Talk:2005 papal conclave/Archive 4

Cardinals from France

There is mention that the French archbishops are not considered papabile, for historical reasons. I think someone who knows more about why should explain further in the article. --Gerald Farinas 14:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is just my speculation but it may have something to do with the extreme anti-clericalism of the revolutionary period and the capture of Rome by Napoleon (and Napoleon III as well?). You're right the article could use some informed explanation on this point. Lisiate 21:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would guess that the whole Babylonian Captivity is of some note in this issue. There has not been a French pope since 1378, I think. john k 06:47, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be a view that the College will not elect a Pope from the US, Britain, France or Germany because such a choice would arouse political antagonisms. This seems to be the strongest factor working against Ratzinger (who is probably the ideological favourite and who made a good impression at the funeral), and also Lustiger (although his Zionism is also a problem) and Murphy-O'Connor. Adam 07:20, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just a point of personal note. Being in England, I've never actually seen Cardinal O'Connor name being mention anywhere but on here. Even Cardinal O'Brian from Scotland has been mention more (in Scotland). Not that I think either of them would actually become Pope.... -- KTC 12:45, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone here seems keen to add everyone who has ever been mentioned anywhere to the list of papabile. I don't think either British Cardinal is a serious candidate. Most informed opinion says the next Pope will be either an Italian or a Latin American, with Ratzinger as the only other possibility. Adam 13:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The person who added Murphy-O'Connor was probably American as two news networks here have discussed Murphy-O'Connor as papabile: ABC News and CBS News. --Gerald Farinas 18:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted André Vingt-Trois from the list of Papabile as he's from France and not even a Cardinal. If whoever just put him in really want to put him in, come back with some source citing him as a papabile AND put in the correct information in the table!. He's not a Cardinal, how can his "Year joining Cardinalate" being 2005? -- KTC 17:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The list mentions Cardinal Lustiger. It seems, though, that he is quite frail. Also, last time I saw him on TV he had trouble talking (a sore throat? a more serious health problem?). Also, he resigned as arch-bishop of Paris - also a possible indication of health problems. BTW, the same applies to Cardinal Sin from the Philippines. Luis rib 17:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cardinal Lustiger submitted a retirement on his 75th birthday,which is required by Canon 401 Paragraph 1 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law.After that date it's the Vatican that decides when to accept it,in Lustiger's case they waited over three years.(The liberal Cardinal Williams of New Zealand had his resignation from Wellington accepted at once last month).I'm not sure to what extent health played a part in Lustiger's being replaced (John Cardinal O'Connor was permitted to die in office at 80) but I agree that Lustiger is quite a longshot.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 17:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do we Really Need Another Whole List?

There's the list in the College of Cardinals article,in the List of Cardinals,in the List of Cardinals by Country...now Adam Carr has added a voting-cardinals list to this article (apparently dumped from catholic-hierarchy.org and then retitled as suits his view of Wikipolicy).Why can't we just direct people to the other lists?The College of Cardinals list identifies the voters from the non-voters.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 17:22, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The membership College of Cardinals (and the list there) will continually change over time as new cardinals are named and old ones die. Once the conclave is held, the list of cardinals who were voting will remain static and uniquely attached to this event. Looking towards the future, I think that the list should stay in Papal conclave, 2005. -- Seth Ilys 19:26, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well,the list at the College of Cardinals article is in the format used by all the lists at the Salvador Miranda website while the one lately added is alpha-by-surname rather than order-of-precedence.And the variant name-links are a little confusing.--L.E./12.144.5.2 20:10, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If we want to both achieve a static list for this year and one not in this article perhaps it could be placed in List of religious leaders in 2005? Upon review, it seems to specific for the list, perhaps we should have a List of Roman Catholic leaders in 2005 with the popes, cardinals (voting and non-voting), patriarchs, admins of the See and archbishops? This would also be suitable for past conclave years. --Oldak Quill 02:25, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In defence of my list, it is a list of those Cardinals who were eligible to vote at this Conclave, and is thus different to all the other lists, and will remain fixed at this article while all the other lists change. I make no defence of the name forms used. I tried to make them conform, but since Wikipedia's Cardinals-names policy passeth all understanding, no doubt some of them are wrong. I would suggest getting rid of List of Cardinals, which seems to be redundant given the list at College of Cardinals. Adam 02:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One is more clear alphabetical (list of cardinals), the other is according to date of being made cardinal. They are both seperately useful.

