User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Archive01

Welcome!

Hello, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Archive01, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Flockmeal 05:42, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Lulu, for your message. Though I disagree with you (or do I?) If you're referring to the "His Holiness" issue, I can't see how this formal address can be POV. The style book does speak in favour of including it. However I can also live without it being included. There are more serious issues I have been plunging into - and what a plunge it was (especially the BMW slave labour thing). If you're referring to the "voting advice" issue. Sorry, if I was a bit rude, but you weren't the first to change this, probably to improve the wording. Your version sounds better, that's true, but sometimes we have to take a rugged path if we want to cross a mountain. Str1977 22:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

His Holiness[edit]

I am not a Catholic, and I will not let my bias get in the way. 'His Holiness' is the style of a Pope, just as 'Her Majesty' is the style for the Queen of England. Look it up infact, right in wikipedia and you will see His Holiness is the official style. Look at wikipedia policy, and you will see it is the policy to include the style. To not do so would be an extreme POV.

The reason other Popes do not have His Holiness is because it only applies to the current Pope, much Her Majesty only applies to the current queen of england. Why John Paul II has His Holiness is unknown to me, it does not belong there, however for the current Pope it does.

When a leader has a style, Wikipedia recognises it. To not recognise the official style is wrong, and vandalism. Rangeley 05:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia policy to include "His Holiness." Here's the applicable page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes. --BaronLarf 14:55, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that page was recently modified to support this POV. The modification was clearly intended only to support this one (incorrect) position. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Papal naming[edit]

Is it permissable to have a historical pope addressed as The Blessed or The Venerable or Saint in their title? - BCV

I'm not really sure around those terms, and the specifics of how the descriptions are acquired. The ones I saw in previous popes do not seem to be terms that have specific meanings that members of other religions would find offensive. Whether or not a particular pope is genuinely venerable might be disputed, but it is not a matter of religious doctrine any more than is whether Kathrine or Alexander were really "great."

It would be interesting to have the entries include specifics of the acquisition of the descriptions. Completely speculating with a hypothetical: "Pope Luigi VI was granted the honorific The Scholarly by his successro Luigi VII." That would seem more neutral to me than simply stating (or at least stipulating) that Luigi VI really was Scholarly. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:37, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

After stoping and doing some research I can identify with Rangeley's comment that "The reason other Popes do not have His Holiness is because it only applies to the current Pope, much Her Majesty only applies to the current queen of england. Why John Paul II has His Holiness is unknown to me, it does not belong there, however for the current Pope it does. When a leader has a style, Wikipedia recognises it. To not recognise the official style is wrong, and vandalism." I do think that John XXIII should probably have The Blessed before his name given that the title was given to him by a later pope as a step toward canonization. -BCV

A Quick answer: "His Holiness" in the JPII article is probably just left over from when he was alive. It wasn't that long ago. And yes, the style applies only to the reigning pope, or reigning monarchs in general. Deceased popes are no longer popes. The terms mentioned above are special titles of honour like Venerabilis, Blessed, Saint given to individual persons, by the Pope after a very careful (practically judicial) scrutiny of their lives. Str1977 11:39, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation[edit]

You have been blocked from editing wikipedia for 24 hours for violating the three revert rule on Pope Benedict XVI. Gentgeen 07:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have just reported you for another 3RR violation with regards to the Hitler Youth issue. You have a valid point of view. I don't wish you to feel that I'm picking on you specifically, but the 3RR is there for a reason, and your recent ban seems not to have deterred you from revert wars. --MikeJ9919 04:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What "POV" means[edit]

You reverted my edit on the Pope Benedict XVI article claiming "POV on female priests". You may not be entirely clear on what NPOV means. The point of view that has to be neutral is ours, meaning that, if we're describing someone else's opinion, or in this particular case, an official explanation, it is not POV, but rather explanation. Now, the Catholic Church says currently that it does not have the authority to ordain female priests because Jesus did not call any women to be his apostles. That's their official explanation, and regardless of how absurd it may sound (to anyone), it is not POV because it is not my or any other wikipedian's explanation, but rather that of the Holy See. If you thought that maybe it wasn't all that clear on the fact that it was the Catholic Church's official explanation, reword the text, but don't simply revert to a version that says "the concept of female priests don't fit into the Catholic faith", for this sentence is the one that could be viewed as POV, since this is such a vague explanation that it could (and likely would) be perceived as an interpretation of what the Church actually says. Regards, Redux 03:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have not vandalised Pope Benedict XVI, I have reverted the move of the article to wikipedia is communism. See Vandalism in Progress. see [1]. i had thought it was you but it was Wikipedia is communism. the history is destroyed asnd needs sysop intervention, --SqueakBox 22:15, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a hacker. I apologise, but I did think it was you from the initial watchlist info I was getting, --SqueakBox 22:30, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Re Style usage vote[edit]

I've answered your question on the vote page. If we don't define "formal style" in the vote, it's useless. According to Style (manner of address), "A Style is a form of address which by tradition or law precedes a reference to a person who holds a title or post, or to the office itself." Random people who call themseves "pope" have no tradition, law or popular support behind their use of the name, so I would not see that as a "formal style". — Asbestos | Talk 11:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, Asbestos is just wrong, but it's his/her vote. Kim Jong-Il or Anti-Popes certainly have "tradition and law" behind their styles... they just don't happen to be the traditions and laws that Asbestos likes. If the vote goes with Asbestos' first choice, we will absolutely have to add the styles to Kim or the "True Catholic Church" popes... or simply make Wikipedia an officially pro-Europe, pro-Catholic/Xtian advocacy site. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:17, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

Just a question: if I name myself pope, what tradition, law, or popular support do I have behind me? Also, I believe that NPOV will be sufficient to prevent Wikipedia from being biased to any one group. Regards, Bratsche^{talk random} 05:02, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

If you name yourself "His Holiness" you have as much tradition, law, or popular support as you can garner. "Pope" is a title, not a style, so that is a slightly different discussion. It's clear that some figures whom you or I would consider "fringe" nonetheless have some tradition and support. The Branch Davidians or Jim Jones had followers, and the leaders styles. For that matter, checking now, I see Haile Selassie doesn't lead in with "Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah" (nor even "Emperor") despite the force of law behind that. And likewise Kim Jong-Il.

Addressing the Catholic Pope with his style his completely POV. The only thing that makes it appear otherwise (if you cross your eyes just right) is that the POV is shared by a larger number of people than in the other examples. But NPOV doesn't mean "it's OK if the POV is shared by at least a million, or at least a billion, or whatever number, of people." Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:30, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

This is foolish, and I can't believe you mean your comment seriously. "If you name yourself "His Holiness" you have as much tradition, law, or popular support as you can garner." The proviso you fixed to the end of that statement is hardly incedental: it is the crux of the matter.

1)You have no tradition behind you if you are the first person to assume your newly created position.

2)You have no law behind you, unless you are in a position to make laws.

3)You have as much popular support as you can garner. Well exactly. If you can only get a dozen people to call you "his holiness", then that's not much popular support. We use exactly the same principle in deciding whether to delete biographies of random people: if only a dozen people have ever heard of you, you're not notable.

If, however the holder of your office has had a traditional style since the 12th century, had various forms of your style written into law, and have well over a country of people referring to you as "Her Majesty", then that has all the backings to make it a formal style. I don't know how you can interpret my first comment to imply that someone like Sollog has any tradition, law, or body of support backing his claim to a style. — Asbestos | Talk 08:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]