Talk:State visit by Pope Benedict XVI to the United Kingdom

Day One expansion

Following should be added -

• Went to Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh, met with English royal family (Elizabeth and Phillip), Nick Clegg (deputy PM), Alex Salmond Scottish first minister, and various Scottish religious leaders including the current moderator of the Church of Scotland, the Head of the Salvation Army in Scotland, as well as Sikh, Muslim and Jewish leaders. Rowan Williams was also present.
• Popemobile went along Princes Street and Lothian Road
• Had lunch with Cardinal Keith O' Brien in Morningside.
• Susan Boyle also performed at concert in Bellahouston, where Pope gave speech, and also said a prayer in Gaelic.--MacRusgail (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

John Paul II's visit

Just thinking, we should start an article about John Paul's 1982 visit. I found this from the BBC which sugests it could be interesting, and of course, it was the first visit to Britain by a pontiff for something like 500 years, so definitely noteworthy. Any thoughts? TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Was John Paul II's 1982 visit not a "State visit"? (not challenging... just curious). Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I gather from the coverage that John Paul II's 1982 visit was a "pastoral" as opposed to a "state" visit. I understand that a state visit means that it was initiated by an invitation by the Queen. I agree with RetroGuy that an article on the 1982 events would be rather interesting - some quite dramatic things, like the join prayers in Canterbury, etc. Bob talk 15:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool, I might make a start on an article over the weekend, unless someone else who is more familiar with the subject wants to get the ball rolling first. There's actually quite a good article on the Cantebury visit from BBC On This Day and the John Paul II article links to a reference about a meeting with the Queen so there's lots of scope for it. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

ok, I've made a start on Pope John Paul II's visit to the United Kingdom. There's more information to add, so please feel free to help improve it in the meantime. There's a Pope John Paul II website which I think has a full itinerary of events relating to the visit, but it appears to be down at the moment. I'll have a look again tomorrow. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Social Policy?

The lead talks about something called a "social policy". Does the Pope even have a "social policy"? Isn't sexual morality what is meant here? Rwflammang (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

He does, see Catholic social teaching. However, you are right in that it does not seem to be what's in question here. 87.13.192.36 (talk) 09:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Beatification of Cardinal Newman section

There is no information here about the planned beatification, just a mention of an earlier now abandoned plan and a lot of financial discussion. This section should be renamed. Rwflammang (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Photo request

I imagine hundreds of pictures must have been taken of either The Pope during his visit or at one of the events around the country. It might be nice to have an image. Bob talk 15:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree: it seems odd, for a State Visit, to have no images of the Queen meeting the Head of State, but two pictures of a protest rally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.244.185.135 (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Can't really be helped. The protests were very public in the centre of London and thousands of people had the opportunity to take an image and freely licence it. The pope in his churlishness did not walk around the streets of London with members of parliament and the monarchy where people could take pictures of him. We might have to use a fair-use licensed image. We can only really work with the materials we have got. Mtaylor848 (talk) 11:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

The heading states United Kingdom and the opening line says Great Britain. One should be used. The question is though the Pope isn't visiting other areas, like N. Ireland, should we use United Kingdom in the heading because that is the name of the country? or should we use Great Britain? My view: UK. Peaceworld111 (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a state visit therefore it's formally to the UK regardless of where precisely it goes within it. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually that is an interesting issue. In Roman Catholic organisational terms (the island of) Ireland is a separate part of the organisation - see Catholic Church in Ireland. Visiting any part of Ireland would have meant crossing ecclesiastical boundaries, and would have drawn attention to the political division of the Island of Ireland. Springnuts (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

He didn't visit Northern Ireland (or Wales), which means that GB is accurate here, or "Scotland and England".--MacRusgail (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No GB isn't accurate here. It was a state visit to the United Kingdom, the sovereign state, not a state visit to Britain, Great Britain or similar subdivision thereof. The fact that he didn't visit Wales or NI is irrelevant to the title of the article. – ukexpat (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It was both a pastoral visit to the Catholic Church in England and Scotland, and a state visit to the UK. In terms of costs the State Visit is the larger part; in terms of activity I think the opposite is true. So maybe call it "Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Scotland and England" - which keeps helpful ambiguity by not defining whether "Scotland and England" are meant in political or church sense? The use the into to expand things a bit. But it's only a suggestion; I don't have a dog in the fight. Friendly regards to all, Springnuts (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see the point. It was a state visit to the UK at the invitation of the Queen so the current title is perfectly appropriate. Had it only been a pastoral visit, you may have a point, but even then Pope John Paul II's visit to the United Kingdom, which was a pastoral visit only, didn't include NI. – ukexpat (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Support

Id like to ask editors to provide views of support from non-catholic organisations. Thanks. Peaceworld111 (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Assasination Attempt

