Pre-death

Likely, maybe, but this is not encyclopedic, as

a) we don't know for certain that it will take place in 2005, and

b) it seems very speculative.

I'd propose deletion.

I agree. This speculation could be moved to some other article.

I too question the necessity of this article at this instant, but, regardless, I have renamed it to "Papal election of 2005". --timc | Talk 18:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The necessity of this article is maybe not current yet. But it undoubtedly will be in the very near future.

Well, it's still not officialy confirmed, but it isn't very likely that he will stay pope anyhow. - Lucas

It seems almost certain that the pope will die within the next few days. That said, so long as it is theoretically possible that he might live until January 1, 2006, it does not seem appropriate to have this article. john k 20:21, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No matter how "likely" the passing of the Pope might be. To create an article about "the papal election of 2005" while the Pope is still alive is in poor taste, inappropriate and just plain offensive. There's no election with the Pope still alive. As with many aspects of diplomacy, timing is of the essence, and it was completely off in this case. Some people got ahead of the events and made an awful error in judgement. This was a very, very, very bad move. If only to preserve the dignity and respectability of this project, this article should be deleted, and recreated only when the Pope passes and a Papal election actually takes place, whichever the year might be. Redux 23:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes this page was created early, but it doesn't make any sense to delete it now. The page would have to recreated in a few hours anyway. (Alphaboi867 23:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC))

That you are assuming JP II will die in a few hours. As been said, however unlikly, there might not be an papal election this year. He has not die yet, he has not resign, I would agree with others that it's not appropriate to have this article at the present time. KTC 00:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"This article or section contains references to a current or ongoing event."

No, it doesn't.

I don't feel as strongly about this as Redux does, but let's be clear that this is really jumping the gun. That said, keep in mind that this article isn't linked from anywhere—readers cannot stumble across this by accident (well, maybe literally if they chose "random page" enough, but let's ignore that). This has to be kept in mind while judging the "offensiveness". Likewise, I sincerely doubt the "dignity" and "respectability" are in such great peril as Redux is suggesting. No doubt many newspapers are working on exactly such an article as we speak. The only difference is that those offer no way at all to readers to find out that they are beforehand, while our readers consist of Wikipedia contributors as well, who can. A Wikipedia contributor, like a newspaper editor, would probably not deem this quite so serious an offense as an average reader might. This sounds more like a moral panic than an actual response to people who were offended.

We might have a separate WikiProject or some space somewhere where articles on purely speculative but highly likely events are kept in storage for collaborative editing. Putting it in a user space would present a nasty little problem: any number of users could have such articles up their sleeves, and then it's a race to who gets there first, while others are forced to integrate their approaches. This is wasteful.

I agree, however, that this kind of article should not be in the main space, because they are by definition not verifiable. I consider Redux' suggestion of deleting it outright to be "disrespectful" and "offensive" to those who contributed to the article, however, and two wrongs don't make a right. We can commit ourselves to moving this somewhere else for the interim, and to doing that rightaway for future articles of this kind, but there's no need to beat ourselves for this faux pas. Yes, it was improper and ill-advised, but I see declaring this article anathema and demanding its execution for transgression as even more harmful to the encyclopedia than our assumedly damaged respectability. JRM 01:45, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

Correction to the above: this article is linked to by other articles (I was looking at the links to the talk page). Now that obviously invalidates most of my arguments. These links should be removed ASAP. Drawing contributor attention to this article is good, but drawing reader attention is not acceptable. JRM 01:47, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

I've removed all links to this article. They should be reinstated if and when we know there will be a papal election in 2005, and can back this up with references. Independent speculation is beyond an encyclopedia. JRM 01:58, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

Newspapers prepare obituaries for famous people years in advance - irt's not a big deal to have an article like this prepped and ready to go. PMA 02:17, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Although this article is fairly obviously going to be pertinent within the next week or two, it shows a terrible disrespect for a man who has led the world's one billion Catholics for the past quarter century. At the hour of his death to focus on who will succeed him in place of his legacy and his achievements is rather tasteless. I guess the best option for the time being is to keep the article in existence, but to lock edits on it and eliminate links to it until the Pope has actually passed. --PatadyBag 02:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)--PatadyBag 02:22, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re locking edits: no. See Wikipedia:Protection policy; this page matches no criteria. Protecting pages is a very last resort for serious problems. There is no reason to lock this page down if we make sure our readers can't stumble across it. On the contrary, there is every reason to allow our contributors to make the article is good as possible for when its time finally comes, even before it does. If nothing else, it shows our commitment to accuracy. Protecting it sends out the wrong message. JRM 02:28, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