IMHO Adam was correct to produce a specific list for this conclave. FearÉIREANN 03:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One of the problems with the names is that people insist on creating biographical articles with the person's full name in the title - thus John Joseph Doe rather than the agreed correct form John Doe. For Cardinals the agreed form appears to be John Cardinal Doe, and all the names in my list take that form, but many of the Cardinal articles take the form John Joseph Patrick Aloysius Francis Xavier Cardinal Doe. Others, such as Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, still have the incorrect word order. Adam 04:11, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For the record,I am one person who STRONGLY prefers John Joseph Doe to John Doe when it comes to titling articles.Where cardinals are concerned it's a matter of knowing where in a string of names forenames stop and surnames,potentially compound,begin.I believe that the Dean of 1930-48,Gennaro Granito Pignatelli del Belmonte had the given names Gennaro Granito and the surname Pignatelli del Belmonte,thus "Cardinal" would go between those;but either way,I'd be furious enough to spit kittens if someone titled his bio Gennaro Belmonte.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 17:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I too think that biographical pages should be titled by the full name of the subject. Can anyone, BTW, find an authoritative citation as to whether John Cardinal Doe is in fact still the standard style? I'd heard that had been dropped, somewhere in the last 20 years or so. --67.78.146.86 16:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So you would title the Tony Blair article Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, would you? That is not the Wikipedia standard and won't become such. I agree that care should be taken with compound names. Adam 00:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This comment is in response to the listing of this page on RFC, so please take it in that light. I think that a whole list of cardinals in the article would be unwieldy, and so should be omitted. Long lists of any sort should stay in their own articles. The naming should be as Wikipedia conventions state. In this case, the names should be the first and last, even though the full name includes the word "cardinal." Bratsche^{talk random} 02:28, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I think the word "cardinal" should be in there, we already have articles with peerage titles in the article title. Some might see it as unfair to cardinals to omit their title. That said, redirects should be created to avoid excess article creation (the same way President Clinton is a redirect). Pakaran 16:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In pectore

According to the In pectore article, there is one anonymous Cardinal. Is that person listed in this count of 111 and the votes of each country? RickK 08:21, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Since the name of the anon Cardinal was not revealed by John Paul II before his death or in his will, his Cardinalship lapses on the Pope's death. No one is ever likely to know who he was, and he can't vote in the conclave.-gadfium 08:27, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I note that the In pectore article contains still more links to articles about Cardinals whcih do not follow the naming convention. Someone needs to go through the list of Cardinals, search for all their surnames, and move all the articles about Cardinals to the correct naming formula (it won't be me). Adam 10:54, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Number present & absent

I wonder, is it really that difficult to wait until the conclave have actually started before we put how many of the Cardinal-electors are present or absent? Why do we have to have a figure before the event?? -- KTC 21:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have not seen any suggestion that anyone other than Jaime Sin will be absent. Adam 11:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On April 9th the Vatican officially announced that both Cardinal Sin and Cardinal Suarez Rivera (emeritus of Monterrey, Mexico will be absent.--Louis Epstein/le@put.com/12.144.5.2 17:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Vegas line

Someone, somewhere, probably Vegas, has the odds on who will be the next Pope. Would it be appropriate to find the odds and list them here? -Litefantastic 11:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are links to sites listing the odds at the bottom of the page. As odds change frequently, it's not really appropriate to include them in the article, IMHO. -- Seth Ilys 13:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could be useful for historical reasons to keep a copy of that "Vegas consensus" at the moment they enter the conclave. In 5 years when a new conclave is called, the "links at the bottom of the page" won't be available anymore PaulDehaye 08:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with Dehaye that the last "consensus" odds are potentially notable. Also potentially notable would be a group that accurately predicted the election of a candadite considered by others to be a long shot. I Don't, however, think that there should be a "bookmaking" section of this article with links to betting sites. Dystopos 18:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why Mention Ruini and Stafford?

While Cardinal Ruini and Cardinal Stafford retain their positions during the sede vacante,their being Vicar General of Rome and Major Penitentiary give them no specific responsibilities for the conclave.So why are they in the table on top?--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 17:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removed Sin from list of papabile

With Jaime Cardinal Sin announced as too ill to attend the upcoming conclave, it's extraordinarily unlikely that he will be chosen; I've therefore removed him from the long list of papabile. - Seth Ilys 17:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There should be mention somewhere in the article that Cardinal Sin was indeed seriously considered as papabile (considered principal of the Asian cardinals), before the announcement of his illness. I'm afraid leaving such mention out of this article basically "erases him" from this important facet of history and would be overlooked by people coming to Wikipedia for research. --Gerald Farinas 17:21, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Before the conclave itself actually occurs, this article is (at least in my opinion) less about reflecting history and more about depicting possibilities for the future. Until the conclave has finished and the article shifts from being a current event to a past one, we should try and limit the papabili list to only those with a reasonable chance of election. After the conclave, however, it would be best to list maybe the top ten papabili including Sin, accompanied by a footnote explaining his illness. --PatadyBag 22:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hypothetically if Sin were to be elected, how would the College of Cardinals contact him to find out if he accepts and still maintain sectecy? (Alphaboi867 00:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC))

