Talk:Death and funeral of Pope Benedict XVI

"peculiar moment" -- not NPOV phrasing

While the news media may often seem bewildered by Benedict's resignation, such events are not unprecedented in the history of the Catholic church. Suggest changing this to something more neutral, while acknowledging the period of having both a pope and a pope emeritus has ended. The exact phrasing escapes me at the moment, however, and I don't have time to hash it out right now.

Please see Papal resignation for more information if needed. GrandMote (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The status of "Pope Emeritus" is unprecedented. Previous popes who resigned simply ceased having any hierarchical title and had no "emeritus" title. Veverve (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the source states that it is unprecedented in modern history, not in itself. I have now corrected the article. Veverve (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think "unprecedented" is the wrong word to use (it was copied from the source) because either it's unprecedented or it has a precedent. Since it does have a precedent, let's come up with a more accurate source/description of it as a remarkable and uncommon situation. Elizium23 (talk) 02:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Declining health

It's important to note that Benedict specifically cited his own declining health in 2013 as the reason for his renunciation of the Petrine office. Elizium23 (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flag salad "Reactions" section

As you may know, many editors despise the list-formated "Reactions" section, especially the flag icons. It should be converted into prose--not a bulleted list. Direct quotes from pandering politicians are unencyclopedic and sourcing must be better than Twitter--which is primary. Abductive (reasoning) 01:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Social media sources fall under WP:BLPSPS and are clearly both self-serving and claims about a third party. Not to mention, WP:UNDUE coverage. Please use reliable secondary sources. Elizium23 (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody removed the tag, but Tweets crept in again, such as @Ergo Sum. Keep it WP:SECONDARY and keep it WP:DUE. Elizium23 (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is patently silly that the rule against self-published sources be applied to a list of statements from public figures. But rules are rules, no matter how misguided. Ergo Sum 15:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's patently silly that statements by public figures don't gain traction in the popular media, but that's not true, they do gain traction, but editors can't be arsed to find those articles, or just wait a while. One-third of journalists are just reporting on Twitter feeds, so they're sure to pick it up in an exclusive within 24 hours, no? Elizium23 (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the Chilean official reaction. I can't add it myself now but would be grateful someone does [1] Bedivere (talk) 06:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe creating a new WP article for the reactions would be better. Veverve (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone inclined to provide an appropriate overview of reactions in place of the tedious list now in place -- the usual people saying what's expected -- one of the better early summaries is at Crux World mourns loss of complicated, controversial and cerebral Pope Benedict. It has a good range of personal contacts, political types, and religious leaders and it includes some that are critical (both nuanced and not IMHO). Also mixed from NCR: Wealth of tribute comes for Benedict, who desired simplicity. Rutsq (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The flag icons aren't an issue to me. But most of the article is composed of quoted boilerplate statements of condolence. A few are probably worth including (i.e. Costa Rica's declaration of national mourning). But most are just pro-forma fluff. We can easily dispense with half or more. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Abductive, Ergo Sum, Bedivere, and Ad Orientem: do you think creating a "Reaction" WP article to host those reactions would be a good idea? The article is currently already almost 100k anyway. Veverve (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Veverve No. The vast majority of them are not notable, either individually or collectively. That section just needs to be stripped down. A couple of sentences noting widespread expressions of condolences from governments and celebrities followed by a list of the few that actually merit an individual mention, and that's it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The best solution is 100% prose, and no flags or list. If someone wants to make a color-coded map that would be fine. Abductive (reasoning) 17:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS links tag

@Neveselbert: what problem do you see with the link format in the "External links" section. The MOS says only: The syntax for referencing a web address is simple. Just enclose it in single brackets with a space between the URL. The format seems more than adequate to me. Elizium23 (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citations templates such as {{cite web}} should not be used in the ==External links== section. External link templates such as {{official website}} are used instead of citation templates. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 14:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Sorry I hadn't looked at the source code. Elizium23 (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, although unfortunately Veverve has since undone your edits. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 01:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the Youtube template is too bad to be useable: it cannot state the upload date and I cannot understand how to make it display the name of the YT channel. Veverve (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you just write it in plain text next to the template??? Elizium23 (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Veverve (talk) 07:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You do you. Elizium23 (talk) 08:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Veverve, the syntax for referencing a web address shouldn't mimic a citation template, it should be simple per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Syntax. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks good the way it is currently. Veverve (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks awful. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Attributions

The whole pattern of attributing every statement to Matteo Bruni personally is tedious and misleading. Unbiased statements of fact do not need to be attributed: he received the sacraments, his remains will lie in state, the funeral will happen in such a way. If WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is indicated, then attribute statements to the Holy See because it's Bruni's job to release official statements and speak for the whole organisation. Using his personal name throughout the article is going to confuse readers and it's implying that this is some unofficial journalist or pundit. Elizium23 (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

State funeral or not?