I understand your feelings regarding general Wikipedia policy, but it strikes me that the lack of sensitivity shown in creating the article is a bit too opportunistic. Although the article's creators may have had good intentions in wanting to share information, it is not appropriate to speak about the Pope as someone who is practically already dead (not to mention that most of the pertinent information was already discussed on the "Papabile" page). Wiki policy aside, it would at least be a nice gesture to exercise a little bit of restraint until the conclave actually occurs.--PatadyBag 02:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Letting contributors know about this article on the JP II talk page was the right thing to do - linking to it in the JP II article was wrong and you were right to remove it JRM. PMA 02:42, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

@PatadyBag: Absolutely, which is why we should be conservative about making this information available to readers. I strenuously object to protecting pages as "gestures", however. If you feel a gesture is in order, you are free to suggest its deletion—this would show people for at least five days that others wanted it gone. Other than that, the only gestures I can think of is offering personal apologies to readers who express their dismay—so far, there haven't been any (not counting the Wikipedians themselves, of course; we are talking on the subject right now). We could also adapt the article's header to make sure it is not actually about an "ongoing event" or even a proper article, but merely something we work on as callous and opportunistic people who are duly sorry about their work ethic. Well, not quite as dramatic as that, but you get my drift. :-) And, of course, as I've said, this sort of article shouldn't be in the main namespace, but at present there's no good place to move it to. JRM 02:51, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

Fair enough- I'm satisfied :-) --PatadyBag 02:53, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And as i said up thread newspapers prepare obituaries of famous people far in advance and would also be prepping an article on the papal election - "It's not the children that need their eyes covered it's the parents" as they say. PMA 03:17, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just to make it clear: I did suggest we deleted the article from the main space for the time being, but as a gesture aimed at fixing this faux pas, not as punishment for those who got ahead of the facts and created this article. I also said that, as soon as reality catches up, the article could be restored. We (meaning the Admins) have the technical resources to do this.
Another point is that people have been quoting the well known technique of news media of putting together obituaries, or information about people before they die, so that it can be used as soon as they die. First of all, this is not a news website, it's an encyclopedia, so not every procedure used in that realm would apply to us automatically. This is not the case here, at least not entirely. It's perfectly valid to gather and start organizing information beforehand, so that we can be prepared to have a good article up asap. But the difference is: newspapers may gather information, but if they have an ounce of responsibility they won't have an edition out with a headline saying something like "Papal election to be held any day now" while the Pope is still alive. That's why I said that our responsibility was at stake. As per our dignity, we cannot ignore how precipitated and unthoughtful the decision to create this article was.
The fact that the article may not be in plain sight, especially for the ocasional visitor, only serves to protect us from taking criticism for this mistake, but it does not excuse us from the fact that we, and especially because we are an encyclopedia, were precipitated, tactless and offensive. As long as the Pope is alive and this article remains [in the main space], we are still at fault, regardless of the fact that the general public may not be reading it.
Incidentelly, the predictions are failing already. In Roman time, they said that the Pope was not expected to make it through the night, but it's already early morning in Rome and he is still alive. How can we build an entire article from speculation? Regards, Redux 04:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

excellent

I think it's an excellent article and very informative. It's just a fact that one of the most influential and widely known figures on the face of planet earth is really sick and might die. Soon. People may be interested to know exactly what would happen if this occurs. --Alterego 03:41, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

If people want to know about how a Conclave to elect a Pope works, I believe we have an article on that. If they want to know details about John Paul II's failing health, our article on him carries that information. It is completely unnecessary to have this article "predicting" the "Papal election of 2005", as if it was a consumated fact already. Regards, Redux 04:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, i'm not worried about offending anyone so "innapropriate" doesn't carry much weight. --Alterego 04:08, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Even the Vatican concedes that the Holy Father's death is imminent. There will almost certainly be a Papal election this year. (Alphaboi867 04:14, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Nobody's contesting that there will almost undoubtedly be a papal election this year, and nobody here has taken offense to the article's existence in and of itself. It only seems right that as a mere measure of respect that we hold off of speaking of this election so matter-of-factly until the Pope has actually died. The information available here is available on several other pages without such a... "realistic" title, so it shouldn't be that difficult to post relevant and topical ideas without trampling on JP II's (soon-to-be) memory. --PatadyBag 04:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I feel that is a bit POV - as previously stated his death is iminent, once a papal election goes forth the contents of this article could be moved to a ==Speculation== section. To allow ones religious sentimentalities to invade this project is entirely disagreeable - the fact remains it will happen, and we are informing. Regardless, predicting the next is not "trampling on the memory" - it matters alot, the pope is one of the most powerful positions in the world. Not only is he seen as infallible, but this infallibility is theoretically believed by a billion people. Arguements that law will always supercede papal decision is also flawed, the scriptures clearly state that if there is a conflict between the law of a nation and the law of God (keep in mind that the Pope is literally God's representative on Earth) then the law of God, hence Papal determination, takes precidence. It does matter who is next, we shouldn't avoid this due to cultural sentiment. --Oldak Quill 12:41, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Post-death