Also would like to add reports of a planned assasination attempt on his life into it - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11346001 Fattyjwoods ^{Push my button} 23:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing says "I have complete faith in God" more than 4 inches of bulletproof glass. Lugnuts (talk) 09:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hehehe. That one's a bit stale, though, after around twenty centuries. 87.13.192.36 (talk) 09:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Well there is a sentence on the 5 arrests in day too already but i dont mind a new section. Not sure "assassination plot" is justified though. Terror Arrests or something like that would be more neutral and accurate until we get more details. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Who has alleged that this was an "assassination" attempt? The only detail was that the men were arrested under anti-terrorism law, by an anti-terrorism operation. Nobody officially alleged anything specific at all - any reporter who claimed to know the plot was just speculating. With the advantage of a couple of days, we now know that the perps were released without charge while the pope was still in the country. I suspect there was nothing (or at least very little) in it.

Forgive me if I sound slightly grouchy. I actually came to this page to find out where the "assassination" allegation had actually come from - only to find that it was sourced from a news report that doesn't even mention the word ;-) I think the word "assassination" should be removed from the main article. It was speculation, and it's now just unlikely. 121.45.209.14 (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

My bad, I think it was me who started it, I mis-interpretated the 6 men being "arrested in London by police in relation to a potential threat to Pope Benedict XVI's visit." as a threat to the Pope's life. Feel free to correct it if I'm wrong. Fattyjwoods ^{Push my button} 08:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I have corrected the title to "Anti-Terrorism Arrests" as it's now reasonably clear that the street cleaners were arrested as a precaution, and have since been released. Disciple3d (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Perceived snub to British Airways

There are precedents: during a South American tour in May 1988 Pope John Paul II flew from Paraguay to Italy in an Alitalia B-747, having flown into Paraguay from Perú in an AeroPerú DC-8. However, he did use a Líneas Aéreas Paraguayas B-707 for flights within the country. Aldo L (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

SNP

"According to theDaily Telegraph the invitation may have been made for political reasons, in order to garner support amongst the Scottish Catholic community away from the Scottish National Party in favour of the Labour Party.[7]" _ I think this speculation gives it rather undue weight for such a short section. Is there any reason not to delete this minor view expressed in one paper? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

One should clearly state that the visit to scotland is about avoiding greeting QE as head of the anglican curch which she is NOT ion Scotland. Bakulan (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That would certainly make a lot more sense than this SNP conspiracy. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Rowan Williams got unreasonably high billing in Scotland, even though he is irrelevant here. The Moderator of the Church of Scotland, and Primate of the Scottish Episcopal Church (part of the Anglican communion) were put lower down on the billing. I don't think the Primate even appeared there. The Moderator was shoved off into a side room--MacRusgail (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Location of Cofton Park

Cofton Park is located in Rednal, Birmingham, not Longbridge (albeit that the park borders Longbridge, which is a much larger and - because of the car factory - better known district). A very small part of the park also extends into the Bromsgrove district of Worcestershire (village of Cofton Hackett). Petecollier (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wales

The visit was to the UK, but he only visited Scotland and England. There was an invitation for him to visit Wales from the First Minister of Wales, Carwyn Jones, but it was turned down.

It's a minor point - though it did cause a little controversy in Wales - but it might fit in, given that the talk is of a UK visit but it only covers two parts of the UK (assume he wasn't invited to Northern Ireland for security reasons) - Dewi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.232.94 (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think visit Britain would be a better title for the article. Off2riorob (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

No. It was an official state visit to the United Kingdom, not a state visit to Britain, Great Britain or similar. The fact that he didn't visit Wales or NI is irrelevant to the title of the article. – ukexpat (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

How many policies does this article violate?

Seriously, I'm asking. I know for sure of WP:NOTNEWS. I am not 100% sure what a "POV fork" is, but I suspect this article is one. Any other policies violated? Cuchulin (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

BIASED?

WOW! I'm no fan of the Catholic Church, but isn't there just a little bit of bias, opinion and personal belief in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.186.234 (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ive moved the controversies section down a bit, so they aren't quite given the same undue weight. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 06:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. At least 30 or 40 times more people turned up to the papal events as the anti papal ones, yet the 'opposition' section is much bigger and more detailed. Whoever wrote that section also said that "over 20,000" people attended the anti papal event, and then provided a reference which quoted 10,000. When I changed it to "around 10,000" it was reversed to 'over 10,000'. Biased much? How do you have such a concrete figure? Or do you simply want it to seem more? The only pictures in the article are of the anti pope rally, despite the much alrger popularity of the papal events. For these reasons, I have tagged the article for NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.230.4 (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Why does the number of people "turning up to anti papal events" have anything to do with it? Just because you don't attend an anti papal event, that doesn't mean you support the Pope or his visit! It could well be that a lot of people who oppose the visit couldn't attend an anti papal event due to having to be at work, for example. Not everyone is able to spend all day swanning about and rolling in catholic claptrap. Some of us are saddled with the unfortunate drudgery of working for a living. I did try praying for free money, but god must have been affected by the credit crunch.... StanPomeray (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

