Green only supported part of the Pope's comments, he would have said that, not published numerous editorials & papers saying the blanket statement "The best evidence we have supports the Pope’s comments." To try and change Green's words is inadmissable. You've clearly misunderstood the Pope's quote. Green's quote is outright support for that Pope quote and thus this article is correct in identifying him as a scientific support for that one quote.Utopial (talk) 10:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Nowhere in Green's essay does he say he agrees with the pope's statement; only the headline even suggests an agreement (but with what part of the statement?), and that only conditionally ("The Pope May Be Right"). Green says nothing about condoms worsening anything, even conditionally, but rather says there has not been enough condom distribution to affect levels of HIV, and that he "is not anti-condom". Furthermore, this particular quote is not the last word of the pope on the subject of condoms and AIDS in Africa, and there is no reason to treat it as if it were. He opposes condom use, predominantly on "moral" grounds, but also claims they are [1] ineffective and [2] counterproductive. There is no scientific support for the notion that condom distribution is counterproductive, and this article should not suggest there is by misrepresenting Green.- Nunh-huh 11:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Green "The best evidence we have supports the Pope’s comments." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5987155.ece. Thus, Green blanket supports that particular Pope quote. The article paragraph is on that particular quote as are Green's comments on the Pope - the article is very clear that the scientific support is just for that one quote. No where else does Green mention other Pope comments.
No, the Pope does not say condoms are counterproductive. Are planes counterproductive because there is a risk they will crash? When are you going to give up with leaving out the key word 'risk'? Your arguments are like swiss cheese.Utopial (talk) 12:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Your efforts to twist Green's remarks into a statement that there's scientific support for the position that condom distribution risks increasing AIDS in Africa are sad. He supports condom distribution. Your efforts to mislead our readers are sad. I suggest we make a request for comments. - Nunh-huh 12:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Green supports condom distribution when it is coupled with abstinence & fidelity. He is critical of them otherwise. You're twisting, I'm quoting: Green "The best evidence we have supports the Pope’s comments." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5987155.eceUtopial (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
No, you are the one doing the distorting: Green's support of condom distribution is unconditional. You're not quoting, you're quoting selectively. - Nunh-huh 13:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You can agree with the Pope's comments while also supporting condom dist. That is proof of nothing. You have no proof that Green thinks that condom dist has no possible negative risks. He could think there is a risk of worsening but think it is outweighed by positive risk (any rational person understands there are positive and negative risks for virtually everything). You're engaging in OR and have no proof. His statement is unconditional in blanket covering the Pope's comments, and therefore implies he agrees with the downside risk possibility.Utopial (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, the problem is that you claim that the reference states Green "agrees" that condoms could worsen the African AIDS crisis, and it says no such thing. It's not for you to guess what he "could" think (as you speculated in your now-redacted comment), only what the reference says. And the reference says nothing about worsening the AIDS crisis by condom distribution. In any case, the point of asking for comments is to allow other people to comment. It's unlikely that further discussion between us will be productive. - Nunh-huh 14:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I merely claim he agrees with the Pope's comments (he unconditionally, explicitly says this). You claim it is only a partial agreement, but have no proof of this. (essentially, you claim that condom distribution is a risk free process...)Utopial (talk) 14:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't misstate my position, too. I have made no claims about condom distribution, only about what Green says and what the pope says about it. Stating you agree with someone's comments means nothing unless you say which comments. You're applying it to a comment you wish he agreed with, but the remainder of Green's essay demonstrates that he is unconditionally in favor of condom distribution (thus he can't be agreeing with the Pope that it's bad, or "risky"). And Green does not so much as allude to any purported "risk" of such distribution. Again, the point of asking for comments is to allow other people to comment. It's unlikely that further discussion between us will be productive. - Nunh-huh 14:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Once again, you're misstating what the Pope said. He doesn't say it's bad, he said it's risky. Two different things. The risk is a fact - airlines have risk of crashes, companies have risk of bankruptcy. If existence of risk was 'bad', they wouldnt operate. Why would Green comment on a fact? It's moot. Your entire argument hinges on Green believing there is no downside risk in distributing condoms.
Let me ask you, is this true 'distributing condoms risks worsening the problem'? Even if the risk is 0.000001%.Utopial (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The pope has quite clearly stated that it is immoral to distribute condoms. I think that qualifies as "bad". Risk without benefit is "bad": the pope opines that condom distribution is risk without benefit. I don't think I'm the one doing the misstating here. Again: the point of asking for comments is to allow other people to comment. It's unlikely that further discussion between us will be productive. I'd prefer not having to respond to specious arguments, so please let's let it rest until others comment. - Nunh-huh 15:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Nunh-huh, your statement that the Pope's position is "bad" reveals your POV. You are free to express your opinion, but it belongs on a blog, not in this article. Your view is likely shared by many, if not most, editors. However, this is an article about Benedict, informing readers of his positions on various issues. It is not a scientific journal that needs to reach a scientific conclusion about the strength of the position and whether it is supported by the scientific community. Addressing the issue more specifically, you continue to misquote and misrepresent what Benedict said. He said there is a "risk" that condom distribution may worsen the crisis. The concept of risk compensation is a valid, researched phenomenon. Again, this is not an article about condom distribution policy. The article should state what Benedict's position is. If there is valid, documented, sourced criticism, it can be included, but it should not be in a POV "wikipedia identifies this as a bad position" manner. --anietor (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, good grief. Can you read? I said that "immoral = bad", I didn't characterize the pope's statement as bad. The pope has repeatedly made known that condom distribution is immoral (that is, bad). There's no misquoting involved. And you can be assured that if Green's statement continues to be misrepresented, it will be joined by lots of valid, documented, sourced criticism. - Nunh-huh 19:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Nunh-huh, can you answer my question: is this true - 'distributing condoms risks worsening the problems'? Even if the risk is 0.00001%. Utopial (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
My opinion isn't in question, or important, any more than your answer to "True or False: not distributing condoms risks worsening the problem" would be. What's important is that Green has not said "distributing condoms risks worsening the problem". - Nunh-huh 02:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
You won't answer the question because you know that condom distribution isnt risk free. When you admit it, your argument then has absolutely no basis. Green said the evidence supports the Pope's comments. He didnt say 'the evidence supports only part of the Pope's comments'. The article should reflect his support for those comments. You are trying to say he doesn't support that Pope quote and he believes in a fallacy that condom distribution is risk free. There is no evidence of that and it goes directly against his quote of support for the Pope's comments. You have no basis for your argument and you are relying on an fallacy that condom distribution is risk free.Utopial (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I won't answer because it's irrelevant. Benedict made non-conditional statements that condom distribution increases AIDS. Please stop pretending this particular statement is his only one. "You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms," the pope told reporters aboard the Alitalia plane heading to Yaounde. "On the contrary, it increases the problem." [2]. "Aids, he said, "is a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, and that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems"." [3] "In his first public comments on condom use, the pontiff told reporters en route to Cameroon that Aids "is a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, and that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems"." [4]. It's not about risk, and it's not conditional. So let's stop with the sophistry. Green didn't say which comment he would support, and he certainly supports the distribution of condoms. Unless you think Green wants to "aggravate the problems", he certain can't support the statement that condom distribution aggravates the problem. - Nunh-huh 03:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The official Pope quote is on the harvard aids prevention project site (as referenced for the quote in the article), which is Green's site.Utopial (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and others are in the newspapers cited. - Nunh-huh 12:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comments: Is there scientific support for the statement that, under certain conditions, distributing condoms carries a risk of increasing the AIDS problem in Africa?