Confusing sentence

Although John Paul II's successor has not yet been named, people have long said that "He who enters the conclave as pope, leaves it as a cardinal.

Maybe I'm being a bit thick today, but I don't understand this. Can someone provide some elaboration? Ben Arnold 07:25, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It means that the strongest "papabili" usually are not elected. For example Cardinal Siri, who was a "sure pope" in 1958 but was defeated by the surprise Angelo Roncalli, and Cardinal Benelli, front-runner in both 1978 election and defeated by Albino Luciani and Karol Wojtyla. On the other hand, Eugenio Pacelli and Giovanni Montini "entered the conclave as popes and leaved it as popes"

I expect that this is due to the most photogenic and media-ready Cardinals, who get far more exposure than those who are quieter, are often predicted to succeed–perhaps these types are counter to true papal expectations? --Oldak Quill 12:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article move

The Holy Father has died. This paged should be moved to Papal election, 2005 as it is now absolutely certain there will be one in a matter of weeks. (Alphaboi867 20:09, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Oh, now we're discussing whether the page should be moved, when there's no more controversy on it. I see. :-) JRM 20:12, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

Isn't the convention to call it 2005 Papal election ? --Alterego 20:27, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

No. Political elections use the "X election, year" name scheme. No reason for papal elections to be different, I think. Kairos 21:21, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. (Alphaboi867 21:27, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC))

The format is 'location election, date' for an elementary reason, so that all elections in a specific location have the same name except for a different date at the end. So we have

Doing that makes lists easier. Putting date first would look well if the only thing you were going by is date. In reality we define elections by the format 'where what, when'.

I've made quite a few changes to the article.

I think the prediction that Ratzinger will win is way off the mark. Strong ideologues rarely win papal elections. In addition the College of Cardinals rarely elects someone very close to the previous pope, even when most of the College is chosen by the previous pope. Pope John Paul's high profile travelling and less than thorough attention to detail in the Vatican actually annoyed some local hierarchies, who felt he was overshadowing them and not doing the real job back at home in the Vatican. I expect you'll see a low key, seventy-something administrator elected for a couple of years, to give the Church a chance to calm down after the excitement of JPII. In the next conclave after this one, they'll probably go looking for a new JPII. After the populist ideologue Pius IX they chose the liberal administrator Leo XIII, then the populist ideologue Pius X, then the low key administrator Benedict XV, then the (somewhat) populist (and notoriously tempermental) Pius XI, then the intellectual administrator Pius XII, then the popular charismatic John XXIII, then the curialist administrator Paul VI, then the popular 'holy man' John Paul I, then the populist ideologue (but weak on administration) John Paul II. Logic suggests they will again be cautious and look for a 'safe pair of hands' again. Many churchmen privately were highly critical of what they believed was his tendency to delegate administration to rather self-important bureaucrats (Dominus Jesus was a classic example. Ratzinger wrote it. Apparently JPII never even read it before it was issued, as one cardinal, who went to JPII to complain about it, found out to his horror. JP was a towering intellectual, but he worked on his own ideas, rather than overseeing the actions of his underlings. That annoyed people, who for example felt that if he had been more of a bureaucrat he would have picked up the sex abuse scandals earlier, rather than leaving it to other people who proved less able and made a complete hash of it.

Ratzinger would be a good administrator, but probably too good and too bosy for most, which is why he has IMHO a snowball's chance in hell of being elected. He has also made too many local enemies in his forceful job in the Holy Office. Many would be glad to see the back of him from there. Sending him up to the papal apartments for life would make him more, not less, forceful.

I've added in facts and figures to the article as well.

