Talk:Jean-Marie Cardinal Lustiger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	France Portal Jean-Marie Cardinal Lustiger is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France and Monaco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.

..

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

I removed the bit about "Some "religious" Jews ..." According to "religious Jewish law" Lustiger is undoubtedly Jewish. Furthermore, given his age and the circumstances of his conversion, he falls into the halachic category of tinok shenishba ("a child who was taken captive"), if anything, and would not even be considered apostate. What some Jews might take offense over is the idea that he might be using his position as a Catholic cardinal to speak on behalf of Jews observing Judaism. My own experience is that there is far less animosity to Lustiger than the former paragraph would imply. Danny 11:47, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Adam. I understand your changes, but I think that are still too severe regarding the attitude of Jews toward Lustiger. I happen to agree wholeheartedly with RK's assessment that there is a sense of "quasi-pride" in him. I actually witnessed it today. Perhaps we can come up with something a little more neutral, or at least mention the popular sentiment of pride. Danny 23:56, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There's no way anybody can convince me that ad-hoc pronunciation guides like "Loo-sti-zhair" are better than IPA. (Anyway, it isn't an English "oo" sound, it's /y/ like German ü.) QuartierLatin1968 18:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Page Move 2 British, US English 3 Still a Jew? 4 Cardinal-Elector

[edit] Page Move

• Oppose. I realize this is an irresponsible vote, since it goes against democratic centralism regarding the conventions on names and titles. But I hate titles. A bas tous les tyrans! QuartierLatin1968 03:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose: I have never understood this decision that, of all the titles people have, only "Pope" and "Cardinal" should be inserted into the titles of articles. All biographical articles should be titled with the person's full name and no titles (except for royalty, who should have their royal name only). Thus Jean-Marie Lustiger, John Paul II and Elizabeth II. Adam 12:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I think I agree, but the way to implement that is to change the convention, not to oppose its implementation piecemeal. Alai 22:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Firstly, the move is supported by current convention. In fact, I am going to move it right now - individual page move votes can't be used to violate convention piecemeal, as Alai says. If you want to change the convention, open a discussion on a naming policy talk page. Secondly, Adam is, firstly, wrong, when he says that no other titles than cardinal and pope are used. Notably, noble titles are very frequently used. His proposal re:monarchs is utterly unworkable - What would, say, the article Frederick II be? How would we disambiguate? Don't fix a system that isn't broken. It is to be added that most contemporary cardinals are known by the "Firstname Cardinal Lastname" form, in any event. I also agree with most of what Jtdirl says below. john k 02:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cardinal is included in the titles of cardinals for two practical reasons.

• Many mediaeval cardinals have had their first names long forgotten in history and so they can only be entered as Cardinal X while people try to find the original first name.

• Many mediaeval cardinals used different cardinalate names than their original birth names. Not including the word cardinal produces a name that never existed. But their own personal names are either universally not recognised or long forgotten.

The inclusion of cardinal is not meant to give cardinals any particular special treatment. It is simply the only way many historic cardinals can be entered on wikipedia. It was discussed and agreed that in the case of cardinals, the word's inclusion was a practical necessity. Ancient office-holders, where their personal name may not be as widely known and they are only known by title and surname, cause particular problems that don't arise with holders of more modern offices. Mediaeval cardinals will invariably be searched through google through 'cardinal x', just as popes will be searched for using 'pope x'. Other clergymen in other lower offices are either not remembered in history or are usually known by full name. But the higher one got in the Roman Catholic Church, the greater the likelihood that one's personal names were replaced by a clerical name, and it is just the latter that people remember.

This page belongs with all the other hundreds of cardinal articles under the format agreed and used all over wikipedia. Either the naming conventions are changed (which will mean we cannot put on some mediaval cardinals and will have inaccurate names for others) or this article needs to be moved to follow the agreed format. Abandoning that format would necessitate the renaming of hundreds of pages of articles and at this stage tens of thousands of links in articles. FearÉIREANN 23:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Standardizing is mostly good and the arguments reasonable. But please make sure that for every Johannes Cardinal Doe, there are redirects (or disambiguations when applicable) both at Johannes Doe and at Cardinal Johannes Doe. / u◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d 21:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • And surely more to the point, at Cardinal Doe, which is surely the actual common usage (as opposed to the strictly conventional). Alai 22:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Correct naming conventions. violet/riga (t) 23:01, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] British, US English

Any particular reason why this article was/ought to be flipped from British to American spelling? Alai 05:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Still a Jew?

There is a difference between the halakhic category of ben Israel (usually translated as "Israelite", though not to be confused with Ancient Israelite) and a yehudi ("Jew"). If you are making the distinction, then Lustiger follows into the former category but not the latter one. (I also doubt that he can be considered to be a "child taken captive", since he was of age (halakhically) when he converted.) Hasdrubal 29 June 2005 23:16 (UTC)

Cite sources please. Jayjg ^(talk) 29 June 2005 23:23 (UTC)

Lustiger's attention to the media should be noted, also his (?more restricted) attitude to ecumenism as instanced in his speech to the Archbishop of Canterbury at Notre-Dame in 1981.His role in the education crisis which precipitated the fall of the Mauroy government needs exploring,also his attitude to liberal clergy in his own diocese and to Msgr Gaillot----Clive Sweeting

[edit] Cardinal-Elector

I note that Cardinal Lustiger lost his right to vote in a conclave today (17 Sep 2006) upon reaching the age of 80. His status as an elector or not would seem to be an important bit of information, however its not obvious to me where it might fit within the current article. Is there a standard way of indicating this?--Dcheney 04:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)