There is a dispute as to whether the source "The Pope May Be Right" Edward C. Green, Harvard's Aids Prevention Centre http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html" constitutes scientific support for the statement "if the soul is lacking, if Africans do not help one another, the scourge [of HIV] cannot be resolved by distributing condoms; quite the contrary, we risk worsening the problem.", particularly with regard to the Pope's claim that distributing condoms risks worsening the problem. (See discussion above). -- Nunh-huh 12:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

  • RfC comment - The text does seem to support the idea that condemn distribution, and, apparently, use in Africa is ineffective, and seems to have, at least to date, and probably into the future, increased the problem. I'm not sure whether that would necessarily be taken as "support" for the Pope's "claims". It would help a lot if you gave some specific indication regarding what sort of phrasing would be used regarding this subject if the results of the RfC favor inclusion of such material. John Carter (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The wording (in bold) to which I object was the very vague and misleading: "In March 2009, the Pope was sharply criticized after reiterating his condemnation of the distribution of condoms in fighting AIDS in Africa (Butt, Riazat. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids "Pope claims condoms could make African Aids crisis worse."), although there was some scientific support.", which seems to me to suggest scientific support for the claim that "condoms could make African Aids crisis worse", which is lacking in the cited source. Indeed, the cited source endorses condom distribution, so it can't legitimately be said to support "condemnation of the distribution of condoms". - Nunh-huh 17:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Maybe somethng like, "In March 2005, the Pope was sharply criticized after reiterating his statements that HIV/AIDS in Africa would not be improved by distributing condoms, despite the verifiable ineffectiveness of such distribution to date in Africa"? Yeah, I know, the article could go into greater detail as to why it would be ineffective, but that's more about the subject of HIV/AIDS in Africa, and probably better included in that article. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The problem is that he was criticized for saying condom distribution could worsen the AIDS problem. He didn't merely state that it was ineffective; he said it might worsen the AIDS problem, a statement which is unsupported by scientific fact. In essence, to say that "condom distribution as a sole measure has not been proven effective" (the only part of his statement that is scientifically supportable) is to set up a straw man argument: no one advises that condom distribution be the sole measure directed against AIDS! What the pope was indicating was that condom distribution was counterproductive, which has no scientific support, and is the part of the statement for which he was criticized. I think the current language