I generally agree with PatadyBag. As for the hypothetical, it has happened before. I forgot which pope, though. They'd find a way if any of the absent cardinals, or any of the ineligible voters over the age of 80 for that matter, were chosen. I believe one of the officers of the College of Cardinals would be responsible for contacting a person not present in the conclave. --Gerald Farinas 01:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I remember reading that the Cardinals wouldn't be locked in the Sistine Chapel this time around, so they'll pretty clearly be spending any extra days after the 18th sleeping in a different part of the Vatican- I'd imagine that if Sin were to be elected they'd fake a deadlock (burn the ballots with black smoke when it really warranted white) and discreetly contact someone and have them bring Sin to Rome to accept. --PatadyBag 01:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wow that s a lot of speculation! PaulDehaye 08:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The last cardinal not at the conclave who was elected Pope was Pope Adrian VI in 1522.I don't think that Sin has really been a top-10 papabile for all that he has been an influential figure;and having been considered such years before a conclave does not make one a good candidate for a list in an article about that conclave.If they're going to elect someone not in the conclave,it would be easier to pick one of the over-80 cardinals who has been in Rome for the General Congregations and can take a local phone call!--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 03:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is all very silly. Sin is dying and there is not the slightest chance he will be elected Pope. Adam 08:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is Sin actually on any recently published papabile list or are we engaging in original research?

Lustiger, at least, is being given 4-1 odds by the Irish bookmaker Paddy Power. AndyL 14:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Current odds from paddypower.com:

• 7/2 Ratzinger
• 4/1 Lustiger
• 9/2 Martini
• 7/1 Hummes
• 8/1 Tettamanzi, Arinze
• 12/1 Bergoglio
• 14/1 Errazuriz Ossa, Rodriguez Maradiaga
• 20/1 Ruini, O'Brien
• 25/1 Scola, Re, Policarpo
• 33/1 Sodano, Schoenborn, Biffi, Daneels, Dias, Ortega y Alamina
• 40/1 Nicora, Hoyos, Ce, Bertone.

-- Arwel 21:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

...and a day later the odds change to:

• 3/1 Ratzinger
• 9/2 Martini. Lustiger, Hummes
• 8/1 Tettamanzi, Arinze, Bergoglio
• 12/1 Errazuriz Ossa
• 14/1 Rodriguez Maradiaga
• 16/1 Ruini
• 20/1 O'Brien
• 25/1 Scola, Policarpo
• 33/1 Sodano, Schoenborn, Re, Dias
• 40/1 Nicora, Murphy-O'Connor, Antonelli, Biffi.

-- Arwel 15:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

News stories have said that the Paddy Power odds for Lustiger were influenced strongly by one man betting a lot on him,and on the next Pope choosing the name Benedict.--Louis E./12.144.5.2 17:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well the money seems to be going on Ratzinger for now. I keep hearing a vision (audition?) of Peter O'Sullivan commentating on the race to the winning post! I suppose we might get a winner in only 3 days' time. -- Arwel 19:12, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Latest betting just before the conclave starts....

• 3/1 Arinze
• 9/2 Ratzinger
• 5/1 Lustiger
• 7/1 Martini, Tettamanzi
• 8/1 Hummes
• 14/1 Errazuriz Ossa
• 16/1 Rodriguez Maradiaga
• 20/1 Ruini, Scola, Bergoglio, Policarpo, O'Brien
• 25/1 Sodano, Schoenborn
• 33/1 Bertone, Re, Dias
• 40/1 Nicora, Hoyos, Murphy-O'Connor, Daneels, Ortega y Alamino, Napier
• 50/1 Vallejo, Ouellet, Ce, Vithayathil, Antonelli, Biffi, Rivera Carrera
• 66/1 Pell, Kasper, Agnelo, Cipriani, Vlk
• 80/1 Vingt-Trois, Poletto, Sepe, Rodriguez, Piovanelli
• 100/1 Ambrozic, Porras Cardozo, Kondrusiewicz, Gantin, Connell, Cassidy, Clancy, Stafford, Meisner, Medina, Saraiva Martins, Herranz, Rigali, Lehnmann, Keeler, Husar, Turkson, Martino, Carles Gordo, Quezada Toruno, De Giorge, Toppo, Williams, Turcotte, Martin, Milingo, Daoud, Tauran, Bozanic, Giordano, Barbarin, O'Malley, McCarrick, Puljic
• 125/1 Cacciavillan, Magee, Zen Ze-Kiun, Razafindratandra, Backis, Wamala, Ghattas, Pham Minh Man, Terrazas Sandoval, Kitbunchu, Pengo, Etchegaray, Rouco Varela, Sfeir

Hmm, Arinze seems to have been attracting the money in the last few days... -- Arwel 14:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Even later Paddy Power odds had Ratzinger at 11-2...I wonder how many collected!--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 19:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why is Turkson on the Papabile list?