From scanning media coverage I've reached diametrically different opinions to those in the original article here about the likelihood of a South American pope. Far from it being a 'slim' prospect it seems a very real one. An African one does however seem unlikely. If the Italians unite this time their candidate should be a 'European' candidate as they have the numbers for that. So it would seem as though the split could well be Europe versus South America. On the 'better the devil you know' principle, many American cardinals and conservative Africans would probably favour the European candidate over the South American one(s), on the basis that the Europeans would probably keep things steady (and they will probably want a short 'steady as you go' pontificate, whereas a South American one might be an unknown quantity, perhaps too radical, for conservatives. Also many Africans might want to ensure that when there is a non-European pope it is one of them - that they are the ones to break the mould rather than let South America get the credit in the history books for being the mould breakers. I'd guess the new pope will probably be a European, more than likely an Italian, and quite probably a curialist to get the administration back in order and not overshadowing the local hierarchies by a lot of travelling. That is my gut feeling and it is what I have heard from senior clerics. FearÉIREANN 06:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your right about the location election, year formant, but Vatican City election, 2000 sounds bizare and would confuse people. The Pope is much more than Sovereign of Vatican City. The current format is the most logical way to adapt Wiki's election formant conventions. (Alphaboi867 07:53, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Maybe I'm too tired (I've been writing all night) but I think we are at cross purposes. I am not suggesting we move it at all. I'd regard Papal as adequate in the circumstances. Vatican City I'd totally oppose. But in terms of strict accuracy, now that I think of it, while Papal and 2005 are OK, maybe election isn't the right word. They are called Conclaves and people when talking about past one talk about the 1958 conclave rather than the 1958 election. Maybe the more correct name for this would be Papal conclave, 2005. That would be far more accurate than Papal election, 2005. After all what will happen is not akin to an election in how we understand them: no campaigns, no announced candidates, no revelation of counts, no manifestos, etc. It is not so much a secret ballot as a secret election. Conclave is much more accurate as a name. We could then create a back series of articles on past papal conclaves. Papal election, 2005 was OK as a title in the absence of an actual conclave, but we now have one so we should use it in the title. FearÉIREANN 08:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support, for above reasons.--BaronLarf 20:43, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Support QuartierLatin1968 03:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agree --cesarb 13:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done. Election is clearly not the right word (it is a unique non-public ballot). I have moved and fixed any double redirects. --Oldak Quill 14:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with the move, but "election" is clearly an accurate term. A pope is elected, just like a Holy Roman Emperor or a King of Poland was elected. john k 15:06, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regardless, conclave is the correct and official term. I am quite ambiguous - I just feel conclave is of more use, it is the primus inter pares. --Oldak Quill 15:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I note that the term "papal conclave" is redundant. A conclave, by definition, relates to the pope. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with the term "papal election". -- Emsworth 19:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Conclave refers to the meeting itself, the locking of the cardinals inside the Sistine Chapel - this is not redundant. A Conclave is brought together with the purpose of balloting for a new pope. This article not only deals with the ballot but the entire process: the conclave. --Oldak Quill 19:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The general article is, sensibly, Papal election. Papal election, 2005 was too simple? --Wetman 19

30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I concur that "election" is probably better than "conclave" in the article title.Papal elections have been in the form of a conclave since the 13th century,but this is an instance of an event with a longer history than that.(The "Papal election" article was formerly at "conclave" but was moved for this reason).--Louis E./12.144.5.2 19:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Election in this context is completely wrong. The process is called a conclave. I've been watching television coverage on BBC, BBC News 24, Sky News, Channel 4 News, Sky News, ITV News, RTÉ News all day and all last night (literally all) and made a point of recording what references there were to the new selection process. The result was

Conclave/Papal Conclave - 41 references.

Papal election/election - 4 references.