    "In March 2009, the Pope stated "if the soul is lacking, if Africans do not help one another, the scourge [of HIV] cannot be resolved by distributing condoms; quite the contrary, we risk worsening the problem."[112] This statement was sharply criticized[113]. There is no scientific support for the position that condom distribution worsens the African AIDS crisis, though there is general agreement that condoms alone are not sufficient to solve the problem.[114][115][116]"

    is appropriate, but apparently is objected to by others. - Nunh-huh 18:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • You have a point. The article itself though, by its title "The Pope May Be Right" and the second paragraph, "Yet, in truth, current empirical evidence supports him [the pope]", pretty clearly seems to be saying that he might be right. The "risk compensation" issue appears to be the bone of contention, and, certainly, the article does indicate that condom usage in that segment of the population can make the risk worse. I don't want to seem to deny the straightforward fact that using a condom is safer than not using one, but am not sure how to take into account the fact that the article itself does indicate that incidence seems to go up in the "risk compensation" community if condoms are used. I guess the question there is would the use of condoms by a greater percentage of the wider commnity also increase the number of people in the risk compensation community. That's more a scientific matter than I, a basically religion-based editor, really feel confiden in addressing. I do hope one of the editors responding to the scientific RfC will be better able to address it than me. John Carter (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The existence of a "risk compensation population" is a theory, a hypothesis to explain why condom use is ineffective in some areas, and why condom use is not exactly correlated with decrease in HIV infection, but it's only a theory, lacking supporting data. I agree that what's at issue is scientific rather than religious; that's why I asked for scientific input. Religious input was asked for by someone else. DId you find some problem with the text in the blockquote above? - Nunh-huh 19:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Whethr it is a theory or not, however, if it is a theory which is embraced by some members of the acadmic/scientific community regarding this subject, then there would be academic/scientifio support for his position. And I do see one slight problem with the blockquote, at least potentially. You say there is no scientific support. "No" is a very big word, and, in all honesty, is probably contradicted by the existence of the article by the AIDS worker. In any event, you would have to have sourcing to verify its inclusion, and those sources would have to make it clear that they have reviewed each and every scientist, and that isn't really even possible. Frankly, even with my own lack of recent involvement in science, it's hard for me to imagine anyone with much familiarity with science would even think to use that word. John Carter (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Just as I find it hard to imagine that anyone with much familiarity with science would confuse a "theory" with "scientific support". :) Perhaps the term "scientific data" would be better. - Nunh-huh 19:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Nunh-huh, your argument relies on an assumption that there is *no* (ie 0%) risk associated with distributing condoms (ie not even 0.00001% downside risk!). It's a fact that there is risk (and I'd imagine that the positive risk heavily outways the negative risk, meaning that supporting condom distrib is the economically viable position, whilst also recognising there is a downside risk). Until you find evidence that Green says there is no risk, his statement is an example of scientific/expert support for the Pope's comments (given that he talks about the uncertainty introduced by risk compensation theory, your chances of finding a comment that condom dist is risk free are unlikely).Utopial (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to second Utopial's point. Gavin (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, those who want to claim that Green stated there is a risk to condom distribution need to find a source in which he actually says that, not one from which they infer it.- Nunh-huh 02:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I also agree with Utopial's point. This is an article about Benedict, not a scientific journal that needs to reach a scientific conclusion about the strength of the position and whether it is supported by the scientific community. The concept of risk compensation is a valid, researched phenomenon. Again, this is not an article about condom distribution policy. The article should state what Benedict's position is. If there is valid, documented, sourced criticism, it can be included, but it should not be in a one-sided, POV "wikipedia identifies this as a bad position" manner. --anietor (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Even in this article, NPOV dictates that we reflect positions to the degree to which they are held by experts. That means not equating the numerous denunciations of the statement with the questionable example of support by Green. - Nunh-huh 02:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