Alphabetizing it was silly enough,but nobody has yet answered (see my query on archives) on why Turkson was included.He's one of the most junior and youngest of all the cardinals,and while being junior has not stopped someone from being elected in the past,I expect that the radicalism of an African pope would not be compounded by choosing someone so young.Just who has listed him as a serious prospect,was it just a local cheerleader in Ghana?--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 17:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I did a google search for "turkson papabile" and the only mentions I found seemed to have been influenced by this Wikipedia article. I have therefore taken the initiative in deleting Turkson, if somebody can come up with a decent source they can revert. As for Sepe and Poletto who you mentioned earlier, I agree that they are unlikely but I have found mentions of them in mainstream print media. As far as alphabetizing the list, that was my doing and I don't think it was silly - it should be in some kind of order and this seems the fairest way to go about it, really the only feasible way of going about it. The fact that the list was in no order whatsoever could be misinterpreted as being in order of most often mentioned.--Transf1o 19:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, they were listed in order of precidence, with the Dean first, the vice dean second, the other cardinal bishops by seniority, the cardinal priests by seniority, and finally the cardinal deacons by seniority. Gentgeen 21:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't realize that. If that's the case it should have been made clear in the text of the article how the list was ordered. In any event, I think that kind of ordering would be more appropriate for the list of cardinal electors rather than the list of papabili, since their seniority is irrelevant to their chances of being elected. My concern is still that if the rationale for the order isn't clear, it's liable to be misinterpreted.--Transf1o 22:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would say that it was obvious,since each rank of cardinal was identified in the table,all were ranked together,and they were in order of becoming Cardinals,which was also given.All the lists of cardinals participating in conclaves at Salvador Miranda's comprehensive website.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 16:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

electors by country list

I reverted the change to the electors by country list, which had been sorted by number of electors and was changed to simple alphabetical order. I think being able to see which countries control a lot of votes is more helpfull, as well as more compact, than knowing that Angola is the first country alphabetically. Gentgeen 00:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Am not convince either way, but what I do know is the article have enough lists such that the new version make it worse than the old one. -- KTC 00:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm with Gentgeen. The list could perhaps do with some prettification, but the presentation in descending order is by far the more useful of the two. –Hajor 00:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

North America, South America, Latin America, U.S. of America

A recent edit separated "North America" from "Latin America", and (by inference) listed North America as only the United States and Canada. The problem is that most lists include the countries of Central America and the Caribbean as being part of North America. I'm wondering how to best resolve this: revert to Latin America & "U.S./Canada", or put the Central American/Caribbean Cardinals into the North American list. --68.100.250.35 00:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's how it was, prior to yesterday, but I saw in the edit summaries that someone objected to the implication that the USA and Canada were a single country (?). Dividing them into "Canada & U.S." and "Latin America" is a more useful breakdown, I think. –Hajor 15:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cardinal electors

Why aren't the Eastern Rite patriarchs not listed under the Cardinal electors section? Names like that of Nasrallah Pierre Cardinal Sfeir, Maronite Patriarch of Antioch, are missing from the list. Have we decided to snub them? --Gerald Farinas 15:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My best guess is that since they're part of a distinct entity of the church, they aren't given the right to vote in the conclave. I'm not a Catholic (or even a Christian) so I don't know very well the ideological differences between the Western and Eastern branches, but if you add up the list of Cardinal electors given on the main page you get the 117 number widely reported in the media (and by the Vatican itself, as far as I know).--PatadyBag 17:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They DO have the right to vote in the conclave if they are Cardinals and aged under 80,but as it happens,Sfeir and Ghattas are over 80 (Ghattas became a Cardinal only when past 80).The third Cardinal Patriarch (Ignace Moussa Daoud) resigned his patriarchate to take over the Congregation for the Oriental Churches in the Roman Curia.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 17:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Picture request

If anyone's in Rome, can they get a photo of the chimney, which has apparently just been set up. [1] Everyone's eyes will be focused on this over the next few days - it is after all one of the definitive symbols of a conclave. — Trilobite (Talk) 23:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

20th century popes?

why in the world does this article have so many charts and statistics and trivia about 20th century popes? what purpose do they serve? it seems awfully arbitrary. Kingturtle 07:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree, much of the background material in this article belongs somewhere else. Adam 07:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't really see how you can have any meaningful "statistics" from such a small sample anyhow. Pakaran 16:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Updating

Change present to past tense. 62.7.161.217 21:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No result this evening?

Is it too early for us to conclude that there was no decisive result to this evening's single vote? If there were, would it be reported somewhere by now? Pakaran 16:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)