StanPomeray, in demonstrating your blatant anti-religious bias you prove your unsuitability to contribute to a neutral article on the visit of a pope (assuming you are a contributor). The number of people who chose to support one event or the other is relevant because these are the only reliable figures we have about public reaction to the pope's visit (most polls are not accurate enough to be scienific). It may very well be that most who didn't attend the anti-papal rally don't support the visit or the pope. But evidence, and not generalisations, is required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.230.4 (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hahahaha! So says the man who ... makes anonymous postings! ... StanPomeray (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It does seem excessive coverage of what are really unrelated events, a smaller section would be more balanced. Off2riorob (talk) 11:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to "re-bias" the article but at the moment the opposition section ends with the statement that actual participation was a fraction of the 10,000 estimated. The references given however all report either 10,000 or 20,000 participants. I am therefore going to change the final statement to reflect this. Bredon (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the references for the "10,000 to 20,000" claim, one is a YouTube video with no mention of the number of participants and one explicitly states 10,000 (Euronews). I'm not entirely clear on what the purpose of the YouTube video is (perhaps it should be an external link instead of a reference?), so I left it where it, but I moved the Euronews reference to the preceding sentence.01:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.92.166 (talk)

The exaggerated clams for numbers attending protests is not the only thing biased here. This does not describe the visit I saw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.69.143 (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Any images?

If this were in the U.S., there would be an assigned government photographer and their photos would be in the public domain. Perhaps there is something similar - the UK or Vatican have their own art to share? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 06:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Visit as ecclesiastical head, or as earthly head of a state?

I have question, which I cannot find in the text: did the pope made a state visit to the UK in capacity as ecclesiastical head of the Roman Catholic Church, or in capacity as the earthly sovereign and head of the Vatican City State? This because all the official symbols (flags etc.) used during the visit in the UK, were that of the state symbols of Vatican City State, not that of the Holy See. See for example the official website: [1]. See here, here and here the difference between the symbols of the Vatican City State, and that of the Holy See and Church. Diodecimus. (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

As I understood it from the reports in was, an official state visit. However someone would need to hunt through all the cites, originally as I heard it, it was reported as a state visit. Off2riorob (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe it was a dual hatted visit - ie to church and state - hence the church contributing to cost. Springnuts (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Associating atheism with Nazism

Well, first the article says that: "In a speech in Bellahouston Park, Glasgow, on the first day of his visit, Pope Benedict caused controversy with his remarks associating atheism with Nazism." The first part is already wrong (place), according to the vaticans website AUDIENCE WITH H.M. THE QUEEN AND STATE RECEPTION ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI (video) he made the remarks in the Palace of Holyroodhouse, Edinburgh. Well, during the mass in Bellahouston Park, Glasgow, he said this: EUCHARISTIC CELEBRATION HOMILY OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI.

I'll put this text into the article:

"In a speech in Palace of Holyroodhouse, Edinburgh, on the first day of his visit, Pope Benedict caused controversy with his remarks associating atheist extremism with Nazism. The Pope said:

“ Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live. I also recall the regime’s attitude to Christian pastors and religious who spoke the truth in love, opposed the Nazis and paid for that opposition with their lives. As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a “reductive vision of the person and his destiny” ”

"

BTW, from the perspective of the pope,communism could also be seen as a form of atheist extremism, like Nazism or what did he meant by " As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century"? But this is of topic... Regards --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 13:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

(Without personally dealing with Cyrus' objection above), I edited the summary line of the quote so it would at least reflect that he didn't explicitly pair atheist extremism and Nazism. Reading the above quote, he believes that

• Atheist extremism leads to a "truncated vision of man and society"
• Which leads both to the "eradicat[ion] of God form society" and "denie[s] our common humanity" -- or, elsewhere, "a reductive vision of the person"
• He recalls one regime, namely Nazism, that implemented these effects

So, he doesn't say that A.E. isn't directly connected with Nazism, but rather that it leads to the same terrible practices as the Nazis enforced. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Cyrus' changes are POV and personal commentry. It is not required here. -Abhishikt 17:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishikt (talk • contribs)

I think it makes sense to put why this association is controversial. Following text telling the controversy of the statement was deleted. This can be brought back.

(In fact, Hitler consistently maintained that Nazi Germany was Christian, and in opposition to the atheistic Soviet Union; according to his biographer he was a Catholic in good standing all his life. See Adolf Hitler's religious views.) -Abhishikt 20:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishikt (talk • contribs)

Why is the controversies section gone now?