How does this section jibe with the banner at the top of this page which states that this is not a forum for general discussion? --Kbh3rdtalk 01:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It concerns actual wording of the article - or should. - Nunh-huh 02:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we cast shame on all teachings of the Holy Father that have no scientific support? I've got this very long list if so... Hcobb (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If he's "teaching" something that is demonstrably false - that is unsupported by data - then yes, it is our duty to point out that he's got his facts wrong. We're not here to apologize for his errors, or minimize them. - Nunh-huh 04:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Nunh-huh, just admit that condom distribution isnt risk free (even 0.000001% risk) and this can all be over with. Everyone knows it, you're just too stubborn to accept that your argument is misdirected. It should be directed against the Pope framing, by him only talking about downside risk and ignoring the huge upside risk. Scientifically he is entirely correct, but the way he has said it is framing and thus misleading.Utopial (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Utopial, just admit that the pope didn't only couch his verbiage in terms of risk, but has made positive - and erroneous- statements that condom distribution makes the African AIDS problem worse, and this can be over with as well. - Nunh-huh 04:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
So far, there is no consensus for the tags placed on the article. In fact, consensus has been against them. They should be removed shortly, unless a valid reason is provided and supported by the community. --anietor (talk) 04:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Tags get removed when a dispute is over. We have yet had only one answer to the request for comments. - Nunh-huh 12:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Nunh-huh, I suggest that you take your opinions about the Pope to another place (blog, forum, etc). This article is about documenting facts over this particular Pope quote. Your arguments are baseless and beginning to appear to incorporate your POV emotionalised views of the Pope. The Pope's quote is entirely scientifically correct and is supported by Green's comment that 'the evidence supports the Pope's comments' (without any disclaimers, conditions or statements of just partial support). Risk is a fact (albeit probably small), Green's support for the quote is unconditional.Utopial (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
My opinions are about the facts, not about the pope. I'm happy to document the pope's statements in which he claimed that condom distribution worsens the AIDS problem, which are not correct. He's entitled to his beliefs, he's not entitled to his own facts, and he's particularly not entitled to have Wikipedia repeat his errors uncritically. - Nunh-huh 12:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
With respect to these particular quotes, I'm fine with how the article paragraph documents it now. However, after considering what some people here have said, I have been thinking about two particular things:
1)Previously the article merely mentioned that in March 2009 he repeated his views and was sharply criticised. Now we have a large paragraph that makes up the bulk of the HIV section. These quotes are overweighted for both the section and the article.
2)This article is about the Pope. There is now a large amount written not about the Pope, but his critics and supporters. In addition, criticism or support of him comes from POVs. If you support democracy, naturally a communist will criticise you. Green was talking from a scientific viewpoint, whereas the Pope was probably talking about a 'problem' of morality. Non-catholics will naturally criticise him.
I suggest that we do 1 of the following
(1)Remove any support/criticism, and just have the quotes. The reader can interpret them for themselves from their own POV (or the Pope's POV).
(2)Remove the entire paragraph and replace it with 'In March 2009 the Pope notably restated his position on a trip to Africa.' This would remove having most of the section dedicated to just a few quotes, giving it a similar weighting to everything else discussed in the section & article.Utopial (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree the that the critics and supporters are given too much weight. I would support either option outlined above, but woul prefer the 2nd of the two. John Carter (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree regarding the disproportionate amount of space, and weight, given to this issue as a whole. Either option would be a reasonable one, although for #2 I would suggest omitting the word "notably" (pretty much anything he says is notable). --anietor (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Though the article will be less informative if support and criticism is eliminated, I won't be too bothered. But eliminating paragraph 2 won't work, as the pope's unequivocal statements that condom distribution worsens the problem of AIDS in Africa are there. They could be moved to the first paragraph, though. Or we could provide a complete chronology of how the Vatican changed the quotation on its website in response to criticism, as reported by the Times.
  • [1] Benedict tells reporters that AIDS is a "tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone and that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems."
  • [2] anti-AIDS workers are outraged; international criticism of the pope ensues. Le Monde writes "Nobody ever said that condoms were the only solution to fight against AIDS. But to argue that they aggravate the pandemic is very serious and irresponsible. [Benedict's] predecessor John Paul never went that far."
  • [3] the Vatican alters the papal statement on its website to say that condoms "risked" aggravating the problem.
  • [4] The Times of London reports that, in fact, the pope had not said that reliance on condoms 'risked' aggravating AIDS, but rather that it aggravated it. ("Vatican backtracks over Pope's condom stance". Retrieved 2009-10-07.)
  • [5] Since the (current) version doesn't use the word risk, perhaps we should be using the actual quote as reported by reporters, and not the "modified" one that had to be changed back. (At present, it has an editorial insertion, and reads "if Africans do not help [by responsible behaviour], the problem cannot be overcome by the distribution of prophylactics: on the contrary, they increase it." There was also an issue about changing the word used (in the Pope's Italian remarks) for prophylactic, but I don't understand the issue between "preservativi" and "profilattici". ("INTERVIEW OF THE HOLY FATHER BENEDICT XVI DURING THE FLIGHT TO AFRICA". 2009-03-17. Retrieved 2009-10-07., Ben L. Kaufman (2009-04-01). "Holy Bad PR! Vatican Changes Pope's Press Remarks About AIDS and Condoms". CityBeat. Retrieved 2009-10-07.)
  • This would have the benefit of actually being about the pope, his statements and his actions- Nunh-huh 04:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The documentation of those events relate to the vatican/media. The only relevant item for this article is what the Pope said.
The problem with critics/supporters, is that they each present a POV. Green has the philsophical POV of purely trying to eliminate AIDS at any cost. Other groups such as condoms, needles, and negotiation would say Green is bad because in the ABC strategy, A&B are interferring with people's right to choose their own moral systems. The Pope will come from another end and say only A&B should be done because C presents moral problems itself. The media chooses to support whatever philosophy it wants (ie philosophical objective of selling papers). A pure utilitarian would say the strategy should be to quarantine/execute everyone with HIV to stop the spread (and yes many ppl have supported this). I don't see the relevance of talking about these other groups since you can read about them in their own wikipedia articles.
I wouldn't say that the quotes present any new information about the Pope's position on ABC that isnt already covered in the article, but the event was notable so should be at least mentioned in the article.Utopial (talk) 06:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the real story - an interview with the official Pope spokesman.

