Talk:Speculation about the papal conclave, 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Convert to past tense?

As easy as it was to set up this page, I'm afraid it would be more encyclopedic to convert the whole thing to past tense. Maybe we should all volunteer to do a paragraph. :) Doops 20:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Just as we have our achived delete pages (which I first created) we should keep this as if was just before Benedict's election. It will offer a chance in the future to see what the contemporary writers at the time expected would happen. To capture that it should remain exactly as it was before 5pm BST as a record. Archival documents aren't changed after the event. We should do the same thing here, including keeping the tense that was used. Nothing should be added and nothing taken away. This should form a perfect archive of thoughts, attitudes and perspectives up to the point where Benedict was elected and this stuff needed to be archived away from the main page which will of course be edited and added to as more information becomes available about what really happened at the 2005 conclave. FearÉIREANN 21:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, not exactly. It won't be a perfect record of the conventional wisdom, it'll be a perfect record of what a few Wikipedia editors (including me) thought the conventional wisdom was; which, although indeed interesting for archival purposes, is novel ground for an encyclopedia article. The devil's advocate in me impishly suggests that there could be two pages: 1) a freely editable article, written in the past tense, which describes the speculation; and 2) a fossilized archive (not really an article) of present-tense speculation unsullied by hindsight — but that would probably be overkill.

At any rate, I don't really mind leaving it the way it is; I'm a real packrat and perfectionist, so I love to save things; and I agree that the danger of hindsight creeping into a present-tense article would be real. And I'm not so uptight about encylopediacity that calling this an "article" and not an "archive" bothers me. So I guess I wrote this long post just because I'm pompous, not because I actually have anything to say. Doops 02:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the article contains most valuable information, but such that it should have not been taken away from the 2005 conclave article and then put in an article called "speculation about..." At least, I'm not quite sure this was the best choice for its title. It kind of makes me feel like it doesn't belong to an encyclopedia. To a forum or discussion, yes, it does. But I mean the title, not the article and its contents, which I find great... But I have almost no experience as a Wikipedian, so you don't have to agree with me... User:Dalegrett

Unless this gets converted to the proper tense it's junk!

A record of what people thought in the past can not be couched as looking forward.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 03:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would have to respectfully disagree with Jtdirl on this issue. Wikipedia is not a journal or diary, but an encyclopedia. It is wholly inappropriate to use the present tense in this case. -- Emsworth 00:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personally I think this whole page should be deleted. Anyone else? Stroika 22:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo of John Paul I

Can we delete the photograph and caption of John Paul I? Unless there is evidence that he hadn't bothered to get his haircut and especially if there is evidence that other cardinals deemed to be papabile were newly shorn, the caption is unsourced speculation. I don't think his hair looks that long, considereing it is 1978.

A more appropriate photograph might be one of journalists looking clueless ;-) Stroika 18:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

His family highlighted the fact that he was so unprepared for his election that unlike other cardinals (whose preparations for their possible election are legendary — one Italian cardinal in 1978 famously went on a starvation diet to slim down, only for it to backfire when the rumour went around that he was losing weight due to cancer!) he did not even bother to get a haircut. The only new he had was new shoes bought by his family but his feet were so swollen he could not wear them. The image simply shows the truth of the family claims. He clearly had not had a haircut and it was a complete mess. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Where did the family say this? Please provide a reference. Which Italian cardinal went on a crash diet? Ditto. And the shoes? Ditto. I don't wish to sound pugnacious. I am too young to remember any of this. To me that photograph does not particularly show much. To reverse the usual cliché I think one word from his secretary or whoever saying that Albino Cardinal Luciani did not bother getting a haircut *because* he did not think he would be elected is worth a thousand such photographs. OK be realistic *25* words would be enough.

Stroika 22:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I have tagged this article as needing cleanup because it is grossly outdated. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a historical document or an archive of news reports. Historical documents to show historical viewpoints belong in Wikisource, not Wikipedia. We are interested only presenting true and relevant information to the reader in an up-to-date present-day perspective (what we do best). While much of the text in this article is relevant encyclopedic information, almost all of it is written in a tone to assume the papal conclave of 2005 has not yet occurred.--Jiang 11:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think this article does not need to exist. Any information specific to the 2005 conclave belongs at Papal conclave, 2005. Any information that is general information on speculation about papal conclaves belongs at Papal conclave (if it's not there already). This will help out people wanting to speculate on the next papal conclave. --Jiang 11:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)