Are we positive that the funeral held for Benedict will be a state funeral, per article title? Are there sources which specify this? I cannot find any, and in light of the current details, I must cast doubt on the certainty of it as well. Only German and Italian state dignitaries have been invited, and there shall be no other official delegations. Benedict's express wishes specify simplicity. No source in my review used the term "state funeral". Elizium23 (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not certain. GoodDay (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the page pending further clarification of the type of funeral. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:TENSE

@Ravenpuff, bad form to put an enduring situation in past tense. That is not consistent with the sources, much less reality. Elizium23 (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conceded, but it might be a good idea to change it from present tense some time in the future. Writing something in the past tense implies that the situation used to be such, and not necessarily that it is no longer the case; any present-tense statement will eventually have to become dated. Besides, one could argue that the Vatican will indeed have plans for the death of a pope emeritus by the end of the week, and thus it wouldn't really be an "enduring situation" for much longer. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stationary health

There is no need for a three-sentence verbatim quote of the Press Office on Benedict's health update, especially since it contains a painful translation of "stationary" which I presume they meant as "stable". Why don't we paraphrase the statement in part or in full and show our command of the English language? Elizium23 (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

relatives

Which relatives did attend? I've read somewhere that his closest surviving relative is a first cousin once removed. 84.167.80.80 (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plaque with solemn Latin inscription on Benedict XVI's coffin - conflict of opinions

Why don't want to put the Latin inscription on the coffin and its English translation for the funeral of Benedict XVI? On the wikipedia page dedicated to the funeral of John Paul II there is. It is not clear why in this case it shouldn't be there. I want a plausible answer. Thank you AB120399 (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AB120399 As you have already been told, on Wikipedia information must be sourced (WP:V) by WP:RSs. The source you have added either do not mention this information or are unreliable. Veverve (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also attach a link where a series of photos were posted, among which the plaque with the inscription was clearly visible. Clearer than that... yet for you it's unreliable. It must be inserted as was done for John Paul II. If you think you are better, I will accept your input on this point. AB120399 (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AB120399: I have removed this from JPII's funeral article, as it was unsourced. Veverve (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is the source unmistakably a blog, its pictures certainly don't show a plaque "on each of the three coffins". Rutsq (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a Vatican News source with a translation of something related. The source being repeatedly inserted is deprecated. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rutsq AB120399 has removed the Citation needed tag you had rightfully put. The user seems to be attempting to force others to accept their unsourced addition by edit warring. They have done the same on JPII's funeral article for the same content. Veverve (talk) 11:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved on. I am no longer taking an active interest in this article. Rutsq (talk) 11:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravenpuff: the user continues their edit war ([2]). I think they have violated 3RR now, if they had not already. Veverve (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AB120399: hey, what kind of game are you playing? Veverve (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"State funeral" or not? (2)

I am asking for two redirects which target this article (State funeral of Pope Benedict XVI and Death and state funeral of Pope Benedict XVI): can this funeral be considered as State funeral?

Also, what makes John Paul II's funeral a State funeral (see Death and state funeral of Pope John Paul II)? Veverve (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know for certain, but I would imagine Pope Benedict's funeral was NOT a state funeral because he was not the reigning Pope. John Paul II's would have been a state funeral because he was the reigning pope when he died. Kinda like in the UK, Edward VIII didn't have a state funeral when he did in the 70s because he was no longer King. Estar8806 (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"It is not a state funeral." But I can see how this would become confusing as this is almost always done as a state funeral. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Corollary: We should delete the redirect for "state funeral". ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elizium23, GoodDay, and Ravenpuff: since you have already commented in a previous thread on the subject (Talk:Death and funeral of Pope Benedict XVI#State funeral or not?), what is your current stance now that the funeral has taken place? Veverve (talk) 07:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Benedict XVI was (from 2005 to 2013) a head of state & government, so that would make it a state funeral. GoodDay (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is sthere even a clear, undisputable definiton of what a State funeral is or not? Veverve (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some reports have indicated that it was not a state funeral: see [3] and [4]. In any case, we should only call it a state funeral if a majority of reliable sources do so, and they don't. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravenpuff: what about John Paul II's funeral? I can hardly find any source calling it a state funeral. Veverve (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting question. That funeral was definitely different in that there was clearly the protocol to invite representatives from all countries as official guests. I've checked Vatican press releases from 2005 and they don't seem to mention the term. Nevertheless, I think there's a case to move John Paul II's article to "Death and funeral" to get around this potential technicality. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 02:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve: Elizium was indeffed. I lean against saying state funeral for the added reason that only secular government officials from Germany and Italy were invited, alongside the Holy See's statements that it wasn't in this case. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: the Holy See's statements that it wasn't in this case: could you link this statement? Or are tou referring to José Manuel Vidal's euronews interview you linked above? Veverve (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Benedict XVI did request a slimmed down funeral. Perhaps because he was the shy type, or because he didn't die in office. So it would appear that means he didn't want a 'state funeral'. GoodDay (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bishops and archbishops?

RS explained that at least 400 bishops and archbishops attended the funeral. Is it necessary to mention only some of them in the "Religious representatives" subsection? I think it would be more appropriate to include that number of attendees and to include representatives of other religious denominations individually. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archbishop is tricky, as some of them are Bishops (purple caps) & some are Cardinals (red caps) & so it's not a rank, but rather a position. GoodDay (talk) 08:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"State funeral of Pope Benedict XVI" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect State funeral of Pope Benedict XVI and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 7 § State funeral of Pope Benedict XVI until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Death and state funeral of Pope Benedict XVI" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Death and state funeral of Pope Benedict XVI and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 7 § Death and state funeral of Pope Benedict XVI until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_and_funeral_of_Pope_Benedict_XVI&oldid=1204128998"