Father Lombardi, in good spirits throughout the interview, also spoke frankly about the controversy in the Western media over the Pope's comments on AIDS and condoms.

Benedict XVI had told journalists on the plane to Cameroon that the problem of AIDS "cannot be overcome by the distribution of prophylactics: on the contrary, they increase it." The Pope was simply re-iterating the Church's teaching, but the debate over his remarks still continues.

"It's very clear," the papal spokesman said, "that those who want to understand the meaning will, and if they don't, then they will never understand." He added that the Pope "wasn't particularly disturbed" by the outcry, and he alluded to other times the largely Western media has latched onto an aspect of Church teaching and misrepresented it.

"You have to reflect and judge it with a long-term perspective," Father Lombardi said. "For a couple of days, people are against what he has said, but afterward they can reflect a little and see the truth of the Pope's words and what his intention was." He referred to how the Holy Father's comments at the University of Regensburg in 2006 later led to a better understanding between Muslims and Catholics.

However, what upset many was that someone modified the transcript of the Pope's words so the sentence read condoms "risk increasing" the problem of AIDS rather than simply "increase it." Father Lombardi was not responsible for the change but it originated in the Secretariat of State.

A well-intentioned official there was trying to put the Pope's words into better Italian -- something that is often done to the Pope's extemporaneous remarks. However, the official appears to have genuinely made the mistake of changing the meaning of the Pope's words in the process. Father Lombardi said he was aware of the irritation that caused (it happened once before, on the Pope's 2007 trip to Brazil). That part of the text has since been changed back again to the Pope's original words.

So basically, everyone screwed it up. A large amount of sources misquoted it using the word 'risk' due to the Vatican error. In addition, Green and most of the media completely misrepresented what the Pope was saying as a scientific statement rather than a moral statement.

This is the official correct transcript.Utopial (talk) 10:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I had already given the "real story" and linked to the "official" transcript. It no longer contains the (silently) inserted words about "risk". The silently altered transcript is clearly now part of the story, as even Vatican spokesmen have been forced to address it. But we certainly can't quote the pope using the "risk" phrase, as now no one contends it is what he actually said. We need to use the actual quote - the words the pope said, rather than the words someone at the Vatican wished he said. - Nunh-huh 12:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I've trimmed the section in accordance with the suggestions and comments above. --anietor (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
And I've corrected the falsified quotation. As the article no longer contains the false assertion that there is scientific support for the notion that condom distribution worsens the problem of AIDS in Africa, I have also removed the inaccuracy and misrepresented citation tags. I think there really has to be some mention of the reaction provoked by the pope's statement added; there seems no legitimate reason to censor it. - Nunh-huh 15:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Why is there a need to include the quote if his position on HIV & condoms is already covered in the section? Originally this section stated: "In March 2009, the Pope was sharply criticized after reiterating his condemnation of the distribution of condoms in fighting AIDS in Africa."Utopial (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Because the part of the quotation that was controversial was his assertion that distribution of condoms worsened the problem of AIDS, and that was a new assertion made in March, which was not "already covered". - Nunh-huh 15:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that you are including only part of the quote. The rest of the quote talks about things important parts of his arguement like "Aids cannot be overcome merely with money, necessary though it is." and "The solution must have two elements: firstly, bringing out the human dimension of sexuality, ... 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." Taken out of context it sounds like the Pope is just saying one thing when in reality he saying that something other then throwing money and condems is what it needed. I personally think either the entire quote should be included or it should just go back to the previous summary statement. Marauder40 (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
A "summary" that leaves out the portion that made headlines is clearly not appropriate. - Nunh-huh 15:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Including the quote assumes it is different to his already stated position. It's ambiguous as to if he is talking about a scientific or moral 'problem'. The Pope/Vatican said that he was reasserting his original position and misrepresented by the media (ie he wasn't talking about a scientific problem). This source you quoted says it can't jump to that conclusion.
Consider the 2 statements: "the problem cannot be overcome by education: on the contrary, that increases it." and "the problem cannot be overcome by executions: on the contrary, that increases it." Since you consider education morally permissible, you would interpret the first statement in a scientific manner and say it is scientifically incorrect. Since you consider executions of HIV victims morally impermissible, you would interpret the second statement in a moral way and say that executions do increase the moral problem. Your (and the media's) different interpretation of the Pope's statement is because of the difference in opinions you have of the moral permissibility of condoms. Based on (1) the Vatican/Pope follow up (2) the Pope's view on the moral permissibility of condoms (3) the context of the quote which largely talks about issues related to morality, it strongly suggests he was talking about the moral 'problem'.Utopial (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC).
There's no ambiguity: he said that the distribution of condoms worsens the problem of AIDS in Africa. He hadn't said that before, and that new assertion was big, big news. If the pope wants to further clarify his position, he is more than able to do so. He hasn't, and you don't really have the authority to do it for him. - Nunh-huh 15:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