That did not include repeat references in repeated bulletins on the hour, but different reports. The 4 election references came from journalists: 2 from the same ITV journalist who said the pope had been elected in 1987, 1 from a Sky News reporter who called St John Lateran a "church in the Vatican". 1 came from a journalist who repeated the myth about the pope being tapped on the forehead with a silver hammer. (That ceremony was abolished many many decades ago.) All the experts on all the channels used conclave without exception. Election in this context when it the process is called conclave, would be factually wrong. If some organisation, state or country calls their electoral process by a special name we should use it. What is happening is quite simply a papal conclave and it should be referred to as such. FearÉIREANN 19:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Louis E. - conclaves may not have always existed, but the method was not always election either: acclaimation and committee have both been used. --Oldak Quill 20:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Very good point, Quill. I'd forgotten that. Until the late pope changed the rules, there were three methods of selection in a conclave. Election was just one. If as I hope will happen a series of articles is written about past conclaves, we clearly could not use election as some conclaves, albeit hundreds of years ago, were not elections but selection by committee or acclamation. Conclave is the only word that can apply to all three methods of selection used over a millennium. FearÉIREANN 20:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We need to balance correctness with timelessness. If a user creates an article for a Papal selection in the 7th century we want it to follow a similar naming to that in 2005, for this neither election, nor conclave may suffice. A more ambiguous term such as "Papal selection, 2005" would achieve this, but this is too ambiguous to be correct. Does anyone have further suggestions? --Oldak Quill 20:17, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contrary to Jtdirl's point,it is "election" that is the parent umbrella under which "conclave" is a special (post-1271) case.That conclaves have done their work in different fashions though now constrained to only use ballots does not take away their status as the post-1271 format of the selection process that became restricted to cardinals in 1059 but has existed since the 1st century,and for all we know may not always remain in the current format.--Louis E./12.144.5.2 20:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A conclave is a term describing the meeting of the cardinals, including the ballot and wrangling. The election is just one part of it. Further, not all choices have been performed by a conclave - there have been public acclaimations by the Roman people, as well as committee choices which aren't conclaves in that they do not include all cardinals. --Oldak Quill 20:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because conclaves have been used for so long I think it is the obvious term to use for the 100+ conclaves since the process of using conclaves began. Earlier systems changed over the years so they could be pulled together under a list of [[Selection of popes]]. A category could then be pulled together to join the pre-conclave selection processes and the conclaves. I may be wrong but I don't know if there is much surviving information about pre-conclave selections. There are limited enough sources for conclaves so most articles would simply be stubs. (It reminded me of the story of a cardinal at one conclave who wrote all the count results on the inside of his surplice in pen. When he got home a nun in his household washed the surplice not realising what it had written on the inside. All the records he had carefully gathered where washed out!!!) FearÉIREANN 20:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There has always been a papal election and the modern form of doing so is in a conclave.Just keep things straight,no need to call all elections conclaves.--L.E./12.144.5.2 20:45, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Carlo Maria Martini

I removed following sentence: The odds are against it, but it is theoretically possible that someone like the formerly papabile Cardinal Martini could be chosen by that route. Reason: Carlo Maria Martini is younger then 80, thus he takes part at the conclave! 83.65.250.91 12:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pronounciation

Norwegian television (NRK) has discovered Wikipedia, and as it turns out, one of the things they want is sound files with the pronounciation of the names of the papabili, especially the non-English names. Any chance that some native Spanish, Italian etc. speakers can make ogg-files of the names and upload them to Commons? Ctande 15:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Great idea - I'll get some people together. --Oldak Quill 15:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course, this would be more easily accomplished, and far more useful, with .wav files, for which everyone has the software needed, rather than the rather limited but obligatory .ogg - Nunh-huh

Diocese of Pius XII

Currently, we have Pius XII listed as having been elected from no diocese. However, he seems to have been titular Archbishop of Sardes. Should this be listed or no? john k 15:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Titular counts. --Wetman 19:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mmmm. A difficult one. I suppose it would be useful to include, but he wasn't actually based there, in the way Montini was in Milan and Luciani was in Venice. They aren't really comparable.FearÉIREANN 19:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is a Pope chosen when serving in the Roman Curia really classifiable as to coming from a particular diocese?...the others are all pastors at the time of election.--L.E./12.144.5.2 20:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Papabili bloat

The list of "papabili" in the article keeps growing,seemingly as soon as anyone hears someone mentioned as a possible pontiff.Beyond the duplicate listings,is some pruning in order?How much "support" should be needed to get on that list?

Once this election is over,a pruned list (the members younger than whoever gets elected would be the first cut,as it has been centuries since a Pope was not younger than his predecessor) belongs back at the papabile article.--L.E./12.144.5.2 19:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We're also being inconsistent. This page lists Cardinal Sodano as papabile, but our article on him specifically says he's not generally seed an one of the papabili. Then, the page says that the US and France are not likely sources of the new pope, but the Archbishop of Paris is at the top of the list, and the Archbishop of Chicago is on it as well. I think we should only have a small list, maybe the top 10, let the other 20 currently there be outside choices. If this keeps going, we'll have 180 cardinals on the list of papabili, and perhaps a few non-cardinal archbishops as well. Gentgeen 20:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the US & French's cardinals as it [B]is[/B] (including news source) agreed that they're less likely to be selected, as per the article. I left Cardinal Sodano on as I don't know whether to remove him here or to change his article to say he is a Papabili.

Also, I do have to say some of the "Papabili" listed here seem to have rather remote a chance of actually getting selected. Never, ever, personally seen any of their names mentioned anywhere as a papabili.