I've seen the "controversies" covered, with specific references to the atheist extremism one, in two newspapers (in Toronto, which is not even on the same side of the ocean); I'm sure there are more. :Remember that Wikipedia doesn't care what he said or meant; we care how many (notable) sources think these things are notable. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

References

Contraversy in second para

The wikipedia home points this page with following description. "Pope Benedict XVI (pictured) makes the first state visit by a pope to the United Kingdom, amid controversy over Catholic policies."

So there should be mention of the controversy in opening or second para of this page. -Abhishikt 18:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishikt (talk • contribs)

I would say so. The controversy marred the visit, the protests received much media coverage and were probably the defining factor of the visit. Mtaylor848 (talk) 12:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources I have read has sited how gentle and sincere the pope was, in contrast to the protests. Is it logical to say that what is covered by the media is the defining factor of his visit, or what the pope actually did? In comparison to the huge crowds at the pope's visit, the protests were nothing.

This was the biggest demonstration Pope Benedict has faced during the 17 overseas trips in his five-year papacy and the news + media is discussing contraversies and not whom Pope visited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishikt (talk • contribs) 20:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Certainly there were advocates of his visit, but his visit was certainly marred by protests. The protests were a key notable element to the trip and should be included in the opening sentence. Mtaylor848 (talk) 13:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead image

If a better lead image cannot be found I would suggest leaving it blank over using the current one which is mostly of a bush or a thicket. Mtaylor848 (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Try one of these: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bobba_dwj/5004541607/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/catholicwestminster/4998840045/in/pool-1496001@N20 http://www.flickr.com/photos/catholicwestminster/4999443254/in/pool-1496001@N20 Sumbuddi (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

They look better (particularly the second one). I shall replace the lead image when I get chance. Mtaylor848 (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Documentary

The section Media coverage lists several documentaries about the Pope. One of those is titled "The Pope on Trial", however wasn't it actually called "Benedict - Trials of a Pope"? Or were there two documentaries with such a similar name? Gugganij (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You are quite probably right - the title "The Pope on Trial" was given in a newspaper in advance - it may reflect accidental or deliberate spin. Or maybe the title was changed? Conspiracy theorists step forward! Either way we should give the actual title. Regards, Springnuts (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Very biased

http://wikibias.com/2010/09/dky-as-propaganda/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andycarr78 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

fascinating. But er, what does it have to do with the Pope's visit to the UK? Sumbuddi (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Numbers on march from Hyde Park Corner to Whitehall

Hi all, IP edits persistently [[2], [3], [4], [5]] changing the estimate of numbers from 10,000 (which is in the source) to 5,000 (which is currently un-sourced). Anyone have a source for 5,000? I am reverting for now. Springnuts (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

propose

I have removed the rfc template in response to negative feedback. Pass a Method talk 17:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I propose moving this to wikinews Pass a Method talk 03:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you say why please? Thanks. Dalliance (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Because i think visits are not encyclopedic. The flow of the article sounds more like a news story so it would fir better there. Pass a Method talk 23:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree there are reportage aspects to this entry which should be edited, but the first state visit by a Pope to the UK is defintely notable. Dalliance (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

What about state visits by the Ayatolah? What about visits by the Dalai Lama? What about visits by the Mufti of Mecca? What about a Hindu Guru? Pass a Method talk 12:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

What about them? The Pope is not only a religious leader, and in this case the leader of a group of over 1 billion living people, but also a head of state, in this case of Vatican City, whidh is recognized by most other countries as a sovereign state. As such, he is probably one of the very few religious leaders who is in a position to make a "state visit." Also, honestly, this entire proposal seems to be basically along the lines of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. One individual editor's personal opinions about what is and is not encyclopedic is rarely if ever considered sufficient cause to do things, particulary when in this case the article does seem to adhere to existing policies and guidelines. If the last comment above, which seeks to compare the Pope with apparently randomly selected leaders of other faiths, is attempting to say that because that other stuff doesn't exist, this shouldn't exist either, also seems to be seriously irrelevant, and frankly not at all useful. It could well be that some articles along the lines suggested above, if they were created, would also be found to be encyclopedic, and certainly could be created. But to date I have seen nothing which provides any sort of acceptable reason for the move to be made, only basically that one person doesn't like it, and that is rarely if ever considered sufficient grounds for any sort of action here. If policies and guidelines which support such a move were to be indicated, that might be useful, but without such indicators, this seems to be just one person saying wikipedia should treat that one person's opinions as a policy or guideline. and I don't think that sort of thing ever works around here. John Carter (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I oppose the idea of moving this to wikinews. I feel it is indeed encyclopaedic. Springnuts (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)