He clarified that he was misrepresented - ie he wasnt saying that condoms increase HIV rates. He never actually said 'condoms increase HIV rates', he talked about a 'problem.' (and everything indicates that it was a 'moral' problem). Is this right or wrong: "the problem cannot be overcome by executions: on the contrary, that increases it." Ambiguous or not?Utopial (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a citation for that retraction. - Nunh-huh 15:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
It's not a retraction. http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-25548 Utopial (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
It's also not the pope, it's Father Lombardi. It's also not particularly pertinent, as it doesn't seem to back away from the assertion that condom distribution increases the problem. - Nunh-huh 15:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
He's the official spokesperson for the pope. his job is to speak on the pope's behalf and clarify the meaning of what the pope says. it doesnt back away from teh comments because the pope believes that condom dist increases the moral problem. he said it because he means it. but it claims that the comments were misrepresented by the media (and virtually the only thing the media claimed was that condom dist increases HIV rates).Utopial (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
If the pope had said "the problem cannot be overcome by executions: on the contrary, that increases it." you would agree with him. the reality is that both executions and condom dist don't increase HIV rates.Utopial (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, but it doesn't make the correction you want it to make: it doesn't say "I only meant the moral problem, I wasn't talking about AIDS rates". If you feel the article needs a discussion about how the remark was interpreted by the various factions, I'd be inclined to agree with you, and more than happy to help make sure that discussion is fair and includes all viewpoints, but the recent discussion on this talk page has suggested that most people would rather not have reactions to the statement discussed in the article. - Nunh-huh 16:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't want it to make anything. It says he was misinterpreted by the media. We know what the media said. And remember he never said HIV rates, he just said problem - a term which itself is a subjective value judgement. My contention is that by including the quote in the article we are making a statement that the quote meant something different to his previously discussed position. Yes, I don't think that the views of any 3rd parties should be discussed, just the view of the pope (which includes what is conveyed through the papal spokesperson, if relevant).Utopial (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
If we include the pope's spokesman's assertion that the remark was "misinterpreted" - which is not very informative, for it doesn't say what the "misinterpretation" he alleges was - then by necessity we must include the medias "interpretation". So if you don't want that discussion in the article, I would suggest you be content with our simply quoting the pope. - Nunh-huh 16:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I'm not saying we need to include the papal spokesman remarks, but if we did we would have to state the media position as a result. I'm talking about if we should include the quote or a summary. We have a choice: (1)Summary assumes that the pope was talking about a moral problem. (2)Quote assumes that the pope was talking about scientific problem (HIV rates). Given that the spokesman said he was misinterpreted by the media (who assumed (2)), the pope considers condoms a moral problem and the context was a moral discussion, I think that (1) is a more reasonable choice.Utopial (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Clearly not. A "summary" imposes someone's interpretation on the quote, while a quote is simply a factual report. - Nunh-huh 16:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

For the moment I've put the full quote in there. My concern over the statement that including a quote makes might be too minor to worry about. For now, people can interpret it for themselves. Note: by summary i mean reverting back to something like what we had before, which doesnt impose any interpretation - "In March 2009, the Pope was sharply criticized after reiterating his condemnation of the distribution of condoms in fighting AIDS in Africa."Utopial (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, then, for the moment I've added the reaction to the statement that clarifies why it was controversial. And the pope was criticized for the assertion that condom distribution worsens the problem of AIDS in Africa, not only for opposing that distribution. - Nunh-huh 16:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
That brings us back to the problem of this section being disproportionately large, and POV. There is criticism of the position, and there is support of it. The proposal above was to trim the section and not go into a quagmire of dueling scientific positions. This article is about Benedict, not the issue of how condom use effects the spread of HIV/AIDS. We should state his position. I think the addition of the actual quote is a good one, and I would support that, even though it lengthens the section. But now adding that lengthy, POV language about it being "roundly denounced" and quoting various organizations like the Terrence Higgins Trust is just making this a debate about the condom issue, which it isn't. Nor is this a forum for how some in the scientific community oppose the Pope's position. The Pope obviously speaks from the perspective of a certain moral, philosophical, religious and scientific position; setting that up as some sort of direct debate with a purely scientific position is rather misleading in the manner it was written. anietor (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Benedict made headlines by asserting condom distribution worsens AIDS in Africa. Burying that in the middle of his other comments distorts and minimizes it. I asked Utopial to leave it alone, but he wouldn't. The excessive quoting he added requires discussion of the controversy that ensued, and why it was controversial. NPOV is achieved by giving all sides their say, not by restricting it to only one "side". And two paragraphs in this lengthy article is not disproportionate. - Nunh-huh 18:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I would agree with trimming it back. The problem seems to be that it gets trimmed back, then someone wants to add just one little clarification, and the snowballing begins. Trimming is always a delicate procedure, especially in a religious-focused article, because everyone seems to attribute malicious motives (they're hiding criticism; they're attacking him; they're making it disproportionate; they're taking it out of context, etc). I would suggest trimming it down to what his position is, maybe including the actual quote(s), without loaded qualifiers like "controversially", or commentary like "widely criticized by". That invites counterpoints. I know this could be interpreted as being POV itself, if some editors think the qualifiers and criticisms are being intentionally omitted to imply a lack of reaction from the public, scientific community, etc. anietor (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
If Utopial can agree to leave it at the version before he expanded the quotation from a sentence to a paragraph, I can live with that version (though we should remove the editorial comment [by responsible behaviour], since it wasn't actually said by the pope). Otherwise I'm afraid we're left with the necessity of a more thorough discussion of the sequellae of the pope's comments. - Nunh-huh 18:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the version you refer to, Nunh-huh, is better than what we have now. It's concise and to the point. I wasn't sure which editorial comment you were referring to, though. --anietor (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, below, Utopia seems to refuse that version. The editorial insertion is "[by responsible behaviour]" - these were added by an editor, not said by the pope. - Nunh-huh 10:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
There was general consensus that this article is about the Pope and other points of view are irrelevant and can distort what the Pope meant, not to mention there are a huge variety of points of view, one of the most discussed (based on google 4/10 top results) was Edward Green's reaction. Including just part of the quote is taking it out of the context, which was a large discussion focused on morals. Note: 'burying' the quote in it's context allows people to actually interpret what he meant, whereas taking it out of context distorts it. As discussed above, the Pope's statement can be taken as meaning that condoms increase either AIDS rates or the moral problem. It should be left up to the readers to decide. This is an article about the pope, not Green or any other group. They have their own articles.Utopial (talk) 05:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, of course, Edward Green's reaction appears to have been to the false quote on the Vatican's website and not to the words actually spoken by the pope. We can of course add that history to the article, but that seems to be heading in the wrong direction. - Nunh-huh 10:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Green's comments are irrelevant like other 3rd parties. From the chronology of word changing events, it appears as though he responded to the media before 'risk' was added: here, here and here he talks about condoms leading to higher hiv rates (interview with national review says he spoke to them Wednesday (18th), the day after the Pope spoke, which was before they put the transcript on the site with 'risk'). It appears that everyone decided to update the quote when the Vatican release it with the word 'risk', but Green had already responded. So Green was in full agreement with the Pope's original quote on all issues.Utopial (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I have reduced the quote to just 3 sentences (the final sentence was a repeat of the 2nd last) and removed the editorial insertion. There should be no problem with this section now. It is not buried, it is in context as quotes should be, and the huge amount of the article dedicated to this issue has been reduced so there isn't significant undue weight.Utopial (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC).
And I have reduced it to one sentence and made the section one paragraph. There should be no problem with this seciton now. - Nunh-huh 10:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
And now Utopial has relengthened the quote, so we're back to the full treatment. - Nunh-huh 12:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This section is becoming out of control- it is like what happened with the SSPX incident when some users felt the section should become a biography of Richard Williamson. This article is about the Pope not the AIDS crisis in Africa. The qutation should be removed and replaced with one simple sentence. "During his trip to Africa in 2009 Pope Benedict reaffirmed the Church's opposition to the use of artificial birth control even as a means of halting the spread of disease." There is no need for "Organisation X said this and Prof. Y said that" because the statement is barely notable to the Pope's career.

On the contrary, it received prominent coverage in international newspapers. By Wikipedia's standards, it's not only notable enough to appear in this article, it could become the subject of a stand-alone article as well. - Nunh-huh 10:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
It would appear that your interest in this article is not to write a quality biography of the current Pope, but to do 1 of two things (1) take his quote out of context so as to get it sounding like what you want as much as possible, or, (2) include as much criticism as possible from 3rd parties, trying to fight off hints of support from people like Green. On the first item, it is undebatable that quotes must be made within their proper context. You can't leave out the words you don't like. On the second item, there is general consensus that the views of 3rd parties are not relevant to the bio of the pope. If you go to, say, Obama's article, you won't find third party views. Even on his 'political views' article. Even a less prominent figure but one with similarly strong and controversial views such as Kant doesn't have criticisms by 3rd parties on his page. The point of a bio article is the talk about the actual person, not other people. There are other articles for that. Quotes must be properly made and 3rd party views are not relevant on a bio page.Utopial (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Your assertion that I'm acting in bad faith is unfortunate, unnecessary, and untrue. A quality biography about a controversial figure will necessarily include discussion of those controversies; the only question now is how much. I've pointed to a version that satisfies everyone but you, and you insist on expanding it. Will you now accept that version, or are you happier with the one you just reverted from? The one you reverted to is unacceptable. In the meantime, I've placed the NPOV tag back, rather than continuing your edit war. - Nunh-huh 12:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
No one has stated that they are happy with a cut down out of context quote. Marauder40 said the quote should be full or just a summary that the Pope reaffirmed his position. Gavin said it should just be a summary, as did John Carter. I don't understand the problem with the proper quote - it is one extra sentence that shows the full context of what the Pope said. Why can't you accept 1 extra sentence that the pope actually said? If we are quoting we should quote properly, or not at all. Originally this article didn't even have a quote, just the summary.
The discussion of controversies are only discussed if the biographed person engages in the discussions of the controversy themselves. Views of 3rd parties are irrelevant. There are many controversial things about Obama, but there aren't 3rd party views on his page. As far as everyone is concerned, there are just two acceptable versions - the full quote or a basic summary as per before. You are the only one who wants an out of context quote or views of irrelevant 3rd parties.Utopial (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary, no one but you has reverted from the version mentioned, which contains more than enough context. We're not going to include the pope's entire speech: any version used will necessarily be shorter. But you can't decide to bury the controversial statement by sandwiching it between discursive prose in hopes no one will notice it, and censor discussion about it out of the article. Obama is of course irrelevant, but reactions to the pope's statement are relevant. And of course, the pope did respond to the controversy through his spokesman. If you're unable to reconcile yourself to the version no one else has a problem with, we'll just have to get more input. I understand that you want to present only one side of the controversy, but that's a violation of our unnegotiable NPOV policy. - Nunh-huh 13:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the NPOV tag for multiple reasons. It is obvious that two parties are involved in an edit war. The article itself doesn't require the tag. It can be argued that at times the section you guys are arguing about could have POV issues but there are better ways to deal with your arguement then arguing it out in the actual article. I haven't reported your edit-war hoping that the two of you can come to an agreement. Marauder40 (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You have no business removing the tag while the dispute continues. At present, there is only one side of the controversy included: there are quite clearly NPOV issues here. The tag is, of course, a way of terminating the edit war and directing dispute toward the talk page rather than the article. Your cooperation in maintaining the tag will be helpful in this regard. - Nunh-huh 13:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The dispute is no longer a dispute it is an edit war. The entire article is not in question it is only one section. Thus the NPOV tag is not needed for the entire article. You are requesting third party input, I am a third party not involved in the dispute. You two need to stop your edit war and flush out the dispute on this page, not the actual article. Marauder40 (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
In fact, you are now apparently a participant in that edit war. Too bad you aren't part of the solution. - Nunh-huh 13:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I think you are way to close to this and need to take a little time off. How am I involved in your edit war? Other then removing your NPOV tag that was unjustly attached to the ENTIRE article I have only made one edit on the entire page and that wasn't even contested. You need to step back and look at your actions. Look at the history of the page, this is an obvious edit war between two parties. It appears you aren't really interested in a third parties input.Marauder40 (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, people always think the other guy should quit. Removing a tag twice is edit warring. The fact that two parties have a dispute doesn't make it any less of a dispute. - Nunh-huh 13:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I really think you need to take a look at the history of the page to figure out who is and who isn't involved in an edit war. Allow your RFCs to progress and work through your disagreement on this page. There is no need to tag an ENTIRE article NPOV over one section. Marauder40 (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm more than ready to do that. In fact, I've pointed to a version that only Utopial objected to, but he wouldn't agree to it and continued to edit. If you think the tag should be section specific, the correct thing for you to have done is to move it to the section, not simply remove it and thereby take sides. - Nunh-huh 13:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't put the tag on the section because I don't think any tag is necessary, especially when people are in the process of ironing out the exact wording of the section. Tags are like throwing hand-grenades when all that is needed is a pen. Right now this is a disagreement over content. One party feels that all that should be reported are the Popes words, another feels that the Popes words and other commentary needs to be included. Honestly IMHO there really is only two options to maintain Wiki standards, either just his words are put in or commentary on BOTH sides of the issue need to be put in. The first option isn't really POV since it is just reporting on the facts. The problem is the second option needs to be balanced in a way that it is NPOV and doesn't overinflate the section in respect to the rest of the article. One party seems to only want to put in the wording for one side without doing work for the other side making the article POV. That's my third party opinion on the situation. Marauder40 (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I would only say that, if there is any further attempt to do anything to the article by either party, I will lock the article completely. Now, having said that, I think the existing RfCs should be closed early, given that there seems to be no other party who has agreed with Nunh-hun on the issue, and then give the two sides a chance, in a different RfC, to present their preferred texts for the section and why they prefer it, and give the respondents, who will presumably be more independent and neutral than either of the participants, a chance to decide the issue. Would either of the putative edit warriors object to such an attempt at resolution? John Carter (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, indeed, the first RFC is certainly moot, since it was modified to ask about a statement that was never actually made by the pope. The second RFC has yet to be addressed. - Nunh-huh 13:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5987155.ece
  2. ^ http://www.harvardaidsprp.org/newsletter/april2009.html
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope_Benedict_XVI/Archive_19&oldid=1092047881"